I started this topic because my searching of an existing PA Turnpike / I-95 interchange topic wasn't found.
How many people have seen the 'visualizations' section of the I-95/I-276's online website? Included are two 'driving simulators' that go from south to north or west to east. The interesting things about these visualizations are amount of detail and accuracy in them - they both feature realistic looking BGS and sign gantries (with some exceptions) which makes them interesting to watch. One thing that isn't accurate is the NJTP shield on some of the BGS - it's pretty ugly.
You can view the visualizations here:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visualizations.htm
As with the previous I-95 BGS heading north from Philadelphia, the control city used is Trenton. I-195 will be extended over the old Trenton I-95 section, and I-295 will be truncated to exit 60 east of Trenton, with the truncated sections becoming a part of I-195. I-276 east of this interchange will now be I-95, with the NJTP officially becoming I-95 from the start of the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge.
If I missed any details please correct them, and if there is a topic for the interchange project, then the mods can feel free to merge this post into that one if they so choose.
Isn't the flyover from East to West actually going from West to East?
In the South to North drive-thru, it appears that the 2 lane, 95 North is a single lane exit to itself, where it becomes 2 lanes on the ramp for 95 North, with the left lane splitting to go to the PA Turnpike WB.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2014, 01:44:16 PM
Isn't the flyover from East to West actually going from West to East?
I thought that same thing.
How is the exit numbering going to work for I-195? It was already weird when jumped for Exit 1 A/B to Exit 60 A/B at the transition to NJ 29, but now that I-195 took over I-295 and Trenton's I-95, it has about 14-15 new exits to label. It could easily be solved by absorbing I-295's exit numbering, then just continuing the same scheme for I-95's exit list.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 25, 2014, 06:19:39 PMHow is the exit numbering going to work for I-195? It was already weird when jumped for Exit 1 A/B to Exit 60 A/B at the transition to NJ 29, but now that I-195 took over I-295 and Trenton's I-95, it has about 14-15 new exits to label. It could easily be solved by absorbing I-295's exit numbering, then just continuing the same scheme for I-95's exit list.
Guess on my part but the renumbering of exits for I-195 will likely be as follows:
PA (current I-95)
Exit 1 will be at the new Turnpike (I-95/195/276) interchange and increase to the NJ state line and current Exits 44-51 will be renumbered 2-9.
NJCurrent I-95: Exits 1-8 will remain unchanged.
Current I-295: Exits 67-60 will be renumbered (& change direction) 9-16
Current I-195: Exits 1-36 will be renumbered 17-52
Have the construction already started on Phrase 1?
Quote from: Strider on February 25, 2014, 11:07:27 PM
Have the construction already started on Phrase 1?
Yes, the construction of the new mainline toll plaza in Bensalem and the new toll facilities at US 13 is underway:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07openhouse.htm
Quote from: Strider on February 25, 2014, 11:07:27 PM
Have the construction already started on Phrase 1?
Yes, but there's still a ways to go before the I-95 gap is closed:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/construction/ConstructionHome.htm
This long overdue project is not exactly proceeding rapidly. Heck, the whole original New Jersey Turnpike was built in what, 2 years??? Looking at the timeline on their website, I hope I live long enough to see this interchange completed and actually get to drive through it! I've been waiting for this to happen since 1976, when I first drove to Phila. and stared in disbelief as I drove west on the Penn. Turnpike thru the I-95 underpass and there was no interchange there to go south on I-95 to Phila. This travesty would never have happened in New York State. Look at all the NY Thruway interchanges with other Interstate Freeways.
As much as I hate PA's non-interchanges, it's worth noting that the Thruway was built at the same time as the other interstates, unlike the PTC.
And yet...look how long it took to get a direct connection between I-87 and I-84! :(
Quote from: SignBridge on February 27, 2014, 05:07:51 PM
This long overdue project is not exactly proceeding rapidly. Heck, the whole original New Jersey Turnpike was built in what, 2 years???
Yes, in the late 40's/early 50's, when the population was a fraction of what it is now and the existing roads would require hours to drive compared to the speed of the turnpike, and when environmental regulations didn't exist, OSHA didn't exist, and a death every few months was considered acceptable, it only took about 2 years to build the turnpike.
Quote tag fix ~S
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 27, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
And yet...look how long it took to get a direct connection between I-87 and I-84! :(
lOl I-790
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2014, 10:22:10 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 27, 2014, 05:07:51 PM
This long overdue project is not exactly proceeding rapidly. Heck, the whole original New Jersey Turnpike was built in what, 2 years???
Yes, in the late 40's/early 50's, when the population was a fraction of what it is now and the existing roads would require hours to drive compared to the speed of the turnpike, and when environmental regulations didn't exist, OSHA didn't exist, and a death every few months was considered acceptable, it only took about 2 years to build the turnpike.
Quote tag fix ~S
it is also easier to build on a new alignment than to build onto an existing infastructure.
In the case of the I-84 interchange, it looks like the Thruway pre-dated I-84 by several years. Early topo maps even show a partial trumpet with NY 17K.
Quote from: NE2 on February 27, 2014, 10:54:12 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 27, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
And yet...look how long it took to get a direct connection between I-87 and I-84! :(
lOl I-790
I-790 actually did have a direct connection... up until the moment it was upgraded to a freeway.
From the PA Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project website, here are four cool presentations of what the finished product will look like.
Drive-Through West-East: Transition from I-276 East to I-95 North (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visdew.htm)
Drive-Through South-North: Transition from I-95 North to I-195 East (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visdsn.htm)
Flyover East-West (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visfew.htm)
Flyover South-North (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visfsn.htm)
The buildings, trees and even the high-mast streetlights make it look a lot like the real thing! However, I've read that the "I-195" depicted here may actually become I-395 instead. Here's the completed interchange as it will look below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paturnpikei95.com%2Fimages%2Fstill_preferred.JPG&hash=d1100fe76023aed431fc2665c17b976f07c355b5)
FYI, a thread on this subject (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.0) from earlier this year already exists.
Cool! Now how many years until they finally get it built?
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2014, 12:48:50 PM
FYI, a thread on this subject (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.0) from earlier this year already exists.
Now merged together.
Quote from: dgolub on December 03, 2014, 06:57:21 PM
Cool! Now how many years until they finally get it built?
At the current rate... maybe in about 5 years, and that's being generous.
Also, anyone want to gander at what software was used to make those visualizations? I'm curious. I almost want to think 3d Studio or Maya, but at the same time... I feel like it's something much more different.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 04, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: dgolub on December 03, 2014, 06:57:21 PM
Cool! Now how many years until they finally get it built?
At the current rate... maybe in about 5 years, and that's being generous.
Also, anyone want to gander at what software was used to make those visualizations? I'm curious. I almost want to think 3d Studio or Maya, but at the same time... I feel like it's something much more different.
Supposedly, the ramps needed to complete I-95 (but
not the other movements and
definitely not more than two lanes each way between the bridge over the Delaware River and the new interchange) will be complete in 2017.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 04, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
Also, anyone want to gander at what software was used to make those visualizations? I'm curious. I almost want to think 3d Studio or Maya, but at the same time... I feel like it's something much more different.
The latest version of Microsoft Paint. They've ramped it up in Windows 8... :sombrero:
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 04, 2014, 11:31:31 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 04, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
Also, anyone want to gander at what software was used to make those visualizations? I'm curious. I almost want to think 3d Studio or Maya, but at the same time... I feel like it's something much more different.
The latest version of Microsoft Paint. They've ramped it up in Windows 8... :sombrero:
Well, those videos might even be older than Vista, so it must have been an early beta test. :bigass:
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 05, 2014, 11:27:18 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 04, 2014, 11:31:31 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 04, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
Also, anyone want to gander at what software was used to make those visualizations? I'm curious. I almost want to think 3d Studio or Maya, but at the same time... I feel like it's something much more different.
The latest version of Microsoft Paint. They've ramped it up in Windows 8... :sombrero:
Well, those videos might even be older than Vista, so it must have been an early beta test. :bigass:
And then they put it all together in Windows Movie Maker...
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2014, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 04, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
Quote from: dgolub on December 03, 2014, 06:57:21 PM
Cool! Now how many years until they finally get it built?
At the current rate... maybe in about 5 years, and that's being generous.
Also, anyone want to gander at what software was used to make those visualizations? I'm curious. I almost want to think 3d Studio or Maya, but at the same time... I feel like it's something much more different.
Supposedly, the ramps needed to complete I-95 (but not the other movements and definitely not more than two lanes each way between the bridge over the Delaware River and the new interchange) will be complete in 2017.
So basically, three years to complete the missing link, and five or six years to complete the other movements is what it sounds like.
It will probably take a little longer (hopefully not, but unfortunately how the government works these days) :banghead:
Instead of rerouting the current I-95 segment as I-195, they should make it I-395 from the new interchange, across the Delaware River then to the NJ 29/I-295/195 interchange. However, if they are making it I-195 that means they will have to renumber the exits on the current 195 highway between the 95 segment/295 in NJ and NJ 138. The current exits on 95 are already counted for. Here is the future exit list I calculated:
Former: (295) New:
67 (US 1) 9
65 (Sloan Ave) 11A-B
64 (CR 535) 12A-B
63 (Route 33) 13A-B
62 (Olden Ave) 14
61 (Arena Dr) 15A-B
60 (I-295/NJ 29) 16A-B
(Now on 195 segment)
(interchange 60 ramps should be modified, IMO)
1 (US 206) 17A-B
2 (US 206/CR 524) 18
3 (Yardville Hamilton 19A-B
Square Rd)
5 (US 130) 21A-B
6 (NJ Turnpike) 22
7 (CR 526) 23
8 (CR 539) 24
11 (Imlaystown) 27
16 (CR 537) 32A-B
21 (CR 527) 37
22 (Jackson Mills) 38
28 (US 9) 44A-B
31 (CR 547) 47A-B
35 (Route 34) 51A-B
36 (GSP north) 52
(Begin Route 138 east)
Quote from: J Route Z on December 07, 2014, 04:45:27 PMInstead of rerouting the current I-95 segment as I-195, they should make it I-395 from the new interchange, across the Delaware River then to the NJ 29/I-295/195 interchange.
There's speculation that such a redesignation is likely to happen as noted in a previous post (reposted below):
Quote from: Henry on December 03, 2014, 11:20:22 AMHowever, I've read that the "I-195" depicted here may actually become I-395 instead.
Such a change would reduce the number of interchange & mile marker renumbering on the Jersey side.
I keep hearing extension of 195 and now possibly 395. What's wrong with it simply being 295, looping back around into PA and ending at 276/95? There's no need for a new 3di to further confuse people, and we don't need to change numbers along a single mainline (at 195/NJ29). It's fine for it to end in a beltway of sorts and connect back into its parent like any other even 3di.
Because then you'll be be traveling south on NORTH I-295. Or vice versa.
Leave it I-195 and it's east/west, which still works with much less confusion.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on December 07, 2014, 09:34:30 PM
Because then you'll be be traveling south on NORTH I-295. Or vice versa.
That doesn't seem to be an issue with any other loops or partial loops. Why would it be an issue here? It could change from N/S to E/W and that would be OK, or it could change back to S/N.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2014, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on December 07, 2014, 09:34:30 PM
Because then you'll be be traveling south on NORTH I-295. Or vice versa.
That doesn't seem to be an issue with any other loops or partial loops. Why would it be an issue here? It could change from N/S to E/W and that would be OK, or it could change back to S/N.
Eh, I would't say it's not an issue. Unless you can somehow prove that no one has ever gone more than halfway around a loop.
The issue with renumbering 95/295 as 195 isn't so much the renumbered stretch, but the needless renumbering of existing 195.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2014, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2014, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on December 07, 2014, 09:34:30 PM
Because then you'll be be traveling south on NORTH I-295. Or vice versa.
That doesn't seem to be an issue with any other loops or partial loops. Why would it be an issue here? It could change from N/S to E/W and that would be OK, or it could change back to S/N.
Eh, I would't say it's not an issue. Unless you can somehow prove that no one has ever gone more than halfway around a loop.
The issue with renumbering 95/295 as 195 isn't so much the renumbered stretch, but the needless renumbering of existing 195.
You would be trading one bit of confusion for another with any option, so thus I'll go with the cheapest - leave 195 alone, continue 295 exit numbering north in NJ to the bridge, and the PA side has to be resigned and exits renumbered anyway no matter what number it becomes. I don't think the north to south thing is a big deal - it's mostly locals (especially since through traffic can now stay on 95), and it will function like a beltway. Note that it's not really any different from what already exists today at the US-1 interchange: 295 N already becomes 95 S and vice versa - see here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.280397,-74.691992&spn=0.000004,0.00327&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.280398,-74.692504&panoid=05hFTG_My5j3tAWqTi3V9w&cbp=12,289.82,,0,-0.96 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.280397,-74.691992&spn=0.000004,0.00327&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.280398,-74.692504&panoid=05hFTG_My5j3tAWqTi3V9w&cbp=12,289.82,,0,-0.96)
We're just moving this signage a little further along to the bridge, and changing 95 to 295.
I would say the 195 option has some merit, but the exit renumbering in NJ to me is far worse than 'North-to-South' on 295. Also, I don't like mainlines of an interstate numbered route forced through a loop ramp and/or single lanes, for which you will get both at 195/295/29.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2014, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2014, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on December 07, 2014, 09:34:30 PM
Because then you'll be be traveling south on NORTH I-295. Or vice versa.
That doesn't seem to be an issue with any other loops or partial loops. Why would it be an issue here? It could change from N/S to E/W and that would be OK, or it could change back to S/N.
Eh, I would't say it's not an issue. Unless you can somehow prove that no one has ever gone more than halfway around a loop.
The issue with renumbering 95/295 as 195 isn't so much the renumbered stretch, but the needless renumbering of existing 195.
Where is existing 195 going to be renumbered? It currently ends at 295; under this plan 295 is going to be terminated at that exit and the remainder of 295 and then 95 beyond US 1 are going to be renumbered. Unless I missed something.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 08, 2014, 11:32:47 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 07, 2014, 10:05:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 07, 2014, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on December 07, 2014, 09:34:30 PM
Because then you'll be be traveling south on NORTH I-295. Or vice versa.
That doesn't seem to be an issue with any other loops or partial loops. Why would it be an issue here? It could change from N/S to E/W and that would be OK, or it could change back to S/N.
Eh, I would't say it's not an issue. Unless you can somehow prove that no one has ever gone more than halfway around a loop.
The issue with renumbering 95/295 as 195 isn't so much the renumbered stretch, but the needless renumbering of existing 195.
Where is existing 195 going to be renumbered? It currently ends at 295; under this plan 295 is going to be terminated at that exit and the remainder of 295 and then 95 beyond US 1 are going to be renumbered. Unless I missed something.
Since I-295 will be renumbered to I-195 north of where it interchanges with I-195 now, the mileage will start at the state line and all existing exits on I-195 will have to be increased by about 16
Let's think of it this way: It's NJ's fault the Somerset Freeway wasn't built. The least they can do is renumber a road. There's already plenty of resentment here and probably elsewhere that PA needs to pay for an interchange to fix NJ's problem so that would even it out a bit.
If I-195 is off the table, I prefer I-295 to I-395. IMO flipping direction at the border (or for more fun, have PA put the directions backwards!) is preferable to having I-195, I-295, and I-395 end at each other due to lazyness.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 07, 2014, 11:31:28 PM
and the PA side has to be resigned and exits renumbered anyway no matter what number it becomes.
Not if PennDOT pulls an I-276 and has the mileage and exit numbering continue from where I-95 splits off.
Whatever I-x95 is used in the renumbering, I don't think it's a huge deal if the exits don't get changed right away, if at all.
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 07, 2014, 11:31:28 PM
and the PA side has to be resigned and exits renumbered anyway no matter what number it becomes.
Not if PennDOT pulls an I-276 and has the mileage and exit numbering continue from where I-95 splits off.
That sounds fine too - if they just resigned it as 295 north of the 276/95 interchange but left the mileage and exit numbers the same to the bridge. They would just be resigning the route as 295 on the PA side, and then on the NJ side just resigning the first few miles as 295 and renumbering the mileage and handful of exits as a continuation from the south. Problem solved with the 'budget' option.
On a side note, I seem to remember the 295/95 switch happening a few miles further north of US-1 at one time - I would assume it was signed right where the Somerset Freeway was to split off - and later being moved south to US-1. Too bad they didn't just leave well enough alone.
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
...preferable to having I-195, I-295, and I-395 end at each other due to lazyness.
You mean like this?
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&output=classic&dg=oo
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on December 08, 2014, 02:03:41 PM
You mean like this?
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&output=classic&dg=oo
There's noting there. Just the "home page" of classis Google Maps.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 08, 2014, 01:51:20 PMOn a side note, I seem to remember the 295/95 switch happening a few miles further north of US-1 at one time - I would assume it was signed right where the Somerset Freeway was to split off - and later being moved south to US-1.
That is correct. Prior to sometime during the mid-1990s; the I-95/295
hand-off was indeed at its original (Somerset Freeway) location. As a point of reference, Exits 5B-A off I-95 was originally Exits 71A-B off I-295.
Additionally & according to NJDOT's Straight-Line Highway Diagram Book (1985 Edition); the plan for that then 5-mile stretch of I-95 had a supplemental Future I-295 listing with revised exit numbers to the PA State Line listed alongside the current exit numbers. So at least NJ
had plans to originally redesignate I-95 in that area as I-295.
Given that the AASHTO decision to redesignate I-95/295 as a future extension of I-195 only dates back to 2007; it's not fully known why NJDOT changed the I-295 exit numbers between NJ 31 (Exit 4 off I-95) and US 1 over a decade earlier. It's worth noting that the exit number switch predated the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange (Exit 60) being fully completed. For a few years, I-295 South did a left swing onto I-195 East and I-195 West did a right swing onto I-295 North (the latter movement was largely left unaltered when the full interchange was eventually built); so, to a degree, one was indeed had I-195/295 as a continuous highway short-term.
The reasoning behind AASHTO's 2007 change was
likely due to having I-295 in NJ run north-south and the PA part (current I-95) running south-north. While there are examples of 3dis changing directions at state lines (and even
in-state along full-loop beltways); those changes typically involve a north-south becoming an east-west road first prior to changing to a reverse south-north route. Such was not the case in the NJ I-95/295 scenario; plus the NJ-stretch of highway in question was more east-west rather than north-south if one uses the PA State line and the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange as reference points.
Another issue with I-95/295 becoming an extension of I-195 likely stems from the fact that if such was adopted; one would have the through I-195 Eastbound movements go through a single-lane cloverleaf ramp at the I-295/NJ 29 interchange. Rather than undergo an unnecessary (& costly) redesign to a completely good interchange to eliminate a through-route going through a cloverleaf ramp; the rumored proposal to redesignate I-95/295 as I-395 (I would've preferred that I-695 be used instead for such a purpose but nonetheless) makes more logical sense and only involves changing the exit numbers/mile markers along I-295 between US 1 and & I-195/NJ 29 on the Jersey side.
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2014, 12:56:11 PMQuote from: Roadrunner75 on December 07, 2014, 11:31:28 PMand the PA side has to be resigned and exits renumbered anyway no matter what number it becomes.
Not if PennDOT pulls an I-276 and has the mileage and exit numbering continue from where I-95 splits off.
Since the stretch of I-95 north of the future interchange is clearly a north-south route (and most people know it as such) and I-276 is an east-west route; such a change wouldn't likely fly.
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
Not if PennDOT pulls an I-276 and has the mileage and exit numbering continue from where I-95 splits off.
But I-276 uses the PA Turnpike's exit numbering/mileage, so it's the same road, whereas I-195 (or whatever it ends up being) is not part of a larger entity that includes I-95 (at least conceptually; it may technically be the "through" route), so there is no logical reason not to reset the mileage and exit numbers.
The "extension" of I-95 in Mercer County occurred in 1993, and was done to avoid having I-95 and I-295 begin/end at a random place between interchanges. U.S. 1 was the nearest major interchange, and represented a logical point to distinguish the north-south general trajectories of I-95 (yes, the easterly few miles are east-west) on the west side of Trenton and I-295 on the east side of Trenton.
I would continue that philosophy and only renumber the I-95 portion as I-x95. I-195 and I-295 would remain as they are now.
Quote from: akotchi on December 08, 2014, 02:55:44 PM
The "extension" of I-95 in Mercer County occurred in 1993, and was done to avoid having I-95 and I-295 begin/end at a random place between interchanges. U.S. 1 was the nearest major interchange, and represented a logical point to distinguish the north-south general trajectories of I-95 (yes, the easterly few miles are east-west) on the west side of Trenton and I-295 on the east side of Trenton.
I would continue that philosophy and only renumber the I-95 portion as I-x95. I-195 and I-295 would remain as they are now.
There is precedent, with I-280 becoming I-680 at US 101.
When they elect me emperor, it'd work this way:
- I-695 starts and continues north from the Turnpike/95 intersection. It's signed east/west.
- I-695 continues across the state line, past US 1 and NJ 33, ending at the current 195/295 intersection. East/west signing continues to there.
- I-195 continues west from there via current NJ 29, thence across a newly-constructed bridge over untold numbers of environmentally sensitive wetlands, and comes to an end at I-695, so you'd have to renumber I-195 exits anyway.
I'll get my coat.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 08, 2014, 11:50:12 AM
Since I-295 will be renumbered to I-195 north of where it interchanges with I-195 now, the mileage will start at the state line and all existing exits on I-195 will have to be increased by about 16
Oh, you mean renumbering the exits and not the road itself.
Didn't seem to be an issue with I-69 in Indiana.
Quote from: akotchi on December 08, 2014, 02:55:44 PM
I would continue that philosophy and only renumber the I-95 portion as I-x95. I-195 and I-295 would remain as they are now.
Seconded. And it should be a n/s route since it looks like it covers more distance north/south than east/west.
Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 08, 2014, 04:20:36 PM
Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Probably not much. Maybe some people going from northeast of Philly to the New Brunswick area that currently take I-95 to US 1 will switch, but otherwise there's not much overlap.
Appearently we've all forgotten that 95 was never completed thru DC, and that has become Maryland & Virginia's problem to fix.
While there are numerous roads that have been remembered, it's not an easy or preferred solution when there are other options available. No doubt if you were faced with spending thousands of dollars for your business to update information, you wouldn't be happy. Think of Six Flags for example: every single advertisement has their directions on it. They have an advertisement budget in the millions. And they had nothing to do with 95 getting cancelled either. Regardless, Jersey isn't a person anyway, and the people responsible for the cancellation aren't responsible for anything regarding the route numbering today. So it's a bit silly to say make everyone's life inconvenienced because of a decision made in the 80's.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 08, 2014, 05:53:01 PM
Appearently we've all forgotten that 95 was never completed thru DC, and that has become Maryland & Virginia's problem to fix.
I don't believe anyone here has forgotten such; however, unlike the I-95 gap in NJ, the I-95 connections to the Beltway (I-495)
already existed when the decision not to build I-95 in DC (and the abutting communities in MD as well) was made. Such made the route changes/redesignations come sooner rather than later.
Additionally, even if I-95 in DC had been fully built as planned; the I-95/395/495 interchange in VA
still would have needed to be eventually overhauled/redone.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 08, 2014, 05:53:01 PM
Appearently we've all forgotten that 95 was never completed thru DC, and that has become Maryland & Virginia's problem to fix.
But you already had I-495 so it was easy to route I-95 over it.
Just like it would have been far too simple to route I-95 across the Del Mem Br and up the Turnpike all the way to the G Washington Br.
Bingo.
The connections thru NJ were there also to make 95 continuous, but Philly didn't want to lose the 95 designation. So while PA wasn't responsible for the cancelled project, they definitely had a hand in wanting to keep 95 running thru PA, and the result is the interchange project with 95 and the PA Turnpike. DC wasn't as concerned about 95, and MD & VA placed it on the Beltway.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 08, 2014, 04:20:36 PM
Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Enough to make you wonder why they're building the new one with six lanes. Even now there's not really enough traffic for that. Much of the traffic coming to the interchange is going to be pulled from the Turnpike, right now using exit 3 or 4 to Philly, or exit 1 or 2 to Delaware. The rest is going to be pulled from either US 130 to I-295, or US 1 to I-295, or US 1 to I-95, which is Scudders Falls. Given the commercial traffic on 1, it's no longer all that popular as a shunpike, but it definitely sees shunpike use nonetheless. If only PA had stayed on schedule, we would already be finding out how the interchange affects traffic before committing to new Delaware River bridge projects.
Quote from: Alps on December 08, 2014, 11:55:48 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 08, 2014, 04:20:36 PM
Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Enough to make you wonder why they're building the new one with six lanes. Even now there's not really enough traffic for that. Much of the traffic coming to the interchange is going to be pulled from the Turnpike, right now using exit 3 or 4 to Philly, or exit 1 or 2 to Delaware. The rest is going to be pulled from either US 130 to I-295, or US 1 to I-295, or US 1 to I-95, which is Scudders Falls. Given the commercial traffic on 1, it's no longer all that popular as a shunpike, but it definitely sees shunpike use nonetheless. If only PA had stayed on schedule, we would already be finding out how the interchange affects traffic before committing to new Delaware River bridge projects.
The bridge is somewhat needed, but i wouldn't be surprised if it is built as planned, but with less lanes with the extra ones painted as shoulders, a reverse of what they did with the betsy ross bridge when it turned out that 8 lanes there was overkill due to the canned PA90 freeway.
The entry/exit roads that lead onto the bridge are the main reason why they need a 6 lane bridge at minimum. If NJ Transit reopens the West Trenton to Newark Line (track is there, stations need repair) then i could see the bridge just being left as is, as that would reduce traffic demands.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 08, 2014, 09:02:25 PM
...it would have been far too simple to route I-95 across the Del Mem Br and up the Turnpike all the way to the G Washington Br.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 08, 2014, 10:28:45 PM
The connections thru NJ were there also to make 95 continuous, but Philly didn't want to lose the 95 designation. So while PA wasn't responsible for the cancelled project, they definitely had a hand in wanting to keep 95 running thru PA, and the result is the interchange project with 95 and the PA Turnpike. DC wasn't as concerned about 95, and MD & VA placed it on the Beltway.
All true, but even if I-95 were re-routed up the NJTP from Delaware, an interchange would still need to be built. It just wouldn't need to be a high-speed flyover type, however. A low-speed double trumpet–like what was originally proposed 40 years ago–would be sufficient.
Quote from: Alps on December 08, 2014, 11:55:48 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 08, 2014, 04:20:36 PM
Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Enough to make you wonder why they're building the new one with six lanes. Even now there's not really enough traffic for that. Much of the traffic coming to the interchange is going to be pulled from the Turnpike, right now using exit 3 or 4 to Philly, or exit 1 or 2 to Delaware. The rest is going to be pulled from either US 130 to I-295, or US 1 to I-295, or US 1 to I-95, which is Scudders Falls. Given the commercial traffic on 1, it's no longer all that popular as a shunpike, but it definitely sees shunpike use nonetheless. If only PA had stayed on schedule, we would already be finding out how the interchange affects traffic before committing to new Delaware River bridge projects.
Actually, the new bridge has been proposed to be 9 lanes (3 lanes each direction, plus auxiliary lanes). The bridge gets congested during rush hours, mostly to PA residents that work in NJ, plus that there are no merge areas from the ramps on either side of the bridge. The shunpiking factor is minimal, IMO, because most people using the bridge are local to the area anyway.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 08, 2014, 02:43:21 PM
Since the stretch of I-95 north of the future interchange is clearly a north-south route (and most people know it as such) and I-276 is an east-west route; such a change wouldn't likely fly.
??? What does I-276 have to so with it, other than being the example I used of a case where this occurred? Are there different rules for north-south and east-west roads?
Quote from: bzakharin on December 08, 2014, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
Not if PennDOT pulls an I-276 and has the mileage and exit numbering continue from where I-95 splits off.
But I-276 uses the PA Turnpike's exit numbering/mileage, so it's the same road, whereas I-195 (or whatever it ends up being) is not part of a larger entity that includes I-95 (at least conceptually; it may technically be the "through" route), so there is no logical reason not to reset the mileage and exit numbers.
There are plenty of roads that start their exit/mileage numbers at a nonzero number. It's odd, but not disallowed. It's certainly cleaner to start at 0, but believe it or not, not mandated. I wouldn't be surprised if PennDOT decided to be cheapsakes and not redo the mileposts/exit numbers. There's also always people arguing that any number change hurts businesses (though I'm pretty sure most people navigate by route number rather than exit number, at least around here; it's always "the exit for Manchester" or "get off at Route 31F", not "exit 43" or "get off at exit 25").
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2014, 01:33:53 PM
There are plenty of roads that start their exit/mileage numbers at a nonzero number. It's odd, but not disallowed. It's certainly cleaner to start at 0, but believe it or not, not mandated.
That is surprising. Are there examples of this other than where a planned portion of the road was never built?
Quote from: bzakharin on December 09, 2014, 02:27:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2014, 01:33:53 PM
There are plenty of roads that start their exit/mileage numbers at a nonzero number. It's odd, but not disallowed. It's certainly cleaner to start at 0, but believe it or not, not mandated.
That is surprising. Are there examples of this other than where a planned portion of the road was never built?
I-17 and Loop 375 (Arizona and Texas don't usually start mileage at zero, though they do on other Interstates).
If the I-95/PA Turnpike connection wasn't federally mandated, was there ever a possibility that 95 would have been temporarily (or permanently) signed along current I-295 and I-195 in central NJ?
Quote from: Alps on December 08, 2014, 11:55:48 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 08, 2014, 04:20:36 PM
Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Enough to make you wonder why they're building the new one with six lanes. Even now there's not really enough traffic for that. Much of the traffic coming to the interchange is going to be pulled from the Turnpike, right now using exit 3 or 4 to Philly, or exit 1 or 2 to Delaware. The rest is going to be pulled from either US 130 to I-295, or US 1 to I-295, or US 1 to I-95, which is Scudders Falls. Given the commercial traffic on 1, it's no longer all that popular as a shunpike, but it definitely sees shunpike use nonetheless. If only PA had stayed on schedule, we would already be finding out how the interchange affects traffic before committing to new Delaware River bridge projects.
the bridge backs up horribly in both directions at rush hour, both because of the lane drop on the NJ side and the late entrance ramps going SB from NJ 29 and NB from the Newtown/Yardley exit. there have been quite a few times it's taken me over 20 minutes just to get from exit 2 to the bridge going SB.
Quote from: qguy on December 09, 2014, 06:40:38 AM
All true, but even if I-95 were re-routed up the NJTP from Delaware, an interchange would still need to be built. It just wouldn't need to be a high-speed flyover type, however. A low-speed double trumpet–like what was originally proposed 40 years ago–would be sufficient.
PTC has (until rather recently, when non-connections at I-176 Morgantown and I-79 Cranberry were remediated) been willing and able to resist new connections to the E-W Mainline and the Northeast Extension.
I suppose there were still some that wanted no connection at all to I-95 at the Delaware Expressway (for reasons not clear to me).
Quote from: vdeane on December 08, 2014, 12:56:11 PM
Not if PennDOT pulls an I-276 and has the mileage and exit numbering continue from where I-95 splits off.
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2014, 01:33:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 08, 2014, 02:43:21 PM
Since the stretch of I-95 north of the future interchange is clearly a north-south route (and most people know it as such) and I-276 is an east-west route; such a change wouldn't likely fly.
??? What does I-276 have to so with it, other than being the example I used of a case where this occurred? Are there different rules for north-south and east-west roads?
In re-examining your earlier comment (reposted above); I misinterpreted what you saying regarding I-276. My bad.
Nonetheless and in other related-threads; a few on this board (not me) have suggested redesignating the entire I-95/295 segment as I-276.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 09, 2014, 04:52:01 PM
Nonetheless and in other related-threads; a few on this board (not me) have suggested redesignating the entire I-95/295 segment as I-276.
Not going to work until/unless all the ramps are built. (And these two ramps are rather redundant, with US 1 providing a shorter full freeway connection.)
Regarding exit numbers, given that both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey sections of eventually-former I-95 are about 8 miles long, give or take, it would not surprise me to see the new route I-x95 given one set of exit numbers (1-16) from the interchange to U.S. 1/I-295, assuming it stops there. Would reduce the potential for confusion between an Exit 2 (current Exit 44) in Penndel and an Exit 2 on the same route in West Trenton, not even 10 miles away.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2014, 04:19:29 PM
Quote from: qguy on December 09, 2014, 06:40:38 AM
All true, but even if I-95 were re-routed up the NJTP from Delaware, an interchange would still need to be built. It just wouldn't need to be a high-speed flyover type, however. A low-speed double trumpet–like what was originally proposed 40 years ago–would be sufficient.
PTC has (until rather recently, when non-connections at I-176 Morgantown and I-79 Cranberry were remediated) been willing and able to resist new connections to the E-W Mainline and the Northeast Extension.
I suppose there were still some that wanted no connection at all to I-95 at the Delaware Expressway (for reasons not clear to me).
True. When I was a member of the project's Community Advisory Committee (CAC) throughout most of the 90s and early 00s, we encountered many members of the public who liked to insist that a connection still shouldn't be built. One gentleman (and I use that term sincerely) with me on the CAC was just irritated to no end that residents of New Jersey had blocked construction of the Somerset Freeway and caused what he saw as a problem that local residents in Pennsylvania would be forced to live with (increased noise, vehicular pollution, and what not). Whatever the merits of his argument, he saw his role on the CAC as two fold: 1) Determine to his satisfaction (and the satisfaction of others who felt like him) that the connection was really necessary. (He did determine that it was and is.) 2) Work with the other members of the CAC and officials from PennDOT and the PTC to ensure that the connection that was designed and built was the most livable connection that could be obtained. (He did eventually decide that PennDOT and PTC officials worked very hard to make the design acceptable to the residents around it. In that regard I wholeheartedly agree with him.)
It's interesting that the PTC did actually begin construction on the initial stages of the toll plaza that would've been positioned between the two trumpets of the first-proposed connection. Construction was halted when the Somerset Freeway was stricken and a high-speed interchange was mandated by Congress, necessitating a return the drawing board. One of the first contracts to go to construction in this project was in fact the removal and mitigation of what eventually became just a few chunks of concrete in the middle of the woods in the northwest quadrant of the I-95/I-276 crossing.
My own thoughts on this is that the portion of I-95 north of the Penn Turnpike (that I refer to as Trenton I-95) should be renumbered to I-695 all the way to US 1.
By doing this I-295 and its exit numbers remain unchanged. I-195 and its exit numbers remain unchanged.
The roadway that replaces Trenton I-95 is still signed north/south. So we don't have the confusion of going south from US 1 towards Philly or towards Camden, since they are now signed as different roads (as they are currently).
To avoid confusion regarding exit numbers on the Trenton I-95 in Pennsylvania, the new I-695 can take over the exit numbers of Trenton I-95 unchanged.
So in summary, no exit numbers should be changed, no changes to I-295 or I-195, and Trenton I-95 becomes I-695.
Simple and easy. The fewer changes the better.
PA can cope with exit renumbering, they did when the state went from sequential to mileage based. and I-NJ-95 has so few exits that i doubt it would really matter, since even that was renumbered when 295 and 95 were changed to meet at US1.
since as said before, it is a grand total of 8 exits, the changes are not too drastic, just extend 295 around to 276 and that makes it easier to swallow on the NJ side since 195 would require more changes, and the changes to extend 295 over to 276 would be minimal, and signing a new 3di to take over would still create problems. I could see PA doing this (Exit 4: Old Exit 46 Old Old Exit:29A) i am not sure where exit 4 would be, i am just making a point, PA in 2000 renumbered them, so 14 years of knowing the exit number is miniscule to nearly 40+ years of 195 being the way it is
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 13, 2014, 09:28:00 AMsince as said before, it is a grand total of 8 exits, the changes are not too drastic, just extend 295 around to 276 and that makes it easier to swallow on the NJ side since 195 would require more changes, and the changes to extend 295 over to 276 would be minimal, and signing a new 3di to take over would still create problems. I could see PA doing this (Exit 4: Old Exit 46 Old Old Exit:29A) i am not sure where exit 4 would be, i am just making a point, PA in 2000 renumbered them, so 14 years of knowing the exit number is miniscule to nearly 40+ years of 195 being the way it is
Again, the proposal to redesignate I-95 north of the PA Turnpike interchange and the Mercer County, NJ section as an extension of I-295 was officially dropped from consideration circa 2007.
At present, the plans are/were to either redesignate I-95/295 as an extension of I-195 (such a change indeed involves changing more mile markers & exit numbers on the Jersey side) or as a separate I-x95 (rumored to be I-395,
personal preference would be I-695); the latter would only involve NJ changing the mile-markers & exit numbers along the 7-mile stretch of I-295 from I-195 to US 1.
PHLBOS, I haven't followed all of this discussion. What was the reason for NOT extending I-295 west/south of US-1 in N.J. all the way down to I-276? That would seem like the most logical solution without having to introduce additional confusing route numbers.
Quote from: signalman on December 08, 2014, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on December 08, 2014, 02:03:41 PM
You mean like this?
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&output=classic&dg=oo
There's noting there. Just the "home page" of classis Google Maps.
Thought I had rendered the map of Norfolk/Tidewater, where I-64 and all the I-x64s ended up at each other...
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 14, 2014, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 13, 2014, 09:28:00 AMsince as said before, it is a grand total of 8 exits, the changes are not too drastic, just extend 295 around to 276 and that makes it easier to swallow on the NJ side since 195 would require more changes, and the changes to extend 295 over to 276 would be minimal, and signing a new 3di to take over would still create problems. I could see PA doing this (Exit 4: Old Exit 46 Old Old Exit:29A) i am not sure where exit 4 would be, i am just making a point, PA in 2000 renumbered them, so 14 years of knowing the exit number is miniscule to nearly 40+ years of 195 being the way it is
Again, the proposal to redesignate I-95 north of the PA Turnpike interchange and the Mercer County, NJ section as an extension of I-295 was officially dropped from consideration circa 2007.
At present, the plans are/were to either redesignate I-95/295 as an extension of I-195 (such a change indeed involves changing more mile markers & exit numbers on the Jersey side) or as a separate I-x95 (rumored to be I-395, personal preference would be I-695); the latter would only involve NJ changing the mile-markers & exit numbers along the 7-mile stretch of I-295 from I-195 to US 1.
More than a rumor, it's 395 on PATP's website. I don't know where the 395/295 switchover would be - at 195 or at 1.
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2014, 12:45:50 AM
More than a rumor, it's 395 on PATP's website. I don't know where the 395/295 switchover would be - at 195 or at 1.
I recall seeing a map where present-day I-95 north to Trenton, then south on I-295 to I-195 would all become I-195.
Yeah, that map is on the Turnpike Web site here (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07oh_graphics/FutureI95/I-95%20-%20Redesignation%20FUTURE.jpg).
In April 2013 it was I-195: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg
By September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I think this is pretty good evidence that Pennsylvania's changed their mind.
Why not 99E?
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2014, 01:21:39 AMBy September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I'm guessing this is their withdrawn request to AASHTO
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2014, 12:45:50 AMMore than a rumor, it's 395 on PATP's website. I don't know where the 395/295 switchover would be - at 195 or at 1.
I would
assume that it would be at I-195 (having it change at another Interstate interchange would make more sense). I know that the current I-95/295 handoff being at US 1 predated the full completion of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange; but I'm not 100% sure whether the shifted I-95/295 hand-off circa 1993 predated I-295 being extended southward towards I-195 (it used to end at one of the interchanges south of US 1).
Nonetheless, having the I-395/295 handoff at US 1 would mean that no mile markers/exit numbers on the Jersey side would need to change at all. Whether or not, that's NJDOT's intent is not currently known.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 14, 2014, 07:22:10 PMWhat was the reason for NOT extending I-295 west/south of US-1 in N.J. all the way down to I-276? That would seem like the most logical solution without having to introduce additional confusing route numbers.
Quote from: Reply #38The reasoning behind AASHTO's 2007 change was likely due to having I-295 in NJ run north-south and the PA part (current I-95) running south-north. While there are examples of 3dis changing directions at state lines (and even in-state along full-loop beltways); those changes typically involve a north-south becoming an east-west road first prior to changing to a reverse south-north route. Such was not the case in the NJ I-95/295 scenario; plus the NJ-stretch of highway in question was more east-west rather than north-south if one uses the PA State line and the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange as reference points.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 15, 2014, 12:27:06 PM
I know that the current I-95/295 handoff being at US 1 predated the full completion of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange; but I'm not 100% sure whether the shifted I-95/295 hand-off circa 1993 predated I-295 being extended southward towards I-195 (it used to end at one of the interchanges south of US 1).
I-295 ended at Kuser Road (which is not a current interchange on the highway), when I moved to the area, which was 1987. Extension south to I-195 occurred at the same time as the temporary connection with I-295, which was early 1990s, but I am not sure the exact year. I am pretty sure it predated the change in hand-off of I-95 and I-295, though.
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2014, 01:21:39 AM
In April 2013 it was I-195: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg
By September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I think this is pretty good evidence that Pennsylvania's changed their mind.
Now let's see if they decide to change the number again in the next 5 years!
Quote from: Zeffy on December 15, 2014, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2014, 01:21:39 AM
In April 2013 it was I-195: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg
By September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I think this is pretty good evidence that Pennsylvania's changed their mind.
Now let's see if they decide to change the number again in the next 5 years!
I could see PA signing it as I-395 and NJ just extending I-295 to the bridge. That would make the most sense and reduce the directional changes.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 15, 2014, 06:19:19 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 15, 2014, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2014, 01:21:39 AM
In April 2013 it was I-195: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg
By September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I think this is pretty good evidence that Pennsylvania's changed their mind.
Now let's see if they decide to change the number again in the next 5 years!
I could see PA signing it as I-395 and NJ just extending I-295 to the bridge. That would make the most sense and reduce the directional changes.
It would not make the most sense. Replacing I-95 with I-395 would be the easiest, and people are already used to a route number changeover at US 1. Extending 395 down to 195/295 is the only other option that makes any sense to me.
I-395 makes most sense to me
Assuming 95 will become 395...I would like to see 395 wrap around to I-295's Exit 60, just for the cool 195/295/395 interchange effect. But 395 from the PA Turnpike to US 1 in NJ would work just as well.
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 15, 2014, 06:19:19 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 15, 2014, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2014, 01:21:39 AM
In April 2013 it was I-195: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg
By September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I think this is pretty good evidence that Pennsylvania's changed their mind.
Now let's see if they decide to change the number again in the next 5 years!
I could see PA signing it as I-395 and NJ just extending I-295 to the bridge. That would make the most sense and reduce the directional changes.
It would not make the most sense. Replacing I-95 with I-395 would be the easiest, and people are already used to a route number changeover at US 1. Extending 395 down to 195/295 is the only other option that makes any sense to me.
agreed. also, it would be the least expensive in terms of resigning - only the shields need to be replaced.
Quote from: odditude on December 16, 2014, 01:30:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 15, 2014, 06:54:57 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 15, 2014, 06:19:19 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 15, 2014, 12:52:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 15, 2014, 01:21:39 AM
In April 2013 it was I-195: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg
By September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I think this is pretty good evidence that Pennsylvania's changed their mind.
Now let's see if they decide to change the number again in the next 5 years!
I could see PA signing it as I-395 and NJ just extending I-295 to the bridge. That would make the most sense and reduce the directional changes.
It would not make the most sense. Replacing I-95 with I-395 would be the easiest, and people are already used to a route number changeover at US 1. Extending 395 down to 195/295 is the only other option that makes any sense to me.
agreed. also, it would be the least expensive in terms of resigning - only the shields need to be replaced.
In NJ maybe, but in PA, we'll have to change the exit numbers on former I-95.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 16, 2014, 08:11:35 PMIn NJ maybe, but in PA, we'll have to change the exit numbers on former I-95.
I believe that's an automatic given.
Either PA will have to renumber, or they'll be lazy and just have the mileage/exit numbers start around 41 (not forbidden by the MUTCD). Either way, it's not affected by whatever the new number will be.
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 02:48:51 PM
be lazy and just have the mileage/exit numbers start around 41 (not forbidden by the MUTCD).
it would also be consistent with the behavior at the I-76/I-276 split.
Quote from: odditude on December 17, 2014, 05:07:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 02:48:51 PM
be lazy and just have the mileage/exit numbers start around 41 (not forbidden by the MUTCD).
it would also be consistent with the behavior at the I-76/I-276 split.
The I-76/I-276 issue, in my opinion, is a different matter. The continuation of exit numbers on I-276 is a continuation of Turnpike exits, not I-76 exits (though they are on the same mileposting convention up to Valley Forge). This is (likely) to minimize confusion of exit numbers on the toll tickets, especially when they were sequential.
While I-276 is indeed due to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the rule is not a "toll road exception", but rather a loophole out of the fact that it never states that numbers need to begin with 0. And, let's be honest: this is PennDOT we're talking about.
FYI, I don't have a feeling one way or the other about what they might do. I'm simply trying to raise a different view to the "the road is guaranteed be renumbered" perspective.
Quote from: vdeane on December 17, 2014, 07:05:10 PM
While I-276 is indeed due to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the rule is not a "toll road exception", but rather a loophole out of the fact that it never states that numbers need to begin with 0. And, let's be honest: this is PennDOT we're talking about.
Then why did PennDOT take the time to renumber I-279 when it was shortened. I would have had no problem if they had left the numbers as-is on the remaining segment of the highway.
I don't see the reasoning for making it I-395 as it's not a spur. It's one continuous road morphing into another. It's like the i-395 to I-290 debacle in CT/MA. It should be an even as it connects two interstates as stated above.
and will I-276 and i-95 be multiplexed from the new flyovers to the NJ Tpke?
It's already one continuous road morphing into another. In a vacuum, keeping it I-295 would be the best solution, but if they want to keep the same mileage and exit numbers, at least in NJ, that wouldn't fly (neither would 195 for that matter). As for why it's odd, I imagine that has something to do with all even x95s being taken in neighboring New York.
Quote from: doofy103 on February 08, 2015, 09:35:26 AM
and will I-276 and i-95 be multiplexed from the new flyovers to the NJ Tpke?
No, 276 will end at 95. It never did actually enter New Jersey (Google Maps is wrong in showing it doing so), and it's only now being acknowledged on the NJTP with the new signage.
Quote
Where is existing 195 going to be renumbered? It currently ends at 295; under this plan 295 is going to be terminated at that exit and the remainder of 295 and then 95 beyond US 1 are going to be renumbered. Unless I missed something.
take a look at my post from a couple months ago on this thread. I came up with a list of exits based on milage when I-95 becomes I-195, if, that is. The exit numbers have to change if the route is being renumbered.
So once this is complete, will 95's control cities in PA north of Philly be updated to New York, or will they remain as Trenton, since it is going in that general direction?
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 19, 2015, 01:26:16 PM
So once this is complete, will 95's control cities in PA north of Philly be updated to New York, or will they remain as Trenton, since it is going in that general direction?
From the visualizations, New York will be signed on I-95 through the new interchange, and Trenton will be signed on I-195/395/Whatever PennDOT decides to number the old I-95 segment.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 19, 2015, 01:28:57 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 19, 2015, 01:26:16 PM
So once this is complete, will 95's control cities in PA north of Philly be updated to New York, or will they remain as Trenton, since it is going in that general direction?
From the visualizations, New York will be signed on I-95 through the new interchange, and Trenton will be signed on I-195/395/Whatever PennDOT decides to number the old I-95 segment.
I-138.
Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2015, 12:47:16 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 19, 2015, 01:28:57 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 19, 2015, 01:26:16 PM
So once this is complete, will 95's control cities in PA north of Philly be updated to New York, or will they remain as Trenton, since it is going in that general direction?
From the visualizations, New York will be signed on I-95 through the new interchange, and Trenton will be signed on I-195/395/Whatever PennDOT decides to number the old I-95 segment.
I-138.
I-999 - Bud Schuster Spur
I-366?
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2015, 10:46:02 AM
I-366?
New Jersey nor Pennsylvania would allow a road to have an 85 MPH speed limit.
I-580S
Interstate H4
It will be multiplexed as 195, 295 and 395 so everybody wins. However, exits and mileage will be renumbered in kilometers so nobody wins.
Quote from: Henry on December 03, 2014, 11:20:22 AM
From the PA Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project website, here are four cool presentations of what the finished product will look like.
Drive-Through West-East: Transition from I-276 East to I-95 North (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visdew.htm)
Drive-Through South-North: Transition from I-95 North to I-195 East (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visdsn.htm)
Flyover East-West (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visfew.htm)
Flyover South-North (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visfsn.htm)
The buildings, trees and even the high-mast streetlights make it look a lot like the real thing! However, I've read that the "I-195" depicted here may actually become I-395 instead. Here's the completed interchange as it will look below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paturnpikei95.com%2Fimages%2Fstill_preferred.JPG&hash=d1100fe76023aed431fc2665c17b976f07c355b5)
This looks really freaking awesome! Any reason why it was labeled PA 276 instead of I-276?
Quote from: ElPanaChevere on February 21, 2015, 09:43:28 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 03, 2014, 11:20:22 AM
From the PA Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project website, here are four cool presentations of what the finished product will look like.
Drive-Through West-East: Transition from I-276 East to I-95 North (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visdew.htm)
Drive-Through South-North: Transition from I-95 North to I-195 East (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visdsn.htm)
Flyover East-West (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visfew.htm)
Flyover South-North (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visfsn.htm)
The buildings, trees and even the high-mast streetlights make it look a lot like the real thing! However, I've read that the "I-195" depicted here may actually become I-395 instead. Here's the completed interchange as it will look below:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paturnpikei95.com%2Fimages%2Fstill_preferred.JPG&hash=d1100fe76023aed431fc2665c17b976f07c355b5)
This looks really freaking awesome! Any reason why it was labeled PA 276 instead of I-276?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fpa%2Fus_11%2Fn476-2.jpg&hash=db71b649510f97ad0fd9605cfabf6522a7b63685)
I've seen the PA Turnpike use a green keystone for its logo, only explanation I can think of.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on February 22, 2015, 07:22:39 PM
I've seen the PA Turnpike use a green keystone for its logo, only explanation I can think of.
PA Route 66 has the same green shield near Pittsburgh.
Quote from: J Route Z on February 22, 2015, 08:31:26 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on February 22, 2015, 07:22:39 PM
I've seen the PA Turnpike use a green keystone for its logo, only explanation I can think of.
PA Route 66 has the same green shield near Pittsburgh.
PA Turnpike 576 also has them. Same with PA Turnpike 60 for awhile till it became part of I-376.
There are also a few rare PA Turnpike 76 shields out there. I know of 3 of those that have been posted in the field in Western PA, but 2 have bit the dust.
1. One was on the I-79 SB off-ramp Exit #78. This one disappeared when they realigned the SB off-ramp to add in the brand new PA-228 WB > I-79 SB loop on-ramp in the last year. I do have a picture of it, but I don't think I have it online right now and would have to dig around for it. However, you can still see it in StreetView (http://goo.gl/maps/SKGzJ) for now.
2. One was located at the intersection of I-376 and PA-130 (Exit #79B). This was replaced by a normal I-76 shield (http://goo.gl/maps/QPx1w) no later than Oct '13. There is a picture of it that I took in the Shield Gallery (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=PA19793762).
3. This one is located along the Red Belt (Warrendale Bayne Road) in Warrendale, PA. Still standing as of Aug '12 for sure, but I don't remember when I took my picture of it (have to find it). Will see if I can field check to see if it's still alive next time I'm up that way and have time to spare. http://goo.gl/maps/5A2cN
Here is a 4th I ran across on US 30 EB in Bedford.
This was taken 7/5/14. It is not in the current (2009) GMSV:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fpa76error.jpg&hash=5128ec4482a0e7b135654d8f10c928747c1d0bbf)
Mapmikey
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 23, 2015, 07:42:18 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on February 22, 2015, 08:31:26 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on February 22, 2015, 07:22:39 PM
I've seen the PA Turnpike use a green keystone for its logo, only explanation I can think of.
PA Route 66 has the same green shield near Pittsburgh.
PA Turnpike 576 also has them. Same with PA Turnpike 60 for awhile till it became part of I-376.
There are also a few rare PA Turnpike 76 shields out there. I know of 3 of those that have been posted in the field in Western PA, but 2 have bit the dust.
1. One was on the I-79 SB off-ramp Exit #78. This one disappeared when they realigned the SB off-ramp to add in the brand new PA-228 WB > I-79 SB loop on-ramp in the last year. I do have a picture of it, but I don't think I have it online right now and would have to dig around for it. However, you can still see it in StreetView (http://goo.gl/maps/SKGzJ) for now.
2. One was located at the intersection of I-376 and PA-130 (Exit #79B). This was replaced by a normal I-76 shield (http://goo.gl/maps/QPx1w) no later than Oct '13. There is a picture of it that I took in the Shield Gallery (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=PA19793762).
3. This one is located along the Red Belt (Warrendale Bayne Road) in Warrendale, PA. Still standing as of Aug '12 for sure, but I don't remember when I took my picture of it (have to find it). Will see if I can field check to see if it's still alive next time I'm up that way and have time to spare. http://goo.gl/maps/5A2cN
I actually really like those signs. I plan on visiting Pittsburgh sometime in the next year or so.
Looks like it's going to be I-295 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne%2c%20WY%20Report/FHWA%20to%20AASHTO%20on%20Interstate%20Numbers%2005-20-2015.pdf) - not 195 or 395.
Quote from: odditude on June 04, 2015, 06:54:04 PM
Looks like it's going to be I-295 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne%2c%20WY%20Report/FHWA%20to%20AASHTO%20on%20Interstate%20Numbers%2005-20-2015.pdf) - not 195 or 395.
It would make sense, considering I-95 ends at I-295 presently. I like it better than extending I-195 or creating an I-395 honestly.
I-295 seems like a very awkward choice to me. It would loop around and be on both sides of the river.
I think I would've preferred 395, but I'm fine with 295 as it's a natural beltway around Trenton. I imagine it will change cardinal direction at the NJ/PA state line. In that case, I would prefer NJ to keep the North/South designation as it currently is for 295, although it does start to slightly curve the wrong way near the Delaware River. For the PA side, I think designating it as an East/West route would be better, mainly to avoid a switch between North/South at the state line. Thus, traffic going from PA to NJ will see 295 East, then 295 South. NJ to PA traffic will see 295 North to 295 West. I guess this switch could also occur at US 1 in NJ, such as it does now with 95/295.
i'd say 295 should be E/W between the state line and exit 67, N/S the rest of the way. there's plenty of precedent - see just about every other beltway.
I guess someone in NJ considers the NJTP extension as part of I-276 even though it technically never was.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 04, 2015, 10:48:29 PM
I guess someone in NJ considers the NJTP extension as part of I-276 even though it technically never was.
Yeah, that one surprised me, too. It's been I-95 in the SLD for a while now.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 04, 2015, 08:21:40 PM
I-295 seems like a very awkward choice to me. It would loop around and be on both sides of the river.
Agreed. Also, what happens when you're on US 1? You can go take I-295 south to Bordentown or I-295 south to Philadelphia? Way to confuse people. Or will that portion be signed as east/west?
Quote from: dgolub on June 05, 2015, 08:57:10 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on June 04, 2015, 08:21:40 PM
I-295 seems like a very awkward choice to me. It would loop around and be on both sides of the river.
Agreed. Also, what happens when you're on US 1? You can go take I-295 south to Bordentown or I-295 south to Philadelphia? Way to confuse people. Or will that portion be signed as east/west?
Let's break it down here (for those on FB; yes, this is largely a
cut-and-paste post from there):
1. Redesignating I-95/295 as a western extension of I-195 IMHO was a non-starter from the get-go due to the needless renumbering of the existing I-195 mile markers/exit numbers plus the fact that the thru-195 movements at the existing I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange would've been constrained to single-lane exit ramps.
2. Redesignating I-95/295 as an extension of I-295 causes some cardinal/direction issues on the PA side (wrong-way route number/actual highway cardinals); unless, of course, NJ designates I-295 from the PA line to either US 1 or I-195 as an east-west route. Such cardinal changes would not be unlike those along the Baltimore (I-695) and Capitol (I-495) Beltways.
Side bar: wrong-way route/street cardinal issues was likely the main reason why the MassDPW truncated MA 128 from Hull to Braintree in the late 60s (the old MA 128 from MA 3 in Rockland to Nantasket became MA 228 then).
3. Redesignating I-95/295 as a separate east-west I-x95 (be it 395 or 695) from the PA line to US 1 involves no change in mile markers/exit numbers on the Jersey side AT ALL. Redesignating it as an east-west I-x95 from PA to I-195 only involves changing NJ mile markers/exit numbers from US 1 to I-195; no big deal IMHO.
IMHO, since it was NJ that ultimately put the kibosh on the original I-95/Somerset Freeway (courtesy of Princeton NIMBYs);
let them deal with the bulk of the route number/direction cardinal/mile marker/exit number changes. PA built
all of its I-95 portion
and the Delaware Expressway north of the PA Turnpike will
still run north from there to the Scudder Falls Bridge regardless of its route number.
Personally, this new-
old change (to I-295) may not be the final deal just yet.
Here's how I would approach the situation with the cardinal directions:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9W856bu.png&hash=bc1aa5040080ea8f626403912ca6261b03cff501)
The directionality switches from North/South to East/West at the Pennsylvania / New Jersey border as well as the US 1 interchange. I also included what I think the exit numbers will be on the New Jersey side of the Delaware, with the old ones (in gray) above them for reference.
Feel free to argue my control cities, but I believe the ones I chose are fairly logical.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 05, 2015, 10:12:09 AM
Here's how I would approach the situation with the cardinal directions:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9W856bu.png&hash=bc1aa5040080ea8f626403912ca6261b03cff501)
...
Feel free to argue my control cities, but I believe the ones I chose are fairly logical.
Not bad Zeffy; that's a good way to handle the
all I-295 scenario.
The only control city issue I see is that since
Princeton is a northbound I-295 control city north of I-195/NJ 29; it should continue to be a westbound I-295 control city from US 1 to US 206.
Philadelphia can then be used west of US 206.
At the very most, use both Philadelphia and Princeton as control cities between US 1 and US 206. Traffic coming south on US 1 going to Philadelphia will probably continue to see Philadelphia as the exit destination onto future 295 North/West. I'm a little hesitant to use Princeton as a control city here anyway as US 206 functions more like a 2 lane residential road, not a wide high speed highway like US 1.
I would also prefer only one cardinal direction change on 295 around Trenton, even though the route in PA is much more N/S than E/W.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 05, 2015, 10:46:05 AMI would also prefer only one cardinal direction change on 295 around Trenton, even though the route in PA is much more N/S than E/W.
All that does is shift more direction confusion over to PA. As you already mentioned, the Delaware Expressway north of the PA Turnpike
clearly runs north to the Scudders Falls Bridge.
Again, this whole I-95 gap was a NJ-induced issue (PTC/PennDOT dragging their feet on the Turnpike/Delaware Expressway interchange notwithstanding); let NJ bear the brunt of the changes.
If preserving the same direction cardinal around the Trenton area is a concern; then such would be the case for designating I-95/295 north of the Turnpike & I-195 as a separate I-x95 (be it 395 or 695, the latter would be more appropriate IMHO). The x95 stretch would be N/S in PA and E/W in NJ from the Delaware River to I-195. The only mile marker/exit number changes on the Jersey side would be Exits 60 (or 61) through 67. Then again, the original plan had the current 95/295
loop highway change directions (& route numbers) roughly mid-way along where the highway indeed runs E/W; so I don't see how changing cardinal directions on the NJ stretch of highway (while keeping the same route number) would be an issue now.
3dis changing direction cardinals have been previously done before (I-287 NJ-NY, I-495 MD-VA, I-676 NJ-PA & I-695 in MD to name a few); but such were N/S to E/W and vice-versa, not a N/S to S/N.
Since the letter only makes reference to an act that dates back to 1982; one has to wonder whether
Acting FHWA Administrator, Greg Nadeau (the writer of the letter) was fully aware or brought up-to-date of some of the renumbering proposals for this area
since 1982.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 05, 2015, 10:24:37 AM
The only control city issue I see is that since Princeton is a northbound I-295 control city north of I-195/NJ 29; it should continue to be a westbound I-295 control city from US 1 to US 206. Philadelphia can then be used west of US 206.
The reasoning was that there are effectively three ways to Princeton at the point where I switched the cardinal directions - via US 1 North, via CR 583 / Princeton Pike, or via US 206. I actually think taking US 1 is a bit more effective than US 206, mainly because there are plenty of exits for Princeton streets which lead to the (always busy) downtown area around Nassau Street.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 05, 2015, 11:40:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 05, 2015, 10:24:37 AM
The only control city issue I see is that since Princeton is a northbound I-295 control city north of I-195/NJ 29; it should continue to be a westbound I-295 control city from US 1 to US 206. Philadelphia can then be used west of US 206.
The reasoning was that there are effectively three ways to Princeton at the point where I switched the cardinal directions - via US 1 North, via CR 583 / Princeton Pike, or via US 206. I actually think taking US 1 is a bit more effective than US 206, mainly because there are plenty of exits for Princeton streets which lead to the (always busy) downtown area around Nassau Street.
If US 1 northbound is intended to be the primary exit for Princeton off I-295 Northbound; then why aren't there
any signs (most likely supplemental BGS') stating such? The first exit for
Princeton one actually sees is beyond the US 1 interchange at the CR 583 interchange.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 05, 2015, 11:59:02 AM
If US 1 northbound is intended to be the primary exit for Princeton off I-295 Northbound; then why aren't there any signs (most likely supplemental BGS') stating such? The first exit for Princeton one actually sees is beyond the US 1 interchange at the CR 583 interchange.
Hmm, good point. I guess they figure people trying to get to Princeton will just take US 206 down to Nassau Street / NJ 27.
It's been 32 years since NJ decided to kill the Somerset Freeway. I think it's time to stop holding grudges and get over the whole "It's New Jersey's fault make them deal with it". It's hardly the only case where a highway wasn't completed, causing issues in other states (we can start with the lack of 95 going thru DC, forcing issues forever on the Capital Beltway).
While future 295 in PA is definitely more N/S, it will hardly be the first time a highway's routing doesn't totally agree with the cardinal direction. In fact, 295 in Delaware is clearly more East-West, and looking at a map doesn't appear to ever run in the proper direction (295 North is mostly going ESE until after you cross the bridge into NJ). Even current 295 in NJ is mainly running mostly East-West, and in several cases Northbound 295 is actually going slightly south, and vice versa.
So, there needs to be a decision whether to allow 295's cardinal directions to go North then West then South (and North then East the South) in about a 8 mile distance, or just simply go East then South (and North then West).
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 05, 2015, 11:59:02 AM
If US 1 northbound is intended to be the primary exit for Princeton off I-295 Northbound; then why aren't there any signs (most likely supplemental BGS') stating such? The first exit for Princeton one actually sees is beyond the US 1 interchange at the CR 583 interchange.
This falls under the switcheroo control cities that I hate seeing. At 295 North, Exit 60, the Control City is Princeton. At Exit 65, it's simply 295 North. At Exit 67, the Control City is Philadelphia. One never made it to Princeton yet.
Come down to Florida we have many areas where a change in control points takes place before reaching the actual city.
I-10 is "Lake City" from Tallahassee eastward, but switches to "Jacksonville" long before Lake City.
I-95 is "Miami" for ramps leading to it south of Jacksonville. Even the post exit mileage sign for it reads "Miami" as main control city. Yet after Melbourne (actually Malabar) still 180 miles out from Miami, the ramp and mileage signs change to "West Palm Beach." Miami does not reappear until after you reach West Palm.
Also I-95 N Bound uses "Daytona Beach" from West Palm Beach northward, but Daytona Beach vanishes once after your hit Sebastian where "Jacksonville" takes over. Sebastian FYI is 105 miles south of Daytona Beach.
Then in Kansas where "Kansas City" is control city from Wichita northward on I-35, but once at Olathe, the furthest out suburb of Kansas City along I-35, Des Moines takes over already.
These are just some examples of how signs direct you to a city, but then before you reach it no more signs control you. In New Jersey's case at least it stops almost before Princeton, and BTW "Princeton" is signed at US 206! Not that far off the beaten path and US 206 goes directly into Princeton where US 1 skirts the city or borough.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 05, 2015, 01:30:05 PM
These are just some examples of how signs direct you to a city, but then before you reach it no more signs control you. In New Jersey's case at least it stops almost before Princeton, and BTW "Princeton" is signed at US 206! Not that far off the beaten path and US 206 goes directly into Princeton where US 1 skirts the city or borough.
Actually, Exit 60 is the one and only sign with Princeton as the control city, so it doesn't really start being a control city either.
While US 1 doesn't directly go into Princeton, there are numerous roads that lead you into Princeton just off of US 1, most with few if any homes directly on those roads. And US 1 is home to many of the larger restaurants, businesses and hotels that serve Princeton. US 206, while sounding important, has the look and feel of a suburban county road. Is US 206 the most direct route to downtown Princeton? Probably. Is it the best option? Not so much.
No I did not say its the best option either. I said the direct part which as substandard US 206 is compared to US 1 is still that. Yes, I agree that US 1 is the best option for that and one I would use for sure. And with the Downtown areas dead in modern US culture, US 1 ended up being the new commercial area like US 31 did when they bypassed Kokomo, IN.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 05, 2015, 12:49:33 PM
It's been 32 years since NJ decided to kill the Somerset Freeway. I think it's time to stop holding grudges and get over the whole "It's New Jersey's fault make them deal with it". It's hardly the only case where a highway wasn't completed, causing issues in other states (we can start with the lack of 95 going thru DC, forcing issues forever on the Capital Beltway).
Nobody here is arguing over the alternate routings of I-95 due to cancelled projects; what's being discussed here is the renumbering of the old I-95 segments the aren't or no longer will be part of such.
In the DC case, the inner-segment of I-95 (Henry Shirley Highway) in VA & DC was simply redesignated as I-395 and that was that.
In the Boston area, the Northeast Expressway was redesignated as US 1 and the Central Artery/South Station Tunnel/Pulaski Skyway was redesignated as an extension of I-93.
In those 2 cases, there were no real known debates regarding the newly assigned numbers for the former I-95 sections.
And yes, I do hold NJ more responsible than PA for not building the Somerset Freeway (and hence, triggering the renumbering, whatever it turns out to be); However,
I do hold PTC & PennDOT equally if not more responsible for literally dragging their feet on building the PA Turnpike/Delaware Expressway interchange. This thing should've been built (in its current design configuration)
at least 20 years ago. Heck, it was only 14-15 years from the time the proposed I-95 segment in MA from Peabody to Revere was killed off to when the interchange with MA 128 in Peabody was completed and open to traffic. Using that timetable, the PA Turnpike interchange
should've been completed circa 1996-97.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 05, 2015, 12:49:33 PMWhile future 295 in PA is definitely more N/S, it will hardly be the first time a highway's routing doesn't totally agree with the cardinal direction. In fact, 295 in Delaware is clearly more East-West, and looking at a map doesn't appear to ever run in the proper direction (295 North is mostly going ESE until after you cross the bridge into NJ). Even current 295 in NJ is mainly running mostly East-West, and in several cases Northbound 295 is actually going slightly south, and vice versa.
I do agree that the I-295 segment in DE running E/W but signed N/S can appear somewhat odd; but at least, in that case, the
overall heading (to the Trenton, NJ area) was
still N/S. The same can't be said for the I-95 segment from the PA Turnpike to the Scudder Falls Bridge.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 05, 2015, 12:49:33 PM
So, there needs to be a decision whether to allow 295's cardinal directions to go North then West then South (and North then East the South) in about a 8 mile distance, or just simply go East then South (and North then West).
Agreed, which is the premise for this whole discussion. :biggrin:
I know I've stated this somewhere upthread that my preferred solution is to have the section of I-95 between US 1 and the Turnpike be designated as I-695. In that way, it is similar to what you have in the SF Bay Area: I-280 and I-680 are two N-S freeways heading from San Jose to San Francisco or Walnut Creek that happen to be the same roadway in San Jose, where they meet at US 101.
But since the authorities have decided to designate this part of I-95 as I-295, it will certainly lead to confusion. I think, as others mentioned, the best way to minimize (but not eliminate) the confusion would be to designate the section from the river to US 1 in NJ as being E/W. Another idea, might be naming the different sections of the road different names, to help with the traffic reports. So the section in PA should be known as the Delaware Expressway and the section in NJ north of I-195 should be known as the Trenton Beltway and the section in NJ south of I-195 should be known as the Eastbank Expressway.
Quote from: mrsman on June 16, 2015, 06:08:02 AM
I know I've stated this somewhere upthread that my preferred solution is to have the section of I-95 between US 1 and the Turnpike be designated as I-695. In that way, it is similar to what you have in the SF Bay Area: I-280 and I-680 are two N-S freeways heading from San Jose to San Francisco or Walnut Creek that happen to be the same roadway in San Jose, where they meet at US 101.
But since the authorities have decided to designate this part of I-95 as I-295, it will certainly lead to confusion. I think, as others mentioned, the best way to minimize (but not eliminate) the confusion would be to designate the section from the river to US 1 in NJ as being E/W. Another idea, might be naming the different sections of the road different names, to help with the traffic reports. So the section in PA should be known as the Delaware Expressway and the section in NJ north of I-195 should be known as the Trenton Beltway and the section in NJ south of I-195 should be known as the Eastbank Expressway.
I-295 in New Jersey already has a name. It's called the Camden Freeway, but, like most highways in New Jersey, it gets called by its number and most people have no clue what the name is.
How could: "In New Jersey, 295 is slow from 73 to 42" be more confusing than "In New Jersey, the Eastbank Expressway is slow from 73 to 42"? An unsigned nickname to a highway can be confusing to locals that use the highway everyday. Those not from the area will have absolutely no clue what route the report is referring to.
A few longstanding ones - the Schuylkill Expressway and the Blue Route - are routinely heard, but outside of that most highway nicknames are rarely mentioned. You can probably include Route 42 as the nickname for I-76 in NJ as well. But that's the exception rather than the rule. In fact, I know on these forums it has been mentioned some people get upset when they are visiting a city and they hear the route nickname rather than the route number. And these are people that know the roads better than others!
I don't think there's going to be all that much confusion...much less than what people are making it out to be. The most important thing is that 295 will be split up between the states, and the traffic reports always make mention to the state they're referring to. Even if you miss that, the report would say something like "In Oxford Valley, 295 North is jammed", or "We have a new problem on 295 South in Bordentown". The worst would be if there's a problem involving 295 at a route that crosses the highway at least twice; they would need to be communicated to know which interchange they're truly talking about. US 1 is easy: PA or NJ. Route 29 is a little tougher, although exit numbers would help, or saying "at the 29/195 interchange" would clearly note the location.
Throughout the country, there are beltways that are completed 1/2 to 3/4 around a city. And full beltways can even be more confusing in my opinion. Almost always, there's going to be at least another route that crosses the beltway twice.
Would I have preferred another number between the PA Turnpike and US 1 in NJ? Yeah. But is stating it as 295 going to cause people to become totally clueless as to how to refer to the highway? Nah.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AM
How could: "In New Jersey, 295 is slow from 73 to 42" be more confusing than "In New Jersey, the Eastbank Expressway is slow from 73 to 42"? An unsigned nickname to a highway can be confusing to locals that use the highway everyday. Those not from the area will have absolutely no clue what route the report is referring to.
A few longstanding ones - the Schuylkill Expressway and the Blue Route - are routinely heard, but outside of that most highway nicknames are rarely mentioned. You can probably include Route 42 as the nickname for I-76 in NJ as well. But that's the exception rather than the rule. In fact, I know on these forums it has been mentioned some people get upset when they are visiting a city and they hear the route nickname rather than the route number. And these are people that know the roads better than others!
There's a simple way to deal with this: Put the name on the signs under or next to the numbers. NYC does this everywhere. You'll see plenty of signs for "Henry Hudson Parkway," "Brooklyn-Queens Expressway," "Bruckner Expressway," "Cross Bronx Expressway," "Long Island Expressway," "Van Wyck Expressway," etc. etc. It works great, and if someone tells you to get on the Van Wyck, you don't have to know that it's the same thing as I-678.
Quote from: dgolub on June 16, 2015, 09:00:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AM
How could: "In New Jersey, 295 is slow from 73 to 42" be more confusing than "In New Jersey, the Eastbank Expressway is slow from 73 to 42"? An unsigned nickname to a highway can be confusing to locals that use the highway everyday. Those not from the area will have absolutely no clue what route the report is referring to.
A few longstanding ones - the Schuylkill Expressway and the Blue Route - are routinely heard, but outside of that most highway nicknames are rarely mentioned. You can probably include Route 42 as the nickname for I-76 in NJ as well. But that's the exception rather than the rule. In fact, I know on these forums it has been mentioned some people get upset when they are visiting a city and they hear the route nickname rather than the route number. And these are people that know the roads better than others!
There's a simple way to deal with this: Put the name on the signs under or next to the numbers. NYC does this everywhere. You'll see plenty of signs for "Henry Hudson Parkway," "Brooklyn-Queens Expressway," "Bruckner Expressway," "Cross Bronx Expressway," "Long Island Expressway," "Van Wyck Expressway," etc. etc. It works great, and if someone tells you to get on the Van Wyck, you don't have to know that it's the same thing as I-678.
There's a simpler way: Call it 295.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AM
Throughout the country, there are beltways that are completed 1/2 to 3/4 around a city. And full beltways can even be more confusing in my opinion. Almost always, there's going to be at least another route that crosses the beltway twice.
I would think beltways are pretty easy to discern if you just use the "inner loop/outer loop" designations that Baltimore and Washington use.
Quote from: dgolub on June 16, 2015, 09:00:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AM
How could: "In New Jersey, 295 is slow from 73 to 42" be more confusing than "In New Jersey, the Eastbank Expressway is slow from 73 to 42"? An unsigned nickname to a highway can be confusing to locals that use the highway everyday. Those not from the area will have absolutely no clue what route the report is referring to.
A few longstanding ones - the Schuylkill Expressway and the Blue Route - are routinely heard, but outside of that most highway nicknames are rarely mentioned. You can probably include Route 42 as the nickname for I-76 in NJ as well. But that's the exception rather than the rule. In fact, I know on these forums it has been mentioned some people get upset when they are visiting a city and they hear the route nickname rather than the route number. And these are people that know the roads better than others!
There's a simple way to deal with this: Put the name on the signs under or next to the numbers. NYC does this everywhere. You'll see plenty of signs for "Henry Hudson Parkway," "Brooklyn-Queens Expressway," "Bruckner Expressway," "Cross Bronx Expressway," "Long Island Expressway," "Van Wyck Expressway," etc. etc. It works great, and if someone tells you to get on the Van Wyck, you don't have to know that it's the same thing as I-678.
Except it's been known for 50-someodd years as 295. All the signs call it 295. The maps show it as 295. Locals know it as 295. Giving it a name for the sake of a name would be pointless and stupid and just add to confusion rather than remove it. Put signs up naming it and everyone is still going to say "Get on 295 to exit blah blah". Why ruin what works?
Quote from: mrsman on June 16, 2015, 06:08:02 AM
I know I've stated this somewhere upthread that my preferred solution is to have the section of I-95 between US 1 and the Turnpike be designated as I-695.
My original thought was to have the entire I-95/295 stretch from the PA Turnpike to I-195/NJ 29 be designated as I-695; the PA section would be N/S and the NJ section would be E/W. However, having the 695/295 handoff at US 1 can work as well and would involve
no mile marker/exit number changes on the Jersey side.
Quote from: mrsman on June 16, 2015, 06:08:02 AM
Another idea, might be naming the different sections of the road different names, to help with the traffic reports.
Since we're dealing with
existing roadways here; such renaming would not work unless such was well established
when the roads were first built. While I-95 through PA is also known as the Delaware Expressway (and some early-generation signage had such listed along with the I-95 shields); the I-95 moniker, in that case, reasonated better with local motorists and traffic reporters.
OTOH, the Schuylkill (I-76) and the Blue Route (I-476) were cases where names (the former was renumbered at least once and the latter being more of a nickname) just
clicked with the motorists and reporters. Such were also initially planned, and in the case of the Schuylkill, designed and built prior to the Interstate Highway System being fully established.
Quote from: dgolub on June 16, 2015, 09:00:44 AMThere's a simple way to deal with this: Put the name on the signs under or next to the numbers. NYC does this everywhere. You'll see plenty of signs for "Henry Hudson Parkway," "Brooklyn-Queens Expressway," "Bruckner Expressway," "Cross Bronx Expressway," "Long Island Expressway," "Van Wyck Expressway," etc. etc. It works great, and if someone tells you to get on the Van Wyck, you don't have to know that it's the same thing as I-678.
IIRC, such an approach no longer flies with the FHWA and I believe (I could be mistaken) that newer signage in the NYC area has since phased out the placing of road names on the main signs.
As I mentioned above, the planning of those highways in metro-NYC and the fore-mentioned I-76 & 476 in Greater-Philly
pre-dated the Interstate Highway Act of 1956; such might explain why the road names/nicknames took a greater hold for the above but not for I-95 & 295.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AMYou can probably include Route 42 as the nickname for I-76 in NJ as well.
Personally, once the I-95/295 switch takes place; how much do you want to bet that newscasters & traffic reporters will
still refer to the I-95 stretch north of the Turnpike and in NJ as
I-95?
It's a reasonably safe bet that they're
not going to refer to the PA Turnpike east of the new interchange nor the PA Connector of the NJ Turnpike as
I-95. So an incident along the new northbound I-95 lanes will still be referred to as the eastbound Turnpike lanes.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 16, 2015, 11:07:03 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AMYou can probably include Route 42 as the nickname for I-76 in NJ as well.
Personally, once the I-95/295 switch takes place; how much do you want to bet that newscasters & traffic reporters will still refer to the I-95 stretch north of the Turnpike and in NJ as I-95?
It's a reasonably safe bet that they're not going to refer to the PA Turnpike east of the new interchange nor the PA Connector of the NJ Turnpike as I-95. So an incident along the new northbound I-95 lanes will still be referred to as the eastbound Turnpike lanes.
Interestingly, the portion of 95 between the PA Turnpike and NJ's US 1 isn't mentioned a whole lot on traffic reports. Daily congestion occurs near the Scudder Falls Bridge. When that does make a report, the area is usually referred to by the bridge's name on traffic reports, so that probably won't change.
And I seriously doubt they'll say 95 when an incident is on the Turnpike. As it is, they never say "On I-76...", "On I-276...", or "On I-476..."; it's always "On the (PA) Turnpike..."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 12:44:09 PM
And I seriously doubt they'll say 95 when an incident is on the Turnpike. As it is, they never say "On I-76...", "On I-276...", or "On I-476..."; it's always "On the (PA) Turnpike..."
I hope they make it clear when they are talking about the Northeast Extension as opposed to the East-West Mainline.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 12:44:09 PMInterestingly, the portion of 95 between the PA Turnpike and NJ's US 1 isn't mentioned a whole lot on traffic reports. Daily congestion occurs near the Scudder Falls Bridge. When that does make a report, the area is usually referred to by the bridge's name on traffic reports, so that probably won't change.
While true, I have indeed heard traffic reporters on KYW 1060 AM, NJ 101.5 FM and Sirrius/XM 132 use
I-95 references with regards to the Scudder Falls Bridge; example:
"I-95 traffic from the Scudder Falls Bridge to...".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 12:44:09 PMAnd I seriously doubt they'll say 95 when an incident is on the Turnpike. As it is, they never say "On I-76...", "On I-276...", or "On I-476..."; it's always "On the (PA) Turnpike..."
I don't think I've
ever heard the PA Turnpike referred to by route number(s) in traffic reports.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2015, 01:14:25 PMI hope they make it clear when they are talking about the Northeast Extension as opposed to the East-West Mainline.
When there's traffic or an incident along the NE Extension; they do indeed refer to it as
"the Northeast Extension". When they say just
"Pennsylvania Turnpike"; they're referring to the E/W Mainline Turnpike.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 16, 2015, 01:31:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 12:44:09 PMInterestingly, the portion of 95 between the PA Turnpike and NJ's US 1 isn't mentioned a whole lot on traffic reports. Daily congestion occurs near the Scudder Falls Bridge. When that does make a report, the area is usually referred to by the bridge's name on traffic reports, so that probably won't change.
While true, I have indeed heard traffic reporters on KYW 1060 AM, NJ 101.5 FM and Sirrius/XM 132 use I-95 references with regards to the Scudder Falls Bridge; example: "I-95 traffic from the Scudder Falls Bridge to...".
I think the point is that they mention the bridge by name and most people recognize it regardless of what route number is attached to it. Of course that doesn't help the non-locals if they keep referring to it as I-95. The bridge is not signed after all.
Quote
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 12:44:09 PMAnd I seriously doubt they'll say 95 when an incident is on the Turnpike. As it is, they never say "On I-76...", "On I-276...", or "On I-476..."; it's always "On the (PA) Turnpike..."
I don't think I've ever heard the PA Turnpike referred to by route number(s) in traffic reports.
Actually, 476 is mentioned sometimes when both the Blue Route and the NE Extension have problems. "Further north on 476, the Northeast Extension..."
It is curious that Philadelphia reports say "The Turnpike" so much without specifying which when in NJ, which is a huge chunk of the listening are "The Turnpike" means something else (though of course the NJ Turnpike doesn't go East-West).
Quote from: bzakharin on June 16, 2015, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 16, 2015, 01:31:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 12:44:09 PMInterestingly, the portion of 95 between the PA Turnpike and NJ's US 1 isn't mentioned a whole lot on traffic reports. Daily congestion occurs near the Scudder Falls Bridge. When that does make a report, the area is usually referred to by the bridge's name on traffic reports, so that probably won't change.
While true, I have indeed heard traffic reporters on KYW 1060 AM, NJ 101.5 FM and Sirrius/XM 132 use I-95 references with regards to the Scudder Falls Bridge; example: "I-95 traffic from the Scudder Falls Bridge to...".
I think the point is that they mention the bridge by name and most people recognize it regardless of what route number is attached to it. Of course that doesn't help the non-locals if they keep referring to it as I-95. The bridge is not signed after all.
Just
where in this thread did I, or anybody else for that matter, insinuate that the Scudder Falls Bridge was being referred to (or will be referred to) as
just the route number? I believe we're all in agreement that the bridge is (and will still be) referred to
by name due to it being either a landmark or location
along I-95 (Future I-295).
BTW, here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.259905,-74.84521,3a,75y,51.68h,89.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srfshN45BSOZdVBQhp8k2JQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) what one encounters while heading into NJ via the Scudder Falls Bridge. :sombrero:
Quote from: bzakharin on June 16, 2015, 02:38:09 PMIt is curious that Philadelphia reports say "The Turnpike" so much without specifying which when in NJ, which is a huge chunk of the listening are "The Turnpike" means something else (though of course the NJ Turnpike doesn't go East-West).
In all fairness, Jeffandnicole did have
(PA) listed in parenthesis in the post you quoted. Traffic reporters in the Delaware Valley
do indeed refer to the PA & NJ Turnpikes by their respective state names.
Side bar: while the mainline NJ Turnpike doesn't run E/W; its branches/spurs (I-78 near Bayonne and the PA Turnpike Connector) do.
I live in the area and they most certainly do just say "The Turnpike" for the PA Turnpike about 70% of the time. As for the various extensions on either turnpike, they are a non-issue because they all have unique names (as in there is no Northeast Extension on the NJ Turnpike, etc) and these names are always used, sometimes by themselves as in "delays on the Northeast Extension".
Quote from: odditude on June 04, 2015, 06:54:04 PMLooks like it's going to be I-295 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne%2c%20WY%20Report/FHWA%20to%20AASHTO%20on%20Interstate%20Numbers%2005-20-2015.pdf) - not 195 or 395.
This change was not well timed for PennDOT ECMS 95444, one of the I-95/Turnpike interchange contracts, which has 151 sheets dedicated to the I-95 redesignation. The plans originally called for I-95 to become I-395 north of the Turnpike, and the decision to make it I-295 instead necessitated the issuance of 88 replacement sheets as part of the third addendum.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 16, 2015, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: odditude on June 04, 2015, 06:54:04 PMLooks like it's going to be I-295 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne%2c%20WY%20Report/FHWA%20to%20AASHTO%20on%20Interstate%20Numbers%2005-20-2015.pdf) - not 195 or 395.
This change was not well timed for PennDOT ECMS 95444, one of the I-95/Turnpike interchange contracts, which has 151 sheets dedicated to the I-95 redesignation. The plans originally called for I-95 to become I-395 north of the Turnpike, and the decision to make it I-295 instead necessitated the issuance of 88 replacement sheets as part of the third addendum.
Not everything is set in stone yet - that PDF is a month dated, and between then and now, the route designations are planning to switch. I-195 used to be the one who was gonna be extended into PA, but then the FHWA changed their minds to I-295. Unless there is a more recent PDF noting this, I think this is the best we can work with.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 16, 2015, 11:07:03 AM
Quote from: dgolub on June 16, 2015, 09:00:44 AMThere's a simple way to deal with this: Put the name on the signs under or next to the numbers. NYC does this everywhere. You'll see plenty of signs for "Henry Hudson Parkway," "Brooklyn-Queens Expressway," "Bruckner Expressway," "Cross Bronx Expressway," "Long Island Expressway," "Van Wyck Expressway," etc. etc. It works great, and if someone tells you to get on the Van Wyck, you don't have to know that it's the same thing as I-678.
IIRC, such an approach no longer flies with the FHWA and I believe (I could be mistaken) that newer signage in the NYC area has since phased out the placing of road names on the main signs.
As I mentioned above, the planning of those highways in metro-NYC and the fore-mentioned I-76 & 476 in Greater-Philly pre-dated the Interstate Highway Act of 1956; such might explain why the road names/nicknames took a greater hold for the above but not for I-95 & 295.
Yeah, I've heard that it's not strictly MUTCD-compliant, but it's much more user-friendly for an area like NYC or certain parts of Long Island where no one knows what the numbers are anyway.
As far as I know all signing in the five boroughs of NYC shows both the highway's name and number, in a long standing deal with NYS DOT that began in about 1970. That deal came about from public pressure and the efforts of then legendary NYC traffic commissioner Henry Barnes. I haven't seen any new signs that don't show the road name. This practice is only in New York City, not in any other surrounding areas.
It's worth noting that some of those NYC signs are too large and too wordy in conflict with the recommendations of the FHWA.
Part of the problem with highway names in NYC is that they tend to have multiple route numbers associated with them. For example, the Cross Bronx is I-95 and I-295, while the Bruckner is I-278 and I-95.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AM
Throughout the country, there are beltways that are completed 1/2 to 3/4 around a city. And full beltways can even be more confusing in my opinion. Almost always, there's going to be at least another route that crosses the beltway twice.
I would think beltways are pretty easy to discern if you just use the "inner loop/outer loop" designations that Baltimore and Washington use.
Atlanta (I-285 with a short multiplex with I-85), Cincinnati (I-275 with a short multiplex with I-74), Columbus (OH) (I-270), and Indianapolis (I-465 with a 21 mile-long multiplex with I-74) have full beltways. Do they refer to "inner loop" and "outer loop"?
ixnay
Indy uses cardinal directions around each end of the loop. I have no idea what the local lingo is though, but how it is on a sign.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2015, 09:49:15 PM
Indy uses cardinal directions around each end of the loop. I have no idea what the local lingo is though, but how it is on a sign.
We use nothing special, not even inner loop or outer loop. Usually we just say what side of town and the direction of travel if referring to anything on 465. Northbound 465 on the east side for example.
Quote from: ixnay on June 16, 2015, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AM
Throughout the country, there are beltways that are completed 1/2 to 3/4 around a city. And full beltways can even be more confusing in my opinion. Almost always, there's going to be at least another route that crosses the beltway twice.
I would think beltways are pretty easy to discern if you just use the "inner loop/outer loop" designations that Baltimore and Washington use.
Atlanta (I-285 with a short multiplex with I-85), Cincinnati (I-275 with a short multiplex with I-74), Columbus (OH) (I-270), and Indianapolis (I-465 with a 21 mile-long multiplex with I-74) have full beltways. Do they refer to "inner loop" and "outer loop"?
I-270 in Ohio uses directions of travel (one driving in a loop will be on it when it's signed north, east, south, and west), but local lingo is to use location along with direction of travel. Signed directions change at Georgesville Rd near Grove City, US 33/SR 161 in Dublin, SR 3 in Westerville, and Alum Creek Dr in Obetz. No "inner" or "outer".
Quote from: ixnay on June 16, 2015, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AM
Throughout the country, there are beltways that are completed 1/2 to 3/4 around a city. And full beltways can even be more confusing in my opinion. Almost always, there's going to be at least another route that crosses the beltway twice.
I would think beltways are pretty easy to discern if you just use the "inner loop/outer loop" designations that Baltimore and Washington use.
Atlanta (I-285 with a short multiplex with I-85), Cincinnati (I-275 with a short multiplex with I-74), Columbus (OH) (I-270), and Indianapolis (I-465 with a 21 mile-long multiplex with I-74) have full beltways. Do they refer to "inner loop" and "outer loop"?
ixnay
Jacksonville now has a full beltway. It's called the East Beltway and West Beltway. It has become common use. The entire beltway is SR 9a. Prior to the east beltway being up to standard it was signed as and known as 9a. With it all being signed as 295 there is no cinfusion. Cardinal directions are north-south on both halves, switching at the 95 junctions.
Exits numbering begins at the south junction( which is exit 61, it avoids exit 0) with 95 and go clockwise
Quote from: bzakharin on June 16, 2015, 03:26:15 PM
I live in the area and they most certainly do just say "The Turnpike" for the PA Turnpike about 70% of the time. As for the various extensions on either turnpike, they are a non-issue because they all have unique names (as in there is no Northeast Extension on the NJ Turnpike, etc) and these names are always used, sometimes by themselves as in "delays on the Northeast Extension".
I also live in the area (it'll be 25 years come next month) and if the generic
Turnpike (sans the PA or NJ prefixes) term is ever used in reports; chances are it's either:
a. Due to the fuller, more complete name was already mentioned at the beginning of the report.
or
b. Such is followed by an identifying landmark/location that easily distinguishes which Turnpike the reporter is referring to (examples: accident along the westbound Turnpike at Valley Forge, or southbound Turnpike accident at Exit 4).
Over 40 years living here for me!
I probably just tune out when they are referring to the PA Turnpike, because they will do the Philly area report first, then switch over to Jersey. If there's a huge issue in New Jersey and they happen to start with Jersey's traffic, they are usually very good in making it very clear they are talking about Jersey roads and/or the New Jersey Turnpike.
On newspaper sites, the headline may be a bit more generic in nature, in order for you to click thru to the story, so they can increase that all important ad revenue.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 17, 2015, 10:28:48 AM
Over 40 years living here for me!
I probably just tune out when they are referring to the PA Turnpike, because they will do the Philly area report first, then switch over to Jersey. If there's a huge issue in New Jersey and they happen to start with Jersey's traffic, they are usually very good in making it very clear they are talking about Jersey roads and/or the New Jersey Turnpike.
Yes, KYW NewsRadio's traffic reports on the 2s are generally a model of both precision and concision. When I lived in the Philadelphia area, I practically lived by them. I no longer live there, but I drive in to work there from time to time. They can be a real day-saver.
Quote from: qguy on June 17, 2015, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 17, 2015, 10:28:48 AM
Over 40 years living here for me!
I probably just tune out when they are referring to the PA Turnpike, because they will do the Philly area report first, then switch over to Jersey. If there's a huge issue in New Jersey and they happen to start with Jersey's traffic, they are usually very good in making it very clear they are talking about Jersey roads and/or the New Jersey Turnpike.
Yes, KYW NewsRadio's traffic reports on the 2s are generally a model of both precision and concision. When I lived in the Philadelphia area, I practically lived by them. I no longer live there, but I drive in to work there from time to time. They can be a real day-saver.
I wish. Sigh.
I frequently find NJ's reporting of routine traffic issues to be incorrect, as if they're slow to pick up on jams, and slow to report things are back to normal. And sadly, they're still the best of the bunch. I'm not sure exactly how these traffic services get their info, but it's not very accurate. Even NJ stations (101.5, for example) aren't any better.
Quote from: jwolfer on June 16, 2015, 10:58:46 PM
Quote from: ixnay on June 16, 2015, 09:45:34 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 16, 2015, 10:40:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2015, 08:51:48 AM
Throughout the country, there are beltways that are completed 1/2 to 3/4 around a city. And full beltways can even be more confusing in my opinion. Almost always, there's going to be at least another route that crosses the beltway twice.
I would think beltways are pretty easy to discern if you just use the "inner loop/outer loop" designations that Baltimore and Washington use.
Atlanta (I-285 with a short multiplex with I-85), Cincinnati (I-275 with a short multiplex with I-74), Columbus (OH) (I-270), and Indianapolis (I-465 with a 21 mile-long multiplex with I-74) have full beltways. Do they refer to "inner loop" and "outer loop"?
ixnay
Jacksonville now has a full beltway. It's called the East Beltway and West Beltway. It has become common use. The entire beltway is SR 9a. Prior to the east beltway being up to standard it was signed as and known as 9a. With it all being signed as 295 there is no cinfusion. Cardinal directions are north-south on both halves, switching at the 95 junctions.
Exits numbering begins at the south junction( which is exit 61, it avoids exit 0) with 95 and go clockwise
So far, both complete beltways in NC (I-485 in Charlotte, I-440 in Raleigh) have used the Inner/Outer signing method. I find it easier to follow on these routes, since all traffic on each loop travels in the same direction (Inner travels in one direction, Outer in the other).
As for I-295 being extended into PA, I think this makes the most sense, as it brings an existing route into another state, and is less confusing than I-195 or I-395 would be.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 17, 2015, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: qguy on June 17, 2015, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 17, 2015, 10:28:48 AM
Over 40 years living here for me!
I probably just tune out when they are referring to the PA Turnpike, because they will do the Philly area report first, then switch over to Jersey. If there's a huge issue in New Jersey and they happen to start with Jersey's traffic, they are usually very good in making it very clear they are talking about Jersey roads and/or the New Jersey Turnpike.
Yes, KYW NewsRadio's traffic reports on the 2s are generally a model of both precision and concision. When I lived in the Philadelphia area, I practically lived by them. I no longer live there, but I drive in to work there from time to time. They can be a real day-saver.
I wish. Sigh.
I frequently find NJ's reporting of routine traffic issues to be incorrect, as if they're slow to pick up on jams, and slow to report things are back to normal. And sadly, they're still the best of the bunch. I'm not sure exactly how these traffic services get their info, but it's not very accurate. Even NJ stations (101.5, for example) aren't any better.
I'll take your word for the NJ side. While I was living in Phila and working at PennDOT Dist 6 in the same building as their traffic management center, though, they were spot on for the PA side.
South Jersey does get the short end of the stick in so many ways it seems. :-/
Quote from: qguy on June 17, 2015, 04:00:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 17, 2015, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: qguy on June 17, 2015, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 17, 2015, 10:28:48 AM
Over 40 years living here for me!
I probably just tune out when they are referring to the PA Turnpike, because they will do the Philly area report first, then switch over to Jersey. If there's a huge issue in New Jersey and they happen to start with Jersey's traffic, they are usually very good in making it very clear they are talking about Jersey roads and/or the New Jersey Turnpike.
Yes, KYW NewsRadio's traffic reports on the 2s are generally a model of both precision and concision. When I lived in the Philadelphia area, I practically lived by them. I no longer live there, but I drive in to work there from time to time. They can be a real day-saver.
I wish. Sigh.
I frequently find NJ's reporting of routine traffic issues to be incorrect, as if they're slow to pick up on jams, and slow to report things are back to normal. And sadly, they're still the best of the bunch. I'm not sure exactly how these traffic services get their info, but it's not very accurate. Even NJ stations (101.5, for example) aren't any better.
I'll take your word for the NJ side. While I was living in Phila and working at PennDOT Dist 6 in the same building as their traffic management center, though, they were spot on for the PA side.
South Jersey does get the short end of the stick in so many ways it seems. :-/
Jersey as a whole does. The New York stations are very hit and miss. WCBS does a decent job (especially when Tom Kaminski is reporting, he does also benefit from expanded reports during rush hours). WINS mostly pretends that there are no roads outside of the 5-boros. NJ 101.5 used to be decent, but they're not even worth putting on now. I don't travel enough in Southern Jersey to know how it is down there but KYW does really make SNJ a second thought for the most part (although when I was working in my old job's Bala Cynwyd office, they were pretty invaluable for hearing about just how bad the Schuylkill was to get back to Jersey).
I will tell you why traffic reports leave out a whole lot. Its time! They are given only 30 seconds to report the roads which does not give you much time. Even on the 6 o clock news, the reason why the sports is sometimes hurried is because they ran over on the news stories. If they need more time to cover a story, then it comes out of the sports! In radio x amount of time is allotted for traffic and even so, someone must sponsor the report unless your Z88 in Orlando where they are one of the few that does not get sponsors all because the fact they're listener supported.
I use Google Maps for traffic these days. It is way more accurate than its not and now a days it'll recommend a route based on mileage and traffic. I've stopped listening to the radio for traffic altogether.
KYW is as good as they get, I think. The turnpike is usually disambiguated pretty well by context for locals, but people coming from, say, north NJ or the NYC area only really care about one turnpike, so it's an issue for them. They are also pretty good on NJ in the immediate Philly suburbs (295 from the Delaware state line to exit 36 or so, NJ Turnpike south of Exit 8 and larger local roads west of that area) and during the summer, shore traffic (mostly just the Atlantic City Expressway, 55, 42, and the Garden State Parkway south of exit 38). What's missing is South Jersey east of the Turnpike, and there's really no good coverage there by any radio station.
NYC traffic reports are not as good I think, in that they cater even more to locals, not mentioning delays due to ongoing construction, and not identifying any NYC area interstates by number.
On the NYC reports, if a back-up on a given road is a daily occurrence it is not mentioned. They only report the out of ordinary. This does not help out-of-town travelers.
Here in Florida we have people like Deano O Neil on Positive Hits Z88 who does his reports catered to locals. He refers to FL 528 as its name which is hardly even signed. Most visitors (we have a lot due to Sea World, Universal, and Disney) do not know it by "The Beachline" and know it by what its signed as "TOLL FL 528."
Not to mention his station is supposed to be Christian music station with Christian based commentary and those with strong morals as listeners. They pride themselves to be one in setting an example of the truth, and yet the truth is that many tourists listen to their station as much as locals.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 18, 2015, 10:10:03 AM
KYW is as good as they get, I think. The turnpike is usually disambiguated pretty well by context for locals, but people coming from, say, north NJ or the NYC area only really care about one turnpike, so it's an issue for them. They are also pretty good on NJ in the immediate Philly suburbs (295 from the Delaware state line to exit 36 or so, NJ Turnpike south of Exit 8 and larger local roads west of that area) and during the summer, shore traffic (mostly just the Atlantic City Expressway, 55, 42, and the Garden State Parkway south of exit 38). What's missing is South Jersey east of the Turnpike, and there's really no good coverage there by any radio station.
NYC traffic reports are not as good I think, in that they cater even more to locals, not mentioning delays due to ongoing construction, and not identifying any NYC area interstates by number.
No one identifies interstates in the City by number. Especially because a number will be on multiple expressways, or the number changes.
Quote from: storm2k on June 18, 2015, 11:45:01 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 18, 2015, 10:10:03 AM
KYW is as good as they get, I think. The turnpike is usually disambiguated pretty well by context for locals, but people coming from, say, north NJ or the NYC area only really care about one turnpike, so it's an issue for them. They are also pretty good on NJ in the immediate Philly suburbs (295 from the Delaware state line to exit 36 or so, NJ Turnpike south of Exit 8 and larger local roads west of that area) and during the summer, shore traffic (mostly just the Atlantic City Expressway, 55, 42, and the Garden State Parkway south of exit 38). What's missing is South Jersey east of the Turnpike, and there's really no good coverage there by any radio station.
NYC traffic reports are not as good I think, in that they cater even more to locals, not mentioning delays due to ongoing construction, and not identifying any NYC area interstates by number.
No one identifies interstates in the City by number. Especially because a number will be on multiple expressways, or the number changes.
No one who lives there. Someone who is planning a trip to or through the area will look at maps and note the numbers, especially interstate ones even if the names are there too. I-95 is the biggest problem since many people take it long distance through NYC (though I prefer GS Parkway to Thruway/287 to bypass the city unless my destination is in it).
Well...........I just spent a few days in Bucks County, Pa. and as I drove thru the I-95 overpasses on the Pennsy Pike I was amazed to see that finally, at long last construction of the interchange has begun! (No sign of it a year ago)
There are new piers in place for at least one ramp and construction machines are working along the right-of-way east and west. Never thought it would actually start, but it's happening.
In addition, the new toll plaza behind the Parx Casino (where the old rest-stops were) is finally taking shape. The overhead structure that will support the E-Z Pass antennas over the express lanes is in place.
It's about friggin' time!
Quote from: SignBridge on August 01, 2015, 07:44:00 PM
Well...........I just spent a few days in Bucks County, Pa. and as I drove thru the I-95 overpasses on the Pennsy Pike I was amazed to see that finally, at long last construction of the interchange has begun! (No sign of it a year ago)
There are new piers in place for at least one ramp and construction machines are working along the right-of-way east and west. Never thought it would actually start, but it's happening.
In addition, the new toll plaza behind the Parx Casino (where the old rest-stops were) is finally taking shape. The overhead structure that will support the E-Z Pass antennas over the express lanes is in place.
It's about friggin' time!
This is delightful news. I just hope it really doesn't take another 7 years to build an interchange that is kind of needed at this point.
Yeah, kind of needed. I've been waiting almost 40 years for this, since I first drove thru there as a young guy and was in disbelief that I couldn't go from the Turnpike onto I-95. Unheard of on the New York Thruway!
It probably will take another 7 years knowing the PTC. And again I feel compelled to point out the entire original New Jersey Turnpike was built in 2 friggin years! Yes, it was a lot simpler in 1951, but that's what used to get done with leftover World War II style determination and a will to get the job done. We could use some of that today!
Way back when I got into this stuff, I always wondered why there was a gap there. When I learned why, I thought those who got into the way were a buncha peabrains; I may or may not still think that. I've been waiting for this ever since then; boy, will it be nice to be able drive on I-95 straight from NYC to Baltimore without having to get through that mess. :clap: Good for them.
It'll still be faster to go from NYC-to-Baltimore using the NJ Turnpike or I-295 to the Del. Mem. Bridge. I-95 thru Philadelphia can be a tough ride.......
Quote from: SignBridge on August 01, 2015, 08:23:21 PM
It'll still be faster to go from NYC-to-Baltimore using the NJ Turnpike or I-295 to the Del. Mem. Bridge. I-95 thru Philadelphia can be a tough ride.......
Regardless of whether it's faster or not, it'll be nice for I-95 to finally be a straight shot from NYC through the Mid-Atlantic.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 01, 2015, 08:18:13 PM
Way back when I got into this stuff, I always wondered why there was a gap there. When I learned why, I thought those who got into the way were a buncha peabrains; I may or may not still think that.
They weren't just peabrains, they were rich and entitled peabrains at that. The only thing that really hurt the original Somerset Freeway was the opposition of the Turnpike Authority along with the Hopewell/Princeton NIMBYs who had enough power to lobby and shelf it for good. Then everyone realized what it's like not having any freeway through some fairly large towns on the US 206 corridor...
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 01, 2015, 08:39:06 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 01, 2015, 08:23:21 PM
It'll still be faster to go from NYC-to-Baltimore using the NJ Turnpike or I-295 to the Del. Mem. Bridge. I-95 thru Philadelphia can be a tough ride.......
Regardless of whether it's faster or not, it'll be nice for I-95 to finally be a straight shot from NYC through the Mid-Atlantic.
Not to mention a direct freeway route from Philly to NYC
The only thing that bothers me is the renumbering of I-295 and I-95 in NJ, as a result of the interchange. What did they decide, to just extend 295 into PA or something? If this is the case, then the cardinal directions will be messed up. Unless they change it from north/south to east/west. It is very hard to picture these changes. Overall, I am glad they are finally getting cracking here.
As discussed on Page 5, it will become I-295. Like every other 3di loop or beltway around a city, the cardinal directions will change as needed.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 01, 2015, 08:05:28 PM
Yeah, kind of needed. I've been waiting almost 40 years for this, since I first drove thru there as a young guy and was in disbelief that I couldn't go from the Turnpike onto I-95. Unheard of on the New York Thruway!
It probably will take another 7 years knowing the PTC. And again I feel compelled to point out the entire original New Jersey Turnpike was built in 2 friggin years! Yes, it was a lot simpler in 1951, but that's what used to get done with leftover World War II style determination and a will to get the job done. We could use some of that today!
If this forum had karma points you'd get all of mine.
Are there any other major interchange projects currently occuring on the 95 mainline? Seems like 95 will always be under construction somewhere. :ded:
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 02, 2015, 04:50:34 PM
Are there any other major interchange projects currently occuring on the 95 mainline? Seems like 95 will always be under construction somewhere. :ded:
The one at PA 73 is getting completely rebuilt in conjunction with the freeway widening project, the Betsy Ross Bridge Interchange is getting added to with the connection to Adams Av., and the Girard/Delaware/Aramingo Av interchange too in conjunction with the widening project.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 02, 2015, 04:50:34 PM
Are there any other major interchange projects currently occuring on the 95 mainline? Seems like 95 will always be under construction somewhere. :ded:
Considering the highway is nearly 2,000 miles long, there will always be construction projects going on. Every state will probably have at least one project going on somewhere along the highway. At the very least you're always going to have maintenance stuff - bridge repair, repaving, etc.
A work zone has been set up on I-95 within the project limits, from south of Exit 40 to north of the Turnpike overpass.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2015, 08:11:15 AM
As discussed on Page 5, it will become I-295. Like every other 3di loop or beltway around a city, the cardinal directions will change as needed.
So I-295 will be signed east-west on the extension over old I-95?
In any case, I'm glad to see that construction on the badly-needed interchange has finally started!
Quote from: Henry on October 07, 2015, 12:39:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2015, 08:11:15 AM
As discussed on Page 5, it will become I-295. Like every other 3di loop or beltway around a city, the cardinal directions will change as needed.
So I-295 will be signed east-west on the extension over old I-95?
In any case, I'm glad to see that construction on the badly-needed interchange has finally started!
That is unknown right now.
Quote from: Henry on October 07, 2015, 12:39:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2015, 08:11:15 AM
As discussed on Page 5, it will become I-295. Like every other 3di loop or beltway around a city, the cardinal directions will change as needed.
So I-295 will be signed east-west on the extension over old I-95?
Problem is - that I-295 has always been (correctly) signed N-S in New Jersey, which it mostly does. There is a new map on the project's Web site here (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/95completion-redesignation.aspx) that shows how I-295 will be signed.
Quote from: Henry on October 07, 2015, 12:39:10 PM
In any case, I'm glad to see that construction on the badly-needed interchange has finally started!
Yeah, but
only for traffic moving from the northbound Delaware Expressway (I-95) to the eastbound side of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (currently I-276) and from the westbound Turnpike to the southbound Delaware Expressway.
Other parts of the interchange may get built at some unspecified time in the future.
The project Web site has a FAQ page page (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/faq.aspx) that says:
QuoteThe PA Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project has been split into three stages. The majority of Stage 1 is either already complete, under construction, or in final design. Stage 1 construction will be complete in the Fall of 2018. Stage 2 is not currently funded, but final design is expected to begin on the Stage 2 contracts in late 2015/early 2016. Construction of these sections depends on project funding availability and traffic patterns and needs as a result of Stage 1 improvements. Stage 3 is also dependent on funding and will likely not begin construction until after 2025.
I thought old 95 would become an extension of 195 and 295 would be truncated to Exit 60. Or has there been a change in plans?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2015, 02:06:18 PM
The project Web site has a FAQ page page (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/faq.aspx) that says: [..]
that project site got a significant overhaul - last week, it was still an ugly mess that hadn't been significantly updated in years.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 07, 2015, 03:01:35 PM
I thought old 95 would become an extension of 195 and 295 would be truncated to Exit 60. Or has there been a change in plans?
They changed their minds, I-295 will now be a giant hook
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2015, 02:06:18 PMThere is a new map on the project's Web site here (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/95completion-redesignation.aspx) that shows how I-295 will be signed.
Ugh! IMHO, the PA portion of extended I-295
should be N-S and the current I-95 section in NJ (to US 1) that will be extended I-295 should be E-W. The exact
opposite of what the graphic shows.
Yes, such would mean that I-295's direction cardinals change twice (state line & at US 1) rather than once (state line only); but such has been done elsewhere (mostly on beltways). No biggie IMHO. Note: the mile markers/exit numbers would still only change/reset once at the state line.
Given, the number of changes that have taken place; I, personally, wouldn't be surprised if this is tweaked again some time later.
PHLBOS is right. I looked at that plan on their website and they do have it backwards. I-295 in Pa. should be north/south and in NJ from the Delaware River to U.S.1 should be east/west. What planet are these engineers on? The two states DOT's must be each operating in a vacuum instead of jointly coordinating the designations of the route.
LOL Maybe we in the United States should adopt the German Autobahn practice of not using cardinal directions, and just listing multiple city destinations on the signs for each route. Then we'd only have to argue about the destinations, and not the cardinal directions. (chuckle!)
Come to think of it, I believe that is what was originally envisioned for interstate highways signing back in the 1950's. And some signing of the late 1950's/early 1960's did reflect that practice.
another vote for changing signed direction at the state line and US 1, here.
Maybe what should be done (and I believe someone may have mentioned such a few pages back) is maybe use Loop designations (both INNER and OUTER) for NJ stretch of I-295 from the state line to either US 1 or even I-195 (Exit 60) similar to how VDOT handled I-64 in the Norfolk area once the route started tracking southwest (after mostly heading eastbound).
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 08, 2015, 10:17:09 AM
Maybe what should be done (and I believe someone may have mentioned such a few pages back) is maybe use Loop designations (both INNER and OUTER) for NJ stretch of I-295 from the state line to either US 1 or even I-195 (Exit 60) similar to how VDOT handled I-64 in the Norfolk area once the route started tracking southwest (after mostly heading eastbound).
That's exactly what I had in mind. I still think it would be better to make I-295 an east/west route on the extension to avoid the I-64 scenario.
US 1 should be the changing point, not the Delaware River. Plus I-295 in PA is not really E-W, but at least if US 1 is the orientation change point at least through Ewing and Lawrence it does run somewhat of an E-W nature to make PA's part work.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2015, 02:37:15 AM
US 1 should be the changing point, not the Delaware River. Plus I-295 in PA is not really E-W, but at least if US 1 is the orientation change point at least through Ewing and Lawrence it does run somewhat of an E-W nature to make PA's part work.
Exactly!
Why should PA be indulged in I-295? What's wrong with getting I-195 punched into there?
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 09, 2015, 04:09:09 PM
Why should PA be indulged in I-295? What's wrong with getting I-195 punched into there?
Such is too close to the current I-195 in NJ.
Until recently (& such was already discussed a few pages back), the plan was indeed to redesignate I-95/295 between the PA Turnpike and I-195/NJ 29 interchange as an eastern extension of I-195. That plan was nixed because such would've needlessly required NJ to reset the exit number/mile markers along the existing I-195 to reflect the extension; and the through-I-195 movements at the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange would've been a bottleneck for both directions (through-I-195 eastbound movement would've involved using a cloverleaf ramp).
Nonetheless, regardless of what number is chosen (195, 295, 695*); the PA stretch is
still is and
should be signed as a N-S route.
*I originally suggested that the I-95/295 leg should be designated as a separate I-695 from the PA Turnpike to either US 1 (Exit 67) or I-195/NJ 29 (Exit 60).
The funny thing about it is that there's an easy fix to this: truncate I-295 to Exit 60, truncate I-195 to Exit 6 and you have a continuous I-95 all the way from the Scudder Falls Bridge to the NJ Turnpike. If needed, truncate I-95 as well.
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 09, 2015, 04:56:35 PM
The funny thing about it is that there's an easy fix to this: truncate I-295 to Exit 60, truncate I-195 to Exit 6 and you have a continuous I-95 all the way from the Scudder Falls Bridge to the NJ Turnpike. If needed, truncate I-95 as well.
That's how such is currently (but sparcely) signed (with mostly trailblazers) sans the truncations.
The reasoning for not making the above permanent was due to the fact that I-195 & 295 weren't fully completed at the time the decision was made to reroute I-95 (circa 1982) and the current NJ Turnpike interchange with the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) was already an existing high-speed interchange. NJDOT/NJTA assumed that an interchange with I-95 (Delaware Expressway) and the PA Turnpike was already in the works.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2015, 02:37:15 AM
US 1 should be the changing point, not the Delaware River. Plus I-295 in PA is not really E-W, but at least if US 1 is the orientation change point at least through Ewing and Lawrence it does run somewhat of an E-W nature to make PA's part work.
287 is signed N-S throughout its whole route in NJ even though it's E-W more or less from the Turnpike to 78. No one seems to have an issue with his. Routes changing cardinal directions arbitrarily is not always a good idea or necessary. 295 is N-S for 60 miles in NJ. It should stay as such for the last 9 or 10 or so.
Quote from: storm2k on October 10, 2015, 05:19:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2015, 02:37:15 AM
US 1 should be the changing point, not the Delaware River. Plus I-295 in PA is not really E-W, but at least if US 1 is the orientation change point at least through Ewing and Lawrence it does run somewhat of an E-W nature to make PA's part work.
287 is signed N-S throughout its whole route in NJ even though it's E-W more or less from the Turnpike to 78. No one seems to have an issue with his. Routes changing cardinal directions arbitrarily is not always a good idea or necessary. 295 is N-S for 60 miles in NJ. It should stay as such for the last 9 or 10 or so.
287 has a N-S component throughout the state (with a single brief exception) and N-S is its average general direction. 295 in NJ, even with the proposed extension is like that as well. Future 295 in PA isn't even close to E-W, though
Quote from: storm2k on October 10, 2015, 05:19:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2015, 02:37:15 AM
US 1 should be the changing point, not the Delaware River. Plus I-295 in PA is not really E-W, but at least if US 1 is the orientation change point at least through Ewing and Lawrence it does run somewhat of an E-W nature to make PA's part work.
287 is signed N-S throughout its whole route in NJ even though it's E-W more or less from the Turnpike to 78. No one seems to have an issue with his. Routes changing cardinal directions arbitrarily is not always a good idea or necessary. 295 is N-S for 60 miles in NJ. It should stay as such for the last 9 or 10 or so.
I'd agree if the route ended "at the last 9 or 10" miles, but it doesn't. It loops around and heads the other direction.
Compare it to a full beltway around a city...you're going to have to change cardinal directions at some point; otherwise the direction will be wrong for half the loop.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 07, 2015, 09:34:55 PM
PHLBOS is right. I looked at that plan on their website and they do have it backwards. I-295 in Pa. should be north/south and in NJ from the Delaware River to U.S.1 should be east/west. What planet are these engineers on? The two states DOT's must be each operating in a vacuum instead of jointly coordinating the designations of the route.
LOL Maybe we in the United States should adopt the German Autobahn practice of not using cardinal directions, and just listing multiple city destinations on the signs for each route. Then we'd only have to argue about the destinations, and not the cardinal directions. (chuckle!)
Come to think of it, I believe that is what was originally envisioned for interstate highways signing back in the 1950's. And some signing of the late 1950's/early 1960's did reflect that practice.
And with all the disagreements we have here about control city use, I'm glad that cardinal directions are generally used.
Re: cardinal directions
For traffic heading south on US 1, it is quite reasonable for traffic to continue heading south via 95 or via 295. The directions as they are currently signed are logically correct. Confusion is avoided by virtue of it being a different route number each way.
It seems to me that therefore this should remain the case - treat the US 1 interchange as an inversion point that traffic heads north towards and south away from.
Problem is, if it's the same number both ways, drivers will be faced with a choice between 295 south and 295 south, but the two are different.
This leaves us with two workable solutions:
- do what PennDOT is proposing and sign I-295 as east-west in PA, but extend this to the US 1 interchange rather than switching at the state line.
- keep the existing directions and use a new number (695?) for the portion of 95 that needs renumbering.
Both are kludgy but there isn't a non-kludgy solution without building at least part of the Somerset Freeway soooo.... kludge it is.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 11, 2015, 09:29:20 AM
Re: cardinal directions
For traffic heading south on US 1, it is quite reasonable for traffic to continue heading south via 95 or via 295. The directions as they are currently signed are logically correct. Confusion is avoided by virtue of it being a different route number each way.
It seems to me that therefore this should remain the case - treat the US 1 interchange as an inversion point that traffic heads north towards and south away from.
Problem is, if it's the same number both ways, drivers will be faced with a choice between 295 south and 295 south, but the two are different.
This leaves us with two workable solutions:
- do what PennDOT is proposing and sign I-295 as east-west in PA, but extend this to the US 1 interchange rather than switching at the state line.
- keep the existing directions and use a new number (695?) for the portion of 95 that needs renumbering.
Both are kludgy but there isn't a non-kludgy solution without building at least part of the Somerset Freeway soooo.... kludge it is.
Prior to cancellation of the Somerset Freeway, I-295 was north-south past US 1 to the meeting point east of NJ 31. (There was even going to be an NJ 31 freeway shoehorned between those two interchanges, but I digress.) So it wouldn't be unprecedented to just continue the signage as N-S to the state line. NJ has never dealt with a midroute change before
OH WAIT NJ 36
So maybe there is actually precedent to change to E/W at US 1. I would support it.
I think I mentioned before, even a x76 number world work, since 276 is the route connecting at the new 95/PA Tpk interchange. That would make it fairly clear the portion of highway between 1 & the new interchange a bypass route not really associated with 95.
It's always been overlooked, but I-876 is freely open, and would connect 276/95 with 1/295.
J&N, the last thing we need is to further confuse drivers by adding another route number to an already confusing mix of routes. I think most of us are in agreement that is it best to use I-295. The only problem is for Pa. and NJ to coordinate the cardinal directions intelligently. Hopefully, there will be a meeting of the minds.
Keeping I-295 N-S as it is now in New Jersey, and signing it as E-W in Pennsylvania, works pretty well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2015, 09:12:30 PM
I think I mentioned before, even a x76 number world work, since 276 is the route connecting at the new 95/PA Tpk interchange. That would make it fairly clear the portion of highway between 1 & the new interchange a bypass route not really associated with 95.
It's always been overlooked, but I-876 is freely open, and would connect 276/95 with 1/295.
Why not 276 then? Except that it *is* associated with 95 in that it *was* 95 for a long time. Doesn't that count for anything?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2015, 10:10:47 PM
Keeping I-295 N-S as it is now in New Jersey, and signing it as E-W in Pennsylvania, works pretty well.
Agreed. I feel like this is being overthought at this point.
Quote from: storm2k on October 12, 2015, 01:16:12 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2015, 10:10:47 PM
Keeping I-295 N-S as it is now in New Jersey, and signing it as E-W in Pennsylvania, works pretty well.
Agreed. I feel like this is being overthought at this point.
i can hear the confusion now... "Continue northwest for I-295 East..."
it should be signed like it is in Washington and Baltimore - change cardinal directions at the most logical points (in this case, the river and US 1).
Quote from: odditude on October 12, 2015, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: storm2k on October 12, 2015, 01:16:12 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2015, 10:10:47 PM
Keeping I-295 N-S as it is now in New Jersey, and signing it as E-W in Pennsylvania, works pretty well.
Agreed. I feel like this is being overthought at this point.
i can hear the confusion now... "Continue northwest for I-295 East..."
it should be signed like it is in Washington and Baltimore - change cardinal directions at the most logical points (in this case, the river and US 1).
295 North in Delaware from 95 to the Delaware Memorial Bridge runs in a southeastern direction, and likewise 295 South mainly runs in a northwestern direction. Not once has anyone mentioned this "issue", and this has been a much more heavily travelled corridor than PA's new 295 will ever be.
295 North in Delaware is signed for consistency with NJ. Future 295 in PA will have different cardinal directions than NJ regardless of what they are. Therefore, making it E-W only in PA when it actually runs N-S makes no sense. Also, the existence of 295 in Delaware is often overlooked. Yes, it is signed, but always together with a turnpike shield. It also has no exit numbers. Many people going through there (especially when heading for the Turnpike) don't realize they've ever been on 295 until presented with a choice at the 295/Turnpike split.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 12, 2015, 10:54:48 AM
295 North in Delaware is signed for consistency with NJ. Future 295 in PA will have different cardinal directions than NJ regardless of what they are. Therefore, making it E-W only in PA when it actually runs N-S makes no sense. Also, the existence of 295 in Delaware is often overlooked. Yes, it is signed, but always together with a turnpike shield. It also has no exit numbers. Many people going through there (especially when heading for the Turnpike) don't realize they've ever been on 295 until presented with a choice at the 295/Turnpike split.
While all very true, the point being made is that it doesn't run in the same direction it is signed.
Even 295 in NJ is slightly more E-W than it is N-S, between the Del Mem Bridge about about Exit 57 (Rt 130). And it's a more consistent E-W, as it reverses direction a few times going N-S (and is hell when it does because it causes numerous sun glare issues).
The I-295 thing across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, is almost like US 90 Business on the Crescent City Connection in NOLA. There if you are on US 90 Business E Bound, you could actually see the sunset in the evening or if you are heading W Bound crossing the Mississippi see the sunrise as well.
I-95 itself does a reverse direction in Fort Lee, NJ just before merging with US 1, 9, and 46 where I-95 is in the median of NJ 4. You are heading true south when heading north on I-95 and true north when heading south on I-95.
That is the issue you sometimes face with many freeways.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2015, 11:16:55 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 12, 2015, 10:54:48 AM
295 North in Delaware is signed for consistency with NJ. Future 295 in PA will have different cardinal directions than NJ regardless of what they are. Therefore, making it E-W only in PA when it actually runs N-S makes no sense. Also, the existence of 295 in Delaware is often overlooked. Yes, it is signed, but always together with a turnpike shield. It also has no exit numbers. Many people going through there (especially when heading for the Turnpike) don't realize they've ever been on 295 until presented with a choice at the 295/Turnpike split.
While all very true, the point being made is that it doesn't run in the same direction it is signed.
Even 295 in NJ is slightly more E-W than it is N-S, between the Del Mem Bridge about about Exit 57 (Rt 130). And it's a more consistent E-W, as it reverses direction a few times going N-S (and is hell when it does because it causes numerous sun glare issues).
My point is that when the posted direction *doesn't* change with the cardinal direction it is ok for them to be different in spots when the overall direction makes sense. What's *not* ok is when the posted direction *does* change and *never* matches the actual direction of the road.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
The I-295 thing across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, is almost like US 90 Business on the Crescent City Connection in NOLA. There if you are on US 90 Business E Bound, you could actually see the sunset in the evening or if you are heading W Bound crossing the Mississippi see the sunrise as well.
I-95 itself does a reverse direction in Fort Lee, NJ just before merging with US 1, 9, and 46 where I-95 is in the median of NJ 4. You are heading true south when heading north on I-95 and true north when heading south on I-95.
That is the issue you sometimes face with many freeways.
Two-digit US routs and Interstates aren't supposed to ever change direction (yes, I know there are exceptions). The portion of I-95 in NJ approaching the GWB is quite short. There is a whole state (CT) where I-95 is more of an E-W route than N-S, but that's ok because on the national scale I-95 is in fact N-S (or really, NE-SW, but since that's not allowed...)
Northbound I-25 runs southeast for about 55 miles in New Mexico, and nobody has their panties in a wad over it. so what's the big deal if northbound I-295 is going to run southwest for a brief time in New Jersey?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2015, 01:26:13 PM
Northbound I-25 runs southeast for about 55 miles in New Mexico, and nobody has their panties in a wad over it. so what's the big deal if northbound I-295 is going to run southwest for a brief time in New Jersey?
being in the Princeton area and seeing signs for "I-295 North - Philadelphia" would be completely absurd.
Yes it would! LOL! That's why it should be east/west between the River and Route-1. Or (chuckle!) maybe like I said in jest earlier, we should go to the German practice of just showing multiple destination cities without cardinal directions.
So for example, 295 (west) from Route-1 could be signed something like "Yardley, Pa./Langhorne, Pa./Philadelphia.
I-95 was indeed signed along the CT Turnpike as E-W, Eastbound New Haven & Westbound New York between the NYS Line and New Haven, and then New Haven And West, and alternatively Providence And East, and Rhode Island And East from New Haven and the RI State Line. Some ramps even signed it with shields as EAST I-95 and WEST I-95, but most ramps did not have shields but the original blue entry guides. I think the reassurence shields and the signs at the I-91 interchange did denote I-95 as N-S back in the original CT Tpk signing days.
Look at I-94 in IL and WI between Chicago and Milwaukee. You travel North on Westbound I-94 to get to Milwaukee and travel South on Eastbound I-94 to get to Chicago for almost 80 miles. They look at it as I-94 going between rural Montana to Port Huron, MI and not the regional heading between Chicago and Milwaukee which is a fraction of the whole routing. Why does Michigan change I-69 from N-S to E-W between Lansing and Port Huron for a shorter change in direction then that of I-94's N-S change in IL and WI, is a bigger mystery.
Same in Florida with US 98 signed E-W in Martin and Palm Beach Counties when for well over 200 miles it is signed N-S in the Florida Peninsula, when in those two counties its near 90 miles. You think that FDOT could have just kept US 98 signed N-S for that little stretch. Also to add confusion is between Okeechobee and Sebring, US 98 does run more E-W than N-S, but is signed N-S for almost 55 miles between those two cities. Then south of Okeechobee part of the E-W signing in Martin and Palm Beach Counties it runs N-S along the Eastern Shore of Lake Okeechobee concurrent with N-S signed US 441 and is signed E-W.
Then you have US 92 that runs N-S for close to 100 miles cosigned with US 17 from Lake Alfred to DeLand, but US 92 is signed E-W and if you pinpoint US 92's endpoints on a map and draw a straight line between them it is more SW to NE than E to W.
Then Texas is doing dumb with signing US 281 and US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as E-W when a lot more of those two routes runs actual N-S outside the valley. In fact both US 83 and US 281 are Texas' longest N-S US routes, so those short stretches as E-W is not even worth it to confuse people with different headers.
Quote from: odditude on October 12, 2015, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2015, 01:26:13 PM
Northbound I-25 runs southeast for about 55 miles in New Mexico, and nobody has their panties in a wad over it. so what's the big deal if northbound I-295 is going to run southwest for a brief time in New Jersey?
being in the Princeton area and seeing signs for "I-295 North - Philadelphia" would be completely absurd.
This is the best argument. Directions should reasonably approximate reality for this reason.
Could also consider dropping the directionality at 195 for more of an inner/outer description. Then it would represent a uniform description around the city.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 07:37:53 PM
I-95 was indeed signed along the CT Turnpike as E-W, Eastbound New Haven & Westbound New York between the NYS Line and New Haven, and then New Haven And West, and alternatively Providence And East, and Rhode Island And East from New Haven and the RI State Line. Some ramps even signed it with shields as EAST I-95 and WEST I-95, but most ramps did not have shields but the original blue entry guides. I think the reassurence shields and the signs at the I-91 interchange did denote I-95 as N-S back in the original CT Tpk signing days.
Look at I-94 in IL and WI between Chicago and Milwaukee. You travel North on Westbound I-94 to get to Milwaukee and travel South on Eastbound I-94 to get to Chicago for almost 80 miles. They look at it as I-94 going between rural Montana to Port Huron, MI and not the regional heading between Chicago and Milwaukee which is a fraction of the whole routing. Why does Michigan change I-69 from N-S to E-W between Lansing and Port Huron for a shorter change in direction then that of I-94's N-S change in IL and WI, is a bigger mystery.
Same in Florida with US 98 signed E-W in Martin and Palm Beach Counties when for well over 200 miles it is signed N-S in the Florida Peninsula, when in those two counties its near 90 miles. You think that FDOT could have just kept US 98 signed N-S for that little stretch. Also to add confusion is between Okeechobee and Sebring, US 98 does run more E-W than N-S, but is signed N-S for almost 55 miles between those two cities. Then south of Okeechobee part of the E-W signing in Martin and Palm Beach Counties it runs N-S along the Eastern Shore of Lake Okeechobee concurrent with N-S signed US 441 and is signed E-W.
Then you have US 92 that runs N-S for close to 100 miles cosigned with US 17 from Lake Alfred to DeLand, but US 92 is signed E-W and if you pinpoint US 92's endpoints on a map and draw a straight line between them it is more SW to NE than E to W.
Then Texas is doing dumb with signing US 281 and US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as E-W when a lot more of those two routes runs actual N-S outside the valley. In fact both US 83 and US 281 are Texas' longest N-S US routes, so those short stretches as E-W is not even worth it to confuse people with different headers.
I-4 from downtown Orlando to the St Johns River is north south in reality but signed as east west.. Similar to US 92
Bottom line is you cannot have every road running perfect N-S-E-W. Some will be very imperfect, especially in the mountains.
In this case with I-95 it does create and awkward scenario. Maybe they should just do like VDOT did with I-64, and leave it without direction? Use the control points as direction finder as for New Jersey its not new there, as the ACE is signed like that.
Pull off a QEW. Boom, solved. :)
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2015, 12:12:31 AM
Bottom line is you cannot have every road running perfect N-S-E-W. Some will be very imperfect, especially in the mountains.
In this case with I-95 it does create and awkward scenario. Maybe they should just do like VDOT did with I-64, and leave it without direction? Use the control points as direction finder as for New Jersey its not new there, as the ACE is signed like that.
And it took me a long time to get used to ACE signage. Even now, the only reason I don't get lost is that I know the route well enough. I might still get lost if I find myself using an entrance I've never used before. My mind is just trained to look for cardinal directions and not control cities.
How about PennDOT with US 62? Talk about awkward. It is signed N-S to be consistent with NY, but it really does not run N-S in most of its alignment. Yes in NY it does and actually the last few miles of US 62 has NB running WB which is opposite of its E Bound nature as NB is a continuation of that.
It should be changed midway through the state, but is not!
US 101 to me would confuse the hell out of me where NB becomes EB, and then becomes SB at an unsigned point. It should have really terminated at Port Angeles as their is a ferry there to Victoria, BS. The rest of the road to Olympia should have been a Washington State Route.
Do most people traveling to Olympia actually stay on US 101 all the way or do they leave the route and cut across the peninsula on other WA designations?
The ACE is now signed east-west on newer sign installations. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears on new GSP exit signs.
Way back in the 1950's and even into the 1960's, most highways in the NYC area did not have cardinal directions. It wasn't as big a problem as you might think. For instance the Long Island Expwy. was signed to "New York" or "Midtown Tun" and to "Eastern Long Island" or "Riverhead". The New England Thruway (I-95) in Westchester was signed to "New York City" and "Connecticut" as was the parallel Hutchinson River Pkwy.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 13, 2015, 08:32:11 PM
Way back in the 1950's and even into the 1960's, most highways in the NYC area did not have cardinal directions.
Similar, for the most part, was true in Massachusetts.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 13, 2015, 03:36:37 PM
The ACE is now signed east-west on newer sign installations. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears on new GSP exit signs.
As it should be. Now it should open the door for an extension of I-76 from Philly! :sombrero:
Quote from: Henry on October 14, 2015, 12:31:05 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 13, 2015, 03:36:37 PM
The ACE is now signed east-west on newer sign installations. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears on new GSP exit signs.
As it should be. Now it should open the door for an extension of I-76 from Philly! :sombrero:
And that sound you hear are groans from our friends from Jersey on this forum lol
Quote from: SignBridge on October 13, 2015, 08:32:11 PM
Way back in the 1950's and even into the 1960's, most highways in the NYC area did not have cardinal directions. It wasn't as big a problem as you might think. For instance the Long Island Expwy. was signed to "New York" or "Midtown Tun" and to "Eastern Long Island" or "Riverhead". The New England Thruway (I-95) in Westchester was signed to "New York City" and "Connecticut" as was the parallel Hutchinson River Pkwy.
Yes I remember in Rockland County too where most reassurence signs did not have cardinal directions and some other area signs did not have them for shields. Junctions always used the single shield with the arrow of transit I remember seeing as well.
However, some states still use single shields with arrows showing its routing, but still do use cardinal directions on reassurence though.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 14, 2015, 02:16:54 PM
Quote from: Henry on October 14, 2015, 12:31:05 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 13, 2015, 03:36:37 PM
The ACE is now signed east-west on newer sign installations. I wouldn't be surprised if it appears on new GSP exit signs.
As it should be. Now it should open the door for an extension of I-76 from Philly! :sombrero:
And that sound you hear are groans from our friends from Jersey on this forum lol
And the sound of eyes rolling. LOL
On topic, why can't work crews doing the 295/76/42 interchange help out with this interchange when work is done with that interchange? IMO, it'd probably be done in a shorter amount of time if the two work crews and contractors and everything work together here.
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 14, 2015, 03:18:55 PM
On topic, why can't work crews doing the 295/76/42 interchange help out with this interchange when work is done with that interchange? IMO, it'd probably be done in a shorter amount of time if the two work crews and contractors and everything work together here.
How are the two even remotely related? They're far apart, in different states, don't involve any of the same highways, overseen by different agencies, etc
Quote from: bzakharin on October 14, 2015, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 14, 2015, 03:18:55 PM
On topic, why can't work crews doing the 295/76/42 interchange help out with this interchange when work is done with that interchange? IMO, it'd probably be done in a shorter amount of time if the two work crews and contractors and everything work together here.
How are the two even remotely related? They're far apart, in different states, don't involve any of the same highways, overseen by different agencies, etc
Age: 11
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 14, 2015, 03:18:55 PM
On topic, why can't work crews doing the 295/76/42 interchange help out with this interchange when work is done with that interchange? IMO, it'd probably be done in a shorter amount of time if the two work crews and contractors and everything work together here.
They are 2 separate, independent projects that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Each state (or authority, in regards to the PA Turnpike) bids out the work and accepts the lowest bid, or lowest bid that meets all the specifications of the contract terms (it's amazing how many bidders try to change bid terms for various items).
Generally it's hard enough at one construction site to make sure the timing goes well, much less two construction sites.
In reality, the 95/PA Turnpike project was supposed to be done in conjunction with the NJ Turnpike widening project, which would make your question more sensible...as those two projects go hand-in-hand. And as we all saw, the NJ Turnpike widening project was nearly completed before the PA Turnpike ever put a shovel in the ground.
We also need to remind ourselves that the PTC is not eager to see this interchange built, because they fear it will eventually cost them toll revenue in some way. That's why they've been dragging their feet all these years. That's also why no interchange was built when I-95 was originally constructed.
Contrast this with the New Jersey Turnpike which built interchanges with I believe every Interstate that it intersects. And does all of their construction projects with an almost military style speed and efficiency.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 14, 2015, 07:24:57 PM
We also need to remind ourselves that the PTC is not eager to see this interchange built, because they fear it will eventually cost them toll revenue in some way. That's why they've been dragging their feet all these years. That's also why no interchange was built when I-95 was originally constructed.
Actually, direct Interstate connections were not constructed because federal money wouldn't pay for interchanges with toll roads, so PTC would have had to pay for it.
Cl94, those same rules must have applied to the New York Thruway Authority and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority but they built the interchanges anyway, and apparently at their expense, so what is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's excuse? Besides that they might fear loss of toll revenue as drivers migrate to the free Interstates.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 14, 2015, 12:26:26 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 13, 2015, 08:32:11 PM
Way back in the 1950's and even into the 1960's, most highways in the NYC area did not have cardinal directions.
Similar, for the most part, was true in Massachusetts.
Like Europe.
I am still amazed that the entire New Jersey TP and PA Turnpike were built within a couple years. Granted less environmental regs, post WW2 enthusiasm etc
Quote from: SignBridge on October 14, 2015, 08:05:35 PM
Cl94, those same rules must have applied to the New York Thruway Authority and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority but they built the interchanges anyway, and apparently at their expense, so what is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's problem? Besides that they might fear loss of toll revenue as drivers migrate to the free Interstates.
NYSTA often took quite a while at locations that weren't a terminus. A direct connection to I-84 is about 10 years old. That was a Breezewood and it could be a mess.
Here's a list of the connections to Interstates on the ticket (or former ticket) system:
Exit 15 (I-287): Rebuilt during construction of I-287. Was trumpet interchange to NY/NJ 17 that immediately became a Jersey freeway.
Exit 16 (Future I-86): No changes other than rebuild of toll plaza in center of interchange and realignment of EB-SB ramp that was completed pretty early on
Exit 17 (I-84): Stated above. Was a Breezewood.
Exit 19 (I-587): Never had a direct connection other than the traffic circle/roundabout
Exit 23 (I-787): Tied into existing US 9W interchange, constructed with freeway connection in mind
Exit 24 (I-87/I-90): Tied into existing Washington Avenue interchange, constructed with freeway connection planned
Exit 25 (I-890): Tied into existing NY 146 interchange (which was a later addition) with freeway in mind
Exit 25A (I-88): Built for I-88 in 1980s
Exit 26 (I-890): Built for NY 5S
Exit 34A (I-481): Built for I-481, one-time northern terminus
Exit 36 (I-81): Original interchange in same location built for US 11, replaced with mirrored interchange for I-81 when I-81 Exit 25 was built in location of original interchange
Exit 39 (I-690): Original interchange was 3/4 mile east of current location for State Fair Blvd. Signalized intersection at ramp terminus. Replaced in 1987 with current interchange.
Exit 45 (I-490): Purpose-built. Original interchange was a 3/4 cloverleaf at NY 96. If anyone has any history behind this interchange or how/if they collected tolls, please post it somewhere.
Exit 46 (I-390): Built for US 15
Exit 47 (I-490): Built for NY 19
Exit 50 (I-290): Original construction, led to NY 5
Exit 53 (I-190): Original construction, part of Thruway system
As you can see, most were tied into existing interchanges or built quite a bit later. In a couple cases, toll booths had to be moved, but that's minor compared to constructing a new interchange. It's not like NYSTA had to build everything. It's also worth noting that the I-287 and I-195 interchanges along the Turnpike weren't particularly close to any interchange per Historic Aerials. Granted, you could say the same about I-95, but it's a 10 minute drive along surface streets over 4 miles. You have a similar off-Interstate excursion getting between I-475 and the Ohio Turnpike.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 14, 2015, 07:24:57 PM
We also need to remind ourselves that the PTC is not eager to see this interchange built, because they fear it will eventually cost them toll revenue in some way. That's why they've been dragging their feet all these years. That's also why no interchange was built when I-95 was originally constructed.
Contrast this with the New Jersey Turnpike which built interchanges with I believe every Interstate that it intersects. And does all of their construction projects with an almost military style speed and efficiency.
How would they lose toll revenue on the I-95 interchange? It's not like it opens up a route parallel to the Turnpike. Might even gain a little money on their part of the Turnpike bridge revenue.
As for the NJ Turnpike, again, none of the interstates take money away from it in any way except 295, with which, incidentally, there are no direct interchanges anywhere other than at the southern terminus (where 295 isn't even signed), even from the PA Extension where it crosses 295 (although I was told that the lack of interchange there is due to other interchanges in very close proximity)
Quote from: bzakharin on October 15, 2015, 10:29:01 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 14, 2015, 07:24:57 PM
We also need to remind ourselves that the PTC is not eager to see this interchange built, because they fear it will eventually cost them toll revenue in some way. That's why they've been dragging their feet all these years. That's also why no interchange was built when I-95 was originally constructed.
Contrast this with the New Jersey Turnpike which built interchanges with I believe every Interstate that it intersects. And does all of their construction projects with an almost military style speed and efficiency.
How would they lose toll revenue on the I-95 interchange? It's not like it opens up a route parallel to the Turnpike. Might even gain a little money on their part of the Turnpike bridge revenue.
Thank you!
I often wondered "How?" when people said this interchange would take money away from the PA Turnpike if it was built.
If people are on 95 North wanting to continue to North Jersey/New York, etc, yes, they won't have to pay a toll, but it's all but guaranteed people on 95 North looking for the NJ Turnpike North aren't jumping on the PA Turnpike now anyway. For those on 95 South coming from NYC, they will be crossing the bridge, paying the $5 ORT fare, and then taking the 95 South Interchange. For the most part now, people using 95 South are just continuing on the NJ Turnpike into Delaware.
If anything, it's the NJ Turnpike that'll lose money, although the NJ/PA Turnpike bridge surcharge covers a good portion of the money that would've been paid by continuing south on the NJ Turnpike anyway.
And finally, as for those that state the PA Turnpike would have to pay for this interchange: They are spending hundreds of millions a year on other construction projects already. What's the big deal about spending money for this project as well?
Quote from: cl94 on October 14, 2015, 08:57:27 PM
Exit 45 (I-490): Purpose-built. Original interchange was a 3/4 cloverleaf at NY 96. If anyone has any history behind this interchange or how/if they collected tolls, please post it somewhere.
Pretty sure that cloverleaf predates the decision to toll the Thruway.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 14, 2015, 08:05:35 PM
Cl94, those same rules must have applied to the New York Thruway Authority and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority but they built the interchanges anyway, and apparently at their expense, so what is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's excuse?
I think their excuse would still be that they didn't want to take on the expense. Just because other agencies might have decided to pay for it themselves, doesn't mean the PTC felt they should.
I wonder if/how quickly any of the interchanges might get built if the feds swooped in and paid 100% of the costs (It would certainly be interesting to see how that would play in Breezewood)
Some interesting points of reason have been raised here. Maybe I should have thought out my argument more thoroughly. Okay..... I can agree that the PTC would maybe gain as least as much toll revenue as they would lose with the I-95 interchange. BUT, that leaves the only possible reason for not building it was that they just stubbornly wouldn't spend the money. Well, shame on them.
Because it bugged the heck out of me the first time I ever drove from NYC to Philly planning to take the NJT to the Pennsy Pike and then south on I-95 into downtown Phila. and found it couldn't be done. Ended up taking Route-1 south into Center City instead. What a rude awakening that was. Who would have thought, two Interstates cross each other and there's no interchange.
I wouldn't compare this location to Breezewood or Bedford or Newburgh NY either, since it's easy enough to get off the Turnpike and then onto the Interstate a block down the road. At I-95 you have to go several miles down US-13.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 15, 2015, 07:36:56 PM
Some interesting points of reason have been raised here. Maybe I should have thought out my argument more thoroughly. Okay..... I can agree that the PTC would maybe gain as least as much toll revenue as they would lose with the I-95 interchange. BUT, that leaves the only possible reason for not building it was that they just stubbornly wouldn't spend the money. Well, shame on them.
Because it bugged the heck out of me the first time I ever drove from NYC to Philly planning to take the NJT to the Pennsy Pike and then south on I-95 into downtown Phila. and found it couldn't be done. Ended up taking Route-1 south into Center City instead. What a rude awakening that was. Who would have thought, two Interstates cross each other and there's no interchange.
I wouldn't compare this location to Breezewood or Bedford or Newburgh NY either, since it's easy enough to get off the Turnpike and then onto the Interstate a block down the road. At I-95 you have to go several miles down US-13.
3.5 miles along PA 413 and US 13. Is it longer than most? Yeah, but certainly not the only one over a mile long. As I mentioned earlier, I-475 at the Ohio Turnpike is over a mile on surface streets. I-271 at the Ohio Turnpike requires a several miles on I-77, SR 8, and/or SR 303. The Ohio Turnpike has another bitch of a Breezewood at SR 11.
Its a rather annoying route. US-13 is usually clogged with traffic, and that left from PA-413 to the I-95 onramp can take awhile.
That's right! That's why those idiots at the PTC should have built the friggin' interchange long ago! And US-13 was under reconstruction this past year as well, adding to the problem.
They are working on US-13 AGAIN? I remember 10 years or so ago they were upgrading it to jug handles.
US 13 is the new Ontario Highway 401. This time it's in the U.S.
Yes NJRoadfan, Route 13 is being repaved/rehabilitated and it was a mess back in July. I've been using that road maybe once a year since 1987 and I don't seem to remember it not having the jug-handles.
I'd have to look at my pictures, I recall the PA-413 intersection and general area being under construction for a while. They widened the roadway from US-13 to the I-95 interchange since it was only a dinky 2 lane road pressed into service as a Breezewood.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 15, 2015, 07:36:56 PM
Some interesting points of reason have been raised here. Maybe I should have thought out my argument more thoroughly. Okay..... I can agree that the PTC would maybe gain as least as much toll revenue as they would lose with the I-95 interchange. BUT, that leaves the only possible reason for not building it was that they just stubbornly wouldn't spend the money. Well, shame on them.
Because it bugged the heck out of me the first time I ever drove from NYC to Philly planning to take the NJT to the Pennsy Pike and then south on I-95 into downtown Phila. and found it couldn't be done. Ended up taking Route-1 south into Center City instead. What a rude awakening that was. Who would have thought, two Interstates cross each other and there's no interchange.
I wouldn't compare this location to Breezewood or Bedford or Newburgh NY either, since it's easy enough to get off the Turnpike and then onto the Interstate a block down the road. At I-95 you have to go several miles down US-13.
I'm amazed you been on these forums as long as you have and didn't realize you couldn't connect directly between the PA Turnpike & 95! This connection is probably the second-most talked about "non-interchange" in Pennsylvania (with the first being Breezewood).
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 15, 2015, 09:11:12 PM
US 13 is the new Ontario Highway 401. This time it's in the U.S.
If that were the case, we wouldn't have this problem because I-95 would go the way it's supposed to, straight up through Trenton.
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority and their fear of revenue loss played a major role in getting I-95 canceled past Trenton, but never mind that. Let's just shit all over the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission for not building a $1B+ interchange fast enough for our liking. For that matter, let's accuse them of dragging their feet because they decided to relocate a toll plaza and widen a seven-mile segment of the existing Turnpike first. At least the fucking interchange is being built, regardless of the pace, and regardless of whether or not it's against the will of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. So which turnpike agency is really the stubborn one here, the one that's building the interchange anyway, or the one that helped create a big fucking gap in the Interstate Highway System in the first place?
Quote from: Gnutella on October 16, 2015, 06:33:23 AM
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority and their fear of revenue loss played a major role in getting I-95 canceled past Trenton, but never mind that. Let's just shit all over the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission for not building a $1B+ interchange fast enough for our liking. For that matter, let's accuse them of dragging their feet because they decided to relocate a toll plaza and widen a seven-mile segment of the existing Turnpike first. At least the fucking interchange is being built, regardless of the pace, and regardless of whether or not it's against the will of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. So which turnpike agency is really the stubborn one here, the one that's building the interchange anyway, or the one that helped create a big fucking gap in the Interstate Highway System in the first place?
Question...how did 295 get built, which parallels the Turnpike? Wouldn't the Turnpike Authority be worried it would take traffic away from the Turnpike?
Question...because 95 was cancelled, how much money has been spent by the NJ Turnpike Authority, putting them into quite a bit of debt, in order to keep up with traffic volumes?
Question...if 95 in NJ was built, what would've happened with 95 in PA? It surely couldn't handle all that additional traffic with just 2 or 3 lanes each direction on 95 much of its length, especially being the congestion 95 experiences today...without that additional traffic.
Also, you seem to be a little short-sighted on the construction projects of the PA Turnpike. They have about a dozen projects going on at this very moment. And there are always projects going on...some needed...some seemingly done just to keep people working (I point out the multiple median barriers that have been built over the years as some very wasteful spending). Regardless if the project is an underused highway near Pittsburgh or pavement repair on the NE Extension, that's all PA Turnpike revenue that's being spent.
And yes, the PA Turnpike has dragged their feet. They stated the interchange would be built by now.
Besides, the issue you present was an issue back in the 70's and 80's. Upwards of 2 generations later, it's time to move on. There are literally hundreds of road/highway/bridge/tunnel projects that were never built around the country, and sometimes other states have to pick up the slack.
I would go so far as to say that that PTC should not have been allowed to construct so much as a millimeter of expressways in Pittsburgh before this interchange is fully completed.
Of course, is it right that all of the hate/blame/whatever is falling squarely on the PTC as opposed to PennDOT? Doesn't it take two to tango, or something like that?
Don't forget Act 44 which turned the PA Turnpike into the state's piggy bank for funding road projects all over the place. It doesn't look so good when the NJ Turnpike Authority managed to complete the western hemisphere's largest public works project (the 6-9 widening) before the PA Turnpike got a single ramp built.
Quote from: Gnutella on October 16, 2015, 06:33:23 AM
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority and their fear of revenue loss played a major role in getting I-95 canceled past Trenton, but never mind that. Let's just shit all over the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission for not building a $1B+ interchange fast enough for our liking. For that matter, let's accuse them of dragging their feet because they decided to relocate a toll plaza and widen a seven-mile segment of the existing Turnpike first. At least the fucking interchange is being built, regardless of the pace, and regardless of whether or not it's against the will of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. So which turnpike agency is really the stubborn one here, the one that's building the interchange anyway, or the one that helped create a big fucking gap in the Interstate Highway System in the first place?
My understanding is that the version of I-95 that the NJTA helped kill was going to be entirely parallel to the Turnpike, not using any of it, and not the later plans for the Somerset Freeway to Exit 10, which was killed off by NIMBYs.
Quote from: vdeane on October 16, 2015, 01:32:12 PM
I would go so far as to say that that PTC should not have been allowed to construct so much as a millimeter of expressways in Pittsburgh before this interchange is fully completed.
You mean the 576 and 43 boondoggles?
Jeffandnicole, re: your earlier post that I should have known there was no 276/95 interchange. Sorry if you misunderstood my post. It was back in 1976 when I made that discovery, not recently as you thought I was saying. And this has been on my mind all those years since that first trip to Phila.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 16, 2015, 04:03:30 PM
Don't forget Act 44 which turned the PA Turnpike into the state's piggy bank for funding road projects all over the place. It doesn't look so good when the NJ Turnpike Authority managed to complete the western hemisphere's largest public works project (the 6-9 widening) before the PA Turnpike got a single ramp built.
That is a good one and FDOT should be ashamed of themselves with the I-4 Ultimate as well! It is planned for six full years for only 21 miles of roadway with the NJT being over 30. NJT workers had to deal with snow and sub freezing temperatures, while here in Florida we have warm weather year round with the coldest in Orlando is 27 degrees for one night during an Arctic Blast.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 07:37:53 PM
I-95 was indeed signed along the CT Turnpike as E-W, Eastbound New Haven & Westbound New York between the NYS Line and New Haven, and then New Haven And West, and alternatively Providence And East, and Rhode Island And East from New Haven and the RI State Line. Some ramps even signed it with shields as EAST I-95 and WEST I-95, but most ramps did not have shields but the original blue entry guides. I think the reassurence shields and the signs at the I-91 interchange did denote I-95 as N-S back in the original CT Tpk signing days.
Look at I-94 in IL and WI between Chicago and Milwaukee. You travel North on Westbound I-94 to get to Milwaukee and travel South on Eastbound I-94 to get to Chicago for almost 80 miles. They look at it as I-94 going between rural Montana to Port Huron, MI and not the regional heading between Chicago and Milwaukee which is a fraction of the whole routing. Why does Michigan change I-69 from N-S to E-W between Lansing and Port Huron for a shorter change in direction then that of I-94's N-S change in IL and WI, is a bigger mystery.
Same in Florida with US 98 signed E-W in Martin and Palm Beach Counties when for well over 200 miles it is signed N-S in the Florida Peninsula, when in those two counties its near 90 miles. You think that FDOT could have just kept US 98 signed N-S for that little stretch. Also to add confusion is between Okeechobee and Sebring, US 98 does run more E-W than N-S, but is signed N-S for almost 55 miles between those two cities. Then south of Okeechobee part of the E-W signing in Martin and Palm Beach Counties it runs N-S along the Eastern Shore of Lake Okeechobee concurrent with N-S signed US 441 and is signed E-W.
Then you have US 92 that runs N-S for close to 100 miles cosigned with US 17 from Lake Alfred to DeLand, but US 92 is signed E-W and if you pinpoint US 92's endpoints on a map and draw a straight line between them it is more SW to NE than E to W.
Then Texas is doing dumb with signing US 281 and US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as E-W when a lot more of those two routes runs actual N-S outside the valley. In fact both US 83 and US 281 are Texas' longest N-S US routes, so those short stretches as E-W is not even worth it to confuse people with different headers.
IMO a freeway should absolutely maintain a national cardinal direction at all times, becuase there would be considerable cross-country traffic. So I-94 is E/W despite the significant N/S section between Chi and Milwaukee. That being said, because of the inherent confusion, every single entrance to this highway (especially the signed connection along surface streets to connect to I-90 toward O'Hare), must have control cities listed.
For surface street sections of US routes, you have the additional confusion of address numbers that probably follow the E/W standard of the city, since the street is E/W even though the highway itself is N/S throughout the state. Case in point Ventura Blvd in the L.A. area used to be US 101 (N/S) before the freeway was constructed, but the address numbers follow E/W convention. In cases like that, I'd still maintain a national standard, even though it makes less sense.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2015, 12:42:42 PM
US 101 to me would confuse the hell out of me where NB becomes EB, and then becomes SB at an unsigned point. It should have really terminated at Port Angeles as their is a ferry there to Victoria, BS. The rest of the road to Olympia should have been a Washington State Route.
Do most people traveling to Olympia actually stay on US 101 all the way or do they leave the route and cut across the peninsula on other WA designations?
This is a good question. I'll post it on the NW board and see what people there think.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2015, 08:44:41 AM...you seem to be a little short-sighted on the construction projects of the PA Turnpike. They have about a dozen projects going on at this very moment. And there are always projects going on...some needed...some seemingly done just to keep people working (I point out the multiple median barriers that have been built over the years as some very wasteful spending). Regardless if the project is an underused highway near Pittsburgh or pavement repair on the NE Extension, that's all PA Turnpike revenue that's being spent.
And yes, the PA Turnpike has dragged their feet. They stated the interchange would be built by now.
First of all, I know exactly what's going on with construction on the Pennsylvania Turnpike: they're reconstructing, widening and modernizing all 360 goddamn miles of it, plus another 30 miles of the Northeast Extension. And it's necessary because much of the highway is 75 goddamn years old, and the parts that aren't have too much goddamn traffic to only have four lanes now. Gee, no wonder the I-95 interchange is taking longer than you'd prefer: the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has a shitload of other expensive and time-consuming things to do as well, and nearly twice as many miles of highway to do them on as The Almighty New Jersey Turnpike Authority (*genuflect*) does.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv437%2FDBR96%2FMaps%2FShitload%2520of%2520work_zpsq8d6ytt8.png&hash=161072b598ca37464229a5980026e231189f7336)
Holy shit, look at all that work being done and resources being spread out! Reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction bridge replacement reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction tunnel replacement reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction bridge replacement reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction new interchange reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction...
Just...wow.
Quote from: vdeane on October 16, 2015, 01:32:12 PM
I would go so far as to say that that PTC should not have been allowed to construct so much as a millimeter of expressways in Pittsburgh before this interchange is fully completed.
Quote from: Alps on October 16, 2015, 08:06:36 PM
You mean the 576 and 43 boondoggles?
Never mind that a) neither highway connects to Interstates on both ends yet, thereby reducing their use until the connections are made; b) the commercial real estate market in the area of Pittsburgh International Airport has become hot ever since the first tiny leg of the South Beltway opened, and in spite of the airport being de-hubbed, no less; c) I-376 needs all the traffic relief it can get, or d) there's a shitload of abandoned brownfields up and down the Monongahela River Valley that haven't been redeveloped because the road infrastructure in the area is piss-poor and can't even handle large trucks.
Seriously, has anybody bitching about any of this shit ever even been to the Monongahela River Valley? It's connected by a bunch of fucking two-lane back roads. And east/west mobility across the valley between Pittsburgh and I-70 is especially bad. Canonsburg and McKeesport are 18 miles apart as the crow flies, but it's literally impossible to get from one to the other in less than 45 minutes. Half the time you need an hour or more. It's a complete pain in the ass to get anywhere else from the Monongahela River Valley, or to there from anywhere else, and there's literally no chance of any substantial reinvestment in the valley without serious upgrades to the road infrastructure there.
So go ahead and throw an entire quadrant of the Pittsburgh area under the bus because you're pissed off that a fucking interchange at the other end of the state isn't being built fast enough for your taste. No, nothing petty about that at all. :rolleyes:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv437%2FDBR96%2FMaps%2FBetter%2520late%2520than%2520never_zps3fk7hdlo.png&hash=79d2d00a746e6c8262fc097273653f1049bc6358)
Quote from: Gnutella on October 18, 2015, 11:35:30 AM
the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has a shitload of other expensive and time-consuming things to do as well, and nearly twice as many miles of highway to do them on as The Almighty New Jersey Turnpike Authority (*genuflect*) does.
Considering New Jersey has probably 400% more traffic on the Turnpike versus Pennsylvania's, the NJTA does a damn good job to ensure millions of people can be moved efficiently.
EDIT: And are you seriously comparing Pittsburgh to Philadelphia or New York City's metro area? :rofl:
Quote from: Zeffy on October 18, 2015, 01:05:28 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on October 18, 2015, 11:35:30 AM
the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has a shitload of other expensive and time-consuming things to do as well, and nearly twice as many miles of highway to do them on as The Almighty New Jersey Turnpike Authority (*genuflect*) does.
Considering New Jersey has probably 400% more traffic on the Turnpike versus Pennsylvania's, the NJTA does a damn good job to ensure millions of people can be moved efficiently.
EDIT: And are you seriously comparing Pittsburgh to Philadelphia or New York City's metro area? :rofl:
Pennsylvania has all these projects and its taking them over a decade to build one interchange.. I appreciate PA is a much bigger state and NJ really should have built the Somerset freeway. ( i have no sympathy for towns like Hopewell and Princeton dealing with horrible traffic and trucks on roads like 206)
But from what I understand the PA turnpike i95 interchange was agreed upon over 30 years ago as the solution. Should have been finished years ago
Once the interchange is completed, will there be a much larger volume using i95 thru Philadelphia? The NJTP is a more direct route so I know GPS, waze etc will recommend staying on Turnpike. And should NJ do like Maryland on the tunnel thruway make the southern NJTP i695 or 895 to make it part of the 95 family.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 07:37:53 PM
Look at I-94 in IL and WI between Chicago and Milwaukee. You travel North on Westbound I-94 to get to Milwaukee and travel South on Eastbound I-94 to get to Chicago for almost 80 miles. They look at it as I-94 going between rural Montana to Port Huron, MI and not the regional heading between Chicago and Milwaukee which is a fraction of the whole routing. Why does Michigan change I-69 from N-S to E-W between Lansing and Port Huron for a shorter change in direction then that of I-94's N-S change in IL and WI, is a bigger mystery.
Because unlike the I-94 example you cited, I-69 ends in Port Huron and does not make another turn to resume a N-S alignment.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 18, 2015, 02:46:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 07:37:53 PM
Look at I-94 in IL and WI between Chicago and Milwaukee. You travel North on Westbound I-94 to get to Milwaukee and travel South on Eastbound I-94 to get to Chicago for almost 80 miles. They look at it as I-94 going between rural Montana to Port Huron, MI and not the regional heading between Chicago and Milwaukee which is a fraction of the whole routing. Why does Michigan change I-69 from N-S to E-W between Lansing and Port Huron for a shorter change in direction then that of I-94's N-S change in IL and WI, is a bigger mystery.
Because unlike the I-94 example you cited, I-69 ends in Port Huron and does not make another turn to resume a N-S alignment.
When/if I-69 ever gets finished, it'll have a couple other east-west sections
Quote from: cl94 on October 18, 2015, 02:48:03 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on October 18, 2015, 02:46:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 07:37:53 PM
Look at I-94 in IL and WI between Chicago and Milwaukee. You travel North on Westbound I-94 to get to Milwaukee and travel South on Eastbound I-94 to get to Chicago for almost 80 miles. They look at it as I-94 going between rural Montana to Port Huron, MI and not the regional heading between Chicago and Milwaukee which is a fraction of the whole routing. Why does Michigan change I-69 from N-S to E-W between Lansing and Port Huron for a shorter change in direction then that of I-94's N-S change in IL and WI, is a bigger mystery.
Because unlike the I-94 example you cited, I-69 ends in Port Huron and does not make another turn to resume a N-S alignment.
When/if I-69 ever gets finished, it'll have a couple other east-west sections
I don't see the relevancy. Yes, when finished I-69 will have other E-W sections, but they will all be between N-S sections so those sections as a whole are N-S. Whereas the E-W section between Lansing and Port Huron is the end of the road.
Are there any updated photos of this interchange anywhere online?
Quote from: Gnutella on October 18, 2015, 11:35:30 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2015, 08:44:41 AM...you seem to be a little short-sighted on the construction projects of the PA Turnpike. They have about a dozen projects going on at this very moment. And there are always projects going on...some needed...some seemingly done just to keep people working (I point out the multiple median barriers that have been built over the years as some very wasteful spending). Regardless if the project is an underused highway near Pittsburgh or pavement repair on the NE Extension, that's all PA Turnpike revenue that's being spent.
And yes, the PA Turnpike has dragged their feet. They stated the interchange would be built by now.
First of all, I know exactly what's going on with construction on the Pennsylvania Turnpike: they're reconstructing, widening and modernizing all 360 goddamn miles of it, plus another 30 miles of the Northeast Extension. And it's necessary because much of the highway is 75 goddamn years old, and the parts that aren't have too much goddamn traffic to only have four lanes now. Gee, no wonder the I-95 interchange is taking longer than you'd prefer: the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has a shitload of other expensive and time-consuming things to do as well, and nearly twice as many miles of highway to do them on as The Almighty New Jersey Turnpike Authority (*genuflect*) does.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv437%2FDBR96%2FMaps%2FShitload%2520of%2520work_zpsq8d6ytt8.png&hash=161072b598ca37464229a5980026e231189f7336)
Holy shit, look at all that work being done and resources being spread out! Reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction bridge replacement reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction tunnel replacement reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction bridge replacement reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction new interchange reconstruction reconstruction reconstruction...
Just...wow.
Quote from: vdeane on October 16, 2015, 01:32:12 PM
I would go so far as to say that that PTC should not have been allowed to construct so much as a millimeter of expressways in Pittsburgh before this interchange is fully completed.
Quote from: Alps on October 16, 2015, 08:06:36 PM
You mean the 576 and 43 boondoggles?
Never mind that a) neither highway connects to Interstates on both ends yet, thereby reducing their use until the connections are made; b) the commercial real estate market in the area of Pittsburgh International Airport has become hot ever since the first tiny leg of the South Beltway opened, and in spite of the airport being de-hubbed, no less; c) I-376 needs all the traffic relief it can get, or d) there's a shitload of abandoned brownfields up and down the Monongahela River Valley that haven't been redeveloped because the road infrastructure in the area is piss-poor and can't even handle large trucks.
Seriously, has anybody bitching about any of this shit ever even been to the Monongahela River Valley? It's connected by a bunch of fucking two-lane back roads. And east/west mobility across the valley between Pittsburgh and I-70 is especially bad. Canonsburg and McKeesport are 18 miles apart as the crow flies, but it's literally impossible to get from one to the other in less than 45 minutes. Half the time you need an hour or more. It's a complete pain in the ass to get anywhere else from the Monongahela River Valley, or to there from anywhere else, and there's literally no chance of any substantial reinvestment in the valley without serious upgrades to the road infrastructure there.
So go ahead and throw an entire quadrant of the Pittsburgh area under the bus because you're pissed off that a fucking interchange at the other end of the state isn't being built fast enough for your taste. No, nothing petty about that at all. :rolleyes:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv437%2FDBR96%2FMaps%2FBetter%2520late%2520than%2520never_zps3fk7hdlo.png&hash=79d2d00a746e6c8262fc097273653f1049bc6358)
Got a link to wherever the PTC traffic counts would be? I want to verify just how much "too much goddam traffic" is.
And why should those Pittsburgh freeways be the PTC's problem in the first place? They aren't even logically a part of PTC's network! Make PennDOT build them.
Interchanges don't take much time, at least not if you're not dragging your feet on it. This should have been built when I-95 was first constructed. It is criminal that it wasn't built within 10 years of the decision to move I-95. If I were the FHWA, I would have revoked PA's highway money at that point until the interchange got built. ALL of it. I bet you would have seen this done decades ago had that happened. At the rate they're going, they'll have that new toll plaza built just in time to rip it up again for AET.
Quote from: odditude on October 12, 2015, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 12, 2015, 01:26:13 PM
Northbound I-25 runs southeast for about 55 miles in New Mexico, and nobody has their panties in a wad over it. so what's the big deal if northbound I-295 is going to run southwest for a brief time in New Jersey?
being in the Princeton area and seeing signs for "I-295 North - Philadelphia" would be completely absurd.
Indeed, the direction the road heads at any given point is not what's important for the signed direction, it's the overall direction and the destination. For the stretch that I-25 heads off-compass, there isn't much there. From Santa Fe the control city on I-25 north is Las Vegas, which is as the crow flies close to due east of Santa Fe. Meanwhile any traffic heading to southerly destinations on I-25 north is likely to follow US 285, which is signed as south. The situation is managed reasonably without changing the signed directions on I-25
With I-295, the control point of Philadelphia is quite south of Trenton. Having the road signed as north to it is problematic not because I-295 is physically heading south, but because the destination is south of the signs for it.
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
Got a link to wherever the PTC traffic counts would be? I want to verify just how much "too much goddam traffic" is.
I found these:
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdPlanRes.nsf/infoBPRPermanentTrafficCountSiteLocationCountyMap
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdPlanRes.nsf/infoBPRPermanentTrafficCountSiteLocationMapLL
Quote from: Zeffy on October 18, 2015, 07:25:36 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
Got a link to wherever the PTC traffic counts would be? I want to verify just how much "too much goddam traffic" is.
I found these:
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdPlanRes.nsf/infoBPRPermanentTrafficCountSiteLocationCountyMap
http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/Bureaus/pdPlanRes.nsf/infoBPRPermanentTrafficCountSiteLocationMapLL
There's also this...
http://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Planning/Maps/Pages/Traffic-Volume.aspx#.ViRKwjZdEpF
(the traffic stats are from 2013 but fwiw...)
ixnay
Quote from: jwolfer on October 18, 2015, 02:12:11 PM
Once the interchange is completed, will there be a much larger volume using i95 thru Philadelphia?
unlikely, even if there wasn't 8 miles of construction from Center City to the Bucks county line. however, it will make make life much easier for truck traffic from Philadelphia heading north and vice-versa.
Quote from: jwolferAnd should NJ do like Maryland on the tunnel thruway make the southern NJTP i695 or 895 to make it part of the 95 family.
i'd consider that even less likely than the ACE being redesignated.
I think adding an x95 number to the south end of the NJT will just create more confusion. I never liked the idea of so many confusing x numbers of this sort. The NJT logo is well known and can stand on its own. No need to further complicate things.
Quote from: odditude on October 18, 2015, 10:04:18 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on October 18, 2015, 02:12:11 PM
Once the interchange is completed, will there be a much larger volume using i95 thru Philadelphia?
unlikely, even if there wasn't 8 miles of construction from Center City to the Bucks county line. however, it will make make life much easier for truck traffic from Philadelphia heading north and vice-versa.
Personally, I think there will be a significant increase on traffic. Traffic going South on the NJ Turnpike looks for those I-95 markers, and will simply follow them right into Philly.
Northbound, I'm not sure. If the signage in Delaware stays the same, traffic will probably continue to use 295 to the NJ Turnpike.
A big wildcard is the traffic between Wilmington & Philly. Many know they have to cross into NJ and get to the Turnpike via local roads if they want to go North towards NYC. Much of that traffic would probably use the new 95 connection. The biggest issue is the most significant congestion issues can be found on 95 North of Philly.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2015, 11:08:14 PM
Personally, I think there will be a significant increase on traffic. Traffic going South on the NJ Turnpike looks for those I-95 markers, and will simply follow them right into Philly.
Northbound, I'm not sure. If the signage in Delaware stays the same, traffic will probably continue to use 295 to the NJ Turnpike.
If all they're doing is looking for I-95 markers, why are they taking 295 to the Turnpike Northbound today? Because it says "NY/NJ" on the sign? Then how will that be different from following the Turnpike South because it says "Wilmington" instead of exiting to where it says "Philadelphia"? Actually, I wonder if the Pull-Through at exit 6 southbound will add more control cities, like Baltimore, to further discourage exiting for I-95.
I FINALLY found the Turnpike traffic counts (https://www.paturnpike.com/yourTurnpike/Reports-Main/2014%20Reports/2014_MAINLINE_AADT_Report.pdf). Apparently PA's "too much goddam traffic" is NY's "you'd be laughed out of the state for even thinking of widening the road" (though I do grant that conditions aren't 1:1... NY is much flatter than PA and the Turnpike truck percentages are high by NY standards).
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
And why should those Pittsburgh freeways be the PTC's problem in the first place? They aren't even logically a part of PTC's network! Make PennDOT build them.
Cause due to PA Act 61 of 1985 and Act 26 of 1991, it became the law.
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
The Somerset Freeway should have been built when I-95 was first constructed. It is criminal that it wasn't built within 10 years of the rest of I-95. If I were the FHWA, I would have revoked NJ's highway money at that point until the freeway got built. ALL of it.
FTFY
Ha. The federal government can't revoke our highway funding just because enough wealthy people were able to successfully block the construction of an interstate highway through their towns.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 19, 2015, 03:48:58 PM
Ha. The federal government can't revoke our highway funding just because enough wealthy people were able to successfully block the construction of an interstate highway through their towns.
He's right. With the level of opposition the Somerset Freeway received, it would have been very unwise to construct. In the engineering world, we're taught (at least nowadays) to
consider public opinion. People quite obviously didn't want it. The United States isn't like certain European or Asian nations, where the government can just come in and built something regardless of public opinion. Eminent domain here is restricted and it would be counterproductive to revoke all of the funding. By that logic, no state would have any funding because the wealthy would still be putting their effort toward blocking such projects.
Well...here's a bit of an idea to at least boost the money a bit - lower the tolls. If the tolls are lowered, more people travel on the turnpike. The toll money goes to funding the interchange. I'd say a respectable rate would be something like 7 cents a mile for cash, 4 cents a mile for EZPass. For the NE Extension, maybe something like 6 and a half cents a mile for cash, 3 and a half for EZPass. Common sense would be to encourage people to take the turnpike, because of low toll rates. However, more maintenance is needed - that's the whole catch.
Quote from: CentralPAguy on October 19, 2015, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
The Somerset Freeway should have been built when I-95 was first constructed. It is criminal that it wasn't built within 10 years of the rest of I-95. If I were the FHWA, I would have revoked NJ's highway money at that point until the freeway got built. ALL of it.
FTFY
Another person from PA who's upset about the Somerset Freeway? Well guess what... interstate cancellations are/were, in fact, allowed, and PA agreed to build the interchange in order to keep I-95. If they didn't want to build the interchange in a timely manner, then they should have suggested that I-95 be removed from PA and routed down the NJ Turnpike to Delaware. They moment they agreed to build the interchange, PA took responsibility from NJ for finishing I-95.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 19, 2015, 02:38:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
And why should those Pittsburgh freeways be the PTC's problem in the first place? They aren't even logically a part of PTC's network! Make PennDOT build them.
Cause due to PA Act 61 of 1985 and Act 26 of 1991, it became the law.
Just because it's in law doesn't make it logical.
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 18, 2015, 11:42:19 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on October 18, 2015, 11:35:30 AM
rage
Whoa, chill.
I feel like Gnutella works for PTC, but most definitely not in the PR department. Seriously. Mon Valley Expressway is a complete, utter waste of money. It's not brownfields wanting for better roads. It's bumfuck nowhere wanting to stay bumfuck nowhere. Why locate nowhere when you can locate somewhere?
Quote from: cl94 on October 19, 2015, 04:06:39 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 19, 2015, 03:48:58 PM
Ha. The federal government can't revoke our highway funding just because enough wealthy people were able to successfully block the construction of an interstate highway through their towns.
He's right. With the level of opposition the Somerset Freeway received, it would have been very unwise to construct. In the engineering world, we're taught (at least nowadays) to consider public opinion. People quite obviously didn't want it. The United States isn't like certain European or Asian nations, where the government can just come in and built something regardless of public opinion. Eminent domain here is restricted and it would be counterproductive to revoke all of the funding. By that logic, no state would have any funding because the wealthy would still be putting their effort toward blocking such projects.
People did want it. The people in the path of the freeway didn't want it. Holy shit, who'd have guessed that?
Quote from: CentralPAguy on October 19, 2015, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
The Somerset Freeway should have been built when I-95 was first constructed. It is criminal that it wasn't built within 10 years of the rest of I-95. If I were the FHWA, I would have revoked NJ's highway money at that point until the freeway got built. ALL of it.
FTFY
Why? The FHWA is who
agreed to the change.
Maybe the FHWA should've revoked all of PA's Funding because they didn't complete the Interstate highway system around the Philadelphia area.
Pennsylvanians are just mad that they have to help another state to establish a connection to the most major highway in the country in order to facilitate better transit between New York and Philadelphia. One interchange is a lot easier than building an entire freeway too. And while I wish there was some sort of freeway at least between Bound Brook and Trenton, I can't blame the residents for opposing it. A lot of the areas are peaceful towns with some good natural preservation.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/cars/20151018_Driver_s_Seat__Waving_goodbye_to_E-ZPass_headaches.html#disqus_thread
This doesn't really belong in the Business sections...this reads more like an opinion piece than an actual article.
Along with the guy being a total dunce, he still messed up the whole cashless tolling thing. The toll will be charged for vehicles going into Pennsylvania, not when approaching NJ. And not 'everyone has had to stop' for years...just those paying cash.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 20, 2015, 09:53:21 AM
Pennsylvanians are just mad that they have to help another state to establish a connection to the most major highway in the country in order to facilitate better transit between New York and Philadelphia. One interchange is a lot easier than building an entire freeway too. And while I wish there was some sort of freeway at least between Bound Brook and Trenton, I can't blame the residents for opposing it. A lot of the areas are peaceful towns with some good natural preservation.
And congested 2 Lane roads that people bitch about.. But that's NJ for you
Quote from: jwolfer on October 20, 2015, 01:01:43 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 20, 2015, 09:53:21 AM
Pennsylvanians are just mad that they have to help another state to establish a connection to the most major highway in the country in order to facilitate better transit between New York and Philadelphia. One interchange is a lot easier than building an entire freeway too. And while I wish there was some sort of freeway at least between Bound Brook and Trenton, I can't blame the residents for opposing it. A lot of the areas are peaceful towns with some good natural preservation.
And congested 2 Lane roads that people bitch about.. But that's NJ for you
That's because there's evidence George Washington drove that two lane road. In fact, I'm just going to reach down and, oh look, that rock appears to be from the 1700's. So now there's absolutely proof.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2015, 12:46:27 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/cars/20151018_Driver_s_Seat__Waving_goodbye_to_E-ZPass_headaches.html#disqus_thread
This doesn't really belong in the Business sections...this reads more like an opinion piece than an actual article.
Along with the guy being a total dunce, he still messed up the whole cashless tolling thing. The toll will be charged for vehicles going into Pennsylvania, not when approaching NJ. And not 'everyone has had to stop' for years...just those paying cash.
Will the new Neshaminy Falls Toll Plaza have express lanes? If not, then there is no change as far as needing to stop to pay a toll goes, unless you are getting on/off at exit 358 (or I-95/295/whatever whenever that opens)
Quote from: bzakharin on October 20, 2015, 01:38:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2015, 12:46:27 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/cars/20151018_Driver_s_Seat__Waving_goodbye_to_E-ZPass_headaches.html#disqus_thread
This doesn't really belong in the Business sections...this reads more like an opinion piece than an actual article.
Along with the guy being a total dunce, he still messed up the whole cashless tolling thing. The toll will be charged for vehicles going into Pennsylvania, not when approaching NJ. And not 'everyone has had to stop' for years...just those paying cash.
Will the new Neshaminy Falls Toll Plaza have express lanes? If not, then there is no change as far as needing to stop to pay a toll goes, unless you are getting on/off at exit 358 (or I-95/295/whatever whenever that opens)
If you have EZ Pass, you don't need to stop at any interchange on the PA Turnpike. EZ Pass patrons are permitted to go thru the plazas at about 10 mph.
And yes, it will have express lanes.
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2015, 07:21:15 PM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on October 19, 2015, 02:59:51 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
The Somerset Freeway should have been built when I-95 was first constructed. It is criminal that it wasn't built within 10 years of the rest of I-95. If I were the FHWA, I would have revoked NJ's highway money at that point until the freeway got built. ALL of it.
FTFY
Another person from PA who's upset about the Somerset Freeway? Well guess what... interstate cancellations are/were, in fact, allowed, and PA agreed to build the interchange in order to keep I-95. If they didn't want to build the interchange in a timely manner, then they should have suggested that I-95 be removed from PA and routed down the NJ Turnpike to Delaware. They moment they agreed to build the interchange, PA took responsibility from NJ for finishing I-95.
Yup, cancellations happen, but NJ should have accepted responsibility for making a connection in some form or another. Instead, the PTC gets to take the crap for NJ's failure to make a connection. An unnecessary public bureaucracy (the PTC) makes an easy target though... Anyway, if NJ really wanted to make things work, they could have found some way to make a solid connection from 95/295 to the NJ TP
Quote from: vdeane on October 19, 2015, 07:21:15 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on October 19, 2015, 02:38:46 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 18, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
And why should those Pittsburgh freeways be the PTC's problem in the first place? They aren't even logically a part of PTC's network! Make PennDOT build them.
Cause due to PA Act 61 of 1985 and Act 26 of 1991, it became the law.
Just because it's in law doesn't make it logical.
Well, regardless whether or not it is logical, its the PTC's responsibility, and they can't just say "fuck Pittsburgh (or any other part of the state with PTC-maintained roads)" just for the sake of helping NYC and NJ. How far should it be pushed, anyway? Should they cease all construction and maintenance (including repaving, bridge maintenance etc) spending on every inch of the Turnpike system that isn't related to the interchange just so that you can have your I-95 connection that many (I suspect including you) probably wouldn't use anyway?
How come there is no connection from 95/295 to the NJT. If they did it back in the 70's there would be hardly any obstacles in the way as most of Mercer and Southern Middlesex did not boom until the late 80's and early 90's to what it is now.
Heck a freeway could have went from the US 1 interchange to the Hightstown Interchange. Even another plan could have upgraded US 1 from 95/295 to NJ 18 to freeway standards and then built a cut across along the Raritan River relocating Exit 9 to the north of where it is now.
I like the idea someone mentioned above re : I-95. Just remove it from Penna, route it straight down the NJT over the Delaware Mem. Bridge and be done with it. Make the whole length of the NJT be I-95! That would have been a more logical routing anyway for anyone using I-95 for a long north/south trip along the east coast. But I guess politics dictated that Penna. and the major city of Philadelphia should get a piece of it and that's how we got where we are now I guess. Well, I suppose it all looked good on paper in the late 1950's anyway.
Quote from: CentralPAguy on October 20, 2015, 05:40:49 PM
Well, regardless whether or not it is logical, its the PTC's responsibility, and they can't just say "fuck Pittsburgh (or any other part of the state with PTC-maintained roads)" just for the sake of helping NYC and NJ. How far should it be pushed, anyway? Should they cease all construction and maintenance (including repaving, bridge maintenance etc) spending on every inch of the Turnpike system that isn't related to the interchange just so that you can have your I-95 connection that many (I suspect including you) probably wouldn't use anyway?
If the PTC gave the interchange the same resources they're giving the Pittsburgh freeways, the interchange could be done in two years, tops. The whole thing, not just the two flyovers they're doing now. And it would cost a lot less than those freeways because it's just an interchange.
Having the interchange around would assist quite nicely for anyone who wants to get from here to Philly and not pay the PA Turnpike's exorbitantly expensive tolls. And at one time it would have made clinching Philly's interstates easier for me, though that might not be as true as it once was now that I've clinched present-day I-95 in PA.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 20, 2015, 08:11:17 PM
I like the idea someone mentioned above re : I-95. Just remove it from Penna, route it straight down the NJT over the Delaware Mem. Bridge and be done with it. Make the whole length of the NJT be I-95! That would have been a more logical routing anyway for anyone using I-95 for a long north/south trip along the east coast. But I guess politics dictated that Penna. and the major city of Philadelphia should get a piece of it and that's how we got where are now I guess. Well, I suppose it all looked good on paper in the late 1950's anyway.
by that logic, it definitely shouldn't go through New Haven, Providence, or Boston, either.
Quote from: vdeane on October 20, 2015, 08:29:11 PM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on October 20, 2015, 05:40:49 PM
Well, regardless whether or not it is logical, its the PTC's responsibility, and they can't just say "fuck Pittsburgh (or any other part of the state with PTC-maintained roads)" just for the sake of helping NYC and NJ. How far should it be pushed, anyway? Should they cease all construction and maintenance (including repaving, bridge maintenance etc) spending on every inch of the Turnpike system that isn't related to the interchange just so that you can have your I-95 connection that many (I suspect including you) probably wouldn't use anyway?
If the PTC gave the interchange the same resources they're giving the Pittsburgh freeways, the interchange could be done in two years, tops. The whole thing, not just the two flyovers they're doing now. And it would cost a lot less than those freeways because it's just an interchange.
Having the interchange around would assist quite nicely for anyone who wants to get from here to Philly and not pay the PA Turnpike's exorbitantly expensive tolls. And at one time it would have made clinching Philly's interstates easier for me, though that might not be as true as it once was now that I've clinched present-day I-95 in PA.
You wouldn't use anything maintained by PTC if coming from anywhere east of Utica, either. It's faster to take the NJ Turnpike to Cherry Hill and take NJ 90 across or take US 202 and NJ 31 to cut between I-287 and I-95. My family has done all three. The first two are dependent on traffic conditions/time of day, while the Northeast Extension adds over an hour if you use the entire thing and slightly less if you use I-84 and I-80 to cut the corner.
Thank goodness we brought all of these ideas up. Because it's not like they weren't mentioned in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008.....
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
Thank goodness we brought all of these ideas up. Because it's not like they weren't mentioned in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008.....
Let's route I-95 up I-476 to I-84!
Quote from: Alps on October 20, 2015, 11:40:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2015, 11:07:05 PM
Thank goodness we brought all of these ideas up. Because it's not like they weren't mentioned in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008.....
Let's route I-95 up I-476 to I-84!
Don't give a certain user named after a flying animal any ideas.
There's a guy on the NYC Transit forums who does this at least once a week, rerouting subway lines instead of Interstates.
Well, there's the temptation of giving both NJ and PA I-95 splits so that the Turnpike south of I-276 would become I-95E and the part that goes through Philly I-95W. However, I don't see that happening, so an I-x95 (whether it be 695 or 895) should be a nice consolation prize for NJ. As the southern part of the Turnpike is well-known by its name alone, the designation should be secret, like I-595 is on US 50 between DC and Annapolis.
Quote from: Henry on October 21, 2015, 12:14:43 PM
However, I don't see that happening, so an I-x95 (whether it be 695 or 895) should be a nice consolation prize for NJ. As the southern part of the Turnpike is well-known by its name alone, the designation should be secret, like I-595 is on US 50 between DC and Annapolis.
I disagree. Sign it. Many people blindly follow the Interstate shield regardless of control cities. Note also that many GPS systems have a "use Interstates" option that many people use. Even if an all-Interstate routing takes 20-30 minutes longer and travels through a congested area, the system won't send them up anything that is not a signed Interstate, even if it is a freeway built to higher standards.
Quote from: Henry on October 21, 2015, 12:14:43 PM
Well, there's the temptation of giving both NJ and PA I-95 splits so that the Turnpike south of I-276 would become I-95E and the part that goes through Philly I-95W. However, I don't see that happening, so an I-x95 (whether it be 695 or 895) should be a nice consolation prize for NJ. As the southern part of the Turnpike is well-known by its name alone, the designation should be secret, like I-595 is on US 50 between DC and Annapolis.
What would be the point of doing it?
Most non road geeks think that the whole NJ Turnpike is I-95. I have gotten into heated arguments with some people who claim that I-95 and all 129 miles of the NJT are completely the same route. When I try to tell them that I-95 goes through Philly they look at me and say to themselves: Impossible.
No matter what you sign it people will think what they want about a certain roadway and call it whatever they wish. Heck in Florida we change the name of the Old Dixie Highway to Orange Avenue because all the post boom people could not tell the difference of where Orange Avenue ended and Old Dixie begun even though both roads did not line up properly. You had to use Zell Drive to go between the two until Orange County built an overpass over the CSX line to make both road continuously one alignment.
I doubt that people will realize anything. Heck many motorists do not know that that yellow tab that reads EXIT ONLY with an arrow between the two words pointing downward at a lane means. Also how many know the difference between a protected left turn and a promiscuous left turn as we now need the FYA installed at new assemblies now at signalized intersections.
Remember we road geeks are harassed by cops and called names just because we know what is right and what is wrong when talking or admiring roads in general. Its because route numbers and street names are not a big deal unless it creates a serious issue with traveling that a non road geek will mildly get involved in action about roads.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 03:17:40 PM
Also how many know the difference between a protected left turn and a promiscuous left turn
I would assume the promiscuous one handles more volume?
Roadman65 makes a valid point about people thinking the whole NJT is I-95. I understand a common issue is people driving north on 95 thru Delaware mistakenly stay on I-95 toward Phila. instead of following the right-hand split to the Delaware Mem. Bridge and NJT to get to NYC.
And (LOL) again I suggest that possibly the German Autobahn practice would work better. Just sign the split as "Philadelphia" and "New York", with maybe one or two other cities listed under those. That might get people's attention.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 21, 2015, 07:31:25 PM
Just sign the split as "Philadelphia" and "New York", with maybe one or two other cities listed under those. That might get people's attention.
...you mean exactly how it's signed already (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6925978,-75.6283072,3a,75y,81.4h,90.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYwiz0euH1lH-aNgWxrsoDw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
Quote from: SignBridge on October 21, 2015, 07:31:25 PM
Roadman65 makes a valid point about people thinking the whole NJT is I-95. I understand a common issue is people driving north on 95 thru Delaware mistakenly stay on I-95 toward Phila. instead of following the right-hand split to the Delaware Mem. Bridge and NJT to get to NYC.
And (LOL) again I suggest that possibly the German Autobahn practice would work better. Just sign the split as "Philadelphia" and "New York", with maybe one or two other cities listed under those. That might get people's attention.
How about a bunch of signs like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5759399,-77.735256,3a,48.9y,142.94h,88.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZAN3NlpmTyFyAgZzc0FwsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)? Replace the shields accordingly, add New York as a control city, and toss I-295/NJTP shields next to the exit number.
No odditude, that's not what I meant. How about Philadelphia and New York completely spelled out on the top line of the signs. If you want to see what I mean check the signs on German Autobahn. There are some websites with photos. That "NY - NJ" on the third line of the existing signs doesn't really jump out at you.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 21, 2015, 07:57:50 PM
No odditude, that's not what I meant. How about Philadelphia and New York completely spelled out on the top line of the signs in larger more bold lettering. If you want to see what I mean check the signs on German Autobahn. There are some websites with photos.
Yeah, using abbreviations doesn't really cut it. You need to spell it out.
Quote from: spooky on October 21, 2015, 04:50:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 03:17:40 PM
Also how many know the difference between a protected left turn and a promiscuous left turn
I would assume the promiscuous one handles more volume?
I like to use part time left, but everyone here likes what I attempted to spell. Lets face it the English language sucks sometimes as many words are not sounded as they are spelled like in Spanish, French, etc.
I know our language is derived from many different languages so the way it comes out spelled is rather interesting. Being that this is a non formal forum who cares as far as I am concerned. Long as you know what it means, that is all that matters.
When I print my resume, yes I look up every word as that is important as wearing the right attire to an interview afterwards, but to a bunch of guys I will most likely never meet in person and to just talk about roads. Uh uh! That crap does not fly!
Look I am not going to consult a dictionary each time I have to spell a word, as I have often done it too much here, because one person even corrected me because I did not end Colbie Cailat's name with "ie" and spelled her first name with a "y." Even some of my college graduate friends with great jobs and respected in the community say "So what" if you spell a word or some wrong unless its your resume for employment, then you need to be 110 percent, but on a forum that talks about a hobby its kind of overboard.
Quote from: spooky on October 21, 2015, 04:50:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 03:17:40 PM
Also how many know the difference between a protected left turn and a promiscuous left turn
I would assume the promiscuous one handles more volume?
I lost it. :-D
Quote from: cl94 on October 21, 2015, 08:01:20 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 21, 2015, 07:57:50 PM
No odditude, that's not what I meant. How about Philadelphia and New York completely spelled out on the top line of the signs in larger more bold lettering. If you want to see what I mean check the signs on German Autobahn. There are some websites with photos.
Yeah, using abbreviations doesn't really cut it. You need to spell it out.
Some of you have clearly never been thru this area on a summer weekend. Better yet, come on down to Delaware Thanksgiving weekend. After you're done bitching about the hour delay as traffic squeezes down to the 2 right lanes to continue to NY, you will understand how well the NJ Turnpike trailblazer, along with NJ-NY, truly does work in directing traffic the proper way.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2015, 10:24:54 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 21, 2015, 08:01:20 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 21, 2015, 07:57:50 PM
No odditude, that's not what I meant. How about Philadelphia and New York completely spelled out on the top line of the signs in larger more bold lettering. If you want to see what I mean check the signs on German Autobahn. There are some websites with photos.
Yeah, using abbreviations doesn't really cut it. You need to spell it out.
Some of you have clearly never been thru this area on a summer weekend. Better yet, come on down to Delaware Thanksgiving weekend. After you're done bitching about the hour delay as traffic squeezes down to the 2 right lanes to continue to NY, you will understand how well the NJ Turnpike trailblazer, along with NJ-NY, truly does work in directing traffic the proper way.
Thanksgiving and weekend travelers are typically repeat visitors. Do it once and you know what to do. Issue, as always, is the people who are unfamiliar. As discussed elsewhere on the forums, using a state as a control is not liked and postal code abbreviations alone are even worse. The issue is the first-time traveler. Someone traveling from North Carolina to Maine, for example, may know that their destination is off of I-95, so they stay on I-95. Even with GPS systems, there are people who navigate by shield alone. I've been through the area and I know the traffic.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 08:35:56 PM
Quote from: spooky on October 21, 2015, 04:50:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 03:17:40 PM
Also how many know the difference between a protected left turn and a promiscuous left turn
I would assume the promiscuous one handles more volume?
I like to use part time left, but everyone here likes what I attempted to spell. Lets face it the English language sucks sometimes as many words are not sounded as they are spelled like in Spanish, French, etc.
TL;DR: Your excuse is faulty, but no excuse is needed.
I'm sorry, but the words "permissive" and "promiscuous" are pronounced the way they are spelled, though I'll concede it's not obvious which syllable should be stressed in the latter. And if you don't know how to spell one, knowing how it's pronounced, I can't imagine how one could write the other as a best guess.
You claim to have difficulty with this, and I can't dispute that. And it's not right to make fun of you for it; I don't think anyone was doing that. We enjoyed the amusement derived from your error, and I think that's different.
Indeed, the English language has a poor correlation between pronunciation and spelling, but I can't see how that's the cause of this specific error. At the risk of sounding ableist, I think you can try harder. But you are not obligated to do so. As you pointed out, it was clear what you meant.
Yes I made a mistake! Yes permissive is sounded the way it is. However its the wrong word not pronunciation in this case. To me its petty all of this. However we have whiners on this forum over nothing at times.
We have one guy on here who is obsessed with words, who I heard rumors to why he is that way as its because his elevator does not reach his own top floor. We have silly arguments on here every day, and most recent that one with HB from Kentucky. Nobody's perfect and I did not say it to be a troll or anything. To me I have heard the words only a few times so to me that is an honest mistake which since then I have used the proper verbiage ( I looked that one up in google, if I pulled the wrong word or the wrong spelling then I do not know what to say)!
Many people on this here forum have no jobs as some are on disability due to illnesses, some live at home with mom, and then others have no responsibilities whatsoever so they can be on the internet all day and even here to actually not only learn the ins and outs of this site or are able to take a few minutes to look up old posts or read 245 items of a particular thread to know what has been and what has not been said. I have a job, I take care of an elderly mom, I have an internship, and other responsibilities, so most times I am on here for only a brief minute or two and am not going to check for simple things during that moment.
Yes I have a developmental disorder like most on here, but each disorder and how that effects each one is different. So before you all pick on a person for doing things that you think are second nature, learn all the facts. Many of us with disabilities and disorders have a hard time in some cases to do what the majority does that is taken for granted. Believe me, I wish I can do better in my writing, as it irks me that I cannot.
I love roads and I love having discussions with people on this. I even have mini meets with two users on this forum and we go around Florida together checking out various projects and fun stuff. Even another road enthusiast who visits one of the two I meet tags along sometimes when he is down from the north to visit Sunny Florida. I even love some of you guys here despite the differences in opinions we have and even some of you who I have gotten very heated with. Sure there are some that are totally ridiculous and some trolls on here, but finally I learned how to deal with them and just ignore them. It took time, but I finally did it!
So I am on here because I love the hobby and like learning about other places and roads I have never clinched yet as well as local things in various communities.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2015, 01:59:37 PM
Yes I have a developmental disorder like most on here
On what do you base that statement?
Quote from: hbelkins on October 25, 2015, 08:13:49 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2015, 01:59:37 PM
Yes I have a developmental disorder like most on here
On what do you base that statement?
I think it's clear 99% of us have developmental disorders. I, for example, have male pattern baldness.
Quote from: Alps on October 25, 2015, 08:27:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 25, 2015, 08:13:49 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2015, 01:59:37 PM
Yes I have a developmental disorder like most on here
On what do you base that statement?
I think it's clear 99% of us have developmental disorders. I, for example, have male pattern baldness.
oh, so
that's what he meant by the elevator not reaching the top floor.
Quote from: spooky on October 26, 2015, 07:28:16 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 25, 2015, 08:27:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 25, 2015, 08:13:49 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 24, 2015, 01:59:37 PM
Yes I have a developmental disorder like most on here
On what do you base that statement?
I think it's clear 99% of us have developmental disorders. I, for example, have male pattern baldness.
oh, so that's what he meant by the elevator not reaching the top floor.
i think this has reached popcorn-and-thread-split status. extra butter, pls.
You know how on northbound I-95 from Baltimore to the DE state line, the control city is New York. When the interchange is complete, will the control city switch over to Philadelphia, or will New York remain as the control city?
Quote from: jcn on October 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM
You know how on northbound I-95 from Baltimore to the DE state line, the control city is New York. When the interchange is complete, will the control city switch over to Philadelphia, or will New York remain as the control city?
Maryland makes the decision on what control city/cities they want to use, and it's doubtful they're going to spend what could be a few million to change all their signs because of a construction project not related to them.
work has begun clearing the ROW on I-95 SB between the ramp from PA 413 and the bridge over Neshaminy Creek.
Quote from: jcn on October 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM
You know how on northbound I-95 from Baltimore to the DE state line, the control city is New York. When the interchange is complete, will the control city switch over to Philadelphia, or will New York remain as the control city?
The control cities, plural, ought to be Wilmington and New York, because of the major Turnpike split.
Quote from: Alps on October 28, 2015, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: jcn on October 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM
You know how on northbound I-95 from Baltimore to the DE state line, the control city is New York. When the interchange is complete, will the control city switch over to Philadelphia, or will New York remain as the control city?
The control cities, plural, ought to be Wilmington and New York, because of the major Turnpike split.
If I were adding any cities in that area, I'd add Philadelphia before I add Wilmington, even today before the interchange is complete. I don't really see what changes from Maryland's point of view regarding where you can go on I-95 and/or roads it connects to after the interchange is built. The only changes will be northbound in PA between Philadelphia and the NJ state line (include New York) and southbound along the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 29, 2015, 02:58:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 28, 2015, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: jcn on October 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM
You know how on northbound I-95 from Baltimore to the DE state line, the control city is New York. When the interchange is complete, will the control city switch over to Philadelphia, or will New York remain as the control city?
The control cities, plural, ought to be Wilmington and New York, because of the major Turnpike split.
If I were adding any cities in that area, I'd add Philadelphia before I add Wilmington, even today before the interchange is complete. I don't really see what changes from Maryland's point of view regarding where you can go on I-95 and/or roads it connects to after the interchange is built. The only changes will be northbound in PA between Philadelphia and the NJ state line (include New York) and southbound along the NJ Turnpike.
Delaware would have a cow. You have to show the next major destination on I-95, which ought to be Wilmington. Then you can show one farther destination, which I would hold forth to be New York (as opposed to Philadelphia). At the I-295 split, you can sign I-95 to Wilmington, I-495 to Philadelphia, and I-295 to Camden and New York.
As I said before, Philly isn't getting any love from NJ either, all the new southbound Turnpike signs use Trenton and Camden.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
As I said before, Philly isn't getting any love from NJ either, all the new southbound Turnpike signs use Trenton and Camden.
New Jersey rarely uses control cities outside of the state unless the sign is located at or very close to the actual border. The only major exception is I-80, which uses Stroudsburg west of Dover.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
As I said before, Philly isn't getting any love from NJ either, all the new southbound Turnpike signs use Trenton and Camden.
And the Turnpike doesn't go to Philly. Granted, it technically doesn't enter Trenton or Camden either, but at least it runs very close to those cities. You have to go through one of them to get to Philly.
Quote from: cl94 on October 29, 2015, 09:20:55 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
As I said before, Philly isn't getting any love from NJ either, all the new southbound Turnpike signs use Trenton and Camden.
New Jersey rarely uses control cities outside of the state unless the sign is located at or very close to the actual border. The only major exception is I-80, which uses Stroudsburg west of Dover.
Wilmington is one of the NJ Turnpike's favorites control cities now also.
On a VMS sign between Interchanges 5 & 4 Southbound, there's a travel time sign. It appears that during non-rush hour periods, it'll display the time to Wilmington at US 13 (why they just don't go to 95, who knows...). During rush hours, the sign will indicate the time to Wilmington via the NJ Turnpike or Rt. 295 at Exit 4, but leaves off the US 13. (Travel time to Wilmington via the NJ Turnpike appears to bottom out at 46 minutes. 295 time varies due to congestion, although it's often over 60 minutes).
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
As I said before, Philly isn't getting any love from NJ either, all the new southbound Turnpike signs use Trenton and Camden.
Exit 6 signage has
Philadelphia on it but it's presently greened out. Once the
thru I-95 ramps to/from the PA Turnpike are completed and open to traffic; those grenn-outs will be removed.
Quote from: cl94 on October 29, 2015, 09:20:55 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
As I said before, Philly isn't getting any love from NJ either, all the new southbound Turnpike signs use Trenton and Camden.
New Jersey rarely uses control cities outside of the state unless the sign is located at or very close to the actual border. The only major exception is I-80, which uses Stroudsburg west of Dover.
Though southbound on the N.J. Turnpike, an extra panel was added to the BGS at Exit 4 (N.J. 73) that reads Philadelphia (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9438148,-74.9370908,3a,75y,243.66h,80.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Orh0LD0wpf9aNxNQZ380g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This extra panel is
not brand-new, but I can remember a time when there was no mention of Philly at all on the Turnpike.
I presume that there will be some mention of Philly on the N.J. Turnpike approaching Exit 6 when (
if) the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission completes enough of the I-95/I-276 interchange in Bristol to tie the discontiguous sections of I-95 together.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2015, 12:44:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 29, 2015, 09:20:55 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
As I said before, Philly isn't getting any love from NJ either, all the new southbound Turnpike signs use Trenton and Camden.
New Jersey rarely uses control cities outside of the state unless the sign is located at or very close to the actual border. The only major exception is I-80, which uses Stroudsburg west of Dover.
Though southbound on the N.J. Turnpike, an extra panel was added to the BGS at Exit 4 (N.J. 73) that reads Philadelphia (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9438148,-74.9370908,3a,75y,243.66h,80.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Orh0LD0wpf9aNxNQZ380g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This extra panel is not brand-new, but I can remember a time when there was no mention of Philly at all on the Turnpike.
I presume that there will be some mention of Philly on the N.J. Turnpike approaching Exit 6 when (if) the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission completes enough of the I-95/I-276 interchange in Bristol to tie the discontiguous sections of I-95 together.
I can see it now:
I-95 S/Philadelphia
NJ TURNPIKE S/Camden
Quote from: Henry on October 30, 2015, 01:14:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2015, 12:44:49 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 29, 2015, 09:20:55 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
As I said before, Philly isn't getting any love from NJ either, all the new southbound Turnpike signs use Trenton and Camden.
New Jersey rarely uses control cities outside of the state unless the sign is located at or very close to the actual border. The only major exception is I-80, which uses Stroudsburg west of Dover.
Though southbound on the N.J. Turnpike, an extra panel was added to the BGS at Exit 4 (N.J. 73) that reads Philadelphia (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9438148,-74.9370908,3a,75y,243.66h,80.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-Orh0LD0wpf9aNxNQZ380g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). This extra panel is not brand-new, but I can remember a time when there was no mention of Philly at all on the Turnpike.
I presume that there will be some mention of Philly on the N.J. Turnpike approaching Exit 6 when (if) the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission completes enough of the I-95/I-276 interchange in Bristol to tie the discontiguous sections of I-95 together.
I can see it now:
I-95 S/Philadelphia
NJ TURNPIKE S/Camden
Um...the signs have been posted for a few years now, and have been discussed several times on these forums.
https://goo.gl/maps/gnmxALG6aiE2
The blank space below Penn Turnpike is covering up 'Philadelphia', and the blank space to the left of I-276 is for 95 South.
Quote from: jcn on October 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM
You know how on northbound I-95 from Baltimore to the DE state line, the control city is New York. When the interchange is complete, will the control city switch over to Philadelphia, or will New York remain as the control city?
Why would it change? The construction of this interchange really has zero effect on what one's destination might be on northbound I-95 in Maryland. You still get to New York and Philadelphia the same way as before.
I could see maybe a change at the Delaware split for "New York via Philadelphia" and "New York via New Jersey" but this would be unnecessary and potentially confusing.
What I REALLY want to see is New York as a control city on I-95 north in Philadelphia. I wonder if we'll see Philadelphia mentioned anywhere other than exit 6 on the turnpike. It would make more sense as a southbound control city than Trenton, which is used all the way up to the Cross Bronx Expressway, even though the road doesn't actually go there.
I drove through there last month and it's amazing to finally see cones on the road for this project after it's been talked about for decades. How we made it this long without a freeway connection between those two cities baffles me.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on November 05, 2015, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: jcn on October 28, 2015, 10:50:19 AM
You know how on northbound I-95 from Baltimore to the DE state line, the control city is New York. When the interchange is complete, will the control city switch over to Philadelphia, or will New York remain as the control city?
I wonder if we'll see Philadelphia mentioned anywhere other than exit 6 on the turnpike. It would make more sense as a southbound control city than Trenton, which is used all the way up to the Cross Bronx Expressway, even though the road doesn't actually go there.
Trenton isn't mentioned until you're in New Jersey. NYSDOT uses Newark or New Jersey by itself. Trenton isn't really used in New Jersey until south of Newark (unless I'm missing something). It has been mentioned both here and on other threads that New Jersey rarely uses a control city outside of the state, so it's certainly not without precedent.
Quote from: cl94 on November 05, 2015, 06:06:24 PM
Trenton isn't mentioned until you're in New Jersey.
It's shown as a control city in the Bronx:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8345292,-73.8825014,3a,75y,29.18h,86.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s40gxTPap58E_aeoaCCkfGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: MrDisco99 on November 05, 2015, 06:18:36 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 05, 2015, 06:06:24 PM
Trenton isn't mentioned until you're in New Jersey.
It's shown as a control city in the Bronx:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8345292,-73.8825014,3a,75y,29.18h,86.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s40gxTPap58E_aeoaCCkfGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is an exception I have never noticed, likely because I have never had a reason to use the Sheridan. It is not used as a control anywhere on the Cross Bronx or Bruckner. Why Trenton was used is beyond me.
Trenton was used on older signs in NYC, they have since switched to using Newark.
It's on the Deegan, too.
I never understood why Trenton is used as a control city anywhere on I-95 in NY or on the NJ Turnpike, considering the road doesn't actually go there. I'm hoping once the ramps to Philadelphia are finished that they'll change those signs. Not holding my breath, though.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 05, 2015, 07:37:40 PM
Trenton was used on older signs in NYC, they have since switched to using Newark.
Yeah Newark makes more sense from NYC I guess.
I think (once the connection is done) maybe some I-95 interchanges with major highways should be tagged with Philadelphia, though, just to show that there really is a way to get there now from the NY metro area. I'm sure there's plenty of drivers between those two cities who have had to resort to using arcane driving instructions passed down over generations while ignoring the signs.
I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.
I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.
Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).
Quote from: MrDisco99 on November 05, 2015, 07:46:54 PM
I'm sure there's plenty of drivers between those two cities who have had to resort to using arcane driving instructions passed down over generations while ignoring the signs.
Yeah, the hotels generally have use NJ 73 to NJ 90 to get across the river and then go down I-95. Megabus uses NJ 73 to NJ 38 to US 30 to I-676.
Something I just thought of... Are they going to adjust the ticket section tolls to accommodate the new bridge toll, or is that going to be just another increase for traffic doing the full mainline?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 06, 2015, 12:16:23 AM
I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.
I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.
Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).
Control cities do not have to be on the route itself. As long as its connected to it via another freeway or straight arterial.
Boston has I-93 for it coming both ways on I-95.
Boston has I-90 for I-84 after it ends.
Trenton has I-195 and US 206 for I-95 in NJ.
Heck I-95 uses Washington, and from the north you need to leave the interstate system by using the BW Parkway. From the south you stay on I-395 after I-95 leaves it at Springfield.
In any case, all are served quite well.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 06, 2015, 12:16:23 AM
I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.
It's worth noting (and most of us here know this) that I-95
was originally planned to go through Boston, Trenton (one early proposal had I-95 going through Trenton via the current US 1 corridor) and even Washington, DC; but key segments to make such happen were never built.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 06, 2015, 12:16:23 AMI-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.
One has to wonder had the plan to build I-84 to Providence ever happened; would ConnDOT have changed those signs? Another topic for another thread.
Found this old article on Google on why Maryland signs I-95 north of Baltimore for "New York" as opposed to Wilmington or Philadelphia:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-12-20/news/1993354006_1_exit-signs-traffic-signs-new-york
ASUS ZenFone 2E
The sooner this interchange is completed, the better. It's inexcusable that the gap in Interstate 95 has persisted for this long.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2015, 04:57:13 PM
The sooner this interchange is completed, the better. It's inexcusable that the gap in Interstate 95 has persisted for this long.
I'd say the gap has been a good thing since traffic passing through the region doesn't generally take I-95 through Philadelphia. The interchange wasn't initially built as explained previously in the thread. But in the intervening years it may have been that it wasn't so much a choice by the PTC as it was by the administrations in Harrisburg. They wouldn't want the extra traffic to clog I-95 in PA since then they would have to find a way to expand the highway.
The part that I'd say is wrong is that I-95 should have been routed around Philly. PA shouldn't have been able to have their cake and eat it too. I-95 goes around DC and Boston so why not Philly. I would replace I-95 through Philly as I-495. I-95 through Wilmington would then be I-695.
But at least the way things have unfolded most travelers have learned to use the NJTPK. And fortunately in the future new drivers will probably (fingers crossed) be told by their navigation system to use the NJTPK as well.
Also to add to your comment, if NJ 90 was completed to Exit 4 of the NJ Turnpike it could have been I-395 giving Philadelphia plenty of access to the interstate despite it not being part of it.
Yes I-95 should be the full length of the NJ Turnpike as it is seen that way as is by the non road geeks.
As far as NJ 90 not even being built as not being considered in interstate mileage, NJ is very content on sticking to the original mileage set back in the 50's pretty much. Heck the only reason why I-195 got to be one is because NJ cancelled I-278 in Union County where they were able to transfer the mileage over.
Quote from: BrianP on November 06, 2015, 05:38:44 PM
The part that I'd say is wrong is that I-95 should have been routed around Philly. PA shouldn't have been able to have their cake and eat it too. I-95 goes around DC and Boston so why not Philly. I would replace I-95 through Philly as I-495. I-95 through Wilmington would then be I-695.
I disagree. Had Pennsylvania NIMBYs succeeded in getting a long section of I-95 in their state cancelled, then by all means, I-95 should have followed the New Jersey Turnpike from bottom to top. It would have become the logical choice at that point.
But it was NIMBYs in New Jersey that are the root cause of the discontiguous sections of I-95 today. Seems very unfair to Pennsylvania to route a 2di that they built away from their largest city, because of NIMBYist objections against the Somerset Freeway in New Jersey.
Quote from: BrianP on November 06, 2015, 05:38:44 PM
But at least the way things have unfolded most travelers have learned to use the NJTPK. And fortunately in the future new drivers will probably (fingers crossed) be told by their navigation system to use the NJTPK as well.
Some will probably continue to use the N.J. Turnpike. Others (including over-the-road owner/operator trucks) will probably use I-95 through Philadelphia,
especially northbound, since there will be no toll to leave Pennsylvania on the eastern end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike East-West Mainline. Not sure if trucks will save money on tolls southbound (I suppose it depends on what the toll will be to enter Pennsylvania as compared to the New Jersey Turnpike toll from Exit 6 to Exit 1, combined with the charge to use the Delaware Memorial Bridge). I assume the distance staying on the Turnpike and across the DMB on I-295 will be a little shorter than staying with signed I-95 through Center City Philadelphia.
I don't buy the argument that PA built 95 so why should they lose it or have to fix what NJ broke. It's an INTERSTATE highway, what best serves INTERSTATE travel ought to trump any feudal squabbles between two states over who has to deal with what.
Also, the needs of traffic trump the needs of a route number. The point of the 95/PA Tpk interchange is not to give I-95 a continuous route. It is to provide a direct all-freeway route from NYC to Philadelphia, which currently does not exist. It is only being signed as I-95 because that has been deemed the most sensible number to give it.
The lack of an interstate number on the NJ Turnpike south of exit 6 is odd, but does not decrease the road's utility. So, that's strictly for NJ to worry about, and they have chosen not to care.
As for the traffic impacts, the interchange will at least at first be limited by the Delaware River Bridge being only four lanes. That will likely become somewhat of a choke point, so there will be pressure to twin it. But this is for PA-bound traffic. I question how much traffic will go that way for the sake of toll avoidance. Any dedicated shunpikers will not be on the turnpike in the first place and will have crossed the Delaware for free at Trenton (or for a small toll, once Scudders Falls starts collecting them).
Trucks, meanwhile, already have an easy shunpike route by using 295 and 195 instead of the turnpike between 1 and 7A. For northbound traffic this will continue to be cheaper than taking 95 through Philly and using the new interchange, so I wouldn't worry about that. Southbound, I doubt there will be much if any savings either.
Whether or not the Delaware Expressway is I-95 or not, the road is needed anyway. I think many are pointing out that I-95 should have been on the NJ Turnpike from day one. When the mileage was being decided five decades ago, it should have been given an x95 number instead, as even if the Somerset Freeway was being considered for economic growth in Central Jersey it still could have been it as well.
As far as an all freeway routing between NY and Philly, if NJ 90 was built and given an x95 route number as well, you would also have had the two cities connected by all freeway as well. That would have even given the current Turnpike an all freeway link into Philadelphia as well which is needed.
Oh and may I remind you the lack of interchange between the NJT and NJ 42! If that were built you would also have an all freeway connection between the two mid Atlantic marketing cities as well!
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2015, 07:39:31 PMThe point of the 95/PA Tpk interchange is not to give I-95 a continuous route. It is to provide a direct all-freeway route from NYC to Philadelphia, which currently does not exist.
Sure it exists. I-95 north becomes I-295 south to I-195 to the NJTP. Or I-76 or I-676 to I-295 to I-95 to the NJTP. :-D
Quote from: swbrotha100 on November 06, 2015, 01:50:00 PM
Found this old article on Google on why Maryland signs I-95 north of Baltimore for "New York" as opposed to Wilmington or Philadelphia:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-12-20/news/1993354006_1_exit-signs-traffic-signs-new-york
ASUS ZenFone 2E
So AASHTO tells Maryland to use NYC but tells West Virginia to use Lewisburg, Clarksburg and Parkersburg? Ohhh-kay.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2015, 08:52:55 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2015, 07:39:31 PMThe point of the 95/PA Tpk interchange is not to give I-95 a continuous route. It is to provide a direct all-freeway route from NYC to Philadelphia, which currently does not exist.
Sure it exists. I-95 north becomes I-295 south to I-195 to the NJTP. Or I-76 or I-676 to I-295 to I-95 to the NJTP. :-D
Yes in a very roundabout way, but yes. However to some people on this forum and to local and state officials not so much because its not direct.
Quote from: dgolub on November 06, 2015, 08:08:44 AM
Quote from: MrDisco99 on November 05, 2015, 07:46:54 PM
I'm sure there's plenty of drivers between those two cities who have had to resort to using arcane driving instructions passed down over generations while ignoring the signs.
Yeah, the hotels generally have use NJ 73 to NJ 90 to get across the river and then go down I-95. Megabus uses NJ 73 to NJ 38 to US 30 to I-676.
With a very fortunate (for me) result of making an extra stop right at the Cherry Hill mall. I wonder if it will go away when the interchange is built.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2015, 09:27:58 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on November 06, 2015, 01:50:00 PM
Found this old article on Google on why Maryland signs I-95 north of Baltimore for "New York" as opposed to Wilmington or Philadelphia:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-12-20/news/1993354006_1_exit-signs-traffic-signs-new-york
ASUS ZenFone 2E
So AASHTO tells Maryland to use NYC but tells West Virginia to use Lewisburg, Clarksburg and Parkersburg? Ohhh-kay.
Ultimately Maryland decides.
They have been posting mentions of New York as far south as the I-95/I-495 interchange in College Park since the "between the Beltways" section of I-95, from I-495 to South Caton Avenue (one interchange north of I-695) opened in the early 1970's (northbound I-95 traffic was encouraged by signs to follow the Outer Loop of I-695 south to I-895, then north on I-895 through the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel - when the I-895 extension from U.S. 1 to I-95 was completed, then that became the de-facto I-95 until completion of the Fort McHenry Tunnel in 1985).
As others have mentioned, U.S. 40, which runs parallel to I-95 from Baltimore to a point near Newport, Delaware, mostly uses Philadelphia as its control city. Once the PTC's Bristol project is complete enough to complete I-95, I think Maryland may decide to mention Philly more frequently on I-95.
Also on some old maps you will find that both the BW Expressway and Parkway were shown as Temporary I-95 for a short time before I-95 was completed between the Capital Beltway and Caton Avenue.
I do not know how that went, as trucks are banned south of MD 175, unless really they were thinking only about cars. More than likely trucks were probably sent via MD 3 and US 301 like Richmond was always (and still is today from at least I-695)signed from the tunnel in the pre I-95 days.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2015, 07:39:31 PM
I don't buy the argument that PA built 95 so why should they lose it or have to fix what NJ broke. It's an INTERSTATE highway, what best serves INTERSTATE travel ought to trump any feudal squabbles between two states over who has to deal with what.
That is the theory,
and I wish it were correct - the federal government could then compel the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT to remediate their collection of Breezewoods between sections of the Interstate network. But unfortunately Pennsylvania has elected officials in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate that would likely object to such an effort.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2015, 07:39:31 PM
Also, the needs of traffic trump the needs of a route number. The point of the 95/PA Tpk interchange is not to give I-95 a continuous route. It is to provide a direct all-freeway route from NYC to Philadelphia, which currently does not exist. It is only being signed as I-95 because that has been deemed the most sensible number to give it.
Freeways should not have discontinuous sections, though I agree that this project will create, for the first time, a direct all-freeway connection between Philadelphia and North Jersey and New York, which matters IMO more.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2015, 07:39:31 PM
The lack of an interstate number on the NJ Turnpike south of exit 6 is odd, but does not decrease the road's utility. So, that's strictly for NJ to worry about, and they have chosen not to care.
"Secret" N.J. 700 (and N.J. 444 and N.J.446 (ACE)) are remnants of the days when most toll roads in the United States had names only and not route numbers (at least for public use). But drivers are used to all major highways having route numbers now, and it is time for NJTA, SJTA (and maybe NJDOT) to get with the program.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2015, 07:39:31 PM
As for the traffic impacts, the interchange will at least at first be limited by the Delaware River Bridge being only four lanes. That will likely become somewhat of a choke point, so there will be pressure to twin it. But this is for PA-bound traffic. I question how much traffic will go that way for the sake of toll avoidance. Any dedicated shunpikers will not be on the turnpike in the first place and will have crossed the Delaware for free at Trenton (or for a small toll, once Scudders Falls starts collecting them).
Plans call for the bridge to be twinned. Probably will happen when PTC has enough money (given that the massive bleeding to non-Turnpike projects consuming billions of Turnpike dollars continues).
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2015, 07:39:31 PM
Trucks, meanwhile, already have an easy shunpike route by using 295 and 195 instead of the turnpike between 1 and 7A. For northbound traffic this will continue to be cheaper than taking 95 through Philly and using the new interchange, so I wouldn't worry about that. Southbound, I doubt there will be much if any savings either.
I have used that shunpike route a few times, just for the sake of variation, and to see how the I-295/I-76/N.J. 42 project is progressing. But I usually take the Turnpike. It's faster and a few less miles if coming from the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
The opportunity is available north of 7A, but I also like to stop at one of the Turnpike's service plazas for full-service Diesel fuel, which is the cheapest I have seen on the East Coast, with the possible exception of South Carolina.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2015, 04:56:20 PM
Also on some old maps you will find that both the BW Expressway and Parkway were shown as Temporary I-95 for a short time before I-95 was completed between the Capital Beltway and Caton Avenue.
I do not know how that went, as trucks are banned south of MD 175, unless really they were thinking only about cars. More than likely trucks were probably sent via MD 3 and US 301 like Richmond was always (and still is today from at least I-695)signed from the tunnel in the pre I-95 days.
The Baltimore-Washington Parkway, between I-495 in Greenbelt and I-895 in Baltimore County, was indeed posted as TO I-95. Trucks have
never been allowed on the federal part of the Parkway, from U.S. 50 in Cheverly to Md. 197 in Odenton, with exceptions for military trucks and other trucks displaying federal government registration plates.
By signs on I-495 (Capital Beltway) and I-695 (Baltimore Beltway), trucks were directed to use U.S. 1, though I sure that more than a few used the Md. 3/U.S. 301 routing you mention above.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 12:40:06 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 06, 2015, 07:39:31 PM
The lack of an interstate number on the NJ Turnpike south of exit 6 is odd, but does not decrease the road's utility. So, that's strictly for NJ to worry about, and they have chosen not to care.
"Secret" N.J. 700 (and N.J. 444 and N.J.446 (ACE)) are remnants of the days when most toll roads in the United States had names only and not route numbers (at least for public use). But drivers are used to all major highways having route numbers now, and it is time for NJTA, SJTA (and maybe NJDOT) to get with the program.
I would bet good money (on a "What if..." of course) that had NJ not been behind the times with speed limits in the 1980s and wanted to raise the limits to 65 back then, that part of the Turnpike would definitely have an Interstate number on the basis of allowing it to have that speed limit (see also I-495 (ME), I-88 (IL), I-355 (KS)).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 12:40:06 PM
The opportunity is available north of 7A, but I also like to stop at one of the Turnpike's service plazas for full-service Diesel fuel, which is the cheapest I have seen on the East Coast, with the possible exception of South Carolina.
By law, the Turnpike (and Parkway) gas prices are set weekly based on the statewide average. So if you think the Turnpike has cheap diesel, you'll by definition find even cheaper diesel by leaving the freeway (unless every station is exactly matching, which is essentially impossible).
Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:05:58 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 12:40:06 PM
The opportunity is available north of 7A, but I also like to stop at one of the Turnpike's service plazas for full-service Diesel fuel, which is the cheapest I have seen on the East Coast, with the possible exception of South Carolina.
By law, the Turnpike (and Parkway) gas prices are set weekly based on the statewide average. So if you think the Turnpike has cheap diesel, you'll by definition find even cheaper diesel by leaving the freeway (unless every station is exactly matching, which is essentially impossible).
You have to factor in the extra toll cost of getting off the Turnpike and then back on. Also, diesel is usually self service in NJ. Not Really sure how widely available full service diesel is (and how much it costs), but at gas stations I use, diesel is self serve only. Finally, (and this may not apply to diesel) NJ turnpike only changes their gas prices once a week, so when prices are rising, the service areas often have cheaper gas than most surrounding areas.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 10, 2015, 11:43:04 AMAlso, diesel is usually self service in NJ. Not Really sure how widely available full service diesel is (and how much it costs), but at gas stations I use, diesel is self serve only.
By state law, all gas stations in NJ are full service only.
Diesel fueling in not mandatory full serve in NJ, only gasoline. Pretty much every station will extend full service to diesel customers though since the pump is usually next to the gasoline ones.
Self-service gasoline is illegal in New Jersey and Oregon. Starting next year, self-service will be legal in "rural areas" in Oregon, but New Jersey will remain as-is for the near future. Diesel can be self-service.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 10, 2015, 09:00:58 PM
Diesel fueling in not mandatory full serve in NJ, only gasoline. Pretty much every station will extend full service to diesel customers though since the pump is usually next to the gasoline ones.
Like I said, my experience at New Jersey gas stations I frequent is that diesel is self serve. I don't go to service areas for gas much, though, so don't know what it's like there.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 06, 2015, 12:16:23 AM
I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.
I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.
Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).
My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx. "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.
From what I read, a lot of Trenton area commuters commute to New York for work. Plus, Trenton just refers to the actual metro area surrounding the city, which encapsulates most of Mercer County. The only signs that point into Trenton are Exit 1, 7 and 67 on I-95. Most other signs seem to refer to the Trenton area. Trenton exists as a destination because most if not every exit can lead you into Trenton on I-95.
That's what I think anyway...
Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:05:58 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 09, 2015, 12:40:06 PM
The opportunity is available north of 7A, but I also like to stop at one of the Turnpike's service plazas for full-service Diesel fuel, which is the cheapest I have seen on the East Coast, with the possible exception of South Carolina.
By law, the Turnpike (and Parkway) gas prices are set weekly based on the statewide average. So if you think the Turnpike has cheap diesel, you'll by definition find even cheaper diesel by leaving the freeway (unless every station is exactly matching, which is essentially impossible).
I am not at all certain that I have
ever purchased Diesel fuel in New Jersey at any station that was not on the Turnpike.
Back between about 2000 and 2005, the NJTA was providing a subsidy to Sunoco to lower Diesel prices in an effort to lure long(er) haul trucks onto the Turnpike (but any Diesel-powered vehicle could take advantate of the low price). I believe that subsidy has gone away, but Diesel prices are still very reasonable at the Sunoco stations on the Pike.
I filled-up the tank at a no-name gas station on N.Y. 112 in Medford, N.Y. on the Sunday of the Long Island meet, and the per-gallon price was between 20¢ and 30¢ higher than what I observed on the New Jersey Turnpike. Some of that was due to higher motor fuel taxes in New York.
Now you've done it. You even have Philly's newspaper asking why control cities on I-95 skip Philly to list New York
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20151115_Philly_won_t_be_overlooked__Give_us_a__road__sign.html
Quote from: MASTERNC on November 14, 2015, 10:52:30 AM
Now you've done it. You even have Philly's newspaper asking why control cities on I-95 skip Philly to list New York
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20151115_Philly_won_t_be_overlooked__Give_us_a__road__sign.html
OK, who's the mole?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2015, 10:00:58 AM
I filled-up the tank at a no-name gas station on N.Y. 112 in Medford, N.Y. on the Sunday of the Long Island meet, and the per-gallon price was between 20¢ and 30¢ higher than what I observed on the New Jersey Turnpike. Some of that was due to higher motor fuel taxes in New York.
The state gas tax for New Jersey is 14.5¢/gal and for New York it's 46.0¢/gal, so pretty much the entirety of the price difference can be attributed to the difference in taxes.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on November 14, 2015, 10:37:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2015, 10:00:58 AM
I filled-up the tank at a no-name gas station on N.Y. 112 in Medford, N.Y. on the Sunday of the Long Island meet, and the per-gallon price was between 20¢ and 30¢ higher than what I observed on the New Jersey Turnpike. Some of that was due to higher motor fuel taxes in New York.
The state gas tax for New Jersey is 14.5¢/gal and for New York it's 46.0¢/gal, so pretty much the entirety of the price difference can be attributed to the difference in taxes.
And yet there are still potholes in NY.
... but a lot lower percentage of failing bridges.
For a while, it was claimed by the PTC and others that the project would be complete enough to re-route I-95 onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 2017.
Now it seems that the schedule is sometime in 2018 (seen on the Turnpike's Web site for this project, and also here (http://articles.philly.com/2014-08-14/business/52772901_1_toll-gantry-pennsylvania-turnpike-commission-new-jersey-turnpike) in this 2014 article on Philly.com by transportation beat writer Paul Nussbaum).
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on November 14, 2015, 10:37:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 12, 2015, 10:00:58 AM
I filled-up the tank at a no-name gas station on N.Y. 112 in Medford, N.Y. on the Sunday of the Long Island meet, and the per-gallon price was between 20¢ and 30¢ higher than what I observed on the New Jersey Turnpike. Some of that was due to higher motor fuel taxes in New York.
The state gas tax for New Jersey is 14.5¢/gal and for New York it's 46.0¢/gal, so pretty much the entirety of the price difference can be attributed to the difference in taxes.
Makes sense. I also wonder if some of the higher cost could be due to "zone" pricing, and to higher costs associated with transportation of any hazardous materials into Nassau and Suffolk Counties via New York City.
There is a tanker terminal in Inwood, NY that supplies a lot of fuel to Long Island, Brooklyn, and Queens. It was unusable for several weeks after Sandy, which is why there were ensuing gas shortages.
But normally fuel is the one product that doesn't need to be transported through NYC to get to Long Island.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 15, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
There is a tanker terminal in Inwood, NY that supplies a lot of fuel to Long Island, Brooklyn, and Queens. It was unusable for several weeks after Sandy, which is why there were ensuing gas shortages.
But normally fuel is the one product that doesn't need to be transported through NYC to get to Long Island.
Rode right by there and was not aware of its existence.
From looking at the site on Google, it appears that product is brought in by barge, perhaps from Elizabeth in North Jersey?
My New Year's wish is that we are given reason by the PTC to spend more time on this thread talking about the actual construction progress as not.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on November 16, 2015, 07:39:05 PM
My New Year's wish is that we are given reason by the PTC to spend more time on this thread talking about the actual construction progress as not.
:rofl: :rofl: :-D :-D :rofl: :rofl:
The NJ Turnpike widened 25 miles of highway, literally building a 2nd highway around the 1st highway, along with associated work, in the same time it's going to take the PTC to build 2 ramps to move people between 2 highways.
Jeffandnicole's point is very well taken; I couldn't agree more. But it is worth pointing out what another poster mentioned a while back, that PTC has quite a number of construction projects ongoing, so you can see where their construction efficiency statewide might suffer.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 16, 2015, 08:21:49 PM
Jeffandnicole's point is very well taken; I couldn't agree more. But it is worth pointing out what another poster mentioned a while back, that PTC has quite a number of construction projects ongoing, so you can see where their construction efficiency statewide might suffer.
More than its own construction program, PTC is bleeding enormous sums of money (
$450 million annually) to projects and subsidies that have nothing to do with the Turnpike. This started in 2007 with Act 44, the provisions of which (but not the amount of money paid every year) were changed in 2013 by Act 89 (details here (https://www.paturnpike.com/business/act44_plan.aspx)).
When the contracts are approved, they are approved with start and ending dates. Most likely, the ending date is just really drawn out, giving the contractor a LOT of time to work on the project. Many contracts are set up so the authority pays the contractor a % of the money due as the project hits certain milestones. As the project is worked on at a slower pace, the % completed takes longer to hit, so the PTC can defer payments.
When people complain how long it's taking to complete a project and that it's just the unions collecting a lot more money, that's not really the case. If the winning bid was $10 million, the contractor involved is going to get $10 million, regardless if the project is done in a day or a decade (excluding incentives and penalties).
It seems like the PTC has overextended itself. Granted, that's not hard to do when you're hobbled with extremely large payments for something that isn't even slightly related to the Turnpike.
Perhaps they could try a few things to get out of them:
-Simply not make the payments any more and dare the state to try to do something about it
-Halt all construction until the payments are repealed (after all, they can't afford both)
-Jack up tolls to levels so high that only Warren Buffet can afford to even go one interchange down the road, ESPECIALLY in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
Quote from: vdeane on November 17, 2015, 01:08:07 PM
It seems like the PTC has overextended itself. Granted, that's not hard to do when you're hobbled with extremely large payments for something that isn't even slightly related to the Turnpike.
Perhaps they could try a few things to get out of them:
-Simply not make the payments any more and dare the state to try to do something about it
-Halt all construction until the payments are repealed (after all, they can't afford both)
-Jack up tolls to levels so high that only Warren Buffet can afford to even go one interchange down the road, ESPECIALLY in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
The Governor would simply dismiss the commissioners and staff responsible and replace them with people that will follow his...and the laws'...orders.
Well, something has to be done, as having a Turnpike only the rich can pay for that cannot even do simple projects is not in the public's interest. Perhaps the federal government could step in and slap Pennsylvania around. Does the PTC have a union? Perhaps the workers could strike until such time as the payments are removed. There has to be SOMEONE around there who is interested in actually serving the public and doing what's right rather than being someone's corrupt crony.
This is a very good reason for stripping the governor's office of the power to appoint/fire high level management. They should be through the civil service system like everyone else.
Quote from: vdeane on November 17, 2015, 01:53:53 PM
Well, something has to be done, as having a Turnpike only the rich can pay for that cannot even do simple projects is not in the public's interest. Perhaps the federal government could step in and slap Pennsylvania around. Does the PTC have a union? Perhaps the workers could strike until such time as the payments are removed. There has to be SOMEONE around there who is interested in actually serving the public and doing what's right rather than being someone's corrupt crony.
This is a very good reason for stripping the governor's office of the power to appoint/fire high level management. They should be through the civil service system like everyone else.
Technically, the law serves the public because of the money going to various state road and transit projects. So while it slows down construction and delays work on the Turnpike, it's actually benefiting more people overall.
It wouldn't do the Turnpike union workers any good to strike, as the payment doesn't affect them. Could they organize a walkout? Sure. But considering the majority of people are using EZ Pass, the effect on the motoring public would be minimal.
Surely they have office workers too - and their absence would grind everything PTC to a halt. In any case, it won't serve the public when in a few years the AADT on the Turnpike drops to 0 because nobody can afford the tolls. And last I checked, PennDOT is no longer receiving money from the PTC as of Act 89. And I don't think anyone will appreciate all the shunpike traffic.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2015, 03:35:55 PM
Technically, the law serves the public because of the money going to various state road and transit projects. So while it slows down construction and delays work on the Turnpike, it's actually benefiting more people overall.
As of the passage of Act 89, all of the diverted money goes to transit and other non-highway/non-Turnpike projects.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2015, 03:35:55 PM
It wouldn't do the Turnpike union workers any good to strike, as the payment doesn't affect them. Could they organize a walkout? Sure. But considering the majority of people are using EZ Pass, the effect on the motoring public would be minimal.
And the PTC has said very firmly that the all-electronic toll collection at the E-ZPass only interchange on the N.E. Extension, other ramps and on the E-W Mainline west of the Delaware River is just the start.
They are firmly on their way to an all-AET Pennsylvania Turnpike, and will presumably be the first of the legacy toll roads to go 100% cashless, but probably not the last.
Once they go cashless, the impact of a strike on the PTC will be pretty minimal, except during the winter season, when they have to have massive maintenance forces to deal with snow and ice.
Quote from: vdeane on November 17, 2015, 01:53:53 PM
Well, something has to be done, as having a Turnpike only the rich can pay for that cannot even do simple projects is not in the public's interest. Perhaps the federal government could step in and slap Pennsylvania around. Does the PTC have a union? Perhaps the workers could strike until such time as the payments are removed. There has to be SOMEONE around there who is interested in actually serving the public and doing what's right rather than being someone's corrupt crony.
Because there are no federal dollars directly involved, the USDOT cannot really do anything. Even though the "original" Turnpike from Carlisle to the suburbs of Pittsburgh was built with federal loans (long ago repaid).
Quote from: vdeane on November 17, 2015, 01:53:53 PM
This is a very good reason for stripping the governor's office of the power to appoint/fire high level management. They should be through the civil service system like everyone else.
It was (is) a political decision. The Pennsylvania Constitution has a provision that prohibits the use of motor fuel tax revenues on anything except highways, so the Turnpike Commission was identified as a juice source of subsidy dollars for PennDOT (for highway projects having nothing to do with the Turnpike) and for the various transit agencies around the state.
After the passage of Act 89, the diversion of Turnpike dollars to PennDOT highway projects stopped, but the diversion to transit and other non-highway projects will continue at the same rate as before.
This is funny. Public employee unions stepping in to demand more efficient/effective spending? Not in their interests or nature.
Appoint top-level management through civil service? Why have a governor if he/she cannot run on an agenda and then ensure the people in place are ones that will see it through? If the governor cannot fire his top people, to whom are they answerable?
Political jobs are valuable because ineffective and corrupt people can be fired by someone appointed directly by the people. Removing this power from the people is not only something I'd never stand for (nor should anyone), but a recipe for an epic disaster for public accountability. As it is, removing ineffective people from public jobs is far more complicated than in a lot of the private sector. Please, let's not champion this practice for the folks that need the most at stake.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 17, 2015, 04:31:52 PM
They are firmly on their way to an all-AET Pennsylvania Turnpike, and will presumably be the first of the legacy toll roads to go 100% cashless, but probably not the last.
Of course, not anywhere near as fast as they thought when they first announced. Most of the articles I've read in the last 6 months - year have mentioned how they're slowing the whole process down a lot (presumably to do more "research" and observe their test projects they are doing soon.)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 17, 2015, 05:05:05 PM
This is funny. Public employee unions stepping in to demand more efficient/effective spending? Not in their interests or nature.
Appoint top-level management through civil service? Why have a governor if he/she cannot run on an agenda and then ensure the people in place are ones that will see it through? If the governor cannot fire his top people, to whom are they answerable?
Political jobs are valuable because ineffective and corrupt people can be fired by someone appointed directly by the people. Removing this power from the people is not only something I'd never stand for (nor should anyone), but a recipe for an epic disaster for public accountability. As it is, removing ineffective people from public jobs is far more complicated than in a lot of the private sector. Please, let's not champion this practice for the folks that need the most at stake.
Around here, pretty much every politically appointed position is a patronage job. I'd rather the agencies do what's genuinely best for the people, and I'm cynical enough to believe that politicians that work for anyone but themselves are EXTREMELY rare.
So, in this system where nobody is standing up for the people, who will?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 17, 2015, 05:05:05 PM
Appoint top-level management through civil service? Why have a governor if he/she cannot run on an agenda and then ensure the people in place are ones that will see it through? If the governor cannot fire his top people, to whom are they answerable?
Because it gives too much power to one person. Also because it ruins the ability of a state to move forward with a consistent vision if the head keeps changing and undoing policies of his predecessors.
Using civil service instead does, however, have the problem of lack of accountability. I would instead propose making the leaders of state agencies elected positions, with an explicit requirement that any individual running for the position must be licensed in the field in question (DOT commissioner must be a PE, education commissioner must have a teaching certification, health commissioner must be an MD, etc.).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 15, 2015, 04:11:23 PM
For a while, it was claimed by the PTC and others that the project would be complete enough to re-route I-95 onto the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 2017.
Now it seems that the schedule is sometime in 2018 (seen on the Turnpike's Web site for this project, and also here (http://articles.philly.com/2014-08-14/business/52772901_1_toll-gantry-pennsylvania-turnpike-commission-new-jersey-turnpike) in this 2014 article on Philly.com by transportation beat writer Paul Nussbaum).
I look forward to 2012, when the new interchange and twinned bridge will be complete.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 17, 2015, 06:23:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 17, 2015, 05:05:05 PM
Appoint top-level management through civil service? Why have a governor if he/she cannot run on an agenda and then ensure the people in place are ones that will see it through? If the governor cannot fire his top people, to whom are they answerable?
Because it gives too much power to one person. Also because it ruins the ability of a state to move forward with a consistent vision if the head keeps changing and undoing policies of his predecessors.
Using civil service instead does, however, have the problem of lack of accountability. I would instead propose making the leaders of state agencies elected positions, with an explicit requirement that any individual running for the position must be licensed in the field in question (DOT commissioner must be a PE, education commissioner must have a teaching certification, health commissioner must be an MD, etc.).
You will run into the same problem as in most elections–the most ambitious candidates are more likely to succeed than the most qualified. As it is, public agencies have a hard time selecting the best talent when the private sector involves less hamstringing and pays much better.
Granted, there are elected "professional" positions. Our state auditor, for example, is elected. But on the other hand, the world is full of lazy, entrenched, politically powerful elected sheriffs. I don't think the best practice at all is to assemble a professional management team of people who a) must already live in a particular jurisdiction, and b) necessarily have to focus on "electability" along with actual qualification.
Plus, who then sets policy? Cabinet-level or lesser officials? How do you balance priorities across governmental functions when your Secretary of X won on a platform of taking more money for X and is now going to fight the rest of government to get it (and has, to in order to get reelected)? You end up with Congress in miniature when you directly politicize these roles.
Finally, the only point that actually matters is that we have not collectively agreed to limit money in politics, so control of these jobs will just go to the highest bidder anyway.
QuoteDOT commissioner must be a PE
Why? Most of the work a DOT commissioner does revolves around policy and budget decisions, as well as responding to legislation concerning tranportation matters, and not actual engineering.
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2015, 07:17:56 PM
I look forward to 2012, when the new interchange and twinned bridge will be complete.
Man... it will be great until we find out the Mayans were right, and the world ends shortly thereafter.
Wait.... what?
Quote from: Mr_Northside on November 17, 2015, 05:31:28 PM
Of course, not anywhere near as fast as they thought when they first announced. Most of the articles I've read in the last 6 months - year have mentioned how they're slowing the whole process down a lot (presumably to do more "research" and observe their test projects they are doing soon.)
Yeah, the PTC seems to plod along at its own (slow) pace.
How many years has a discussion about what to do with the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel been going on?
Bypass it?
Bore a third tube so that the two existing tubes can be taken out of service and rehabilitated?
Quote from: roadman on November 18, 2015, 01:31:00 PM
QuoteDOT commissioner must be a PE
Why? Most of the work a DOT commissioner does revolves around policy and budget decisions, as well as responding to legislation concerning tranportation matters, and not actual engineering.
The engineers around here do tend to get lost in the details and lose sight of the overall picture very frequently. I don't think the last three commissioners at NYSDOT had a PE (Glynn, MacDonald and now Driscoll). Having someone fret over the pennies rather than the millions would be highly damaging and I see some engineers here in management do exactly that.
My personal preference is that the top official NOT be a PE. In Kentucky, all transportation functions are consolidated in the Transportation Cabinet, with various departments including Highways, Aviation, etc. Departments are headed by commissioners and I'm not sure if Kentucky even has a commissioner of highways right now. There is a politically appointed position called state highway engineer, however, who has to be a PE. The SHE answers to the commissioner, who in turn answers to the cabinet s secretary. My preference is that the top official who's a PE is the state highway engineer, and I prefer non-PEs as highway commissioner and cabinet secretary. You need to strike a balance between engineering and political considerations, and personally I think PEs concentrate too much on the former and not enough on the latter. Our current secretary is a PE. His predecessor was not. There was a huge public outcry for a traffic signal on the AA Highway several years ago. The intersection never met engineering warrants for a signal but the local residents and leaders were insistent on having one. The non-PE secretary at the time basically said that he felt comfortable approving the signal because he was NOT an engineer and didn't feel constrained by engineering criteria to do what was right. A PE wouldn't have approved the signal but a "civilian" did.
I agree, H.B. Of course, NYSDOT's Chief Engineer is a PE. :D
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 12, 2015, 08:41:36 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 06, 2015, 12:16:23 AM
I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.
I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.
Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).
My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx. "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.
Newark is also better, because of the people heading over the GWB probably an equal number of people take I-80 west as take I-95 south. The ideal control city would be a city in northern NJ that both streams of travel would hit. That would be Fort Lee or Leonia or Teaneck or Ridgefield Park. But those cities are too small to be used (in any place other than PA of course). Newark is the largest city in NJ and it is at least in the general area of Northern NJ so it is the best choice.
Trenton is just too far south to be used as a control in the Bronx.
Quote from: mrsman on November 25, 2015, 10:19:01 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 12, 2015, 08:41:36 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 06, 2015, 12:16:23 AM
I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.
I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.
Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).
My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx. "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.
Newark is also better, because of the people heading over the GWB probably an equal number of people take I-80 west as take I-95 south. The ideal control city would be a city in northern NJ that both streams of travel would hit. That would be Fort Lee or Leonia or Teaneck or Ridgefield Park. But those cities are too small to be used (in any place other than PA of course). Newark is the largest city in NJ and it is at least in the general area of Northern NJ so it is the best choice.
Trenton is just too far south to be used as a control in the Bronx.
Is that really true? I-95 goes through more populated areas than I-80 both in the short range (Newark, New Brunswick, etc) and medium range (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington). I-80 west of Paterson has few meaningful destinations until you hit Ohio.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 25, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 25, 2015, 10:19:01 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 12, 2015, 08:41:36 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 06, 2015, 12:16:23 AM
I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.
I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.
Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).
My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx. "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.
Newark is also better, because of the people heading over the GWB probably an equal number of people take I-80 west as take I-95 south. The ideal control city would be a city in northern NJ that both streams of travel would hit. That would be Fort Lee or Leonia or Teaneck or Ridgefield Park. But those cities are too small to be used (in any place other than PA of course). Newark is the largest city in NJ and it is at least in the general area of Northern NJ so it is the best choice.
Trenton is just too far south to be used as a control in the Bronx.
Is that really true? I-95 goes through more populated areas than I-80 both in the short range (Newark, New Brunswick, etc) and medium range (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington). I-80 west of Paterson has few meaningful destinations until you hit Ohio.
Which raises the question: Seeing that there is literally nothing noteworthy along I-80 in PA, is Cleveland (or Youngstown) signed in those locations, like New York is on the other end of that segment?
Quote from: Henry on November 25, 2015, 10:54:39 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 25, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 25, 2015, 10:19:01 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 12, 2015, 08:41:36 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 06, 2015, 12:16:23 AM
I-95 doesn't enter Trenton. True. Now tell those people in southern Maine, southeast New Hampshire, northeast Massachusetts and Providence that I-95 never enters Boston, although they use it as a control city in many cases.
I-84 ends roughly 55 miles west of Boston. Tell that to people in Connecticut from roughly Exit 45 in Hartford (Flatbush Avenue) to the Massachusetts state line.
Anyways...one still sees Trenton as a southbound control city at the I-95 exit from I-87 (Major Deegan Expressway).
My issue with "Trenton" on the sign is not that the road never enters it, but rather that it is probably not that big a draw for motorists on the Deegan or Cross Bronx. "Newark" was always the better option, and thankfully, the relevant agencies in New York have come around on this.
Newark is also better, because of the people heading over the GWB probably an equal number of people take I-80 west as take I-95 south. The ideal control city would be a city in northern NJ that both streams of travel would hit. That would be Fort Lee or Leonia or Teaneck or Ridgefield Park. But those cities are too small to be used (in any place other than PA of course). Newark is the largest city in NJ and it is at least in the general area of Northern NJ so it is the best choice.
Trenton is just too far south to be used as a control in the Bronx.
Is that really true? I-95 goes through more populated areas than I-80 both in the short range (Newark, New Brunswick, etc) and medium range (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington). I-80 west of Paterson has few meaningful destinations until you hit Ohio.
Which raises the question: Seeing that there is literally nothing noteworthy along I-80 in PA, is Cleveland (or Youngstown) signed in those locations, like New York is on the other end of that segment?
From I-95, the control is Paterson.
The control for much of I-80 is Delaware Water Gap.
As far as traffic, though, during commute times, I'd say the amount of traffic heading to western suburbs along I-80 is probably close to the traffic heading along I-95.
Furthermore, nearly all of I-80's traffic that is heading for NYC or Long Island will use the GWB, whereas a lot of the I-95 traffic will use some of the other crossings like the Lincoln, Holland, Goethals, or Outerbridge. So if you were in Queens and you were heading to Philly, you'd probably use the Verrazano, but if you were heading to Cleveland, you'd use the GWB.
Quote from: mrsman on November 25, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 25, 2015, 10:54:39 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 25, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
Is that really true? I-95 goes through more populated areas than I-80 both in the short range (Newark, New Brunswick, etc) and medium range (Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington). I-80 west of Paterson has few meaningful destinations until you hit Ohio.
Which raises the question: Seeing that there is literally nothing noteworthy along I-80 in PA, is Cleveland (or Youngstown) signed in those locations, like New York is on the other end of that segment?
From I-95, the control is Paterson.
The control for much of I-80 is Delaware Water Gap.
Don't forget Netcong!
One possible destination for I-80 in Pennsylvania might be State College. Although it's several miles off I-80 and it's not a large city, it is a very well known location and might fly as an I-80 destination.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 25, 2015, 08:06:09 PM
One possible destination for I-80 in Pennsylvania might be State College. Although it's several miles off I-80 and it's not a large city, it is a very well known location and might fly as an I-80 destination.
What about Williamsport? I mean, they do host the Little League World Series.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 25, 2015, 10:55:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 25, 2015, 08:06:09 PM
One possible destination for I-80 in Pennsylvania might be State College. Although it's several miles off I-80 and it's not a large city, it is a very well known location and might fly as an I-80 destination.
What about Williamsport? I mean, they do host the Little League World Series.
And these are why it should be signed Youngstown - Netcong. (Yes, I'm joking about Netcong, but hey, it's on there.)
Quote from: Alps on November 26, 2015, 12:48:26 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 25, 2015, 10:55:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 25, 2015, 08:06:09 PM
One possible destination for I-80 in Pennsylvania might be State College. Although it's several miles off I-80 and it's not a large city, it is a very well known location and might fly as an I-80 destination.
What about Williamsport? I mean, they do host the Little League World Series.
And these are why it should be signed Youngstown - Netcong. (Yes, I'm joking about Netcong, but hey, it's on there.)
Yeah. The only city of more than 10,000 that I-80 gets within spitting distance of is Hermitage, which is just across the border from Youngstown. Parsippany is the only town in Jersey I'd sign, mainly because that's where the interchanges with I-280 and I-287 are.
I-80 across PA is just like I-90 in Minnesota. They are built way off the beaten path, with one not replacing a US route. Even though I-90 goes where US 16 once did, still no prominent cities along the way as Worthington or Albert Lea are not too noteworthy. The only reason why the latter got signed is cause of I-35 junctioning there.
Maybe PE isn't the correct specific qualification, my point is that the person in charge of building and maintaining roads needs to be someone highly qualified in that field - not some crackpot who can get elected by spouting off a bunch of totally impractical ideas that sound good to laypeople.
I think Duke87 pretty much nailed it.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2015, 06:37:42 PM
Maybe PE isn't the correct specific qualification, my point is that the person in charge of building and maintaining roads needs to be someone highly qualified in that field - not some crackpot who can get elected by spouting off a bunch of totally impractical ideas that sound good to laypeople.
Yeah. I don't know about the top person, but Ohio has a PE in charge of almost every region. I don't know if this has anything to do with what I've seen, but the stuff I've seen built in Ohio in the past decade has been done quite well, to the most modern standards and state-maintained highways I've been on are quite well-maintained. It's as if ODOT's rise corresponded with NYSDOT's fall.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 08:32:14 PM
I-80 across PA is just like I-90 in Minnesota. They are built way off the beaten path, with one not replacing a US route. Even though I-90 goes where US 16 once did, still no prominent cities along the way as Worthington or Albert Lea are not too noteworthy. The only reason why the latter got signed is cause of I-35 junctioning there.
Austin? Lousy Vikings!
Quote from: cl94 on November 29, 2015, 10:19:00 PM
Yeah. I don't know about the top person, but Ohio has a PE in charge of almost every region. I don't know if this has anything to do with what I've seen, but the stuff I've seen built in Ohio in the past decade has been done quite well, to the most modern standards and state-maintained highways I've been on are quite well-maintained. It's as if ODOT's rise corresponded with NYSDOT's fall.
The top official in each Kentucky highway district is known as the chief district engineer (sometimes called executive director) and it's a requirement that the CDE be a PE. Whether that requirement is by law or merely by internal KYTC policy, I do not know.
A story in the Bucks County Courier Times regarding the interchange. Nothing really new to report compared to what we already know. At the very end of the story the reporter mis-spoke, stating that the former I-95 will become I-395. However, one of the images within the article shows the correct replacement route number of I-295.
I don't have time to go back through 18 pages...
Did anyone else see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqXeodFnak ?
ixnay
This plan ignores two major movements - I-95 North of the PA Turnpike and the PA Turnpike west of I-95 never connect into each other.
The whole thing about the powerlines is generally overly simplified as well. "Just move them underground" isn't as easy as it sounds. They are high-voltage lines which generally are airborn lines. We also don't know what's underground in this area.
He proposes using that empty strip of land between those houses. While he makes it seem like it won't destroy any of those houses, even if that's true, these people now have a major highway in their backyards. And he over-exaggerated the issue where the interchange is going by circling half of Pennsylvania claiming that all those houses will be destroyed...when in fact it's mostly an industrial area where few if any buildings need to be taken.
It's not a bad plan...but there's a few more flaws than what 'Google Earth' can show.
I commented about the below on the NJ Turnpike thread (due to the BGS' location) and decided that it was worth sharing here:
There is now (at least as of last night) a Clearview BGS along the westbound NJ-PA Turnpike Connector (Future I-95 southbound). It's a 3-mile advance notice for Exit 358 (US 13) interchange and was erected in anticipation of the upcoming AET conversion just west of the bridge. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a photo of such.
All lettering and numerals (except the US 13) shield are in Clearview. This BGS even looks odd by PTC standards because it seems to be smaller and uses narrower fonts compared to other PTC signage.
Quote from: ixnay on December 29, 2015, 08:07:19 AM
I don't have time to go back through 18 pages...
ixnay
Use exit 40 off I-95 for its originally intended purpose? What a novel idea!
I have the forum display set for 50 messages per page, so it took me less time to go thru only 9 pages...and then I remembered this interchange being referenced in the "Overpowered Interchanges" thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10939.msg261267#msg261267 (see also several posts following that one).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 08:51:52 AM
This plan ignores two major movements - I-95 North of the PA Turnpike and the PA Turnpike west of I-95 never connect into each other.
US 1 works.
Quote from: Alps on December 29, 2015, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 08:51:52 AM
This plan ignores two major movements - I-95 North of the PA Turnpike and the PA Turnpike west of I-95 never connect into each other.
US 1 works.
Several options work...but the point is to have a direct interchange, not a Breezewood-style movement.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 10:56:59 AM
Several options work...but the point is to have a direct interchange, not a Breezewood-style movement.
It's a freeway, so it's about as Breezewood as making the ME I-95<->295 connection using the Route 703 connector.
It even leads to the very next interchange over on I-276, so the only ones who'd really lose out are those who'd want to enter I-95 at Exit 44; they'd still have to use US1 Bus or something.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 08:51:52 AM
This plan ignores two major movements - I-95 North of the PA Turnpike and the PA Turnpike west of I-95 never connect into each other.
Which they eventually will (maybe by the year 2100?) according to PTC plans.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 08:51:52 AM
The whole thing about the powerlines is generally overly simplified as well. "Just move them underground" isn't as easy as it sounds. They are high-voltage lines which generally are airborn lines. We also don't know what's underground in this area.
Power lines (even high-voltage transmission lines)
can be undergrounded, but it is not cheap, and not especially easy - and utilities generally do not like them.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 08:51:52 AM
He proposes using that empty strip of land between those houses. While he makes it seem like it won't destroy any of those houses, even if that's true, these people now have a major highway in their backyards. And he over-exaggerated the issue where the interchange is going by circling half of Pennsylvania claiming that all those houses will be destroyed...when in fact it's mostly an industrial area where few if any buildings need to be taken.
It's not a bad plan...but there's a few more flaws than what 'Google Earth' can show.
He also forgets that Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 applies if any of that green space that he proposes to use is parkland. If there is a "feasible and prudent alternative" to taking parkland (which there clearly is in this case), then that alternative is likely to be the one selected (as it was here).
And there's the matter of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a project that has any water quality impacts (I am
certain that this project had to get a Section 404 permit).
Quote from: davewiecking on December 29, 2015, 10:29:38 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 29, 2015, 08:07:19 AM
I don't have time to go back through 18 pages...
ixnay
I have the forum display set for 50 messages per page, so it took me less time to go thru only 9 pages....
The main reason I didn't have time to go through 18 pages was because I was coming up against my departure-for-work time. And I don't have a job where I'm chained to a desk bion.
ixnay
Will PennDOT widen I-95 from the 413 connector to this interchange if it ever gets built? If I remember correctly it narrows to four lanes from there into NJ coming from Philly. I would think with the extra traffic that the 95 designation would bring would warrant PennDOT to at least widen that part anyway.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 12:27:26 PM
Will PennDOT widen I-95 from the 413 connector to this interchange if it ever gets built? If I remember correctly it narrows to four lanes from there into NJ coming from Philly. I would think with the extra traffic that the 95 designation would bring would warrant PennDOT to at least widen that part anyway.
At first, the maps didn't show any widening...2 lanes per direction on the mainline, then a 1 lane ramp that expanded to 2 lanes. More recently though, I thought I saw something that showed I-95 will be 3 lanes each direction from 413 to the PA Turnpike. Hopefully that will occur.
In the video he says, "I've figured out a way to make this work without destroying a single home." A way that fifteen years of Community Advisory Committee meetings (that I participated in and can vouch for their thoroughness) somehow overlooked? But he (miracle!) has found it? Oh please...
His solution (including about ten variations on the that theme) actually were identified, studied in minute detail, analyzed from every angle, and eventually eliminated for various reasons.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2015, 01:55:16 PM
He also forgets that Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 applies if any of that green space that he proposes to use is parkland. If there is a "feasible and prudent alternative" to taking parkland (which there clearly is in this case), then that alternative is likely to be the one selected (as it was here).
The Section 4(f) issue turned out to be the biggest reason why his solution (and variations of it) were eventually dismissed from consideration. It also turns out that no matter how it was worked, it still required the taking of homes. The selected alternative in reality takes surprisingly few homes or businesses.
This guy should really talk to someone who participated in the design process (most of them not engineers, as it turns out) before he trumpets his supposed better solution. As one who was there (before I worked for PennDOT), I'm completely satisfied that the selected alternative is the best that could be achieved, given the constraints present (cost, regulatory issues like Section 4(f), minimizing residential and commercial displacements, etc.). Or at least the "least bad."
Go to YT and type "I-95 : I-276 Interchange" in the search engine to bring up this vid. Then tell Webeo what you think, folks.
ixnay
Quote from: qguy on January 01, 2016, 01:18:48 PM
In the video he says, "I've figured out a way to make this work without destroying a single home." A way that fifteen years of Community Advisory Committee meetings (that I participated in and can vouch for their thoroughness) somehow overlooked? But he (miracle!) has found it? Oh please...
His solution (including about ten variations on the that theme) actually were identified, studied in minute detail, analyzed from every angle, and eventually eliminated for various reasons.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2015, 01:55:16 PM
He also forgets that Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 applies if any of that green space that he proposes to use is parkland. If there is a "feasible and prudent alternative" to taking parkland (which there clearly is in this case), then that alternative is likely to be the one selected (as it was here).
The Section 4(f) issue turned out to be the biggest reason why his solution (and variations of it) were eventually dismissed from consideration. It also turns out that no matter how it was worked, it still required the taking of homes. The selected alternative in reality takes surprisingly few homes or businesses.
This guy should really talk to someone who participated in the design process (most of them not engineers, as it turns out) before he trumpets his supposed better solution. As one who was there (before I worked for PennDOT), I'm completely satisfied that the selected alternative is the best that could be achieved, given the constraints present (cost, regulatory issues like Section 4(f), minimizing residential and commercial displacements, etc.). Or at least the "least bad."
People like him typically look at something for about 10 minutes, draws up the 'preferred' route, and uses an extremely jittery computer display to explain why his route is the best.
At least he managed to draw ramps with realistic curvatures, rather than extremely tight ramps that could barely support 5 mph in real life.
For most projects, there are numerous - even dozens - of possibilities that are eliminated for one reason or another...many that someone without any information about what's in or near the property area wouldn't have a clue why they are eliminated.
Rarely is the preferred alternative the absolute best alternative. In most cases, property will still have to be taken. But sometimes that's for the best. A few people may have their house bought out, but that may be better than 15 homeowners having a 4 lane highway in their backyards.
To use the 295/76/42 interchange near me as an example: The best alternative, a 70 mph design speed highway, would have knocked out well over 100 homes and businesses. Clearly the goals of a new interchange could be accomplished without such destruction. Another design - decking 295 South over 295 North, would eliminate fewer homes than the final alternative that was chosen, but the visual and sound impacts would have impacted many more people. 295 being tunneled under Rt. 42 would have been the best in terms of sight and sound issues, but the wetlands and environment issues in the area would've pushed the project's costs up tremendously. In the end, even the preferred alternative has undergone some minor changes.
Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night. Here (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10206898887662837.1073741870.1596953667&type=1&l=6b54a415e5) are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook. You do not need a Facebook account to view them.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 10:15:42 AM
Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night. Here (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10206898887662837.1073741870.1596953667&type=1&l=6b54a415e5) are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook. You do not need a Facebook account to view them.
You mentioned the Billboards...I didn't like them for their "unclarity". If I didn't know this one toll plaza would be cashless already, the billboard wouldn't help in the least to tell me what's going on.
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
Bridge Painting - As you mentioned, PA (both PennDOT and the PA Turnpike) are well known for their lack of bridge painting. Most other states and agencies will tell you that's the cheapest, easiest way to maintain a life of an overpass, by simply removing the rust and repainting them when needed, which is about every 25 years or so. And it looks more attractive as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
When there are no ORT lanes, people working in the booths have to cross up to the full length of the plaza, so they need the E-ZPass traffic to slow down so people don't get run over. They probably want to keep consistency between all the plazas so people know where to expect the E-ZPass lanes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 10:15:42 AM
Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night. Here (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10206898887662837.1073741870.1596953667&type=1&l=6b54a415e5) are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook. You do not need a Facebook account to view them.
You mentioned the Billboards...I didn't like them for their "unclarity". If I didn't know this one toll plaza would be cashless already, the billboard wouldn't help in the least to tell me what's going on.
Excellent reasons. Sorry, I had to get a jab in at PTC for its lousy interchanges, and my general dislike of roadside billboards.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
The design of the plaza at Bensalem (or is it Bristol?) is consistent with the other mainline plaza on the East-West Mainline, at Warrendale (west end of the ticket system), as well as the one at Exit 1 on the New Jersey Turnpike and the one at Harriman on the New York State Thruway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Bridge Painting - As you mentioned, PA (both PennDOT and the PA Turnpike) are well known for their lack of bridge painting. Most other states and agencies will tell you that's the cheapest, easiest way to maintain a life of an overpass, by simply removing the rust and repainting them when needed, which is about every 25 years or so. And it looks more attractive as well.
I was told years ago by an engineer with Maryland DOT's SHA that cleaning and (re)painting structural steel is one of the cheapest things that can be done to extend the life of that structural steel. Added bonus - sometimes problems associated with the steel are discovered, such as the crack in a flange on one of the I-70 (fracture-critical) bridges over the Patapsco River gorge in Maryland (details (from 2014) here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12575.msg304343#msg304343)).
I also get the impression that the bridges that are owned and maintained by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission get more and better maintenance than those on PennDOT's network. As you might have read in the comments, the bridge that carries I-95 (future I-295) over I-276 is owned and maintained by PennDOT, not PTC.
Quote from: vdeane on January 03, 2016, 06:03:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
When there are no ORT lanes, people working in the booths have to cross up to the full length of the plaza, so they need the E-ZPass traffic to slow down so people don't get run over. They probably want to keep consistency between all the plazas so people know where to expect the E-ZPass lanes.
Absolutely correct. Much better, IMO, to have the fast-moving ORT lanes (or just no cash lanes) toward the middle of the plaza.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 03, 2016, 06:03:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
When there are no ORT lanes, people working in the booths have to cross up to the full length of the plaza, so they need the E-ZPass traffic to slow down so people don't get run over. They probably want to keep consistency between all the plazas so people know where to expect the E-ZPass lanes.
Absolutely correct. Much better, IMO, to have the fast-moving ORT lanes (or just no cash lanes) toward the middle of the plaza.
Simple solution -- don't require people working in the booths the cross the road. Either build parking lots on both sides so employees can drive up to the side they're working on, or build a simple catwalk across the top of the toll booth structure.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 07:03:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 10:15:42 AM
Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night. Here (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10206898887662837.1073741870.1596953667&type=1&l=6b54a415e5) are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook. You do not need a Facebook account to view them.
You mentioned the Billboards...I didn't like them for their "unclarity". If I didn't know this one toll plaza would be cashless already, the billboard wouldn't help in the least to tell me what's going on.
Excellent reasons. Sorry, I had to get a jab in at PTC for its lousy interchanges, and my general dislike of roadside billboards.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
The design of the plaza at Bensalem (or is it Bristol?) is consistent with the other mainline plaza on the East-West Mainline, at Warrendale (west end of the ticket system), as well as the one at Exit 1 on the New Jersey Turnpike and the one at Harriman on the New York State Thruway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Bridge Painting - As you mentioned, PA (both PennDOT and the PA Turnpike) are well known for their lack of bridge painting. Most other states and agencies will tell you that's the cheapest, easiest way to maintain a life of an overpass, by simply removing the rust and repainting them when needed, which is about every 25 years or so. And it looks more attractive as well.
I was told years ago by an engineer with Maryland DOT's SHA that cleaning and (re)painting structural steel is one of the cheapest things that can be done to extend the life of that structural steel. Added bonus - sometimes problems associated with the steel are discovered, such as the crack in a flange on one of the I-70 (fracture-critical) bridges over the Patapsco River gorge in Maryland (details (from 2014) here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12575.msg304343#msg304343)).
I also get the impression that the bridges that are owned and maintained by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission get more and better maintenance than those on PennDOT's network. As you might have read in the comments, the bridge that carries I-95 (future I-295) over I-276 is owned and maintained by PennDOT, not PTC.
It does extend the life and it does, by nature, closely inspect the bridge. And if you haven't noticed, weathering steel hasn't been used nearly as much in the past couple years. NYSDOT and NYSTA have all but eliminated its use, at least in Buffalo. I was quite surprised to see painted steel on the newest projects.
As far as the toll plaza stuff goes, that is pretty standard. E-ZPass should be in the middle if there is a crossing. The main state that puts E-ZPass lanes on the outside and between cash lanes at plazas is Massachusetts, but that's going away with AET. New York puts them in the middle and on the outside on the side away from the building (to allow for higher-speed lanes), the latter taking precedence if space is limited.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 03, 2016, 08:24:00 PM
Simple solution -- don't require people working in the booths the cross the road. Either build parking lots on both sides so employees can drive up to the side they're working on, or build a simple catwalk across the top of the toll booth structure.
Space is limited and AET is coming in soon enough that it wouldn't be worth the cost. I know most of NYSTA's busy plazas have land constraints, for example.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 03, 2016, 08:24:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 03, 2016, 06:03:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
When there are no ORT lanes, people working in the booths have to cross up to the full length of the plaza, so they need the E-ZPass traffic to slow down so people don't get run over. They probably want to keep consistency between all the plazas so people know where to expect the E-ZPass lanes.
Absolutely correct. Much better, IMO, to have the fast-moving ORT lanes (or just no cash lanes) toward the middle of the plaza.
Simple solution -- don't require people working in the booths the cross the road. Either build parking lots on both sides so employees can drive up to the side they're working on, or build a simple catwalk across the top of the toll booth structure.
And they do what with the money if they only build a parking lot?
And how is such a catwalk structure built? Do you place it directly above the toll plaza, needing to cut thru the existing roof? How do you for the staircase into the narrow booth islands?
When the NJ Turnpike rebuilt Interchange 1, it needed to be handicap accessible. That means elevators and a few wide toll booths should someone in a wheelchair be employed as a toll employee.
Anytime someone says something should be simple...it never is.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2016, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 12:27:26 PM
Will PennDOT widen I-95 from the 413 connector to this interchange if it ever gets built? If I remember correctly it narrows to four lanes from there into NJ coming from Philly. I would think with the extra traffic that the 95 designation would bring would warrant PennDOT to at least widen that part anyway.
At first, the maps didn't show any widening...2 lanes per direction on the mainline, then a 1 lane ramp that expanded to 2 lanes. More recently though, I thought I saw something that showed I-95 will be 3 lanes each direction from 413 to the PA Turnpike. Hopefully that will occur.
such widening of I-95 between exit 40 and the new interchange is both on the plans and actually in-progress. the plans are on the project website; the progress is noted by my daily commute through the construction zone.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
They used the same setup on the NE Extension. In talking with a friend about it, he surmised this was mainly for traffic calming, and reduced the chance of a slow-moving vehicle "cutting" off a higher-speed E-Z Pass driver.
Many of the (newer) PA toll plazas have underpasses for toll-collectors at least to some lanes.
Quote
Bridge Painting - As you mentioned, PA (both PennDOT and the PA Turnpike) are well known for their lack of bridge painting. Most other states and agencies will tell you that's the cheapest, easiest way to maintain a life of an overpass, by simply removing the rust and repainting them when needed, which is about every 25 years or so. And it looks more attractive as well.
On the Turnpike side, at least, it seems like the 95 overpasses may have been left for this project to take care of them. As part of the (PennDOT) widening of 202, there were entries made about bridge painting on their website, and indicated it was "cheaper" from a traffic control perspective to build it into other construction projects. And the way they slide in PA lately, this results in exactly what you are talking about... a missed opportunity to do "simple" work to extend the life of infrastructure.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 03, 2016, 08:24:00 PM
Simple solution -- don't require people working in the booths the cross the road. Either build parking lots on both sides so employees can drive up to the side they're working on, or build a simple catwalk across the top of the toll booth structure.
Toll road collection facilities that accept cash that I have visited as part of my job at various places in Maryland and Virginia have tunnels under the wide ones (that span the entire road) for access.
The one across I-95 at the Fort McHenry Tunnel is massively wide, as is the one on Va. 267 at Tysons Corner (east of Va. 7), where the tunnel has to run under the "free" Dulles Access Road lanes as well.
The rebuilt New Jersey Turnpike Exit 1 barrier put the walkways above the toll booths, which is also fine.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 10:15:42 AM
Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night. Here (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10206898887662837.1073741870.1596953667&type=1&l=6b54a415e5) are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook. You do not need a Facebook account to view them.
I drove the eastbound mainline last night between Ft. Washington and Delaware Valley, not crossing the bridge. Looks like only two mainline lanes approach the new plaza split, and the signing for that split is only one mile in advance (east of the Bensalem exit ramp). Appears to be some sign clutter, with all the signs for Exit 351 (with its Exit Only), Exit 352 (with its Exit Only feeding from the previous entrance ramp) and the mainline plaza split. Is any widening supposed to be done to this approach, i.e. 3 through lanes? Would require bridge work at Exit 351, which I do not think is part of this project. "Pay Toll" sign approaching former bridge plaza has been removed from gantry at Exit 358.
The tolls have also been lifted at Exit 358. One lane open through the plaza (other lanes coned off) with sheets over the toll gantry signs saying "KEEP MOVING" and a warning sign in advance saying something on the order of TOLL PLAZA CLOSED. I saw on a previous trip through that there is construction of a new eastbound exit ramp -- probably because of existing ramp curve/speed and sight distance at the bottom with the WB ramp. I presume demo of the existing plazas is a next step.
I know pictures would help, but I could not get any. Pitch black when I passed through, and the rest of the family was asleep . . .
Finally some tangible progress on this stuff . . .
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 10:15:42 AM
Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night. Here (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10206898887662837.1073741870.1596953667&type=1&l=6b54a415e5) are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook. You do not need a Facebook account to view them.
I know you mentioned somewhere about the NJ Turnpike's Neon VMS sign on the PA Turnpike just west of the extension bridge, which probably is the sole remaining neon sign for the NJ Turnpike.
In the minutes to the 9/29/15 meeting, on PDF page 8 (Page 7 of the document), it mentions the NJ Turnpike will reimburse the PA Turnpike for costs in relation to constructing a new VMS/VSLS sign in this same location, which will include removing that old neon sign. http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2015-09-29-BM-Minutes-AIN-368-thru-408.pdf
Most likely there's something similar for that fixed US 13, 3 Mile ahead sign, as well as the PA Turnpike VMS sign located on the NJ Turnpike's side of the bridge, although I couldn't find anything after some searching.
Those minutes are always a hoot to read. Wonder what arrows Mr. Bodin was talking about? :P
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2016, 05:03:52 PM
Those minutes are always a hoot to read... :P
Agreed, from the few pages I just enjoyed. I'm sorry to have missed the apparently numerous appearances of Mr. Robert Filipczak (exit 43 GSP), and wish him luck as he turns his attention to his newly patented fire extinguisher.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:36:39 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 03, 2016, 10:15:42 AM
Cash toll collection on the Pennsylvania Turnpike just west of the Delaware River ended last night. Here (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10206898887662837.1073741870.1596953667&type=1&l=6b54a415e5) are some photographs from 1 January and 2 January of the old toll barrier, the new ones, and the interchange construction project on Facebook. You do not need a Facebook account to view them.
Tollplazas...EZ Pass to the right, Cash to the left. Never cared for it. Faster traffic (thus, EZ Pass Traffic) should be on the left. Not always feasible, but in the case of the mainline plaza shown, it should absolutely have been done that way.
Agreed. From a traffic perspective I'm horrified by fast traffic on the right.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:15:22 PM
And they do what with the money if they only build a parking lot?
If you mean, what do the employees do with the money they've collected on their shift, they total it and take it to the bank to deposit it, just like the employee who closes at a retail outlet does.
QuoteAnd how is such a catwalk structure built? Do you place it directly above the toll plaza, needing to cut thru the existing roof? How do you for the staircase into the narrow booth islands?
Build it above the toll plaza and have the steps descend onto the island on the downstream side of traffic flow. I'm not a structural engineer but it shouldn't be too hard to design something that would work.
QuoteWhen the NJ Turnpike rebuilt Interchange 1, it needed to be handicap accessible. That means elevators and a few wide toll booths should someone in a wheelchair be employed as a toll employee.
If there is such an employee, assign them to the booth nearest where they park so climbing steps is not necessary, or to an office job. The law requires "reasonable accommodations." Spending thousands of dollars to accommodate one employee hardly strikes me as "reasonable." And believe me, I'm sensitive to such things since my dad was an amputee who had difficulty climbing stairs with his artificial leg.
QuoteAnytime someone says something should be simple...it never is.
Sure it is. People always make things much more complicated than they need to be.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 04, 2016, 09:53:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2016, 10:15:22 PM
And they do what with the money if they only build a parking lot?
If you mean, what do the employees do with the money they've collected on their shift, they total it and take it to the bank to deposit it, just like the employee who closes at a retail outlet does.
I don't know of any retail outlets that permit a low-level employee to take a bag full of money, which at a toll plaza where the toll can average over $10 per car and thus during an 8 hour shift can easily be thousands of dollars, and take that money in their own personal car to a bank. Every store I'm familiar with will have them or a manager take the cash drawer to an office for the money to be counted and deposited. The risk of theft is way too great, both by an employee and by anyone waiting for that employee to walk to their vehicle. Many businesses employ a armored car service to pick up the money from the drop safe, which is how most multi-million dollar toll agencies work. A Turnpike isn't a mom-and-pop hardware store.
Don't forget other paperwork for cars without money. Toll runners. Various notes the employee had to write up or document.
Oh, and the employee may need to use the restroom. And wash their hands.
And a locker room.
The employee gets a few breaks also.
They need a place to eat.
No reasonable place of business will tell you: Go into the parking lot and do all of this in your car.
Assuming the employee has a car.
QuoteQuoteAnd how is such a catwalk structure built? Do you place it directly above the toll plaza, needing to cut thru the existing roof? How do you for the staircase into the narrow booth islands?
Build it above the toll plaza and have the steps descend onto the island on the downstream side of traffic flow. I'm not a structural engineer but it shouldn't be too hard to design something that would work.
A simple pedestrian overpass over a 6 lane roadway starts at about $3 million. And that's just one set of stairs on either side. You can't just build a 'catwalk' like it's over a theatre stage.
QuoteQuoteWhen the NJ Turnpike rebuilt Interchange 1, it needed to be handicap accessible. That means elevators and a few wide toll booths should someone in a wheelchair be employed as a toll employee.
If there is such an employee, assign them to the booth nearest where they park so climbing steps is not necessary, or to an office job. The law requires "reasonable accommodations." Spending thousands of dollars to accommodate one employee hardly strikes me as "reasonable." And believe me, I'm sensitive to such things since my dad was an amputee who had difficulty climbing stairs with his artificial leg.
You have absolutely no clue about what things cost, do you? A simple handicap ramp to allow someone in their own home can cost a few thousand dollars. Every multi-story building must have elevator access and non-restrictive access to all parts of the building. Spending thousands of dollars? Most business spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure the building is entirely handicap accessible.
The nearest side where they could park would still be on the right side of the toll lane. The toll booth would be on the left side. So at the absolute very minimum you would need curb cuts and ramps to get from one side to the other.
And...look above at all the other things an employee would expect to have at a place of business.
QuoteQuoteAnytime someone says something should be simple...it never is.
Sure it is. People always make things much more complicated than they need to be.
[/quote]
Damn lawyers. And ADA requirements.
Your thought process of how a toll agency works is so out of whack it's ludicrous.
If they added an employee who needed accessibility they would likely do what's needed and not much else. However, thanks to agencies and municipalities completely ignoring the ADA law in the 90s and 00s, it is now required that ADA elements be upgraded if so much as touched by anything more than the most minor maintenance (ex: a pavement resurfacing contract now requires replacement of all deficient curb ramps in the project limits, regardless of whether the pavement and ramps are owned/maintained by the same organization or not).
When having to resurface pavement near a toll booth, just replace the pavement! We don't have to rebuild a ramp, we just have to replace a couple feet of concrete, people!
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 05, 2016, 01:32:15 PM
When having to resurface pavement near a toll booth, just replace the pavement! We don't have to rebuild a ramp, we just have to replace a couple feet of concrete, people!
Please familiarize yourself with ADA requirements before posting to this thread.
Going back to depositing cash, my dad would sometimes deposit cash when he worked for a regional bookstore chain...as a manager and district manager - and that was typically to a bank in the same mall/plaza. The typical employee won't be depositing cash. Maybe a supervisor, but the larger stores have armored cars, anyway.
Quote from: Alps on January 05, 2016, 06:09:56 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 05, 2016, 01:32:15 PM
When having to resurface pavement near a toll booth, just replace the pavement! We don't have to rebuild a ramp, we just have to replace a couple feet of concrete, people!
Please familiarize yourself with ADA requirements before posting to this thread.
I think he was talking about the exit ramp, not a wheelchair or sidewalk ramp.
FDOT is very strict with money. The drop must be done in the presence of the supervisor in a room where you MUST face the camera, empty the bag and even show to the camera its empty, walk with the bag IN FRONT OF YOU AT ALL TIMES, have the supervisor count the money first where you verify his totals, then you count it yourself and the supervisor verifies your total, then you compare numbers for accuracy, make out slips, and then you and your supervisor jointly unlock the drop chute with both of your IDs simultaneously before you are done.
FDOT considers a locked bag a risk. However, no big paperwork for those who do not have toll money, we just hand them the state's business card and log it in our clipboard paper and that is it. No reports at all for us at least.
Nobody with a wheelchair can be employed as a toll collector because we cannot even sit down if there is a steady line of cars, or for eighteen wheelers you must STAND. FDOT can make your life hell if you do not, so therefore FDOT will not allow wheelchair hirees!
As far as parking lots on the near side, let me tell you about the Exit 249 plazas in Kissimmee on Florida's Turnpike. The main lot and money counting building is on the SB off ramp. If you, lets say, live near the interchange off of Osceola Parkway, you just cannot get to the building from the street as the parking area must only be accessed by the Turnpike south. Remember the ramp is one way off and even walking in from the street is not allowed and if caught its a 300 dollar fine even for 400 feet of walking! So you live within walking distance of the Exit 249 plazas, you must go north on the Turnpike and U turn at FL 417 via its own ramps at Landstar Boulevard and double back.
Employees on the NB on ramp must sign out FDOT company cars to drive across to the other side as the NB ramp has no building! The lunch room is inside Lane 4 for those working Lanes 4 and 6. There is a table outside hidden behind the booth at Lane 4 for eating outside. Also no personal items allowed in the booth. All items are to be locked inside a locker as even money inside your wallet could be considered stolen from the toll revenues! That is right, only your bank and what you collect are the only money you are to have on your person in plain sight. If the camera catches you reaching into your own pocket and pulling out bills that are yours, you could be considered stealing even though its yours from the beginning!
Toll employees do not have it easy to park and work while employed at FDOT.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2016, 06:50:51 AM
FDOT is very strict with money. The drop must be done in the presence of the supervisor in a room where you MUST face the camera, empty the bag and even show to the camera its empty, walk with the bag IN FRONT OF YOU AT ALL TIMES, have the supervisor count the money first where you verify his totals, then you count it yourself and the supervisor verifies your total, then you compare numbers for accuracy, make out slips, and then you and your supervisor jointly unlock the drop chute with both of your IDs simultaneously before you are done.
FDOT considers a locked bag a risk. However, no big paperwork for those who do not have toll money, we just hand them the state's business card and log it in our clipboard paper and that is it. No reports at all for us at least.
Nobody with a wheelchair can be employed as a toll collector because we cannot even sit down if there is a steady line of cars, or for eighteen wheelers you must STAND. FDOT can make your life hell if you do not, so therefore FDOT will not allow wheelchair hirees!
As far as parking lots on the near side, let me tell you about the Exit 249 plazas in Kissimmee on Florida's Turnpike. The main lot and money counting building is on the SB off ramp. If you, lets say, live near the interchange off of Osceola Parkway, you just cannot get to the building from the street as the parking area must only be accessed by the Turnpike south. Remember the ramp is one way off and even walking in from the street is not allowed and if caught its a 300 dollar fine even for 400 feet of walking! So you live within walking distance of the Exit 249 plazas, you must go north on the Turnpike and U turn at FL 417 via its own ramps at Landstar Boulevard and double back.
Employees on the NB on ramp must sign out FDOT company cars to drive across to the other side as the NB ramp has no building! The lunch room is inside Lane 4 for those working Lanes 4 and 6. There is a table outside hidden behind the booth at Lane 4 for eating outside. Also no personal items allowed in the booth. All items are to be locked inside a locker as even money inside your wallet could be considered stolen from the toll revenues! That is right, only your bank and what you collect are the only money you are to have on your person in plain sight. If the camera catches you reaching into your own pocket and pulling out bills that are yours, you could be considered stealing even though its yours from the beginning!
Toll employees do not have it easy to park and work while employed at FDOT.
That's much more strict than my days at the NJ Turnpike! So does that mean you can't bring a TV, Radio, Cell Phone or anything else? What does everyone do when traffic's light?
To Answer your question Jeff: Nothing. The other day I was at Exit 244 and worked graveyard and it was so boring from 2 AM till about 5 AM and mainly watched the trucks speed by in the non tolled lane for Miami as that has not toll being part of the ticket system. The mainline at Three Lakes south of St. Cloud is just to the south of there, so trucks just whizzed on by heading for South Florida.
At some moments I could see commercial jets fly above as they make their final approach to OIA. Other than that we have to sit there or stand there waiting for a motorist to come by and use my lane. It sucks you cannot even bring a book, but big brother watches on camera what you do, and yes Tallahassee watches at times to make sure we do not steal and are following FDOT procedures. Here in FL the Turnpike is the eighth district of FDOT unlike other states with an agency not connected to the DOT like NJ has with both the NJTA and the SJTA to handle its three toll roads which may be why the scrutiny here.
In that case, FDOT's procedures are completely obscene. It should't be legal for employers to regulate anything that doesn't affect an employee's ability to do their jobs (or others ability to do their jobs), including reading a book or smartphone when traffic is light. And the money thing sounds like they're just too lazy to devise a way of matching how much money was collected with respect to how much they're owed. And who cares how much you stand as long as you can collect the money and make change properly? And why can't they put a wheelchair lift in the booth if the wheelchair can't get high enough? And don't get me started on the walking ban... if I lived in walking distance and worked there, I would sue FDOT for every penny of the per-mile reimbursement rate! And REQUIRING a company car... could be inefficiency galore for some people. Sounds like some bureaucrat has a stick up his rear and is on a power trip. Disgusting.
Quote from: vdeane on January 07, 2016, 02:05:14 PM
In that case, FDOT's procedures are completely obscene. It should't be legal for employers to regulate anything that doesn't affect an employee's ability to do their jobs (or others ability to do their jobs), including reading a book or smartphone when traffic is light. And the money thing sounds like they're just too lazy to devise a way of matching how much money was collected with respect to how much they're owed. And who cares how much you stand as long as you can collect the money and make change properly? And why can't they put a wheelchair lift in the booth if the wheelchair can't get high enough? And don't get me started on the walking ban... if I lived in walking distance and worked there, I would sue FDOT for every penny of the per-mile reimbursement rate! And REQUIRING a company car... could be inefficiency galore for some people. Sounds like some bureaucrat has a stick up his rear and is on a power trip. Disgusting.
Yeah, that's just over the top. Maybe a little overzealous on the countout procedures, but probably nothing too great there. But to require you to sit in a 3'x6' booth without anything? Insane.
In my toll days many years ago, they were just introducing cameras to some of the toll plazas, and none in the booths themselves. Some of the cameras could probably see something within the book, but they couldn't see very much. Heck, at night most of us would keep our booth lights off because the surrounding light was good enough. TVs, radios and reading material were all acceptable. Phones were too, although at the time the technology limited us to texting and talking on the phone. And granted, while network TV between about 1am and 6am isn't the best (Sunday mornings from about 4am to 7am were the absolute worst), at least it was *something*.
(BTW, something I learned: Even though the toll lane has a green light, for some motorists if the booth itself was dark, they weren't sure if it was open. You would see a drive sometimes stop and move over to a lane which happened to have their booth light on, which was usually a newbie. In all cases, the lane lights were always on, which was enough light for most toll takers.)
Another little fun factoid of the NJ Turnpike: If you take a close look at the NJ Turnpike plazas, the plaza building where the supervisor sits is situated in such a way where the supervisor can see the traffic at the exit lanes. They were never terribly concerned about the supervisor seeing the entry lanes.
I remember the toll collectors at the Kentucky toll plazas being able to have radios or books.
Does anyone have any updates?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2016, 04:15:13 PM
Does anyone have any updates?
They're starting on the piers for the southbound I-95 ramp:
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/current-sectiond20.aspx
there are several NB piers in various states of construction - one has the form for the capital on it (not sure if it's waiting to be poured or waiting to cure), the remainder are a mix of final concrete and rebar frames.
95 itself is generally two narrower lanes without shoulders in both directions through the construction area, with all the joy that entails. there's plenty of work being done on both sides of the road in each direction, including removal of vegetation, drainage work, and new pavement.
Any idea when this interchange project might be completed enough to complete I-95?
The PTC Web site seems to imply 2018 (I had heard 2017 in the past). This (http://www.phillyvoice.com/bucks-conference-provides-update-i-95-projects/) from July 2015 also mentions 2018.
Just found a construction progress flyover from this past spring. Not much to note right now though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xdYuYStYCk
I might re-post my pictures of the construction site, which are in a thread in Photos, Videos and More, to this thread. They're eastbound on I-276.
Here are my pictures from this month. This is eastbound on I-276 approaching the Delaware River bridge. Apparently, very little progress has been made in the year 2016.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fc1qAQ7O.jpg&hash=0816d01e785068e61c0c9538a6672b6b7a37cc1d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FG27ammw.jpg&hash=379d0857c995484a329de96edb50fb3edf925faa)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMdEQihA.jpg&hash=216e3a7bcc3b5aa195e591c50f081cc5a2def0cf)
Quote from: epzik8 on August 19, 2016, 02:26:37 PM
Here are my pictures from this month. This is eastbound on I-276 approaching the Delaware River bridge. Apparently, very little progress has been made in the year 2016.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fc1qAQ7O.jpg&hash=0816d01e785068e61c0c9538a6672b6b7a37cc1d)
There has been
some work done.
I drove it on 1 January 2016, just before the east end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike ticket system was moved west from the old barrier between Exit 358 and the Turnpike Bridge over the Delaware River, though the steel stringers on the bridge that carries present-day I-95 (Delaware Expressway) over I-276 were every bit as rusty then as they are now.
There were some recent pictures posted (including yours) which show that there has been progress (s-l-o-w-l-y) made on the ramps that will become I-95 at some point in the future.
Maybe someday, some faraway day, Interstate 95 will be continuous between Miami, Florida and Houlton, Maine.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 19, 2016, 05:10:35 PM
Maybe someday, some faraway day, Interstate 95 will be continuous between Miami, Florida and Houlton, Maine.
The only 2DI that's not completed.
Thanks to NIMBYs in New Jersey and then it having taken Pennsylvania (PTC and PennDOT both) over
30 years to get to this point.
Congress passed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act in
1982 designating that the easternmost Penn Pike, the N. J. Turnpike's Pennsylvania connector and the mainline of the N. J. Turnpike (north of Exit 6) as I-95.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2016, 05:44:28 PM
The only 2DI that's not completed.
Only if you use a bunch of arbitrary criteria to make the facts fit this assertion.
Quote from: NE2 on August 19, 2016, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2016, 05:44:28 PM
The only 2DI that's not completed.
Only if you use a bunch of arbitrary criteria to make the facts fit this assertion.
I-49, I-69, I-73, I-74, and I-99 say, "What about us?"
I-95 is only "completed" in DC and MA because they numbered it on the beltways around the cities instead of actually going thru the cities.
I think CPZ was thinking "the only original 2di not completed". Several that will likely never be completed have been added since.
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2016, 04:14:00 PM
I think CPZ was thinking "the only original 2di not completed". Several that will likely never be completed have been added since.
Thank you, yes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 20, 2016, 12:44:34 AM
I-95 is only "completed" in DC and MA because they numbered it on the beltways around the cities instead of actually going thru the cities.
I agree that this was a poor way to "complete" the major N-S freeway on the east coast of the United States, but legally, the road was re-routed, and it got the requisite approvals from FHWA.
Was it a good idea? Were the side-effects carefully thought out?
Probably no and probably not.
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2016, 04:14:00 PM
I think CPZ was thinking "the only original 2di not completed". Several that will likely never be completed have been added since.
Norwalk-Akron was in the original system (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_June_27,_1958.jpg) (as I-80). It's never been completed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 20, 2016, 12:44:34 AM
I-95 is only "completed" in DC and MA because they numbered it on the beltways around the cities instead of actually going thru the cities.
I always thought I-95 and I-93 could be swapped inside the inner belt if they really wanted 95 to go through Boston. Also, if they wanted to complete I-95 through NJ the same way they did through DC and Boston, they could've routed it onto the NJ Turnpike long ago.
Mind you, that doesn't mean the upcoming interchange is not needed. At least we'll have a freeway from Philly to NYC even if Trenton to NYC is not happening.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 21, 2016, 09:25:59 AM
Mind you, that doesn't mean the upcoming interchange is not needed. At least we'll have a freeway from Philly to NYC even if Trenton to NYC is not happening.
NYC to Trenton? How about I-95 to I-195 to NJ 29?
I think that given the fact that I-95 traverses more urbanized areas (and historically massive central cities) than just about any other Interstate route -- and considering the urban-based backlash regarding Interstate routes through such dense urban areas that started in the mid-60's and continues to the present day -- that it was inevitable that realignment, rerouting, and the delays intrinsic to such activities affected I-95 to an indordinate level. The NJ NIMBY efforts (combined with turnpike authority obstinance) did post the longest-lived obstacle to completion, but the DC and Boston bypass realignments, as well as the eventual rerouting through Baltimore, indicated that getting 95 done north of Virginia was never going to be "business as usual". "Cleaning up" the route to make it more of a through facility is likely something that will be an ongoing process -- including the most egregious examples of interruption, such as the subject of this thread, the now-completed Springfield interchange in VA, and that low-speed loop south of Boston. I'm just surprised that the situation wasn't worse than it was!
Quote from: NE2 on August 20, 2016, 07:02:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2016, 04:14:00 PM
I think CPZ was thinking "the only original 2di not completed". Several that will likely never be completed have been added since.
Norwalk-Akron was in the original system (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_June_27,_1958.jpg) (as I-80). It's never been completed.
Interesting, but nonetheless, I-80 was obviously rerouted onto its present routing (mostly on the OH Turnpike); so there's no gap present in its routing.
And that's just it; I believe a better term regarding the I-95 situation is it's the only original 2-di that still has a
gap in its routing.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 21, 2016, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 20, 2016, 12:44:34 AM
I-95 is only "completed" in DC and MA because they numbered it on the beltways around the cities instead of actually going thru the cities.
I always thought I-95 and I-93 could be swapped inside the inner belt if they really wanted 95 to go through Boston.
Such would've involved a major reconfiguration of the Woburn cloverleaf a lot sooner. That cloverleaf's presently a major problem now
without thru-routing utilizing the ramps.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 21, 2016, 09:25:59 AMAlso, if they wanted to complete I-95 through NJ the same way they did through DC and Boston, they could've routed it onto the NJ Turnpike long ago.
Such has been discussed before, probably even in this thread. The main reason such wasn't done was due to the fact that most of I-95 in PA was already completed; the last piece being the stretch adjacent to the airport (PHL) opening in 1985.
Wasn't a good-sized chunk of I-95 (now 395) built through Washington DC?
The existing portion of I-395 within D.C. is indeed part of the original I-95 alignment through the city; this includes the tunnel under Capitol Mall. That is the only portion of that route completed when freeway construction, for all intents and purposes, was halted as a result of local objections followed by official edict. After this, I-95 was rerouted along the eastern side of the I-495 Beltway.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 22, 2016, 09:21:31 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 20, 2016, 07:02:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 20, 2016, 04:14:00 PM
I think CPZ was thinking "the only original 2di not completed". Several that will likely never be completed have been added since.
Norwalk-Akron was in the original system (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Interstate_Highway_plan_June_27,_1958.jpg) (as I-80). It's never been completed.
Interesting, but nonetheless, I-80 was obviously rerouted onto its present routing (mostly on the OH Turnpike); so there's no gap present in its routing.
And that's just it; I believe a better term regarding the I-95 situation is it's the only original 2-di that still has a gap in its routing.
The "original I-95" went through the middle of Washington and Boston, and that never will be completed. The "original I-80", as mentioned, had a section in Ohio that will never be completed. Yes, these routes were later changed by legislative / administrative action, but then they're not the "original" routes anymore. Present-day I-74 isn't any less "original" than present-day I-95, the way I see it.
What you're trying to say is that 95 is the only
2-digit number of a route in the original system, whose corresponding present-day route is still not complete. Except that's not true either, because 74 was a number in the original Interstate system and it's not complete today. If I-80 can be made complete by administrative action, then I-74 can be made incomplete by administrative action.
What I think we can actually say is that, of all the 2-digit numbers of routes in the original system, 95 is the only one whose route still has a gap in it, considering only the segments (on a city-to-city level of detail) that were always part of the route by that number. Or we can (maybe; anyone want to fact-check this?) say that, of all the 2-digit Interstates in the original system, I-95 is the only one whose present-day route still has a gap in it, between the original termini (on a city-to-city level of detail) of the route. Either way, it's a very esoteric distinction.
Quote from: vtk on August 22, 2016, 02:45:20 PM
The "original I-80", as mentioned, had a section in Ohio that will never be completed.
There's also the portion of it that was to have connected the still-existing portion of the Central Freeway/US 101 with Route 1 in San Francisco, the Western Freeway along the Panhandle/Fell Street corridor that really sparked the heated freeway revolts in that city. That one was on the original Interstate plans IIRC.
QuoteAnd that's just it; I believe a better term regarding the I-95 situation is it's the only original 2-di that still has a gap in its routing.
Some would say that I-70 has a gap as well even if it is small. And that will last a lot longer.
Relevant thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14486
In particular, I-95 is not on its original alignment any more than I-80 is. Both were moved from a new terrain corridor to a parallel toll road.
Okay people, let's clear the air shall we?
Yes, portions of I-95 and other Interstates were not built as planned thereby creating gaps in their original routings. Most of us here know that.
If the gap was near/at the terminus of the route (I-70 in the Baltimore area); the route (at least as signed) was simply shortened to where the highway ended.
If the gap occurred in the middle of the route (for I-95, such occurred at 3 metropolitan locations); an alternate route (or as I would call de-facto routing was chosen) was chosen. The change at both the DC & Boston areas occurred much quicker mainly because the interchange connections (between proper & de-facto I-95s) were either already present or on their way (for 13 years, I-95 did a short piggy-back w/US 1 prior to the I-95/MA 128 Peabody interchange was completed).
Had an interchange w/I-95 & the PA Turnpike, inadequately-sized twin trumpet or not, been already present when the Somerset Freeway was cancelled; the de-facto routing of I-95 would have long since have taken place on the signs, maps & so forth. I.e. no I-95 gap (via the de-facto routing) would still exist today.
If using defacto routing is the case, then the whole length of the Turnpike in NJ should be just I-95. The current Delaware Expressway should have been renumbered to I-895 or even given one the two interstates that took away two good numbers: 97 or 99.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2016, 10:29:14 AMIf using defacto routing is the case, then the whole length of the Turnpike in NJ should be just I-95.
Since all of I-95 in PA was nearly complete (the
missing link at the airport would be completed 3 years later) when the plug was pulled on the Somerset Freeway, the FHWA decided to keep as much of the already-built PA stretch of I-95 in PA as such. In general, 2dis normally go
through cities not around them.
Had the northern stretch of I-295 in NJ & the western stretch of I-195 been completed by the early-to-mid 80s; one option to reroute I-95 in NJ would've been to have it exit off the Turnpike at 7A and have I-195 west of the Turnpike and the northern I-295 (the piece between US 206 & I-195 wasn't completed until 1994 IIRC) become I-95. Such wouldn't have impacted PA's I-95 at all. Granted, Exit 7A would've had to be majorly overhauled (moreso than what's recently been done) for the
thru-95 movements.
Which begs this question: had the Somerset Freeway been built as originally planned; would Exit 10 off the NJ Turnpike need to be overhauled for the
thru-95 movements?
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 24, 2016, 10:57:42 AM
Which begs this question: had the Somerset Freeway been built as originally planned; would Exit 10 off the NJ Turnpike need to be overhauled for the thru-95 movements?
Yes, along with I-287 from the NJTP to at least US-22. Right now that section of highway is basically parked during rush hour. Imagine what it would have been like with I-95 dumping all kinds of traffic onto it.
Yes I watched the Piscataway Somerset mess grow. I used to work on Campus Drive in Somerset, and it was a mess back in those years which were 1984 and 1985. I imagine 30 years later it has gotten worse. Adding I-95 to it in Edison would have made it far worse than worse. Plus the Somerset Freeway, if had been built, would have opened up that corridor for sprawl that would have given I-95 its share of local traffic.
Just so you know before the mid 90's I-287 was only four lanes from US 22 to the dual carriageway split at US 202 & 206, and from I-78 to NJ 24. Hard to believe, but it was only that. Even from NJ 10 to I-80, back in the 70's it was only four lanes as well. Only the Parkway, the Turnpike, Route 80 and Route 78 were the only six lane freeways other than I-287 south of US 22 when first established. Even some may argue that the NJT was originally 4 lanes, as the Passaic and Hackensack River Bridges on the eastern spur have strong evidence to support that if you want visuals.
New Jersey boomed! Hey look at the Parkway now at all the widening in Ocean, Burlington, and Atlantic Counties as the four lanes there is inadequate.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 24, 2016, 10:57:42 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2016, 10:29:14 AMIf using defacto routing is the case, then the whole length of the Turnpike in NJ should be just I-95.
Since all of I-95 in PA was nearly complete (the missing link at the airport would be completed 3 years later) when the plug was pulled on the Somerset Freeway, the FHWA decided to keep as much of the already-built PA stretch of I-95 in PA as such. In general, 2dis normally go through cities not around them.
Had the northern stretch of I-295 in NJ & the western stretch of I-195 been completed by the early-to-mid 80s; one option to reroute I-95 in NJ would've been to have it exit off the Turnpike at 7A and have I-195 west of the Turnpike and the northern I-295 (the piece between US 206 & I-195 wasn't completed until 1994 IIRC) become I-95. Such wouldn't have impacted PA's I-95 at all. Granted, Exit 7A would've had to be majorly overhauled (moreso than what's recently been done) for the thru-95 movements.
Which begs this question: had the Somerset Freeway been built as originally planned; would Exit 10 off the NJ Turnpike need to be overhauled for the thru-95 movements?
I suspect 95, especially in the area around Chester, will encounter what would've been the same fate as above. It's 3 lanes each way with no shoulder, with a lot of traffic movement to and from 322. Basically (for each direction), you have the 3 lane I-95 and the 2 lane 322 combining for less than a mile, but it's still only 3 lanes wide. Adding to the issue is 322 East comes in on the left meeting 95 North without much merge room.
It's an area frequently congested. It's going to get much worse.
95 in Northeast Philly is congested as well; however with the construction going on it should assist in improving things around the time the 95/PA Turnpike ramps are open. How much traffic diverts from the NJ Turnpike to 95 thru Philly (and vice-versa) will determine how well the improvements can handle the additional traffic.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2016, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 24, 2016, 10:57:42 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2016, 10:29:14 AMIf using defacto routing is the case, then the whole length of the Turnpike in NJ should be just I-95.
Since all of I-95 in PA was nearly complete (the missing link at the airport would be completed 3 years later) when the plug was pulled on the Somerset Freeway, the FHWA decided to keep as much of the already-built PA stretch of I-95 in PA as such. In general, 2dis normally go through cities not around them.
Had the northern stretch of I-295 in NJ & the western stretch of I-195 been completed by the early-to-mid 80s; one option to reroute I-95 in NJ would've been to have it exit off the Turnpike at 7A and have I-195 west of the Turnpike and the northern I-295 (the piece between US 206 & I-195 wasn't completed until 1994 IIRC) become I-95. Such wouldn't have impacted PA's I-95 at all. Granted, Exit 7A would've had to be majorly overhauled (moreso than what's recently been done) for the thru-95 movements.
Which begs this question: had the Somerset Freeway been built as originally planned; would Exit 10 off the NJ Turnpike need to be overhauled for the thru-95 movements?
I suspect 95, especially in the area around Chester, will encounter what would've been the same fate as above. It's 3 lanes each way with no shoulder, with a lot of traffic movement to and from 322. Basically (for each direction), you have the 3 lane I-95 and the 2 lane 322 combining for less than a mile, but it's still only 3 lanes wide. Adding to the issue is 322 East comes in on the left meeting 95 North without much merge room.
It's an area frequently congested. It's going to get much worse.
95 in Northeast Philly is congested as well; however with the construction going on it should assist in improving things around the time the 95/PA Turnpike ramps are open. How much traffic diverts from the NJ Turnpike to 95 thru Philly (and vice-versa) will determine how well the improvements can handle the additional traffic.
I've actually created a thread asking which route people plan on going once the ramps open. A majority by an extremely wide margin say that they would still continue going on the NJ Turnpike and I can totally see why. And one reason is because of the fact that I-95 can get pretty congested in PA. By the time the ramps open, the construction in Northeast Philly will be far from being complete, and there's also the fact that between the time the ramps open and the second bridge is built, there's probably going to be tons of congestion at the bridge. PennDot also has plans to improve the I 95/US 322 interchange, but it's not going to be for a really long time until that occurs.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 25, 2016, 08:11:30 AM
Yes I watched the Piscataway Somerset mess grow. I used to work on Campus Drive in Somerset, and it was a mess back in those years which were 1984 and 1985. I imagine 30 years later it has gotten worse. Adding I-95 to it in Edison would have made it far worse than worse. Plus the Somerset Freeway, if had been built, would have opened up that corridor for sprawl that would have given I-95 its share of local traffic.
Just so you know before the mid 90's I-287 was only four lanes from US 22 to the dual carriageway split at US 202 & 206, and from I-78 to NJ 24. Hard to believe, but it was only that. Even from NJ 10 to I-80, back in the 70's it was only four lanes as well. Only the Parkway, the Turnpike, Route 80 and Route 78 were the only six lane freeways other than I-287 south of US 22 when first established. Even some may argue that the NJT was originally 4 lanes, as the Passaic and Hackensack River Bridges on the eastern spur have strong evidence to support that if you want visuals.
New Jersey boomed! Hey look at the Parkway now at all the widening in Ocean, Burlington, and Atlantic Counties as the four lanes there is inadequate.
No - the NJT was never four lanes up north. When originally built in 1951, it was four lanes from exit 1 to 11, and north of exit 11 to exit 18 it was six lanes. The bridges you mention (Passaic, Hackensack) always had six lanes, but did not have shoulders until 1974. That explains the extra piers that were added.
Not quite correct Steve D. On the original 1951-built Turnpike, the six-lanes extended north only to Exit-16 (Lincoln Tunnel), where the right lane dropped into the exit. Both directions were only two lanes from Exit 16 to 18 as originally built. I don't know for sure when it was widened to six lanes from 16 to 18; I suspect as part of the Exits 16-17 reconfiguration of 1964, or maybe even before that. But I remember it being six lanes by the mid-1960's, riding it with my parents. Anyone?
Quote from: jcn on August 29, 2016, 02:39:28 PM
I've actually created a thread asking which route people plan on going once the ramps open. A majority by an extremely wide margin say that they would still continue going on the NJ Turnpike and I can totally see why. And one reason is because of the fact that I-95 can get pretty congested in PA. By the time the ramps open, the construction in Northeast Philly will be far from being complete, and there's also the fact that between the time the ramps open and the second bridge is built, there's probably going to be tons of congestion at the bridge. PennDot also has plans to improve the I 95/US 322 interchange, but it's not going to be for a really long time until that occurs.
I-95 south from Philadelphia's airport to the Delaware state border is a typically PennDOT-terrible freeway, which appears to need significant maintenance.
Headed home to Maryland from points anywhere north of Exit 6 on the New Jersey Turnpike, I will be taking the Turnpike or I-295 south to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. I will drive the completed I-95 from New Jersey through Pennsylvania to Delaware once or twice to say that I've done it, but that will likely be about it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 30, 2016, 05:54:53 AM
Quote from: jcn on August 29, 2016, 02:39:28 PM
I've actually created a thread asking which route people plan on going once the ramps open. A majority by an extremely wide margin say that they would still continue going on the NJ Turnpike and I can totally see why. And one reason is because of the fact that I-95 can get pretty congested in PA. By the time the ramps open, the construction in Northeast Philly will be far from being complete, and there's also the fact that between the time the ramps open and the second bridge is built, there's probably going to be tons of congestion at the bridge. PennDot also has plans to improve the I 95/US 322 interchange, but it's not going to be for a really long time until that occurs.
I-95 south from Philadelphia's airport to the Delaware state border is a typically PennDOT-terrible freeway, which appears to need significant maintenance.
Headed home to Maryland from points anywhere north of Exit 6 on the New Jersey Turnpike, I will be taking the Turnpike or I-295 south to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. I will drive the completed I-95 from New Jersey through Pennsylvania to Delaware once or twice to say that I've done it, but that will likely be about it.
Save yourself $5 and just drive 95 from Philly into NJ. :-)
Quote from: SignBridge on August 29, 2016, 09:08:01 PM
Not quite correct Steve D. On the original 1951-built Turnpike, the six-lanes extended north only to Exit-16 (Lincoln Tunnel), where the right lane dropped into the exit. Both directions were only two lanes from Exit 16 to 18 as originally built. I don't know for sure when it was widened to six lanes from 16 to 18; I suspect as part of the Exits 16-17 reconfiguration of 1964, or maybe even before that. But I remember it being six lanes by the mid-1960's, riding it with my parents. Anyone?
Thanks - I forgot about that stretch. My main point was that the big bridges were always 3 lanes, and were widened only for shoulders in the 1970s.
Right Steve; I do remember the bridges not having shoulders when I was a kid. In fact, again in the mid-1960's emergency phone boxes were added at closely spaced intervals on both sides of the bridge roadways to expedite aid to disabled cars. The phones apparently were removed when the shoulders were added.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 30, 2016, 05:54:53 AM
Quote from: jcn on August 29, 2016, 02:39:28 PM
I've actually created a thread asking which route people plan on going once the ramps open. A majority by an extremely wide margin say that they would still continue going on the NJ Turnpike and I can totally see why. And one reason is because of the fact that I-95 can get pretty congested in PA. By the time the ramps open, the construction in Northeast Philly will be far from being complete, and there's also the fact that between the time the ramps open and the second bridge is built, there's probably going to be tons of congestion at the bridge. PennDot also has plans to improve the I 95/US 322 interchange, but it's not going to be for a really long time until that occurs.
I-95 south from Philadelphia's airport to the Delaware state border is a typically PennDOT-terrible freeway, which appears to need significant maintenance.
Headed home to Maryland from points anywhere north of Exit 6 on the New Jersey Turnpike, I will be taking the Turnpike or I-295 south to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. I will drive the completed I-95 from New Jersey through Pennsylvania to Delaware once or twice to say that I've done it, but that will likely be about it.
Yes, you are right that the particular stretch of I-95 is extremely outdated. Penndot does have plans to revive that stretch, but it won't be for a really long time, unfortunately. It won't be until after they're done with reconstructing the stretch that they are currently working on from Vine St. to Cottman Ave. But, they plan to rehabilitate the bridges in Chester that cross over I-95 (and the CSX) sometime soon, and the Exit 3 interchange improvements might be complete before then as it's part of a separate project.
[
Emphasis added in quote below]
KYW Radio: Next Phase Of Work To Begin On Connecting I-95 And Pa. Turnpike (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/09/07/next-phase-of-work-to-begin-on-connecting-i-95-and-pa-turnpike/)
QuoteCrews are preparing to start another phase of the construction project that will connect Interstate 95 with the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bucks County.
QuoteCrews are starting to erect flashing message signs and preparing to move barriers this week in preparation for start of construction on the ramp at the busy Bensalem interchange.
QuoteThe bridge construction and I-95 connections with the Turnpike are expected to be completed by May 2019.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2016, 10:29:12 PM
[Emphasis added in quote below]
KYW Radio: Next Phase Of Work To Begin On Connecting I-95 And Pa. Turnpike (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/09/07/next-phase-of-work-to-begin-on-connecting-i-95-and-pa-turnpike/)
QuoteCrews are preparing to start another phase of the construction project that will connect Interstate 95 with the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bucks County.
QuoteCrews are starting to erect flashing message signs and preparing to move barriers this week in preparation for start of construction on the ramp at the busy Bensalem interchange.
QuoteThe bridge construction and I-95 connections with the Turnpike are expected to be completed by May 2019.
Less than three years from now. At least there's now a somewhat firm timetable.
Ha!.........Bet ya' the PTC can't build a shorter bridge as fast as New York is building the new Tappan Zee Bridge.
Quote from: Gnutella on September 13, 2016, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2016, 10:29:12 PM
[Emphasis added in quote below]
KYW Radio: Next Phase Of Work To Begin On Connecting I-95 And Pa. Turnpike (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/09/07/next-phase-of-work-to-begin-on-connecting-i-95-and-pa-turnpike/)
QuoteCrews are preparing to start another phase of the construction project that will connect Interstate 95 with the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bucks County.
QuoteCrews are starting to erect flashing message signs and preparing to move barriers this week in preparation for start of construction on the ramp at the busy Bensalem interchange.
QuoteThe bridge construction and I-95 connections with the Turnpike are expected to be completed by May 2019.
Less than three years from now. At least there's now a somewhat firm timetable.
Firm as a cotton ball.
It is almost at the point where these two ramps will take the same amount of time to build as it took the NJ Turnpike to rebuild and expand 25 miles of highway, adding nearly 150 lane miles and over 5 entire interchanges.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2016, 08:21:58 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on September 13, 2016, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2016, 10:29:12 PM
[Emphasis added in quote below]
KYW Radio: Next Phase Of Work To Begin On Connecting I-95 And Pa. Turnpike (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/09/07/next-phase-of-work-to-begin-on-connecting-i-95-and-pa-turnpike/)
QuoteCrews are preparing to start another phase of the construction project that will connect Interstate 95 with the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bucks County.
QuoteCrews are starting to erect flashing message signs and preparing to move barriers this week in preparation for start of construction on the ramp at the busy Bensalem interchange.
QuoteThe bridge construction and I-95 connections with the Turnpike are expected to be completed by May 2019.
Less than three years from now. At least there's now a somewhat firm timetable.
Firm as a cotton ball.
It is almost at the point where these two ramps will take the same amount of time to build as it took the NJ Turnpike to rebuild and expand 25 miles of highway, adding nearly 150 lane miles and over 5 entire interchanges.
Yep.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 13, 2016, 08:02:23 PM
Ha!.........Bet ya' the PTC can't build a shorter bridge as fast as New York is building the new Tappan Zee Bridge.
And that shocks you why? Certainly helps that Tappan Zee has literally been falling down for 20 years.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 13, 2016, 08:02:23 PM
Ha!.........Bet ya' the PTC can't build a shorter bridge as fast as New York is building the new Tappan Zee Bridge.
Maryland built 18+ miles of toll road with 8 interchanges in less time than it is taking the PTC to
partially complete that interchange.
The Philly area now has updated satellite imagery from May 2016 (last update was October 2011!), one of the areas is the interchange, here's a link to the placemark there https://toolserver.org/~kolossos/earth.php?long=-74.889727&lat=40.128875&name=Pennsylvania_Turnpike%2FInterstate_95_Interchange_Project but you'll have to turn the 3D imagery off.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 14, 2016, 12:45:01 PM
The Philly area now has updated satellite imagery from May 2016 (last update was October 2011!), one of the areas is the interchange, here's a link to the placemark there https://toolserver.org/~kolossos/earth.php?long=-74.889727&lat=40.128875&name=Pennsylvania_Turnpike%2FInterstate_95_Interchange_Project but you'll have to turn the 3D imagery off.
Could you post a screenshot? I don't think that change has rolled out everywhere yet.
And it was reported today that the Tappan Zee Bridge so far is on-time and under-budget. That bridge will be finished before this PTC/95 Interchange.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 14, 2016, 05:27:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 14, 2016, 12:45:01 PM
The Philly area now has updated satellite imagery from May 2016 (last update was October 2011!), one of the areas is the interchange, here's a link to the placemark there https://toolserver.org/~kolossos/earth.php?long=-74.889727&lat=40.128875&name=Pennsylvania_Turnpike%2FInterstate_95_Interchange_Project but you'll have to turn the 3D imagery off.
Could you post a screenshot? I don't think that change has rolled out everywhere yet.
Relatively boring:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtkIVfzh.jpg&hash=73805e63024f9ea14933bcf60527e71d9484ed0f)
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2016, 08:14:20 PM
And it was reported today that the Tappan Zee Bridge so far is on-time and under-budget. That bridge will be finished before this PTC/95 Interchange.
I thought they were pushing back some of the dates... maybe they caught up again. Nonetheless, the Somerset Freeway just may be built before this interchange.
Quote from: Alps on September 14, 2016, 10:49:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2016, 08:14:20 PM
And it was reported today that the Tappan Zee Bridge so far is on-time and under-budget. That bridge will be finished before this PTC/95 Interchange.
I thought they were pushing back some of the dates... maybe they caught up again. Nonetheless, the Somerset Freeway just may be built before this interchange.
Even if Tappan Zee is a little behind, they'll have the north side open by the spring barring a huge mishap. The current bridge is literally falling down and there's not a heck of a lot that still needs to be done to get it partially open.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 14, 2016, 05:27:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 14, 2016, 12:45:01 PM
The Philly area now has updated satellite imagery from May 2016 (last update was October 2011!), one of the areas is the interchange, here's a link to the placemark there https://toolserver.org/~kolossos/earth.php?long=-74.889727&lat=40.128875&name=Pennsylvania_Turnpike%2FInterstate_95_Interchange_Project but you'll have to turn the 3D imagery off.
Could you post a screenshot? I don't think that change has rolled out everywhere yet.
I don't know if that could help, here some satellite view from Acme Mapper. http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.12678,-74.88073&z=16&t=S
Quote from: Alps on September 14, 2016, 10:49:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2016, 08:14:20 PM
And it was reported today that the Tappan Zee Bridge so far is on-time and under-budget. That bridge will be finished before this PTC/95 Interchange.
I thought they were pushing back some of the dates... maybe they caught up again. Nonetheless, the Somerset Freeway just may be built before this interchange.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Supposedly, the massive Act 44/Act 69 payments to PennDOT for transit subsidies are one reason this is taking so long.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2016, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 14, 2016, 10:49:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 14, 2016, 08:14:20 PM
And it was reported today that the Tappan Zee Bridge so far is on-time and under-budget. That bridge will be finished before this PTC/95 Interchange.
I thought they were pushing back some of the dates... maybe they caught up again. Nonetheless, the Somerset Freeway just may be built before this interchange.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Supposedly, the massive Act 44/Act 69 payments to PennDOT for transit subsidies are one reason this is taking so long.
That doesn't explain why their many other projects are seemingly going fine. The highway has numerous construction projects happening. Are they all delayed, or just this one?
In regards to the May 2019 completion, they could just be talking about the Bensalem interchange.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2016, 05:38:25 PM
That doesn't explain why their many other projects are seemingly going fine. The highway has numerous construction projects happening. Are they all delayed, or just this one?
1. This was mandated by the U.S. Congress back in the 1980's after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled by New Jersey. I think the PTC does not want to take orders from the federal government, even though the feds financed the construction of the original part of the Turnpike from Carlisle to Pittsburgh.
2. It seems that PTC especially does not like high-speed connections from its toll roads to "free" Interstate highways (and I concede that some of its breezewoods (I-79 and I-176 come to mind) have been eliminated).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2016, 04:19:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2016, 05:38:25 PM
That doesn't explain why their many other projects are seemingly going fine. The highway has numerous construction projects happening. Are they all delayed, or just this one?
1. This was mandated by the U.S. Congress back in the 1980's after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled by New Jersey. I think the PTC does not want to take orders from the federal government, even though the feds financed the construction of the original part of the Turnpike from Carlisle to Pittsburgh.
2. It seems that PTC especially does not like high-speed connections from its toll roads to "free" Interstate highways (and I concede that some of its breezewoods (I-79 and I-176 come to mind) have been eliminated).
In fact, most of the interchanges with interstates/freeways are low speed.
From west to east:
I-376 (Exit 10): Indirect connection, and the ramps onto I-376 are tight and require you to slow down.
I-79 (Exit 28): Tight loop ramp onto the connector road, and the connection to I-79 NB is a loop ramp.
PA 28 (Exit 48): Requires about a mile on surface streets, and the PA 28 SB ramp is tight.
I-376 (East of Pittsburgh) (Exit 57) : Tight loop ramp, then hard curve, toll booth, and then a low speed merge onto I-376 WB/US 22 EB.
I-70 (Western Exit) (Exit 75): Tight loop ramp, toll booth, then a really slow and potentially dangerous merge onto I-70 WB/US 119/PA 66.
US 219 (Exit 110): Really indirect connection, requires maybe a mile or more on surface streets.
I-99/US 220 Business (Exit 146): This is a Breezewood, and the curse of the tight loop ramp returns.
I-70 (Eastern Exit) (Exit 161): Self explanatory.
I-81 (Exit 226): Yet another Breezewood.
US 15 (Exit 236): Again, tight loop ramp, and the ramps onto US 15 are also loop ramps (this feels like the failed child of a diamond and cloverleaf interchange).
I-83 (Exit 242): Tight loop ramp, and the merge onto I-83 is dangerous due to exits close to the interchange, which are also dangerous.
I-283 (Exit 247): I'm okay with this one, as this is designed to be low speed. Tight loop ramp, but then you have to do a weave if you want to get onto PA 283.
US 222 (Exit 286): Breezewood.
I-176 (Exit 312): Another Breezewood.
I-76 (Exit 326): This interchange is dangerous for several reasons. For cash users staying on I-76, you have to weave to avoid the exit for North Gulph Road, and then do more lane changing because of US 202/US 422, and this is also a weave because of those wanting to access King of Prussia Mall.
I-476 (Exit 20? Why? "Exit 334"): Wow, a high speed interchange! Er, not really. It's more of a cloverleaf with an interchange to the west and the NW quadrant missing.
PA 309 (Exit 339): Loop ramps onto PA 309 SB, but this feels more like the Circle Interchange, as the I-276 EB to PA 309 NB curves.
US 1 (Exit 351): Loop ramps, and this interchange is dangerous because of Exit 352 and that the PA 132 interchange is tight.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2016, 04:19:02 PM
2. It seems that PTC especially does not like high-speed connections from its toll roads to "free" Interstate highways (and I concede that some of its breezewoods (I-79 and I-176 come to mind) have been eliminated).
They don't like high speed interchanges period. Every interchange is tight and signed for 30 MPH or less. Even the NY Thruway has 45 MPH ramps.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2016, 04:19:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2016, 05:38:25 PM
That doesn't explain why their many other projects are seemingly going fine. The highway has numerous construction projects happening. Are they all delayed, or just this one?
1. This was mandated by the U.S. Congress back in the 1980's after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled by New Jersey. I think the PTC does not want to take orders from the federal government, even though the feds financed the construction of the original part of the Turnpike from Carlisle to Pittsburgh.
Not quite correct. As for the original Turnpike, the Federal Government only Guaranteed to construction loans for the period of the construction work. Once the road was open, the PTC was on it's own with financing.
QuoteI-176 (Exit 298): Another Former Breezewood.
I thought that this one more fit the tight loop-ramp scenario unless you are referring to the 35 mph speed limit all the way up to the Exit 2 ramps.
For the record, PA 100 (the actual Exit 312 that you put down its exit number) is not a freeway at its PA Turnpike interchange.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on September 21, 2016, 09:57:40 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2016, 04:19:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2016, 05:38:25 PM
That doesn't explain why their many other projects are seemingly going fine. The highway has numerous construction projects happening. Are they all delayed, or just this one?
1. This was mandated by the U.S. Congress back in the 1980's after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled by New Jersey. I think the PTC does not want to take orders from the federal government, even though the feds financed the construction of the original part of the Turnpike from Carlisle to Pittsburgh.
Not quite correct. As for the original Turnpike, the Federal Government only Guaranteed to construction loans for the period of the construction work. Once the road was open, the PTC was on it's own with financing.
They would not have been able to sell the bonds without help from the feds and the original Turnpike would not have been built without the feds.
I think it was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
But I was actually more mentioning the federal mandate in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of
1982 (!) that I assert that both PTC and PennDOT have tried had to ignore and delay as much as possible. Even in the United States with federal lawsuits pending and anti-highway activists to be found in many places, it should not have taken them from 1982 to 2019 to get this project completed (and remember that even in 2019, the Delaware Expressway/Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange will
not be complete).
QuoteWITHDRAWAL AND DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN INTERSTATE ROUTES
SEC. 162.
(a) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 103(e)(4)
of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation
shall, upon application of the State of New Jersey, withdraw under
such section 103(e)(4) his approval of the designation on the National
System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the portion of Interstate
Route 95 and Interstate Route 695 from the intersection with
Interstate Route 295 in Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New
Jersey, to the proposed intersection with Interstate Route 287 in
Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Transportation is authorized and directed, pursuant to section 103 of
such title, to designate as part of the Interstate Highway System the
New Jersey Turnpike from exit 10 to the interchange with the
Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such
interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate
Route 95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
(c) The Secretary of Transportation is further authorized and
directed to designate the highways described in subsection (b) as
Interstate Route 95 and assure through proper sign designations the
orderly connection of Interstate Route 95 pursuant to this section.
To clear up this confusion, I just got off the phone with the engineering firm for the construction project, and the I-95 flyover ramps are still supposed to be complete by 2018. When the news article mentioned May 2019, they were just referring to the Bensalem Interchange.
Quote from: jcn on September 22, 2016, 05:26:54 PM
To clear up this confusion, I just got off the phone with the engineering firm for the construction project, and the I-95 flyover ramps are still supposed to be complete by 2018. When the news article mentioned May 2019, they were just referring to the Bensalem Interchange.
Thanks for asking that question. Though it brings to mind another question - aside from being nearby, what does the Bensalem (U.S. 1, Exit 351) Interchange project
really have to do with the I-95/I-276 interchange?
Did you by chance ask
when in 2018 the two ramps that complete I-95 might be opened to traffic?
Reconstruction of the Bensalem Interchange is necessary to allow for the extension of the third lane from its termination there east through the I-95 interchange area to the Delaware River Bridge. So it's obliquely related.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 22, 2016, 10:32:42 PM
Quote from: jcn on September 22, 2016, 05:26:54 PM
To clear up this confusion, I just got off the phone with the engineering firm for the construction project, and the I-95 flyover ramps are still supposed to be complete by 2018. When the news article mentioned May 2019, they were just referring to the Bensalem Interchange.
Thanks for asking that question. Though it brings to mind another question - aside from being nearby, what does the Bensalem (U.S. 1, Exit 351) Interchange project really have to do with the I-95/I-276 interchange?
As it turns out, nothing.
The bridge replacement at the Bensalem interchange was a separate contract recently put out to bid and awarded. It has nothing to do with the I-95 ramp construction contract. Basically, this was essentially bad reporting, where a reporter took 2 separate projects and placed them together within the news story.
Here's the project bid detail page for the bridge replacement: https://ebs.paturnpike.com/generalinformation/bids/bid_details.aspx?contract=T-355.00P002-3-04
What highway would replace I-95 north of I-276? I-295?
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 11, 2016, 10:24:23 AM
What highway would replace I-95 north of I-276? I-295?
It was already determined to be an extension of I-295.
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-295_denj.html
I'm intentionally avoiding I-95 past the PA-413 exit because I'm afraid that once that changes to I-295, it would mess up my clinched highways data on Teresco Jim's site. So I'm going to wait until at least 2018 to get that portion of freeway. However, I have gotten the current northernmost seven miles of I-295 east of Trenton because I wanted to get my first segment of U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey, so I took I-95 to PA-413 to U.S. 13 to U.S. 1 into New Jersey and took that to where I-95 north becomes I-295 south and then I took that to I-195 to the New Jersey Turnpike. Excuse me for going off-topic here.
Quote from: epzik8 on November 11, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
I'm intentionally avoiding I-95 past the PA-413 exit because I'm afraid that once that changes to I-295, it would mess up my clinched highways data on Teresco Jim's site. So I'm going to wait until at least 2018 to get that portion of freeway. However, I have gotten the current northernmost seven miles of I-295 east of Trenton because I wanted to get my first segment of U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey, so I took I-95 to PA-413 to U.S. 13 to U.S. 1 into New Jersey and took that to where I-95 north becomes I-295 south and then I took that to I-195 to the New Jersey Turnpike. Excuse me for going off-topic here.
Personally, I already have that clinched and would just fix my .list file at that point so it would reflect I-295. It is honestly a non-issue. (I consider myself having clinched I-795 in NC despite it still being US 117.)
At what point along the resigning of Interstate 95 as Interstate 295 would the north/south designations be flip-flopped? After all, I doubt once future 295 turns down towards the south, they can continue to sign it as north.
The PA section is slated to be designated E-W (eastbound toward Princeton, westbound toward Philadelphia).
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/95completion-redesignation.aspx
I think it should be signed as East-West in New Jersey as well, all the way to Exit 60.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 21, 2016, 06:17:33 PM
In fact, most of the interchanges with interstates/freeways are low speed.
You forgot the Northeast Extension (and sorry for the slow response), which also is worthy of scorn (though I actually enjoy driving it).
Exit 56 (U.S. 22 and to I-78) - No (or maybe more accurately,
clumsy) connections to I-78, though at least it is possible to navigate between I-78 and I-476 without a signalized intersection or two.
Exit 95 (Pa. 940 and I-80) - One at-grade signalized intersection and a load of Pennsylvania Breezewood-type schlock in the middle of the Poconos.
Exit 115 (Pa. 315 and I-81) - the pair of double trumpet interchanges remain, even though this is north of the Turnpike's ticket system, and drivers have to use Pa. 315 to get between I-81 and I-476.
Exit 131 (U.S. 6, U.S. 11 and I-81) - beyond the toll plaza are interchanges to I-81 and the U.S. highways so awful that they qualify this place as a breezewood, even though traffic between I-476 and I-81 does not have to make a schlock stop at a traffic light (but there were STOP signs at the end of some of the ramps).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 11, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
I think it should be signed as East-West in New Jersey as well, all the way to Exit 60.
Why? It runs on a NNE route between Exit 60 & 67. For the most part, based on your statement, 295 East would run westward much of that stretch and 295 West would veer eastward.
Quote from: briantroutman on November 11, 2016, 06:26:02 PM
The PA section is slated to be designated E-W (eastbound toward Princeton, westbound toward Philadelphia).
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/95completion-redesignation.aspx
The route is entirely north-south in PA, so that's not logical. If they insist on using I-295, it should be N-S in PA and E-W in NJ to US 1. IMO the direction issue is a good case for why they should have kept with the I-195 extension plan.
Quote from: vdeane on November 11, 2016, 11:06:53 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 11, 2016, 06:26:02 PM
The PA section is slated to be designated E-W (eastbound toward Princeton, westbound toward Philadelphia).
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/95completion-redesignation.aspx
The route is entirely north-south in PA, so that's not logical. If they insist on using I-295, it should be N-S in PA and E-W in NJ to US 1. IMO the direction issue is a good case for why they should have kept with the I-195 extension plan.
i agree with you regarding I-295's directions, but never liked the I-195 extension idea.
Quote from: vdeane on November 11, 2016, 11:06:53 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 11, 2016, 06:26:02 PM
The PA section is slated to be designated E-W (eastbound toward Princeton, westbound toward Philadelphia).
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/95completion-redesignation.aspx
The route is entirely north-south in PA, so that's not logical. If they insist on using I-295, it should be N-S in PA and E-W in NJ to US 1. IMO the direction issue is a good case for why they should have kept with the I-195 extension plan.
I would have preferred the I-195 designation myself, even though that version of I-195 would have had two interchanges with I-95.
LOL Didn't we have this very same controversial discussion a few months back in these pages?
Quote from: odditude on November 12, 2016, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 11, 2016, 11:06:53 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 11, 2016, 06:26:02 PM
The PA section is slated to be designated E-W (eastbound toward Princeton, westbound toward Philadelphia).
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/95completion-redesignation.aspx
The route is entirely north-south in PA, so that's not logical. If they insist on using I-295, it should be N-S in PA and E-W in NJ to US 1. IMO the direction issue is a good case for why they should have kept with the I-195 extension plan.
i agree with you regarding I-295's directions, but never liked the I-195 extension idea.
Agreed. Most people don't care for a highway continuation that involves ramps, so creating one via a renumbering involving a 25 mph ramp isn't ideal, nor even necessary.
The slow, slower and slowest progress by contractors working for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to close the I-95 gap (and at least allow traffic from northbound I-95 (Delaware Expressway) to flow to the eastbound side of the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike (presently I-276); and from westbound side of the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike to southbound Delaware Expressway) continues.
Photographs taken by me on Sunday, November 13, 2016 at the site of the project (hosted on Facebook - you do not need an account there to see these).
I-95 at Pennsylvania Turnpike gap closure project (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10209353477706054.1073741880.1596953667&type=1&l=ab64f4ea56)
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2016, 08:19:17 PM
LOL Didn't we have this very same controversial discussion a few months back in these pages?
We did.
I still stand by my earlier recommendation that I-95 between the PA Turnpike and US 1 in NJ (Exit 67) be redesignated as I-
695. Such would be north-south in PA, east-west in NJ.
Such would minimize changes on the NJ side (interchange numbering/mile markers remain as is; route number & cardinal directions change)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 14, 2016, 01:45:24 AM
The slow, slower and slowest progress by contractors working for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to close the I-95 gap (and at least allow traffic from northbound I-95 (Delaware Expressway) to flow to the eastbound side of the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike (presently I-276); and from westbound side of the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike to southbound Delaware Expressway continues.
Photographs taken by me on Sunday, November 13, 2016 at the site of the project (hosted on Facebook - you do not need an account there to see these).
I-95 at Pennsylvania Turnpike gap closure project (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10209353477706054.1073741880.1596953667&type=1&l=ab64f4ea56)
To be fair, this is the schedule the PA Turnpike has them on. It's like they get a $20 allowance a week to work on something...spend it wisely!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2016, 09:01:50 AM
To be fair, this is the schedule the PA Turnpike has them on. It's like they get a $20 allowance a week to work on something...spend it wisely!
That's correct. I suggested to someone else (on Facebook) that asked why this is taking so long the following explanations:
(1) the Act 44/Act 69 mandated hemmorage of cash from the Turnpike Commission to SEPTA, the Port Authority of Allegheny County and other Pennsylvania transit providers; and
(2) I speculate that PTC resents being forced to provide a high-speed breezewoodless connection to a crossing PennDOT-maintained-freeway.
I don't understand why your reason #2 is such an issue with the PTC. The NY Thruway, NJ Turnpike and Massachusetts Tpk. Authorities all built interchanges with toll-free interstate highways with no problem from day one. This only seems to be a stumbling block in Pennsylvania.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2016, 08:25:27 PM
I don't understand why your reason #2 is such an issue with the PTC. The NY Thruway, NJ Turnpike and Massachusetts Tpk. Authorities all built interchanges with toll-free interstate highways with no problem from day one. This only seems to be a stumbling block in Pennsylvania.
You do know that there were a couple of long-lasting Breezewoods in New York, right? It took until the last decade to take care of the Exit 17 connection. I have no idea who funded that one or the Exit 39.
Agreed, those situations did exist. But I'm not really talking about Breezewood's where you can at least go from one road to another, indirectly. I'm talking about locations like the Pa. Tpk./I-95 where there is no real way to connect between the two roads. Taking U.S.13 doesn't cut it in my opinion. In the three states I named, there are countless interchanges between the toll-roads, and the toll-free Interstates. Again I say, it only seems to be a problem for the friggin' Penn. Tpk. Commission!
Quote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2016, 09:51:25 PM
Agreed, those situations did exist. But I'm not really talking about Breezewood's where you can at least go from one road to another, indirectly. I'm talking about locations like the Pa. Tpk./I-95 where there is no real way to connect between the two roads. Taking U.S.13 doesn't cut it in my opinion. In the three states I named, there are countless interchanges between the toll-roads, and the toll-free Interstates. Again I say, it only seems to be a problem for the friggin' Penn. Tpk. Commission!
Yeah, they lagged far behind most other states. But they're taking care of it now so it's kind of a moot point.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2016, 09:51:25 PM
Agreed, those situations did exist. But I'm not really talking about Breezewood's where you can at least go from one road to another, indirectly. I'm talking about locations like the Pa. Tpk./I-95 where there is no real way to connect between the two roads. Taking U.S.13 doesn't cut it in my opinion. In the three states I named, there are countless interchanges between the toll-roads, and the toll-free Interstates. Again I say, it only seems to be a problem for the friggin' Penn. Tpk. Commission!
NJ Turnpike/NJ 42 is a glaring omission.
I-76/OH 11
I-80/I-271
I-80-90/I-475
To be fair, one of those Ohio examples would have been quite difficult due to the terrain and unnecessarily expensive given that there are 2 nearby interchanges.
Quote from: no one ever
The Ohio Turnpike
Quote from: vdeane on November 15, 2016, 01:03:10 PM
I-76/OH 11
I-80/I-271
I-80-90/I-475
Quote from: Alps on November 14, 2016, 11:55:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2016, 09:51:25 PM
Agreed, those situations did exist. But I'm not really talking about Breezewood's where you can at least go from one road to another, indirectly. I'm talking about locations like the Pa. Tpk./I-95 where there is no real way to connect between the two roads. Taking U.S.13 doesn't cut it in my opinion. In the three states I named, there are countless interchanges between the toll-roads, and the toll-free Interstates. Again I say, it only seems to be a problem for the friggin' Penn. Tpk. Commission!
NJ Turnpike/NJ 42 is a glaring omission.
The fact that 295 is right there and the fact that they cross in dense marshland will probably prevent that from ever being built.
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 15, 2016, 01:26:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 14, 2016, 11:55:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 14, 2016, 09:51:25 PM
Agreed, those situations did exist. But I'm not really talking about Breezewood's where you can at least go from one road to another, indirectly. I'm talking about locations like the Pa. Tpk./I-95 where there is no real way to connect between the two roads. Taking U.S.13 doesn't cut it in my opinion. In the three states I named, there are countless interchanges between the toll-roads, and the toll-free Interstates. Again I say, it only seems to be a problem for the friggin' Penn. Tpk. Commission!
NJ Turnpike/NJ 42 is a glaring omission.
The fact that 295 is right there and the fact that they cross in dense marshland will probably prevent that from ever being built.
The marshland is a big issue. Actually, the bigger issue is Interchange 3. The Turnpike I believe is resistant to putting 2 interchanges close together, and many hotels along 168 are there because of the Interchange. Personally, I think they can keep Interchange 3 and using open land run a parallel road along the NJ Turnpike to get to Rt. 42, but much of that land is marshland...
And even though it doesn't appear close, there's a large development on the southeast side of the intersection where the ramps would come within eyesight of those homes. While there's a fair bit of room, those residents won't like potential ramps coming anywhere near them.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 14, 2016, 05:05:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2016, 09:01:50 AM
To be fair, this is the schedule the PA Turnpike has them on. It's like they get a $20 allowance a week to work on something...spend it wisely!
That's correct. I suggested to someone else (on Facebook) that asked why this is taking so long the following explanations:
(1) the Act 44/Act 69 mandated hemmorage of cash from the Turnpike Commission to SEPTA, the Port Authority of Allegheny County and other Pennsylvania transit providers; and
(2) I speculate that PTC resents being forced to provide a high-speed breezewoodless connection to a crossing PennDOT-maintained-freeway.
(3) MAYBE in addition to (1), there was some coordination with PennDOT to wait for the multiple projects of widening I-95 in NE Phila to be closer to completed, before dumping more traffic into those already-clogged construction zones. (...and maybe I am giving undue credit...)
And I can't imagine that "loss of toll revenue" is a major concern specifically in this case, as (or because) they've mitigated that somewhat with the increased tolls at the Del River Bridge.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2016, 02:05:37 PM
The marshland is a big issue. Actually, the bigger issue is Interchange 3. The Turnpike I believe is resistant to putting 2 interchanges close together, and many hotels along 168 are there because of the Interchange. Personally, I think they can keep Interchange 3 and using open land run a parallel road along the NJ Turnpike to get to Rt. 42, but much of that land is marshland...
I doubt exit 3 is an issue. Otherwise, exits 6 and 7 wouldn't be where they are, nor would exits 15E and 15W, or exit 15X, or the exit to the sports complex.
Quote from: vdeane on November 15, 2016, 05:44:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2016, 02:05:37 PM
The marshland is a big issue. Actually, the bigger issue is Interchange 3. The Turnpike I believe is resistant to putting 2 interchanges close together, and many hotels along 168 are there because of the Interchange. Personally, I think they can keep Interchange 3 and using open land run a parallel road along the NJ Turnpike to get to Rt. 42, but much of that land is marshland...
I doubt exit 3 is an issue. Otherwise, exits 6 and 7 wouldn't be where they are, nor would exits 15E and 15W, or exit 15X, or the exit to the sports complex.
Wrong state for this thread. ^_^
Quote from: Alps on November 15, 2016, 07:05:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 15, 2016, 05:44:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2016, 02:05:37 PM
The marshland is a big issue. Actually, the bigger issue is Interchange 3. The Turnpike I believe is resistant to putting 2 interchanges close together, and many hotels along 168 are there because of the Interchange. Personally, I think they can keep Interchange 3 and using open land run a parallel road along the NJ Turnpike to get to Rt. 42, but much of that land is marshland...
I doubt exit 3 is an issue. Otherwise, exits 6 and 7 wouldn't be where they are, nor would exits 15E and 15W, or exit 15X, or the exit to the sports complex.
Wrong state for this thread. ^_^
Fine...moving to the NJ Turnpike thread...
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 14, 2016, 01:45:24 AM
The slow, slower and slowest progress by contractors working for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to close the I-95 gap (and at least allow traffic from northbound I-95 (Delaware Expressway) to flow to the eastbound side of the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike (presently I-276); and from westbound side of the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike to southbound Delaware Expressway) continues.
Photographs taken by me on Sunday, November 13, 2016 at the site of the project (hosted on Facebook - you do not need an account there to see these).
I-95 at Pennsylvania Turnpike gap closure project (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10209353477706054.1073741880.1596953667&type=1&l=ab64f4ea56)
It's still on schedule to be complete in 2018, isn't it?
I think so.
Quote from: jcn on November 18, 2016, 03:07:30 AM
It's still on schedule to be complete in 2018, isn't it?
According to this (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/faq.aspx), "Stage 1" (which completes I-95 but
does not complete the other interchange movements and
does not add any capacity at the Delaware River) should be done in 2018. From that Web site is this:
QuoteThe PA Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project has been split into three stages. The majority of Stage 1 is either already complete, under construction, or in final design. The main components of Stage 1 construction will be complete in late 2018.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 08:23:51 PM
Quote from: jcn on November 18, 2016, 03:07:30 AM
It's still on schedule to be complete in 2018, isn't it?
According to this (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/faq.aspx), "Stage 1" (which completes I-95 but does not complete the other interchange movements and does not add any capacity at the Delaware River) should be done in 2018. From that Web site is this:
QuoteThe PA Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project has been split into three stages. The majority of Stage 1 is either already complete, under construction, or in final design. The main components of Stage 1 construction will be complete in late 2018.
Well, after after about thirty years of planning and barely any construction, now the entire project may be in jeopardy:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/ (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/)
Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2016, 08:25:43 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 08:23:51 PM
Quote from: jcn on November 18, 2016, 03:07:30 AM
It's still on schedule to be complete in 2018, isn't it?
According to this (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/faq.aspx), "Stage 1" (which completes I-95 but does not complete the other interchange movements and does not add any capacity at the Delaware River) should be done in 2018. From that Web site is this:
QuoteThe PA Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project has been split into three stages. The majority of Stage 1 is either already complete, under construction, or in final design. The main components of Stage 1 construction will be complete in late 2018.
Well, after after about thirty years of planning and barely any construction, now the entire project may be in jeopardy:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/ (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/)
The Turnpike has a gazillion other projects going on. Something tells me the Turnpike commission is trying to get PennDOT to fund this project. Are there any projects solely benefiting the Turnpike, such as widening in rural areas where congestion may occur on just the few busiest travel days of the year, on the chopping block?
Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2016, 08:25:43 AM
Well, after after about thirty years of planning and barely any construction, now the entire project may be in jeopardy:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/ (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/)
IMO, this project is too far along to stop (at least the ramps that complete I-95), though this may also be a strategic way of putting heat on the appropriate elected officials, and asking them to explain why this massive and partly completed interchange is standing there.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2016, 09:10:26 AM
The Turnpike has a gazillion other projects going on. Something tells me the Turnpike commission is trying to get PennDOT to fund this project. Are there any projects solely benefiting the Turnpike, such as widening in rural areas where congestion may occur on just the few busiest travel days of the year, on the chopping block?
My guess is it is a way to ask the Pennsylvania legislature to grant relief from the massive hemorrhage of money from the Turnpike Commission to PennDOT to fund Act 44 and Act 89 (https://www.paturnpike.com/business/act44_plan.aspx) subsidies (since Act 89 was passed in 2013, all of those subsidies from PTC to PennDOT have been for transit service and other modes of transport having little or nothing to do with the Turnpike system).
Having said that, given the revealed behavior of the Turnpike when it comes to breezewoods (and its failure to remediate most of them), I do suspect that the Turnpike Commission bitterly resents being forced to remediate at least some of the missing movements between the E-W Mainline and the Delaware Expressway.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2016, 10:17:18 AM
Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2016, 08:25:43 AM
Well, after after about thirty years of planning and barely any construction, now the entire project may be in jeopardy:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/ (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/)
IMO, this project is too far along to stop (at least the ramps that complete I-95), though this may also be a strategic way of putting heat on the appropriate elected officials, and asking them to explain why this massive and partly completed interchange is standing there.
Since the currently under-construction ramps are already funded, they wouldn't be affected. This suggestion appears to be solely related to the other ramps that aren't scheduled to be constructed for at least a few years, at minimum.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2016, 10:37:20 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2016, 10:17:18 AM
Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2016, 08:25:43 AM
Well, after after about thirty years of planning and barely any construction, now the entire project may be in jeopardy:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/ (http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/11/19/pennsylvania-turnpike-projects-could-fall-victim-to-debt/)
IMO, this project is too far along to stop (at least the ramps that complete I-95), though this may also be a strategic way of putting heat on the appropriate elected officials, and asking them to explain why this massive and partly completed interchange is standing there.
Since the currently under-construction ramps are already funded, they wouldn't be affected. This suggestion appears to be solely related to the other ramps that aren't scheduled to be constructed for at least a few years, at minimum.
If it's that, I'm not at all surprised. I suspected Phases 2 and 3 of the project would never happen. Even though those ramps would be logical connections for the PTC by incentivising its use over local roads for trips to/from future I-295. They'd better not cancel the already in progress work.
As long as Interstate 95 is finally continuous between Philadelphia and New York, I could live with them not constructing the other ramps.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2016, 09:10:26 AM
Are there any projects solely benefiting the Turnpike, such as widening in rural areas where congestion may occur on just the few busiest travel days of the year, on the chopping block?
There are a few full-reconstruction/widening projects in the rural "middle" of the pike that are going on or planned. Their general effect on congestion can be up for debate. The local articles here in Pittsburgh on this issue mentioned that they are prioritizing projects on their "core asset" (which I read to mean "Mainline"). The in-perpetual-limbo-yet-still-planned-construction of the Mon-Fayette section to Monroeville, and the remaining Southern Beltway sections are 2 projects on this side of the state that are categorized the same way as the remaining I-95 interchange (And I agree, this would apply to movements other than the direct I-95 movements, since that's pretty under way)
This seems like it will be an ugly mix of true plans/needs prioritization, and some ugly politics/money going forward.
imho, the S-W and E-N movements should be the ones first sacrificed if things do go downhill; those movements are already nicely handled by US 1 (a divided, limited-access highway between I-95 and the Turnpike mainline). south of the Turnpike (technically, south of PA 132/Street Rd a few hundred feet later), US 1 becomes the soul-devouring Roosevelt Blvd, a dual-dual arterial which in 2001 gained the dubious recognition of housing the second- and third-most dangerous intersections in the country; given that the directions from the Turnpike to reach I-95 S instruct drivers to take US 1 S to PA 63 E/Woodhaven Rd, I feel that this is a Bad IdeaTM for nonlocals.
as for actual progress: the median barrier on I-95NB has been shifted to the left of the reconstructed/widened(?) portion approaching exit 40/PA 413, and new temporary orange signage indicating "95 NORTH Trenton <" has gone up. my best guess is they're going to move the exit split up a bit, turning exit 40 into more of a cattle chute, and shifting all I-95NB traffic to the newly reconstructed portion to allow reconstruction of the right lanes/shoulder/drainage.
on I-95SB, the area being reconstructed between the exit 40 ramp and the incoming traffic from PA 413 appears to be nearing completion. a large portion of the landscaping is done, and the concrete looks ready for striping (assuming that an asphalt wear surface isn't going to be overlaid).
the majority of the support piers for the W-S movement are completed, and several spans of the bridge have been installed closer to the Turnpike end.
additionally, new median lights have been installed on I-95; they're high-rise vertical posts with a cluster of 4 lamps at the top. presumably, the lamp cluster can be brought down the pole for easier maintenance, as that is how they were initially installed.
I see on differnet threads and in real life the progress of construction that goes from plans to completion within 5 years.. And this one interchange has taken 30...
LGMS428
Quote from: Mr_Northside on December 02, 2016, 05:17:06 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2016, 09:10:26 AM
Are there any projects solely benefiting the Turnpike, such as widening in rural areas where congestion may occur on just the few busiest travel days of the year, on the chopping block?
There are a few full-reconstruction/widening projects in the rural "middle" of the pike that are going on or planned. Their general effect on congestion can be up for debate.
I agree, though with the exception of adding climbing lanes on mountain grades where they do not currently exist.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on December 02, 2016, 05:17:06 PM
The local articles here in Pittsburgh on this issue mentioned that they are prioritizing projects on their "core asset" (which I read to mean "Mainline"). The in-perpetual-limbo-yet-still-planned-construction of the Mon-Fayette section to Monroeville, and the remaining Southern Beltway sections are 2 projects on this side of the state that are categorized the same way as the remaining I-95 interchange (And I agree, this would apply to movements other than the direct I-95 movements, since that's pretty under way)
Completing Mon-Fayette would seem to be a worthy goal. If that means that there is "induced" demand for the highway, then so be it. This (the PA-43 Corridor) is a part of the world that benefits from "induced" demand.
If it were
my call (obviously it is not), I would cut-back on the "total reconstruction" projects where the Turnpike is in reasonably decent condition, though there are some expensive projects on the mainline (dealing with the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel problem either with a bypass or third tube) and getting rid of the Turnpike's many breezewoods that
should take priority.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on December 02, 2016, 05:17:06 PM
This seems like it will be an ugly mix of true plans/needs prioritization, and some ugly politics/money going forward.
Agreed.
Quote from: odditude on December 03, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
imho, the S-W and E-N movements should be the ones first sacrificed if things do go downhill; those movements are already nicely handled by US 1 (a divided, limited-access highway between I-95 and the Turnpike mainline). south of the Turnpike (technically, south of PA 132/Street Rd a few hundred feet later), US 1 becomes the soul-devouring Roosevelt Blvd, a dual-dual arterial which in 2001 gained the dubious recognition of housing the second- and third-most dangerous intersections in the country; given that the directions from the Turnpike to reach I-95 S instruct drivers to take US 1 S to PA 63 E/Woodhaven Rd, I feel that this is a Bad IdeaTM for nonlocals.
I disagree regarding the incomplete interchange - IMO with
very few exceptions, Interstate-Interstate interchanges should have all movements.
I very much agree with you about U.S. 1/Roosevelt Boulevard. That's a
miserable,
miserable section of road (and keep in mind I drive in the District of Columbia a lot, not known for having the best streets and highways).
Quote from: jwolfer on December 03, 2016, 03:37:54 PM
I see on differnet threads and in real life the progress of construction that goes from plans to completion within 5 years.. And this one interchange has taken 30...
In the PTC's defense, the presence of the ticket system on the E-W Mainline and the lack of space for their preferred trumpet-to-trumpet interchange has made matter much more difficult and complex, and moving the east end of the ticket system west was complex and expensive.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2016, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 03, 2016, 03:37:54 PM
I see on differnet threads and in real life the progress of construction that goes from plans to completion within 5 years.. And this one interchange has taken 30...
In the PTC's defense, the presence of the ticket system on the E-W Mainline and the lack of space for their preferred trumpet-to-trumpet interchange has made matter much more difficult and complex, and moving the east end of the ticket system west was complex and expensive.
True about difficulties and ticket system. New Jersey should have built Somerset Freeway and this would not have been an issue...
LGMS428
Even with the Somerset Fwy, there still should always have been a complete interchange between I-95 and the Penna. Tpk. It is inexcusable that it was not built by the PTC back in 1970's or whenever I-95 was built.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2016, 07:21:11 PM
In the PTC's defense, the presence of the ticket system on the E-W Mainline and the lack of space for their preferred trumpet-to-trumpet interchange has made matter much more difficult and complex, and moving the east end of the ticket system west was complex and expensive.
The PTC didn't change the design of the interchange from the original double trumpet because of a lack of space. The change was made due to intervention by Congress.
The PTC had acquired the ROW and had actually begun construction on the toll plaza for the original design when Congress completely upended the chessboard by dedesignating the Somerset Expressway and requiring a high-speed interchange instead of the low-speed double trumpet.
Quote from: jwolfer on December 03, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2016, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 03, 2016, 03:37:54 PM
I see on differnet threads and in real life the progress of construction that goes from plans to completion within 5 years.. And this one interchange has taken 30...
In the PTC's defense, the presence of the ticket system on the E-W Mainline and the lack of space for their preferred trumpet-to-trumpet interchange has made matter much more difficult and complex, and moving the east end of the ticket system west was complex and expensive.
True about difficulties and ticket system. New Jersey should have built Somerset Freeway and this would not have been an issue...
LGMS428
You do realize it's practically the same thing they did in the western part of the state, right?
Besides, is building a single new plaza and interchange so much more difficult than building 45 miles of highway thru developed land? :meh:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2016, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 03, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2016, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 03, 2016, 03:37:54 PM
I see on differnet threads and in real life the progress of construction that goes from plans to completion within 5 years.. And this one interchange has taken 30...
In the PTC's defense, the presence of the ticket system on the E-W Mainline and the lack of space for their preferred trumpet-to-trumpet interchange has made matter much more difficult and complex, and moving the east end of the ticket system west was complex and expensive.
True about difficulties and ticket system. New Jersey should have built Somerset Freeway and this would not have been an issue...
LGMS428
You do realize it's practically the same thing they did in the western part of the state, right?
Besides, is building a single new plaza and interchange so much more difficult than building 45 miles of highway thru developed land? :meh:
It should not have taken this long either way..
LGMS428
Quote from: qguy on December 03, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2016, 07:21:11 PM
In the PTC's defense, the presence of the ticket system on the E-W Mainline and the lack of space for their preferred trumpet-to-trumpet interchange has made matter much more difficult and complex, and moving the east end of the ticket system west was complex and expensive.
The PTC didn't change the design of the interchange from the original double trumpet because of a lack of space. The change was made due to intervention by Congress.
The PTC had acquired the ROW and had actually begun construction on the toll plaza for the original design when Congress completely upended the chessboard by dedesignating the Somerset Expressway and requiring a high-speed interchange instead of the low-speed double trumpet.
Source? I never heard that they began construction on anything related to a 276/95 connection.
Quote from: odditude on December 03, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
imho, the S-W and E-N movements should be the ones first sacrificed if things do go downhill; those movements are already nicely handled by US 1 (a divided, limited-access highway between I-95 and the Turnpike mainline).
For this exact reason, PTC already has no plans of building ramps to accommodate those movements.
Quote from: qguy on December 03, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
The PTC had acquired the ROW and had actually begun construction on the toll plaza for the original design when Congress completely upended the chessboard by dedesignating the Somerset Expressway and requiring a high-speed interchange instead of the low-speed double trumpet.
You speak of the half-trumpet (actually more of a half-directional) that was built, and is signed as I-95 Exit 40 to PA-413? Was that going to use the transmission line right-of-way to reach the E-W Mainline (currently signed as I-276)?
I do not believe that Congress mandated the
type of interchange to be used to directly connect I-95 and the east-west mainline of the Turnpike. However, I recall reading (years ago) that a conventional trumpet-to-trumpet interchange (or similar) at that location could not have handled the projected traffic volumes that would result. There may also have been impacts on the old eastern mainline toll barrier between the bridge over the Delaware River and U.S. 13 (now signed as Exit 358).
Quote from: SignBridge on December 03, 2016, 08:29:19 PM
Even with the Somerset Fwy, there still should always have been a complete interchange between I-95 and the Penna. Tpk. It is inexcusable that it was not built by the PTC back in 1970's or whenever I-95 was built.
That sort of inexcusable design and engineering can be seen all over the PTC ticket system. The Turnpike even built a relatively new breezewood (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Denver,+PA/@40.2154276,-76.0930435,1990m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c6128d6be88ce3:0x24fa9ae413b4bf91!8m2!3d40.2331483!4d-76.1371683?hl=en) near Denver (exit 286) to provide access to upgraded U.S. 222
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2016, 08:14:47 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 03, 2016, 08:29:19 PM
Even with the Somerset Fwy, there still should always have been a complete interchange between I-95 and the Penna. Tpk. It is inexcusable that it was not built by the PTC back in 1970's or whenever I-95 was built.
That sort of inexcusable design and engineering can be seen all over the PTC ticket system. The Turnpike even built a relatively new breezewood (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Denver,+PA/@40.2154276,-76.0930435,1990m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c6128d6be88ce3:0x24fa9ae413b4bf91!8m2!3d40.2331483!4d-76.1371683?hl=en) near Denver (exit 286) to provide access to upgraded U.S. 222
Why blame PTC? Shouldn't PennDOT have been the lead agency on such a project, since they were the ones building 95?
Doesn't excuse any in-action since, but to solely blame PTC isn't fair either.
I agree about the "turnpike reconstruction" projects. The road doesn't seem like it's to the point of needing a reconstruction. Resurfacing with climbing lanes added as needed would be MUCH cheaper.
I'm guessing the PTC is in charge of the interchange project because states with toll authorities usually have the toll authority in charge of any project that touches their facility.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 03, 2016, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 03, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
imho, the S-W and E-N movements should be the ones first sacrificed if things do go downhill; those movements are already nicely handled by US 1 (a divided, limited-access highway between I-95 and the Turnpike mainline).
For this exact reason, PTC already has no plans of building ramps to accommodate those movements.
Did the design change? The website graphics show all movements not carrying I-95 would be constructed in Phase II, with none missing.
Quote from: Alps on December 03, 2016, 11:08:26 PM
Quote from: qguy on December 03, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2016, 07:21:11 PM
In the PTC's defense, the presence of the ticket system on the E-W Mainline and the lack of space for their preferred trumpet-to-trumpet interchange has made matter much more difficult and complex, and moving the east end of the ticket system west was complex and expensive.
The PTC didn't change the design of the interchange from the original double trumpet because of a lack of space. The change was made due to intervention by Congress.
The PTC had acquired the ROW and had actually begun construction on the toll plaza for the original design when Congress completely upended the chessboard by dedesignating the Somerset Expressway and requiring a high-speed interchange instead of the low-speed double trumpet.
Source? I never heard that they began construction on anything related to a 276/95 connection.
From 1992 to 2005 I was a member of the Community Advisory Committee which the PTC formed to assist it in coming up with the best design that each of the various stakeholders could live with. That's the reason I know about the partial, interrupted construction of the original double-trumpet interchange.
The double-trumpet was to be built in the northwest quadrant of the interchange area. One of the first pieces of construction the PTC accomplished under the current project was what is called the "I-95 Wetland Mitigation Site." it was completed in 2012. The PTC essentially removed the concrete that had been laid years ago (not really that much, actually) and returned the area to a wooded state. Nature had been slowly reclaiming that area for some time (which makes it very difficult to see anything in old aerials), and the PTC gave it a permanent assist.
Here's a link to the PTC's project construction summary: www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/construction.aspx
If you click on the orange cone with the green check mark in the northwest quadrant on the map, it will bring up a short description of the mitigation. If you scroll down to the links under "Completed Construction" and select "I-95 Wetland Mitigation Site - 2012," it will bring up the following page: www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/complete-wet.aspx
Unfortunately, the description doesn't mention partial earlier construction. It does mention rejection of a more recent proposal to use the area to develop a trailer park.
A keen-eyed observer can even see where a portion of the ramps would've been. If you look just north of the wetland mitigation site and just across (current) I-95 (to the east of I-95), you can see a grassy area between I-95 and Green Meadow Drive. Notice the shape of the eastern boundary of that property. That was to be the location of the I-95 northbound off- and on-ramps for the trumpet on I-95.
The interrupted initial construction took place sometime in the 1980s. When Congress mandated a high-speed connection, that precluded the double-trumpet since that design is a low-speed connection. It was literally back to the drawing board, as the cliché goes.
Edited to correct "Community Relations Committee" to "Community
Advisory Committee."
A PA TPK middle manager has retired early with few apparent regrets...
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/12/02/retiring-turnpike-worker-sends-exit-survey-complaints-to-2k-employees/
ixnay
Quote from: vdeane on December 04, 2016, 05:00:37 PM
I agree about the "turnpike reconstruction" projects. The road doesn't seem like it's to the point of needing a reconstruction. Resurfacing with climbing lanes added as needed would be MUCH cheaper.
I'm guessing the PTC is in charge of the interchange project because states with toll authorities usually have the toll authority in charge of any project that touches their facility.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 03, 2016, 11:14:31 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 03, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
imho, the S-W and E-N movements should be the ones first sacrificed if things do go downhill; those movements are already nicely handled by US 1 (a divided, limited-access highway between I-95 and the Turnpike mainline).
For this exact reason, PTC already has no plans of building ramps to accommodate those movements.
Did the design change? The website graphics show all movements not carrying I-95 would be constructed in Phase II, with none missing.
No. It was mostly only talk about postponing the rest of the project as a complaint about all the money the PTC has to give the state. Nothing officially has changed.
Jeffandnicole, you asked me earlier why PennDOT didn't build the I-95/Pa. Tpk. interchange when they built I-95. I've been told repeatedly on these boards that they couldn't do that because of a Federal rule that Interstate highway funding cannot be used to connect with toll roads. That's why I said the PTC should have built it.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2016, 08:53:13 PM
Jeffandnicole, you asked me earlier why PennDOT didn't build the I-95/Pa. Tpk. interchange when they built I-95. I've been told repeatedly on these boards that they couldn't do that because of a Federal rule that Interstate highway funding cannot be used to connect with toll roads. That's why I said the PTC should have built it.
While that was correct at one point, PennDOT could've built it without using federal funds.
Basically, it sounds like what the PTC wants them to do now.
Well then, (LOL) maybe those two agencies should stop all this crap and just equally divide the cost.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2016, 09:09:02 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2016, 08:53:13 PM
Jeffandnicole, you asked me earlier why PennDOT didn't build the I-95/Pa. Tpk. interchange when they built I-95. I've been told repeatedly on these boards that they couldn't do that because of a Federal rule that Interstate highway funding cannot be used to connect with toll roads. That's why I said the PTC should have built it.
While that was correct at one point, PennDOT could've built it without using federal funds.
Basically, it sounds like what the PTC wants them to do now.
The origins of the breezewood-type non connections between toll roads and free freeways in states like Florida, New York, Ohio and especially Pennsylvania do lie in federal transportation law, which effectively required that the toll road be de-tolled if federal dollars were used to connect the two (details from the Federal Highway Administration here (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm)).
The difference between Pennsylvania and the other states is that the others have remediated most of their breezewoods (there's one left in Fort Pierce, Florida), but the breezewoods in New York and Ohio are effectively all gone.
I am aware of there being three on the Ohio Pike (I-80) where it does not connect to I-271 (but there are reasonable alternative all-freeway routings); same as OH-11 near Youngstown; and I-475 outside Toledo.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2016, 09:20:55 PM
Well then, (LOL) maybe those two agencies should stop all this crap and just equally divide the cost.
There's also the thing about many projects and limited dollars available. And when it's said and done, do Pennsylvanians want or need this interchange? There aren't exactly many of those that'll benefit all that much from the direct connections. And if you were to ask them what they want money spent on, this interchange is probably far down the list of someone wants to get rid of congestion or dangerous intersections in their hometown.
There's a whole ton of wrinkles when it comes to funding projects. And without the Feds saying get it done or we're withholding your money, neither agency is going to put it at the top of their list of priority projects.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2016, 09:54:33 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2016, 09:20:55 PM
Well then, (LOL) maybe those two agencies should stop all this crap and just equally divide the cost.
There's also the thing about many projects and limited dollars available. And when it's said and done, do Pennsylvanians want or need this interchange? There aren't exactly many of those that'll benefit all that much from the direct connections. And if you were to ask them what they want money spent on, this interchange is probably far down the list of someone wants to get rid of congestion or dangerous intersections in their hometown.
There's a whole ton of wrinkles when it comes to funding projects. And without the Feds saying get it done or we're withholding your money, neither agency is going to put it at the top of their list of priority projects.
Limited dollars? PTC can "afford" to send billions and billions of dollars to PennDOT to subsidize things that have little or usually nothing to do with the Turnpike (and I concede that PTC was forced to do this even after the proposal to toll I-80 was rejected twice by the federal government).
As for benefits, I suspect that metropolitan Philadelphia will benefit by finally having a direct all-freeway route between their downtown and North Jersey and ultimately New York City.
There may also be benefit to the PTC in the form of increased traffic entering the Turnpike and paying $5 per car to cross the Delaware and exit the E-W Mainline to head south on I-95, which
some drivers will do if they are just following the I-95 south signs.
Regarding funding priorities, I assert it is as much about institutional resistance by PTC to connect the E-W Mainline or the Northeast Extension to "free" Interstate Highways or other freeway-class highways, perhaps because the PTC (and the Pennsylvania legislature) think there is some sort of economic development advantage to the schlock that exists at or near most of the breezewoods. And I concede that the breezewoods at Warrendale (I-79) and Morgantown (I-176) have been remediated (for reasons not clear to me).
In the case of
the Breezewood, it is also about a callous disregard for motorist safety by PTC
and PennDOT - I have personally seen several crashes on I-70 westbound approaching the traffic signal at Breezewood (and I do not drive that way all that frequently).
Regardless of the logic of it, the fact of the matter is that "we built our portion of I-95, it not being complete is New Jersey's fault" was for years an argument that was used against Pennsylvania committing any funds to this interchange. This is a great example of why the federal government had to plan and oversee the construction of the INTERstate highway system, if it had been left up to individual states you'd have a lot more nonsensical non-connections resulting from two states squabbling over who should spend the money building something to fix it, or over one state being all in on it while the other state is like "meh" (c.f. US 12 being a freeway in Wisconsin until right before the Illinois line, where it stub ends and shifts onto a two lane road that is unlikely to be widened or bypassed anytime soon).
To some degree, therefore, the federal government dropped the ball by not pushing for this to happen sooner.
Quote from: odditude on December 03, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
imho, the S-W and E-N movements should be the ones first sacrificed if things do go downhill; those movements are already nicely handled by US 1 (a divided, limited-access highway between I-95 and the Turnpike mainline). south of the Turnpike (technically, south of PA 132/Street Rd a few hundred feet later), US 1 becomes the soul-devouring Roosevelt Blvd, a dual-dual arterial which in 2001 gained the dubious recognition of housing the second- and third-most dangerous intersections in the country; given that the directions from the Turnpike to reach I-95 S instruct drivers to take US 1 S to PA 63 E/Woodhaven Rd, I feel that this is a Bad IdeaTM for nonlocals.
Non sequitur; Red Lion and Grant (the two intersections) are not on the relatively short bit of US 1 necessary to reach PA 63.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 04, 2016, 11:46:55 PM
Regardless of the logic of it, the fact of the matter is that "we built our portion of I-95, it not being complete is New Jersey's fault" was for years an argument that was used against Pennsylvania committing any funds to this interchange. This is a great example of why the federal government had to plan and oversee the construction of the INTERstate highway system, if it had been left up to individual states you'd have a lot more nonsensical non-connections resulting from two states squabbling over who should spend the money building something to fix it, or over one state being all in on it while the other state is like "meh" (c.f. US 12 being a freeway in Wisconsin until right before the Illinois line, where it stub ends and shifts onto a two lane road that is unlikely to be widened or bypassed anytime soon).
To some degree, therefore, the federal government dropped the ball by not pushing for this to happen sooner.
The feds should have pushed for there to be a full connection between the Turnpike and I-95,
regardless of what happened with the Somerset Freeway. That PTC and PennDOT (and predecessor(s) to PennDOT) failed to build a direct connection is not in any way the fault of New Jersey.
Should the federal government have pushed harder to get the Somerset Freeway part of I-95 constructed? I am not so sure about that, given that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority would likely have seen a significant drop in toll revenue as a result, though having parallel highway corridors (and the network redundancy of same) would have been a good idea.
Part of what happened with the Somerset Freeway is about federal environmental law (and case law), especially the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but also the Clean Water Act; Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966; and several other statutes - though many people with an interest in favor of or opposed to a particular transportation improvement do not want to understand that NEPA is above all a
process act, and the act of filing a lawsuit against a proposed project in no way assures success in the federal courts.
There's also the matter of elected officials in the area (usually at the local and state levels) changing their minds after spending millions of (mostly federal) dollars to study a proposed project. Should those elected officials be required to pay-back to the federal treasury those study dollars when they change their minds?
Quote from: NE2 on December 05, 2016, 01:14:50 AM
Non sequitur; Red Lion and Grant (the two intersections) are not on the relatively short bit of US 1 necessary to reach PA 63.
But the at-grade signalized intersections of U.S. 1 at Old Lincoln Highway; Northgate Drive; Southampton Road; and Hornig Road
are.
Because of those intersections (which are, BTW, generally pedestrian-hostile), it is a
slow and
miserable drive from the I-276 ramps to PA-63 - it is effectively a breezewood that is worse than Breezewood because of higher traffic volumes, more signalized intersections and a longer distance on U.S. 1.
From North Jersey, One can take the NJ Turnpike to Exit 7A to 195 West to 295 South to I-76 West to Philly. Or, 7A to 195 West to 295 North to 95 South to Philly.
So, 2 all-freeway routes already exist.
Like you said, the limited dollars is forced away from the PTC, for PennDOT to do as they please. And both have numerous other projects which they have decided will have priority over this one, and numerous other projects in the pipeline. We all know how badly many of PA's bridges and overpasses need fixing, which has resulted in various and sometimes comical truck routes all throughout the state.
The agency that really needed to get the project moving is the DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission), which is supposed to keep traffic moving for the entire region, and coordinate projects so that one benefits others, and one doesn't create problems for others. Unfortunately, the DVRPC has become a hangout for the bicycle and pedestrian community, and 'regional' planning comes in the way of pathways along rivers and roads. This is where the feds are defaulting the most, by not reminding the DVRPC they are a regional planning commission for all modes of transportation. The agency need to approve all projects in the area, and they usually rubberstamp road and highway projects, but they are failing miserably at suggesting and pushing for other road and highway projects, especially those like the ramps between 95 & the PA Tpk.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2016, 06:28:25 AM
From North Jersey, One can take the NJ Turnpike to Exit 7A to 195 West to 295 South to I-76 West to Philly. Or, 7A to 195 West to 295 North to 95 South to Philly.
So, 2 all-freeway routes already exist.
The way it's usually put is "a
direct all-freeway route between New York City and Philadelphia" doesn't exist. Philadelphia isn't only the center city area. One can't drive between New York City (and North Jersey) and Philadelphia in a direct manner on all-freeway roadways. IOW, if I'm driving from Northeast Philadelphia (the closest part of Philadelphia to New York City or North Jersey), I can't drive directly to New York City without going out of my way (at least briefly) or driving on a non-freeway facility (at least briefly). And vice versa.
When thinking "between Philadelphia and New York," think "between Northeast Philadelphia and New York."
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2016, 10:14:46 PM
In the case of the Breezewood, it is also about a callous disregard for motorist safety by PTC and PennDOT - I have personally seen several crashes on I-70 westbound approaching the traffic signal at Breezewood (and I do not drive that way all that frequently).
I'm not sure that PTC and PennDot are to blame for this one. I can't point to a source but ISTR there were plans many years ago to construct a direct interchange after a state legislator was involved in a traffic accident in the area, but the motorist service businesses rose as one and unleashed the lobbyists, who prevailed in getting the state legislature to intervene and strike down the plans. I (further) STR even the accident-victim legislator who was pushing for a new interchange changed his mind and said he was satisfied with the improvements instead made on US-30 in the area (reconstruction/widening, new signals, new signage). One wonders about the amount of his take from the lobbyists.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on December 05, 2016, 09:57:46 AM
I'm not sure that PTC and PennDot are to blame for this one. I can't point to a source but ISTR there were plans many years ago to construct a direct interchange after a state legislator was involved in a traffic accident in the area, but the motorist service businesses rose as one and unleashed the lobbyists, who prevailed in getting the state legislature to intervene and strike down the plans. I (further) STR even the accident-victim legislator who was pushing for a new interchange changed his mind and said he was satisfied with the improvements instead made on US-30 in the area (reconstruction/widening, new signals, new signage). One wonders about the amount of his take from the lobbyists.
I think your memory is essentially correct. There's a great Wall Street Journal (
may be paywalled) article here (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB932939160483361786) from 1999 that describes the history pretty well, including the names of the Pennsylvania politicians (starting with ex-Rep. Bud Shuster (R)) that share the (somewhat more-recent) blame for Breezewood.
QuoteIn Rep. Shuster, Breezewood has an awesome ally. The highways of Pennsylvania are a testament to the political might of this 14-term Republican congressman. There's the Bud Shuster Byway, a four-lane bypass built in the late 1970s to keep his hometown of Everett from strangling on highway traffic. There's the Bud Shuster Highway, I-99, an $800 million engineering marvel that runs through the heart of his district. And several other highway projects for his constituents are on track, thanks to a $217 billion national transportation law he pushed through Congress last year.
QuoteYet when it comes to Breezewood, Rep. Shuster sees no need for change. He says the interchange is neither as unusual as critics contend it to be nor as much a bottleneck as it once was. "The historic pattern has been to keep it the way it is and improve the flow of traffic," he says. Keeping Breezewood busy, he adds, is "vital" to the local economy. At night, Breezewood seems to burst out of nowhere, a bonfire of neon and halogen lighting up an Appalachian hollow once lighted by fireflies. Vying for motorists' money are Wendy's and Hardee's, Amoco and Sunoco -- more than 30 establishments in all. Anchoring the strip is the Gateway Travel Plaza, where truckers can shower and eat, play video games or pray with a chaplain. Tourists can get an "Americana fix," as one Gateway customer puts it, of meatloaf and mashed potatoes, and top it off with a Dairy Queen cone.
QuoteBut on the heaviest traffic days, Breezewood is more tar pit than pit stop. On last year's worst day, the Sunday after Thanksgiving, traffic in the eastbound lanes on the turnpike backed up for 15 miles, trying to squeeze onto the exit to I-70. The backup began here and extended through the toll plaza to the pike.
QuoteBy 1967, Breezewood was a bad enough bottleneck for a congressional public-works hearing to focus on it. But instead of putting in a bypass road, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission opted for an overpass directly into town, thinking that would alleviate the congestion. For the self-proclaimed Town of Motels, this was a crucial turning point, setting in concrete its course of commercial development and hardening its resistance to any bypass.
QuoteBy 1985, tie-ups had gotten so huge that the town had to hire deputy sheriffs to direct weekend traffic. Next came what local police call Black Sunday, a post-Thanksgiving traffic jam in 1987 when a series of rear-end collisions sent 16 people to local hospitals. Thereafter, the town found itself under political siege, scrambling to fend off one bypass proposal after another.
QuoteLeading the defense were six families of entrepreneurs who have run unincorporated Breezewood for two generations and contributed, federal election records show, $25,000 to Rep. Shuster over the past decade. The most prominent families are the Bittners, proprietors of the Gateway; the motel-owning Felton family, and the Wilts, who own much of the town's prime property.
QuoteTheir chief antagonist was Michael Dawida, a state senator from Pittsburgh at the time, who was involved in a 1988 rear-end collision here at the I-70 light. The Democrat pushed hard the next year for an engineering study of a bypass. But Robert Jubelirer, the Republican president pro tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate, squelched it. In 1990, Mr. Dawida got a fellow Pittsburgher to push for a study on the House side. The measure passed 199-1, only to founder again in Mr. Jubelirer's Senate.
QuoteThe families rely on Messrs. Shuster and Jubelirer to suppress any Breezewood bypass design work by state highway and turnpike engineers. But they still live in fear that someday the world will pass them by. They had to "fight like mad," says motel owner Derril Wilt, to ensure that work currently being done to expand the toll plaza wouldn't turn into a pretext for a seamless connection with I-70. Mr. Jubelirer weighed in to protect the town's 1,200 jobs and several business investments worth millions of dollars.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 03, 2016, 07:19:02 PM
IMO with very few exceptions, Interstate-Interstate interchanges should have all movements.
no arguments here; just putting my two cents towards what should first be sacrificed if it came to that extreme measure to complete the project.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 05, 2016, 01:40:20 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 05, 2016, 01:14:50 AM
Non sequitur; Red Lion and Grant (the two intersections) are not on the relatively short bit of US 1 necessary to reach PA 63.
But the at-grade signalized intersections of U.S. 1 at Old Lincoln Highway; Northgate Drive; Southampton Road; and Hornig Road are.
Because of those intersections (which are, BTW, generally pedestrian-hostile), it is a slow and miserable drive from the I-276 ramps to PA-63 - it is effectively a breezewood that is worse than Breezewood because of higher traffic volumes, more signalized intersections and a longer distance on U.S. 1.
additionally, the two intersections are in the immediate vicinity (both within a half-mile), and missing the ramp to Woodhaven (which is entirely possible, if you blink after getting on US 1 and end up on the Inner Drive, and then have an issue navigating the suicide-ramp-like crossover) has one more than likely using one of those two intersections to attempt to turn around. again, Bad Idea
TM.
Quote from: odditude on December 05, 2016, 07:15:32 PM
additionally, the two intersections are in the immediate vicinity (both within a half-mile), and missing the ramp to Woodhaven (which is entirely possible, if you blink after getting on US 1 and end up on the Inner Drive, and then have an issue navigating the suicide-ramp-like crossover) has one more than likely using one of those two intersections to attempt to turn around. again, Bad IdeaTM.
I had that
exact problem last month (U.S. 1 south of I-276 is not a road I have driven frequently) and and I concur with your notion that it's a Bad Idea
TM to send people that way if they are not familiar with it.
With the Connector Bridge closure is the PTC able to accelerate the construction of this interchange?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 15, 2017, 10:25:07 PM
With the Connector Bridge closure is the PTC able to accelerate the construction of this interchange?
The highways - both the PA Tpk and 95 - are still open at the construction location so it won't have any impact.
If the Feds had a problem with the double trumpet interchange idea in Pennsylvania, wouldn't they have had just as much of a problem with the cluster$#@! exit 11 on the NJ Turnpike if Somerset had carried I-95 that way?
Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 10, 2017, 11:03:32 AM
If the Feds had a problem with the double trumpet interchange idea in Pennsylvania, wouldn't they have had just as much of a problem with the cluster$#@! exit 11 on the NJ Turnpike if Somerset had carried I-95 that way?
No, because I-95 was to join I-287, so 95 would've met the Turnpike at Exit 10.
Would the feds have had an issue then with Exit 10? We'll never know.
Exit 10 might have been grandfathered in.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 10, 2017, 11:03:32 AM
If the Feds had a problem with the double trumpet interchange idea in Pennsylvania, wouldn't they have had just as much of a problem with the cluster$#@! exit 11 on the NJ Turnpike if Somerset had carried I-95 that way?
Because N.J Turnpike Exit 11 probably had
no federal dollars invested, and that meant that the BPR (Bureau of Public Roads, this was designed and constructed before the USDOT and FHWA were formed) had zero say-so or sign-off involvement.
Quote from: vdeane on March 10, 2017, 01:22:21 PM
Exit 10 might have been grandfathered in.
Concur with VDeane. Exit 10 was likely grandfathered - or entirely funded by the NJTA (even though it connected to I-287 and NJ-440 which presumably were built with federal dollars). I do not claim to know what the rules were on such matters when the interchange was built.
I would assume that NJTA paid for the entire Exit-10 Interchange, since they've never had a problem paying for worthwhile projects on their road. The rule as I understand it is that Federal dollars cannot be used for an interchange connecting an Interstate to a toll road. That was supposedly why the infamous Penn. Tpk./I-95 interchange was never built (until now).
But I have to agree that if I-95 had gone along what is now I-287, it sure would have been an awkward route thru that Exit-10 interchange to stay on I-95.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 10, 2017, 08:20:52 PM
I would assume that NJTA paid for the entire Exit-10 Interchange, since they've never had a problem paying for worthwhile projects on their road. The rule as I understand it is that Federal dollars cannot be used for an interchange connecting an Interstate to a toll road. That was supposedly why the infamous Penn. Tpk./I-95 interchange was never built (until now).
But I have to agree that if I-95 had gone along what is now I-287, it sure would have been an awkward route thru that Exit-10 interchange to stay on I-95.
If Somerset Freeway had been completed i am sure exit 10 would have been upgraded at some point. But remember that there was the propsed 695 which would have diverted a lot of thru traffic via 695 and 287.
I think the NJTP would still be the prefered GPS routing. it avoids center city Philadelphia and Wilmington. Just like GPS avoids 295 beccuse it is more miles and carries local commuter traffic more that the NJTP
LGMS428
I completely agree, jwolfer.
The federal funding prohibition is not the reason for the switch to the free-flow design over the originally planned double trumpet. That is the fact that interstate standards don't allow interstates to exit off themselves. Most/all the present-day examples of such either predate the interstate system or were built to older standards; in either case, they are now grandfathered; hence, why exit 10 of the Turnpike would likely have been grandfathered in. But because there was no existing infrastructure there when I-95 was re-routed, standards demanded a free-flow interchange. The federal funding rule may, however, have played a part in why the double trumpet was only in design at the time and not built when I-95 was.
Quote from: vdeane on March 11, 2017, 05:28:24 PM
The federal funding prohibition is not the reason for the switch to the free-flow design over the originally planned double trumpet. That is the fact that interstate standards don't allow interstates to exit off themselves.
I-95 north will be a right-side exit from its current route, and I-95 south will exit right from current I-276...
http://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d30-d40.aspx
Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2017, 05:48:45 PMQuote from: vdeane on March 11, 2017, 05:28:24 PMThe federal funding prohibition is not the reason for the switch to the free-flow design over the originally planned double trumpet. That is the fact that interstate standards don't allow interstates to exit off themselves.
I-95 north will be a right-side exit from its current route, and I-95 south will exit right from current I-276...
http://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d30-d40.aspx
For signing purposes there is a distinction between exits and splits and I doubt the TOTSO prohibition applies to splits, even if they are assigned exit numbers and those are signed.
I-95 south will exit from the right at NJTP Exit 6, so I doubt the PA Turnpike interchange layout really matters.
I-76 eastbound exits itself at Exit 326...this is all due to the exit numbering staying with the toll road, not the numbering.
Quote from: vdeane on March 11, 2017, 05:28:24 PM
The federal funding prohibition is not the reason for the switch to the free-flow design over the originally planned double trumpet. That is the fact that interstate standards don't allow interstates to exit off themselves. Most/all the present-day examples of such either predate the interstate system or were built to older standards; in either case, they are now grandfathered; hence, why exit 10 of the Turnpike would likely have been grandfathered in. But because there was no existing infrastructure there when I-95 was re-routed, standards demanded a free-flow interchange. The federal funding rule may, however, have played a part in why the double trumpet was only in design at the time and not built when I-95 was.
[citation needed]
Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 11, 2017, 09:41:45 PM
I-76 eastbound exits itself at Exit 326...this is all due to the exit numbering staying with the toll road, not the numbering.
Actually, the Schuylkill Expressway and the I-276 segment of the Turnpike
both continue the exit numbering from 326.
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 11, 2017, 10:36:55 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on March 11, 2017, 09:41:45 PM
I-76 eastbound exits itself at Exit 326...this is all due to the exit numbering staying with the toll road, not the numbering.
Actually, the Schuylkill Expressway and the I-276 segment of the Turnpike both continue the exit numbering from 326.
I think that is actually reasonable. Since 276 never leaves the Turnpike there is no reason it should have its own identity, and it has only one set of exit numbers. I'd much prefer I-87 to have a single set of exit numbers and not the 3 it has now. Now with I-95 thrown onto the PA Turnpike one could argue that exits 358 and 359 need renumbering, but then again one can argue they don't.
The interchange being built and NJ Turnpike exit 6 function as splits, regardless of signage. Valley Forge is grandfathered in. The issue is with the geometry of what FHWA considered the mainline (
I-95, not the Pennsylvania Turnpike), not the signage. A double trumpet would have forced traffic on I-95 onto one lane through tight, low-speed ramps. This design can be navigated at highway speeds.
Quote from: Alps on March 11, 2017, 10:09:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 11, 2017, 05:28:24 PM
The federal funding prohibition is not the reason for the switch to the free-flow design over the originally planned double trumpet. That is the fact that interstate standards don't allow interstates to exit off themselves. Most/all the present-day examples of such either predate the interstate system or were built to older standards; in either case, they are now grandfathered; hence, why exit 10 of the Turnpike would likely have been grandfathered in. But because there was no existing infrastructure there when I-95 was re-routed, standards demanded a free-flow interchange. The federal funding rule may, however, have played a part in why the double trumpet was only in design at the time and not built when I-95 was.
[citation needed]
So what's the reason for this (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2160102,-87.4444514,15.12z)? And the reason the PTC didn't just build a double trumpet and call it done?
Quote from: vdeane on March 12, 2017, 05:00:46 PM
The interchange being built and NJ Turnpike exit 6 function as splits, regardless of signage. Valley Forge is grandfathered in. The issue is with the geometry of what FHWA considered the mainline (I-95, not the Pennsylvania Turnpike), not the signage. A double trumpet would have forced traffic on I-95 onto one lane through tight, low-speed ramps. This design can be navigated at highway speeds.
Quote from: Alps on March 11, 2017, 10:09:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 11, 2017, 05:28:24 PM
The federal funding prohibition is not the reason for the switch to the free-flow design over the originally planned double trumpet. That is the fact that interstate standards don't allow interstates to exit off themselves. Most/all the present-day examples of such either predate the interstate system or were built to older standards; in either case, they are now grandfathered; hence, why exit 10 of the Turnpike would likely have been grandfathered in. But because there was no existing infrastructure there when I-95 was re-routed, standards demanded a free-flow interchange. The federal funding rule may, however, have played a part in why the double trumpet was only in design at the time and not built when I-95 was.
[citation needed]
So what's the reason for this (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2160102,-87.4444514,15.12z)? And the reason the PTC didn't just build a double trumpet and call it done?
Regarding the PA Turnpike/95 Interchange: I wouldn't be surprised if the FHA did have some say in that they wanted a true high-speed connection. Absent of that, the PA Turnpike could've made the decision themselves. It's also noteworthy that it was decided long ago (and we're talking last century, in the 90's sometime) that the PA Turnpike would charge motorists a toll entering PA only. However, it is a much more recent change to make that all-electronic; as recently as 2005 they still talked about a conventional toll plaza with Express lanes and cash lanes. It's such a short, but potentially busy, section of highway that the Turnpike probably realized that it wouldn't make sense to operate a ticket system for that stretch of highway, and decided it was more economically feasible to go with one-way tolling.
Regarding the I-69 project in Kentucky...that appears to be part of the I-69 master plan for the highway, in which they made or proposed to make numerous improvements to several interchanges and straightaway sections. http://transportation.ky.gov/highway-design/conference%20presentation/i-69%20update.pdf . I didn't dive deep enough to see if the feds mandated that specific project though.
I meant exit 10.
It just seems funny that they would've been fine with routing I-95 through that interchange, but then cancelling the Somerset meant sending the PTC back to design when they already had a plan to build. Maybe they figured they would fix exit 10 after the Somerset was built.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 13, 2017, 03:37:46 AM
I meant exit 10.
It just seems funny that they would've been fine with routing I-95 through that interchange, but then cancelling the Somerset meant sending the PTC back to design when they already had a plan to build. Maybe they figured they would fix exit 10 after the Somerset was built.
The NJ Turnpike was constructed in 1951. The entire Interstate Highway system wasn't really envisioned until the mid-1950's at the earliest...and in most cases traffic was envisioned to be light throughout much of the system. If I-95 was built as planned, I'm sure they would've made some adjustments to the NJ Turnpike Interchange 10.
If the PTC had a design for 95 & the PA Turnpike, it would make sense that it would need to be redesigned anyway as originally 95 would have continued north of the Turnpike rather than become the Turnpike.
The current Exit 10 was built when I-287 was built..... much newer then the 1950s.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 13, 2017, 03:20:22 PM
The current Exit 10 was built when I-287 was built..... much newer then the 1950s.
I believe 1963, though the current design of the interchange might be from when the dual-dual roadways were built in the late 60s-very early 70s.
Based on the Historic Aerials & USGS maps; Interchange 10/I-287 was constructed sometime between 1964-1969.
The current interchange does have a semi-high speed connection to I-287 north that I-95 south traffic would have used. NJDOT even kept the legends "suggesting" I-95 continues along there when they finally replaced what were likely the original signs: https://goo.gl/maps/kSU2ckRg65r
(The "TO" over I-287 isn't needed here, it might have implied that the ramp was originally for I-95 south and thats the way to I-287)
I got a picture of the construction site from I-95 southbound on Monday.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMj513OG.jpg&hash=67cc673bd5909bea777c336fe80d257f85cdd6b2)
Quote from: epzik8 on April 06, 2017, 11:17:40 AM
I got a picture of the construction site from I-95 southbound on Monday.
You mean "future" I-95 southbound? That looks like the PATP westbound to me..?
Quote from: Chris19001 on April 06, 2017, 01:14:31 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on April 06, 2017, 11:17:40 AM
I got a picture of the construction site from I-95 southbound on Monday.
You mean "future" I-95 southbound? That looks like the PATP westbound to me..?
No, this is current I-95. The piers visible are for the incoming future I-95 south, and the retaining wall on the right will be supporting the C/D lanes. Visible in the distance is the Ford Rd overpass.
edit: fixed "the the"
Quote from: Chris19001 on April 06, 2017, 01:14:31 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on April 06, 2017, 11:17:40 AM
I got a picture of the construction site from I-95 southbound on Monday.
You mean "future" I-95 southbound? That looks like the PATP westbound to me..?
Agree with
odditude.
It may not yet be
signed (and presumably won't be until PTC finishes their snail-like crawl toward partial completion of the Bristol Township interchange project), but I understand that the N.J. Turnpike "Pennsylvania" Connector as well as the Pennsylvania Turnpike E-W Mainline (from the Delaware River as far west as the Delaware Expressway) are
now I-95, even though there (properly) will be no signs of same until sometime in 2018.
Quote from: Chris19001 on April 06, 2017, 01:14:31 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on April 06, 2017, 11:17:40 AM
I got a picture of the construction site from I-95 southbound on Monday.
You mean "future" I-95 southbound? That looks like the PATP westbound to me..?
I was definitely on I-95 south when I took this photo. I was coming back from Staten Island and I had taken I-287 to U.S. 1 to I-95 at Trenton, New Jersey. However, I did previously post a set of photos of this construction site heading eastbound on the Turnpike.
Sorry, my bad then. I thought the overpass in the background was present I-95. Knowing for sure this is 95 south, they are much further along than I thought. I take the turnpike through there from time to time, but very rarely 95 as I have easier ways to connect north and south of the area... Thanks for the photo.
Quote from: Chris19001 on April 07, 2017, 02:13:56 PM
Sorry, my bad then. I thought the overpass in the background was present I-95. Knowing for sure this is 95 south, they are much further along than I thought. I take the turnpike through there from time to time, but very rarely 95 as I have easier ways to connect north and south of the area... Thanks for the photo.
That's okay. I wasn't trying to be hard on you. I was just trying to clarify things. But anyway, that's pretty much what the interchange project looks like right now.
Quote from: Chris19001 on April 07, 2017, 02:13:56 PM
Sorry, my bad then. I thought the overpass in the background was present I-95. Knowing for sure this is 95 south, they are much further along than I thought. I take the turnpike through there from time to time, but very rarely 95 as I have easier ways to connect north and south of the area... Thanks for the photo.
The sad thing is they are years behind on this project, and they won't get the connection open until late 2018. It's incredible how slow the PTC is allowing this project to progress.
Well it's not really surprising since they never wanted this in the first place and reality finally forced them into it. But the speed that the New Jersey Tpk. Authority can build a major project does put the PTC to shame.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 10, 2017, 08:36:50 PM
Well it's not really surprising since they never wanted this in the first place and reality finally forced them into it. But the speed that the New Jersey Tpk. Authority can build a major project does put the PTC to shame.
Non-connections between the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's roads and PennDOT-maintained freeways and expressways seems to be considered
desirable by PTC, PennDOT and above all Pennsylvania's elected officials, who see the breezewoods as some sort of perverse economic development scheme.
Someplace in Harrisburg, I assume that many people can be found who are angry about the pending (partial) connection between I-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, even though there is not really a concentration of Breezewood-type schlock to be found near the Bristol Township non-connection.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 12, 2017, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 10, 2017, 08:36:50 PM
Well it's not really surprising since they never wanted this in the first place and reality finally forced them into it. But the speed that the New Jersey Tpk. Authority can build a major project does put the PTC to shame.
Non-connections between the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's roads and PennDOT-maintained freeways and expressways seems to be considered desirable by PTC, PennDOT and above all Pennsylvania's elected officials, who see the breezewoods as some sort of perverse economic development scheme.
Someplace in Harrisburg, I assume that many people can be found who are angry about the pending (partial) connection between I-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, even though there is not really a concentration of Breezewood-type schlock to be found near the Bristol Township non-connection.
The distance between 95 and the PA Turnpike via a breezewood was just too far, and not really signed all that well anyway. Plus, unlike other breezewoods, both the PA Turnpike and 95 continued thru at their intersecting point. In most other breezewood cases, one of the highways ended, or such as The Breezewood, I-70 was part of the Turnpike and signed quite well, which made it pretty logical what needed to be done from a traveler's standpoint.
In the case of 95/PA Tpk, it would appear illogical to exit I-95 to get to the PA Turnpike if you wanted to continue on I-95 because I-95 continued on anyway. Only after travelers entered NJ and encountered "To I-95" signs along I-295 would motorists maybe realize there was some sort of issue.
This is more evident on the NJ Turnpike South, where I-95 signs just disappear. Most motorists continue on the NJ Turnpike because they want to pick up 95 in Delaware anyway, so if they didn't notice the lack of 95 signage it didn't matter all that much. But for those whose destination was Philly (or anywhere in PA for that matter) they would need to know to exit the highway that they thought was I-95 but not I-95.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 12, 2017, 01:07:31 PM
Non-connections between the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's roads and PennDOT-maintained freeways and expressways seems to be considered desirable by PTC, PennDOT and above all Pennsylvania's elected officials, who see the breezewoods as some sort of perverse economic development scheme.
I don't know that I would say that broadly. This is certainly the reason that *the* Breezewood persists, but other similar circumstances on the PA Turnpike (I-79, I-176)
have been remediated, so it's not like PA is outright opposed to the very concept.
Most states with legacy toll roads ended up with situations like this due to the initial prohibition on using interstate funds to build ramps to a toll road, and PA is far from the only state where examples persist to this day (FL, MA, NJ, NY, and OH all have at least one - IL is only currently working on eliminating their last one). Fixing these situations costs money and often the inconvenience of the non-connection is not severe enough to justify the expense, or at least not enough to make it a high priority. In states where the toll road has its own operator independent of the DOT, things also get gummed up due to it being twice the paperwork, and due to both agencies needing to simultaneously have room in their respective budgets for it.
If there is any perverse reason for maintaining them, it is usually cases where constructing the connection would make it easier to shunpike and result in lost toll revenue (e.g. a direct connection between the FL Tpk and I-95 near Ft Pierce).
In the instance of the PA Tpk and I-95, it's worth remembering that PA was planning on building a double trumpet interchange at this location decades ago, when the Somerset Freeway was an active proposal and there were no plans to reroute I-95. Then NJ cancelled the Somerset Freeway, and has PA dragged their heels over the course of decades since at building a high speed connection on account of believing that I-95's incompleteness is NJ's fault and it's unfair for PA to have to pay to fix it.
Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics! I want efficient highways!
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2017, 08:50:04 PM
Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics! I want efficient highways!
If you're going to complain about the missing interchange with 95 and the PA Turnpike, then we might as well go into all the other missing highways and bridges in and around NYC as well, many of which weren't built due to politics and that would have given you efficient highways in the city.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2017, 08:50:04 PM
Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics! I want efficient highways!
How about south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on NJ 90?
And the all-highway route of NJ Tpk, 195 West, 295 South, 76 West?
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2017, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2017, 08:50:04 PM
Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics! I want efficient highways!
How about south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on NJ 90?
Sure, but you have to deal with the traffic lights on NJ 73.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 12, 2017, 09:49:41 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2017, 08:50:04 PM
Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics! I want efficient highways!
If you're going to complain about the missing interchange with 95 and the PA Turnpike, then we might as well go into all the other missing highways and bridges in and around NYC as well, many of which weren't built due to politics and that would have given you efficient highways in the city.
O ho...are we proposing direct ramps from I-87 to the Willis and 3rd Ave bridges? That would be a feat. Probably would make the backup on those bridges worse...traffic lights on the feeder routes are currently doing at least some metering. :D
I actually find NYC very easy to get into, despite the mentioned lack of proposed facilities, compared to the Philadelphia nonsense.
QuoteI actually find NYC very easy to get into, despite the mentioned lack of proposed facilities, compared to the Philadelphia nonsense.
Philly: I-95 to I-676 West to Board Street Exit puts you 3 blocks away from Center City.
Philly: I-76 West from NJ to I-676 East to Broad Street Exit puts you 2 blocks away from Center City.
If you're going another way that involves multiple traffic lights (say, across the Ben Franklin Bridge), then that's one way to get to Center City Philly; but not the only way to get to Center City Philly.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 12, 2017, 08:31:54 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 12, 2017, 01:07:31 PM
Non-connections between the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission's roads and PennDOT-maintained freeways and expressways seems to be considered desirable by PTC, PennDOT and above all Pennsylvania's elected officials, who see the breezewoods as some sort of perverse economic development scheme.
I don't know that I would say that broadly. This is certainly the reason that *the* Breezewood persists, but other similar circumstances on the PA Turnpike (I-79, I-176) have been remediated, so it's not like PA is outright opposed to the very concept.
Most states with legacy toll roads ended up with situations like this due to the initial prohibition on using interstate funds to build ramps to a toll road, and PA is far from the only state where examples persist to this day (FL, MA, NJ, NY, and OH all have at least one - IL is only currently working on eliminating their last one). Fixing these situations costs money and often the inconvenience of the non-connection is not severe enough to justify the expense, or at least not enough to make it a high priority. In states where the toll road has its own operator independent of the DOT, things also get gummed up due to it being twice the paperwork, and due to both agencies needing to simultaneously have room in their respective budgets for it.
In the case of
the Breezewood, it's a matter of safety and all of the unnecessary crashes - presumably drivers that are not expecting traffic to be stopped at a red signal on an Interstate and may not be familiar with the breezewoods.
But the others are mostly worthy of condemnation, odium and scorn:
Somerset - a circuitous route to get between the E-W Mainline of the Penn Pike and U.S. 219 by way of an unnumbered access road to/from the Turnpike, PA-601 and another unnumbered access road to/from U.S. 219. Never mind that there has always been plenty of vacant land available where 219 actually crosses the Turnpike for a double trumpet (or now a more conventional interchange with the coming of cashless tolling).
Bedford - not as bad as Somerset, but still requires navigating through schlock to get from the Turnpike to U.S. 220/I-99.
Carlisle - heavy volume of commercial vehicle traffic between the Penn Pike and I-81 (in part because many businesses that serve intercity truck travel, or service it (warehouses) are near the interchange), but also because trucks operating on an east-west axis between Pittsburgh and North Jersey and metropolitan New York want to leave the turnpike at the earliest opportunity and that's Carlisle.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 13, 2017, 02:02:54 PM
Carlisle - heavy volume of commercial vehicle traffic between the Penn Pike and I-81 (in part because many businesses that serve intercity truck travel, or service it (warehouses) are near the interchange), but also because trucks operating on an east-west axis between Pittsburgh and North Jersey and metropolitan New York want to leave the turnpike at the earliest opportunity and that's Carlisle.
With Somerset, the intersecting route is more or less perpendicular to the Turnpike; despite the periodic hoopla about a potential national N-S corridor, US 219's still at best a regional server. The same could be said about Bedford, although I-99 might be considered to be a reasonable connector to eastward I-80 (and by extension I-84 and New England) from Turnpike traffic originating along I-70 to the west. But Carlisle sits at a major cross-country junction; it's difficult to think that the originators of the Interstate system -- MacDonald et. al. -- didn't expect some sort of "meeting of the minds" at some point when they elected to "grandfather" the turnpikes into the network -- one that would have resulted in an efficient through connection between I-81 and the Turnpike (even a double-trumpet would be better than what's currently on the ground). Obviously, PA politics, including turf-protecting, has played a principal role in the reluctance to provide any of these direct connections -- PTC's unstated but obvious preference would be for NYC/NE-bound traffic to remain on the pike all the way into NJ for maximum revenue. However, it's surprising that pressure hasn't been brought to bear on the parties involved to resolve these connection issues, particularly with Carlisle; one would think that trucking associations (and firms), along with other players (the Teamsters being one that comes to mind) would supply at least part of the requisite pressure re a direct connection at Carlisle, which would benefit a broad cross-section of the transportation economy. The fact that something of that sort has yet to happen is perplexing; it's as if all parties involved have essentially given up on this. Sad! :ded:
Honestly though, my two cents with the pseudo Breezewood situations revolves around common sense.
Provide access to the businesses. If a traveler feels the need to stop for whatever reason, they can do so. If a traveler doesn't, they can just keep going without any interruption. That's what NY did with the I-84/I-87/NY 300 interchange, so I don't understand why people haven't considered logic by now.
J&N, I absolutely agree with you about the lack of certain interchanges in the NYC area though some of those failures date back to an earlier era than the 276/95 issue. And we can thank the infinite wisdom of "Master Builder" Robert Moses for that. Off-hand though I can't think of any Interstates that cross without at least a partial interchange in the NYC Metroplex.
I have to admit I hadn't even thought of your 195/295/76 suggestion to Phila. from the NJT, though that route will take you farther south and then back northwest to Phila. When this first became an issue for me many years ago, I-195 and I-76 in New Jersey weren't even built yet.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 13, 2017, 02:02:54 PM
Somerset - a circuitous route to get between the E-W Mainline of the Penn Pike and U.S. 219 by way of an unnumbered access road to/from the Turnpike, PA-601 and another unnumbered access road to/from U.S. 219. Never mind that there has always been plenty of vacant land available where 219 actually crosses the Turnpike for a double trumpet (or now a more conventional interchange with the coming of cashless tolling).
There is some vacant land on the east side of US-219, but the Service Plazas (in both directions) are really close to the 219 overpasses. And considering they were replaced recently (relatively speaking), I doubt they would be removed for quite some time. It also seems that someone is trying to develop some kind of business park in the NE quadrant of the junction.
Even with cashless tolling, a double-trumpet might still be the way to go (not that I think they have any real plans to do anything)
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 13, 2017, 04:53:44 PM
Provide access to the businesses. If a traveler feels the need to stop for whatever reason, they can do so. If a traveler doesn't, they can just keep going without any interruption. That's what NY did with the I-84/I-87/NY 300 interchange, so I don't understand why people haven't considered logic by now.
When it comes to PA Turnpike situations, I'm sure local access will be maintained. Even where new more-direct connections have been made (not always freeway-freeway, but still more direct), the PTC has made sure to keep some sort of local access.
Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)
Quote from: dgolub on April 13, 2017, 08:46:50 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2017, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2017, 08:50:04 PM
Well the states of New Jersey and Penna. can stuff all that political nonsense. I just want to be able to drive from Long Island to Center-City Phila. via a convenient route. And to me that means south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on the Penn. Tpk, then south on I-95 into Phila. And I've wanted that for the last forty years. I'm not interested in the politics! I want efficient highways!
How about south on the NJ Turnpike, then west on NJ 90?
Sure, but you have to deal with the traffic lights on NJ 73.
Oh, I thought we were talking about theoretical unbuilt connections.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 14, 2017, 12:30:08 PM
When it comes to PA Turnpike situations, I'm sure local access will be maintained. Even where new more-direct connections have been made (not always freeway-freeway, but still more direct), the PTC has made sure to keep some sort of local access.
Nothing wrong with keeping access to those businesses for drivers that want to stop there.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 14, 2017, 12:30:08 PM
Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)
Yes, PTC and PennDOT really want to keep to their old ways. There is a similar situation at the junction of U.S. 222 and I-76 (Turnpike E-W Mainline, Exit 286) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B013'07.5%22N+76%C2%B005'00.2%22W/@40.218754,-76.1008975,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.218754!4d-76.083388) near Denver, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Access to and from U.S. 222 is via a diamond interchange, and requires driving down arterial Colonel Howard Boulevard to reach the trumpet interchange with the Turnpike.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 14, 2017, 12:30:08 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 13, 2017, 02:02:54 PM
Somerset - a circuitous route to get between the E-W Mainline of the Penn Pike and U.S. 219 by way of an unnumbered access road to/from the Turnpike, PA-601 and another unnumbered access road to/from U.S. 219. Never mind that there has always been plenty of vacant land available where 219 actually crosses the Turnpike for a double trumpet (or now a more conventional interchange with the coming of cashless tolling).
There is some vacant land on the east side of US-219, but the Service Plazas (in both directions) are really close to the 219 overpasses. And considering they were replaced recently (relatively speaking), I doubt they would be removed for quite some time. It also seems that someone is trying to develop some kind of business park in the NE quadrant of the junction.
Even with cashless tolling, a double-trumpet might still be the way to go (not that I think they have any real plans to do anything)
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 13, 2017, 04:53:44 PM
Provide access to the businesses. If a traveler feels the need to stop for whatever reason, they can do so. If a traveler doesn't, they can just keep going without any interruption. That's what NY did with the I-84/I-87/NY 300 interchange, so I don't understand why people haven't considered logic by now.
When it comes to PA Turnpike situations, I'm sure local access will be maintained. Even where new more-direct connections have been made (not always freeway-freeway, but still more direct), the PTC has made sure to keep some sort of local access.
Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)
The ball was dropped at the 3-trumpets interchange in Clarks Summit, too. At least in Oct. 2014, one encountered a stop sign when exiting I-81 SB before accessing the NE Extension (I-476), which begins here, or U.S. 11 (or U.S. 6 WB [U.S. 6 is multiplexed with I-81 east of the three trumpets, and with U.S. 11 west of the interchange]).
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on May 21, 2017, 08:55:43 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/MUTCD_W4-3L.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3L.svg.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/MUTCD_W4-3R.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3R.svg.png) :pan: :banghead:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2017, 08:36:55 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 14, 2017, 12:30:08 PM
Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)
Yes, PTC and PennDOT really want to keep to their old ways. There is a similar situation at the junction of U.S. 222 and I-76 (Turnpike E-W Mainline, Exit 286) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B013'07.5%22N+76%C2%B005'00.2%22W/@40.218754,-76.1008975,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.218754!4d-76.083388) near Denver, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Access to and from U.S. 222 is via a diamond interchange, and requires driving down arterial Colonel Howard Boulevard to reach the trumpet interchange with the Turnpike.
That Turnpike interchange was rebuilt when the US-222 freeway was built in the early 1970s, so it was built at a time when no one envisioned electronic tolling.
That diamond interchange could have a loop or two added, that would help.
That interchange should be a model of the benefits of connecting the Turnpike to freeways where there are missing links.
Check it out on Google Maps ... the connector highway has limited access connections to several roads that obviously were built to provide for industrial development, and a number of businesses have been built there since the 1970s, and benefit from excellent access to the Turnpike and the US-222 freeway, so it is a hub for industrial development and can draw employees from a wide area including Lancaster and Reading, and trucks from the two superhighways. Looks like plenty of land still undeveloped.
This could be a model for filling in other missing Turnpike interchanges such as I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford.
Quote from: yakra on May 22, 2017, 12:08:51 AM
Quote from: ixnay on May 21, 2017, 08:55:43 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/MUTCD_W4-3L.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3L.svg.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/MUTCD_W4-3R.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3R.svg.png) :pan: :banghead:
Not with 50 feet of auxiliary lane you don't.
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2017, 12:18:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on May 22, 2017, 12:08:51 AM
Quote from: ixnay on May 21, 2017, 08:55:43 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/MUTCD_W4-3L.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3L.svg.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/MUTCD_W4-3R.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3R.svg.png) :pan: :banghead:
Not with 50 feet of auxiliary lane you don't.
Yes, that is a short weave area, IMO, and probably the reason for the stop signs.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on May 22, 2017, 07:45:39 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2017, 12:18:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on May 22, 2017, 12:08:51 AM
Quote from: ixnay on May 21, 2017, 08:55:43 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/MUTCD_W4-3L.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3L.svg.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/MUTCD_W4-3R.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3R.svg.png) :pan: :banghead:
Not with 50 feet of auxiliary lane you don't.
Yes, that is a short weave area, IMO, and probably the reason for the stop signs.
This is the sign PennDOT designed to deal with such situations: https://goo.gl/maps/fDix1kQcuJ22 . Mostly used by just PennDOT, there is one on 322 in DRPA's jurisdiction as well: https://goo.gl/maps/mqZ5oLmWZSK2
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 22, 2017, 08:16:53 AM
This is the sign PennDOT designed to deal with such situations: https://goo.gl/maps/fDix1kQcuJ22 . Mostly used by just PennDOT, there is one on 322 in DRPA's jurisdiction as well: https://goo.gl/maps/mqZ5oLmWZSK2
I think I have seen one of those someplace else, perhaps along that horrible section of I-70 in either Westmoreland County or Washington County in southwest Pennsylvania - or possibly someplace along I-83 in Penn's Woods.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2017, 08:36:55 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on April 14, 2017, 12:30:08 PM
Even when they built the new (at the time) interchange with their own expansion road (Beaver Valley Expy, current I-376) they had to sneak in a new local connection to PA-351 (making it not full freeway-freeway - you have to stop to complete some movements between the highways)
Yes, PTC and PennDOT really want to keep to their old ways. There is a similar situation at the junction of U.S. 222 and I-76 (Turnpike E-W Mainline, Exit 286) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B013'07.5%22N+76%C2%B005'00.2%22W/@40.218754,-76.1008975,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.218754!4d-76.083388) near Denver, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Access to and from U.S. 222 is via a diamond interchange, and requires driving down arterial Colonel Howard Boulevard to reach the trumpet interchange with the Turnpike.
That Turnpike interchange was rebuilt when the US-222 freeway was built in the early 1970s, so it was built at a time when no one envisioned electronic tolling.
That diamond interchange could have a loop or two added, that would help.
That interchange should be a model of the benefits of connecting the Turnpike to freeways where there are missing links.
Check it out on Google Maps ... the connector highway has limited access connections to several roads that obviously were built to provide for industrial development, and a number of businesses have been built there since the 1970s, and benefit from excellent access to the Turnpike and the US-222 freeway, so it is a hub for industrial development and can draw employees from a wide area including Lancaster and Reading, and trucks from the two superhighways. Looks like plenty of land still undeveloped.
This could be a model for filling in other missing Turnpike interchanges such as I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford.
What a waste. Instead of building a double trumpet with US 222, they made yet another Breezewood. It's one thing when they just don't bother, but to build something and do it wrong anyways, that's just ridiculous, even by Pennsylvania standards (I-76/I-376 has similar problems, and is even worse because the PTC maintains both roads!).
Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2017, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2017, 08:36:55 PM
Yes, PTC and PennDOT really want to keep to their old ways. There is a similar situation at the junction of U.S. 222 and I-76 (Turnpike E-W Mainline, Exit 286) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B013'07.5%22N+76%C2%B005'00.2%22W/@40.218754,-76.1008975,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.218754!4d-76.083388) near Denver, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Access to and from U.S. 222 is via a diamond interchange, and requires driving down arterial Colonel Howard Boulevard to reach the trumpet interchange with the Turnpike.
That Turnpike interchange was rebuilt when the US-222 freeway was built in the early 1970s, so it was built at a time when no one envisioned electronic tolling.
That diamond interchange could have a loop or two added, that would help.
That interchange should be a model of the benefits of connecting the Turnpike to freeways where there are missing links.
Check it out on Google Maps ... the connector highway has limited access connections to several roads that obviously were built to provide for industrial development, and a number of businesses have been built there since the 1970s, and benefit from excellent access to the Turnpike and the US-222 freeway, so it is a hub for industrial development and can draw employees from a wide area including Lancaster and Reading, and trucks from the two superhighways. Looks like plenty of land still undeveloped.
This could be a model for filling in other missing Turnpike interchanges such as I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford.
What a waste. Instead of building a double trumpet with US 222, they made yet another Breezewood. It's one thing when they just don't bother, but to build something and do it wrong anyways, that's just ridiculous, even by Pennsylvania standards (I-76/I-376 has similar problems, and is even worse because the PTC maintains both roads!).
???? The link at the top is Google Maps for that area. The connector highway between the Turnpike and US-222 is a 4-lane limited access highway, and it contains the toll plaza, and there are no median crossings between the US-222 ramps and the Turnpike, and there is space to make the US-222 interchange a cloverleaf if they want to eliminate those ramp terminal intersections.
The connector highway does not trumpet into US-222 because the connector highway continues to PA-272 (old US-222). So the 4-way interchange is appropriate, and it can be argued that in the 40 years since it was built that it today needs at least two loops added.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 02:24:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2017, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2017, 08:36:55 PM
Yes, PTC and PennDOT really want to keep to their old ways. There is a similar situation at the junction of U.S. 222 and I-76 (Turnpike E-W Mainline, Exit 286) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B013'07.5%22N+76%C2%B005'00.2%22W/@40.218754,-76.1008975,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.218754!4d-76.083388) near Denver, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Access to and from U.S. 222 is via a diamond interchange, and requires driving down arterial Colonel Howard Boulevard to reach the trumpet interchange with the Turnpike.
That Turnpike interchange was rebuilt when the US-222 freeway was built in the early 1970s, so it was built at a time when no one envisioned electronic tolling.
That diamond interchange could have a loop or two added, that would help.
That interchange should be a model of the benefits of connecting the Turnpike to freeways where there are missing links.
Check it out on Google Maps ... the connector highway has limited access connections to several roads that obviously were built to provide for industrial development, and a number of businesses have been built there since the 1970s, and benefit from excellent access to the Turnpike and the US-222 freeway, so it is a hub for industrial development and can draw employees from a wide area including Lancaster and Reading, and trucks from the two superhighways. Looks like plenty of land still undeveloped.
This could be a model for filling in other missing Turnpike interchanges such as I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford.
What a waste. Instead of building a double trumpet with US 222, they made yet another Breezewood. It's one thing when they just don't bother, but to build something and do it wrong anyways, that's just ridiculous, even by Pennsylvania standards (I-76/I-376 has similar problems, and is even worse because the PTC maintains both roads!).
???? The link at the top is Google Maps for that area. The connector highway between the Turnpike and US-222 is a 4-lane limited access highway, and it contains the toll plaza, and there are no median crossings between the US-222 ramps and the Turnpike, and there is space to make the US-222 interchange a cloverleaf if they want to eliminate those ramp terminal intersections.
The connector highway does not trumpet into US-222 because the connector highway continues to PA-272 (old US-222). So the 4-way interchange is appropriate, and it can be argued that in the 40 years since it was built that it today needs at least two loops added.
PA has far worse problems than this interchange. Money not withstanding, yes, it would be nice to convert the US 222-Col Howard Blvd interchange into a cloverleaf...but...I wouldn't put that in the top 5 priorities for Lancaster County, never mind the rest of the state.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 22, 2017, 02:32:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 02:24:09 PM
The link at the top is Google Maps for that area. The connector highway between the Turnpike and US-222 is a 4-lane limited access highway, and it contains the toll plaza, and there are no median crossings between the US-222 ramps and the Turnpike, and there is space to make the US-222 interchange a cloverleaf if they want to eliminate those ramp terminal intersections.
The connector highway does not trumpet into US-222 because the connector highway continues to PA-272 (old US-222). So the 4-way interchange is appropriate, and it can be argued that in the 40 years since it was built that it today needs at least two loops added.
PA has far worse problems than this interchange. Money not withstanding, yes, it would be nice to convert the US 222-Col Howard Blvd interchange into a cloverleaf...but...I wouldn't put that in the top 5 priorities for Lancaster County, never mind the rest of the state.
Yep ... I mentioned the missing Turnpike interchanges at I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 freeway at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford.
Quote from: ixnay on May 22, 2017, 07:45:39 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2017, 12:18:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on May 22, 2017, 12:08:51 AM
Quote from: ixnay on May 21, 2017, 08:55:43 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4825351,-75.6803723,3a,37.5y,257.61h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazrC41gc9TrLYJ2ejbxgUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/MUTCD_W4-3L.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3L.svg.png)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/MUTCD_W4-3R.svg/200px-MUTCD_W4-3R.svg.png) :pan: :banghead:
Not with 50 feet of auxiliary lane you don't.
Yes, that is a short weave area, IMO, and probably the reason for the stop signs.
ixnay
There was a time it was just a yield, probably until the early 90s. Allegedly, direct ORT connection will be built... some day.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 02:24:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2017, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2017, 08:36:55 PM
Yes, PTC and PennDOT really want to keep to their old ways. There is a similar situation at the junction of U.S. 222 and I-76 (Turnpike E-W Mainline, Exit 286) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B013'07.5%22N+76%C2%B005'00.2%22W/@40.218754,-76.1008975,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d40.218754!4d-76.083388) near Denver, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Access to and from U.S. 222 is via a diamond interchange, and requires driving down arterial Colonel Howard Boulevard to reach the trumpet interchange with the Turnpike.
That Turnpike interchange was rebuilt when the US-222 freeway was built in the early 1970s, so it was built at a time when no one envisioned electronic tolling.
That diamond interchange could have a loop or two added, that would help.
That interchange should be a model of the benefits of connecting the Turnpike to freeways where there are missing links.
Check it out on Google Maps ... the connector highway has limited access connections to several roads that obviously were built to provide for industrial development, and a number of businesses have been built there since the 1970s, and benefit from excellent access to the Turnpike and the US-222 freeway, so it is a hub for industrial development and can draw employees from a wide area including Lancaster and Reading, and trucks from the two superhighways. Looks like plenty of land still undeveloped.
This could be a model for filling in other missing Turnpike interchanges such as I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford.
What a waste. Instead of building a double trumpet with US 222, they made yet another Breezewood. It's one thing when they just don't bother, but to build something and do it wrong anyways, that's just ridiculous, even by Pennsylvania standards (I-76/I-376 has similar problems, and is even worse because the PTC maintains both roads!).
???? The link at the top is Google Maps for that area. The connector highway between the Turnpike and US-222 is a 4-lane limited access highway, and it contains the toll plaza, and there are no median crossings between the US-222 ramps and the Turnpike, and there is space to make the US-222 interchange a cloverleaf if they want to eliminate those ramp terminal intersections.
The connector highway does not trumpet into US-222 because the connector highway continues to PA-272 (old US-222). So the 4-way interchange is appropriate, and it can be argued that in the 40 years since it was built that it today needs at least two loops added.
There are median crossings (and traffic lights!) AT the US 222 ramps, and as far as I'm concerned, that is enough. The last time I went through that interchange, it was quite backed up. Freeway-freeway interchanges are supposed to be freeflow Now, I get that PA has worse, but this is relatively recent construction, and not the original interchange. They could have easily made a double trumpet and had local access from another interchange or found another solution. They did not. As far as I'm concerned, do something right or don't do it at all.
Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2017, 09:59:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 02:24:09 PM
The link at the top is Google Maps for that area. The connector highway between the Turnpike and US-222 is a 4-lane limited access highway, and it contains the toll plaza, and there are no median crossings between the US-222 ramps and the Turnpike, and there is space to make the US-222 interchange a cloverleaf if they want to eliminate those ramp terminal intersections.
The connector highway does not trumpet into US-222 because the connector highway continues to PA-272 (old US-222). So the 4-way interchange is appropriate, and it can be argued that in the 40 years since it was built that it today needs at least two loops added.
There are median crossings (and traffic lights!) AT the US 222 ramps, and as far as I'm concerned, that is enough. The last time I went through that interchange, it was quite backed up. Freeway-freeway interchanges are supposed to be freeflow Now, I get that PA has worse, but this is relatively recent construction, and not the original interchange. They could have easily made a double trumpet and had local access from another interchange or found another solution. They did not. As far as I'm concerned, do something right or don't do it at all.
The interchange was opened about 1976, I drove it afterward a number of times. The US-222 freeway connected US-30 Lancaster Bypass to Adamstown and ended there merging into the 2-lane US-222 nonlimited-access highway. Traffic volumes were low and those diamond ramps did not back up.
The US-222 freeway was completed between Adamstown and the Reading freeway system in 2002, and that led to a big increase in traffic.
Nowadays US-222 freeway traffic is in the mid-40,000 AADT range Lancaster to Reading, very heavy.
It is over 40 years old and the design worked well for probably at least 20 years.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:03:16 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 22, 2017, 09:59:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 02:24:09 PM
The link at the top is Google Maps for that area. The connector highway between the Turnpike and US-222 is a 4-lane limited access highway, and it contains the toll plaza, and there are no median crossings between the US-222 ramps and the Turnpike, and there is space to make the US-222 interchange a cloverleaf if they want to eliminate those ramp terminal intersections.
The connector highway does not trumpet into US-222 because the connector highway continues to PA-272 (old US-222). So the 4-way interchange is appropriate, and it can be argued that in the 40 years since it was built that it today needs at least two loops added.
There are median crossings (and traffic lights!) AT the US 222 ramps, and as far as I'm concerned, that is enough. The last time I went through that interchange, it was quite backed up. Freeway-freeway interchanges are supposed to be freeflow Now, I get that PA has worse, but this is relatively recent construction, and not the original interchange. They could have easily made a double trumpet and had local access from another interchange or found another solution. They did not. As far as I'm concerned, do something right or don't do it at all.
The interchange was opened about 1976, I drove it afterward a number of times. The US-222 freeway connected US-30 Lancaster Bypass to Adamstown and ended there merging into the 2-lane US-222 nonlimited-access highway. Traffic volumes were low and those diamond ramps did not back up.
The US-222 freeway was completed between Adamstown and the Reading freeway system in 2002, and that led to a big increase in traffic.
Nowadays US-222 freeway traffic is in the mid-40,000 AADT range Lancaster to Reading, very heavy.
It is over 40 years old and the design worked well for probably at least 20 years.
We knew better by the 1970s to construct full interchanges. I don't understand why you're posting excuses for agencies in states that don't even adjoin yours, unless it's some weird Commonwealth love thing. Freeway to freeway should always be uninterrupted, period.
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2017, 11:19:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:03:16 PM
The interchange was opened about 1976, I drove it afterward a number of times. The US-222 freeway connected US-30 Lancaster Bypass to Adamstown and ended there merging into the 2-lane US-222 nonlimited-access highway. Traffic volumes were low and those diamond ramps did not back up.
The US-222 freeway was completed between Adamstown and the Reading freeway system in 2002, and that led to a big increase in traffic.
Nowadays US-222 freeway traffic is in the mid-40,000 AADT range Lancaster to Reading, very heavy.
It is over 40 years old and the design worked well for probably at least 20 years.
We knew better by the 1970s to construct full interchanges. I don't understand why you're posting excuses for agencies in states that don't even adjoin yours, unless it's some weird Commonwealth love thing. Freeway to freeway should always be uninterrupted, period.
Attention needs to be focused on where the real problems are -- the missing Turnpike interchanges at I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 freeway at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford. As I have already said. Rants should be targeted wisely, not shotgunned all over the place. :colorful:
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:26:45 PM
Attention needs to be focused on where the real problems are -- the missing Turnpike interchanges at I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 freeway at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford. As I have already said. Rants should be targeted wisely, not shotgunned all over the place. :colorful:
Then the focus further narrowed on where there's a realistic chance something might get done. An I-70 interchange at Breezewood ain't happening. See reply #616 on page 25 of this thread (sorry, I don't know the HTML code to link there directly).
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 23, 2017, 12:09:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:26:45 PM
Attention needs to be focused on where the real problems are -- the missing Turnpike interchanges at I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 freeway at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford. As I have already said. Rants should be targeted wisely, not shotgunned all over the place.
Then the focus further narrowed on where there's a realistic chance something might get done. An I-70 interchange at Breezewood ain't happening. See reply #616 on page 25 of this thread (sorry, I don't know the HTML code to link there directly).
All that would take is two ramps connecting I-70 to the Turnpike connector highway. A large-radius loop for WB I-70 and a finger ramp for EB I-70.
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2017, 05:51:11 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 23, 2017, 12:09:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:26:45 PM
Attention needs to be focused on where the real problems are -- the missing Turnpike interchanges at I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 freeway at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford. As I have already said. Rants should be targeted wisely, not shotgunned all over the place.
Then the focus further narrowed on where there's a realistic chance something might get done. An I-70 interchange at Breezewood ain't happening. See reply #616 on page 25 of this thread (sorry, I don't know the HTML code to link there directly).
All that would take is two ramps connecting I-70 to the Turnpike connector highway. A large-radius loop for WB I-70 and a finger ramp for EB I-70.
I won't disagree about what it would take. But the political game says it's not happening. End of debate.
Should these PA Turnpike interchanges be freeway-to-freeway? Of course...hindsight is 20/20. It was a serious lack-of-foresight or misguided priorities (local business vs traffic management), or both, whichever you prefer.
But in terms of fixing all that now...? PA (both PennDOT and PTC) has a LOT of issues from it's decades of early design, under-design and questionable spending that need to be fixed first in my opinion. What doesn't help is - for every poorly-designed freeway connection, there are massive interchanges in smaller areas that are probably well designed but I'd personally question the priority; such as I-99/US 220 and US 322 in both State College and Port Matilda, or US 22/US 322/US 522 in Lewistown in PennDOT's case. in PTCs case, I question the spending done on the PA 66 and PA 43 extensions.
But all that said - I'd still put these interchanges lower in priority vs many other widening/reconstruction needs.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 23, 2017, 07:53:14 AM
Should these PA Turnpike interchanges be freeway-to-freeway?
Yes.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 23, 2017, 07:53:14 AM
Should these PA Turnpike interchanges be freeway-to-freeway? Of course...hindsight is 20/20. It was a serious lack-of-foresight or misguided priorities (local business vs traffic management), or both, whichever you prefer.
But in terms of fixing all that now...? PA (both PennDOT and PTC) has a LOT of issues from it's decades of early design, under-design and questionable spending that need to be fixed first in my opinion. What doesn't help is - for every poorly-designed freeway connection, there are massive interchanges in smaller areas that are probably well designed but I'd personally question the priority; such as I-99/US 220 and US 322 in both State College and Port Matilda, or US 22/US 322/US 522 in Lewistown in PennDOT's case. in PTCs case, I question the spending done on the PA 66 and PA 43 extensions.
But all that said - I'd still put these interchanges lower in priority vs many other widening/reconstruction needs.
The PTC has built about 150 miles of new turnpike (sorry, I'm to lazy today to compute the exact figure!). The 20 miles of Beaver Valley Expressway (I-376 and old PA-60) was a logical turnpike extension as it filled a missing link in that highway, and it connects directly to the east-west mainline turnpike.
I give PTC credit for the 6-lane reconstruction projects which may reach about 150 miles in the next 5 to 8 years. Of course that leaves a lot of work remaining as the original turnpike is 470 miles. But it does address the busiest sections, New Stanton to Ohio, Morgantown to Bristol, and NE Extension from east-west turnpike to Quakertown.
I too question PTC funding the PA-66 and PA-43 extensions, given the major needs on the original turnpike. PA-66 could be called a turnpike spur from the east-west turnpike, but PA-43 will not connect to the original turnpike, nor will the Southern Beltway which is another PTC expansion project. Why should the whole Turnpike system have to support these extensions?
Having lived in the Philadelphia area in the 1970s, I complained years ago on m.t.r about the fact that the Pittsburgh area is getting all the turnpike extension projects and the Philadelphia area is getting none. I was told by someone from the Pittsburgh area that many people there don't really want them because of the high tolls, and resent having these new highways being PTC toll roads instead of PennDOT toll-free roads. So it is all a matter of perspective.
These turnpike extension projects are a large part of the reason why the tolls are so high on the original turnpike, about 10 cents per mile, to support the toll revenue bonds that were issued to build the turnpike extension projects. Plus they have taken large amounts of funding that could have been spent to upgrade the original turnpike.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 23, 2017, 12:09:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:26:45 PM
Attention needs to be focused on where the real problems are -- the missing Turnpike interchanges at I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 freeway at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford. As I have already said. Rants should be targeted wisely, not shotgunned all over the place. :colorful:
Then the focus further narrowed on where there's a realistic chance something might get done. An I-70 interchange at Breezewood ain't happening. See reply #616 on page 25 of this thread (sorry, I don't know the HTML code to link there directly).
Local politics! :hmmm:
"But it does address the busiest sections, New Stanton to Ohio, Morgantown to Bristol, and NE Extension from east-west turnpike to Quakertown."
But the section of the Turnpike which needs the most improvement is from Breezewood to the Allegheny Tunnel.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:26:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2017, 11:19:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:03:16 PM
The interchange was opened about 1976, I drove it afterward a number of times. The US-222 freeway connected US-30 Lancaster Bypass to Adamstown and ended there merging into the 2-lane US-222 nonlimited-access highway. Traffic volumes were low and those diamond ramps did not back up.
The US-222 freeway was completed between Adamstown and the Reading freeway system in 2002, and that led to a big increase in traffic.
Nowadays US-222 freeway traffic is in the mid-40,000 AADT range Lancaster to Reading, very heavy.
It is over 40 years old and the design worked well for probably at least 20 years.
We knew better by the 1970s to construct full interchanges. I don't understand why you're posting excuses for agencies in states that don't even adjoin yours, unless it's some weird Commonwealth love thing. Freeway to freeway should always be uninterrupted, period.
Attention needs to be focused on where the real problems are -- the missing Turnpike interchanges at I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 freeway at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford. As I have already said. Rants should be targeted wisely, not shotgunned all over the place. :colorful:
I certainly don't disagree that these non-interchanges are problems, but there's a difference between "there's no direct connection because we never redesigned the interchange" and "we redesigned the interchange but didn't make it freeway-freeway because we're Pennsylvania".
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 23, 2017, 01:17:54 PM
"But it does address the busiest sections, New Stanton to Ohio, Morgantown to Bristol, and NE Extension from east-west turnpike to Quakertown."
But the section of the Turnpike which needs the most improvement is from Breezewood to the Allegheny Tunnel.
By what standard? The whole I-70/I-76 overlap section has traffic in the 30,000 to 32,000 AADT range. It can survive without 6 lanes, although given its age (77 years), on any total reconstruction project they IMO should build with 6 lanes.
The priority after 6-laneing in the large metro areas, IMO should be to reconstruct the whole I-70/I-76 overlap section to 6 lanes.
I see on the PA Tpk website construction map that these are under design in Bedford and Somerset counties --
-- 15 miles of 6-lane total reconstruction
-- an overpass replacement
-- Allegheny Tunnel Transportation Improvement Project
https://www.paturnpike.com/travel/major_design_construction_projects.aspx
Quote from: vdeane on May 23, 2017, 03:10:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2017, 11:26:45 PM
Attention needs to be focused on where the real problems are -- the missing Turnpike interchanges at I-81 at Carlisle, I-70 at Breezewood, US-219 freeway at Somerset, and I-99 at Bedford. As I have already said. Rants should be targeted wisely, not shotgunned all over the place.
I certainly don't disagree that these non-interchanges are problems, but there's a difference between "there's no direct connection because we never redesigned the interchange" and "we redesigned the interchange but didn't make it freeway-freeway because we're Pennsylvania".
It is a limited access connection, and they could make it freeway-to-freeway by adding 4 loops at the interchange between US-222 and the connector highway and moving the finger ramps in order to provide space for the loops. If there are congestion issues as you posted, then PennDOT needs to pursue that project. Like I said the current design probably worked fine for at least until 2002 when the US-222 freeway missing link Adamstown-Reading was completed, and the normal design year that highway engineers use is 20 years.
Keep in mind that this interchange not only connects US-222 to the Turnpike, but also connects both highways to the local road system via PA-272.
GMSV went through I-95 at the interchange construction site around this time last year, and here is what it looked like. One can only wonder what it looks like now, being this much closer to completion.
(https://i.imgur.com/HyU6JWg.png)
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 13, 2017, 11:10:36 PM
GMSV went through I-95 at the interchange construction site around this time last year, and here is what it looked like. One can only wonder what it looks like now, being this much closer to completion.
(https://i.imgur.com/HyU6JWg.png)
The same. :-D
Quote from: Alps on October 14, 2017, 12:15:52 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 13, 2017, 11:10:36 PM
GMSV went through I-95 at the interchange construction site around this time last year, and here is what it looked like. One can only wonder what it looks like now, being this much closer to completion.
(https://i.imgur.com/HyU6JWg.png)
The same. :-D
Nah I was through there about a month ago and they were deep into the construction of the flyover ramps. Beams for the decking were being put into place.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 14, 2017, 03:18:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 14, 2017, 12:15:52 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 13, 2017, 11:10:36 PM
GMSV went through I-95 at the interchange construction site around this time last year, and here is what it looked like. One can only wonder what it looks like now, being this much closer to completion.
(https://i.imgur.com/HyU6JWg.png)
The same. :-D
Nah I was through there about a month ago and they were deep into the construction of the flyover ramps. Beams for the decking were being put into place.
Pictures?
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 14, 2017, 03:21:38 PM
Pictures?
Getting pictures would be tricky for a solo driver because traffic is being channelized narrowly through the work area without any decent opportunities to pull over and take a picture.
I drove through there this morning, and not being able to take any photos, I made a quick sketch showing what's done at this point. I honestly hadn't paid much attention to the details of this project, so I wasn't that familiar with the interchange configuration, and some of the details were a surprise to me. From north to south, the I-95 lanes (in the center) make a long, slow ascent (with retaining walls on either side), then swing to the right, then curve left to cross over the Turnpike.
Everything from the ascent to the point where the I-95 lanes cross the Turnpike is complete except for surfacing–all of the earthwork is done, retaining walls are installed, and support structures and decking are in place. New overhead guide sign assemblies have been installed but are covered with black plastic.
From the point at which the flyover crosses the Turnpike southward, support structures are in place, but decking is not there yet. I couldn't see the southernmost end of the project, so I'm not sure what other work may already be done at the southern end.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4505/37026767903_983ff2f4f5_c.jpg)
And this, correct me if I'm wrong, is going to be open to traffic around this time next year.
What I sketched in red above is the project's Stage 1–i.e. the north-to-east and west-to-south movements that together will make the new through traffic pattern for I-95. The completion of Stage 1 had been advertised as "late 2018" for quite some time, but I noticed that the PTC's project site (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/faq.aspx) now says 2019.
Stage 2 will include the other interchange movements (east-to-north, south-to-west) as well as some related road widening and bridge replacements. Earlier reports estimated 2020 for completion of Stage 2, but the project site indicates that funding hasn't been secured and currently doesn't give an estimated time frame.
Stage 3 will involve the construction of a parallel Delaware River bridge, and the project site estimates that construction won't begin until at least 2025.
While 2019 could be the entire completion of Stage 1, it certainly is a bit of concern that 2 relatively simple ramps are taking something like 6 years to complete.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2017, 05:25:34 PM
While 2019 could be the entire completion of Stage 1, it certainly is a bit of concern that 2 relatively simple ramps are taking something like 6 years to complete.
Those things should have been open for at least a year, maybe two or three, now. Hell, there should be at least half the project done.
Yeah really, NJTA would have done those two ramps in about one year. LOL
I wonder whether the project needs to take as long as it is, but at the same time, characterizing it as "two simple ramps" isn't particularly accurate.
First of all, the "simple ramps" themselves amount to a separate four-lane carriageway constructed within the center of the existing E-W Turnpike. That carriageway makes a long ascent on fill, continues as an independent elevated roadway, swings north of of the Turnpike mainline, then south, then divides and braids (as near as I can tell from drawings) with newly divided carriageways of the existing I-95 mainline.
Additionally, Stage 1 also includes, I believe, demolition of the former Neshaminy service plazas, construction of a new eastern toll barrier with express E-ZPass lanes, a partial reconstruction of the existing Bristol interchange, and the complete replacement of seven bridges–not to mention a complete soil-up reconstruction of both the Turnpike and I-95 through the interchange area.
Now should that take six years? I don't know–perhaps not. But my knowledge of highway construction and the particulars of this specific project aren't advanced enough for me to make a determination either way.
Anyone can see that this job moved along very slowly. If you watched the widening of the NJ Turnpike a few years back, that was a bigger project, but it moved at a much faster pace. I've said before that I think the PTC has dragged out this project because they don't want to be doing it in the first place.
The PTC drags out every project. They should've started on the widening to Downingtown by now, but instead they haven't even started the widening to Great Valley.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2017, 08:24:29 PM
...Stage 1 also includes, I believe, demolition of the former Neshaminy service plazas, construction of a new eastern toll barrier with express E-ZPass lanes, a partial reconstruction of the existing Bristol interchange, and the complete replacement of seven bridges–not to mention a complete soil-up reconstruction of both the Turnpike and I-95 through the interchange area.
Being that those other parts are in completely separate areas of the turnpike, the projects could be worked on simultaneously.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 15, 2017, 08:53:46 PM
The PTC drags out every project. They should've started on the widening to Downingtown by now, but instead they haven't even started the widening to Great Valley.
I swear that I could have gotten all that done and more by now if I just did it myself.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 15, 2017, 08:24:29 PM
I wonder whether the project needs to take as long as it is, but at the same time, characterizing it as "two simple ramps" isn't particularly accurate.
First of all, the "simple ramps" themselves amount to a separate four-lane carriageway constructed within the center of the existing E-W Turnpike. That carriageway makes a long ascent on fill, continues as an independent elevated roadway, swings north of of the Turnpike mainline, then south, then divides and braids (as near as I can tell from drawings) with newly divided carriageways of the existing I-95 mainline.
Additionally, Stage 1 also includes, I believe, demolition of the former Neshaminy service plazas, construction of a new eastern toll barrier with express E-ZPass lanes, a partial reconstruction of the existing Bristol interchange, and the complete replacement of seven bridges–not to mention a complete soil-up reconstruction of both the Turnpike and I-95 through the interchange area.
Now should that take six years? I don't know–perhaps not. But my knowledge of highway construction and the particulars of this specific project aren't advanced enough for me to make a determination either way.
I have mentioned this before, but I think it is important to mention that Maryland designed and built most of MD-200 (just over 16 miles of 6 lane freeway-class road (including 5½ interchanges plus total reconstruction of another one plus two maintenance facilities) starting in 2007 and ending in 2011.
There was another short section of MD-200 that was opened about three years later, which also included widening a several mile long section of I-95 (that was delayed because of a legal dispute).
It does seem like it's taking a long time...I think there are several issues: one is that this is relatively complex...moving existing lanes to the outside in order to build new braided flyovers inside, under traffic, seems complex. More complex than the NJTP widening to the outside, or building freeway over new terrain.
But my guess is that the biggest issue is overall cash outlay. They have several 6-lane widening contracts occurring at the same time (I-476 MM20-31), I-76 Harrisburg area, west of Carlisle, and Pittsburgh area; new freeway in the Pittsburgh area, and some significant bridge replacements. So, there's a balancing act that needs to be considered.
Plus, Act 44 doesn't help.
Also...the MM320-326 widening is supposedly held up due to an environmental lawsuit? Either the lawsuit is still pending, or it was wrapped up and led to further redesign delays.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 16, 2017, 09:34:47 AMBut my guess is that the biggest issue is overall cash outlay. They have several 6-lane widening contracts occurring at the same time (I-476 MM20-31), I-76 Harrisburg area, west of Carlisle, and Pittsburgh area; new freeway in the Pittsburgh area, and some significant bridge replacements. So, there's a balancing act that needs to be considered.
The I-476 MM20-31 widening project was completed about a month ago.
I read somewhere on the official site (can't find it now) that although stage 1 would not be complete until 2019, I-95 will be signed some time in 2018.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 15, 2017, 08:53:46 PM
The PTC drags out every project. They should've started on the widening to Downingtown by now, but instead they haven't even started the widening to Great Valley.
See Act 89. You'd drag out your projects too if you had to give one third of your revenues to SEPTA in Philly and the Port Authority in Pittsburgh.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2017, 10:07:20 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 16, 2017, 09:34:47 AMBut my guess is that the biggest issue is overall cash outlay. They have several 6-lane widening contracts occurring at the same time (I-476 MM20-31), I-76 Harrisburg area, west of Carlisle, and Pittsburgh area; new freeway in the Pittsburgh area, and some significant bridge replacements. So, there's a balancing act that needs to be considered.
The I-476 MM20-31 widening project was completed about a month ago.
Yes, so the cash outlay for that project is just ending...which should either free up cash outlay for this project, or free up cash outlay to begin another project somewhere else on the system. I think the MM31-38 project may be starting up soon?
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 16, 2017, 09:34:47 AM
But my guess is that the biggest issue is overall cash outlay. They have several 6-lane widening contracts occurring at the same time (I-476 MM20-31), I-76 Harrisburg area, west of Carlisle, and Pittsburgh area; new freeway in the Pittsburgh area, and some significant bridge replacements. So, there's a balancing act that needs to be considered.
Overall cash outlay? Yes, that's the correct answer, in spite of annual increases in Pennsylvania Turnpike tolls.
As in the massive payments that PTC is compelled to make to PennDOT to fund transit capital and operating subsidies (https://www.paturnpike.com/business/act44_plan.aspx) (none of which have anything to do with the actual Turnpike) every year (currently about $450 million annually).
From the page I linked above is this:
QuoteWhile the Commission's payment obligation remains at $450 million annually through Fiscal Year 2022, none of the payments are dedicated to highways and bridges. Instead, all $450 million is allocated to support transit capital, operating, multi-modal and other non-highway programs. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2023, the annual payment obligations decreases to $50 million until the payment obligations end in 2057.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2017, 10:53:12 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 16, 2017, 09:34:47 AM
But my guess is that the biggest issue is overall cash outlay. They have several 6-lane widening contracts occurring at the same time (I-476 MM20-31), I-76 Harrisburg area, west of Carlisle, and Pittsburgh area; new freeway in the Pittsburgh area, and some significant bridge replacements. So, there's a balancing act that needs to be considered.
Overall cash outlay? Yes, that's the correct answer, in spite of annual increases in Pennsylvania Turnpike tolls.
As in the massive payments that PTC is compelled to make to PennDOT to fund transit capital and operating subsidies (https://www.paturnpike.com/business/act44_plan.aspx) (none of which have anything to do with the actual Turnpike) every year (currently about $450 million annually).
From the page I linked above is this:
QuoteWhile the Commission’s payment obligation remains at $450 million annually through Fiscal Year 2022, none of the payments are dedicated to highways and bridges. Instead, all $450 million is allocated to support transit capital, operating, multi-modal and other non-highway programs. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2023, the annual payment obligations decreases to $50 million until the payment obligations end in 2057.
YEEEEEEP. That certainly doesn't help...not at all.
Regarding "foot dragging" –I think that was between 1982, when the interchange was mandated by legislation, and 2013, when ground was finally broken. But now that the project is underway, I don't see what motivation the PTC would have to intentionally slow the pace of work.
Other than out of budgetary necessity–as was mentioned–since the Commission is compelled to write a nearly half-billion-dollar check out to PennDOT each year. Meanwhile, the PTC is mandated through state legislation to continue construction of the Mon-Fayette and the Southern Beltway, and numerous reconstruction and widening projects continue on both the E-W mainline and Northeast Extension.
No to the contrary, I think the PTC would have a compelling to get the project done as soon as possible, which is the toll revenue it stands to gain from I-95 traffic that otherwise doesn't hit the PA Turnpike at all. I would imagine that extensive studies have been done regarding traffic impacts, but has anyone seen them? Let's just make a rough guess that the newly connected I-95 will see an additional 10,000 vehicles a day southbound. At $5 a head (assuming they're all E-ZPass–toll-by-plate would be more), that's $50,000 of lost revenue every day that the opening is delayed–about a $1.5 million a month and over $18 million a year.
Sure, those are minor figures compared to the hundreds of millions required to construct the interchange, but I have to think that the PTC would want to tap those new toll dollars as quickly as possible.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 16, 2017, 10:48:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2017, 10:07:20 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 16, 2017, 09:34:47 AMBut my guess is that the biggest issue is overall cash outlay. They have several 6-lane widening contracts occurring at the same time (I-476 MM20-31), I-76 Harrisburg area, west of Carlisle, and Pittsburgh area; new freeway in the Pittsburgh area, and some significant bridge replacements. So, there's a balancing act that needs to be considered.
The I-476 MM20-31 widening project was completed about a month ago.
Yes, so the cash outlay for that project is just ending...which should either free up cash outlay for this project, or free up cash outlay to begin another project somewhere else on the system. I think the MM31-38 project may be starting up soon?
Projects are budgeted years in advance. The budget for this project was already put in place before it went out to bid many years ago. And delays are due to issues that came about during construction. They probably need more money due to unforeseen issues, but that would cause a delay of other projects.
Since it would make sense that this project would encourage people to use the WB NJ/PA Turnpike bridge, it would make sense to push it along at a faster pace, not slow it down!
Quote from: briantroutman on October 16, 2017, 11:49:11 AM
Other than out of budgetary necessity–as was mentioned–since the Commission is compelled to wr
Sure, those are minor figures compared to the hundreds of millions required to construct the interchange, but I have to think that the PTC would want to tap those new toll dollars as quickly as possible.
Absolutely makes sense, since most other projects aren't going to actually bring in more money, such as barrier replacements or bridge upkeep. They're all essential projects...but they don't enhance revenue.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 11:58:42 AM
Projects are budgeted years in advance. The budget for this project was already put in place before it went out to bid many years ago. And delays are due to issues that came about during construction. They probably need more money due to unforeseen issues, but that would cause a delay of other projects.
Since it would make sense that this project would encourage people to use the WB NJ/PA Turnpike bridge, it would make sense to push it along at a faster pace, not slow it down!
The nice people at the New Jersey Turnpike Authority got most of "their share" of this project done well ahead of PTC when then completed the widening from Exits 6 to 8A (including a lot of interchange reconstruction).
Only thing that NJTA has left is to work with PTC to get the crossing of the Delaware River expanded from 4 lanes to 8 lanes.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2017, 12:03:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 11:58:42 AM
Projects are budgeted years in advance. The budget for this project was already put in place before it went out to bid many years ago. And delays are due to issues that came about during construction. They probably need more money due to unforeseen issues, but that would cause a delay of other projects.
Since it would make sense that this project would encourage people to use the WB NJ/PA Turnpike bridge, it would make sense to push it along at a faster pace, not slow it down!
The nice people at the New Jersey Turnpike Authority got most of "their share" of this project done well ahead of PTC when then completed the widening from Exits 6 to 8A (including a lot of interchange reconstruction).
Only thing that NJTA has left is to work with PTC to get the crossing of the Delaware River expanded from 4 lanes to 8 lanes.
2025 at the earliest, I believe.
That said, the crack that occurred last year should push this project into a more immediate concern. I don't believe the true root cause of that crack was ever determined.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2017, 12:03:46 PM
The nice people at the New Jersey Turnpike Authority got most of "their share" of this project done well ahead of PTC when then completed the widening from Exits 6 to 8A (including a lot of interchange reconstruction).
Only thing that NJTA has left is to work with PTC to get the crossing of the Delaware River expanded from 4 lanes to 8 lanes.
2025 at the earliest, I believe.
That said, the crack that occurred last year should push this project into a more immediate concern. I don't believe the true root cause of that crack was ever determined.
I believe the plan is 3 lanes and a full right shoulder on the existing bridge and on the parallel bridge, correct?
Has a detailed funding package been announced for that project? Since the state boundary is at the mid-point in the river, I would think that logically it should be funded 50% each by NJTA and PTC, so PTC is only one partner in getting this project built.
Phase I has a late 2019 completion date posted on the project website. Given the various project components, this doesn't mean that the I-95 connection ramp highways might not open much sooner, perhaps within 6 months from today.
Folks that have driven thru the project, does that seem likely? What is the level of completion for the flyover bridges? For retaining walls on the elevated ground approaches? For the land roadways?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 12:10:32 PM
That said, the crack that occurred last year should push this project into a more immediate concern. I don't believe the true root cause of that crack was ever determined.
The cause of the crack in one of the steel beams was determined (apparently correctly) early on after it was discovered and the crossing closed to all traffic.
The Philly.com site (again, apparently) got it right: Decades-old mistake may have caused bridge beam to fail (http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20170123_Decades-old_mistake_may_have_caused_bridge_beam_to_fail.html)
[
Emphasis added]
QuoteAn apparent construction error six decades ago could have caused the fracture discovered Friday in a steel beam that forced the closure of the Delaware River Bridge, an engineering expert who viewed pictures of the cracked truss said Sunday.
QuoteAn image of the cracked truss - a supporting piece - on the bridge that runs between Bucks County in Pennsylvania and Burlington County in New Jersey shows signs of holes that had been mistakenly drilled into the steel beam and then filled with plug welds, a typical solution in the 1950s when the bridge was built, said Karl Frank, professor emeritus of engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. His areas of study include fractures and fatigues in metal structures and welded and bolted joints, according to the university website.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 12:36:09 PM
I believe the plan is 3 lanes and a full right shoulder on the existing bridge and on the parallel bridge, correct?
Both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey approaches to the crossing are six lanes wide (the six lane part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-276 part of the East-West Mainline) currently ends eastbound at Exit 351 (U.S. 1, Bensalem), the New Jersey approach is six lanes almost up to the New Jersey landing of the structure).
QuoteHas a detailed funding package been announced for that project? Since the state boundary is at the mid-point in the river, I would think that logically it should be funded 50% each by NJTA and PTC, so PTC is only one partner in getting this project built.
PTC has to widen much of the approach to the bridge to six lanes (some of which will apparently be done as part of the I-95 project), in addition to their half of added capacity over the Delaware River. The relocated toll barrier at the east end of the Turnpike ticket system at Neshaminy Falls was widened through that area, providing two high-speed E-ZPass lanes in addition to several cash lanes each way.
QuotePhase I has a late 2019 completion date posted on the project website. Given the various project components, this doesn't mean that the I-95 connection ramp highways might not open much sooner, perhaps within 6 months from today.
Last I heard was that the flyover ramps to complete I-95 will be open to traffic in fall 2018.
QuoteFolks that have driven thru the project, does that seem likely? What is the level of completion for the flyover bridges? For retaining walls on the elevated ground approaches? For the land roadways?
I was through there as recently as yesterday (on I-95 (Delaware Expressway) not the Turnpike). Still plenty of steel that needs to be hung for the flyovers (and then the decks installed, I think all cast-in-place), and there's work left to get the Delaware Expressway part of the project completed. If the PTC's contractors were working as fast as those that built big projects to the south of Pennsylvania like the 11th Street, S.E. interchange (I-295/I-695/DC-295), MD-200, Springfield Interchange, the CBBT parallel trestles and the Wilson Bridge, this would be open to traffic in a matter of months (depending on weather, of course). Even with a winter shut-down, this would IMO be done by summer 2018.
But PTC seems to like to move slowly.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2017, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 12:36:09 PM
Phase I has a late 2019 completion date posted on the project website. Given the various project components, this doesn't mean that the I-95 connection ramp highways might not open much sooner, perhaps within 6 months from today.
Last I heard was that the flyover ramps to complete I-95 will be open to traffic in fall 2018.
QuoteFolks that have driven thru the project, does that seem likely? What is the level of completion for the flyover bridges? For retaining walls on the elevated ground approaches? For the land roadways?
I was through there as recently as yesterday (on I-95 (Delaware Expressway) not the Turnpike). Still plenty of steel that needs to be hung for the flyovers (and then the decks installed, I think all cast-in-place), and there's work left to get the Delaware Expressway part of the project completed. If the PTC's contractors were working as fast as those that built big projects to the south of Pennsylvania like the 11th Street, S.E. interchange (I-295/I-695/DC-295), MD-200, Springfield Interchange, the CBBT parallel trestles and the Wilson Bridge, this would be open to traffic in a matter of months (depending on weather, of course). Even with a winter shut-down, this would IMO be done by summer 2018.
But PTC seems to like to move slowly.
Well, the Springfield Interchange had to be built ramp by ramp working around the traffic, and Phases 1 thru 7 took from 1999 to 2007. Phase 8 opened in 2012 with the I-495 HOT Lanes project.
The Wilson Bridge Project took from 2000 thru 2009 to build it from Telegraph Road eastward to the Maryland project terminus. The final segment including Telegraph Road to the Virginia project terminus took from 2009 to 2013, it was delayed due to funding issues.
The I-495 HOT Lanes project did move fast, 2008 thru 2012, and that involved a full rebuild of 11 miles of beltway to 12 lanes, all bridges replaced, upgrade of I-66 interchange, Phase 8 of SIIP. All done while maintaining about 200,000 AADT.
How long are those PA I-95 bridges, and how long are the approaches with retaining walls?
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 12:36:09 PM
Folks that have driven thru the project, does that seem likely? What is the level of completion for the flyover bridges? For retaining walls on the elevated ground approaches? For the land roadways?
Take a look at this post and sketch (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.msg2266121#msg2266121) I posted a few days ago. I think it's about as comprehensive an update as you'll get from this thread.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 01:28:05 PM
How long are those PA I-95 bridges, and how long are the approaches with retaining walls?
I don't have measurements, but when I drove through the interchange area Saturday (for the first in a long time), I was quite surprised by the lengths of the both the approach and the elevated roadway. That's why I think that calling the project "two ramps" is quite an understatement–it's its own little elevated freeway.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 12:36:09 PM
Has a detailed funding package been announced for that project? Since the state boundary is at the mid-point in the river, I would think that logically it should be funded 50% each by NJTA and PTC, so PTC is only one partner in getting this project built.
No, both Stage 2 (the other I-95 interchange movements) and Stage 3 (the parallel Delaware River bridge) are currently unfunded.
In terms of toll revenues, I see this project being only a loss for the NJTA and DRPA and gain for the PTC. In addition to possibly siphoning off some I-95 traffic that would have otherwise followed the NJ Turnpike straight to Delaware, the completed I-95/PA Turnpike interchange will also open up what amounts to a new river crossing to Philadelphia and could take some traffic away from both the NJ Turnpike and the DRPA bridges. I'd be interested to see projections of traffic pattern and volume changes following the interchange's opening.
But even in the absence of official projections, what are your thoughts: How much southbound I-95 traffic will exit onto the PA Turnpike once I-95 shields go up? For that matter, how many northbound interstate travelers today are blindly following I-95 shields north through Delaware and Pennsylvania only to find themselves at a dead end in Trenton?
Quote from: briantroutman on October 16, 2017, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 12:36:09 PM
Folks that have driven thru the project, does that seem likely? What is the level of completion for the flyover bridges? For retaining walls on the elevated ground approaches? For the land roadways?
Take a look at this post and sketch (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.msg2266121#msg2266121) I posted a few days ago. I think it's about as comprehensive an update as you'll get from this thread.
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 01:28:05 PM
How long are those PA I-95 bridges, and how long are the approaches with retaining walls?
I don't have measurements, but when I drove through the interchange area Saturday (for the first in a long time), I was quite surprised by the lengths of the both the approach and the elevated roadway. That's why I think that calling the project "two ramps" is quite an understatement–it's its own little elevated freeway.
That is why I called it a "ramp highway", I suspect there is much more to constructing this connection on active highways than might meet the eye. Plus IIRC from the project website the last major contract was begun in mid-2015.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 16, 2017, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 12:36:09 PM
Has a detailed funding package been announced for that project? Since the state boundary is at the mid-point in the river, I would think that logically it should be funded 50% each by NJTA and PTC, so PTC is only one partner in getting this project built.
No, both Stage 2 (the other I-95 interchange movements) and Stage 3 (the parallel Delaware River bridge) are currently unfunded.
In terms of toll revenues, I see this project being only a loss for the NJTA and DRPA and gain for the PTC. In addition to possibly siphoning off some I-95 traffic that would have otherwise followed the NJ Turnpike straight to Delaware, the completed I-95/PA Turnpike interchange will also open up what amounts to a new river crossing to Philadelphia and could take some traffic away from both the NJ Turnpike and the DRPA bridges. I'd be interested to see projections of traffic pattern and volume changes following the interchange's opening.
But even in the absence of official projections, what are your thoughts: How much southbound I-95 traffic will exit onto the PA Turnpike once I-95 shields go up? For that matter, how many northbound interstate travelers today are blindly following I-95 shields north through Delaware and Pennsylvania only to find themselves at a dead end in Trenton?
Well, technically they could continue where it becomes I-295 and then take I-195 to the NJTP northward.
Thanks for the project details!
Given the traffic pressures on the NJTP and DRBA bridges, they might welcome some relief.
Stupid question, and probably has been asked here before...
But why doesn't the NJTP south of the PA Turnpike exit get an Interstate designation, like an (even)95?
Is it because I-295 is already parallel to it?
I would simply think for Thru Traffic Purposes, especially once the I-95 project is done, that adding that trusty Blue and Red shield and designation might help keep Thru Traffic to Delaware and Points South on the NJTP. 695 and 895 are available in NJ, I believe?
Of course, when this is all done and I-95 taking over I-276 between the PA Turnpike and NJTP, there will be the awesome oddity of Child and Parent in NJ crossing with no interchange (95 and 295)
It is curious that Westbound (Southbound) traffic on the bridge must pay two tolls (the entrance from US 130 is tolled), while Eastbound (Northbound) traffic can use the bridge toll free even today (by using US 130 on the NJ side and US 13 on the PA side). Also, shouldn't there be express tolls on the NJ side just like there are on the PA side to provide a seamless I-95 experience?
Also, given NJTA's toll structure, the toll is actually higher at exit 6 than exit 4, so any Philly-bound traffic from the mainline using the Turnpike bridge pays more to the NJTA than traffic using DRPA bridges. The only revenue that will be lost by the NJTA is for longer distance traffic using I-95 instead of the Turnpike. It remains to be seen if such will materialize. And they will actually gain $3 if anyone decides to use I-95 to get to the local NJ suburbs (this too may or may not happen).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 11:58:42 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 16, 2017, 10:48:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2017, 10:07:20 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 16, 2017, 09:34:47 AMBut my guess is that the biggest issue is overall cash outlay. They have several 6-lane widening contracts occurring at the same time (I-476 MM20-31), I-76 Harrisburg area, west of Carlisle, and Pittsburgh area; new freeway in the Pittsburgh area, and some significant bridge replacements. So, there's a balancing act that needs to be considered.
The I-476 MM20-31 widening project was completed about a month ago.
Yes, so the cash outlay for that project is just ending...which should either free up cash outlay for this project, or free up cash outlay to begin another project somewhere else on the system. I think the MM31-38 project may be starting up soon?
Projects are budgeted years in advance. The budget for this project was already put in place before it went out to bid many years ago. And delays are due to issues that came about during construction. They probably need more money due to unforeseen issues, but that would cause a delay of other projects.
Since it would make sense that this project would encourage people to use the WB NJ/PA Turnpike bridge, it would make sense to push it along at a faster pace, not slow it down!
Correct. So, let me change my statement this way: the speed of this project was determined when the budgets were set, with the attempt of balancing all of the major projects that the PATC were planning to occur at the same time. Planning a faster time frame would have required shifting money away from other projects towards this one; further delaying those other projects during the planning stage. I don't think the PATC is dragging this project out in a vacuum.
If there is an argument as to which other projects should have been delayed, or should not have been as high of a priority; that may be. For example, the widening west of Carlisle, IMO, could have been a lower priority compared to this. But that's a more constructive debate.
QuoteSince the state boundary is at the mid-point in the river, I would think that logically it should be funded 50% each by NJTA and PTC, so PTC is only one partner in getting this project built.
The Turnpikes have long standing agreement that project costs will be split 50/50. The NJ Turnpike is the lead agency. This was true even for The Crack, which was fully on the PA side of the bridge.
QuoteBut why doesn't the NJTP south of the PA Turnpike exit get an Interstate designation, like an (even)95? Is it because I-295 is already parallel to it?
I doubt it, being that the NJ Turnpike was there before 295. Originally the Turnpike was to only gain the 95 designation from 287 and North.
I think the simple answer is: The Turnpike never desired to have it designated as an interstate. I wouldn't be surprised if the 95 designation was forced on it many decades ago.
Quote
...possibly siphoning off some I-95 traffic that would have otherwise followed the NJ Turnpike straight to Delaware, the completed I-95/PA Turnpike interchange...
As Beltway alluded to, that may not be a bad thing. Traffic volumes are pretty close to necessitate an expensive widening.
Quote
Of course, when this is all done and I-95 taking over I-276 between the PA Turnpike and NJTP, there will be the awesome oddity of Child and Parent in NJ crossing with no interchange (95 and 295).
Technically, that exists today. The NJ Turnpike's PA Extension is already designated as 95.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
QuoteSince the state boundary is at the mid-point in the river, I would think that logically it should be funded 50% each by NJTA and PTC, so PTC is only one partner in getting this project built.
The Turnpikes have long standing agreement that project costs will be split 50/50. The NJ Turnpike is the lead agency. This was true even for The Crack, which was fully on the PA side of the bridge.
I think the engineering staff working for the NJTA handled it well. The bridge deck was jacked into alignment and the cracked member was repaired, the rest of the structure was inspected for similar problems (and potential problems) and I have not heard of any issues with the bridge since then.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
QuoteBut why doesn't the NJTP south of the PA Turnpike exit get an Interstate designation, like an (even)95? Is it because I-295 is already parallel to it?
I doubt it, being that the NJ Turnpike was there before 295. Originally the Turnpike was to only gain the 95 designation from 287 and North.
The idea of un-numbered (at least for the public) toll roads is past. The "secret" NJ-700 part of the New Jersey Turnpike should be signed as I-895, so drivers know that Exits 1 to 6 are a reliable way to return to I-95.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
I think the simple answer is: The Turnpike never desired to have it designated as an interstate. I wouldn't be surprised if the 95 designation was forced on it many decades ago.
Better (for NJTA and its bondholders) to have the Turnpike signed as I-95 instead of the Somerset Freeway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
Quote...possibly siphoning off some I-95 traffic that would have otherwise followed the NJ Turnpike straight to Delaware, the completed I-95/PA Turnpike interchange...
As Beltway alluded to, that may not be a bad thing. Traffic volumes are pretty close to necessitate an expensive widening.
That would be
revenue-
generating traffic - for the Turnpike Authority and its service plazas. Bridges over and under the Turnpike (1 to 6) appear to have been reconstructed in anticipation of a 6-lane or even 8-lane Turnpike.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
Of course, when this is all done and I-95 taking over I-276 between the PA Turnpike and NJTP, there will be the awesome oddity of Child and Parent in NJ crossing with no interchange (95 and 295).
Almost a Breezewood! But I-195 to Exit 7A is not that far away.
My bigger gripe is the lack of a direct connection between the Turnpike and NJ-42 and the ACE. Exit 2A, anyone?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
Technically, that exists today. The NJ Turnpike's PA Extension is already designated as 95.
Correct.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 02:16:42 PM
I would simply think for Thru Traffic Purposes, especially once the I-95 project is done, that adding that trusty Blue and Red shield and designation might help keep Thru Traffic to Delaware and Points South on the NJTP. 695 and 895 are available in NJ, I believe?
I-895. Consistent with Maryland's I-895, which connects to I-95 with no muss, no fuss, at both ends.
I think adding another Interstate number to the mix will confuse people (including me!) more. I like the south end of the NJT un-numbered. Going south ya' just keep going straight to get to Delaware.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2017, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
Of course, when this is all done and I-95 taking over I-276 between the PA Turnpike and NJTP, there will be the awesome oddity of Child and Parent in NJ crossing with no interchange (95 and 295).
Almost a Breezewood! But I-195 to Exit 7A is not that far away.
I-295 was completed up to Bordentown in 1977, crossing the NJTP PA Extension. I-295 and I-195 were completed in 1993 when the Trenton Complex (295/195/29) was completed and opened.
Connection between the northerly NJTP and I-295 is indeed handled well with I-195 to Exit 7A.
Since these highways all reached completion 24 years ago, has there been any real officially recognized problem or lack in that time with the lack of a direct interchange between I-295 and the NJTP PA Extension?
The only possibly obvious addition would be two ramps, connecting westerly NJTP PA Extension with northerly I-295, but has that ever been an officially recognized problem?
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 08:57:48 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2017, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
Of course, when this is all done and I-95 taking over I-276 between the PA Turnpike and NJTP, there will be the awesome oddity of Child and Parent in NJ crossing with no interchange (95 and 295).
Almost a Breezewood! But I-195 to Exit 7A is not that far away.
I-295 was completed up to Bordentown in 1977, crossing the NJTP PA Extension. I-295 and I-195 were completed in 1993 when the Trenton Complex (295/195/29) was completed and opened.
Connection between the northerly NJTP and I-295 is indeed handled well with I-195 to Exit 7A.
Since these highways all reached completion 24 years ago, has there been any real officially recognized problem or lack in that time with the lack of a direct interchange between I-295 and the NJTP PA Extension?
The only possibly obvious addition would be two ramps, connecting westerly NJTP PA Extension with northerly I-295, but has that ever been an officially recognized problem?
This is a rare case, IMO - a non-connection between a "free" freeway and a toll road that is not a big deal.
I suppose a connection could be constructed, but regardless of where it was built, it would be uncomfortably close to the Exit 6 ramps to the mainline New Jersey Turnpike or to the un-numbered interchange for U.S. 130 (Florence).
Quote from: SignBridge on October 16, 2017, 08:33:06 PM
I think adding another Interstate number to the mix will confuse people (including me!) more. I like the south end of the NJT un-numbered. Going south ya' just keep going straight to get to Delaware.
I disagree.
The signs approaching Exit 6 southbound
will tell drivers headed south to follow I-95 across the Delaware River and through Center City Philadelphia on the Delaware Expressway.
At least (IMO) for traffic headed south into (most parts of) Delaware and beyond, the New Jersey Turnpike is a better choice. Signing it as I-895 helps to reinforce that idea with drivers.
Does not the GPS, tell people where to go anyway? I would assume that it would keep sending folks down the Turnpike to I-295, across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then back on I-95 once this is completed?
I think if the GPS were to send people from NYC to DC via I-78 West and then I-81 South to I-83 South and then I-695 around the long loop of Baltimore and then finally down I-95 just for an experiment, many of course would not only follow that route, but never realize they went miles out of their way. That is how clueless the world is now thanks to that form of technology.
Does anyone know the estimated completion date for this interchange?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2017, 09:54:04 PM
This is a rare case, IMO - a non-connection between a "free" freeway and a toll road that is not a big deal.
I suppose a connection could be constructed, but regardless of where it was built, it would be uncomfortably close to the Exit 6 ramps to the mainline New Jersey Turnpike or to the un-numbered interchange for U.S. 130 (Florence).
Illinois politicians raised a big stink about the missing I-294/Tri-State and I-57 connection in the South Chicago Suburbs for years, until (at least Phase 1) got built and opened a few years ago, despite that there were 2 close-by options to make the connection -- Surface Street US 6/159th St, for about 1 mile between the I-294 cloverleaf and the I-57 cloverleaf, and the All-Interstate, signed and official connection, of I-294 South to I-80 West to I-57, which was all of about 5 miles
That was less mileage out of the way than I-195 to I-295 here, and ended up built. But there was local outcry for it. If there isn't any in Southern NJ, then I don't really see an issue, other than it just being odd, having I-95 and I-295 cross but not connect
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
Technically, that exists today. The NJ Turnpike's PA Extension is already designated as 95.
Technically, yes. Practically, not until this interchange Phase 1 is completed, making I-95 continuous and finally get signed over this segment, that at present is not
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:14:49 PM
Does not the GPS, tell people where to go anyway? I would assume that it would keep sending folks down the Turnpike to I-295, across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then back on I-95 once this is completed?
I think if the GPS were to send people from NYC to DC via I-78 West and then I-81 South to I-83 South and then I-695 around the long loop of Baltimore and then finally down I-95 just for an experiment, many of course would not only follow that route, but never realize they went miles out of their way. That is how clueless the world is now thanks to that form of technology.
If GPS said to drive off a cliff...
Are we really that bad, that we have become Lemmings? Don't answer that, I already know the answer... :banghead: :ded:
I don't think that even the NJ Turnpike is yet signed south of Exit 9 (from photos I have seen) either.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2017, 09:54:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 16, 2017, 08:57:48 PM
I-295 was completed up to Bordentown in 1977, crossing the NJTP PA Extension. I-295 and I-195 were completed in 1993 when the Trenton Complex (295/195/29) was completed and opened.
Connection between the northerly NJTP and I-295 is indeed handled well with I-195 to Exit 7A.
Since these highways all reached completion 24 years ago, has there been any real officially recognized problem or lack in that time with the lack of a direct interchange between I-295 and the NJTP PA Extension?
The only possibly obvious addition would be two ramps, connecting westerly NJTP PA Extension with northerly I-295, but has that ever been an officially recognized problem?
This is a rare case, IMO - a non-connection between a "free" freeway and a toll road that is not a big deal.
I suppose a connection could be constructed, but regardless of where it was built, it would be uncomfortably close to the Exit 6 ramps to the mainline New Jersey Turnpike or to the un-numbered interchange for U.S. 130 (Florence).
Collector-Distributor roadways and/or braided ramps could handle the traffic between the interchanges. Obviously some traffic would use such an interchange. But I don't suspect that this non-junction has ever been a significant issue.
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:14:49 PM
Does not the GPS, tell people where to go anyway? I would assume that it would keep sending folks down the Turnpike to I-295, across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then back on I-95 once this is completed?
I think if the GPS were to send people from NYC to DC via I-78 West and then I-81 South to I-83 South and then I-695 around the long loop of Baltimore and then finally down I-95 just for an experiment, many of course would not only follow that route, but never realize they went miles out of their way. That is how clueless the world is now thanks to that form of technology.
If GPS said to drive off a cliff...
Are we really that bad, that we have become Lemmings? Don't answer that, I already know the answer... :banghead: :ded:
How dumb would someone have to be to drive of a cliff because of gps?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 16, 2017, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:14:49 PM
Does not the GPS, tell people where to go anyway? I would assume that it would keep sending folks down the Turnpike to I-295, across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then back on I-95 once this is completed?
I think if the GPS were to send people from NYC to DC via I-78 West and then I-81 South to I-83 South and then I-695 around the long loop of Baltimore and then finally down I-95 just for an experiment, many of course would not only follow that route, but never realize they went miles out of their way. That is how clueless the world is now thanks to that form of technology.
If GPS said to drive off a cliff...
Are we really that bad, that we have become Lemmings? Don't answer that, I already know the answer... :banghead: :ded:
How dumb would someone have to be to drive of a cliff because of gps?
I have read News Stories about motorists driving thru/past "Road Closed" signs, to their peril, over an out bridge. Why? Because the GPS said so
That isn't very far from drive off a cliff
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/31/driver-follows-gps-off-demolished-bridge-killing-wife-police-say/
Thats the one I remember reading about, on Cline Ave/IN 912 which has had a bridge out for years and may never be rebuilt
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 10:25:07 PM
Illinois politicians raised a big stink about the missing I-294/Tri-State and I-57 connection in the South Chicago Suburbs for years, until (at least Phase 1) got built and opened a few years ago, despite that there were 2 close-by options to make the connection -- Surface Street US 6/159th St, for about 1 mile between the I-294 cloverleaf and the I-57 cloverleaf, and the All-Interstate, signed and official connection, of I-294 South to I-80 West to I-57, which was all of about 5 miles
That was less mileage out of the way than I-195 to I-295 here, and ended up built. But there was local outcry for it. If there isn't any in Southern NJ, then I don't really see an issue, other than it just being odd, having I-95 and I-295 cross but not connect
Yes, there was an all-Interstate connection using a segment of I-80 and an additional segment of I-294, but from what I heard there were also peak periods congestion problems on those segments, that the direct connection now bypasses. Those two ramps are long and cost about $100 million to build.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 16, 2017, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:14:49 PM
Does not the GPS, tell people where to go anyway? I would assume that it would keep sending folks down the Turnpike to I-295, across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then back on I-95 once this is completed?
I think if the GPS were to send people from NYC to DC via I-78 West and then I-81 South to I-83 South and then I-695 around the long loop of Baltimore and then finally down I-95 just for an experiment, many of course would not only follow that route, but never realize they went miles out of their way. That is how clueless the world is now thanks to that form of technology.
If GPS said to drive off a cliff...
Are we really that bad, that we have become Lemmings? Don't answer that, I already know the answer... :banghead: :ded:
How dumb would someone have to be to drive of a cliff because of gps?
When you turn 18, get a job here in FL on the toll roads and see the dummies we get. Folks who come onto the toll road completely ignoring the toll warnings and then claim that they "Did not know they were on a toll road."
People are stupid and blame the fact that they are out of state is their reason for not paying attention to road signs.
QuoteThat was less mileage out of the way than I-195 to I-295 here, and ended up built. But there was local outcry for it. If there isn't any in Southern NJ, then I don't really see an issue, other than it just being odd, having I-95 and I-295 cross but not connect
The only place I've seen it mentioned is on these boards. Every movement is easily served by other options, and this location is in a fairly rural area, far enough from those commuting to either Philly or NYC.
Quote
The signs approaching Exit 6 southbound will tell drivers headed south to follow I-95 across the Delaware River and through Center City Philadelphia on the Delaware Expressway.
It's easy enough to see the likely effects by using 95 North. Nearly every single weekend, hoards of motorists jam the right two lanes on 95 in Delaware to make their way to the NJ Turnpike/I-295. Then, those hoards of people will stay in the left 2 lanes of the Del Mem Bridge to take the NJ Turnpike.
If they're ignoring the routing of 95 going North, and the reinforcement of a x95 going North, they'll ignore the routing of 95 going South.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:42:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 16, 2017, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:14:49 PM
Does not the GPS, tell people where to go anyway? I would assume that it would keep sending folks down the Turnpike to I-295, across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then back on I-95 once this is completed?
I think if the GPS were to send people from NYC to DC via I-78 West and then I-81 South to I-83 South and then I-695 around the long loop of Baltimore and then finally down I-95 just for an experiment, many of course would not only follow that route, but never realize they went miles out of their way. That is how clueless the world is now thanks to that form of technology.
If GPS said to drive off a cliff...
Are we really that bad, that we have become Lemmings? Don't answer that, I already know the answer... :banghead: :ded:
How dumb would someone have to be to drive of a cliff because of gps?
When you turn 18, get a job here in FL on the toll roads and see the dummies we get. Folks who come onto the toll road completely ignoring the toll warnings and then claim that they "Did not know they were on a toll road."
People are stupid and blame the fact that they are out of state is their reason for not paying attention to road signs.
But driving off a cliff is another level of stupid.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:32:33 PM
I don't think that even the NJ Turnpike is yet signed south of Exit 9 (from photos I have seen) either.
I believe you are right about thru traffic, but here is the entrance at Exit 8 signing I-95:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2633221,-74.5068069,3a,75y,230.3h,82.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKfWqxxQAnSLb18PIL3vkpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
This is the southernmost NJTA reference to I-95. NJDOT signs it from I-195 as well.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 17, 2017, 01:48:33 PMThis is the southernmost NJTA reference to I-95. NJDOT signs it from I-195 as well.
Actually, the southernmost NJTP/I-95 reference sign to date is this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1768214,-74.6286648,3a,75y,35.39h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXNNpbnxT7bkZ1_5hMvNe2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the Woodrow Wilson Service Plaza located between Exits 7 & 7A.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 17, 2017, 08:49:21 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:42:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 16, 2017, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on October 16, 2017, 10:32:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2017, 10:14:49 PM
Does not the GPS, tell people where to go anyway? I would assume that it would keep sending folks down the Turnpike to I-295, across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then back on I-95 once this is completed?
I think if the GPS were to send people from NYC to DC via I-78 West and then I-81 South to I-83 South and then I-695 around the long loop of Baltimore and then finally down I-95 just for an experiment, many of course would not only follow that route, but never realize they went miles out of their way. That is how clueless the world is now thanks to that form of technology.
If GPS said to drive off a cliff...
Are we really that bad, that we have become Lemmings? Don't answer that, I already know the answer... :banghead: :ded:
How dumb would someone have to be to drive of a cliff because of gps?
When you turn 18, get a job here in FL on the toll roads and see the dummies we get. Folks who come onto the toll road completely ignoring the toll warnings and then claim that they "Did not know they were on a toll road."
People are stupid and blame the fact that they are out of state is their reason for not paying attention to road signs.
But driving off a cliff is another level of stupid.
May I drink to that?
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 17, 2017, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 17, 2017, 01:48:33 PMThis is the southernmost NJTA reference to I-95. NJDOT signs it from I-195 as well.
Actually, the southernmost NJTP/I-95 reference sign to date is this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1768214,-74.6286648,3a,75y,35.39h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXNNpbnxT7bkZ1_5hMvNe2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the Woodrow Wilson Service Plaza located between Exits 7 & 7A.
Haven't been on any service area in awhile, so missed that one. Kind of pointless on a service area that only connects to one direction of travel. Not sure what was there before. "Exit"?
I generally support the idea that all relevant links in the nation's freeway grid should be Interstates (a view that is somewhat unpopular here), and I also think that signing the southern NJ Turnpike as an x95 makes sense. But that said, I don't think that doing so would have any meaningful impact on motorists' decision to stay on the NJ Turnpike vs. using I-95 in Pennsylvania.
My impression is that the vast majority of drivers fall into one of two camps.
One group (I'd guess the larger of the two) just follows directions, whether they be live on a GPS device or from an online mapping service before they leave. Considering that the NJ Turnpike route is about five miles shorter and avoids Philadelphia traffic, mapping services would usually favor the NJ route–numbered or not–except perhaps when traffic tie ups at the I-295 interchange or an accident along the NJ Turnpike temporarily make the PA route faster.
The other group consists of people who just use the routes they've known and driven for years. Those people will continue to call it "the turnpike" and drive it regardless of it being numbered or not.
I think it's a very small minority that navigate via the numbers, and of those who know only that "...95 will take me to Florida" , I have to think that the pull of a genuine I-95 shield will be much greater than whatever little reassurance that an even-numbered x95 would provide.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 17, 2017, 03:55:59 PM
I generally support the idea that all relevant links in the nation's freeway grid should be Interstates (a view that is somewhat unpopular here), and I also think that signing the southern NJ Turnpike as an x95 makes sense. But that said, I don't think that doing so would have any meaningful impact on motorists' decision to stay on the NJ Turnpike vs. using I-95 in Pennsylvania.
My impression is that the vast majority of drivers fall into one of two camps.
One group (I'd guess the larger of the two) just follows directions, whether they be live on a GPS device or from an online mapping service before they leave. Considering that the NJ Turnpike route is about five miles shorter and avoids Philadelphia traffic, mapping services would usually favor the NJ route–numbered or not–except perhaps when traffic tie ups at the I-295 interchange or an accident along the NJ Turnpike temporarily make the PA route faster.
The other group consists of people who just use the routes they've known and driven for years. Those people will continue to call it "the turnpike" and drive it regardless of it being numbered or not.
I think it's a very small minority that navigate via the numbers, and of those who know only that "...95 will take me to Florida" , I have to think that the pull of a genuine I-95 shield will be much greater than whatever little reassurance that an even-numbered x95 would provide.
And yet people get confused when new signage is introduced. See http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/07/what_happened_to_the_parkway_sign_for_the_turnpike_ask_commutinglarry.html
And that was where no new route numbers were introduced.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 17, 2017, 04:03:10 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 17, 2017, 03:55:59 PM
I generally support the idea that all relevant links in the nation's freeway grid should be Interstates (a view that is somewhat unpopular here), and I also think that signing the southern NJ Turnpike as an x95 makes sense. But that said, I don't think that doing so would have any meaningful impact on motorists' decision to stay on the NJ Turnpike vs. using I-95 in Pennsylvania.
My impression is that the vast majority of drivers fall into one of two camps.
One group (I'd guess the larger of the two) just follows directions, whether they be live on a GPS device or from an online mapping service before they leave. Considering that the NJ Turnpike route is about five miles shorter and avoids Philadelphia traffic, mapping services would usually favor the NJ route–numbered or not–except perhaps when traffic tie ups at the I-295 interchange or an accident along the NJ Turnpike temporarily make the PA route faster.
The other group consists of people who just use the routes they've known and driven for years. Those people will continue to call it "the turnpike" and drive it regardless of it being numbered or not.
I think it's a very small minority that navigate via the numbers, and of those who know only that "...95 will take me to Florida" , I have to think that the pull of a genuine I-95 shield will be much greater than whatever little reassurance that an even-numbered x95 would provide.
And yet people get confused when new signage is introduced. See http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/07/what_happened_to_the_parkway_sign_for_the_turnpike_ask_commutinglarry.html
And that was where no new route numbers were introduced.
I think a great solution to this problem (if it is a problem) would be to re-allow the use of suffixes on interstate highways, but only in limited circumstances. Suffixed routes, like the existing examples in Dallas-Fort Worth and Twin Cities, must start and end at a common point. If one is traveling northbound along I-35 from the southern side of Texas (or Minnesota), taking either I-35E or I-35 W would get you through metro-Dallas (or metro-Minneapolis) and lead back to I-35 well north of town.
In much the same way, a new I-95 E signed along I-295 in DE, the DE Memorial Bridge, and the southern section of the NJTP until exit 6 would reinforce the notion that both I-95 through Philly and I-95E via the turnpike are both valid routes for through traffic between the NYC area and Delaware. I-95 of course goes right through Philadelphia, but any long distance driver can rest assured that I-95E would also get them back to the mainline of I-95 once you are south of metro-Philadelphia. (Simply signing it as I-895 may not have the same connotation as an even 3di just means that it connects two or more interstates together. Some even 3 dis are bypasses that head back to the parent 2di (like I-495 around Wilmington), some are beltways [which also act in some way as a bypass] (like I-495 in the DC area), and some are connectors to other interstates and only meet their parent once (I-276 in Philly area connects I-76 to I-95, it does not lead you back to I-76.))
Quote from: mrsman on November 19, 2017, 08:07:32 PM
I think a great solution to this problem (if it is a problem) would be to re-allow the use of suffixes on interstate highways, but only in limited circumstances. Suffixed routes, like the existing examples in Dallas-Fort Worth and Twin Cities, must start and end at a common point. If one is traveling northbound along I-35 from the southern side of Texas (or Minnesota), taking either I-35E or I-35 W would get you through metro-Dallas (or metro-Minneapolis) and lead back to I-35 well north of town.
In much the same way, a new I-95 E signed along I-295 in DE, the DE Memorial Bridge, and the southern section of the NJTP until exit 6 would reinforce the notion that both I-95 through Philly and I-95E via the turnpike are both valid routes for through traffic between the NYC area and Delaware. I-95 of course goes right through Philadelphia, but any long distance driver can rest assured that I-95E would also get them back to the mainline of I-95 once you are south of metro-Philadelphia. (Simply signing it as I-895 may not have the same connotation as an even 3di just means that it connects two or more interstates together. Some even 3 dis are bypasses that head back to the parent 2di (like I-495 around Wilmington), some are beltways [which also act in some way as a bypass] (like I-495 in the DC area), and some are connectors to other interstates and only meet their parent once (I-276 in Philly area connects I-76 to I-95, it does not lead you back to I-76.))
But then how many of the motoring public would know about this rule that suffixed Interstate routes would have to begin and end at the same mainline Interstate route?
Those that were driving when there were the original suffixed routes might figure that it is the same, that there are at least 4 different types. Many operated like a 3-digit route, and a few operated like long distance mainline routes.
Sometimes I think it would be simpler to use the German Autobahn sign system. Just list the major cities for each route, with the route numbers on the bottom line of the sign. For instance northbound at the I-95/295 split in Delaware you could list Philadelphia for I-95 and New York and Newark for I-295/NJT. The public might actually find that system which emphasizes the city names over the numbered routes, simpler to follow.
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2017, 10:02:19 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 19, 2017, 08:07:32 PM
I think a great solution to this problem (if it is a problem) would be to re-allow the use of suffixes on interstate highways, but only in limited circumstances. Suffixed routes, like the existing examples in Dallas-Fort Worth and Twin Cities, must start and end at a common point. If one is traveling northbound along I-35 from the southern side of Texas (or Minnesota), taking either I-35E or I-35 W would get you through metro-Dallas (or metro-Minneapolis) and lead back to I-35 well north of town.
In much the same way, a new I-95 E signed along I-295 in DE, the DE Memorial Bridge, and the southern section of the NJTP until exit 6 would reinforce the notion that both I-95 through Philly and I-95E via the turnpike are both valid routes for through traffic between the NYC area and Delaware. I-95 of course goes right through Philadelphia, but any long distance driver can rest assured that I-95E would also get them back to the mainline of I-95 once you are south of metro-Philadelphia. (Simply signing it as I-895 may not have the same connotation as an even 3di just means that it connects two or more interstates together. Some even 3 dis are bypasses that head back to the parent 2di (like I-495 around Wilmington), some are beltways [which also act in some way as a bypass] (like I-495 in the DC area), and some are connectors to other interstates and only meet their parent once (I-276 in Philly area connects I-76 to I-95, it does not lead you back to I-76.))
But then how many of the motoring public would know about this rule that suffixed Interstate routes would have to begin and end at the same mainline Interstate route?
Those that were driving when there were the original suffixed routes might figure that it is the same, that there are at least 4 different types. Many operated like a 3-digit route, and a few operated like long distance mainline routes.
For those who do research, like roadgeeks and transport professionals (a small percentage of the population), they will simply know the rule from the AASHTO rule book, or perhaps by example. (It seems like every suffixed group in Dallas, Minneapolis, proposed NJ start and end at the same point, that's probably the rule).
And as far as the old suffixed routes, I am not suggesting that there is any good reason to reinstate them. I don't want to see I-80x on any road that doesn't serve in some way as a connection from San Francisco to Teaneck, NJ. The fact that there were other spur routes that went to Denver or Portland or along hte Penn Turnpike in the past should be of no consequence as to what should be allowed for the future.
For I-95, it is very simple for people to follow the directions to go from Boston or NYC to DC, VA, or FL to simply follow I-95. If we wanted to ensure that this through traffic does not go through Philly, then using a sign that says I-95E south to Wilmington, DE (or even better IMO Baltimore, MD) at NJTP Exit 6 would direct people to use the best bypass. Following the city will make it clear for those who follow cities and for those who follow numbers they are still following numbers.
FWIW, nobody seems to have a problem with following I-35 between San Antonio and Oklahoma City. It's one road. You have a choice of going through Dallas or Fort Worth, but all in all it's still one highway.
Quote from: mrsman on November 24, 2017, 03:19:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 19, 2017, 10:02:19 PM
But then how many of the motoring public would know about this rule that suffixed Interstate routes would have to begin and end at the same mainline Interstate route?
Those that were driving when there were the original suffixed routes might figure that it is the same, that there are at least 4 different types. Many operated like a 3-digit route, and a few operated like long distance mainline routes.
For those who do research, like roadgeeks and transport professionals (a small percentage of the population), they will simply know the rule from the AASHTO rule book, or perhaps by example. (It seems like every suffixed group in Dallas, Minneapolis, proposed NJ start and end at the same point, that's probably the rule).
And as far as the old suffixed routes, I am not suggesting that there is any good reason to reinstate them. I don't want to see I-80x on any road that doesn't serve in some way as a connection from San Francisco to Teaneck, NJ. The fact that there were other spur routes that went to Denver or Portland or along hte Penn Turnpike in the past should be of no consequence as to what should be allowed for the future.
For I-95, it is very simple for people to follow the directions to go from Boston or NYC to DC, VA, or FL to simply follow I-95. If we wanted to ensure that this through traffic does not go through Philly, then using a sign that says I-95E south to Wilmington, DE (or even better IMO Baltimore, MD) at NJTP Exit 6 would direct people to use the best bypass. Following the city will make it clear for those who follow cities and for those who follow numbers they are still following numbers.
FWIW, nobody seems to have a problem with following I-35 between San Antonio and Oklahoma City. It's one road. You have a choice of going through Dallas or Fort Worth, but all in all it's still one highway.
I just looked at the signage in Texas for those routes on Google Maps Roadway View, and at the northern and southern splits, the I-35 highway signage simply branches into I-35W Fort Worth and I-35E Dallas. I went back 2 1/2 miles and that is what all the overhead signs said, there was nothing said about what happens after those two cities, about whether the highways rejoin or not, or about how to get to San Antonio or Oklahoma City. It doesn't explain about what happens to I-35 itself, taken on face value it seems like I-35 ends and it becomes two new separate routes.
With the discussion about suffixed interstates, I'd like to interject my two cents (particularly about I-80: )
It should have been signed as I-80N from Youngstown to Teaneck, as it normally runs. And I-76 from Youngstown to Valley Forge, the entirety of I-276, and then I-95 (or something else) connecting to Teaneck should be I-80S. That, or I-95 could run concurrent with I-80S from the Turnpike interchange, across the Delaware, and then I-80S would interchange with I-295 and run concurrent with that, and then it could meander it's way back to I-80N, and the two run as I-80 to Teaneck.
There. Problem solved.
Quote from: theroadwayone on November 25, 2017, 09:59:42 PM
With the discussion about suffixed interstates, I'd like to interject my two cents (particularly about I-80: )
It should have been signed as I-80N from Youngstown to Teaneck, as it normally runs. And I-76 from Youngstown to Valley Forge, the entirety of I-276, and then I-95 (or something else) connecting to Teaneck should be I-80S. That, or I-95 could run concurrent with I-80S from the Turnpike interchange, across the Delaware, and then I-80S would interchange with I-295 and run concurrent with that, and then it could meander it's way back to I-80N, and the two run as I-80 to Teaneck.
There. Problem solved.
Most of your I-80S actually used to be numbered that.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 25, 2017, 10:22:04 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on November 25, 2017, 09:59:42 PM
With the discussion about suffixed interstates, I'd like to interject my two cents (particularly about I-80: )
It should have been signed as I-80N from Youngstown to Teaneck, as it normally runs. And I-76 from Youngstown to Valley Forge, the entirety of I-276, and then I-95 (or something else) connecting to Teaneck should be I-80S. That, or I-95 could run concurrent with I-80S from the Turnpike interchange, across the Delaware, and then I-80S would interchange with I-295 and run concurrent with that, and then it could meander it's way back to I-80N, and the two run as I-80 to Teaneck.
There. Problem solved.
Most of your I-80S actually used to be numbered that.
The original 1957 Interstate plan, which didn't include I-80 across north-central PA but
did use US 6 and 6N across the PA northern tier as a I-84 western extension, routed I-80 over the PA Turnpike to I-81, where it split into 80S continuing along the Pike to Philadelphia as I-76 does today -- but there was a I-80N multiplexed with I-81 NE to current I-78; I-80N continued into NYC along the original I-78 path through Brooklyn & Queens and back up to the East Bronx. The I-80 "straightline" across PA didn't come about until the next iteration of plans late the following year, which also deleted I-84 west of Scranton.
To answer everyones question of if the ramps will open in 2018 or 2019, phase 1 also includes work at the Benselem Interchange, and that won't be complete until 2019. The ramps should open in 2018. The northbound flyover ramp is getting close to completion, even the streetlights along the northbound ramp have been installed. They plan on opening the northbound and southbound ramps at the same time though.
Would be nice to see a Google satellite image update.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on December 10, 2017, 09:22:55 AM
Would be nice to see a Google satellite image update.
Much to your chagrin (which thanks to last night's SNL I now know how to spell), a very recent imagery update throughout Central Jersey from October 27, 2017 has its western edge at the first stream crossing west of the US 13 interchange. The interchange's default is still May 2016.
I heard from a reliable source, that NJDOT will soon be signing I-295 to the portion of I-95 in NJ. If so it should be interesting to see how they match up the two N-S Segments opposing each other either at US 1 in Lawrence, NJ or at the Scudders Falls Crossing.
I doubt PennDOT will sign present I-95 SB as I-295 NB nor I-95 NB as I-295 SB. If it were Virginia it would have no direction like both I-64 in Chesapeake I-295 near Richmond between I-95 and I-64. However, once in a while NJDOT does have a few surprises.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 22, 2017, 11:31:12 AM
I heard from a reliable source, that NJDOT will soon be signing I-295 to the portion of I-95 in NJ. If so it should be interesting to see how they match up the two N-S Segments opposing each other either at US 1 in Lawrence, NJ or at the Scudders Falls Crossing.
I doubt PennDOT will sign present I-95 SB as I-295 NB nor I-95 NB as I-295 SB. If it were Virginia it would have no direction like both I-64 in Chesapeake I-295 near Richmond between I-95 and I-64. However, once in a while NJDOT does have a few surprises.
project site for the renumbering (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I95-295/) - as has been discussed many times, I-295 will be E-W in PA and N-S in NJ.
Well I do not check these out that often. Being without internet and having to use the library or McDonalds these days I only come on here a couple of minutes a day, I will admit that I kind of knew it would be elsewhere but risked this.
Anyway, the source that gave me the info is not convinced totally that its in stone, and the two people who are my sources are well respected individuals on this forum and in the community.
Not to be sarcastic or anything, but thank your for sharing that. It would make sense to do that by changing it to East and West as at that point the route is a beltway and like others (ie Indy's I-435) it would not be out of place.
Edit: This link is NJDOT which is not totally telling you everything. That is in other matters as I have found NJDOT in the past to leave out projects or provide poor links to some projects being worked on. However, I must confess that NJDOT is got this right.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 22, 2017, 11:42:32 AM
Well I do not check these out that often. Being without internet and having to use the library or McDonalds these days I only come on here a couple of minutes a day, I will admit that I kind of knew it would be elsewhere but risked this.
Anyway, the source that gave me the info is not convinced totally that its in stone, and the two people who are my sources are well respected individuals on this forum and in the community.
Not to be sarcastic or anything, but thank your for sharing that. It would make sense to do that by changing it to East and West as at that point the route is a beltway and like others (ie Indy's I-435 465) it would not be out of place.
Edit: This link is NJDOT which is not totally telling you everything. That is in other matters as I have found NJDOT in the past to leave out projects or provide poor links to some projects being worked on. However, I must confess that NJDOT is got this right.
FTFY. Unless you meant
Kansas City's I-435
Quote from: odditude on December 22, 2017, 11:36:48 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 22, 2017, 11:31:12 AM
I heard from a reliable source, that NJDOT will soon be signing I-295 to the portion of I-95 in NJ. If so it should be interesting to see how they match up the two N-S Segments opposing each other either at US 1 in Lawrence, NJ or at the Scudders Falls Crossing.
I doubt PennDOT will sign present I-95 SB as I-295 NB nor I-95 NB as I-295 SB. If it were Virginia it would have no direction like both I-64 in Chesapeake I-295 near Richmond between I-95 and I-64. However, once in a while NJDOT does have a few surprises.
project site for the renumbering (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I95-295/) - as has been discussed many times, I-295 will be E-W in PA and N-S in NJ.
Will there be any more unusual 3 digit route, in that whereas it was a long bypass that general paralleled I-95, beginning next year it will be a long parallel route with a partial beltway loop at the northern end?
Granted that with the I-195 connection it has been and will continue to be a bypass of I-95.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 22, 2017, 11:42:32 AM
Well I do not check these out that often. Being without internet and having to use the library or McDonalds these days I only come on here a couple of minutes a day, I will admit that I kind of knew it would be elsewhere but risked this.
Anyway, the source that gave me the info is not convinced totally that its in stone, and the two people who are my sources are well respected individuals on this forum and in the community.
Not to be sarcastic or anything, but thank your for sharing that. It would make sense to do that by changing it to East and West as at that point the route is a beltway and like others (ie Indy's I-435) it would not be out of place.
Edit: This link is NJDOT which is not totally telling you everything. That is in other matters as I have found NJDOT in the past to leave out projects or provide poor links to some projects being worked on. However, I must confess that NJDOT is got this right.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs17137.pdf
That's the link to the project bid award.
Not only is it set in stone, but it's signed, sealed and delivered.
It would be nice if the construction plans were out there where we could actually download them at no cost instead of paying BidX's $135/month fee.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 22, 2017, 02:27:09 PM
It would be nice if the construction plans were out there where we could actually download them at no cost instead of paying BidX's $135/month fee.
Some plans are available, as NJ generally posts revisions and supplements without needing to go pay. In this case, use this: https://www.bidx.com/nj/proposal?contid=17137&lettingid=17091401 , then look at the links on the right. I can see there's as-built plans available. I don't recall seeing any future designs posted in this one though, which are usually found in the Addenda.
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2017, 12:20:42 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 22, 2017, 11:36:48 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 22, 2017, 11:31:12 AM
I heard from a reliable source, that NJDOT will soon be signing I-295 to the portion of I-95 in NJ. If so it should be interesting to see how they match up the two N-S Segments opposing each other either at US 1 in Lawrence, NJ or at the Scudders Falls Crossing.
I doubt PennDOT will sign present I-95 SB as I-295 NB nor I-95 NB as I-295 SB. If it were Virginia it would have no direction like both I-64 in Chesapeake I-295 near Richmond between I-95 and I-64. However, once in a while NJDOT does have a few surprises.
project site for the renumbering (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I95-295/) - as has been discussed many times, I-295 will be E-W in PA and N-S in NJ.
Will there be any more unusual 3 digit route, in that whereas it was a long bypass that general paralleled I-95, beginning next year it will be a long parallel route with a partial beltway loop at the northern end?
Granted that with the I-195 connection it has been and will continue to be a bypass of I-95.
The only other part-beltway part-spur routes that come to mind are I-495 MA and I-476 PA, both of which don't do anything near the "candy cane" of I-295.
Quote from: Alps on December 22, 2017, 05:17:20 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2017, 12:20:42 PM
Will there be any more unusual 3 digit route, in that whereas it was a long bypass that general paralleled I-95, beginning next year it will be a long parallel route with a partial beltway loop at the northern end?
Granted that with the I-195 connection it has been and will continue to be a bypass of I-95.
The only other part-beltway part-spur routes that come to mind are I-495 MA and I-476 PA, both of which don't do anything near the "candy cane" of I-295.
Perhaps they could have routed I-295 onto the I-195 connection and ended I-295 at the NJTP/I-95, and used I-695 for the rest of the loop around Trenton and to Bensalem.
Quote from: Alps on December 22, 2017, 05:17:20 PM
The only other part-beltway part-spur routes that come to mind are I-495 MA and I-476 PA, both of which don't do anything near the "candy cane" of I-295.
I-294, with short sections of I-80 and I-94 (as the Tri-State Tollway) is a similar one around Chicago.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2017, 02:56:42 PMSome plans are available, as NJ generally posts revisions and supplements without needing to go pay. In this case, use this: https://www.bidx.com/nj/proposal?contid=17137&lettingid=17091401 , then look at the links on the right. I can see there's as-built plans available. I don't recall seeing any future designs posted in this one though, which are usually found in the Addenda.
Yup. I visited the letting page before I posted, and actually I now have a script that pulls in all of the free documentation for NJDOT's BidX projects, so the same material was also sitting on an archive HD.
In this particular case, the as-built ZIPs contain sheet extracts (not complete plans sets) for past projects. (Unlike NYSDOT, which usually posts the complete plans sets for as-builts, NJDOT is more parsimonious, though the multi-phase Wittpenn Bridge and Pulaski Skyway projects have been uploaded with complete plans sets for past projects and earlier phases of the current projects.) Unlike the case with some other states (e.g., Connecticut), the proposal does not include sign panel detail sheets, and the addenda do not include plan sheets.
The actual plans set for DP 17137 itself, with details of new signs and message revisions to existing signs (if any), is a payable document through BidX, so I know of no other way to get hold of it short of making an OPRA request.
NJDOT put the actual contract plans online (not just old as-builts or for-information plans) in 2004-2005. They never should have stopped doing so.
I'm still waiting for the panels to fall off of here:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4524/37805094995_63a921a108_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZAGZCF)
Saw this via AARoads:
https://planetprinceton.com/2017/12/21/i-95-in-mercer-county-to-be-renamed-i-295-in-early-2018-several-exit-numbers-to-change/
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 22, 2017, 11:06:11 PM
I'm still waiting for the panels to fall off of here:
Looked at you Flickr description, and I notice this is a northbound pic. Using Philly as a control city NB on the NJTP at exit 6 is almost as bad as MassDOT's use of NYC as a control city on I-84 west on the Mass Pike eastbound. I would say somewhere on the PA Turnpike would be better; either Valley Forge, Harrisburg, or both. My future signage ideas would look something like this:
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUNDSOUTH WEST PA TPKE SOUTH WEST PA TPKE
95 TO 276 SHIELD 95 TO 276 SHIELD
VALLEY FORGE PHILADELPHIA
HARRISBURG HARRISBURG
Looking at the article. Surprised the US 130 exit (unsigned exit 6A) doesn't get an I-95 exit number (3). And will the connections from I-295 West to I-276 West and I-95 North have I-295 exit numbers (either 1 B-A or 0 B-A)? I'll assume the exits to 95 South and 295 East from 276 East will be 356 or 356 A-B. The US 13 exit between the interchange and the river also gets a new number (43). Also could see the NJTP south ramp from 95 North getting an exit number (incidentally, Exit 6), when the NJTP goes AET.
QuoteSurprised the US 130 exit (unsigned exit 6A) doesn't get an I-95 exit number (3).
This article mostly deals with NJDOT's contract issuance to replace their signs. It goes a little further to explain what PennDOT will be changing their exit numbers to (eventually). Since the NJ Tpk isn't either of those agencies, that wasn't part of the discussion. Since it's currently exit 6A, it should simply be signed Exit 6A.
Also, once in NJ, I-95 will continue to use the NJ Tpk's sequential numbering. Thus, it wouldn't make sense, and could be awfully confusing, if US 130 was Exit 3, conflicting with the existing NJ Turnpike's Exit 3 with Rt. 168.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 22, 2017, 11:06:11 PM
I'm still waiting for the panels to fall off of here:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4524/37805094995_63a921a108_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZAGZCF)
From the original construction plan sheets for NJTA project T869.120.101:
(Patch 1) S
OUTH(Patch 2) (I-95 shield) T
O(Patch 3) Philadelphia
The patch on far right with the NJTA Type D arrow covers up an arrow design borrowed from the standard reverse-curve warning sign. The sign is shown in the plans with the reverse-curve arrow instead of the Type D arrow but a note on the plans marks the reverse-curve arrow as "Type D arrow." The sign was later fabricated with the reverse-curve arrow instead of the true Type D arrow, matching the illustration rather than the note. This was queried in a thread on this forum dealing with the 8-9 widening and we were told there were reasons the actual Type D arrow was not used on this sign but that, owing to commercial confidentiality, they could not be disclosed in a venue as public as this forum. I suspect the real story was reluctance to admit a goof somewhere along the chain from design to construction.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 22, 2017, 11:06:11 PM
I'm still waiting for the panels to fall off of here:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4524/37805094995_63a921a108_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZAGZCF)
It's happened several times before
Re: the destination for I-95 South at NJT Exit-6 Northbound. They have to show a control-city for I-95 South and though it's illogical in this direction, Philadelphia is technically correct. Harrisburg or Valley Forge can't be used because they are for I-276 West and the destination for that route is already shown as Penn Turnpike. Harrisburg would be technically correct for I-276 West, but the engineers apparently felt that Penn Turnpike would be more useful to the public and there isn't enough space to post both on that sign. Two routes and two destinations are about as much as you can reasonably put on one sign.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 23, 2017, 08:21:44 PM
Re: the destination for I-95 South at NJT Exit-6 Northbound. They have to show a control-city for I-95 South and though it's illogical in this direction, Philadelphia is technically correct. Harrisburg or Valley Forge can't be used because they are for I-276 West and the destination for that route is already shown as Penn Turnpike. Harrisburg would be technically correct for I-276 West, but the engineers apparently felt that Penn Turnpike would be more useful to the public and there isn't enough space to post both on that sign. Two routes and two destinations are about as much as you can reasonably put on one sign.
But is it actually I-276 on the NJTP PA Extension as that sign would indicate? I thought that it did not have a route number; that I-276 only existed in PA, that it ends at the state border.
Technically, the NJ portion is I-95 unsigned.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2017, 09:09:27 PM
Technically, the NJ portion is I-95 unsigned.
So then it is informational only to have I-276 on that sign, and it also says "Penn Turnpike" which also is informational only as technically those routes don't start until the state border.
Conceptually to the motorist it make sense to treat it as the same road.
That minor issue can be solved by adding the word "TO" between the 95 and 276 shields. Makes it technically correct. :biggrin:
Quote from: SignBridge on December 23, 2017, 09:20:17 PM
That minor issue can be solved by adding the word "TO" between the 95 and 276 shields. Makes it technically correct. :biggrin:
1. I-276 right now officially ends at the PA/NJ border. After the interchange is completed, it will end at the I-95/I-295 junction
2. I'm assuming there is a "TO" underneath the panel. My idea was for future signage to include the PA Turnpike symbol instead of using it on the control city line. That way you can free it up for 2 control cities. I made a crude representation of what each could look like (NB on left, SB on right)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4679/38375224795_5d6c701d86_n.jpg)
Next interesting thing is when PennDOT adds NYC as a control city on 95 North north of Center City
Wouldn't it make more sense to use Florence as the destination for I-95 going Northbound? Either that or Levittown.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 23, 2017, 11:23:07 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to use Florence as the destination for I-95 going Northbound? Either that or Levittown.
Florence already exists on secondary signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0869053,-74.7395811,3a,74.2y,12.7h,92.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suCKPXSdGLNMO0QIiCJTvEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that direct drivers to use Exit 6 to reach 130.
Quote from: storm2k on December 24, 2017, 02:50:09 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 23, 2017, 11:23:07 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to use Florence as the destination for I-95 going Northbound? Either that or Levittown.
Florence already exists on secondary signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0869053,-74.7395811,3a,74.2y,12.7h,92.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suCKPXSdGLNMO0QIiCJTvEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that direct drivers to use Exit 6 to reach 130.
I know, but it's a good candidate for the primary control city for 95 if we're going to change them
Moto G (5) Plus
Quote from: bzakharin on December 24, 2017, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 24, 2017, 02:50:09 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 23, 2017, 11:23:07 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to use Florence as the destination for I-95 going Northbound? Either that or Levittown.
Florence already exists on secondary signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0869053,-74.7395811,3a,74.2y,12.7h,92.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suCKPXSdGLNMO0QIiCJTvEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) that direct drivers to use Exit 6 to reach 130.
I know, but it's a good candidate for the primary control city for 95 if we're going to change them
Moto G (5) Plus
I disagree. With a road like the Turnpike and I-95, you need to really only sign the "big" control cities, as this is what is most beneficial with the vast majority of drivers on these roads. For that reason, Philadelphia makes the most sense since that's where 95 SB goes directly, even if there was indirect access to Philadelphia from Exits 3 and 4.
You always use the big control cities on major thoroughfares; which is why NYC is used on 95 in MD and RI despite there being other cities in between. The major problem here is that the signage is not MUTCD compliant because it is using a highway as a control "city", so you only have one control city spot available. Philadelphia is a no-brainer SB, but it may have to do northbound until the next signage replacement project allows for two control cities when the PATP is noted as a symbol instead. Then Harrisburg becomes a 2nd control city in both directions and Valley Forge can replace Philly northbound as the first.
jp is correct about using major cities for the destinations. In fact, the MUTCD specifies that on Interstates the legend should normally be route shield, compass direction, and next control city on the route. This is based on the idea that most drivers on the road are not familiar with the local area and the signing (on Interstates) should be geared to those drivers. Of course as we all know, signing problems are more complex than that simple philosophy and some exceptions are reasonable. Like using Penn Turnpike as a destination because it is well known.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 23, 2017, 09:37:20 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 23, 2017, 09:20:17 PM
That minor issue can be solved by adding the word "TO" between the 95 and 276 shields. Makes it technically correct. :biggrin:
1. I-276 right now officially ends at the PA/NJ border. After the interchange is completed, it will end at the I-95/I-295 junction
2. I'm assuming there is a "TO" underneath the panel. My idea was for future signage to include the PA Turnpike symbol instead of using it on the control city line. That way you can free it up for 2 control cities. I made a crude representation of what each could look like (NB on left, SB on right)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4679/38375224795_4ef916ba92_b.jpg)
Next interesting thing is when PennDOT adds NYC as a control city on 95 North north of Center City
I like the second sign. IMHO it works for both directions.
Quote from: mrsman on December 31, 2017, 10:27:29 PM
I like the second sign. IMHO it works for both directions.
Plymouth Meeting could also be used for I-276 westbound.
PennDOT uses that extensively for I-476 northbound from I-95.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 31, 2017, 10:27:29 PM
I like the second sign. IMHO it works for both directions.
Plymouth Meeting could also be used for I-276 westbound.
PennDOT uses that extensively for I-476 northbound from I-95.
Most people in NJ and long distance travelers don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, so Valley Forge (location where 276 ends as it becomes 76, and/or Harrisburg (destination city) are better. Plymouth Meeting works on the Blue Route because it's the point where 476 intersect the turnpike and becomes a toll road, and also because it's mostly locals using it to get from Delaware or Philly airport to the Main Line and other western suburbs (wouldn't mind seeing Plymouth Meeting
and Scranton used as contol cities for I-476 on I-95).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 01, 2018, 02:09:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 31, 2017, 10:27:29 PM
I like the second sign. IMHO it works for both directions.
Plymouth Meeting could also be used for I-276 westbound.
PennDOT uses that extensively for I-476 northbound from I-95.
Most people in NJ and long distance travelers don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, so Valley Forge (location where 276 ends as it becomes 76, and/or Harrisburg (destination city) are better. Plymouth Meeting works on the Blue Route because it's the point where 476 intersect the turnpike and becomes a toll road, and also because it's mostly locals using it to get from Delaware or Philly airport to the Main Line and other western suburbs (wouldn't mind seeing Plymouth Meeting and Scranton used as contol cities for I-476 on I-95).
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
I do not feel strongly about Plymouth Meeting instead of Valley Forge (except that PennDOT already uses it on their part of 476, but I wish that there would be greater consistency in cases like this).
Hopefully the longer-distance drivers have heard of Harrisburg.
Yes, signing Scranton (or Allentown) would be a good idea on the PennDOT-maintained part of I-476.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
Personally, I think Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting are both about equally useless as control cities. I would prefer that PennDOT adopt the Ohio practice of signing 3DIs using the most logical significant city destination, even if that's beyond the terminus of the 3DI. That would be Harrisburg for I-276 West, Wilmington for I-476 South (south of I-76), and Allentown for I-476 North.
I don't see any reason to sign Scranton on I-476 south of Allentown–and certainly not to the exclusion of Allentown. Allentown is Pennsylvania's third most populous city (vs. Scranton being seventh) anchoring the state's third largest metro area (vs. S/W-B being fifth).
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
I don't see any reason to sign Scranton on I-476 south of Allentown–and certainly not to the exclusion of Allentown. Allentown is Pennsylvania's third most populous city (vs. Scranton being seventh) anchoring the state's third largest metro area (vs. S/W-B being fifth).
I am generally a fan of favoring more-distant destinations as control cities (with one exception being my own state of Maryland's obsession with signing New York on northbound I-95, when I think Philadelphia and Wilmington should be given some attention there, especially when the Bristol project is complete enough to complete I-95).
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Most history classes in the last 25 years or so probably wouldn't mention it.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PMI would prefer that PennDOT adopt the Ohio practice of signing 3DIs using the most logical significant city destination, even if that's beyond the terminus of the 3DI. That would be Harrisburg for I-276 West, Wilmington for I-476 South (south of I-76), and Allentown for I-476 North.
Signage for I-276 westbound has always listed
Harrisburg as its control city.
Once upon a time & ironically prior to the completion of I-476 (both south of I-76 & the connection to the PA Turnpike), the original plans for I-476 north ramp & through signage was indeed to list
Allentown as its control city. However, due to its northern terminus ending at Chemical Rd. circa 1979-1991; most of the porcelain, button-copy signage (now largely gone) left a blank spot where the
Allentown lettering would've gone. A Google Search actually shows a mid-1970s shot of an unopened I-476 northbound at the I-76 interchange with a
476 NORTH Allentown through sign at the I-76 West (current Exit 16B) ramp.
IMHO, I agree with you that it should be used south of the Turnpike; however, I would settle to have it listed
in addition to the Plymouth Meeting (or Mtg.) listings on ramp and/or through signage. In more densely-populated areas; I see absolutely nothing wrong with listing a local destination along with a distant one on the same sign for the same route in the same direction.
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Most history classes in the last 25 years or so probably wouldn't mention it.
I haven't looked at any, but for all I know, any references to that period would include the Declaration of Independence, one or two battles, and then the Brits letting us go in 1783.
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Most history classes in the last 25 years or so probably wouldn't mention it.
... History classes still teach history. Valley Forge is still very much in there.
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2018, 11:52:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Most history classes in the last 25 years or so probably wouldn't mention it.
... History classes still teach history. Valley Forge is still very much in there.
Actually (maybe it wasn't clear), I was referring to Plymouth Meeting, not Valley Forge.
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2018, 12:10:28 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2018, 11:52:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Most history classes in the last 25 years or so probably wouldn't mention it.
... History classes still teach history. Valley Forge is still very much in there.
Actually (maybe it wasn't clear), I was referring to Plymouth Meeting, not Valley Forge.
Oh yeh, not clear. No idea what Plymouth Meeting is about.
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2018, 12:16:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2018, 12:10:28 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2018, 11:52:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Most history classes in the last 25 years or so probably wouldn't mention it.
... History classes still teach history. Valley Forge is still very much in there.
Actually (maybe it wasn't clear), I was referring to Plymouth Meeting, not Valley Forge.
Oh yeh, not clear. No idea what Plymouth Meeting is about.
It was the sight of a Quaker meetinghouse in the early 18th Century.
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 02, 2018, 01:29:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2018, 12:16:20 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 02, 2018, 12:10:28 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2018, 11:52:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Most history classes in the last 25 years or so probably wouldn't mention it.
... History classes still teach history. Valley Forge is still very much in there.
Actually (maybe it wasn't clear), I was referring to Plymouth Meeting, not Valley Forge.
Oh yeh, not clear. No idea what Plymouth Meeting is about.
It was the sight of a Quaker meetinghouse in the early 18th Century.
So, it's a sentence in a history book?
Nearly every town in the original 13 colonies can trace some sort of history back a few centuries.
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2018, 11:52:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 01, 2018, 05:40:35 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 01, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 01, 2018, 02:24:18 PM
If they don't know where Plymouth Meeting is, do you expect them to know where Valley Forge is? :-)
Well, if they paid attention in their fifth grade history classes, they might have a fighting chance.
This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Most history classes in the last 25 years or so probably wouldn't mention it.
... History classes still teach history. Valley Forge is still very much in there.
Valley Forge is famous as the place where our army almost froze before coming back to win. Plymouth Meeting? Not even close to as well known
Plymouth (in Massachusetts) & Plymouth Rock taught in history classes? Yes.
Plymouth Meeting (actually Plymouth Township, Montgomery County, PA)? Not to my knowledge.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2018, 08:59:02 AM
Plymouth (in Massachusetts) & Plymouth Rock taught in history classes? Yes.
Plymouth Meeting (actually Plymouth Township, Montgomery County, PA)? Not to my knowledge.
Plymouth Meeting is well known locally in the Philadelphia area, I was aware of the significance when I lived in Villanova and Devon in the 1970s. Nationally? I doubt it.
(apologies in advance for a long-winded comparison)
In NJ, for the 295/42 construction project, there was an old building that sat atop the interchange known somewhat as the Hugg-Harrison House. While trees and brush obscured it from view on the highway, it was easily seen from Browning Road which passes thru the interchange, and from a very large cemetery. The cemetery even had their offices in there, and used it for storage.
NJDOT did an assessment and concluded there wasn't nothing unique or overly historical about the building. This was probably back in the 1990's.
Only when the trees were knocked down did some people see it. After they learned it was targeted for removal, a few people did some research and concluded it housed someone during the Hessian War period. Time wore on, and not much was done except for NJDOT taking over the house and preparing it for demolition. The few activists trying to save it put together a gofundme-type account (but not on gofundme) that raised a little money. The people involved, which now included the Camden County Historical Society, must have known something was up, and sent a letter up via snail mail or interoffice mail to NJDOT. Before the letter was opened, at 6am on a Friday morning, NJDOT had sent their contractor in to demolish it.
A little over a thousand people 'liked' a Facebook page for this house, most of them mad the house was demo'ed. They talked about how NJDOT could care less about history. They talked about how this home could've been moved. They talked about how its history should be taught in the local schools. Interestingly though, the amount of money raised never went up (it got to a little over $1,000, and that was it).
My main thought - the house has been around since 1764. If it wasn't important enough until 2012...even the county's historical society didn't even have much info on it...then don't go around crying at the 11th hour telling us the importance of such a building, when all they could really come up with was that it was a seasonal home for someone in the battle.
There is a lot more to the battle itself that's already been preserved. You won't find anything about that on this group's Facebook page though. And regardless if this house is there or not, its history could still be taught in the local schools if they so chose to do so. This group simply found something that they thought could stop a project that was already decades in the making and years under construction, and failed miserably.
So, anyway, back to the point of Plymouth Meeting - it may have had a little significance...maybe there was a few homes that were occupied in a battle, but it was probably far from anything significant or unique that happened during a battle.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 11:04:48 AM
(apologies in advance for a long-winded comparison)
In NJ, for the 295/42 construction project, there was an old building that sat atop the interchange known somewhat as the Hugg-Harrison House. While trees and brush obscured it from view on the highway, it was easily seen from Browning Road which passes thru the interchange, and from a very large cemetery. The cemetery even had their offices in there, and used it for storage.
NJDOT did an assessment and concluded there wasn't nothing unique or overly historical about the building. This was probably back in the 1990's.
Only when the trees were knocked down did some people see it. After they learned it was targeted for removal, a few people did some research and concluded it housed someone during the Hessian War period. Time wore on, and not much was done except for NJDOT taking over the house and preparing it for demolition. The few activists trying to save it put together a gofundme-type account (but not on gofundme) that raised a little money. The people involved, which now included the Camden County Historical Society, must have known something was up, and sent a letter up via snail mail or interoffice mail to NJDOT. Before the letter was opened, at 6am on a Friday morning, NJDOT had sent their contractor in to demolish it.
A little over a thousand people 'liked' a Facebook page for this house, most of them mad the house was demo'ed. They talked about how NJDOT could care less about history. They talked about how this home could've been moved. They talked about how its history should be taught in the local schools. Interestingly though, the amount of money raised never went up (it got to a little over $1,000, and that was it).
My main thought - the house has been around since 1764. If it wasn't important enough until 2012...even the county's historical society didn't even have much info on it...then don't go around crying at the 11th hour telling us the importance of such a building, when all they could really come up with was that it was a seasonal home for someone in the battle.
There is a lot more to the battle itself that's already been preserved. You won't find anything about that on this group's Facebook page though. And regardless if this house is there or not, its history could still be taught in the local schools if they so chose to do so. This group simply found something that they thought could stop a project that was already decades in the making and years under construction, and failed miserably.
So, anyway, back to the point of Plymouth Meeting - it may have had a little significance...maybe there was a few homes that were occupied in a battle, but it was probably far from anything significant or unique that happened during a battle.
As my best friend, a history major, says "Some old things are just that - old things."
Being someone who regularly travels the Blue Route, I never liked the Plymouth Mtg designation to begin with. That designation was nebulous and frankly meaningless to drivers entering 476 from 95. I felt that they should have gone with the Conshohocken designation, even if that town is a couple miles south of 476's then-terminus. Hell, even Norristown would have been more recognizable to motorists.
Traffic in the interchange has shifted - I-95 SB now rides all the way to the outside on the future C-D lanes for 413, then slides back into the mainline at the 413 interchange. There is fuck-all for lane striping, at least as far as reflectivity goes. Saw a car nearly stop in the left lane, then ride the line, then suddenly he went from left to right and I was riding in the shoulder without knowing it.
Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2018, 12:12:29 AM
Traffic in the interchange has shifted - I-95 SB now rides all the way to the outside on the future C-D lanes for 413, then slides back into the mainline at the 413 interchange. There is fuck-all for lane striping, at least as far as reflectivity goes. Saw a car nearly stop in the left lane, then ride the line, then suddenly he went from left to right and I was riding in the shoulder without knowing it.
Good to know, what's the progress with the 95 ramps now when you passed by?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 11:04:48 AM
So, anyway, back to the point of Plymouth Meeting - it may have had a little significance...maybe there was a few homes that were occupied in a battle, but it was probably far from anything significant or unique that happened during a battle.
I agree whole heartedly, and I've lived in Mont Co my whole life.
Plymouth Meeting House is only marginally more important than the many other Quaker Meeting Houses in the region, and it may be due to its location at the very old intersection of Germantown and Butler Pikes. The building complex itself is pretty cool though, as Butler Pike has to dogleg to get around it rather than through it as it once may have many years ago.. I do not believe there would be any strong link between the Quakers and the Revolutionary War as their members were/are pacifists. Thus, what historical significance exists is more of a religious/cultural matter than a military one as several here seem to have suggested. With that said, the Plymouth Meeting area is certainly an important crossroads with the Turnpike, NE Extension, and Blue Route intersection with Germantown Pike. However, I would be quite surprised if people from outside the immediate region would have a clue where it was if they saw it on a BGS or "miles to" sign. I'd vote for Harrisburg.
Edit: apologies for continuing to go so far off topic.
Quote from: Chris19001 on January 03, 2018, 12:28:41 PMWith that said, the Plymouth Meeting area is certainly an important crossroads with the Turnpike, NE Extension, and Blue Route intersection with Germantown Pike. However, I would be quite surprised if people from outside the immediate region would have a clue where it was if they saw it on a BGS or "miles to" sign. I'd vote for Harrisburg.
I believe you meant
Allentown because & to the best of my knowledge, the only route that is signed for Plymouth Meeting is I-476 northbound along most of the free, Blue Route portion of it (south of Exit 18).
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: Chris19001 on January 03, 2018, 12:28:41 PMWith that said, the Plymouth Meeting area is certainly an important crossroads with the Turnpike, NE Extension, and Blue Route intersection with Germantown Pike. However, I would be quite surprised if people from outside the immediate region would have a clue where it was if they saw it on a BGS or "miles to" sign. I'd vote for Harrisburg.
I believe you meant Allentown because & to the best of my knowledge, the only route that is signed for Plymouth Meeting is I-476 northbound along most of the free, Blue Route portion of it (south of Exit 18).
Only PennDOT uses Plymouth Mtg. The PATP uses Allentown and Philadelphia/Chester for the Northeast Extension. PennDOT loves clinging to that. Then again, I've often found they are sometimes too specific about destinations they use on some of their signage.
Quote from: jcn on January 03, 2018, 03:53:16 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2018, 12:12:29 AM
Traffic in the interchange has shifted - I-95 SB now rides all the way to the outside on the future C-D lanes for 413, then slides back into the mainline at the 413 interchange. There is fuck-all for lane striping, at least as far as reflectivity goes. Saw a car nearly stop in the left lane, then ride the line, then suddenly he went from left to right and I was riding in the shoulder without knowing it.
Good to know, what's the progress with the 95 ramps now when you passed by?
Don't think it's progressed yet. My guess is this will allow them to complete the ramps over the former SB lanes.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 01:35:46 PM
quote]I believe you meant Allentown because & to the best of my knowledge, the only route that is signed for Plymouth Meeting is I-476 northbound along most of the free, Blue Route portion of it (south of Exit 18).
Point taken, and I agree with your accessment. I was simply referring to the earlier suggestion that Plymouth Meeting may be a possible destination on the signage for the PATP- 95 South portion of the topic. Personally I don't like it on any BGS's regardless of the owner, as Plymouth Meeting is simply far too small of a destination in its own right. I digress though.
Quote from: Chris19001 on January 04, 2018, 12:26:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 01:35:46 PM
quote]I believe you meant Allentown because & to the best of my knowledge, the only route that is signed for Plymouth Meeting is I-476 northbound along most of the free, Blue Route portion of it (south of Exit 18).
Point taken, and I agree with your accessment. I was simply referring to the earlier suggestion that Plymouth Meeting may be a possible destination on the signage for the PATP- 95 South portion of the topic. Personally I don't like it on any BGS's regardless of the owner, as Plymouth Meeting is simply far too small of a destination in its own right. I digress though.
I suggested Plymouth Meeting only because PennDOT uses it along I-476 northbound at most places between I-95 and I-276 and only for the sake of consistency.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2018, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Chris19001 on January 04, 2018, 12:26:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 01:35:46 PM
quote]I believe you meant Allentown because & to the best of my knowledge, the only route that is signed for Plymouth Meeting is I-476 northbound along most of the free, Blue Route portion of it (south of Exit 18).
Point taken, and I agree with your accessment. I was simply referring to the earlier suggestion that Plymouth Meeting may be a possible destination on the signage for the PATP- 95 South portion of the topic. Personally I don't like it on any BGS's regardless of the owner, as Plymouth Meeting is simply far too small of a destination in its own right. I digress though.
I suggested Plymouth Meeting only because PennDOT uses it along I-476 northbound at most places between I-95 and I-276 and only for the sake of consistency.
Guess on my part but the likely reasoning behind the use of
Plymouth Meeting was due such was the northern terminus for I-476 prior to 1996; the NE Extension was still PA 9 at the time.
That said, using it for control city for any other highway in the immediate region (specifically I-276 or I-95) makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 05, 2018, 10:01:24 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 04, 2018, 09:43:14 PM
Quote from: Chris19001 on January 04, 2018, 12:26:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2018, 01:35:46 PM
quote]I believe you meant Allentown because & to the best of my knowledge, the only route that is signed for Plymouth Meeting is I-476 northbound along most of the free, Blue Route portion of it (south of Exit 18).
Point taken, and I agree with your accessment. I was simply referring to the earlier suggestion that Plymouth Meeting may be a possible destination on the signage for the PATP- 95 South portion of the topic. Personally I don't like it on any BGS's regardless of the owner, as Plymouth Meeting is simply far too small of a destination in its own right. I digress though.
I suggested Plymouth Meeting only because PennDOT uses it along I-476 northbound at most places between I-95 and I-276 and only for the sake of consistency.
Guess on my part but the likely reasoning behind the use of Plymouth Meeting was due such was the northern terminus for I-476 prior to 1996; the NE Extension was still PA 9 at the time.
That said, using it for control city for any other highway in the immediate region (specifically I-276 or I-95) makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Either of Conshahoken or Norristown would have made better sense.
Quote from: storm2k on January 05, 2018, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 05, 2018, 10:01:24 AM
Guess on my part but the likely reasoning behind the use of Plymouth Meeting was due such was the northern terminus for I-476 prior to 1996; the NE Extension was still PA 9 at the time.
That said, using it for control city for any other highway in the immediate region (specifically I-276 or I-95) makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Either of Conshahoken or Norristown would have made better sense.
Plymouth Meeting is right there near the junction of the east-west Turnpike, the NE Extension and the Mid-County Expwy., the closest named place, and that IMO is why Plymouth Meeting has been used as a reference point on the highways.
Conshohocken and Norristown are several miles away.
Plymouth Meeting seems similar to me to the use of places like Albert Lea, Minnesota, which I have always assumed gained control city status solely based on it being the place where I-35 and I-90 cross.
How different will this gantry be at the present northern end of I-295 soon? Hmmmm!
https://goo.gl/maps/fGFBRdmWKux
It will probably go back to what it originally said before 1993 . . . North/295 on the left; Exits 68 A-B/Princeton Pike on the sign next to it. No 583 shield, though. I saw the plans at one point, but do not recall that particular location.
How much do you think the recent snow storm and the upcoming ice storm will delay the opening of the ramps?
Speaking of GMSV, I checked out I-95 at the interchange site this morning, and it's safe to say that something that looks like interchange ramps are taking shape (the date on the site was last September.)
Quote from: theroadwayone on January 08, 2018, 01:54:29 PM
Speaking of GMSV, I checked out I-95 at the interchange site this morning, and it's safe to say that something that looks like interchange ramps are taking shape (the date on the site was last September.)
You can see them from PA 413 too.
Quote from: akotchi on January 05, 2018, 06:23:13 PM
It will probably go back to what it originally said before 1993 . . . North/295 on the left; Exits 68 A-B/Princeton Pike on the sign next to it. No 583 shield, though. I saw the plans at one point, but do not recall that particular location.
Actually the sign on the right read "TO I-95 South Pennsylvania" prior to the truncation. Though the sign on the right was designed to become a future guide to Princeton Pike when it was used as a TO I-95 guide.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 08, 2018, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 05, 2018, 06:23:13 PM
It will probably go back to what it originally said before 1993 . . . North/295 on the left; Exits 68 A-B/Princeton Pike on the sign next to it. No 583 shield, though. I saw the plans at one point, but do not recall that particular location.
Actually the sign on the right read "TO I-95 South Pennsylvania" prior to the truncation. Though the sign on the right was designed to become a future guide to Princeton Pike when it was used as a TO I-95 guide.
At that time, the BGS for the US 1 North exit read:
EXIT 67 A
NORTH TO
1 95
New York
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 08, 2018, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 05, 2018, 06:23:13 PM
It will probably go back to what it originally said before 1993 . . . North/295 on the left; Exits 68 A-B/Princeton Pike on the sign next to it. No 583 shield, though. I saw the plans at one point, but do not recall that particular location.
Actually the sign on the right read "TO I-95 South Pennsylvania" prior to the truncation. Though the sign on the right was designed to become a future guide to Princeton Pike when it was used as a TO I-95 guide.
At that time, the BGS for the US 1 North exit read:
EXIT 67 A
NORTH TO
1 95
New York
Really? US 1 to the Turnpike? To my knowledge I-195 was completed by 1983. Was there no interchange with the Turnpike at that point?
Quote from: bzakharin on January 09, 2018, 10:43:18 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 08, 2018, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 05, 2018, 06:23:13 PM
It will probably go back to what it originally said before 1993 . . . North/295 on the left; Exits 68 A-B/Princeton Pike on the sign next to it. No 583 shield, though. I saw the plans at one point, but do not recall that particular location.
Actually the sign on the right read "TO I-95 South Pennsylvania" prior to the truncation. Though the sign on the right was designed to become a future guide to Princeton Pike when it was used as a TO I-95 guide.
At that time, the BGS for the US 1 North exit read:
EXIT 67 A
NORTH TO
1 95
New York
Really? US 1 to the Turnpike? To my knowledge I-195 was completed by 1983. Was there no interchange with the Turnpike at that point?
For many years, that was kind of the "way" NJDOT pointed you. Rt 1 had a number of To-95 North shield assemblies from Princeton up to New Brunswick (where it was pointed onto 18 to pick up the Turnpike at Exit 9).
Quote from: storm2k on January 09, 2018, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 09, 2018, 10:43:18 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 08, 2018, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 05, 2018, 06:23:13 PM
It will probably go back to what it originally said before 1993 . . . North/295 on the left; Exits 68 A-B/Princeton Pike on the sign next to it. No 583 shield, though. I saw the plans at one point, but do not recall that particular location.
Actually the sign on the right read "TO I-95 South Pennsylvania" prior to the truncation. Though the sign on the right was designed to become a future guide to Princeton Pike when it was used as a TO I-95 guide.
At that time, the BGS for the US 1 North exit read:
EXIT 67 A
NORTH TO
1 95
New York
Really? US 1 to the Turnpike? To my knowledge I-195 was completed by 1983. Was there no interchange with the Turnpike at that point?
For many years, that was kind of the "way" NJDOT pointed you. Rt 1 had a number of To-95 North shield assemblies from Princeton up to New Brunswick (where it was pointed onto 18 to pick up the Turnpike at Exit 9).
Additionally & according to to a 1989 USGS topo map, I-295 between Kuser Road (where the northern segment temporarily ended just south of Exit 63/NJ 33 & Hamilton Ave.) & I-195 didn't yet exist. So while one could meander via local roads to get from I-295 to I-195 & the NJ Turnpike (at Exit 7A); such wasn't practical back then.
Oh yeah, I was confused by the fact that this is a sign on I-295 Northbound. I guess before 295 was completed, the fact that you were approaching US 1 from the south meant that you didn't necessarily just pass the exit for 195. Still, given the gap, wherever you were coming from, you'd need to follow surface streets to reach either US 1 or I-195, and the latter would have been faster.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 09, 2018, 12:03:43 PM
Oh yeah, I was confused by the fact that this is a sign on I-295 Northbound. I guess before 295 was completed, the fact that you were approaching US 1 from the south meant that you didn't necessarily just pass the exit for 195. Still, given the gap, wherever you were coming from, you'd need to follow surface streets to reach either US 1 or I-195, and the latter would have been faster.
If one was coming from the Scudder Falls Bridge or even Ewing via I-95 back then; using US 1 as a means to get to the NJ Turnpike/I-95 northbound was the more logical routing/choice.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 11:54:24 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 09, 2018, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 09, 2018, 10:43:18 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 09:33:31 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 08, 2018, 07:40:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 05, 2018, 06:23:13 PM
It will probably go back to what it originally said before 1993 . . . North/295 on the left; Exits 68 A-B/Princeton Pike on the sign next to it. No 583 shield, though. I saw the plans at one point, but do not recall that particular location.
Actually the sign on the right read "TO I-95 South Pennsylvania" prior to the truncation. Though the sign on the right was designed to become a future guide to Princeton Pike when it was used as a TO I-95 guide.
At that time, the BGS for the US 1 North exit read:
EXIT 67 A
NORTH TO
1 95
New York
Really? US 1 to the Turnpike? To my knowledge I-195 was completed by 1983. Was there no interchange with the Turnpike at that point?
For many years, that was kind of the "way" NJDOT pointed you. Rt 1 had a number of To-95 North shield assemblies from Princeton up to New Brunswick (where it was pointed onto 18 to pick up the Turnpike at Exit 9).
Additionally & according to to a 1989 USGS topo map, I-295 between Kuser Road (where the northern segment temporarily ended just south of Exit 63/NJ 33 & Hamilton Ave.) & I-195 didn't yet exist. So while one could meander via local roads to get from I-295 to I-195 & the NJ Turnpike (at Exit 7A); such wasn't practical back then.
IIRC, that stretch didn't open until like 1996 or 1997. I remember going over that area in the spring of 97 and it was all very new.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 09, 2018, 12:03:43 PM
Oh yeah, I was confused by the fact that this is a sign on I-295 Northbound. I guess before 295 was completed, the fact that you were approaching US 1 from the south meant that you didn't necessarily just pass the exit for 195. Still, given the gap, wherever you were coming from, you'd need to follow surface streets to reach either US 1 or I-195, and the latter would have been faster.
If one was coming from the Scudder Falls Bridge or even Ewing via I-95 back then; using US 1 as a means to get to the NJ Turnpike/I-95 northbound was the more logical routing/choice.
The sign we are discussing is on 295 Northbound, so not from the direction of the Scudder Falls Bridge.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 09, 2018, 03:43:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 09, 2018, 12:03:43 PM
Oh yeah, I was confused by the fact that this is a sign on I-295 Northbound. I guess before 295 was completed, the fact that you were approaching US 1 from the south meant that you didn't necessarily just pass the exit for 195. Still, given the gap, wherever you were coming from, you'd need to follow surface streets to reach either US 1 or I-195, and the latter would have been faster.
If one was coming from the Scudder Falls Bridge or even Ewing via I-95 back then; using US 1 as a means to get to the NJ Turnpike/I-95 northbound was the more logical routing/choice.
The sign we are discussing is on 295 Northbound, so not from the direction of the Scudder Falls Bridge.
The Exit 67A signs along
both sides of the US 1 interchange
contained the identical message; both then and now.
Quote from: storm2k on January 09, 2018, 02:24:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 11:54:24 AMAdditionally & according to to a 1989 USGS topo map, I-295 between Kuser Road (where the northern segment temporarily ended just south of Exit 63/NJ 33 & Hamilton Ave.) & I-195 didn't yet exist. So while one could meander via local roads to get from I-295 to I-195 & the NJ Turnpike (at Exit 7A); such wasn't practical back then.
IIRC, that stretch didn't open until like 1996 or 1997. I remember going over that area in the spring of 97 and it was all very new.
IIRC, the last piece of I-295
north of I-195 opened sometime during the very early 90s (either late 1991 or early 1992 when I drove on that stretch). As a matter of fact, at what would later become the current I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange circa 1994; I-295 southbound would make a sharp-left bend and become I-195 eastbound; vice-versa for the opposite direction (I-195 westbound became I-295 northbound).
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2018, 04:46:12 PM
]IIRC, the last piece of I-295 north of I-195 opened sometime during the very early 90s (either late 1991 or early 1992 when I drove on that stretch). As a matter of fact, at what would later become the current I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange circa 1994; I-295 southbound would make a sharp-left bend and become I-195 eastbound; vice-versa for the opposite direction (I-195 westbound became I-295 northbound).
What NJDOT called the Trenton Complex, the last segments of I-295, I-195 and NJ-29. All open by 1994.
'Missing Link' Fills Last Gap In I-95 System
Published: December 23, 1994
BORDENTOWN TOWNSHIP, N.J., Dec. 22– For decades, three major interstate highways converged here in Burlington County and then stopped cold, dumping tens of thousands of motorists a day onto local streets here that were never designed to be commuter thoroughfares.
All that ended at 10:30 A.M. today when Gov. Christine Todd Whitman declared the grand opening of the $400 million Interstate 295 "skyway," linking the southern New Jersey leg of I-295 with its Mercer County leg and with I-195, which runs east to the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway.
"For those of us who sat here in perpetual traffic queues while this project was completed, our day has finally come," said Transportation Commissioner Frank Wilson, who lives in Medford and plans to commute through the interchange every day now that it is open.
Locally, the unfinished section of I-295 had been known as the "missing link." Officially, the project is known as the Trenton complex. The elevated roadway encircles Bordentown City, a one-mile-square town that dates to the 1680's.
Construction of its final phase, which began four years ago, includes a new extension of State Highway 29 and a new road, Route 129, to feed thousands of state workers into the center of Trenton, where Route 129 hooks up with Route 1.
On the national scene, the I-295 skyway through Bordentown seals the last break in the interstate highway system designated by the number 95 that links Portland, Me., with Miami, Fla., according to Gary Hamby of the Federal Highway Administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/23/nyregion/missing-link-fills-last-gap-in-i-95-system.html
"Last Gap".... hmm, I guess they forgot about that section just to the north of there :P
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 09, 2018, 07:43:37 PM
"Last Gap".... hmm, I guess they forgot about that section just to the north of there :P
Obviously deliberately tricky wording, "last break in the interstate highway system designated by the number 95". "System" could refer to I-295 and I-195 connecting to the I-95 NJTP. This was after the Somerset Freeway had been canceled.
I-295 used to end for years at US 130 in Bordentown. Most traffic used the side road and cut over the NJ Turnpike and entered it to go points north. The section north of Hamilton mainly was used by locals.
Though there was a TO I-295 N Bound shield at CR 524 if you really needed to get back to the route after the Bordentown gap. Then later it was given to US 206 N Bound from US 130 when I-195 got connected to I-295.
Quotethe interstate highway system designated by the number 95 that links Portland, Me., with Miami, Fla.
I don't know whether my snarky response should be...
- Portland? Hell, it goes all the way to
FALMOUTH!- Don't they mean, Portland to Jacksonville?
No Houlton, ME to New Jersey Turnpike Exit 6 and then from US Route 1 in Lawrenceville, NJ to Miami?
Quote from: roadman65 on January 09, 2018, 09:40:41 PM
I-295 used to end for years at US 130 in Bordentown. Most traffic used the side road and cut over the NJ Turnpike and entered it to go points north. The section north of Hamilton mainly was used by locals.
Though there was a TO I-295 N Bound shield at CR 524 if you really needed to get back to the route after the Bordentown gap. Then later it was given to US 206 N Bound from US 130 when I-195 got connected to I-295.
When I was a kid, my father would take the Turnpike south to I-195 west to US-130, then south to Bordentown. We'd stop at the Town and Country Diner for lunch or dinner, then take 130 down to I-295. I don't think he knew that Exit 7 on the Turnpike was just south of there. He'd probably have gotten back on the Turnpike had he known that.
What is interesting in Bordentown that all the overheads at both ends of the US 130 & 206 splits both have remnants from when there was a missing link of I-295. NB has the NB US 206 guide with at "TO I-295" shield on it to navigate those dumped onto US 130 when the freeway ended just south of Bordentown back to the freeway once the partial interchange between I-295 and I-195 was completed in 1989 or circa.
Then SB it would have it where US 130 leaves, but now its a good guide being the interchange with the freeway is so close, and the fact that it compliments the "TO NJ Turnpike" shield on the US 206 SB to Hammonton panel next to it.
I doubt that once the I-95 and PA Turnpike interchange is completed NJDOT will ever include a I-95 shield with the Turnpike going SB on both US 130 & US 206.
I could crawl army-style from my home in San Diego to Cape Cod, and they'd still be working on the interchange when I'd be done.
You got that right! :angry:
I haven't been following this thread, but are there any updates on the progress of this interchange?
It's rather slow going, I presume? :poke:
To make a very long story short, the interchange should have been built forty years ago. The Penn. Turnpike Comm. dragged their feet forever before finally starting construction. And the actual construction process is taking far longer than it should. I think they're building at a rate of about one girder per month. LOL
If you read back in the pages of this thread, it has been a very colorful discussion. :-D
Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2018, 10:22:17 PM
To make a very long story short, the interchange should have been built forty years ago. The Penn. Turnpike Comm. dragged their feet forever before finally starting construction. And the actual construction process is taking far longer than it should. I think they're building at a rate of about one girder per month. LOL
There was plenty of open land around the crossing when I-95 opened in the mid-1970s. I know because I saw it then. It would have been a lot simpler to build then.
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2018, 10:22:17 PM
To make a very long story short, the interchange should have been built forty years ago. The Penn. Turnpike Comm. dragged their feet forever before finally starting construction. And the actual construction process is taking far longer than it should. I think they're building at a rate of about one girder per month. LOL
There was plenty of open land around the crossing when I-95 opened in the mid-1970s. I know because I saw it then. It would have been a lot simpler to build then.
There's plenty of things that could've should've would've been done in the 1970's. But even then, the number of projects they wanted to do exceeded the money available.
In a way, today, they're doing the 95/Tpk interchange right. If they did the traditional PA Tpk interchange in the 1970's. it'll be 25 mph ramp curves thru an undersized toll plaza. Granted, all things being equal, the Somerset Freeway in NJ would've been built too.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 06:18:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2018, 10:22:17 PM
To make a very long story short, the interchange should have been built forty years ago. The Penn. Turnpike Comm. dragged their feet forever before finally starting construction. And the actual construction process is taking far longer than it should. I think they're building at a rate of about one girder per month. LOL
There was plenty of open land around the crossing when I-95 opened in the mid-1970s. I know because I saw it then. It would have been a lot simpler to build then.
There's plenty of things that could've should've would've been done in the 1970's. But even then, the number of projects they wanted to do exceeded the money available.
In a way, today, they're doing the 95/Tpk interchange right. If they did the traditional PA Tpk interchange in the 1970's. it'll be 25 mph ramp curves thru an undersized toll plaza. Granted, all things being equal, the Somerset Freeway in NJ would've been built too.
It always was a standard practice on new Interstate highways to build interchanges with other major highways.
The current design for the I-476 interchange with the Turnpike was devised in the 1970s. Community opposition to the Mid-County Expy. delayed its construction. It has high-speed semi-directional ramps. An 1970s interchange with I-95 could likewise have had a high-speed and high capacity design, and they had enough land so that they would not be constrained into building long towering bridges to make the connection.
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:51:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 06:18:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 11, 2018, 11:03:27 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 11, 2018, 10:22:17 PM
To make a very long story short, the interchange should have been built forty years ago. The Penn. Turnpike Comm. dragged their feet forever before finally starting construction. And the actual construction process is taking far longer than it should. I think they're building at a rate of about one girder per month. LOL
There was plenty of open land around the crossing when I-95 opened in the mid-1970s. I know because I saw it then. It would have been a lot simpler to build then.
There's plenty of things that could've should've would've been done in the 1970's. But even then, the number of projects they wanted to do exceeded the money available.
In a way, today, they're doing the 95/Tpk interchange right. If they did the traditional PA Tpk interchange in the 1970's. it'll be 25 mph ramp curves thru an undersized toll plaza. Granted, all things being equal, the Somerset Freeway in NJ would've been built too.
It always was a standard practice on new Interstate highways to build interchanges with other major highways.
The current design for the I-476 interchange with the Turnpike was devised in the 1970s.
Impossible, in its current form. There was no EZ Pass in the 1970's. The general ramp layout could've been about the same and movements between 276 and 476 could've been the same because you're not exiting the toll system, but the actual toll plaza interchange would've been traditional toll lanes.
QuoteAn 1970s interchange with I-95 could likewise have had a high-speed and high capacity design, and they had enough land so that they would not be constrained into building long towering bridges to make the connection.
What's funny with your comparison is that the 276/476 interchange involves long towering bridges.
If you look up historic aerials, you'll see that much of the land was already built on where 95 and the Turnpike meet. A quick comparison on historic aerials between 1970 and 2000 shows only the northeast quadrant of the interchange has changed significantly during that timespan.
Other options included that stub from 95 to 413. Again, look at historic aerials - the most likely routing already had homes and businesses on it already. And unless they completely killed tolls east of present day 95 there would've been no high speed design, because no EZ Pass.
Looks like NJ 101.5 is already commenting on the proposed east-west/north-south oddities of the extended I-295.
One for the I told you so... department.
Drive north to go south ... or is that west? Why they're renumbering 95/295 (http://nj1015.com/drive-north-to-go-south-or-is-that-west-why-theyre-renumbering-95295/)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:51:10 AM
It always was a standard practice on new Interstate highways to build interchanges with other major highways.
The current design for the I-476 interchange with the Turnpike was devised in the 1970s.
Impossible, in its current form. There was no EZ Pass in the 1970's. The general ramp layout could've been about the same and movements between 276 and 476 could've been the same because you're not exiting the toll system, but the actual toll plaza interchange would've been traditional toll lanes.
That is what it was, as there was no electronic tolling in 1992, only toll booths where vehicles had to stop. The toll plaza was in the same place. The only later modification is the provision of open road tolling, IIRC about 10 years ago.
The high-speed semi-directional 2-lane connections were in the original 1970s design, between the Mid-County and the easterly east-west Turnpike, and between the Mid-County and the Northeast Extension. The toll plaza was in the same place.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
QuoteAn 1970s interchange with I-95 could likewise have had a high-speed and high capacity design, and they had enough land so that they would not be constrained into building long towering bridges to make the connection.
What's funny with your comparison is that the 276/476 interchange involves long towering bridges.
Not really, the two longest bridges are about 400 feet long, and with standard Interstate vertical clearances, probably 16 feet.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
If you look up historic aerials, you'll see that much of the land was already built on where 95 and the Turnpike meet. A quick comparison on historic aerials between 1970 and 2000 shows only the northeast quadrant of the interchange has changed significantly during that timespan.
Other options included that stub from 95 to 413. Again, look at historic aerials - the most likely routing already had homes and businesses on it already. And unless they completely killed tolls east of present day 95 there would've been no high speed design, because no EZ Pass.
Need to get an account and pay money for access to historic aerials, and I am not going to do that.
Most of the nearby buildings at I-95, particularly commercial buildings, were not yet built in the 1970s.
Between southerly I-95 and easterly Turnpike, they could have built 2-lane ramps with at least a 45 mph design speed, and each could have had its own toll plaza. Back then vehicles would have had to stop at the toll plaza, I didn't mean to say that 'high speed' means otherwise as there was no ETC then.
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 09:00:27 AMNeed to get an account and pay money for access to historic aerials, and I am not going to do that.
For simply viewing, not necessarily.
Historic Aerials Viewer (https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer)
Go to https://www.historicaerials.com/
Just below the video of how to make a purchase, you'll see a button that says "Let's see some aerials".
You're on the screen to view aerials. No login or payment required.
And if you do that, you'll see the very commercial buildings you clam aren't there were there.
Quote
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
QuoteAn 1970s interchange with I-95 could likewise have had a high-speed and high capacity design, and they had enough land so that they would not be constrained into building long towering bridges to make the connection.
What's funny with your comparison is that the 276/476 interchange involves long towering bridges.
Not really, the two longest bridges are about 400 feet long, and with standard Interstate vertical clearances, probably 16 feet.
Because of their height, they feel longer than they really are. But you're right...most of it is simply built up land.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 09:13:49 AM
Go to https://www.historicaerials.com/
Just below the video of how to make a purchase, you'll see a button that says "Let's see some aerials".
You're on the screen to view aerials. No login or payment required.
And if you do that, you'll see the very commercial buildings you clam aren't there were there.
OK... there are a bunch of commercial buildings right north of the Turnpike that I see on Google Maps aerial, that are not on the 1970 image. The Bristol Plaza buildings in the SE quadrant have been relocated to much closer to the Turnpike, and there was a lot more space of unbuilt land back then for the ramps I suggested. Bristol Plaza itself looks like it is under construction, and that wouldn't have happened if the right-of-way had been acquired for the interchange.
Interesting that I-95 was already under construction there in 1970, I had thought it was a few years later. An expansive design might have required acquiring up to 50 homes for the right-of-way, and back then when Interstate construction was in full swing that would have been a small number. I-95 thru Center City required thousands of homes and hundreds of businesses.
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 09:00:27 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 07:51:10 AM
It always was a standard practice on new Interstate highways to build interchanges with other major highways.
The current design for the I-476 interchange with the Turnpike was devised in the 1970s.
Impossible, in its current form. There was no EZ Pass in the 1970's. The general ramp layout could've been about the same and movements between 276 and 476 could've been the same because you're not exiting the toll system, but the actual toll plaza interchange would've been traditional toll lanes.
That is what it was, as there was no electronic tolling in 1992, only toll booths where vehicles had to stop. The toll plaza was in the same place. The only later modification is the provision of open road tolling, IIRC about 10 years ago.
The high-speed semi-directional 2-lane connections were in the original 1970s design, between the Mid-County and the easterly east-west Turnpike, and between the Mid-County and the Northeast Extension. The toll plaza was in the same place.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
QuoteAn 1970s interchange with I-95 could likewise have had a high-speed and high capacity design, and they had enough land so that they would not be constrained into building long towering bridges to make the connection.
What's funny with your comparison is that the 276/476 interchange involves long towering bridges.
Not really, the two longest bridges are about 400 feet long, and with standard Interstate vertical clearances, probably 16 feet.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
If you look up historic aerials, you'll see that much of the land was already built on where 95 and the Turnpike meet. A quick comparison on historic aerials between 1970 and 2000 shows only the northeast quadrant of the interchange has changed significantly during that timespan.
Other options included that stub from 95 to 413. Again, look at historic aerials - the most likely routing already had homes and businesses on it already. And unless they completely killed tolls east of present day 95 there would've been no high speed design, because no EZ Pass.
Need to get an account and pay money for access to historic aerials, and I am not going to do that.
Most of the nearby buildings at I-95, particularly commercial buildings, were not yet built in the 1970s.
Between southerly I-95 and easterly Turnpike, they could have built 2-lane ramps with at least a 45 mph design speed, and each could have had its own toll plaza. Back then vehicles would have had to stop at the toll plaza, I didn't mean to say that 'high speed' means otherwise as there was no ETC then.
If the PTC did that with Breezewood too. You are talking about the same agency that neglected to build the direct connection to I-70 back then too. Remember, if they did that then as well, Breezewood would have never gotten the travelers on I-70 to go through their downtown to build up their economy, and no reason to protest the movement to complete now.
Yes, PTC is very slow not only to react recently, but also to light a fire under the construction progress as indeed its taking a lot longer than it should. At the rate they are going we might see the rest of the I-4 Ultimate in Central Florida completed long before this simple interchange is finished.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 12, 2018, 08:53:52 AM
Looks like NJ 101.5 is already commenting on the proposed east-west/north-south oddities of the extended I-295.
One for the I told you so... department.
Drive north to go south ... or is that west? Why they're renumbering 95/295 (http://nj1015.com/drive-north-to-go-south-or-is-that-west-why-theyre-renumbering-95295/)
Reading that article:
QuoteSchapiro said under the new configuration, if you want to go south to Philadelphia from the new stretch of I-295, "you're going to be going north past Route 1 towards the Delaware River, and when you get to the Delaware River in Pennsylvania, 295 will be designated as 295 West."
I do not see why I-295 cannot be signed as west/west leading west from U.S. 1 in New Jersey to the state line. Changing cardinal directions is not unheard of in the Interstate system. For example I-196 in Michigan is signed as north/south from South Haven to the split with U.S. 31 at Holland, and east/west from there to Grand Rapids. Also I-635 around Dallas uses east/west cardinal directions on the north side, and north/south on the east side.
QuoteSchapiro said typically roadways that loop in a circle don't actually have a north-south designation; they may simply be called the inner or outer loop. But in the case of 295, it's not a complete circle.
"Because this is not a true beltway, they're not able to do that type of designation."
We all know that is not true, as there are a number of scenarios where beltways shift cardinal directions on each side of their respective city. Furthermore, I-295 around Jacksonville is signed as South from both directions of I-95 on the north side, with East Beltway/West Beltway to delineate the difference.
I still think designating old I-95 southwest into Bucks County as a new I-x95 (I-695?) would be the best option. And if they cited that one Interstate cannot end at another with a U.S. Highway in between, I'd reference I-280 and I-680 coming together at U.S. 101 in San Jose, CA.
I do not see why not NJDOT did not make US 1 up to freeway standards from New Brunswick to Trenton years ago before the current sprawl in West Windsor and South Brunswick. Before 1985, the road had hardly any development along its corridor, where upgrading to a freeway could have been done easily without eminent domain proceedings to acquire land along its ROW. If they did, now they could have applied I-95 to it and just figured away to connect it the Turnpike either via the now defunct NJ 92 or an elongated Exit 9 ramp directly to US 1. Though the latter one has to deal with the conservation area along Lawrence Brook as there is some former Lene Lenape ruins there including a cave that the tribe held sacred there which may not be an option, but NJ 92 being built even as a Turnpike Spur could have taken I-95 to it.
That could have solved the problem too, and if it was done then we would have been ready for all that sprawl which now needs NJDOT to worry about adding extra lanes from Aaron Road to Nassau Park Boulevard as they now have to study real carefully.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 12, 2018, 08:53:52 AM
Looks like NJ 101.5 is already commenting on the proposed east-west/north-south oddities of the extended I-295.
One for the I told you so... department.
Drive north to go south … or is that west? Why they’re renumbering 95/295 (http://nj1015.com/drive-north-to-go-south-or-is-that-west-why-theyre-renumbering-95295/)
And also in the I told you so department...of the 5 people that commented, 2 are spam, 2 were talking about a completely different matter regarding signing 287 & 440, and 1 is a fellow road enthusiast.
The normal people just don't care.
This project would actually be a boon to the PTC, so it's strange that they are taking so much time to complete this. In my view, NYC-Philly traffic would now, for the most part, be taking a portion of the PA Tunpike to complete their trip. Currently, there are many ways to make this trip, each with their positives and negatives, but would generally avoid the turnpike. I imagine most would make the trip by taking I-195 to one of the Trenton area bridges or perhaps continuing south on the NJTP and using one of the bridges that lead directly to Philly (like Betsy Ross, Ben, or Walt). With this interchange, there would be one clear way of getting to Philly that would be far faster than the others, and the PTC would benefit.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 01:41:29 PMThe normal people just don't care.
I'd wait until the signs are actually erected before making that call just yet.
I wonder how you can gradually replace the signs. Will they just work from the current 295 terminus? Will they temporarily put up the "End 295 Begin 95" at each interchange as they complete its signing and move it when they complete the next one?
Quote from: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 12:06:07 PM
I do not see why not NJDOT did not make US 1 up to freeway standards from New Brunswick to Trenton years ago before the current sprawl in West Windsor and South Brunswick. Before 1985, the road had hardly any development along its corridor, where upgrading to a freeway could have been done easily without eminent domain proceedings to acquire land along its ROW.
Is this US-1 section currently on a limited access right-of-way? If not, then that would have to be acquired thru eminent domain proceedings, at least I am pretty sure that every state works that way in the U.S.
In Virginia --
Limited Access Control
- Limited Access Highway is defined as extinguishing the abutting property's right to access the roadway that the land adjoins (33.1-57)
- CTB has authority to designate, regulate, abandon, and discontinue limited access control (§33.1-58)
- VDOT must actually purchase these access rights from the abutting landowners as a part of a project's right of way acquisition, and these are recorded by deeds
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2010/oct/pres/Agenda_Item_6_CTB_Limited_Access_Control10-12-10.pdf
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 12, 2018, 03:34:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2018, 01:41:29 PMThe normal people just don't care.
I'd wait until the signs are actually erected before making that call just yet.
In terms of 101.5, once the change is made, the comments from the "normal people" will be "WHY IS CORZINE, JR. SPENDING MY TAX MONEY TO REPLACE SIGNS?"
Quote from: bzakharin on January 12, 2018, 03:41:48 PM
I wonder how you can gradually replace the signs. Will they just work from the current 295 terminus? Will they temporarily put up the "End 295 Begin 95" at each interchange as they complete its signing and move it when they complete the next one?
Put up the new assemblies and bag them. For overhead signs, the question is whether they're going on existing gantries or new. If they're new, put them up and bag them. If they're going on existing, a crew has to go through and change things. Get a few crews, maybe all done in one night.
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 05:13:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 12:06:07 PM
I do not see why not NJDOT did not make US 1 up to freeway standards from New Brunswick to Trenton years ago before the current sprawl in West Windsor and South Brunswick. Before 1985, the road had hardly any development along its corridor, where upgrading to a freeway could have been done easily without eminent domain proceedings to acquire land along its ROW.
Is this US-1 section currently on a limited access right-of-way? If not, then that would have to be acquired thru eminent domain proceedings, at least I am pretty sure that every state works that way in the U.S.
In Virginia --
Limited Access Control
• Limited Access Highway is defined as extinguishing the abutting property’s right to access the roadway that the land adjoins (33.1-57)
• CTB has authority to designate, regulate, abandon, and discontinue limited access control (§33.1-58)
• VDOT must actually purchase these access rights from the abutting landowners as a part of a project’s right of way acquisition, and these are recorded by deeds
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2010/oct/pres/Agenda_Item_6_CTB_Limited_Access_Control10-12-10.pdf
I do not know what you are saying, but I simply suggested that before development you could acquire land easier than, lets say, if TGI Fridays builds right up against the highway. Whether Fridays sells or not is the issue, but the fact is that it takes more time to secure the right of way if it is occupied than vacant.
Also in VA I distinctly remember US 301 being upgraded to I-95 between Exits 12 and 41 which was not freeway previously. Also I-64 west of Williamsburg was originally a divided arterial called VA 168. Also the I-77 and I-81 concurrency was a non freeway as well.
I lived in NJ and traveled US 1 plenty of times and even lived off of it, so I know that area back then and it could have been easy then to just upgrade. Heck if your point was to just upgrade it now, I am for that if it can be done with ease or even takes twenty years to get it in order.
I don't think New Jersey ever would have converted that stretch of Route-1 to controlled-access status because it would have taken too much traffic (and revenue) away from the NJ Turnpike.
Not really as it opened up anyway for development that uses it to get in and out.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 05:58:22 PM
I do not know what you are saying, but I simply suggested that before development you could acquire land easier than, lets say, if TGI Fridays builds right up against the highway. Whether Fridays sells or not is the issue, but the fact is that it takes more time to secure the right of way if it is occupied than vacant.
Also in VA I distinctly remember US 301 being upgraded to I-95 between Exits 12 and 41 which was not freeway previously. Also I-64 west of Williamsburg was originally a divided arterial called VA 168. Also the I-77 and I-81 concurrency was a non freeway as well.
I lived in NJ and traveled US 1 plenty of times and even lived off of it, so I know that area back then and it could have been easy then to just upgrade. Heck if your point was to just upgrade it now, I am for that if it can be done with ease or even takes twenty years to get it in order.
I don't know the details of what it would take to upgrade US-1 in New Jersey, but I can assure you that those segments in Virginia were not easy to upgrade, it involved 100 feet or more of right-of-way acquisition on one side of the highway, the construction of a new directional roadway for the Interstate, reconstruction of one of the existing roadways to Interstate standards, construction of service roads, construction of bridges, and construction of interchanges.
Quote from: Beltway on January 12, 2018, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 12, 2018, 05:58:22 PM
I do not know what you are saying, but I simply suggested that before development you could acquire land easier than, lets say, if TGI Fridays builds right up against the highway. Whether Fridays sells or not is the issue, but the fact is that it takes more time to secure the right of way if it is occupied than vacant.
Also in VA I distinctly remember US 301 being upgraded to I-95 between Exits 12 and 41 which was not freeway previously. Also I-64 west of Williamsburg was originally a divided arterial called VA 168. Also the I-77 and I-81 concurrency was a non freeway as well.
I lived in NJ and traveled US 1 plenty of times and even lived off of it, so I know that area back then and it could have been easy then to just upgrade. Heck if your point was to just upgrade it now, I am for that if it can be done with ease or even takes twenty years to get it in order.
I don't know the details of what it would take to upgrade US-1 in New Jersey, but I can assure you that those segments in Virginia were not easy to upgrade, it involved 100 feet or more of right-of-way acquisition on one side of the highway, the construction of a new directional roadway for the Interstate, reconstruction of one of the existing roadways to Interstate standards, construction of service roads, construction of bridges, and construction of interchanges.
Upgrading US 1 would require either building miles of service roads on either side, or acquiring in total hundreds of businesses because their driveway access would be revoked. Now add the cost of utilities in South Brunswick (tens of millions, if not hundreds) to the cost of widening (tens of more millions, if not hundreds). Even ratcheting that back 40 years, that's a lot of money to spend, with more needed projects elsewhere. (The widening in SB should take place, and is slowly being done piecemeal, but not the revocation of driveways.)
QuoteThe widening in SB should take place
By SB, do you mean South Brunswick?
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 12:21:40 AM
Upgrading US 1 would require either building miles of service roads on either side, or acquiring in total hundreds of businesses because their driveway access would be revoked.
Replace the center lane in each direction with Jersey barriers. There you go...two-lane freeway with one-lane service roads.
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2018, 02:28:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 12:21:40 AM
Upgrading US 1 would require either building miles of service roads on either side, or acquiring in total hundreds of businesses because their driveway access would be revoked.
Replace the center lane in each direction with Jersey barriers. There you go...two-lane freeway with one-lane service roads.
Way.too much traffic for 2 lanes. Simply look at the morning rush hour when most stores aren't open. Those 3 lanes are needed, and the shoulders were opened up in the 2 lane sections to handle the traffic.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2018, 11:18:23 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2018, 02:28:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 13, 2018, 12:21:40 AM
Upgrading US 1 would require either building miles of service roads on either side, or acquiring in total hundreds of businesses because their driveway access would be revoked.
Replace the center lane in each direction with Jersey barriers. There you go...two-lane freeway with one-lane service roads.
Way.too much traffic for 2 lanes. Simply look at the morning rush hour when most stores aren't open. Those 3 lanes are needed, and the shoulders were opened up in the 2 lane sections to handle the traffic.
Jeff, meet NE2.
Saw some VMSes warning that 95 North at PA 413 will be closed overnight on 2/2 and 2/3. It would appear the beams for the flyover ramps will be completed at this time. We're getting there lol
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 19, 2018, 02:01:44 PM
It would appear the beams for the flyover ramps will be completed at this time. We're getting there lol
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (H.R. 6211, Public Law 97-424) was approved by Congress on 06-Jan-1983, about
12,797 days ago as I write this, well over 30 years. I know that it was not Pennsylvania's fault that the Somerset Freeway part of I-95 was cancelled, but taking this long to complete what should have been a fairly simple interchange project
is the fault of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and PennDOT.
Here's the relevant language (
emphasis added):
QuoteWITHDRAWAL AND DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN INTERSTATE ROUTES
SEC. 162.
(a) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation shall, upon application of the State of New Jersey, withdraw under such section 103(e)(4) his approval of the designation on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the portion of Interstate Route 95 and Interstate Route 695 from the intersection with Interstate Route 295 in Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, to the proposed intersection with Interstate Route 287 in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed, pursuant to section 103 of such title, to designate as part of the Interstate Highway System the New Jersey Turnpike from exit 10 to the interchange with the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
(c) The Secretary of Transportation is further authorized and directed to designate the highways described in subsection (b) as Interstate Route 95 and assure through proper sign designations the orderly connection of Interstate Route 95 pursuant to this section.
A co-worker of mine was recently on the stretch of I-95 near Mercer-Trenton Airport (TTN) last Friday. According to him, new signs w/the new I-295 designation are erected (at least in that vicinity) but covered in black tarp.
Per this press release, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/011218.shtm , they were supposed to start last week. It's possible they may have erected some signs. Of course, it could also be construction-related signage for the Scudder Falls Bridge. It's doubtful any new overhead signage was done yet.
My co-worker didn't specify if the tarped signs he saw were overhead or ground-mounted. I haven't had a chance yet to head up there to verify.
I'll need to drive up 95 one day and take a peek (I moved so I started taking US 1 into work instead of 95). I can say they've put up VMSes at every entrance between 1 and the bridge to mention the numbering change is going to happen. Since I think the new ramps are supposed to open *sometime* this year (summer?), I would imagine they'd want the renumbering done well in advance of that.
My office is located at the Princeton Pike interchange, and they have been changing out signs since January 18. I have been getting a few as I have been noticing the changes. A couple of my photos from the past few days are below -- I am finally learning how to upload these things . . .
Ground-mounted signs are being changed first, since they only require shoulder closures to do.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4629/39815434422_9e5bee9941_b.jpg) (https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4664/39847782401_e41c39cd1b_b.jpg)
(Left) New I-295 confirmation just west of Exit 67. First time it has been I-295 since 1993. Taken January 18.
(Right) New sign showing old and new routes and exit numbers. Guide sign in background already has new exit number. Taken January 22.
A couple of route marker assemblies on U.S. 1 northbound approaching the (former) I-95 SB ramp have also been changed over, and I got photos the day they appeared, but they have since been covered.
Edit: Replaced with slightly larger photos.
Quote from: akotchi on January 22, 2018, 09:36:48 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4664/39847782401_e41c39cd1b_b.jpg)
Is it the angle, or did they really block the other sign with it?
There is some space between the two signs, though not a lot. In any event, seems like an odd placement for it, as it is not attached in any way to the guide sign.
I think my sitting in the shoulder on a curved section of highway may make that blockage worse than it really is. I will know better when I go past it again in the morning. Was more interested in getting the shot.
Also . . . curious to see if the plate under the Hospital sign in the background gets changed. The hospital is at I-95 Exit 3B (my wife works there), which will become I-295 Exit 73A.
Before making the necessary NJ changes in TravelMapping, I'm waiting till all NJ signage is changed over, which TMK will be early Phase 2, March - April 2018. How's signage looking within the Scudder Falls Bridge project limits, existing I-95 Exit 1 in New Jersey?
According to the project schedule, the Scudder Falls Bridge sign changes are supposed to occur in the March-April timeframe. Probably will be done as a change order under the ongoing construction contract (not sure), which is different from the NJDOT work underway. I have not been by there this week, but as of late last week, no changes had been made yet.
I have been changing my way home lately to monitor the changes. Probably won't get that way tonight because of the rain, but can check again tomorrow.
I'm actually surprised they've posted as much as they've had already, being it's only been a week since they started! I guess I'm used to NJDOT's slow pace of construction...even if it's only general signage work!
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 22, 2018, 01:40:43 PM
My co-worker didn't specify if the tarped signs he saw were overhead or ground-mounted. I haven't had a chance yet to head up there to verify.
I went through there this afternoon leaving work. There are a few covered assemblies at Exit 2 and toward the bridge. One has an interstate shield partly visible. They are oversized detour assemblies for the various ramp detours associated with Scudder Falls Bridge work.
The DOT's project webpage indicates a "north-to-south" changeover, i.e. from U.S. 1 toward the bridge. As of this evening, nothing west of 8B/68A has been changed, nothing at all in the I-95 northbound direction.
Of course there always should have been a connexion between the PA Turnpike and I-95 for the convenience of the motoring publc. But its absence reflects the insignificance of Philadelphia.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 24, 2018, 05:49:40 PM
Of course there always should have been a connexion between the PA Turnpike and I-95 for the convenience of the motoring publc. But its absence reflects the insignificance of Philadelphia.
Philly was probably doomed to "permanent" insignificance the day the NJTP opened. ;-) And I say that even sporting my own Delaware Valley (specifically Delaware County) roots.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on January 24, 2018, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 24, 2018, 05:49:40 PM
Of course there always should have been a connexion between the PA Turnpike and I-95 for the convenience of the motoring publc. But its absence reflects the insignificance of Philadelphia.
Philly was probably doomed to "permanent" insignificance the day the NJTP opened. ;-) And I say that even sporting my own Delaware Valley (specifically Delaware County) roots.
ixnay
The NJ Turnpike alone did not provide the northeast corridor bypass of Philadelphia and SE PA, the Delaware Memorial Bridge connected the NJTP to US-40 in Delaware. They both did open the same year in 1951.
The Delaware Memorial Bridge construction was authorized by the highway departments of Delaware and New Jersey in 1945.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 24, 2018, 05:49:40 PM
Of course there always should have been a connexion between the PA Turnpike and I-95 for the convenience of the motoring publc. But its absence reflects the insignificance of Philadelphia.
IIRC, federal law at the time did not allow federal highway dollars to be used to make a connection like that to a toll road, which would have meant that the PATA would have had to front the cost of construction. In short, as I remember it, they didn't want to give up any revenue to build such an interchange.
Quote from: ixnay on January 24, 2018, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 24, 2018, 05:49:40 PM
Of course there always should have been a connexion between the PA Turnpike and I-95 for the convenience of the motoring publc. But its absence reflects the insignificance of Philadelphia.
Philly was probably doomed to "permanent" insignificance the day the NJTP opened. ;-) And I say that even sporting my own Delaware Valley (specifically Delaware County) roots.
ixnay
It would've become important again if the Somerset Freeway was completed. Absent that, PA really dropped the ball in not rushing out there to build the connection between 95 and the PA Turnpike. They've had plenty of money, evidenced by all the other construction work they've done everywhere else. Heck, I think they've wasted more money building the barrier between the eastbound and westbound lanes TWICE. The first time, they used some thick, barrel shaped wall; the remaining stretch is on the western side of the Turnpike somewhere. From what I can imagine, when it's hit pieces fly off and creates a hazard inches from the left travel lane until it's fixed. The second time, they were more normal in their approach, building a jersey barrier.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/01/after-61-years-americas-busiest-highway-is-almost-complete/550982/
good article on 95
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2018, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 24, 2018, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 24, 2018, 05:49:40 PM
Of course there always should have been a connexion between the PA Turnpike and I-95 for the convenience of the motoring publc. But its absence reflects the insignificance of Philadelphia.
Philly was probably doomed to "permanent" insignificance the day the NJTP opened. ;-) And I say that even sporting my own Delaware Valley (specifically Delaware County) roots.
ixnay
The NJ Turnpike alone did not provide the northeast corridor bypass of Philadelphia and SE PA, the Delaware Memorial Bridge connected the NJTP to US-40 in Delaware. They both did open the same year in 1951.
The Delaware Memorial Bridge construction was authorized by the highway departments of Delaware and New Jersey in 1945.
True. Pre NJTP, pick up U.S. 130 in New Brunswick and 130 could've done the job of getting around Philly, and with plenty more service areas.
ixnay
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 24, 2018, 05:49:40 PM
Of course there always should have been a connexion between the PA Turnpike and I-95 for the convenience of the motoring publc. But its absence reflects the insignificance of Philadelphia.
Insignificance in what way? Its size is larger than Baltimore or Boston and both of those are directly served by the Northeast Corridor.
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2018, 10:30:22 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 22, 2018, 09:36:48 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4664/39847782401_e41c39cd1b_b.jpg)
Is it the angle, or did they really block the other sign with it?
Not liking this. They should just put up the new sign with an "old exit" sign the way PA did a few years ago when they converterd to mileage based exits.
See the following link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0080023,-75.2015127,3a,75y,297.48h,100.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snppepOdo_z7fCQzfG49TsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[It can say "I-95 old exit 6"]
Quote from: ixnay on January 25, 2018, 08:01:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 24, 2018, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: ixnay on January 24, 2018, 08:59:44 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 24, 2018, 05:49:40 PM
Of course there always should have been a connexion between the PA Turnpike and I-95 for the convenience of the motoring publc. But its absence reflects the insignificance of Philadelphia.
Philly was probably doomed to "permanent" insignificance the day the NJTP opened. ;-) And I say that even sporting my own Delaware Valley (specifically Delaware County) roots.
ixnay
The NJ Turnpike alone did not provide the northeast corridor bypass of Philadelphia and SE PA, the Delaware Memorial Bridge connected the NJTP to US-40 in Delaware. They both did open the same year in 1951.
The Delaware Memorial Bridge construction was authorized by the highway departments of Delaware and New Jersey in 1945.
True. Pre NJTP, pick up U.S. 130 in New Brunswick and 130 could've done the job of getting around Philly, and with plenty more service areas.
ixnay
I think Philly should be happy that there are viable bypasses to keep long dist traffic from clogging up commuter routes. DC does not have this luxury.
Quote from: ixnay on January 25, 2018, 08:01:25 AM
True. Pre NJTP, pick up U.S. 130 in New Brunswick and 130 could've done the job of getting around Philly, and with plenty more service areas.
How so? Traffic using US 130, which prior to the opening of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, ended at US 40 in Penns Grove, would have had to use the ferry there to cross back to the west side to access Delaware. Maybe it's just me, but having to use a ferry when there's a land alternative (albeit actually through Philadelphia and/or environs west of the river) available isn't much of an effective way to bypass a city. I'd think that pre-massive suburban development in Bucks County US 202 would have made a better bypass. Unless the Penns Grove/US 40 ferry utilized multiple vessels to keep the wait time to the minimum, the delays alone would render the US 130 alternative more of a east-bank NJ server rather than an efficient Philadelphia bypass. And since the Delaware Memorial bridge and NJT opened effectively simultaneously, that would have kept US 130 out of the equation later on.
Quote from: sparker on January 26, 2018, 12:01:23 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 25, 2018, 08:01:25 AM
True. Pre NJTP, pick up U.S. 130 in New Brunswick and 130 could've done the job of getting around Philly, and with plenty more service areas.
How so? Traffic using US 130, which prior to the opening of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, ended at US 40 in Penns Grove, would have had to use the ferry there to cross back to the west side to access Delaware. Maybe it's just me, but having to use a ferry when there's a land alternative (albeit actually through Philadelphia and/or environs west of the river) available isn't much of an effective way to bypass a city. I'd think that pre-massive suburban development in Bucks County US 202 would have made a better bypass. Unless the Penns Grove/US 40 ferry utilized multiple vessels to keep the wait time to the minimum, the delays alone would render the US 130 alternative more of a east-bank NJ server rather than an efficient Philadelphia bypass. And since the Delaware Memorial bridge and NJT opened effectively simultaneously, that would have kept US 130 out of the equation later on.
Even taking the Ben Franklin when that opened, and that opened many, many years ago, would still get you around a fair bit of Philly.
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2018, 12:04:22 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 26, 2018, 12:01:23 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 25, 2018, 08:01:25 AM
True. Pre NJTP, pick up U.S. 130 in New Brunswick and 130 could've done the job of getting around Philly, and with plenty more service areas.
How so? Traffic using US 130, which prior to the opening of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, ended at US 40 in Penns Grove, would have had to use the ferry there to cross back to the west side to access Delaware. Maybe it's just me, but having to use a ferry when there's a land alternative (albeit actually through Philadelphia and/or environs west of the river) available isn't much of an effective way to bypass a city. I'd think that pre-massive suburban development in Bucks County US 202 would have made a better bypass. Unless the Penns Grove/US 40 ferry utilized multiple vessels to keep the wait time to the minimum, the delays alone would render the US 130 alternative more of a east-bank NJ server rather than an efficient Philadelphia bypass. And since the Delaware Memorial bridge and NJT opened effectively simultaneously, that would have kept US 130 out of the equation later on.
Even taking the Ben Franklin when that opened, and that opened many, many years ago, would still get you around a fair bit of Philly.
North Philly, yeah -- but if you can see Independence Hall from the bridge approach, you've still got a helluva lot of Philly to slog through -- and that would have been pre-freeway in any case, with the possible exception of the Surekill!
Quote from: sparker on January 26, 2018, 12:01:23 AMMaybe it's just me, but having to use a ferry when there's a land alternative (albeit actually through Philadelphia and/or environs west of the river) available isn't much of an effective way to bypass a city.
As long as you didn't mind going through the city with what all that brought. I'm sure some people not in a real hurry didn't mind waiting at Bridgeport, Penns Grove, or Pennsville (I was on the Chester-Bridgeport ferry a few times as a kid pre Commodore Barry, including one time as a field trip). That said, the CBB and DMB were lonnnnnnng overdue.
QuoteI'd think that pre-massive suburban development in Bucks County US 202 would have made a better bypass. Unless the Penns Grove/US 40 ferry utilized multiple vessels to keep the wait time to the minimum, the delays alone would render the US 130 alternative more of a east-bank NJ server rather than an efficient Philadelphia bypass. And since the Delaware Memorial bridge and NJT opened effectively simultaneously, that would have kept US 130 out of the equation later on.
Getting to 202 from NYC meant going out U.S. 22 to 202 in Bridgewater.
The U.S. 202 corridor IMO needs a longer distance freeway than what it has now.
ixnay
Quote from: mrsman on January 25, 2018, 11:22:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2018, 10:30:22 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 22, 2018, 09:36:48 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4664/39847782401_e41c39cd1b_b.jpg)
Is it the angle, or did they really block the other sign with it?
Not liking this. They should just put up the new sign with an "old exit" sign the way PA did a few years ago when they converterd to mileage based exits.
See the following link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0080023,-75.2015127,3a,75y,297.48h,100.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snppepOdo_z7fCQzfG49TsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[It can say "I-95 old exit 6"]
I agree, especially when this one is close enough to the guide sign to block a portion of its message.
According to the NJDOT presentation on the contract, when they get around to doing the overhead signs, only the "old" portion of that sign would appear, directly above the new exit number in the standard white-on-green (more like your suggestion). The presentation did not address the ground-mounted guide signs. Not sure why this one is set up this way -- only reason I can think of is loading, but should use the same treatment as the overheads -- and no other ground-mounts have been done yet to see if this is the pattern.
Quote from: akotchi on January 26, 2018, 10:33:18 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 25, 2018, 11:22:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2018, 10:30:22 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 22, 2018, 09:36:48 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4664/39847782401_e41c39cd1b_b.jpg)
Is it the angle, or did they really block the other sign with it?
Not liking this. They should just put up the new sign with an "old exit" sign the way PA did a few years ago when they converterd to mileage based exits.
See the following link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0080023,-75.2015127,3a,75y,297.48h,100.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snppepOdo_z7fCQzfG49TsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[It can say "I-95 old exit 6"]
I agree, especially when this one is close enough to the guide sign to block a portion of its message.
According to the NJDOT presentation on the contract, when they get around to doing the overhead signs, only the "old" portion of that sign would appear, directly above the new exit number in the standard white-on-green (more like your suggestion). The presentation did not address the ground-mounted guide signs. Not sure why this one is set up this way -- only reason I can think of is loading, but should use the same treatment as the overheads -- and no other ground-mounts have been done yet to see if this is the pattern.
The difference here from most exit renumberings in the past is that both the highway number and the exit number are changing...so these signs are emphasizing
both facts. I'm OK with the sign given that intent. I can't tell if that color is orange or yellow, but if it's yellow, I am OK with that also.
The placement of the sign seems to be a problem if it's really that close.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 26, 2018, 10:56:08 AM
Quote from: akotchi on January 26, 2018, 10:33:18 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 25, 2018, 11:22:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 22, 2018, 10:30:22 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 22, 2018, 09:36:48 PM
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4664/39847782401_e41c39cd1b_b.jpg)
Is it the angle, or did they really block the other sign with it?
Not liking this. They should just put up the new sign with an "old exit" sign the way PA did a few years ago when they converterd to mileage based exits.
See the following link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0080023,-75.2015127,3a,75y,297.48h,100.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snppepOdo_z7fCQzfG49TsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[It can say "I-95 old exit 6"]
I agree, especially when this one is close enough to the guide sign to block a portion of its message.
According to the NJDOT presentation on the contract, when they get around to doing the overhead signs, only the "old" portion of that sign would appear, directly above the new exit number in the standard white-on-green (more like your suggestion). The presentation did not address the ground-mounted guide signs. Not sure why this one is set up this way -- only reason I can think of is loading, but should use the same treatment as the overheads -- and no other ground-mounts have been done yet to see if this is the pattern.
The difference here from most exit renumberings in the past is that both the highway number and the exit number are changing...so these signs are emphasizing both facts. I'm OK with the sign given that intent. I can't tell if that color is orange or yellow, but if it's yellow, I am OK with that also.
The placement of the sign seems to be a problem if it's really that close.
Using a yellow "Former Exit" sign in NJ's standard. It was when they renumbered 287 in the early 90s. Even the Parkway used it for fixing some of their exit numbers with the MUTCD signing project. My complaint is why they didn't just bolt that panel to the bottom of the BGS. Would make much more sense.
Is there an estimated date of completion yet for this project?
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 11:36:31 PM
Is there an estimated date of completion yet for this project?
AFAIK The signage is scheduled to be fully changed out by May, and the first connecting ramps will be done by the fall. As for the rest, I don't know.
No one has mentioned Pennsy's schedule as they have to do some changes there too. I know that they could keep the old numbers as it would not hurt just as IDOT uses I-270's mileage for I-70 east of I-55, and I can name other such places where a new number takes over a freeway and still keeps the scheme going and not just Turnpikes either.
Is PennDOT going to renumber PA 413, US 1, PA 232, and the New Hope & Yardley interchanges?
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2018, 07:30:31 PM
No one has mentioned Pennsy's schedule as they have to do some changes there too. I know that they could keep the old numbers as it would not hurt just as IDOT uses I-270's mileage for I-70 east of I-55, and I can name other such places where a new number takes over a freeway and still keeps the scheme going and not just Turnpikes either.
Is PennDOT going to renumber PA 413, US 1, PA 232, and the New Hope & Yardley interchanges?
Yes, since it's a new highway beginning there.
The two I-95 ramps are supposed to be open in August.
The NJDOT website on the sign project includes a schedule:
-- New Jersey Exits 2 to 8 -- January to March (by NJDOT)
-- Scudder Falls Bridge area (Pa. Exit 51 to NJ Exit 1) -- March/April (by DRJTBC)
-- Pennsylvania Exits 44 to 49 -- May to August (by PennDOT)
-- Separately, and in parallel, the New Jersey Turnpike will be changing their signs to include the I-95 routing between now and then.
-- PTC has many of their signs up already, either covered or easily changeable.
The page also discusses exit number changes.
I drove across the PA/NJ connector bridge into PA today. Just past the end of the bridge, on the right side of the road was an I-276 sign. About 2' behind it, tarped over, was another interstate sign, but this was the 2-digit width. I'm assuming it's I-95 under there.
So exciting to see history in the making. We get to see it all first hand and see what has been a problem for well over 4 decades get solved.
I only wish I lived up there to see it during the next several months. To some of you will see what many of us old timers saw back in the 1970's take place, and that is the interstate system get built or take over other highways that preexisted.
Wonder if the NJTA might depart from their usual practice and install SOUTH I-95 reassurance assemblies on (what is now) the westbound side of their Pennsylvania Turnpike connector road?
Roadman65, it might be time for you to take a Philadelphia area vacation, maybe this coming Spring. See it all in-person. LOL
I n
Quote from: SignBridge on January 28, 2018, 07:50:47 PM
Roadman65, it might be time for you to take a Philadelphia area vacation, maybe this coming Spring. See it all in-person. LOL
I really do need one. The last trip I took was well over a year ago out to Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Illinois. I am overworked and need some get a way time, but cannot swing it right now.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 28, 2018, 07:58:05 PM
I nQuote from: SignBridge on January 28, 2018, 07:50:47 PM
Roadman65, it might be time for you to take a Philadelphia area vacation, maybe this coming Spring. See it all in-person. LOL
I really do need one. The last trip I took was well over a year ago out to Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Illinois. I am overworked and need some get a way time, but cannot swing it right now.
Let me know when you can make it to town. Would be glad to take you around.
I have plans to be the first person ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first vehicle ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
You'll probably make medical history.
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first vehicle ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
You'll probably make medical history.
haha. Updated to change my wording, which was admittedly poor.
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first vehicle ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
You'll probably make medical history.
haha. Updated to change my wording, which was admittedly poor.
Nah. That was rich.
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first person ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
There is usually a lot of competition to be the first to use a new highway.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 04:26:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first vehicle ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
You'll probably make medical history.
haha. Updated to change my wording, which was admittedly poor.
Nah. That was rich.
Poor (adj): worse than is desirable, substandard, NOT
Poor (adj): lacking sufficient moneyQuote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first person ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
There is usually a lot of competition to be the first to use a new highway.
I'm OK with competition.
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 08:33:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 04:26:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first vehicle ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
You'll probably make medical history.
haha. Updated to change my wording, which was admittedly poor.
Nah. That was rich.
Poor (adj): worse than is desirable, substandard, NOT Poor (adj): lacking sufficient money
It was also rich.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 09:32:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 08:33:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 04:26:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first vehicle ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
You'll probably make medical history.
haha. Updated to change my wording, which was admittedly poor.
Nah. That was rich.
Poor (adj): worse than is desirable, substandard, NOT Poor (adj): lacking sufficient money
It was also rich.
How so?
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 09:45:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 09:32:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 08:33:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 04:26:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first vehicle ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
You'll probably make medical history.
haha. Updated to change my wording, which was admittedly poor.
Nah. That was rich.
Poor (adj): worse than is desirable, substandard, NOT Poor (adj): lacking sufficient money
It was also rich.
How so?
When you say you're going to be the first car down the road, that's rich.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 09:45:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 09:32:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 08:33:11 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 04:26:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 03:59:16 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2018, 03:30:25 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
I have plans to be the first vehicle ever to travel I-95 from Philly to New York :bigass:
You'll probably make medical history.
haha. Updated to change my wording, which was admittedly poor.
Nah. That was rich.
Poor (adj): worse than is desirable, substandard, NOT Poor (adj): lacking sufficient money
It was also rich.
How so?
When you say you're going to be the first car down the road, that's rich.
I'm still lost. But, I updated my post to say "person", so, whatever.
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 10:02:26 PM
When you say you're going to be the first car down the road, that's rich.
I'm still lost. But, I updated my post to say "person", so, whatever.
"That's rich" is old slang for "yeah, good luck with that, that's funny".
Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2018, 10:21:19 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 10:02:26 PM
When you say you're going to be the first car down the road, that's rich.
I'm still lost. But, I updated my post to say "person", so, whatever.
"That's rich" is old slang for "yeah, good luck with that, that's funny".
Learn something new every day. Of course, the ;bigass; smiley should have made it obvious that I wasn't serious anyways.
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 10:35:47 PM
Of course, the ;bigass; smiley should have made it obvious that I'm a butt.
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 10:35:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2018, 10:21:19 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 29, 2018, 10:06:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 10:02:26 PM
When you say you're going to be the first car down the road, that's rich.
I'm still lost. But, I updated my post to say "person", so, whatever.
"That's rich" is old slang for "yeah, good luck with that, that's funny".
Learn something new every day. Of course, the ;bigass; smiley should have made it obvious that I wasn't serious anyways.
That's rich
1. Ironic, or amusingly hypocritical accusation.
An accusation that just does not work, but applies to the one accusing.
Or
2. Something false that is so outrageously off the mark, it's ridiculous or preposterous.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=That%27s%20rich
Quote from: NE2 on January 29, 2018, 11:10:17 PM
Of course, the putting words in people's mouths should have made it obvious that I'm a butt.
So, knowing you're just j/k'ing and all that, usually when there's a 'first person', that person is well known to the authority or government. And it's usually a short drive, like going thru a toll booth or crossing a bridge.
Driving from Philly to NYC? Good luck being the absolute fastest person out there in that whole stretch!
Of course the real feat to accomplish is to get to the Maine/New Brunswick border or Miami a little before the interchange opens and the renumberings are complete to be the first to drive the whole thing end to end.
Edit: not me!
Quote from: Jim on January 30, 2018, 10:03:20 AM
Of course the real feat to accomplish is to get to the Maine/New Brunswick border or Miami a little before the interchange opens and the renumberings are complete to be the first to drive the whole thing end to end.
Edit: not me!
I could leave for Miami now, drive I-95 to Philly, and then camp out at the new entrance for a few months until it opens :sombrero:
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any situations where the first car through at the opening of a major freeway project was not reserved for VIPs. I-95/Turnpike is a multi-phase project, but given that the final phases are not (yet?) funded, I predict that an opening ceremony will be staged at the end of the current phase that involves the governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey being the first through, possibly in a classic car dating from completion of original I-95 through the interchange area.
Why would the NJ governor be there? NJ is not involved in the project (at least not until the twinning of the Turnpike bridge if that ever happens). Sure, they are renumbering some exits, but the roads are not changing.
The NJ governor would be there because (1) a road opening is always good publicity and (2) part of the missing length of I-95 is in NJ.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 30, 2018, 11:25:16 AM
The NJ governor would be there because (1) a road opening is always good publicity and (2) part of the missing length of I-95 is in NJ.
You know how they say any news is good news?
This is NJ. Anytime the governor appears, 90% of the people will complain about it. In this case, it'll have a lot to do with the fact that he's not in NJ. The Somerset Freeway was cancelled 30 years ago. Unlike some from out of state that see this missing link in NJ as a huge inconvenience and major black eye on NJ, most New Jerseyians put it out of mind, out of sight a long time ago. We have several other highways that are a higher priority in some people's eyes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2018, 11:40:17 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 30, 2018, 11:25:16 AM
The NJ governor would be there because (1) a road opening is always good publicity and (2) part of the missing length of I-95 is in NJ.
You know how they say any news is good news?
This is NJ. Anytime the governor appears, 90% of the people will complain about it. In this case, it'll have a lot to do with the fact that he's not in NJ. The Somerset Freeway was cancelled 30 years ago. Unlike some from out of state that see this missing link in NJ as a huge inconvenience and major black eye on NJ, most New Jerseyians put it out of mind, out of sight a long time ago. We have several other highways that are a higher priority in some people's eyes.
I do feel like it's a much bigger deal for PA in that Philly (and other Eastern PA points south of the PA Turnpike) gets a freeway link to NYC. For NJ it's just a local improvement for those who live around Exit 6 and commute to Philly.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 30, 2018, 11:55:53 AM
I do feel like it's a much bigger deal for PA in that Philly (and other Eastern PA points south of the PA Turnpike) gets a freeway link to NYC. For NJ it's just a local improvement for those who live around Exit 6 and commute to Philly.
I disagree.
There are many distribution centers along the N.J. Turnpike between Exits 6 and 10. Most of them presumably serve customers in North Jersey and New York City, and perhaps South Jersey along the Turnpike and even the Garden State Parkway (since trucks are allowed south of I-195).
Now with the completion of I-95 in Brisol, some of those businesses may take advantage of opportunities along I-95 south of the new interchange.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2018, 01:08:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 30, 2018, 11:55:53 AM
I do feel like it's a much bigger deal for PA in that Philly (and other Eastern PA points south of the PA Turnpike) gets a freeway link to NYC. For NJ it's just a local improvement for those who live around Exit 6 and commute to Philly.
I disagree.
There are many distribution centers along the N.J. Turnpike between Exits 6 and 10. Most of them presumably serve customers in North Jersey and New York City, and perhaps South Jersey along the Turnpike and even the Garden State Parkway (since trucks are allowed south of I-195).
Now with the completion of I-95 in Brisol, some of those businesses may take advantage of opportunities along I-95 south of the new interchange.
While what you say is true, that doesn't really negate his points. It's still a
much bigger deal for PA.
We should really see if people will actually use this over the straight through, but more direct tolled turnpike after opening. Remember, some will not want to deal with the Philly traffic, then others will listen to that damned GPS and do whatever it tells them to do as many if that darn device sent them to Harrisburg and then south to get to Baltimore from NYC would have no clue that they went indirectly between those two points.
As far as commerce goes, some may open up trade, but it will be interesting to see it happen when it happens.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 08:17:26 PM
We should really see if people will actually use this over the straight through, but more direct tolled turnpike after opening. Remember, some will not want to deal with the Philly traffic, then others will listen to that damned GPS and do whatever it tells them to do
I wouldn't expect it to be used for Baltimore - NYC traffic. It's not meant to be an alternate to the NJ turnpike so much as just complete I-95 and provide for Philly/local traffic.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 08:17:26 PM
Remember, some will not want to deal with the Philly traffic, then others will listen to that damned GPS and do whatever it tells them to do...
The "damned GPS" will probably tell them to stay on the NJ Turnpike since it's a slightly shorter through route with generally lower travel time. GPSes don't care about route numbers–people do.
If anything, it will be people blindly following I-95 shields who will take the new route through Philadelphia. These are the same people who follow I-95 through Wilmington even though it's marked
LOCAL TRAFFIC.
I think it is kind of amusing that of the several elements in my prediction (first car through, classic car, Pennsylvania governor, NJ governor), only the presence of the NJ governor is being queried.
In any case, it is falsifiable--we will just have to see what happens when the current phase is finished. One thing that might overturn it is the death of a worker in a construction-related accident. In opening brochures I have seen, the names of workers thus killed have been printed at the front top, enclosed in a thick black border, ahead of the names of engineers, contractors, and politicians involved in the project.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 30, 2018, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 08:17:26 PM
Remember, some will not want to deal with the Philly traffic, then others will listen to that damned GPS and do whatever it tells them to do...
The "damned GPS" will probably tell them to stay on the NJ Turnpike since it's a slightly shorter through route with generally lower travel time. GPSes don't care about route numbers–people do.
If anything, it will be people blindly following I-95 shields who will take the new route through Philadelphia. These are the same people who follow I-95 through Wilmington even though it's marked LOCAL TRAFFIC.
I like following I-95 through Wilmington during off hours. It's about the same time and nicer scenery than 495.
So to sum up this project:
1: I-95 will exit itself twice to complete I-95 on maps.
2: 2 3dis and a state highway will be the major through route on their respected exits.
3: I-295 becomes a confusing candy cane.
4: PA will finish an almost 40 year project to solve an issue from NJ
5: I am betting the DMB and this interchange will be the same price.
Wouldn't a faster, cheaper, simpler option be
1: Renumber all the NJTP as I-95
2: De-toll NJTP and roll it over to NJDoT
3: Renumber I-95 from Newport,DE to Lawrence,NJ as I-895?
Quote from: Perfxion on January 31, 2018, 10:31:21 AM
...
5: I am betting the DMB and this interchange will be the same price.
The DMB is $4; the I-95 routing is $5 (EZ Pass) or $6.75 (Toll-by-Plate) plus whatever toll you paid on the NJ Turnpike to get there.
QuoteWouldn't a faster, cheaper, simpler option be
1: Renumber all the NJTP as I-95
2: De-toll NJTP and roll it over to NJDoT
3: Renumber I-95 from Newport,DE to Lawrence,NJ as I-895?
Well, there's a lot of faster and cheaper and simpler solutions for any project. The cheapest and simplest, normally, is to do nothing. The fastest could've been done 35 years ago. Not sure what de-tolling the NJ Turnpike has to do with it being or not being I-95.
It's NJDOT, not NJDoT.
I-XX numbers are designed to go thru cities, not around cities. Both Wilmington and Philadelphia would not appreciate being downgraded to 3 di statuses.
^ These are all issues that have been discussed countless times in this thread and elsewhere.
Much of NY-DC traffic already uses the NJ Turnpike straight through to Delaware. So to a degree, renumbering it as I-95 wouldn't really change much.
As to the issue of why not route it via a straight NJ route, this is a debate you could have with any number of roads in any number of places. If I-95 is the route from NYC to Boston, why does it go the long way through Providence rather than the shorter route of I-95, I-91, I-84, and I-90? Because I-95 wasn't planned solely to be the NYC/BOS quick route, it was planned as the route connecting major cities of the East Coast–of which Providence is one. Likewise, I-95 in the Mid Atlantic isn't strictly the NYC/DC quick route, it's the NYC to Trenton to Philadelphia to Wilmington to Baltimore to Washington route.
I don't see how de-tolling the NJ Turnpike is even relevant considering the number of toll facilities that are integrated into Interstate system (PA Turnpike, NY Thruway, Masspike, etc.). In any event, I suspect any proposal to dissolve the NJTA would be a complete non-starter.
Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2018, 12:25:18 AMI like following I-95 through Wilmington during off hours. It's about the same time and nicer scenery than 495.
When I was passing through Wilmington relatively frequently 20 years ago as part of summer weekend daytrips out of suburban Maryland, I never felt it made much sense to detour onto I-495. Northbound it involved exiting twice versus once, and southbound it involved exiting once versus not at all. Traffic felt about as bad on I-495 as on I-95 and I think that might have had something to do with I-495 being a port access road, though at the time I did not have a formalized understanding of the effect eighteen-wheelers have on LOS.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 11:02:12 AM
When I was passing through Wilmington relatively frequently 20 years ago as part of summer weekend daytrips out of suburban Maryland, I never felt it made much sense to detour onto I-495. Northbound it involved exiting twice versus once, and southbound it involved exiting once versus not at all. Traffic felt about as bad on I-495 as on I-95 and I think that might have had something to do with I-495 being a port access road, though at the time I did not have a formalized understanding of the effect eighteen-wheelers have on LOS.
I remember much the same from 20 years ago. Traffic caught up. In my recent experiences, going from the Philly area to south of Wilmington on I-95 during peak travel times is generally far heavier than I-495.
Quote from: Chris19001 on January 31, 2018, 01:01:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 11:02:12 AM
When I was passing through Wilmington relatively frequently 20 years ago as part of summer weekend daytrips out of suburban Maryland, I never felt it made much sense to detour onto I-495. Northbound it involved exiting twice versus once, and southbound it involved exiting once versus not at all. Traffic felt about as bad on I-495 as on I-95 and I think that might have had something to do with I-495 being a port access road, though at the time I did not have a formalized understanding of the effect eighteen-wheelers have on LOS.
I remember much the same from 20 years ago. Traffic caught up. In my recent experiences, going from the Philly area to south of Wilmington on I-95 during peak travel times is generally far heavier than I-495.
Not to mention the fact that I-495 is 6-lanes for most of the way w/a posted speed limit of 65 vs. I-95 being only 4-lanes through Wilmington and a (FWIW) posted speed limit of 55.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 31, 2018, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: Chris19001 on January 31, 2018, 01:01:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 11:02:12 AM
When I was passing through Wilmington relatively frequently 20 years ago as part of summer weekend daytrips out of suburban Maryland, I never felt it made much sense to detour onto I-495. Northbound it involved exiting twice versus once, and southbound it involved exiting once versus not at all. Traffic felt about as bad on I-495 as on I-95 and I think that might have had something to do with I-495 being a port access road, though at the time I did not have a formalized understanding of the effect eighteen-wheelers have on LOS.
I remember much the same from 20 years ago. Traffic caught up. In my recent experiences, going from the Philly area to south of Wilmington on I-95 during peak travel times is generally far heavier than I-495.
Not to mention the fact that I-495 is 6-lanes for most of the way w/a posted speed limit of 65 vs. I-95 being only 4-lanes through Wilmington and a (FWIW) posted speed limit of 55.
The six lanes, lower traffic volume, and higher speed limit (as well as signage, for what
that's worth) were all factors that swayed us towards using I-495 on our last two Philly>Maryland trips. I-95 has a much more cramped, urban feel through Wilmington, making it a more interesting, but rarely faster, drive.
1: I am for not adding toll roads to the interstate system. If Fed dollars were used, get rid of the tolls. I would say the same about PA/MA/OK turnpikes, NY Thruway, etc.
2: One of (the many) reasons for the canceled Somerset was a prevention of shunpiking.
3: Without the Somerset or the original plan to the western spur, it is useless for most to go 295 or 95 north to NYC. Send traffic the simplest way from big city to big city.
4: Even when this is complete, keep the signs point NJTP to NYC. 95 to Philly.
Quote from: Perfxion on January 31, 2018, 01:38:50 PM
3: Without the Somerset or the original plan to the western spur, it is useless for most to go 295 or 95 north to NYC. Send traffic the simplest way from big city to big city.
Both routes parallel the NJ Turnpike, with easy, interstate connections. It's far from useless. And if there's an issue/congestion on any route, there's 2 other possibilities to get around it.
Quote from: Perfxion on January 31, 2018, 01:38:50 PM
2: One of (the many) reasons for the canceled Somerset was a prevention of shunpiking.
Then why did they allow I-295 and I-195 to be built and provide a toll-free alternative to the southern half of the Turnpike?
Quote from: briantroutman on January 31, 2018, 10:46:05 AM
^ These are all issues that have been discussed countless times in this thread and elsewhere.
Much of NY-DC traffic already uses the NJ Turnpike straight through to Delaware. So to a degree, renumbering it as I-95 wouldn’t really change much.
As to the issue of why not route it via a straight NJ route, this is a debate you could have with any number of roads in any number of places. If I-95 is the route from NYC to Boston, why does it go the long way through Providence rather than the shorter route of I-95, I-91, I-84, and I-90? Because I-95 wasn’t planned solely to be the NYC/BOS quick route, it was planned as the route connecting major cities of the East Coast—of which Providence is one. Likewise, I-95 in the Mid Atlantic isn’t strictly the NYC/DC quick route, it’s the NYC to Trenton to Philadelphia to Wilmington to Baltimore to Washington route.
I don’t see how de-tolling the NJ Turnpike is even relevant considering the number of toll facilities that are integrated into Interstate system (PA Turnpike, NY Thruway, Masspike, etc.). In any event, I suspect any proposal to dissolve the NJTA would be a complete non-starter.
Except Trenton is out of luck when it comes to going to NYC
I-95 bypasses Washington, DC entirely
I-95 never enters Boston either, though it does come a lot closer than it does to DC or Trenton.
So there is precedent to not run I-95 through Philadelphia. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it could be.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 31, 2018, 03:44:30 PM
Except Trenton is out of luck when it comes to going to NYC
I-95 bypasses Washington, DC entirely
I-95 never enters Boston either, though it does come a lot closer than it does to DC or Trenton.
So there is precedent to not run I-95 through Philadelphia. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it could be.
Washington, DC and Boston had approved routes thru the center of the city for I-95. Only after they were canceled due to local opposition was I-95 routed onto the beltways.
Pennsylvania and Philadelphia have gotten their share of criticism from me in the past, but I will give them credit for building I-95 on the originally planned routing thru the center of the city.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 31, 2018, 03:44:30 PM
Except Trenton is out of luck when it comes to going to NYC
I-95 bypasses Washington, DC entirely
I-95 never enters Boston either, though it does come a lot closer than it does to DC or Trenton.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think those other examples are truly equivalent to the NJ Turnpike and its relationship to Philadelphia.
Regardless of the technicalities of municipal borders (I-95 actually does enter DC on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge), I-95 as currently routed–even though it's on beltways in Washington and Boston–still provides much better and more direct service to those two cities than the NJ Turnpike does to Philadelphia. The one possible direct freeway-freeway connection (NJTP to NJ 42/I-76) doesn't exist. All other routings from the NJ Turnpike to Philadelphia require either exiting onto traffic-clogged commercial strips or traveling literally dozens of miles on parallel freeways.
Contrast that with the multiple radial freeway connections that put the I-95 beltways in Washington and Boston that within a half-dozen miles on all-freeway routes.
Trenton will still have good connections to I-95 via old I-95, US 1, and I-195 even after the re-routing.
Philadelphia probably only "allowed" I-95 to be built due to its deserved inferiority complex. They wanted to have a reason for out of towners to come through their city. They stopped other freeways from being built, viz. The Crosstown Expressway, extrending the 309 Expressway to the Betsy Ross Bridge, and completing the Woodhaven Road Expressway, that would have helped local motorists. They delayed the Vine Street Expressway for decades. And then there is their I-676 "Breezewood". They couldn't even build the simple ramp connecting the Penrose Avenue Bridge to 26th Stret.
There is not much credit deserved by that city.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 31, 2018, 05:15:10 PM
Philadelphia probably only "allowed" I-95 to be built due to its deserved inferiority complex. They wanted to have a reason for out of towners to come through their city. They stopped other freeways from being built, viz. The Crosstown Expressway, extrending the 309 Expressway to the Betsy Ross Bridge, and completing the Woodhaven Road Expressway, that would have helped local motorists. They delayed the Vine Street Expressway for decades. And then there is their I-676 "Breezewood". They couldn't even build the simple ramp connecting the Penrose Avenue Bridge to 26th Stret.
There is not much credit deserved by that city.
why didn't they build 676 one block north to avoid the damn breezewood all together?
Quote from: briantroutman on January 31, 2018, 04:53:10 PM
The one possible direct freeway-freeway connection (NJTP to NJ 42/I-76) doesn't exist. All other routings from the NJ Turnpike to Philadelphia require either exiting onto traffic-clogged commercial strips or traveling literally dozens of miles on parallel freeways.
The ironic thing about this is that it results in a cheaper ride from the south or north. It's probably the main reason why the interchange hasn't been demanded yet.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 31, 2018, 05:15:10 PM
Philadelphia probably only "allowed" I-95 to be built due to its deserved inferiority complex. They wanted to have a reason for out of towners to come through their city. They stopped other freeways from being built, viz. The Crosstown Expressway, extrending the 309 Expressway to the Betsy Ross Bridge, and completing the Woodhaven Road Expressway, that would have helped local motorists. They delayed the Vine Street Expressway for decades. And then there is their I-676 "Breezewood". They couldn't even build the simple ramp connecting the Penrose Avenue Bridge to 26th Street.
There is not much credit deserved by that city.
The Delaware Expressway concept originated in the 1930s, was included in the approved Interstate system in 1945, and the turnpike commission even considered building it as a tollroad in the 1950s. It was always considered to be a very important highway, far more important than the others you listed. Philadelphia supported it for the same reason that nearly every other major city supported and built urban Interstate highways.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 12:23:14 AM
I think it is kind of amusing that of the several elements in my prediction (first car through, classic car, Pennsylvania governor, NJ governor), only the presence of the NJ governor is being queried.
In any case, it is falsifiable--we will just have to see what happens when the current phase is finished. One thing that might overturn it is the death of a worker in a construction-related accident. In opening brochures I have seen, the names of workers thus killed have been printed at the front top, enclosed in a thick black border, ahead of the names of engineers, contractors, and politicians involved in the project.
Do you have links to those brochures (pdf's)?
ixnay
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 31, 2018, 05:15:10 PM
Philadelphia probably only "allowed" I-95 to be built due to its deserved inferiority complex. They wanted to have a reason for out of towners to come through their city. They stopped other freeways from being built, viz. The Crosstown Expressway, extrending the 309 Expressway to the Betsy Ross Bridge, and completing the Woodhaven Road Expressway, that would have helped local motorists. They delayed the Vine Street Expressway for decades. And then there is their I-676 "Breezewood". They couldn't even build the simple ramp connecting the Penrose Avenue Bridge to 26th Stret.
There is not much credit deserved by that city.
309 was never supposed to end at the Betsy Ross Bridge, it was planned to meet the Girard Avenue Expressway right before I-95. The Pulaski Expressway would've extended from the bridge and gone out to end at the intersection of Cheltenham Ave, Crescentville Rd, and the Tookany Creek Pkwy. I did see one diagram of the interchange with I-95, however, that included "<-- To Conshohocken" for the Pulaski Expressway, so who knows what they were considering. I haven't seen a map indicating that, though.
And the Vine Street Expressway was built where it was because Vine Street was already a very wide boulevard, and the original section west of Broad Street was built in the late '50s. Building it one block north was not an option. Cost was also a huge factor, not just people fighting it. The original design visible here (http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I676.html) didn't take much more space than the current one and didn't take any of Franklin Square.
^^Another cancelled expressway was the so-called 12-Mile Loop that would've ran from I-95 (at the Academy Road interchange) to I-476 (near or at the I-76/PA 23 interchange). That road, in tandem with I-276/PA Turnpike, would've been similar to what I-295 in NJ is with respect to the NJ Turnpike (local free highway/toll road for through and/or long-distance traffic.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 31, 2018, 05:15:10 PM
Philadelphia probably only "allowed" I-95 to be built due to its deserved inferiority complex.
"Deserved"? Why was it deserved?
ixnay
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2018, 11:02:12 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2018, 12:25:18 AMI like following I-95 through Wilmington during off hours. It's about the same time and nicer scenery than 495.
When I was passing through Wilmington relatively frequently 20 years ago as part of summer weekend daytrips out of suburban Maryland, I never felt it made much sense to detour onto I-495. Northbound it involved exiting twice versus once, and southbound it involved exiting once versus not at all.
Heading northbound, IMO rejoining 95 from 495 at the PA line feels like merging, not exiting. Same southbound.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on February 01, 2018, 08:25:30 AMDo you have links to those brochures (pdf's)?
Regrettably, no. I first became aware of that convention when I was visiting the main library at the University of Vienna and ran across an opening brochure for a length of Austrian
Autobahn that was built in the late 1960's or early 1970's. I vaguely remember photos of lakeside routing, so it might have been the A1 (which runs past the Attersee and Mondsee) or A2 (runs past the Wörthersee west of Klagenfurt). I failed to take a camera copy. I rather doubt it has been posted online, but if it has been and I find it, I will post again to supply a link.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 01, 2018, 08:49:40 AMI did see one diagram of the interchange with I-95, however, that included "<-- To Conshohocken" for the Pulaski Expressway, so who knows what they were considering.
That's an easy one. The Pulaski was going to be the easternmost portion of the center city bypass or six mile loop. Traffic wishing to go to points west on I-76 could use the Pulaski (PA-90) to the Roosevelt Expressway (US1) to Westbound I-76. It was figured that traffic using the Betsy Ross may not want to go through center city's traffic issues in order to make points west. You'd avoid the lower Delaware Expressway, lower Schuylkill expressway, and the Vine entirely. Conshohocken was the first good sized town to the west after the city limits on I-76.
I still think this would be a good idea, but that ship has sailed.
Quote from: Perfxion on January 31, 2018, 01:38:50 PM3: Without the Somerset or the original plan to the western spur, it is useless for most to go 295 or 95 north to NYC. Send traffic the simplest way from big city to big city.
Today I learned that Philadelphia is not a big city.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 31, 2018, 10:46:05 AM
^ These are all issues that have been discussed countless times in this thread and elsewhere.
Much of NY-DC traffic already uses the NJ Turnpike straight through to Delaware. So to a degree, renumbering it as I-95 wouldn't really change much.
As to the issue of why not route it via a straight NJ route, this is a debate you could have with any number of roads in any number of places. If I-95 is the route from NYC to Boston, why does it go the long way through Providence rather than the shorter route of I-95, I-91, I-84, and I-90? Because I-95 wasn't planned solely to be the NYC/BOS quick route, it was planned as the route connecting major cities of the East Coast–of which Providence is one. Likewise, I-95 in the Mid Atlantic isn't strictly the NYC/DC quick route, it's the NYC to Trenton to Philadelphia to Wilmington to Baltimore to Washington route.
I don't see how de-tolling the NJ Turnpike is even relevant considering the number of toll facilities that are integrated into Interstate system (PA Turnpike, NY Thruway, Masspike, etc.). In any event, I suspect any proposal to dissolve the NJTA would be a complete non-starter.
True. Just like US 1, though to be the eastermost N-S odd numbered route, is not due to it being a major highway to go through three state capitals along its way. The more logical would have had it go down US 130 from North Brunswick, NJ (as the ferry on US 9 opened in 1964), then cross into Delaware on the former Pennsville- New Castle Ferry and down US 13 to Chesapeake, VA where it would use US 17 all the way to Jacksonville and then pick up itself there. Basically using the Coastal Highway that was designated using those three US routes in the day.
I-95 is not to be the quick route, which supports why Philly needs I-95 to complete the direct connection of all the major cities along the coast. I am only guessing that Raleigh, NC and Columbia, SC were not considered big as I-95 followed US 301 mostly south of Petersburg, VA and not stayed with US 1. However, Savanah, GA was big enough to have I-95 deviate from US 301 at Santee, SC and follow both US 15 and US 17 until it reaches US 1 again in Jacksonville.
Quote from: Chris19001 on February 01, 2018, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 01, 2018, 08:49:40 AMI did see one diagram of the interchange with I-95, however, that included "<-- To Conshohocken" for the Pulaski Expressway, so who knows what they were considering.
That's an easy one. The Pulaski was going to be the easternmost portion of the center city bypass or six mile loop. Traffic wishing to go to points west on I-76 could use the Pulaski (PA-90) to the Roosevelt Expressway (US1) to Westbound I-76. It was figured that traffic using the Betsy Ross may not want to go through center city's traffic issues in order to make points west. You'd avoid the lower Delaware Expressway, lower Schuylkill expressway, and the Vine entirely. Conshohocken was the first good sized town to the west after the city limits on I-76.
I still think this would be a good idea, but that ship has sailed.
The Pulaski Highway fell victim to PennDOT's massive budget cuts in the late 1970s. That and the massive environmental impacts to the Tacony Creek valley and the residential neighborhoods along the route.
In the end it won't matter. The NJ Turnpike will be using Camden as their southbound control city after the interchange is complete anyway. With the exception of northbound I-95 in Delaware and the soon to be re-designated stub in NJ, Philadelphia doesn't appear as a control city anywhere else on the road, just a scant few mentions on mileage signs.
So does this warrant a Philly Roadmeet?
Otherwise, let the haters hate. :rolleyes: :ded: :poke:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20060514234223im_/http://www.roadfan.com:80/sanphlbd.jpg)
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 01, 2018, 09:56:21 PM
So does this warrant a Philly Roadmeet?
Otherwise, let the haters hate. :rolleyes: :ded: :poke:
[... photo snipped ...]
As I have said before, Philadelphians in general seem to have a love-hate relationship with their city.
Quote from: Beltway on February 01, 2018, 09:59:17 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on February 01, 2018, 09:56:21 PM
So does this warrant a Philly Roadmeet?
Otherwise, let the haters hate. :rolleyes: :ded: :poke:
[... photo snipped ...]
As I have said before, Philadelphians in general seem to have a love-hate relationship with their city.
I want to say that has more to do with a universal exodus from many cities into the suburbs around that time period.
A couple of new photos from the I-95 Sign Change contract in New Jersey (taken today, 2/2/18).
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4669/26173094998_5ee695290b_b.jpg)(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4669/39147978875_c8a463da00_b.jpg)
(Top) I-295 no longer ends here. Surprised the panel that was next to the pullthrough was not replaced with an advance guide sign for Princeton Pike. The first one in this direction is the 1/4-mile ground panel downstream.
(Bottom) The old/new exit panel that I showed last week has been moved further away from the guide sign. I guess enough of us spoke up . . .
Also noteworthy is that reference markers have been installed, continuing from the 67.6 marker that had been the last one for I-295 until now. I did not go all the way to the bridge to see if they have been put in for the full length. The smaller ones marking I-95 mileposts are still there, but some are not overly legible any more.
It was probably the NJDOT Supervisor for the project that told them to move the sign, as they are supposed to go out and check on the contractor's work. Still, as shown in the second picture, there does tend to be a tendency for too much signage to be located too close together. Even if it's all still visible, a driver is still trying to keep an eye on the road while keeping an eye out for any signage that they may need to take note of.
I would imagine the advanced sign will be replaced shortly.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2018, 03:32:15 PM
I would imagine the advanced sign will be replaced shortly.
to clarify, the previous panel in that location was "BEGIN 95 SOUTH / Philadelphia" - ideally, a new advance sign for the Princeton Pike exits should be installed in that location.
^^ . . . and, long ago, it probably was an advance sign for Princeton Pike. In the photo, the two taller supports where the sign used to be may have supported an exit tab at that time.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 01, 2018, 04:35:31 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 31, 2018, 10:46:05 AM
I don't see how de-tolling the NJ Turnpike is even relevant considering the number of toll facilities that are integrated into Interstate system (PA Turnpike, NY Thruway, Masspike, etc.). In any event, I suspect any proposal to dissolve the NJTA would be a complete non-starter.
True. Just like US 1, though to be the eastermost N-S odd numbered route, is not due to it being a major highway to go through three state capitals along its way. The more logical would have had it go down US 130 from North Brunswick, NJ (as the ferry on US 9 opened in 1964), then cross into Delaware on the former Pennsville- New Castle Ferry and down US 13 to Chesapeake, VA where it would use US 17 all the way to Jacksonville and then pick up itself there. Basically using the Coastal Highway that was designated using those three US routes in the day.
U.S. 1 was routed the way that it runs to this day between Jacksonville, Florida and Trenton, New Jersey so that it would roughly follow the Fall Line (Wikipedia calls it the Atlantic Seaboard fall line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Seaboard_fall_line)).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 02, 2018, 05:25:49 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 01, 2018, 04:35:31 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 31, 2018, 10:46:05 AM
I don't see how de-tolling the NJ Turnpike is even relevant considering the number of toll facilities that are integrated into Interstate system (PA Turnpike, NY Thruway, Masspike, etc.). In any event, I suspect any proposal to dissolve the NJTA would be a complete non-starter.
True. Just like US 1, though to be the eastermost N-S odd numbered route, is not due to it being a major highway to go through three state capitals along its way. The more logical would have had it go down US 130 from North Brunswick, NJ (as the ferry on US 9 opened in 1964), then cross into Delaware on the former Pennsville- New Castle Ferry and down US 13 to Chesapeake, VA where it would use US 17 all the way to Jacksonville and then pick up itself there. Basically using the Coastal Highway that was designated using those three US routes in the day.
U.S. 1 was routed the way that it runs to this day between Jacksonville, Florida and Trenton, New Jersey so that it would roughly follow the Fall Line (Wikipedia calls it the Atlantic Seaboard fall line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Seaboard_fall_line)).
Not to get too far afield, but then north of Trenton it should take NJ 31 to US 202 to Bangor...
Let us know when the "95 SOUTH/Penna" sign at the Federal City Road exit is replaced. (or has it?) It was still there in Sept. 2017.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2872034,-74.7560982,3a,75y,239.68h,73.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLTV8YPxp5qiC1r6kYbWTIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
ixnay
Quote from: akotchi on February 02, 2018, 04:31:57 PM
^^ . . . and, long ago, it probably was an advance sign for Princeton Pike. In the photo, the two taller supports where the sign used to be may have supported an exit tab at that time.
As long as I remember it always was the way it was. Yes there was an exit tab that was blank as when it first was installed someone in NJDOT did intend for it to be an advanced sign for Princeton Pike.
BTW, I am surprised it shows I-295 going NB from US 1 and not WB.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 03, 2018, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: akotchi on February 02, 2018, 04:31:57 PM
^^ . . . and, long ago, it probably was an advance sign for Princeton Pike. In the photo, the two taller supports where the sign used to be may have supported an exit tab at that time.
As long as I remember it always was the way it was. Yes there was an exit tab that was blank as when it first was installed someone in NJDOT did intend for it to be an advanced sign for Princeton Pike.
BTW, I am surprised it shows I-295 going NB from US 1 and not WB.
It's 295 North throughout NJ. Only at the NJ/PA State Line will it change from 295 North to 295 West.
I'm surprised they're not including control cities on the new pullthrus. I know that 295 often omits them in general, but this is a chance to fix that.
Something is going on in the next week or two on I-95 North in the interchange area. Saw a VMS yesterday warning the road will be closed overnight for several nights in a row between PA 413 and US 1 Business.
Quote from: MASTERNC on February 04, 2018, 02:27:29 PM
Something is going on in the next week or two on I-95 North in the interchange area. Saw a VMS yesterday warning the road will be closed overnight for several nights in a row between PA 413 and US 1 Business.
Hanging steel bridge stringers perhaps?
Quote from: bzakharin on February 03, 2018, 10:54:12 PM
I'm surprised they're not including control cities on the new pullthrus. I know that 295 often omits them in general, but this is a chance to fix that.
You think that Philly would be used like on US 1. Or even include that I-295 S Bound (N Bound) connects eventually to I-95 S Bound.
As far as omitting them on this route, down in Camden Countythey do have them using both the Del. Mem. Br. and Delaware from as far north as Cherry Hill. Then on the I-295/ US 130 combo going NB they use Westville and Camden in Gloucester County. Yes up here in Mercer and most of Burlington they are omitted on the pull through signs in favor of a small green shield only panel.
I don't think anyone mentioned, but apparently, I-195 will have some exits renumbered as well. Exits 60A and 60B will become 1A and 1B respectively. The existing 1A and 1B will become 1C and 1D. Not sure why this is part of the current renumbering, nor why they're doing it at all. I mean sure it was strange to use 295's exit numbers there, but changing them now will just lead to more confusion.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 06, 2018, 01:39:11 PM
I don't think anyone mentioned, but apparently, I-195 will have some exits renumbered as well. Exits 60A and 60B will become 1A and 1B respectively. The existing 1A and 1B will become 1C and 1D. Not sure why this is part of the current renumbering, nor why they're doing it at all. I mean sure it was strange to use 295's exit numbers there, but changing them now will just lead to more confusion.
I know it was mentioned at some point somewhere, because I mentioned all they really needed to do was remove the "6" from 60 and you would have Exits 0A & 0B!
I think it's a smart move, and it does appear this acknowledges the mistake or stupidity when they gave the 295 ramps from Rt. 29/I-195 an Exit 60 at this location.
^^ There are some I-295 guide signs on this section of I-195 that still have 95 shields on them (I-195 Exit "60B") -- "I-295 North to U.S. 1/I-95" is the message in question. While they are there (I guess), that exit renumbering is being done while the BGS' are changed to ones without I-95 shields.
Agreed that this exit renumbering should be done anyway.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 06, 2018, 01:39:11 PM
I don't think anyone mentioned, but apparently, I-195 will have some exits renumbered as well. Exits 60A and 60B will become 1A and 1B respectively. The existing 1A and 1B will become 1C and 1D. Not sure why this is part of the current renumbering, nor why they're doing it at all. I mean sure it was strange to use 295's exit numbers there, but changing them now will just lead to more confusion.
So they're numbering them as they should have been numbered when that segment of highway was completed 20 something years ago? Dilly dilly!
Quote from: bzakharin on February 06, 2018, 01:39:11 PM
I don't think anyone mentioned, but apparently, I-195 will have some exits renumbered as well. Exits 60A and 60B will become 1A and 1B respectively. The existing 1A and 1B will become 1C and 1D. Not sure why this is part of the current renumbering, nor why they're doing it at all. I mean sure it was strange to use 295's exit numbers there, but changing them now will just lead to more confusion.
I have seen something like this along I-80 in Nebraska. I-76, I-180, I-680 and I-480 all end at I-80, and use the exit numbers based on the I-80 mileposts at their ends.
I personally think not having an exit number there would have made the most sense. Treat it as an exit off of NJ 29 which doesn't use numbers. Like the exit for the NJ Turnpike from I-287. Of course they couldn't do that after the fact (Exit nothing formerly exit 60?). The second most logical, and still doable would have been Exit 0. For whatever reason NJ doesn't like those (GSP excluded). But now that it's exit 60, why change it now? MM 60 on 295 is still there. 195 is not being changed. There will be confusion which is completely avoidable.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 06, 2018, 04:03:10 PM
I personally think not having an exit number there would have made the most sense. Treat it as an exit off of NJ 29 which doesn't use numbers. Like the exit for the NJ Turnpike from I-287. Of course they couldn't do that after the fact (Exit nothing formerly exit 60?). The second most logical, and still doable would have been Exit 0. For whatever reason NJ doesn't like those (GSP excluded). But now that it's exit 60, why change it now? MM 60 on 295 is still there. 195 is not being changed. There will be confusion which is completely avoidable.
Ugh unnumbered exits at the end of roads bother me. It's like imagine there were a hundred steps leading to a pot of gold. Every step has a number on it. At the top, I wouldn't want it to just be a pot of gold. I want it to be a pot of gold on top of an inscribed #100.
I'm the opposite: I find numbered exits at the ends of roads to be weird. I can count on one hand the number of highways that have numbered termini in NY (excluding stub endings and the "exits 1 - X" and "exits Y - 61" signs at some Thruway exits). Unnumbered termini certainly solves the alphabet soup problem for the beginnings of mile-based roads.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 06, 2018, 04:18:16 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 06, 2018, 04:03:10 PM
I personally think not having an exit number there would have made the most sense. Treat it as an exit off of NJ 29 which doesn't use numbers. Like the exit for the NJ Turnpike from I-287. Of course they couldn't do that after the fact (Exit nothing formerly exit 60?). The second most logical, and still doable would have been Exit 0. For whatever reason NJ doesn't like those (GSP excluded). But now that it's exit 60, why change it now? MM 60 on 295 is still there. 195 is not being changed. There will be confusion which is completely avoidable.
Ugh unnumbered exits at the end of roads bother me. It’s like imagine there were a hundred steps leading to a pot of gold. Every step has a number on it. At the top, I wouldn’t want it to just be a pot of gold. I want it to be a pot of gold on top of an inscribed #100.
This isn't just the end of a road. It continues as NJ 29 which doesn't use exit numbers. Therefore, not numbering this exit makes sense because it can be considered as an exit from NJ 29. If NJ 29 were to use exit numbers this wouldn't work. Same with I-287 whose exit for the NJ Turnpike is unnumbered because it transitions into NJ 440 near there, and NJ 440 doesn't number its exits.
Quote from: vdeane on February 06, 2018, 07:33:15 PM
I'm the opposite: I find numbered exits at the ends of roads to be weird. I can count on one hand the number of highways that have numbered termini in NY (excluding stub endings and the "exits 1 - X" and "exits Y - 61" signs at some Thruway exits). Unnumbered termini certainly solves the alphabet soup problem for the beginnings of mile-based roads.
I agree. I don't think a true terminus has any business having an exit number. The NJ Turnpike's exit 1 is a prime example. Where's the exit?
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2018, 12:42:15 PMThe NJ Turnpike's exit 1 is a prime example. Where's the exit?
The mainline south toll plaza, just east of where US 40 and I-295 come in.
Although the toll ticket (see below) lists such as the
Delaware Memorial Bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-95%2Fticket.jpg&hash=777e341e730a10de0b1df4337560441a257e2014)
Vintage toll ticket from Alpsroads.net (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/)
Beat me to the punch. On ticket systems, exit numbers are mainly toll plaza identifiers. Similar to how Exit 15 is NYSTA's designation for the mainline plaza at Exit 16 and Exit 19 was the Mass Pike designation for the mainline plaza at Exits 18/20 (which are the same exit, but the different numbers were for accounting purporses).
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2018, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2018, 12:42:15 PMThe NJ Turnpike's exit 1 is a prime example. Where's the exit?
The mainline south toll plaza, just east of where US 40 and I-295 come in.
Although the toll ticket (see below) lists such as the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-95%2Fticket.jpg&hash=777e341e730a10de0b1df4337560441a257e2014)
Vintage toll ticket from Alpsroads.net (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/)
Also note: the ticket never says 'Exit'. It says "Interchange". Thus, where is Exit 1? There is no Exit 1. It's Interchange 1.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
Also note: the ticket never says 'Exit'. It says "Interchange". Thus, where is Exit 1? There is no Exit 1. It's Interchange 1.
Technically, it's "Toll Plaza" 1. There's no interchange at that plaza.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2018, 01:29:26 PMAlso note: the ticket never says 'Exit'. It says "Interchange". Thus, where is Exit 1? There is no Exit 1. It's Interchange 1.
Exit and interchange are partially interchangeable. :) An interchange is where you can exit and/or enter a highway. At interchange 1 you can exit the highway southbound. Or in this case, exit the turnpike system since the highway continues. And you can enter the turnpike system northbound.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2018, 02:28:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
Also note: the ticket never says 'Exit'. It says "Interchange". Thus, where is Exit 1? There is no Exit 1. It's Interchange 1.
Technically, it's "Toll Plaza" 1. There's no interchange at that plaza.
It's the same on I-95 in CT as a holdover from the Connecticut Turnpike days, where Exit 1 was implied to be the former toll plaza. No change was ever made once tolls were eliminated (hopefully, we do not have to add the word "originally" before eliminated, but I digress). Under a mileage based system, Exit 2 becomes Exit 1, and Exits 3 and 4 (the second and third exits) remain as is.
Speaking of CT, there is no consistency as to whether the exits at the termini of highways are numbered. The southern ends of US 7, CT 8/25, I-91, CT 9, and I-395 at I-95 are not numbered, as are the eastern ends of I-291 and CT 72, and the west end of I-384. However, the western end of I-291 (1 for CT 218; 2A for I-91 South, and 2B for I-91 North), I-691 (Exits 1-2 for I-84; technically, the eastern terminus exits are, but the mainline continues as CT 66), CT 9 (Exits 31-32 for I-84), and the Milford Connector (1 A-B for US 1, 3 A-B for CT 15) are. Any instance of where an expressway portion ends is not numbered (western terminus and east end of CT 2, all ends of US 7, north end of CT 25, west end of CT 72, east end of CT 66, east end of CT 2A, eastern terminus of I-384), nor are mainline splits (8/25) or one mainline joining another (CT 2A westbound ramps to I-395).
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2018, 02:28:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
Also note: the ticket never says 'Exit'. It says "Interchange". Thus, where is Exit 1? There is no Exit 1. It's Interchange 1.
Technically, it's "Toll Plaza" 1. There's no interchange at that plaza.
In popular usage do people assume the Penns Grove exit SB and US 40 NB are Exit 1? Seems like most people would have no idea about the toll plaza being exit 1. I suppose it's possible they could assume 295 Exit 1 is NJTP Exit 1 as well, and then I don't know what they'd call the Penns/US 40 exits
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 07, 2018, 04:43:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2018, 02:28:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
Also note: the ticket never says 'Exit'. It says "Interchange". Thus, where is Exit 1? There is no Exit 1. It's Interchange 1.
Technically, it's "Toll Plaza" 1. There's no interchange at that plaza.
In popular usage do people assume the Penns Grove exit SB and US 40 NB are Exit 1? Seems like most people would have no idea about the toll plaza being exit 1. I suppose it's possible they could assume 295 Exit 1 is NJTP Exit 1 as well, and then I don't know what they'd call the Penns/US 40 exits
I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".
Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2018, 05:03:31 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 07, 2018, 04:43:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2018, 02:28:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2018, 01:29:26 PM
Also note: the ticket never says 'Exit'. It says "Interchange". Thus, where is Exit 1? There is no Exit 1. It's Interchange 1.
Technically, it's "Toll Plaza" 1. There's no interchange at that plaza.
In popular usage do people assume the Penns Grove exit SB and US 40 NB are Exit 1? Seems like most people would have no idea about the toll plaza being exit 1. I suppose it's possible they could assume 295 Exit 1 is NJTP Exit 1 as well, and then I don't know what they'd call the Penns/US 40 exits
I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".
Given that those exit ramps are
after the mainline toll plaza (while heading southbound); most motorists, E-Z Pass or no E-Z Pass (incorrectly) assume that they are no longer on the NJ Turnpike (System) once they pass through that plaza.
I doubt that most drivers ever think about this at all. (LOL) Mostly only us roadgeeks would ever seriously wonder about these technicalities.
For example: a friend of mine who is a somewhat technically oriented guy, was totally surprised when I pointed out that the NJT used a different configuration to their exit sign system than the MUTCD standard system. He had driven the road hundreds of times and never noticed the difference. But interestingly, he had noticed that the broken white lane lines were longer and wider on the NJT than other interstates.
The old Rand McNally maps when they used to list the toll roads in a box with its interchanges followed by the route it connects to in italic mentioned Exit 1 for the Delaware Memorial Bridge connecting to Route 49.
With this said, NJDOT considers NJ 49 to be Exit 1A for I-295 but we all know that the NJ Turnpike has its zero milemarker at that interchange too, so technically the NJ 49 ramp going SB is on the turnpike proper. So it could, in once way of looking at it, as actual Exit 1. However, it refers to the toll plaza as far as the tolling system goes.
Like in NY on the Thruway, its Exit 15 for the Woodbury Toll Plaza even though several miles south the exit for I-287 S Bound and for NJ Route 17 is signed Exit 15. Two exits here but the number used differently for two places for two separate purposes. Exit 15, the actual interchange is for the sequential numbering of all exit ramps, while the number given to the Woodbury Plaza is for accounting purposes on the ticket system as to use Exit number 16 for it would be redundant to the ramp to NY 17 & Future I-86 as it has the Harriman Toll Plaza that SB does collect a toll as well on the same ticket based system.
Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2018, 05:03:31 PM
I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".
I'd say that the US 40 exit from the northbound Turnpike, and the NJ 140/CR540 exit from the southbound Turnpike, in deference to their positions on US 40, should be numbered 1D.
I'll get my coat.
At the 49/130 interchange, it's Exit 1 Southbound, as there's only one exit at the interchange for Rt. 49 South. On the Northbound side, it's Exit 1A (Rt. 49 South) and Exit 1B (Rt. 130 North).
While it's very clear who's jurisdiction is what on the Northbound side, it's not so clear cut on the Southbound side. The Turnpike lined it with their unique 25' stripes between where 295 and the NJ Tpk meet and 49/130. However, NJDOT has their Blue Food service sign here as well. When I worked the NJDOT yard responsible for plowing down here, our jurisdiction included this stretch of highway.
And when it comes to snow plowing the ramps there, the DRBA gets Exit 1B (Rt. 130 North) and the exit from 49 North to 295 South. NJDOT plows 295 South to 49 South, 295 North to 49 South, and 49 North to 295 North. The Turnpike isn't responsible for any of those specific ramps.
Quote from: hubcity on February 09, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2018, 05:03:31 PM
I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".
I'd say that the US 40 exit from the northbound Turnpike, and the NJ 140/CR540 exit from the southbound Turnpike, in deference to their positions on US 40, should be numbered 1D.
I'll get my coat.
It should be Exit 1C, but I know where you are coming from as Hook Road has 1C on 295 so even though two different roads you bring into the fact that two exits with the same exact number nearby can cause confusion.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 09, 2018, 05:37:41 PM
Quote from: hubcity on February 09, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2018, 05:03:31 PM
I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".
I'd say that the US 40 exit from the northbound Turnpike, and the NJ 140/CR540 exit from the southbound Turnpike, in deference to their positions on US 40, should be numbered 1D.
I'll get my coat.
It should be Exit 1C, but I know where you are coming from as Hook Road has 1C on 295 so even though two different roads you bring into the fact that two exits with the same exact number nearby can cause confusion.
If anything the turnpike itself should be Exit 1C off 295.
Really DE I-295, the bridge, and the NJTP south of Exit 6 should all be I-895, but that's probably getting too far into fictional territory...
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 10, 2018, 12:40:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 09, 2018, 05:37:41 PM
Quote from: hubcity on February 09, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2018, 05:03:31 PM
I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".
I'd say that the US 40 exit from the northbound Turnpike, and the NJ 140/CR540 exit from the southbound Turnpike, in deference to their positions on US 40, should be numbered 1D.
I'll get my coat.
It should be Exit 1C, but I know where you are coming from as Hook Road has 1C on 295 so even though two different roads you bring into the fact that two exits with the same exact number nearby can cause confusion.
If anything the turnpike itself should be Exit 1C off 295.
Bingo.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 10, 2018, 01:03:59 AM
Really DE I-295, the bridge, and the NJTP south of Exit 6 should all be I-895, but that's probably getting too far into fictional territory...
What's the point of changing 295 to 895 on the bridge and In Delaware?
Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2018, 08:42:34 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 10, 2018, 12:40:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 09, 2018, 05:37:41 PM
Quote from: hubcity on February 09, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 07, 2018, 05:03:31 PM
I've always heard that US 130/NJ 49 are Exit 1 (I-295, as signed), US 40 is "Route 40".
I'd say that the US 40 exit from the northbound Turnpike, and the NJ 140/CR540 exit from the southbound Turnpike, in deference to their positions on US 40, should be numbered 1D.
I'll get my coat.
It should be Exit 1C, but I know where you are coming from as Hook Road has 1C on 295 so even though two different roads you bring into the fact that two exits with the same exact number nearby can cause confusion.
If anything the turnpike itself should be Exit 1C off 295.
Bingo.
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 10, 2018, 01:03:59 AM
Really DE I-295, the bridge, and the NJTP south of Exit 6 should all be I-895, but that's probably getting too far into fictional territory...
What's the point of changing 295 to 895 on the bridge and In Delaware?
I agree... 895 would work on turnpike.. there could be a multiplex of 895 and 295 if you really wanted 895 to touch 95.. I say keep 295 as is
Another option that NJ and DE could do without asking permission is commission state route 95E... It would get the point that it's an alternative to i95. Most regular people only consider the number.. NJ it's all "Route XX" anyway
Z981
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 10, 2018, 10:19:55 AM
Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?
In theory it could. But...the Turnpike goes out of its way to make sure all exits are on the right, which this would then violate.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 10, 2018, 10:19:55 AM
Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?
No. Nothing is changing until everything changes. (I.e., until they're forced to go to mile-based numbers, in which case yes I-95 would be the mainline.)
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 10, 2018, 10:19:55 AM
Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?
NJTA considers the whole Turnpike to be liked one completed numbered route. Even Kansas did the same where I-35 exits the Kansas Turnpike where they could use the changeover to I-335 as Exit 127, but they opted to let I-35 exit itself.
Plus the ticket system is another reason for both roadways.
Roadsguy, why do you insist that the south end of the NJT necessarily needs to have an Interstate number? Why not just leave it as the NJT with signs showing the well-known green Turnpike logo? Introducing yet another 3-digit Interstate route number to this area may cause more confusion to drivers than just leaving it posted as the NJT.
I think he is used to NCDOT turning every known freeway of theirs into one, so why not NJ also. :-D
I'm not even from NC, I'm from Philly and currently live in Lebanon County. :P
In retrospect, though, DelDOT signs the NJTP well enough that it really does function as a single route already, even if nothing on the DE side of the bridge is actually the Turnpike. The only real reason they'd want to make an I-895 here is for similarity to how the easternmost section of the PA Turnpike is I-276. If anything, that's what I'm used to, not NC's Interstate overload (even though the only things of theirs I don't like are I-87's and I-74's numbers, and the latter's eastern end. I'd even replace I-74 with even more Interstates!).
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 11, 2018, 06:16:24 PM
I'm not even from NC, I'm from Philly and currently live in Lebanon County. :P
In retrospect, though, DelDOT signs the NJTP well enough that it really does function as a single route already, even if nothing on the DE side of the bridge is actually the Turnpike. The only real reason they'd want to make an I-895 here is for similarity to how the easternmost section of the PA Turnpike is I-276. If anything, that's what I'm used to, not NC's Interstate overload (even though the only things of theirs I don't like are I-87's and I-74's numbers, and the latter's eastern end. I'd even replace I-74 with even more Interstates!).
They'll want to, or you'll want to? They've had 50 years to do it if they wanted.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2018, 09:50:27 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 11, 2018, 06:16:24 PM
I'm not even from NC, I'm from Philly and currently live in Lebanon County. :P
In retrospect, though, DelDOT signs the NJTP well enough that it really does function as a single route already, even if nothing on the DE side of the bridge is actually the Turnpike. The only real reason they'd want to make an I-895 here is for similarity to how the easternmost section of the PA Turnpike is I-276. If anything, that's what I'm used to, not NC's Interstate overload (even though the only things of theirs I don't like are I-87's and I-74's numbers, and the latter's eastern end. I'd even replace I-74 with even more Interstates!).
They'll want to, or you'll want to? They've had 50 years to do it if they wanted.
They
would, not will or do. They clearly don't, or else it would have been done by now (or at least soon to be done when all the renumbering related to the interchange is done).
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2018, 04:18:52 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 10, 2018, 10:19:55 AM
Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?
NJTA considers the whole Turnpike to be liked one completed numbered route. Even Kansas did the same where I-35 exits the Kansas Turnpike where they could use the changeover to I-335 as Exit 127, but they opted to let I-35 exit itself.
And the toll roads in Ohio (I-80/I-90, I-80, and I-76) and New York State (I-90, I-87 and part of I-287).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 11, 2018, 11:51:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2018, 04:18:52 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 10, 2018, 10:19:55 AM
Will the southbound Turnpike itself become Exit 6 off of I-95 when the Interchange is opened over in PA?
NJTA considers the whole Turnpike to be liked one completed numbered route. Even Kansas did the same where I-35 exits the Kansas Turnpike where they could use the changeover to I-335 as Exit 127, but they opted to let I-35 exit itself.
And the toll roads in Ohio (I-80/I-90, I-80, and I-76) and New York State (I-90, I-87 and part of I-287).
Not a fan of TOTSOs like that I wish they were either labeled as equals or in some cases (not the turnpike examples) with the mainline labeled as an exit. I think about US 6 West at 3 North just off Cape Cod in Mass as a great example of the mainline being signed as an exit at a TOTSO
But in the NJTP example, IMHO mainline should probably be NJTP south to I-295 South, the exit shouldn’t be labeled as an exit, it should just be I-95 south to I-276 West. Label the US 130 Exit as Exit 6 or 6A, tell everyone that the turnpike now splits and Exit 6/6A is on the 95 spur, which most probly don’t know about right now, and you have a configuration that makes sense in a future context, not just based on what’s already there.
I'm actually surprised they didn't try and do this in a shorter time span... I realize it's a *lot* of signs, but they've got some massively inconsistent signing going on right now... The last few days I've seen mile markers for 295 and mile markers for 95 on the same stretch of highway... plus they still have trailblazers up for 95 along most of the stretch (but not all of it). I wonder how PennDOT is going to handle their side... as it is the exits have "Old Exit" markers on them from when they moved from sequential numbering to mileage based numbering (I think).
Quote from: Compulov on February 12, 2018, 03:20:34 PM
I'm actually surprised they didn't try and do this in a shorter time span... I realize it's a *lot* of signs, but they've got some massively inconsistent signing going on right now... The last few days I've seen mile markers for 295 and mile markers for 95 on the same stretch of highway... plus they still have trailblazers up for 95 along most of the stretch (but not all of it). I wonder how PennDOT is going to handle their side... as it is the exits have "Old Exit" markers on them from when they moved from sequential numbering to mileage based numbering (I think).
I agree . . . From what I have seen, "I-295 north" is posted on all the overhead pull-throughs, though "I-95 north" is still posted on the pull-throughs in the opposite direction (at least as of Friday . . . ). There are no other confirmation assemblies for I-295 yet (either direction) aside from the one just west of U.S. 1. There are, however, many empty post installations behind existing small ground-mounted signs, which suggests that quite a few of those replacements are coming soon.
Signs were changed on U.S. 206 when I ran through there on Friday, too, but nothing below says I-295 yet.
I have noticed that for the interchange cross-streets that have been done, a few of the destination signs have been removed, not to be replaced (according to the plans). I understand why they have to come down -- New York is posted on many of them, which was an old I-95 destination -- but put the other destinations back. This won't help during the transition either . . .
The milemarker matter is bizarre, and I also think they are a little off. I did catch a couple of shots last week of 295 and 95 signs (milemarkers or confirmations) in the same view . . .
The whole thing is pretty adventurous so far. Good thing I take U.S. 1 home . . .
Quote from: akotchi on February 12, 2018, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: Compulov on February 12, 2018, 03:20:34 PM
I'm actually surprised they didn't try and do this in a shorter time span... I realize it's a *lot* of signs, but they've got some massively inconsistent signing going on right now... The last few days I've seen mile markers for 295 and mile markers for 95 on the same stretch of highway... plus they still have trailblazers up for 95 along most of the stretch (but not all of it). I wonder how PennDOT is going to handle their side... as it is the exits have "Old Exit" markers on them from when they moved from sequential numbering to mileage based numbering (I think).
I agree . . . From what I have seen, "I-295 north" is posted on all the overhead pull-throughs, though "I-95 north" is still posted on the pull-throughs in the opposite direction (at least as of Friday . . . ). There are no other confirmation assemblies for I-295 yet (either direction) aside from the one just west of U.S. 1. There are, however, many empty post installations behind existing small ground-mounted signs, which suggests that quite a few of those replacements are coming soon.
Signs were changed on U.S. 206 when I ran through there on Friday, too, but nothing below says I-295 yet.
I have noticed that for the interchange cross-streets that have been done, a few of the destination signs have been removed, not to be replaced (according to the plans). I understand why they have to come down -- New York is posted on many of them, which was an old I-95 destination -- but put the other destinations back. This won't help during the transition either . . .
The milemarker matter is bizarre, and I also think they are a little off. I did catch a couple of shots last week of 295 and 95 signs (milemarkers or confirmations) in the same view . . .
The whole thing is pretty adventurous so far. Good thing I take U.S. 1 home . . .
So we've found the only highway where you can go the same direction in opposite directions for miles! :D
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 12, 2018, 09:00:09 AM
Not a fan of TOTSOs like that I wish they were either labeled as equals or in some cases (not the turnpike examples) with the mainline labeled as an exit. I think about US 6 West at 3 North just off Cape Cod in Mass as a great example of the mainline being signed as an exit at a TOTSO
Turn Off To Stay On that same numbered route
I had not heard of that, I just looked it up.
NJT Exit-6 southbound will be an awkward signing situation. I would tend to agree that it might create less confusion just not to use exit numbers at all in this situation to keep the routes equal. But I'm guessing the MUTCD probably doesn't allow that.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2018, 09:36:29 PM
NJT Exit-6 southbound will be an awkward signing situation. I would tend to agree that it might create less confusion just not to use exit numbers at all in this situation to keep the routes equal. But I'm guessing the MUTCD probably doesn't allow that.
No one's really going to be looking at the exit tab, but as far as the Turnpike is concerned Exit 6 will always be Exit 6.
Quote from: Alps on February 12, 2018, 10:01:49 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2018, 09:36:29 PM
NJT Exit-6 southbound will be an awkward signing situation. I would tend to agree that it might create less confusion just not to use exit numbers at all in this situation to keep the routes equal. But I'm guessing the MUTCD probably doesn't allow that.
No one's really going to be looking at the exit tab, but as far as the Turnpike is concerned Exit 6 will always be Exit 6.
It's sort of the same situation as when I-90 exits the Berkshire Spur at Exit B1. Despite the ramp being part of mainline I-90, the exit is still numbered westbound. The only saving grace here is that both the NJTP and NY Thruway use sequential numbers, and that Exit 6 is at I-95 MP 6. If you really want to get anal southbound, either remove the exit designation southbound only, or create an I-95/I-93 junction situation and give the number to the mainline as a left exit from I-95. It's fine as is northbound. Same with B1; give the westbound left exit designation to continue on the spur and remove the number from the ramp, but leave it as is eastbound. Bring in mileage based to any or all highways, and the possibilities are endless.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 13, 2018, 02:09:51 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 12, 2018, 10:01:49 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2018, 09:36:29 PM
NJT Exit-6 southbound will be an awkward signing situation. I would tend to agree that it might create less confusion just not to use exit numbers at all in this situation to keep the routes equal. But I'm guessing the MUTCD probably doesn't allow that.
No one's really going to be looking at the exit tab, but as far as the Turnpike is concerned Exit 6 will always be Exit 6.
It's sort of the same situation as when I-90 exits the Berkshire Spur at Exit B1. Despite the ramp being part of mainline I-90, the exit is still numbered westbound. The only saving grace here is that both the NJTP and NY Thruway use sequential numbers, and that Exit 6 is at I-95 MP 6. If you really want to get anal southbound, either remove the exit designation southbound only, or create an I-95/I-93 junction situation and give the number to the mainline as a left exit from I-95. It's fine as is northbound. Same with B1; give the westbound left exit designation to continue on the spur and remove the number from the ramp, but leave it as is eastbound. Bring in mileage based to any or all highways, and the possibilities are endless.
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
The I-95 designation isn't an afterthought - the dual-dual design to Interchange 6 was done with it completely in mind and in conjunction with the PA Turnpike's interchange with 95. They could've easily designed the interchange so that 95 was the thru route, not the exit. They clearly have decided that I-95 will exit the Turnpike; not the Turnpike exiting 95.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Left hand exits and entrances are an obsolete and substandard design.
.....
4.4 Are all the exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?
It is highly preferable to use right-hand entrance and exit ramps in the design of new interchanges. Entrance and exit ramps on the left-side of the freeway are contrary to driver expectation and studies indicate that crashes may be reduced as much as 25-70 percent with the use of right-off, right-on ramps as compared to left hand ramps. Traffic speeds are typically faster in the left-most lanes of the freeway, and therefore speed differentials between entering and exiting traffic and through traffic is usually greater with left-hand ramps.
If possible, existing left hand entrance/exit ramps should be replaced with right hand ramps when reconstructing an interchange. If this is impracticable because of unacceptable economic, environmental or social impacts then such reasons should be well documented and justified. Such justification should include a crash data analysis showing that the existing left hand ramp is not a substantial safety hazard.
If it is not feasible to eliminate left-side ramps, consider the following mitigation measures:
- Extend auxiliary lanes in advance of exits and beyond entrances to reduce the speed differential conflicts
- Provide full decision sight distance in advance of a left-side exit
- Providing supplemental advance signing for left-side exit ramps
- Provide ramp geometry near the point of physical merge or diverge that accommodates a high design speed (provide at least 75 percent of mainline design speed)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/modiv/programs/intersta/idp.cfm
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 07:23:16 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Left hand exits and entrances are an obsolete and substandard design.
.....
4.4 Are all the exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?
It is highly preferable to use right-hand entrance and exit ramps in the design of new interchanges. Entrance and exit ramps on the left-side of the freeway are contrary to driver expectation and studies indicate that crashes may be reduced as much as 25-70 percent with the use of right-off, right-on ramps as compared to left hand ramps. Traffic speeds are typically faster in the left-most lanes of the freeway, and therefore speed differentials between entering and exiting traffic and through traffic is usually greater with left-hand ramps.
If possible, existing left hand entrance/exit ramps should be replaced with right hand ramps when reconstructing an interchange. If this is impracticable because of unacceptable economic, environmental or social impacts then such reasons should be well documented and justified. Such justification should include a crash data analysis showing that the existing left hand ramp is not a substantial safety hazard.
If it is not feasible to eliminate left-side ramps, consider the following mitigation measures:
- Extend auxiliary lanes in advance of exits and beyond entrances to reduce the speed differential conflicts
- Provide full decision sight distance in advance of a left-side exit
- Providing supplemental advance signing for left-side exit ramps
- Provide ramp geometry near the point of physical merge or diverge that accommodates a high design speed (provide at least 75 percent of mainline design speed)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/modiv/programs/intersta/idp.cfm
This really has nothing to do with the discussion though because they were never going to change the configuration to make 95 the mainline. The discussion is about whether to put the exit tab on the mainline or on 95. I have to assume even if the mainline was signed as an exit (which won't happen) it would just be a pull thru with an exit tab while 95 would probably be signed like an exit but with no tab
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 07:23:16 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Left hand exits and entrances are an obsolete and substandard design.
.....
4.4 Are all the exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?
It is highly preferable to use right-hand entrance and exit ramps in the design of new interchanges. Entrance and exit ramps on the left-side of the freeway are contrary to driver expectation and studies indicate that crashes may be reduced as much as 25-70 percent with the use of right-off, right-on ramps as compared to left hand ramps. Traffic speeds are typically faster in the left-most lanes of the freeway, and therefore speed differentials between entering and exiting traffic and through traffic is usually greater with left-hand ramps.
If possible, existing left hand entrance/exit ramps should be replaced with right hand ramps when reconstructing an interchange. If this is impracticable because of unacceptable economic, environmental or social impacts then such reasons should be well documented and justified. Such justification should include a crash data analysis showing that the existing left hand ramp is not a substantial safety hazard.
If it is not feasible to eliminate left-side ramps, consider the following mitigation measures:
- Extend auxiliary lanes in advance of exits and beyond entrances to reduce the speed differential conflicts
- Provide full decision sight distance in advance of a left-side exit
- Providing supplemental advance signing for left-side exit ramps
- Provide ramp geometry near the point of physical merge or diverge that accommodates a high design speed (provide at least 75 percent of mainline design speed)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/modiv/programs/intersta/idp.cfm
Someone should have told PennDOT that before they rebuilt the South St bridge over the Schuylkill.
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 13, 2018, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on February 13, 2018, 07:23:16 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Left hand exits and entrances are an obsolete and substandard design.
.....
4.4 Are all the exits and entrances on the right side of the freeway mainline?
It is highly preferable to use right-hand entrance and exit ramps in the design of new interchanges. Entrance and exit ramps on the left-side of the freeway are contrary to driver expectation and studies indicate that crashes may be reduced as much as 25-70 percent with the use of right-off, right-on ramps as compared to left hand ramps. Traffic speeds are typically faster in the left-most lanes of the freeway, and therefore speed differentials between entering and exiting traffic and through traffic is usually greater with left-hand ramps.
If possible, existing left hand entrance/exit ramps should be replaced with right hand ramps when reconstructing an interchange. If this is impracticable because of unacceptable economic, environmental or social impacts then such reasons should be well documented and justified. Such justification should include a crash data analysis showing that the existing left hand ramp is not a substantial safety hazard.
If it is not feasible to eliminate left-side ramps, consider the following mitigation measures:
- Extend auxiliary lanes in advance of exits and beyond entrances to reduce the speed differential conflicts
- Provide full decision sight distance in advance of a left-side exit
- Providing supplemental advance signing for left-side exit ramps
- Provide ramp geometry near the point of physical merge or diverge that accommodates a high design speed (provide at least 75 percent of mainline design speed)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/modiv/programs/intersta/idp.cfm
Someone should have told PennDOT that before they rebuild the South St bridge over the Schuylkill.
I do think options were considered. But due to the location between the railroad tracks, U of Penn existing infrastructure and the river, they left it alone. Even if they did try to fix it up, they still have to get traffic thru there during the construction period, which can be another limitation on reconstruction. I think they could've done a little bit to extend the acceleration lane.
At least they fixed up the ramp where it intersects at South Street to assist up there a little though.
I don't mind getting off the highway at South Street, but I really hate trying to get on the highway there.
JP the roadgeek, ironic that you should mention the I-95/I-93 situation near Boston, which is a lot like NJT Exit 6 southbound. That similarity had occurred to me also. As I said earlier these are very awkward situations to sign properly. And they usually are the result of Interstates eventually taking a different routing than was originally planned. That was the case in Mass. with I-95/Ma.128. The I-95/93 re-signing while technically correct does look absolutely bizarre and is probably confusing to a lot of drivers who don't understand the logic of it the way us roadgeeks do. That's why I suggested in an earlier post that maybe exit numbers shouldn't be used at these locations.
And J&N, I do commend the NJTA for their very smart engineering and concern with safety as regards left hand exits/entrances at both interchanges and service-areas. Far smarter and safer than Delaware and Maryland where you exit and enter at high-speed from their service areas on I-95.
Rather than thinking of "Exit 6" as a left hand exit off of I-95, perhaps it should be considered a "split" along the lines of the "mixing bowls".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.
One or two fewer bridges actually.
The inner roadway couldve have a standard right lane exit, with the outer roadway having a left lane exit. They combine on one bridge over the roadways. Same with entering the highway - one bridge will enter the roadway, splitting to a right lane entrance for the inner roadway; left entrance for the outer roadway. This especially saves some bridge distance for the roadway furthest away from the toll plaza.
Or, the two opposing inner roadways share a bridge, with left handed exits/entry for both.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2018, 06:12:20 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.
One or two fewer bridges actually.
The inner roadway couldve have a standard right lane exit, with the outer roadway having a left lane exit. They combine on one bridge over the roadways. Same with entering the highway - one bridge will enter the roadway, splitting to a right lane entrance for the inner roadway; left entrance for the outer roadway. This especially saves some bridge distance for the roadway furthest away from the toll plaza.
Or, the two opposing inner roadways share a bridge, with left handed exits/entry for both.
Please point me to an existing interchange that could be improved in this manner. I don't think you're seeing that you're adding to bridges. The outer roadway currently does not need a bridge. Trumpets require a full crossing no matter what you do.
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2018, 06:12:20 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.
One or two fewer bridges actually.
The inner roadway couldve have a standard right lane exit, with the outer roadway having a left lane exit. They combine on one bridge over the roadways. Same with entering the highway - one bridge will enter the roadway, splitting to a right lane entrance for the inner roadway; left entrance for the outer roadway. This especially saves some bridge distance for the roadway furthest away from the toll plaza.
Or, the two opposing inner roadways share a bridge, with left handed exits/entry for both.
Please point me to an existing interchange that could be improved in this manner. I don't think you're seeing that you're adding to bridges. The outer roadway currently does not need a bridge. Trumpets require a full crossing no matter what you do.
Use Interchange 8 for example. The Southbound inner roadway needs a bridge to cross the outer roadway. Then, a bridge across all 4 roadways. Make the outer roadways a left exit/entrance, combined with the southbound inner roadway right lane exit/entrances, and the single bridge only needs to cross 3 roadways.
Of course, the exit ramps would need to cross over the entrance ramps somehow in such a design. Would a 3 level bridge be necessary, increasing costs? But will right of way be needed off to the side of the Turnpike, along with the associated ramp requirements? Not as much.
Another option: Allowing switching between roadways (inner to outer or outer to inner), and only need one entrance/exit ramp for each interchange per direction, not two.
Note: I didn't say "improved". I said to save money. The current setup with all right lane exits and entrances is optimal.
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.
In the non dual-dual sections, they could have put the service areas in the middle, like in Maryland and Delaware, to avoid duplication and save some money.
Quote from: Steve D on February 14, 2018, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2018, 06:16:46 AM
As I mentioned previously, the NJ Turnpike goes out of their way, at great expense, not to have any left exits. The dual-dual design could be built much cheaper if they permitted left side exits and entrances.
Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.
In the non dual-dual sections, they could have put the service areas in the middle, like in Maryland and Delaware, to avoid duplication and save some money.
If such was done south of Exit 6, sure; but what if such took place between Exits 8 and 6 years prior to the recent widening? More money would've been spent to split/relocate those facilities during that widening project.
Happen to catch a link to this site on the NJ Turnpike website: http://i95link.com/
Mostly talks about the redesignation of I-95 with I-295. However, one interesting piece of info...when you scroll down, the timeline graphic indicates the opening day of the new 95/PA Turnpike ramps will be in August, 2018!
Also, within this page: http://i95link.com/schedule/ , it makes note that the Pearl Harbor Extension is I-276.
I can't really figure out who owns this page, but it does give a 215 area code phone number in the contacts, so it may be a page created by the PTC or someone associated with them.
And...in the FAQ section, it addresses why they didn't use another x95 number, such as an odd number. It doesn't address however using a different even number (ie: 695):
Quote
2. Why is I-295 being extended, rather than designating the route as another number (i.e., I-395)?
Representatives from federal, state and regional transportation agencies coordinated with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)'s Special Committee on US Route Numbering. The Committee felt that an even-numbered designation, indicating a beltway/loop configuration, was more appropriate, as the conversion will connect the expanded I-295 with I-95 in both Wilmington, DE and in Bristol, PA. An odd-numbered designation does not apply here as odd-numbered interstate numbering is reserved for spur routes.
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:47:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2018, 06:12:20 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2018, 12:06:22 AM
Disagree. How could it be cheaper? Anything on the left would result in an additional bridge to span another of the four roadways.
One or two fewer bridges actually.
The inner roadway couldve have a standard right lane exit, with the outer roadway having a left lane exit. They combine on one bridge over the roadways. Same with entering the highway - one bridge will enter the roadway, splitting to a right lane entrance for the inner roadway; left entrance for the outer roadway. This especially saves some bridge distance for the roadway furthest away from the toll plaza.
Or, the two opposing inner roadways share a bridge, with left handed exits/entry for both.
Please point me to an existing interchange that could be improved in this manner. I don't think you're seeing that you're adding to bridges. The outer roadway currently does not need a bridge. Trumpets require a full crossing no matter what you do.
Upon looking at some of these interchanges on Google Maps satellite view --
-- most of these ramps go over the turnpike, but some of them go under. Likely for topo reasons.
-- looks like if the ramps were consolidated onto one or two bridges, the curve radii would be sharper and low-speed; the as-built separated ramps are on curves that allow for higher speeds (perhaps 35 mph or more). So it seems that more money was spent to allow higher speed designs, which is a good idea with the higher volume ramps.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2018, 03:26:39 PM
And...in the FAQ section, it addresses why they didn't use another x95 number, such as an odd number. It doesn't address however using a different even number (ie: 695):
Quote
2. Why is I-295 being extended, rather than designating the route as another number (i.e., I-395)?
Representatives from federal, state and regional transportation agencies coordinated with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)’s Special Committee on US Route Numbering. The Committee felt that an even-numbered designation, indicating a beltway/loop configuration, was more appropriate, as the conversion will connect the expanded I-295 with I-95 in both Wilmington, DE and in Bristol, PA. An odd-numbered designation does not apply here as odd-numbered interstate numbering is reserved for spur routes.
Funny how PennDOT broke that rule with extending I-376 as that now serves as a loop and could be considered a beltway now.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2018, 03:26:39 PM
And...in the FAQ section, it addresses why they didn't use another x95 number, such as an odd number. It doesn't address however using a different even number (ie: 695):
Quotesnipped
Because that's the one question that the agency wouldn't be able to answer without realizing that such might've been a more logical solution.
BTW, I just now submitted a comment on that site regarding using I-695 instead. It's probably too late for any action at this point; but IMHO it was worth submitting. Note: I posted the
snipped quote you posted above and used it as an intro.
Quote from: Posted Suggestion to I-95 Link SiteRegarding the "Why is I-295 being extended, rather than designating the route as another number (i.e., I-395)?"
Representatives from federal, state and regional transportation agencies coordinated with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)'s Special Committee on US Route Numbering. The Committee felt that an even-numbered designation, indicating a beltway/loop configuration, was more appropriate, as the conversion will connect the expanded I-295 with I-95 in both Wilmington, DE and in Bristol, PA. An odd-numbered designation does not apply here as odd-numbered interstate numbering is reserved for spur routes.
Solution: why not use I-695 for the new designation? Both NJ's & PA's original plans for I-695 were cancelled decades ago thereby leaving that number open to be used. Such is far enough away from both the I-695s in NY & MD to not cause any confusion.
The I-695 designation eliminates the awkward east-west designation in PA on a road that's clearly north/south and allows the NJ stretch from the Scudder Falls Bridge to the US 1 interchange to be more logically signed as an east/west route.
Such would have also eliminated the (unnecessary) need to renumber the mile markers & interchange numbers along the NJ stretch.
While the US 1 interchange would still have 'changing highway numbers' at this interchange; such has existed for at least 25 years. The only change would be I-95 South would've been redesignated as I-695 West.
Personally, I don't know why the I-695 designation for this soon-to-be-former-stretch of I-95 wasn't even considered nor discussed beforehead. In my opinion, such would've been a more "path of least resistance" transition.
I agree with the numbering solution arrived at by all the participating agencies. Designating I-295 as a kind of beltway is the way to go for the reasons they cited. I think it's generally better to use fewer numbers rather than more. Introducing a 6xx number into the mix would cause more confusion than making I-295 continuous between NJ and Pa.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 14, 2018, 05:06:05 PM
Funny how PennDOT broke that rule with extending I-376 as that now serves as a loop and could be considered a beltway now.
I-876 would have been the ideal number, IMHO.
But using I-376 minimized the Interstate mileage that needed to be renumbered, 8 miles instead of 23 miles if any other number was utilized (479 and 280 were also possibilities), all while utilizing one number for the whole route.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 14, 2018, 08:33:03 PM
I agree with the numbering solution arrived at by all the participating agencies. Designating I-295 as a kind of beltway is the way to go for the reasons they cited. I think it's generally better to use fewer numbers rather than more. Introducing a 6xx number into the mix would cause more confusion than making I-295 continuous between NJ and Pa.
I-295 doesn't and won't look anything like a beltway (unless you only consider the part near Trenton). And it already changes numbers. You don't think having a very, very clearly north-south road marked east-west is confusing? It's probably one of the most perfect example of a road with incorrect directions, right on par with I-95 in CT (oddly enough), and unlike I-95, it won't have an excuse.
I'd accept I-295 but with it being signed north-south in PA, east west on former/current I-95, and changing to north-south at US 1.
vdeane, ya' beat me to the punch re: I-95/Connecticut Turnpike being an east-west road signed as a north-south Interstate. Not the only place that ever happened either. In Los Angeles you have US-101 running east-west thru the San Fernando Valley but signed as a north-south route.
But back to NJ-PA. While I agree with your point about I-295 running more north-south than east-west in Penna, I think it was decided to sign east-west so it would not be going in the same directions on opposite sides of the Delaware River in two different states. I still believe the way it was decided is the lesser of evils in this case.
@VDEANE: I-290 in the Worcester, MA region is signed as EAST/WEST, even though it's way more north and south. It changes to I-395 NORTH/SOUTH once it's past I-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in Auburn, MA.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 15, 2018, 09:27:38 AM
@VDEANE: I-290 in the Worcester, MA region is signed as EAST/WEST, even though it's way more north and south. It changes to I-395 NORTH/SOUTH once it's past I-90 (Massachusetts Turnpike) in Auburn, MA.
A few things regarding I-290 in MA:
1. The
overall routing of I-290 from Auburn to Marlborough is still east/west. Additionally, there were at least two plans to further extend I-290 further east beyond I-495; thereby further cementing that the overall route is clearly east/west.
2. I-290 was constructed first. I-395 (originally MA/CT 52) wasn't fully completed until 1977.
Side bar: prior to I-290 being fully completed, a portion of the Worcester section was signed as either MA 122 or 122A (both of which were north/south routes). 70s-vintage ramp and pull-through BGS' featured
EAST/WEST 290 notations vertically stacked and placed to the left with a black space to the right. If one looked at some of those sign boards up close, one could probably see a
ghost image of a rectangular MA state route shield with a
NORTH/SOUTH ghosting above the shield as well.
One has to wonder had timing and circumstances been different, would the Worcester stretch of I-290 been instead designated as a southern extension of I-190 (a north/south route) if I-190 was built prior to I-290 between I-190 & 495?
Quote from: vdeane on February 14, 2018, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 14, 2018, 08:33:03 PM
I agree with the numbering solution arrived at by all the participating agencies. Designating I-295 as a kind of beltway is the way to go for the reasons they cited. I think it's generally better to use fewer numbers rather than more. Introducing a 6xx number into the mix would cause more confusion than making I-295 continuous between NJ and Pa.
I-295 doesn't and won't look anything like a beltway (unless you only consider the part near Trenton). And it already changes numbers. You don't think having a very, very clearly north-south road marked east-west is confusing? It's probably one of the most perfect example of a road with incorrect directions, right on par with I-95 in CT (oddly enough), and unlike I-95, it won't have an excuse.
I'd accept I-295 but with it being signed north-south in PA, east west on former/current I-95, and changing to north-south at US 1.
Yeah, if it really is a beltway, that's how beltways are signed.
Because of the closeness of the cities, 295 was going to be a beltway around 3 cities - Wilmington, Philly and Trenton. Because of the missing 95 link in North Jersey, it gets a little murky, but 295 is, in all traditional senses, a beltway.
Let's take I-476 as another example: It's a loop around Philly between I-76 and I-95. North of that though, it loses all sense of a loop/beltway, and technically should be an odd-numbered spur away from Philly.
The ultimate candy-cane shape (sort of) of DE/NJ/PA I-295 reminds me a bit of VA's I-295.
Down there, the portion west of I-95 has no cardinal directions. Interchange cross-street signs reference the next major route(s) -- to I-64 East/I-95 or to I-64 West -- and control cities of those routes -- Norfolk/Washington or Charlottesville.
Here the routes could be to I-95 South (which is already in the design of panels to be installed for that direction) and U.S. 1, while the control cities could be Philadelphia (again, already included) and New Brunswick. One nit to pick is that U.S. 1 (NJ) is not as major a crossing as I-95 (VA), but it is close.
Worthy to note is that signing on I-195 West at I-295 will show "to U.S. 1" for the new northbound signing
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2018, 01:16:49 PM
Because of the closeness of the cities, 295 was going to be a beltway around 3 cities - Wilmington, Philly and Trenton. Because of the missing 95 link in North Jersey, it gets a little murky, but 295 is, in all traditional senses, a beltway.
Let's take I-476 as another example: It's a loop around Philly between I-76 and I-95. North of that though, it loses all sense of a loop/beltway, and technically should be an odd-numbered spur away from Philly.
I-476 qualifies for an even number as it bisects its parent. It could also be an odd numbered spur off I-95 though.
Considered in a regional context, I think combined route of I-476 and I-276 between Chester and Bristol make more sense as a 180° beltway bridging Philadelphia's two 2DIs and three shoulder counties. Obviously, the Mid-County Interchange isn't set up that way, though.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 14, 2018, 05:06:05 PM
Funny how PennDOT broke that rule with extending I-376 as that now serves as a loop and could be considered a beltway now.
It's both a loop AND a spur.....
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/IeIV1wt8IpKJG/200_s.gif)
Quote from: briantroutman on February 15, 2018, 02:43:00 PM
Considered in a regional context, I think combined route of I-476 and I-276 between Chester and Bristol make more sense as a 180° beltway bridging Philadelphia's two 2DIs and three shoulder counties. Obviously, the Mid-County Interchange isn't set up that way, though.
Looking at an aerial photograph of the Mid-County interchange, all that would need to be to done to accomplish the above (I know, Fictional territory) would be to widen/restripe the ramps to ensure two lanes all-the-way through for the I-476 North=>I-276 East and the I-276 West=>I-476 South movements and widen a portion of I-276 eastbound just east of the interchange.
Side bar: One has to wonder if the long-cancelled 12-Mile Loop Expressway between I-95 (at Academy Road) and I-76/476 near Conshohocken been built;
could that have been one possible I-476 routing with the Blue Route segment between I-76/476 and the Mid-County Toll Plaza being simply PA 9? Note: there was no known route number for this expressway but such could've functioned w/the PA Turnpike (I-276) similar to how I-295 functions with the NJ Turnpike in southern NJ (local traffic=free Interstate, through-traffic=toll highway).
Quote from: akotchi on February 15, 2018, 01:18:29 PM
The ultimate candy-cane shape (sort of) of DE/NJ/PA I-295 reminds me a bit of VA's I-295.
Down there, the portion west of I-95 has no cardinal directions. Interchange cross-street signs reference the next major route(s) -- to I-64 East/I-95 or to I-64 West -- and control cities of those routes -- Norfolk/Washington or Charlottesville.
I-295 is conventionally an outer Richmond bypass for east-west I-64 and an outer Richmond-Petersburg bypass for north-south I-95, and an outer Richmond bypass for between northerly I-95 and easterly I-64.
In my earlier reply to vdeane, I should have also mentioned that one solution to this whole debate about east-west vs. north-south could be "solved" by just not listing cardinal directions at all on the signs, as is the practice on the German Autobahns. They just show the route shield and usually several destinations and that seems to be acceptable in that part of Europe.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 15, 2018, 05:00:06 PM
In my earlier reply to vdeane, I should have also mentioned that one solution to this whole debate about east-west vs. north-south could be "solved" by just not listing cardinal directions at all on the signs, as is the practice on the German Autobahns. They just show the route shield and usually several destinations and that seems to be acceptable in that part of Europe.
It's convenient shorthand. Each route has two clear possible directions, so if you're told (by a person, GPS, written directions, etc) to take I-295 North, it is more likely that you'll get onto the right roadway going in the right direction. I personally think it's superior to what Europe does most of the time, even if the directions are off. Beltways are a counterexample sometimes, but destinations on Beltways are usually rather obscure too, since, after all, you're bypassing the major city in the area. It occurs to me that what they're doing with 295 actually makes sense from this perspective. The change happens at a place where there isn't a choice to be made (state line) and at every entrance you have a simple choice to make (North/South or East/West). It also avoids the issue where you second-guess yourself, "wait I'm going South. Wasn't I going North?"
It always seems strange to me when I leave my brother's house and the two I-695 entrances are labeled "South" and "West". I can't say I was ever confused by it, but it's odd.
I agree that in general our (U.S.) sign system is better for showing the directions but with the argument that's going on here, I thought it was a good time to point out alternatives used elsewhere. It's all good.
I dont know if it was mentioned in the discussion of the signing of Exit 6, but from the extension it is no longer signed as a split. It's now an unnumbered right exit for the Turnpike south/Camden, which makes sense within the context of the former unnumbered left exit becoming the signed I-95 mainline
Also I wonder if this will eventually be known as Exit 6 as well or if it will stay unnumbered
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 16, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
I dont know if it was mentioned in the discussion of the signing of Exit 6, but from the extension it is no longer signed as a split. It's now an unnumbered right exit for the Turnpike south/Camden, which makes sense within the context of the former unnumbered left exit becoming the signed I-95 mainline
Also I wonder if this will eventually be known as Exit 6 as well or if it will stay unnumbered
I don't think anything really changed here. And based on today's exit/interchange numbers, it can't be signed as Exit 6 due to the ticket system used. Exit 6 is for the extension. Someone looking at their toll ticket (who am I kidding...no one looks at them) would be confused if there was another Exit 6 that didn't match up.
The southbound exit can be numbered as Exit 6 because it is at I-95 MP 6
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2018, 01:13:39 PM
The southbound exit can be numbered as Exit 6 because it is at I-95 MP 6
The Turnpike doesn't use Mileposts to mark their exit numbers. You can't (or shouldn't) have a mixture of milepost exit numbers and consecutive exit numbers on the same highway.
Also, I mentioned the ticket system. If someone got on at Interchange 6, it would show on the ticket as "No U-Turn" for Exit 6...so there's a confliction by reusing Exit 6.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2018, 01:13:39 PM
The southbound exit can be numbered as Exit 6 because it is at I-95 MP 6
Also the rest of the turnpike is still using sequenced based exit numbers, and the turnpike mainline will always use the mile posts starting at zero which is near or at NJ Route 49 in Pennsville.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2018, 06:37:46 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 16, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
I dont know if it was mentioned in the discussion of the signing of Exit 6, but from the extension it is no longer signed as a split. It's now an unnumbered right exit for the Turnpike south/Camden, which makes sense within the context of the former unnumbered left exit becoming the signed I-95 mainline
Also I wonder if this will eventually be known as Exit 6 as well or if it will stay unnumbered
I don't think anything really changed here. And based on today's exit/interchange numbers, it can't be signed as Exit 6 due to the ticket system used. Exit 6 is for the extension. Someone looking at their toll ticket (who am I kidding...no one looks at them) would be confused if there was another Exit 6 that didn't match up.
I don't see why it can't be signed exit 6 from that direction. There's no conflicting information.
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2018, 03:09:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2018, 06:37:46 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on February 16, 2018, 06:08:56 PM
I dont know if it was mentioned in the discussion of the signing of Exit 6, but from the extension it is no longer signed as a split. It's now an unnumbered right exit for the Turnpike south/Camden, which makes sense within the context of the former unnumbered left exit becoming the signed I-95 mainline
Also I wonder if this will eventually be known as Exit 6 as well or if it will stay unnumbered
I don't think anything really changed here. And based on today's exit/interchange numbers, it can't be signed as Exit 6 due to the ticket system used. Exit 6 is for the extension. Someone looking at their toll ticket (who am I kidding...no one looks at them) would be confused if there was another Exit 6 that didn't match up.
I don't see why it can't be signed exit 6 from that direction. There's no conflicting information.
Using this random website: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/ :nod:, a motorist entering the Turnpike from the Pennsylvania Turnpike would receive a toll ticket that states "6 - Pennsylvania Turnpike - NO U-TURN". Providing an Exit 6 just after receiving a toll ticket would seem to be very conflicting information.
And remember...a traveler entering the Turnpike is provided no information that they are entering a specific interchange number, so they may be unaware that they entered at Interchange 6.
Once they go ETC, It'll be a moot point anyway. Alot of this annoying exit numbering exists solely because each entry/exit needs a unique number (Exit 15X anyone?). Mile based exits should appear around the time they finally switch.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 17, 2018, 05:41:14 PM
Once they go ETC, It'll be a moot point anyway....
I think there's a 0% chance of that happening in the next 5 years, and almost no chance of it in the next 10 years.
I believe that it could work out that way, but you would have to have two sets of exit numbers. The one's from the southern terminus to present day Exit 6 and those going northward with the scheme of I-95 from the border.
However, we must take note the KTA in Kansas has one set of exit numbers for the whole length of the Turnpike in that state with four separate interstate routes. In fact I-70 is most awkward as it has numbers way up that get suspended when it joins the toll road at Topeka. The numbers drop down as I-70 has much more mileage prior to the junction of the Turnpike then the turnpike has from the Oklahoma State Line. Then once the closed system ends the I-70 exit numbers and mileage continue.
So Jeff has a point its more of the ticket system creating the issue as with the Kansas Turnpike it shows that their reason for not changing the mileage and exits each route number change is due to the closed tolling hence the free turnpike section on I-70 getting to use that interstate's exits and mileage.
If I were to renumber the NJ Turnpike, I'd base it on the currently posted mileage, P prefixes optional for I-95 to PA. I-95 near NY would just use the Turnpike mileage (as the mile markers do now) so the numbers don't jump twice.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2018, 02:39:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 17, 2018, 01:13:39 PM
The southbound exit can be numbered as Exit 6 because it is at I-95 MP 6
The Turnpike doesn't use Mileposts to mark their exit numbers. You can't (or shouldn't) have a mixture of milepost exit numbers and consecutive exit numbers on the same highway.
Also, I mentioned the ticket system. If someone got on at Interchange 6, it would show on the ticket as "No U-Turn" for Exit 6...so there's a confliction by reusing Exit 6.
When the NJTP goes to AET, you won't have as much confusion. You won't have to worry as much about unnumbered Exit 6A becoming I-95 Exit 3 because it would be confused with mainline Exit 3. Maybe then the Turnpike Commission should consider converting since the confusion the ticket system would cause would no longer exist.
Also, just for comparisons sake, the PA Turnpike has the same issue with the Northeast Extension. In their case, exiting from the PA Turnpike mainline (I-276) onto the Northeast Extension (I-476 North) does not have an exit number either.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2018, 01:02:40 AM
Also, just for comparisons sake, the PA Turnpike has the same issue with the Northeast Extension. In their case, exiting from the PA Turnpike mainline (I-276) onto the Northeast Extension (I-476 North) does not have an exit number either.
Even better, headed southbound on the NE Extension I-476, the exits to I-276 either direction are not numbered, but continuing straight on I-476 South IS labeled at Exit 20 | Mid-County, with left exit tabs.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 15, 2018, 05:00:06 PM
In my earlier reply to vdeane, I should have also mentioned that one solution to this whole debate about east-west vs. north-south could be "solved" by just not listing cardinal directions at all on the signs, as is the practice on the German Autobahns. They just show the route shield and usually several destinations and that seems to be acceptable in that part of Europe.
In the early days of the Capital Beltway, Maryland did not sign directions either. IMO that is the right approach. The easternmost parts of I-64 in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia are not signed either (it runs "backwards" there).
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 18, 2018, 10:28:19 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2018, 01:02:40 AM
Also, just for comparisons sake, the PA Turnpike has the same issue with the Northeast Extension. In their case, exiting from the PA Turnpike mainline (I-276) onto the Northeast Extension (I-476 North) does not have an exit number either.
Even better, headed southbound on the NE Extension I-476, the exits to I-276 either direction are not numbered, but continuing straight on I-476 South IS labeled at Exit 20 | Mid-County, with left exit tabs.
The Mid-County toll plaza itself is Exit 20, is why. Since you otherwise stay in the toll system, an exit number would never show up on a toll ticket. But it still should be signed somehow.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 18, 2018, 10:28:19 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2018, 01:02:40 AM
Also, just for comparisons sake, the PA Turnpike has the same issue with the Northeast Extension. In their case, exiting from the PA Turnpike mainline (I-276) onto the Northeast Extension (I-476 North) does not have an exit number either.
Even better, headed southbound on the NE Extension I-476, the exits to I-276 either direction are not numbered, but continuing straight on I-476 South IS labeled at Exit 20 | Mid-County, with left exit tabs.
I never understood why they couldn't use a split exit number for Mid-County on a toll ticket (say 334/20). Going from Exit 339 to Exit 20 on WB I-276 is weird. It would be better if Mid-County were Exit 334 on the mainline Turnpike and Exit 20 on the NE Extension.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 18, 2018, 10:28:19 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2018, 01:02:40 AM
Also, just for comparisons sake, the PA Turnpike has the same issue with the Northeast Extension. In their case, exiting from the PA Turnpike mainline (I-276) onto the Northeast Extension (I-476 North) does not have an exit number either.
Even better, headed southbound on the NE Extension I-476, the exits to I-276 either direction are not numbered, but continuing straight on I-476 South IS labeled at Exit 20 | Mid-County, with left exit tabs.
NJ Turnpike does the same type of thing with the Newark Bay extension. If you're going West, the continuation of I-78 is signed as Exit 14. And up until recently, the "exit" for it from the main line didn't have its own exit number. The sign said "Exits 14, 14A, 14B, 14C". It was only recently condensed into an exit tab that says "Exits 14-14C". That still treats the Newark Bay extension as a giant exit ramp. And I could have sworn that the mid-county interchange had a list of exit numbers for all movements within the toll zone in the same way.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 18, 2018, 04:09:04 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 18, 2018, 10:28:19 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2018, 01:02:40 AM
Also, just for comparisons sake, the PA Turnpike has the same issue with the Northeast Extension. In their case, exiting from the PA Turnpike mainline (I-276) onto the Northeast Extension (I-476 North) does not have an exit number either.
Even better, headed southbound on the NE Extension I-476, the exits to I-276 either direction are not numbered, but continuing straight on I-476 South IS labeled at Exit 20 | Mid-County, with left exit tabs.
NJ Turnpike does the same type of thing with the Newark Bay extension. If you're going West, the continuation of I-78 is signed as Exit 14. And up until recently, the "exit" for it from the main line didn't have its own exit number. The sign said "Exits 14, 14A, 14B, 14C". It was only recently condensed into an exit tab that says "Exits 14-14C". That still treats the Newark Bay extension as a giant exit ramp. And I could have sworn that the mid-county interchange had a list of exit numbers for all movements within the toll zone in the same way.
Heading eastbound on I-276, there is a sign that indicates I-276 East | Exits 339-359 and I-476 North | Exits 31 - 131. Heading southbound on I-476, there is a similar sign (I-276 East | Exits 339 - 359 and I-276 West | Exits 333 - 2). I can't remember if one exists on westbound I-276.
FDOT before it adopted mile based exit numbers had at the east end of I-4 Exit 58 for straight through SR 400 with the ramps for I-95 not having exit numbers. Of course I-4 is not a toll road, but it used the same concept as the NJ Turnpike uses at Exit 14.
BTW the Exit 14 is not an actual exit, but rather the number for the plaza. Even if the NJTA did finally go mile based, I am sure of it that the I-78 through sign on the Newark Bay Extension would use the Turnpike mainline mile based exit number for the toll barrier.
Also another thing to figure if the NJ Turnpike did go mile based you would actually see exit numbers appear for the unnumbered exit for Columbus Drive in Jersey City, and for NJ 140 in Carneys Point. The Exit 1 toll plaza would use the mile marker its at, so it would be one number more than what NJ 140 would be. Also with the I-78 extension the 14C toll would be 2 numbers less than Columbus Drive.
Right now they cannot use exit numbers for reasons discussed because of the way the sequential system is into the closed ticket system and I doubt the NJTA will ever convert despite the rest of NJ been mile based for years. I do not think NJDOT is like PennDOT where they used influence to PTC for going along with them on their campaign to change all exit numbers. In NJ the NJDOT minds their own business and lets NJTA do what they want.
Current Exit 14 lines up with MP 59 or 60 (can't remember off hand) on both I-78 and I-95. One could sign the same exit all around.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 18, 2018, 10:44:17 PM
Current Exit 14 lines up with MP 59 or 60 (can't remember off hand) on both I-78 and I-95. One could sign the same exit all around.
If they use the I-95 scheme north of Exit 6 it would be.
IMO opinion if NJTA went mile based I believe that the Newark Bay Extension should be using I-78 mile markers from the Delaware River in Phillipsburg. I do not think that using N whatever number would be right even though the next state NYSTA used them for I-190 in Buffalo at one time. Even with that you have numbers on the Niagara Section that duplicate the I-87 numbering on the mainline Thruway, as NYSTA dropped the N prefix decades ago, but people from Buffalo do not consider the Niagara Extension to be the Thruway proper and most likely call it the one ninety or the one ninety thruway. So therefore no confusion plus the fact the Thruway Exits 3 and 4 for example which are in Westchester County are far enough away from Buffalo not to conflict anyway.
Update regarding my posted comment on the I-95 link site a couple pages back (Reply #1064) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.1050). To my surprise, I received a reply (via email) the very next day. According to the person that replied to me; the I-695 designation was indeed pondered but was discarded on the grounds that even 3dis have to connect to their parent route at both ends. Needless to say, I replied back with several examples where such wasn't the case (including I-476 with respect to I-76).
The person also mentioned that the usual decision was already made circa 2015 yadda yadda yadda (I already knew that & mentioned such in my original comment). And I replied that had I known of the exact site (since this redesignation involves/impacts three different transportation agencies) I would've chimed in sooner.
I also commented that a couple compromises should've been made with the extended I-295 option: one of them basically switching the east/west and north/south directions on the soon-to-be-former I-95 legs. I also stated that had NJDOT objected to an additional I-295 direction cardinal change in a location that was within the state (at the US 1 interchange); the I-695 option should've been mandated right then & there.
I also posted a GSV link in my reply as towards how VADOT handled the curl along I-64 in the Norfolk area; no direction cardinals are used but supplemental INNER/OUTER LOOP signs are posted nearby and suggested that such be done for I-295 between the PA State Line and US 1. Such would allow the PA stretch to remain rightfully marked as a north/south road regardless of what number was chosen (I-295, 395, 695).
Today I received another reply thanking for my insights but basically telling me what's done is done. No surprise there.
While I wasn't personally expecting any change; I still felt compelled to post my thoughts on the matter.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 18, 2018, 10:51:05 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 18, 2018, 10:44:17 PM
Current Exit 14 lines up with MP 59 or 60 (can't remember off hand) on both I-78 and I-95. One could sign the same exit all around.
If they use the I-95 scheme north of Exit 6 it would be.
They would both be Exit 59.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2018, 02:42:37 PM
...Today I received another reply thanking for my insights but basically telling me what's done is done. No surprise there.
While I wasn't personally expecting any change; I still felt compelled to post my thoughts on the matter.
I think these agencies get quite of bit of correspondence in this manner: They look at an issue for 5, 10, 20 years. Hold meetings. Ask for input, etc. They get very little in response. They draw up plans, put it out to bid, and choose the winning bidder. They go to do the road work, and suddenly get an avalanche of calls, emails and bad press from the general public claiming they never got a chance to say anything and they want the whole project changed at the 13th hour.
They were no doubt very gracious in their response, but it's probably a bit annoying to them to continue to have to deal with an issue that was agreed upon 3 years ago. Heck, even in that time we as a group were probably some of the very few people that knew it would be 295. There was still ample time to write the emails during that time...when there was still limited opportunity to lobby for a change.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2018, 11:27:52 PMI think these agencies get quite of bit of correspondence in this manner: They look at an issue for 5, 10, 20 years. Hold meetings. Ask for input, etc. They get very little in response. They draw up plans, put it out to bid, and choose the winning bidder. They go to do the road work, and suddenly get an avalanche of calls, emails and bad press from the general public claiming they never got a chance to say anything and they want the whole project changed at the 13th hour.
While true; aside from the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange ramp construction, the bulk of this project involves simply changing & updating signs.
Should there be enough negative feedbacks regarding the signs' notations (after such are erected); unlike complaints regarding a ramp or the road design itself, remediation/correction efforts can be conceivably done in short order.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2018, 11:27:52 PMI think these agencies get quite of bit of correspondence in this manner: They look at an issue for 5, 10, 20 years. Hold meetings. Ask for input, etc. They get very little in response. They draw up plans, put it out to bid, and choose the winning bidder. They go to do the road work, and suddenly get an avalanche of calls, emails and bad press from the general public claiming they never got a chance to say anything and they want the whole project changed at the 13th hour.
On the other hand, the agencies involved (FHWA, PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT) could have done much more to solicit views from the public before committing to a particular redesignation plan. What they were going to do has many similarities to what Arizona DOT proposed to do with I-19 about 14 years ago, which was to change from km-based to mile-based signing with corresponding changes in exit numbers. A webpage (now no longer online) was created to outline the proposed change and invite public comment. It included pattern-accurate sign illustrations showing the suggested "Old Exit" treatment.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2018, 11:27:52 PMThey were no doubt very gracious in their response, but it's probably a bit annoying to them to continue to have to deal with an issue that was agreed upon 3 years ago. Heck, even in that time we as a group were probably some of the very few people that knew it would be 295. There was still ample time to write the emails during that time...when there was still limited opportunity to lobby for a change.
It is hard to comment on a proposed change without knowing precisely what it is. The decision to go for I-295 was actually made midway through the advertising period for the main I-95/Turnpike contract (PennDOT ECMS 95444), and resulted in 88 sheets of addendum revisions to the part of the plans set that deals with I-95 redesignation. PTC has its own letting platform and requires a difficult process for contractor registration to get access to construction plans. It was not widely known that the I-95/Turnpike contract was cross-posted to PennDOT's ECMS, which does have anonymous guest access. (In fact, I found the contract only after a routine run of a script that harvests contracts from the ECMS and is coded to ignore projects that are still open for bidding.) And although I have mentioned ECMS and explained how to access it multiple times on this forum, I think I am still one of fewer than five forum regulars actually using it.
"Annoying" is not the phrase I would use for PHLBOS' email. It may not be communication they want to receive. However, it is precisely the kind of communication
they should expect to receive if they retreat into a smoke-filled room to settle a high-visibility issue such as the route number of a major freeway segment.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 20, 2018, 10:37:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2018, 11:27:52 PMI think these agencies get quite of bit of correspondence in this manner: They look at an issue for 5, 10, 20 years. Hold meetings. Ask for input, etc. They get very little in response. They draw up plans, put it out to bid, and choose the winning bidder. They go to do the road work, and suddenly get an avalanche of calls, emails and bad press from the general public claiming they never got a chance to say anything and they want the whole project changed at the 13th hour.
On the other hand, the agencies involved (FHWA, PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT) could have done much more to solicit views from the public before committing to a particular redesignation plan. What they were going to do has many similarities to what Arizona DOT proposed to do with I-19 about 14 years ago, which was to change from km-based to mile-based signing with corresponding changes in exit numbers. A webpage (now no longer online) was created to outline the proposed change and invite public comment. It included pattern-accurate sign illustrations showing the suggested "Old Exit" treatment.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2018, 11:27:52 PMThey were no doubt very gracious in their response, but it's probably a bit annoying to them to continue to have to deal with an issue that was agreed upon 3 years ago. Heck, even in that time we as a group were probably some of the very few people that knew it would be 295. There was still ample time to write the emails during that time...when there was still limited opportunity to lobby for a change.
It is hard to comment on a proposed change without knowing precisely what it is. The decision to go for I-295 was actually made midway through the advertising period for the main I-95/Turnpike contract (PennDOT ECMS 95444), and resulted in 88 sheets of addendum revisions to the part of the plans set that deals with I-95 redesignation. PTC has its own letting platform and requires a difficult process for contractor registration to get access to construction plans. It was not widely known that the I-95/Turnpike contract was cross-posted to PennDOT's ECMS, which does have anonymous guest access. (In fact, I found the contract only after a routine run of a script that harvests contracts from the ECMS and is coded to ignore projects that are still open for bidding.) And although I have mentioned ECMS and explained how to access it multiple times on this forum, I think I am still one of fewer than five forum regulars actually using it.
"Annoying" is not the phrase I would use for PHLBOS' email. It may not be communication they want to receive. However, it is precisely the kind of communication they should expect to receive if they retreat into a smoke-filled room to settle a high-visibility issue such as the route number of a major freeway segment.
To be completely honest, I'm not sure if there truly was a comment period from any agency for this particular renumbering project. If there was, it was several years ago. It could've also been part of the larger project's public comment period (the NJ Turnpike widening and/or the PA Turnpike/95 ramp connection).
That said, there's a mountain of difference between what we care about on this group, and what the general public cares about. In this area, a renumbering of a highway just isn't much of a concern. Highways, in general, aren't really a concern. They're jammed...everyone knows it...but people tend to focus more on mass transit and other commuting methods than highways around here.
Using recent news stories articles for reference:
NJ.com (Trenton Times, etc) had a story when the press releases first went out in regards to the renumbering. As commenters can remain anonymous, the paper tends to get a large amount of comments, and this story proved no different, generating 60 comments. The largest group of comments went to mocking Philly as a 2nd class city compared to NYC. Several others dealt with tolls (the Scudders Fall Bridge will become a toll bridge soon) and the 95 issue with the NJ Turnpike. Not a single commenter seemed concerned with 95 being redesigned as 295. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/12/interstate_95_near_trenton_is_getting_a_new_number.html
NJ 101.5, the nearly-all NJ radio station, ran a story in early January. From non-roadgeeks, the only real comment was actually talking about I-287. Chris and Ray are longtime road enthusiasts who, as you can see, had a lot more knowledge of the situation. Their discussion generated one additional comment...not really all that concerned about the renumbering. http://nj1015.com/drive-north-to-go-south-or-is-that-west-why-theyre-renumbering-95295/
Planet Princeton, a local news source, wrote a story which generated 8 comments. 1 actually seemed to touch on the potential confusion...and the writer got it wrong (they were wondering if the cardinal direction wouldn't change at all). https://planetprinceton.com/2017/12/21/i-95-in-mercer-county-to-be-renamed-i-295-in-early-2018-several-exit-numbers-to-change/
The Bucks County Courier Times, which is the county where the majority of the 95 renumbering will take place, just printed a story regarding the renumbering this past Sunday. Its Facebook commenting generated 0 responses. http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/20180218/project-to-connect-i-95-pa-turnpike-nears-major-milestone?start=2
The Philly Inquirer, the regions largest newspaper, doesn't appear to have written a story at all regarding the renumbering.
So, while we have scores, if not hundreds, of comments on our forum in regards to the renumbering, the millions of general public members in the region are more concerned about, well, just about anything else.
It doesn't help that the proposed designation kept changing. First it was I-295, then it was I-195, then I-695 appeared, and then at the 11th hour it was I-295 again. Might have even been I-395 at some point. I don't think the issues with the cardinal directions were known until the plans were out, either.
Quote from: vdeane on February 20, 2018, 01:18:00 PMI don't think the issues with the cardinal directions were known until the plans were out, either.
Precisely.
The only reason why I was leaning towards using a different number (I-695) for the I-95 stretch rather than extending the I-295 designation was strictly as a means of
logically assigning direction cardinals (E/W for the NJ section, N/S for the PA section; not the other way around). As I've stated before both here and on the fore-mentioned
comments section; if continuing the I-295 designation was chosen, there still
should be
two direction cardinal change locations rather than one. Otherwise, such leads to illogical direction cardinals for the
old I-95 legs; which is what's presently taking place. This issue's more pronounced in PA where a
very clearly north/south stretch of highway is being signed east/west. And before one mentions I-295 in DE; there's some differences.
1. That road is roughly only half of the length as the PA stretch of
Future I-295.
2. Whereas I-295 does just a
bend from NJ into DE; I-295, as we all know, does more of an
arc around Trenton and into PA (where it, in reality, reverses direction).
3. The decision for continuation of using the north/south direction cardinals along I-295 into DE was likely based on the notion at the majority of
through-traffic mainly from I-95/495 to the NJ Turnpike/US 40 is heading north/south in terms of origin/destination. Given the absence of the Somerset Freeway (the originally-planned I-95) and the
later completion of I-295 roughly a decade after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled; most of the traffic along I-95/295 near Trenton is likely more local.
As far as the public's response to the media stories on this matter are concerned; I, personally, won't think such will take place full-swing until
after all the signs are up. While most won't care what number was chosen (I-295 or I-695 or whatever); they might sound off towards the illogical direction cardinals, particularly along the PA stretch.
Time will tell.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 20, 2018, 02:27:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on February 20, 2018, 01:18:00 PMI don't think the issues with the cardinal directions were known until the plans were out, either.
Precisely.
The only reason why I was leaning towards using a different number (I-695) for the I-95 stretch rather than extending the I-295 designation was strictly as a means of logically assigning direction cardinals (E/W for the NJ section, N/S for the PA section; not the other way around). As I've stated before both here and on the fore-mentioned comments section; if continuing the I-295 designation was chosen, there still should be two direction cardinal change locations rather than one. Otherwise, such leads to illogical direction cardinals for the old I-95 legs; which is what's presently taking place. This issue's more pronounced in PA where a very clearly north/south stretch of highway is being signed east/west. And before one mentions I-295 in DE; there's some differences.
1. That road is roughly only half of the length as the PA stretch of Future I-295.
2. Whereas I-295 does just a bend from NJ into DE; I-295, as we all know, does more of an arc around Trenton and into PA (where it, in reality, reverses direction).
3. The decision for continuation of using the north/south direction cardinals along I-295 into DE was likely based on the notion at the majority of through-traffic mainly from I-95/495 to the NJ Turnpike/US 40 is heading north/south in terms of origin/destination. Given the absence of the Somerset Freeway (the originally-planned I-95) and the later completion of I-295 roughly a decade after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled; most of the traffic along I-95/295 near Trenton is likely more local.
As far as the public's response to the media stories on this matter are concerned; I, personally, won't think such will take place full-swing until after all the signs are up. While most won't care what number was chosen (I-295 or I-695 or whatever); they might sound off towards the illogical direction cardinals, particularly along the PA stretch.
Time will tell.
The biggest change will be when PA starts to do their part - going from 95 North/South to 295 East/West. Then if there's any noise, we'll hear it then.
As for NJ's changes, I went out at lunch to check everything out. Basically, all the new mileposts have been installed on both 295 North and South. Most of the old mileposts still remain as well. Actually NJDOT was working with one milepost sign, around MP 68 or so. Not sure what they might've seen, but they were looking at the top of it.
On 295 North, I believe all the overhead signs have been adjusted for the new number up to new 295 Exit 72 (Old I-95 Exit 4), along with some of the new 295 Exit 73 (Old I-95 Exit 3) signs. Most of the ground-mounted BGS signs have been updated too up to that point. It appears the old signage prior to new Exit 68 have been removed, but much of the old signage between Exit 68 and the NJ/PA state line remains. In many cases, new smaller green signs, such as the 'Exit' gore signs, and supplemental signs such as for the College of New Jersey, are being replaced in full. The new sign sits directly behind the old sign. Surprisingly, many of these signs are actually slightly larger than the old sign they're replacing.
Most of the Blue Travel Services signs haven't been touched, and of the few that have, they are getting the bad overlay treatment with the new exit number. As the new number is 2 digits rather than 1, the line will now be off-centered with a slightly different font.
On new 295 South, other than the mileposts, the only signs that have been modified are for new Exit 69A/B (Old Exit 7A/B).
A little surprising is that there's no real advanced notification of the new exit numbers, other than the yellow advisory signage at each exit. On Rt. 29 North at the last traffic light prior to the I-95 interchange, there is a variable message sign advising motorists of the Exit renumbers on 95. That was the only thing I saw prior to any of the actual changes.
NJ 511 has a warning about the renumbering when you ask for conditions on 295 (and, I assume, the old 95), so there's that at least.
Probably the best overall solution would have been to redesignate I-295 in DE and up to MM 60 in NJ as "I-195" and redesignate the remainder of I-295 in NJ and I-95 from US 1 in NJ to the PA Tok as "I-276". Both Interstates could be considered East/West.
As the present I-295 would no longer return to I-95, the I-195 designation would be appropriate. Extending the I-276 designation would have solved a lot of the concerns previously discussed and its available.
It would have entailed a lot of work but it would have avoided a lot of confusion.
It will also be interesting when the signing in the Scudder Falls Bridge area is done by DRJTBC . . . because of the ongoing construction and work areas, the changes will likely be to smaller signs (or the addition of them) because the overhead structures probably can't go up yet. Having seen NJDOT's plans, which include the tie-in to the ultimate signing at the bridge, there is not much notice of the change from North to West except on overhead advance toll signs, which presumably would not go up until just before the toll gantry is operational (a while off, I would think).
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 20, 2018, 04:45:45 PM
Probably the best overall solution would have been to redesignate I-295 in DE and up to MM 60 in NJ as "I-195" and redesignate the remainder of I-295 in NJ and I-95 from US 1 in NJ to the PA Tok as "I-276". Both Interstates could be considered East/West.
There's a couple flaws in what you're proposing:
1. At present, only the
through-I-95 ramps are being constructed at the PA Turnpike interchange. The other movement ramps (including the I-276 East to former I-95 North aka your through-I-276 East) are not being constructed at the present time.
2. As with the earlier "official" proposal to redesignate I-95/295 around Trenton as an extended I-195; the I-195 West to I-295 North movement (your through-I-195) is a single-lane cloverleaf ramp (The I-295 South to I-195 East ramp is similar). Such is not desirable for a through-route and would require a reconfiguration of a perfectly-functioning 4-way interchange (an added cost).
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 20, 2018, 04:45:45 PM
As the present I-295 would no longer return to I-95, the I-195 designation would be appropriate. Extending the I-276 designation would have solved a lot of the concerns previously discussed and its available.
As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2018, 09:35:51 AM
As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).
I-270 (formerly I-70S) in Maryland never comes close to returning to its parent route.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2018, 10:51:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2018, 09:35:51 AM
As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).
I-270 (formerly I-70S) in Maryland never comes close to returning to its parent route.
While true, I was referring to 3-digit Interstate routes that were such from day one. Regarding your I-270/70S example: one has to wonder why an odd 3-digit number (I-370) wasn't assigned for I-70S. The argument against such might've been due to the highway not actually ending inside a city.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2018, 10:59:49 AM
While true, I was referring to 3-digit Interstate routes that were such from day one. Regarding your I-270/70S example: one has to wonder why an odd 3-digit number (I-370) wasn't assigned for I-70S. The argument against such might've been due to the highway not actually ending inside a city.
The reason for an even number I heard years ago was that since old I-70S and then I-270 terminated at another "not-dead-end" Interstate (I-495) at the "other end" away from I-70, then it was acceptable to have an even number (not sure I really agree with that - as you suggest, I-70S could have been I-370, with present-day I-370 being I-570, which came
many years after I-70S became I-270).
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2018, 10:59:49 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2018, 10:51:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2018, 09:35:51 AM
As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).
I-270 (formerly I-70S) in Maryland never comes close to returning to its parent route.
While true, I was referring to 3-digit Interstate routes that were such from day one. Regarding your I-270/70S example: one has to wonder why an odd 3-digit number (I-370) wasn't assigned for I-70S. The argument against such might've been due to the highway not actually ending inside a city.
Heck, the PA Turnpike's I-276 doesn't return to its parent route!
The above gets at a question I've long had regarding odd vs. even first digits on 3DIs: What is the official policy, and what should it be? The sample numbering maps in the MUTCD are very simplistic–showing a dead-end spur as odd and a belt that returns to its parent as even.
In practice, a spur that dead-ends at a city, airport, or other non-Interstate road is assigned an odd first digit while a spur that terminates at any other Interstate (not necessarily its parent) is generally even. 3DIs that return to their parent are always even.
As I see it, the only possible value in differentiating between odd and even 3DIs would be if the even 3DIs always returned to their parents. Then–let's say you're driving across the country on fictional I-60, and approaching a city, you need to choose between I-60 and I-460. You could choose either route with the confidence of knowing that you'd stay on the same overall course, even if one route was more traffic congested, more circuitous, etc. than the other.
But if the even first digit simply signifies "I connect to another Interstate" , what value is that to the motorist? (Unless you're a roadgeek trying to soak up as many Interstate miles as possible. But even then, you'd already know what connects to what.)
Granted, we're already at a point where odd/even is basically meaningless from the public's perspective–and we're not about to see a massive nationwide 3DI renumbering–so the entire conversation is academic.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 21, 2018, 12:07:34 PM
I will give you the
short version as listed on many Rand McNally road maps & atlases regarding 3-digit Interstates.
First digit even: route goes through or around a city.
First digit odd: route spurs into a city.
Obviously Rand McNally isn't going to go into a fully-detailed explanation/criteria on a simple map legend geared towards a largely
lay audience; but IMHO the above sums it up rather nicely & is reasonably accurate.
Truth be told, I only started hearing of the
has to connect to its parent route x number of times mantra when I first joined this site several years ago.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 21, 2018, 12:07:34 PMGranted, we’re already at a point where odd/even is basically meaningless from the public’s perspective —and we'’re not about to see a massive nationwide 3DI renumbering— so the entire conversation is academic.
In hindsight, and I even started a
what if?-like thread in the Fictional Section some time back, it would've been better to have done the reverse of the odd/even prefix assignments. Mainly since there are more choices of odd prefixes than even (5 vs. 4) and the fact that there seems to be more routes that go around or through a city rather than ones that simply spur into it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2018, 10:51:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2018, 09:35:51 AM
As I explained to the individual on the site; there are plenty of even 3-digit Interstates that don't return to their parent route; and, contrary to popular belief, many of those were planned that way (example: I-476 in PA).
I-270 (formerly I-70S) in Maryland never comes close to returning to its parent route.
I-264 in Virginia even ends as a spur to the VA Beach oceanfront area, and it does not have an odd number.
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 01:10:44 PMI-264 in Virginia even ends as a spur to the VA Beach oceanfront area, and it does not have an odd number.
Prior to 1995, the eastern terminus of I-264 ended at I-64 while the highway continued as the Virginia Beach Expressway (VA 44). In between the I-64 connections, I-264 went
through Norfolk.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2018, 01:49:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 01:10:44 PMI-264 in Virginia even ends as a spur to the VA Beach oceanfront area, and it does not have an odd number.
Prior to 1995, the eastern terminus of I-264 ended at I-64 while the highway continued as the Virginia Beach Expressway (VA 44). In between the I-64 connections, I-264 went through Norfolk.
I knew all that, was just commenting on what the highway is designated today.
I counted at least 12 three-digit Interstates that connect 2 or more Interstates, and also end as open-ended spurs. So they have both connecting functions and spur functions. Nearly all are odd-numbered.
I always thought of I-76 and I-276 as different ways to get to the I-95 corridor, so they sort of return to the same place. Same with I-80 and I-280 in NJ.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 21, 2018, 02:40:05 PM
I always thought of I-76 and I-276 as different ways to get to the I-95 corridor, so they sort of return to the same place. Same with I-80 and I-280 in NJ.
I-276 and I-476 both seem to me like a non-typical designation scheme. I would have thought that an x95 route would be ideal for the western bypass of Philadelphia, and maybe using I-276 only for the turnpike between Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting.
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:09:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 21, 2018, 02:40:05 PM
I always thought of I-76 and I-276 as different ways to get to the I-95 corridor, so they sort of return to the same place. Same with I-80 and I-280 in NJ.
I-276 and I-476 both seem to me like a non-typical designation scheme. I would have thought that an x95 route would be ideal for the western bypass of Philadelphia, and maybe using I-276 only for the turnpike between Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting.
Maybe we could use I-995, making I-95 one of two N-S interstates (and one of four overall) to have a full set of 3dis.
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 21, 2018, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:09:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 21, 2018, 02:40:05 PM
I always thought of I-76 and I-276 as different ways to get to the I-95 corridor, so they sort of return to the same place. Same with I-80 and I-280 in NJ.
I-276 and I-476 both seem to me like a non-typical designation scheme. I would have thought that an x95 route would be ideal for the western bypass of Philadelphia, and maybe using I-276 only for the turnpike between Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting.
Maybe we could use I-995, making I-95 one of two N-S interstates (and one of four overall) to have a full set of 3dis.
At present
and aside from the 500 or so feet of I-495 just north of the DE state line, PA has no
other I-x95s in it. I-295 will be in the foreseeable future and both their original plans for I-695 (through Philly) & I-895 (another Delaware River crossing near the Burlington-Bristol Bridge) were cancelled decades ago.
If any other road (new or existing) in the Keystone State were to receive another I-x95 designation; such would likely be either I-395 or 695 depending on the road's function.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 08:59:13 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 21, 2018, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:09:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 21, 2018, 02:40:05 PM
I always thought of I-76 and I-276 as different ways to get to the I-95 corridor, so they sort of return to the same place. Same with I-80 and I-280 in NJ.
I-276 and I-476 both seem to me like a non-typical designation scheme. I would have thought that an x95 route would be ideal for the western bypass of Philadelphia, and maybe using I-276 only for the turnpike between Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting.
Maybe we could use I-995, making I-95 one of two N-S interstates (and one of four overall) to have a full set of 3dis.
At present, PA has no I-x95s in it. I-295 will be in the foreseeable future and both their original plans for I-695 (through Philly) & I-895 (another Delaware River crossing near the Burlington-Bristol Bridge) were cancelled decades ago.
If any other road (new or existing) in the Keystone State were to receive another I-x95 designation; such would likely be either I-395 or 695 depending on the road's function.
And it will be a little interesting to see what they do with the PA 295 designation in York County. Recent precedent; PA 86 and PA 99 were not renumbered externally, but internally became SR 886 and SR 399. As opposed to PA 283 and PA 380, which were internally numbered SR 300 and SR 400 when the SR designations were first determined.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 22, 2018, 10:30:35 AMAnd it will be a little interesting to see what they do with the PA 295 designation in York County. Recent precedent; PA 86 and PA 99 were not renumbered externally, but internally became SR 886 and SR 399. As opposed to PA 283 and PA 380, which were internally numbered SR 300 and SR 400 when the SR designations were first determined.
My
guess regarding PA 295's fate: since it's far enough away from the new I-295 that it shouldn't be an issue (i.e. no change to PA 295's number will happen, at least externally). Such is similar to MA 295 & I-295 coexisting in the Bay State (but at opposite ends).
Another
in theory example is the coexistence of PA 90 and I-90 although the former never officially received that designation but would have had the Tacony/Pulaski Expresssway been built.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 22, 2018, 10:30:35 AMAnd it will be a little interesting to see what they do with the PA 295 designation in York County. Recent precedent; PA 86 and PA 99 were not renumbered externally, but internally became SR 886 and SR 399. As opposed to PA 283 and PA 380, which were internally numbered SR 300 and SR 400 when the SR designations were first determined.
My guess regarding PA 295's fate: since it's far enough away from the new I-295 that it shouldn't be an issue (i.e. no change to PA 295's number will happen, at least externally). Such is similar to MA 295 & I-295 coexisting in the Bay State (but at opposite ends).
Another in theory example is the coexistence of PA 90 and I-90 although the former never officially received that designation but would have had the Tacony/Pulaski Expresssway been built.
195, 395, 495, 595, 695, 795 are available. Will probably become one of those internally.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 08:59:13 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 21, 2018, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:09:20 PM
I-276 and I-476 both seem to me like a non-typical designation scheme. I would have thought that an x95 route would be ideal for the western bypass of Philadelphia, and maybe using I-276 only for the turnpike between Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting.
Maybe we could use I-995, making I-95 one of two N-S interstates (and one of four overall) to have a full set of 3dis.
At present, PA has no I-x95s in it. I-295 will be in the foreseeable future and both their original plans for I-695 (through Philly) & I-895 (another Delaware River crossing near the Burlington-Bristol Bridge) were cancelled decades ago.
If any other road (new or existing) in the Keystone State were to receive another I-x95 designation; such would likely be either I-395 or 695 depending on the road's function.
I wasn't really suggesting that it be changed at this point, just suggesting what could have been done back in the 1950s or 1960s.
Quote from: cl94 on February 22, 2018, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 22, 2018, 10:30:35 AMAnd it will be a little interesting to see what they do with the PA 295 designation in York County. Recent precedent; PA 86 and PA 99 were not renumbered externally, but internally became SR 886 and SR 399. As opposed to PA 283 and PA 380, which were internally numbered SR 300 and SR 400 when the SR designations were first determined.
My guess regarding PA 295's fate: since it's far enough away from the new I-295 that it shouldn't be an issue (i.e. no change to PA 295's number will happen, at least externally). Such is similar to MA 295 & I-295 coexisting in the Bay State (but at opposite ends).
Another in theory example is the coexistence of PA 90 and I-90 although the former never officially received that designation but would have had the Tacony/Pulaski Expresssway been built.
195, 395, 495, 595, 695, 795 are available. Will probably become one of those internally.
Or simply SR 1295
internally.
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2018, 11:54:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 08:59:13 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 21, 2018, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:09:20 PM
I-276 and I-476 both seem to me like a non-typical designation scheme. I would have thought that an x95 route would be ideal for the western bypass of Philadelphia, and maybe using I-276 only for the turnpike between Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting.
Maybe we could use I-995, making I-95 one of two N-S interstates (and one of four overall) to have a full set of 3dis.
At present, PA has no I-x95s in it. I-295 will be in the foreseeable future and both their original plans for I-695 (through Philly) & I-895 (another Delaware River crossing near the Burlington-Bristol Bridge) were cancelled decades ago.
If any other road (new or existing) in the Keystone State were to receive another I-x95 designation; such would likely be either I-395 or 695 depending on the road's function.
I wasn't really suggesting that it be changed at this point, just suggesting what could have been done back in the 1950s or 1960s.
It's worth noting that the Walt Whitman/Schuylkill Expressway from the Vine Expressway to the Walt Whitman Bridge was once proposed to receive the I-395 designation but received the I-680 designation instead. Such changed to I-676 circa 1964 and then to I-76 (the then-half-completed Vine Expressway that carried the I-76 designation became I-676) during the early-to-mid 1970s.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 12:06:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway
I wasn't really suggesting that it be changed at this point, just suggesting what could have been done back in the 1950s or 1960s.
It's worth noting that the Walt Whitman/Schuylkill Expressway from the Vine Expressway to the Walt Whitman Bridge was once proposed to receive the I-395 designation but received the I-680 designation instead. Such changed to I-676 circa 1964 and then to I-76 (the then-half-completed Vine Expressway that carried the I-76 designation became I-676) during the early-to-mid 1970s.
Both iterations of I-76/I-676 were logical designations back then, the original Vine Street Expressway interchange with the Ben Franklin Bridge would have been a high capacity freeway-to-freeway connection, and either I-676 or I-76 could have been routed thru there. I-676 was the alternate and/or relief route for I-76. I-76 has a logical terminus at NJ I-295.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 08:59:13 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on February 21, 2018, 06:24:06 PM
Quote from: Beltway on February 21, 2018, 06:09:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 21, 2018, 02:40:05 PM
I always thought of I-76 and I-276 as different ways to get to the I-95 corridor, so they sort of return to the same place. Same with I-80 and I-280 in NJ.
I-276 and I-476 both seem to me like a non-typical designation scheme. I would have thought that an x95 route would be ideal for the western bypass of Philadelphia, and maybe using I-276 only for the turnpike between Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting.
Maybe we could use I-995, making I-95 one of two N-S interstates (and one of four overall) to have a full set of 3dis.
At present, PA has no I-x95s in it. I-295 will be in the foreseeable future and both their original plans for I-695 (through Philly) & I-895 (another Delaware River crossing near the Burlington-Bristol Bridge) were cancelled decades ago.
If any other road (new or existing) in the Keystone State were to receive another I-x95 designation; such would likely be either I-395 or 695 depending on the road's function.
PA technically has I-495 in it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 12:06:06 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 22, 2018, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 22, 2018, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on February 22, 2018, 10:30:35 AMAnd it will be a little interesting to see what they do with the PA 295 designation in York County. Recent precedent; PA 86 and PA 99 were not renumbered externally, but internally became SR 886 and SR 399. As opposed to PA 283 and PA 380, which were internally numbered SR 300 and SR 400 when the SR designations were first determined.
My guess regarding PA 295's fate: since it's far enough away from the new I-295 that it shouldn't be an issue (i.e. no change to PA 295's number will happen, at least externally). Such is similar to MA 295 & I-295 coexisting in the Bay State (but at opposite ends).
Another in theory example is the coexistence of PA 90 and I-90 although the former never officially received that designation but would have had the Tacony/Pulaski Expresssway been built.
195, 395, 495, 595, 695, 795 are available. Will probably become one of those internally.
Or simply SR 1295 internally.
Honestly doubt that they'd go for that, as I bet there is another 'SR 1295' in the same area. Maybe 'SR 6295' if it doesn't get a '3-digit' internal number?
Quote from: Alps on February 22, 2018, 10:05:16 PM
PA technically has I-495 in it.
The southbound I-495 roadway actually does branch from I-95 about 500 feet from the state line.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8193507,-75.4495453,477m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:11:44 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 22, 2018, 10:05:16 PM
PA technically has I-495 in it.
The southbound I-495 roadway actually does branch from I-95 about 500 feet from the state line.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8193507,-75.4495453,477m/data=!3m1!1e3
And in the vicinity are two of the shopping centers I grew up with, the cemetery where my father and three of my grandparents are buried (my maternal grandfather is buried in a cemetery near the PA 452 interchange with 95), and the refinery that employed my stepdad for 40 years.
I assume PennDot maintains the PA portion of that 495/DE 92 offramp.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on February 23, 2018, 08:08:31 AM
I assume PennDot maintains the PA portion of that 495/DE 92 offramp.
Yep...it's pretty clear where the jurisdiction changes based on the pavement for both 95 and 495 here: https://goo.gl/maps/5mmiTGMwBqK2
Quote from: Alps on February 22, 2018, 10:05:16 PMPA technically has I-495 in it.
Duly noted (even though we're talking about 500 or so feet of pavement in the grand scheme of things) and I have since edited my previous post as needed/appropriate.
It's arguable that I-495 doesn't enter Pennsylvania. PennDOT's straight line diagram for I-95 in Delaware County shows an 8000-series SR (PennDOT's designation for interchange ramps) as "Ramp to I-495 Delaware" , but it doesn't list a separate SR for 495 itself. The straight line diagram for SR 8009 lists it beginning at I-95 and terminating at the Delaware state line–a total distance of 220 feet.
And of course the FHWA's Interstate log doesn't list any mileage for I-495 in PA.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4612/39544230695_39c2efa9d1_b.jpg)
Quote from: Beltway on February 23, 2018, 12:11:44 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 22, 2018, 10:05:16 PM
PA technically has I-495 in it.
The southbound I-495 roadway actually does branch from I-95 about 500 feet from the state line.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8193507,-75.4495453,477m/data=!3m1!1e3
Was noticing that the first reassurance marker for I-495 and the 11.5 mm is at the actual border.
Anyway if another I-495 does need to be in Pennsylvania so be it IMO. There is not enough roadway of significance in PA to consider it to be a route in itself. 500 feet most of it diverging lanes is not a full freeway.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 23, 2018, 10:55:30 AM
It's arguable that I-495 doesn't enter Pennsylvania. PennDOT's straight line diagram for I-95 in Delaware County shows an 8000-series SR (PennDOT's designation for interchange ramps) as "Ramp to I-495 Delaware" , but it doesn't list a separate SR for 495 itself. The straight line diagram for SR 8009 lists it beginning at I-95 and terminating at the Delaware state line–a total distance of 220 feet.
And of course the FHWA's Interstate log doesn't list any mileage for I-495 in PA.
True for northbound I-495, it ends in Delaware. Physically the southbound roadway does begin in PA, even though PennDOT may officially call it a "ramp" and not a mainline highway.
I don't think I've seen a case where a PA Traffic Route uses quadrant route number (one starting with 1,2,3,4), so I don't think they'd use SR 1295. There are cases where route numbers are used in a quadrant route number, such as:
- bannered routes (SR 3422 is Bus US 422 in Reading, SR 3160 was the old Bus PA 60 around the Pgh Airport before it became Bus I-376, plus SR 3060 was already used in Allegheny County before they decided to use SR 3160)
- frontage roads/CD roads (SR 2676 are the local Vine Streets for I-676, and SR 3095 are the I-95 PHL airport CD lanes, SR 1202 Chester County and SR 3202 Montgomery County is used for the connecting road between US 202 North and I-76 East)
- downgraded roads, such as when PA 82 was truncated in Elverson, the old PA 82 because SR 4082 in Chester County and SR 2082 in Berks County.
I don't think there are any permanent SR 6---roads, as those are supposed to be temporary...although there a SR 6011 for the old US 11 routing in Scranton...
...so, I'm thinking it will be one of the open SR 0_95s. I guess we'll see?
^ I don't see any reason to expect they won't follow the precedent set by I-86 and I-99 (as I believe you mentioned earlier)–new I-295 will be assigned SR 0295, and the former PA 295 will retain its keystone shield publicly but renumbered internally.
Do you believe that all of this snow we've been having this month will cause the ramps to not open until 2019 now? I feel like mother nature is doing this just to delay 95 becoming continuous even more.
Quote from: briantroutman on February 23, 2018, 04:22:52 PM
^ I don't see any reason to expect they won't follow the precedent set by I-86 and I-99 (as I believe you mentioned earlier)–new I-295 will be assigned SR 0295, and the former PA 295 will retain its keystone shield publicly but renumbered internally.
Like with hidden MD 295 and I-595 in MD, this is proof that you can fool the public as long as they want to be fooled.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 20, 2018, 09:31:59 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on February 23, 2018, 04:22:52 PM
^ I don't see any reason to expect they won't follow the precedent set by I-86 and I-99 (as I believe you mentioned earlier)–new I-295 will be assigned SR 0295, and the former PA 295 will retain its keystone shield publicly but renumbered internally.
Like with hidden MD 295 and I-595 in MD, this is proof that you can fool the public as long as they want to be fooled.
ixnay
Correction - MD
695.
ixnay
Quote from: jcn on March 20, 2018, 07:39:02 PM
Do you believe that all of this snow we've been having this month will cause the ramps to not open until 2019 now? I feel like mother nature is doing this just to delay 95 becoming continuous even more.
Was by there this past weekend. No, I think they should be able to open it in August and complete I-95 (never mind that Congress back in
1983 (see below) mandated that I-95 follow the far east end of the East-West Mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike and then the Pennsylvania Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike and the mainline of the N.J. Turnpike north of Exit 6 as a substitute for the cancelled Somerset Freeway). All of the steel for the flyover ramps appears to have been hung (though there appears to be a lot of bridge deck that needs to have concrete poured and cured still).
There's also a fair amount of work remaining on the Delaware Expressway south of the point where the flyovers will tie in, but I think there will be plenty of time to get that work done as well.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-96/pdf/STATUTE-96-Pg2097.pdf (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-96/pdf/STATUTE-96-Pg2097.pdf)
[
Emphasis added below]
QuoteWITHDRAWAL AND DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN INTERSTATE ROUTES
SEC. 162. (a) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation shall, upon application of the State of New Jersey, withdraw under such section 103(e)(4) his approval of the designation on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the portion of Interstate Route 95 and Interstate Route 695 from the intersection with Interstate Route 295 in Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, to the proposed intersection with Interstate Route 287 in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed, pursuant to section 103 of such title, to designate as part of the Interstate Highway System the New Jersey Turnpike from exit 10 to the interchange with the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
(c) The Secretary of Transportation is further authorized and directed to designate the highways described in subsection (b) as Interstate Route 95 and assure through proper sign designations the orderly connection of Interstate Route 95 pursuant to this section.
<<< ... and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County, ... >>>
While the U.S. Code didn't demand the construction of the interchange (and I don't think they legally could), it acknowledges that the interchange was already proposed, and that would imply that both PennDOT and PTC had at least a preliminary design and had decided to fund and build it at least at some point in the near future.
So for the Code to codify this new route for I-95, its drafters acknowledged that there were current Interstate-grade highways in place to take the new route and an approved plan to connect the one gap.
Correct logic on my part?
I believe that at one time there was a design to extend the Route 413 exit off of I-95 to the Delaware Valley interchange on the Turnpike. Why it was never built, I don't know.
So as of right now does I-95 officially do an imaginary "jump" from the NB DelEx to the EB PTC? Because I know it's unsigned I-95 in NJ, but I also wonder if there's an unsigned multiplex between 276 and 95 to the cross-point.
Separelty I wonder how long "old 276" signs will remain up after the changeover
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 02:08:58 PM
While the U.S. Code didn't demand the construction of the interchange (and I don't think they legally could), it acknowledges that the interchange was already proposed, and that would imply that both PennDOT and PTC had at least a preliminary design and had decided to fund and build it at least at some point in the near future.
Congress has an excellent remedy that it could use to force PTC to stop with its many abusive practices, and that's to end the exemption from federal tax that interest on its bonds currently enjoy.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 21, 2018, 02:48:28 PM
I believe that at one time there was a design to extend the Route 413 exit off of I-95 to the Delaware Valley interchange on the Turnpike. Why it was never built, I don't know.
Originally all of I-95 fed onto that stub and ended at 413. It was originally planned to continue out straight from there and somehow feed into US 13, follow the existing US 13 expressway around Levittown, then follow US 1 through Trenton before continuing from the end of that up through New Jersey as the original iteration of the Somerset Freeway proposal. However, if you've ever looked at any of those existing expressway sections, you'd know they'd obviously never handle the load of I-95, even in the early 1960s. They decided instead to reroute the proposed I-95 around Trenton on its current alignment, leaving the existing stub as a high-speed interchange that would've also served as the terminus of the proposed I-895, which would've continued southeast from the interchange across the river to I-295. You can even still see the
right-of-way for the loop connecting from the current SB on-ramp to I-895. The current SB off-ramp flyover, built much later than the rest, was also proposed to feed directly into 895. So this is why the connection exists and why the interchange with I-95 is so overpowered.
When the Somerset Freeway was cancelled and it became necessary (i.e. Congress forced them) to reroute I-95 onto the PA and NJ Turnpikes, extending this connection to the Turnpike was one of the options, with it passing through Silver Lake Park and connecting where the Delaware Valley Interchange trumpet is now. Because it passed through the park, and the necessary new interchange with PA 413 would be so close to the I-95 ramps that weaving would be an issue, this option was obviously not chosen.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 21, 2018, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 02:08:58 PM
While the U.S. Code didn't demand the construction of the interchange (and I don't think they legally could), it acknowledges that the interchange was already proposed, and that would imply that both PennDOT and PTC had at least a preliminary design and had decided to fund and build it at least at some point in the near future.
Congress has an excellent remedy that it could use to force PTC to stop with its many abusive practices, and that's to end the exemption from federal tax that interest on its bonds currently enjoy.
But can they legally do that? If they did it, would it withstand a lawsuit by the PTC?
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 06:12:51 PM
But can they legally do that? If they did it, would it withstand a lawsuit by the PTC?
The U.S. Congress,
not the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and
not the Pennsylvania legislature, write the U.S. tax code.
If Congress decides to impose rules on exemption from federal tax of bonds issued by state and local governments, then it may do so.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 21, 2018, 11:36:29 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 06:12:51 PM
But can they legally do that? If they did it, would it withstand a lawsuit by the PTC?
The U.S. Congress, not the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and not the Pennsylvania legislature, write the U.S. tax code.
If Congress decides to impose rules on exemption from federal tax of bonds issued by state and local governments, then it may do so.
What is the standard practice with regard to toll road authorities on the matter of rules on exemption from federal tax of bonds issued by state and local governments?
If PTC was treated differently from all the rest, then they may have grounds for a lawsuit in federal court, and the prospect getting that law overturned.
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 11:41:43 PM
What is the standard practice with regard to toll road authorities on the matter of rules on exemption from federal tax of bonds issued by state and local governments?
Most (not all) bonds issued by states and other political subdivisions of the United States are exempt from federal tax. Beyond that, you will need to ask a tax attorney, which I am not.
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 11:41:43 PM
If PTC was treated differently from all the rest, then they may have grounds for a lawsuit in federal court, and the prospect getting that law overturned.
My idea is a Toll Road User Bill of rights, and have it enforceable by the federal government by requiring compliance, and for any toll road agency that fails to comply, then the exemption from federal tax goes away.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 21, 2018, 11:54:32 PM
Quote from: Beltway on March 21, 2018, 11:41:43 PM
If PTC was treated differently from all the rest, then they may have grounds for a lawsuit in federal court, and the prospect getting that law overturned.
My idea is a Toll Road User Bill of rights, and have it enforceable by the federal government by requiring compliance, and for any toll road agency that fails to comply, then the exemption from federal tax goes away.
With a certain type of project such as a Breezewood connection there would need to be a specification of what to build and by a certain date.
PennDOT would be half of the agency effort to build the connection ... penalizing PTC wouldn't force PennDOT to take any action. I can also see them making excuses and delaying starting the project.
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 21, 2018, 05:01:33 PMWhen the Somerset Freeway was cancelled and it became necessary (i.e. Congress forced them) to reroute I-95 onto the PA and NJ Turnpikes, extending this connection to the Turnpike was one of the options, with it passing through Silver Lake Park and connecting where the Delaware Valley Interchange trumpet is now. Because it passed through the park, and the necessary new interchange with PA 413 would be so close to the I-95 ramps that weaving would be an issue, this option was obviously not chosen.
Another issue that triggered a redesigned interchange (to a higher-speed flyover ramp designs) was the fact that the trumpet-like interchange with the PA Turnpike would've created traffic backups with the
through I-95 movements even with the mainline toll/ticket plaza being relocated west of the interchange (which already happened a few years ago).
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 22, 2018, 10:27:00 AMAnother issue that triggered a redesigned interchange (to a higher-speed flyover ramp designs) was the fact that the trumpet-like interchange with the PA Turnpike would've created traffic backups with the through I-95 movements even with the mainline toll/ticket plaza being relocated west of the interchange (which already happened a few years ago).
That makes sense.
I wonder if the two lanes each way (at least for now) Turnpike Bridge over the Delaware River will be an even worse bottleneck for I-95 traffic once the ramps at Bristol are completed and open to traffic.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2018, 11:42:39 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 22, 2018, 10:27:00 AMAnother issue that triggered a redesigned interchange (to a higher-speed flyover ramp designs) was the fact that the trumpet-like interchange with the PA Turnpike would've created traffic backups with the through I-95 movements even with the mainline toll/ticket plaza being relocated west of the interchange (which already happened a few years ago).
That makes sense.
I wonder if the two lanes each way (at least for now) Turnpike Bridge over the Delaware River will be an even worse bottleneck for I-95 traffic once the ramps at Bristol are completed and open to traffic.
Put it this way - I don't think it's going to look pretty. I think they're taking a little too much time with this particular project.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2018, 12:02:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2018, 11:42:39 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 22, 2018, 10:27:00 AMAnother issue that triggered a redesigned interchange (to a higher-speed flyover ramp designs) was the fact that the trumpet-like interchange with the PA Turnpike would've created traffic backups with the through I-95 movements even with the mainline toll/ticket plaza being relocated west of the interchange (which already happened a few years ago).
That makes sense.
I wonder if the two lanes each way (at least for now) Turnpike Bridge over the Delaware River will be an even worse bottleneck for I-95 traffic once the ramps at Bristol are completed and open to traffic.
Put it this way - I don't think it's going to look pretty. I think they're taking a little too much time with this particular project.
It remains to be seen how much more volume the bridge gets. It might be that most of the traffic that will use the new interchange is currently ending up on the PA Turnpike some other way (like via US 1 and/or US 13)
Not to sound too cynical or a pessimistic, but it is normal nowadays to address a problem later than sooner.
I think we have been in a hurry to get the I-95 gap closed for over 5 decades we are not looking at everything including crossing our T's and dotting our i's.
The original timeline was for the NJ Turnpike widening, the full I-95/PA Turnpike interchange, and a new NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge to be completed all around the same time. Instead, we get the NJ Turnpike widening; the NJ/PA Turnpike bridge cracks, and still waiting on 25% of the 95/PA Tpk interchange to be finished!
Yeah things always come up. I am just wondering if a total bridge replacement would be better as those cracks did show engineers some things or two. Being that the Goethalas was replaced rather than twinned, it may be safe to conclude to declare this current structure deficient and go the whole 100 yards with a brand new bridge.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2018, 01:54:32 PM
Yeah things always come up. I am just wondering if a total bridge replacement would be better as those cracks did show engineers some things or two. Being that the Goethalas was replaced rather than twinned, it may be safe to conclude to declare this current structure deficient and go the whole 100 yards with a brand new bridge.
The Delaware River Turnpike Bridge had
one cracked structural beam. That was caused by "plug welds" that were used to fill holes that were drilled there by mistake when it was constructed in the 1950's. That has been corrected and I believe the bridge will be there for many years to come (I believe that all of the structural steel was checked for other plug welds while it was closed to all traffic and none were found). I suppose the long-term plan is to construct a new parallel span over the Delaware (costs being split between the PTC and NJTA) sometime between 2020 and 2030 to provide added capacity between the two turnpikes.
NBC Philadelphia: Decades Later, 'Last Piece' Missing From 1,900 Miles of I-95 Put in Place in Bucks County, Pennsylvania -
For decades, 16 miles in central Jersey made up the only place on the East Coast where drivers traveling I-95 had to get off the highway for a short time. Come August, no more. (https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Last-Piece-Missing-From-1900-Miles-of-I-95-Put-in-Place-in-Bucks-County-Pennsylvania-477655223.html)
QuoteThe massive steel beams went up over Interstate 95 just north of Philadelphia in mid-February without fanfare. Over two nights, workers completed an overpass that is still months from use.
QuoteBut the connection is much more than a causeway of steel and concrete. It's the last piece to a highway more than 60 years in the making. It's the completion of a 1,900-mile road that finally links Maine to Miami seamlessly.
QuoteFor decades, central New Jersey, specifically Mercer County, was the only remaining place on the East Coast where drivers traveling I-95 had to get off the highway for a short time. For the last four decades, building a link has been in planning.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 23, 2018, 04:05:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2018, 01:54:32 PM
Yeah things always come up. I am just wondering if a total bridge replacement would be better as those cracks did show engineers some things or two. Being that the Goethalas was replaced rather than twinned, it may be safe to conclude to declare this current structure deficient and go the whole 100 yards with a brand new bridge.
The Delaware River Turnpike Bridge had one cracked structural beam. That was caused by "plug welds" that were used to fill holes that were drilled there by mistake when it was constructed in the 1950's. That has been corrected and I believe the bridge will be there for many years to come (I believe that all of the structural steel was checked for other plug welds while it was closed to all traffic and none were found). I suppose the long-term plan is to construct a new parallel span over the Delaware (costs being split between the PTC and NJTA) sometime between 2020 and 2030 to provide added capacity between the two turnpikes.
My assumption is that they bought a few years by fortunately discovering no other plug welds, but they're still going to be interested in a complete replacement - parallel span, move four lanes of traffic over, demo and rebuild this one.
An update of sorts on the resigning efforts . . . Passing through the Mercer County section of I-95/I-295: There are a few signs that have not been changed yet by NJDOT -- they are somewhat random. I-95 confirmations are still out there, though most have been removed. No new I-295 confirmations yet.
Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission has started changing exit numbers and pull through signs, at least on the New Jersey side. Using greenout and overlays, since most signing will be removed because of the Scudder Falls Bridge construction. Exit 76 now exists. So does Exit 10, at least on one sign leaving New Jersey which is for the Taylorsville Road interchange upon entering Pennsylvania.
Photos to come later -- no safe places to pull off and take shots, and I am not that adept at driving and snapping at the same time. Some interesting perspectives.
It's crazy to think Somerset Expressway was only 16 miles.. it reminds me of the "between the beltways" part of i95 between Baltimore and Washington..
Does anyone know how many lanes this was supposed to be? 6 or 8?
If it had been built what is now 287 near New Brunswick and exit 10 of NJTP would be a mess. I am sure the NJTP authority signage would have everything possible to keep long distance traffic as toll paying customers, and really it is the easier way than going thru Center City Philadelphia with the soon to be 95 thru route or the exit 10 configuration.
Z981
Quote from: akotchi on March 24, 2018, 03:50:50 PM
An update of sorts on the resigning efforts . . . Passing through the Mercer County section of I-95/I-295: There are a few signs that have not been changed yet by NJDOT -- they are somewhat random. I-95 confirmations are still out there, though most have been removed. No new I-295 confirmations yet.
Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission has started changing exit numbers and pull through signs, at least on the New Jersey side. Using greenout and overlays, since most signing will be removed because of the Scudder Falls Bridge construction. Exit 76 now exists. So does Exit 10, at least on one sign leaving New Jersey which is for the Taylorsville Road interchange upon entering Pennsylvania.
I went by that area yesterday, for a job visit at nearby TTN airport. Regarding that for-mentioned Exit 10B-A BGS; it appeared that there was the
OLD EXIT 31 sign (that should've been taken down years ago) was modified to read
OLD EXIT 51A-B.
It's worth noting that the stretch of I-95 (Future I-295) in PA still has most of its
OLD EXIT XX signs around. When PennDOT re-signs its stretch; one has to wonder whether they'll just place new numbers onto the old squares similar to what was done for the lone Exit 10B-A BGS or just replace the old panels with new ones.
Who knows, maybe PennDOT will stupidly place a new set of
OLD EXIT XX square next to its older counterparts. Either that or modify the originals to read
OLD-OLD EXIT XX. :sombrero:
Back to the NJ side of the river: for one supplemental Exit 1 (new Exit 76) sign for the State Police Museum had its
1 listing replaced with a larger
76 panel. Such is large enough that half of the new panel extends beyond the main panel. Personally, I would expect this sloppiness to come from PennDOT not NJDOT.
Quote from: akotchi on March 24, 2018, 03:50:50 PM
An update of sorts on the resigning efforts . . . Passing through the Mercer County section of I-95/I-295: There are a few signs that have not been changed yet by NJDOT -- they are somewhat random. I-95 confirmations are still out there, though most have been removed. No new I-295 confirmations yet.
A lot of the local roads' signs have been swapped out, as seen on my bike ride along the east-central portion of CR 546 about two weeks ago, all the shields are 295 now.
Quote from: jwolfer on March 24, 2018, 04:14:16 PM
Does anyone know how many lanes this was supposed to be? 6 or 8?
I would imagine 6, which would match up with the original 6 lane section of 95 North of Trenton and the 6 lane section of I-287.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2018, 04:48:07 PM
Quote from: akotchi on March 24, 2018, 03:50:50 PM
An update of sorts on the resigning efforts . . . Passing through the Mercer County section of I-95/I-295: There are a few signs that have not been changed yet by NJDOT -- they are somewhat random. I-95 confirmations are still out there, though most have been removed. No new I-295 confirmations yet.
Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission has started changing exit numbers and pull through signs, at least on the New Jersey side. Using greenout and overlays, since most signing will be removed because of the Scudder Falls Bridge construction. Exit 76 now exists. So does Exit 10, at least on one sign leaving New Jersey which is for the Taylorsville Road interchange upon entering Pennsylvania.
I went by that area yesterday, for a job visit at nearby TTN airport. Regarding that for-mentioned Exit 10B-A BGS; it appeared that there was the OLD EXIT 31 sign (that should've been taken down years ago) was modified to read OLD EXIT 51A-B.
It's worth noting that the stretch of I-95 (Future I-295) in PA still has most of its OLD EXIT XX signs around. When PennDOT re-signs its stretch; one has to wonder whether they'll just place new numbers onto the old squares similar to what was done for the lone Exit 10B-A BGS or just replace the old panels with new ones.
Who knows, maybe PennDOT will stupidly place a new set of OLD EXIT XX square next to its older counterparts. Either that or modify the originals to read OLD-OLD EXIT XX. :sombrero:
Back to the NJ side of the river: for one supplemental Exit 1 (new Exit 76) sign for the State Police Museum had its 1 listing replaced with a larger 76 panel. Such is large enough that half of the new panel extends beyond the main panel. Personally, I would expect this sloppiness to come from PennDOT not NJDOT.
"North" of Bear Tavern Road (new Exit 75), the Toll Bridge Commission is handling the sign changes since that is the NJ limit of the bridge construction. As such, most of the signs will not survive the construction project, so new panels or better overlays (i.e. changes for aesthetics) do not appear to be the priority.
I have not been on all the interchange crossroads lately, but what I have been on has been changed to 295.
If it was like I-380 after I-81E was eliminated those numbers stayed for a long time as well. As when I-380 was sequential it had the numbers start from I-81 (yes both I-84 and I-380 shared Exits 1 and 2 together) as it was signed E-W where I-81E was N-S so therefore PA 934 ( the exit signed for the town of Pocono that does not exist) was Exit 1 and it headed north to Scranton (or midway too, as I-81E did not go beyond PA 307 when it lived.
So this does not surprise me just as it took 3 years to sign the US 1 freeway at Oxford Valley as US 1 and sign the old US 1 in Pendell as US 1 Business. Before 1990-91 the Oxford Valley was numberless and used Langhorne and Oxford Valley and US 1 Business was signed as Pendell and Trenton before then. The US 1 freeway into Morrisville to connect with the Trenton Freeway opened in 1987.
Speaking of exit numbers, what will be the exit number for the interchange itself? From the turnpike, my pick is Exit 356; from I-95, Exit 41; from I-295, Exit 1.
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 25, 2018, 10:52:24 PM
Speaking of exit numbers, what will be the exit number for the interchange itself? From the turnpike, my pick is Exit 356; from I-95, Exit 41; from I-295, Exit 1.
since there are TOTSOs involved for 95 and it’s a terminus for the other roads it might be better to just go with no number for any of them. Although it is a high speed totso so maybe that doesn’t count the same as a loop ramp mainline
Just where does the Toll Bridge Commission have jurisdiction over the approaches of the Scudders Falls Bridge?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 26, 2018, 07:54:39 AM
Just where does the Toll Bridge Commission have jurisdiction over the approaches of the Scudders Falls Bridge?
ixnay
Basically between Taylorsville Rd in PA (I-95 Exit 51) and Rt. 29 in NJ (I-95 Exit 1) (the closest interchanges to the Delaware River in both states).
On the PA Side: While there's a noticeable pavement transition here: https://goo.gl/maps/mAELnXSi1fQ2, actual 'Start of DRJTBC Jurisdiction' signage is seen to the right here, a few hundred feet from the pavement transition: https://goo.gl/maps/UEcYwJ9FUWx
On the NJ Side: The sign is on the eastern edge of the Rt. 29 Overpass: https://goo.gl/maps/musrbBrkrHL2
In other news: Here's the DRJTBC press release about their resigning of 95 to 295: http://www.drjtbc.org/project/I-295signs
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 25, 2018, 10:52:24 PM
Speaking of exit numbers, what will be the exit number for the interchange itself? From the turnpike, my pick is Exit 356; from I-95, Exit 41; from I-295, Exit 1.
Current plans have the interchange as Exit
40 off I-95. The existing Exit 40 (PA 413) interchange will be renumbered as Exit 39.
And to be clear, is the whole interchange right now being built, or just the north-to-east and west-to-south ramps?
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 26, 2018, 04:01:04 PM
And to be clear, is the whole interchange right now being built, or just the north-to-east and west-to-south ramps?
Just the north-to-east and west-to-south ramps. As of last update, the *design* for the other ramps was to begin in 2017.
Quote from: bzakharin on March 26, 2018, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 26, 2018, 04:01:04 PM
And to be clear, is the whole interchange right now being built, or just the north-to-east and west-to-south ramps?
Just the north-to-east and west-to-south ramps. As of last update, the *design* for the other ramps was to begin in 2017.
Knowing how PTC rolls with this, they won't be done till at least forever.
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 26, 2018, 04:36:00 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on March 26, 2018, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 26, 2018, 04:01:04 PM
And to be clear, is the whole interchange right now being built, or just the north-to-east and west-to-south ramps?
Just the north-to-east and west-to-south ramps. As of last update, the *design* for the other ramps was to begin in 2017.
Knowing how PTC rolls with this, they won't be done till at least forever.
Agreed. The priority of the other ramps is possibly lower than another turnpike shortcoming that has its own thread and I will not name. ;-) And there are many other higher priorities like the reconstruction of much of the turnpike, the southern beltway and Mon-Fayette expressway in western PA.
And really what other ramps have much of a need:
-Tpk East to I-295 north and I-295 south to Tpk west - handled by US 1.
-Tpk East to I-95 south and I-95 north to Tpk west - long distance travel could use I-76/I-476. Shorter distance traffic could use US 1 & PA 63.
-I-95 south to I-295 north - I-295 south to I-95 north - this traffic is local to the Trenton/Bucks County area. It can use other local exits (I-195 NJ, US 13 & 1 PA) and highways.
Those may not be ideal but I would question the amount of traffic making those movements. So the need for the other ramps is not large.
Will the PA Tpk exit currently called "358" be given a new I-95 based exit number in the process?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 26, 2018, 10:33:32 PM
Will the PA Tpk exit currently called "358" be given a new I-95 based exit number in the process?
It will be given an I-95 exit number -- I believe 43.
The only exit number needed for the new interchange in the foreseeable future is 40, because there are no exiting movements at the western terminus of I-295 or the eastern terminus of I-276. Those roadways transition directly into I-95 south and north, respectively.
Are all the new exit numbers posted on the NJ side now?
So for the eastbound Penn. Tpke. we can expect to see a sign something like "End 276 east, Begin 95 north". Also interesting that this will be the second time the Delaware Valley Interchange is being renumbered. Originally #29, changed some years back to #358 for mile-based exit numbering and now being changed again as part of I-95.
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
September 5th would be appropriate
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 27, 2018, 11:41:58 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
September 5th would be appropriate
That's the Wednesday after Labor Day. A random choice, jp, or is there some significance to the date?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 28, 2018, 07:34:51 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 27, 2018, 11:41:58 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
September 5th would be appropriate
That's the Wednesday after Labor Day. A random choice, jp, or is there some significance to the date?
ixnay
Because that's 9/5, I assume.
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
August 25th.
Basing it on JP's note of Labor Day, Saturday, Aug 25th will meet the August notation, and allow it to be open 1 week prior to the heavily travelled Labor Day weekend.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
August 25th.
Basing it on JP's note of Labor Day, Saturday, Aug 25th will meet the August notation, and allow it to be open 1 week prior to the heavily travelled Labor Day weekend.
I have not seen a specific day, but of late everything has said that the ramps to complete I-95 will open in August 2018.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 28, 2018, 11:25:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
August 25th.
Basing it on JP's note of Labor Day, Saturday, Aug 25th will meet the August notation, and allow it to be open 1 week prior to the heavily travelled Labor Day weekend.
I have not seen a specific day, but of late everything has said that the ramps to complete I-95 will open in August 2018.
We won't see a specific day until much closer, and even then it'll be weather dependent. When there's a major traffic pattern change (generally speaking in this area), it usually happens on a weekend (Fri into Sat, or Sat into Sun) when traffic is lighter. They may have a ceremonial first car or ribbon cutting ceremony during the day prior to the opening.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 12:07:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 28, 2018, 11:25:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
August 25th.
Basing it on JP's note of Labor Day, Saturday, Aug 25th will meet the August notation, and allow it to be open 1 week prior to the heavily travelled Labor Day weekend.
I have not seen a specific day, but of late everything has said that the ramps to complete I-95 will open in August 2018.
We won't see a specific day until much closer, and even then it'll be weather dependent. When there's a major traffic pattern change (generally speaking in this area), it usually happens on a weekend (Fri into Sat, or Sat into Sun) when traffic is lighter. They may have a ceremonial first car or ribbon cutting ceremony during the day prior to the opening.
It'll take some coordination with NJTA as well due to the signage issue on their roadway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 12:07:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 28, 2018, 11:25:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
August 25th.
Basing it on JP's note of Labor Day, Saturday, Aug 25th will meet the August notation, and allow it to be open 1 week prior to the heavily travelled Labor Day weekend.
I have not seen a specific day, but of late everything has said that the ramps to complete I-95 will open in August 2018.
We won't see a specific day until much closer, and even then it'll be weather dependent. When there's a major traffic pattern change (generally speaking in this area), it usually happens on a weekend (Fri into Sat, or Sat into Sun) when traffic is lighter. They may have a ceremonial first car or ribbon cutting ceremony during the day prior to the opening.
It'll take some coordination with NJTA as well due to the signage issue on their roadway.
I guess so. By the way, I-95 is, right now, 1,924.43 miles long; when the interchange and resigning is complete, how will that change?
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 28, 2018, 01:29:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 12:08:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 12:07:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 28, 2018, 11:25:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 27, 2018, 09:11:09 PM
What day do you think will be the one when I-95 becomes one highway from Florida to Maine?
August 25th.
Basing it on JP's note of Labor Day, Saturday, Aug 25th will meet the August notation, and allow it to be open 1 week prior to the heavily travelled Labor Day weekend.
I have not seen a specific day, but of late everything has said that the ramps to complete I-95 will open in August 2018.
We won't see a specific day until much closer, and even then it'll be weather dependent. When there's a major traffic pattern change (generally speaking in this area), it usually happens on a weekend (Fri into Sat, or Sat into Sun) when traffic is lighter. They may have a ceremonial first car or ribbon cutting ceremony during the day prior to the opening.
It'll take some coordination with NJTA as well due to the signage issue on their roadway.
I guess so. By the way, I-95 is, right now, 1,924.43 miles long; when the interchange and resigning is complete, how will that change?
By my rough calculations, it'll be approximately 17 miles....SHORTER!
It depends on how that 1924.43 miles is calculated. The portion of I-95 from US 1 in the Trenton/Princeton area, wrapping around Trenton, then crossing over the PA Turnpike in the Levittown, PA area is about 20 miles long, which will cease to exist as it becomes I-295. I-95 will gain approximately 3 miles from that Levittown point eastward to the PA/NJ State Line on the PA Turnpike. The NJ Turnpike has already considered I-95 to start at the NJ/PA State line, along the PA Turnpike Extension, then it turns Northward on the NJ Turnpike mainline, so no mileage change will occur along that portion of the route.
Thus, -20 + 3 = -17, give or take some fractions of a mile for the ramps and such.
In other words, it'll be 1,907.43 miles long once the new interchange opens!
Drove up to TTN again yesterday and noticed that some additional exit tab changes along the NJ stretch of I-95/295 have been added since last week.
One very noticeable change was at this gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2743202,-74.8309384,3a,75y,35.73h,90.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spod-F6cpd_YSOSySEeAmyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Note this location is beyond the current construction zone for the Scudder Falls Bridge replacement project.
In addition to the exit tabs changing (note: no OLD 95 EXIT XX tabs were yet erected), the pull-through BGS now has the NORTH 95 TO portion greened out and the Lawrence listing was changed (via a sheeting plate) to Princeton Princeton[/I] (in Series F lettering no less).
Not 100% sure why the control city was changed on that BGS. Lawrence still would've worked; especially since old 95 North is being signed as 295 South in NJ. And the remaining SOUTH 295 legend now looks weird being pushed off to the right. I'm assuming that full-blown replacement signs for this gantry weren't yet ready/fabricated; so NJDOT's mods to the existing BGS' are a temporary measure.
Will exits 68 through 74 on I-95 in Bergen County have to be renumbered to suit this newly determined length of the Interstate in New Jersey?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 29, 2018, 09:37:27 AM
Will exits 68 through 74 on I-95 in Bergen County have to be renumbered to suit this newly determined length of the Interstate in New Jersey?
I believe they are based on the NJ Turnpike portion of I-95 mileage. Since that has always been based on the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge state line, nothing needs to change.
J&N, you might be right about that. I measure approx. 66 miles from NJTP Exit 6 to Exit 18/US 46 or 72 miles from the Pa/NJ Tpk. bridge. But I always thought the exit numbering on that stretch of I-95 between Teaneck and the G.W. Bridge was a continuation of the I-80 exit numbering. The last exit on I-80 before the 80/95 Interchange is Exit-67 so a continuation would seem logical to me. But your explanation sounds more technically correct.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2018, 10:09:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 29, 2018, 09:37:27 AM
Will exits 68 through 74 on I-95 in Bergen County have to be renumbered to suit this newly determined length of the Interstate in New Jersey?
I believe they are based on the NJ Turnpike portion of I-95 mileage. Since that has always been based on the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge state line, nothing needs to change.
They are based on the original I-95 mileage with the Somerset Freeway. The difference is about 4 based on current mileage. I-95 at the NY/NJ state line is about MP 78, and the highest signed exit is 74 (southbound at PIP).
Still highly unlikely to ever change, since the discrepancy is not evident. Mileposts posted in the field are Turnpike mainline.
Hmmm......... That sounds even more technically correct. Thanks akotchi.
Quote from: akotchi on March 29, 2018, 01:15:15 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2018, 10:09:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 29, 2018, 09:37:27 AM
Will exits 68 through 74 on I-95 in Bergen County have to be renumbered to suit this newly determined length of the Interstate in New Jersey?
I believe they are based on the NJ Turnpike portion of I-95 mileage. Since that has always been based on the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge state line, nothing needs to change.
They are based on the original I-95 mileage with the Somerset Freeway. The difference is about 4 based on current mileage. I-95 at the NY/NJ state line is about MP 78, and the highest signed exit is 74 (southbound at PIP).
Still highly unlikely to ever change, since the discrepancy is not evident. Mileposts posted in the field are Turnpike mainline.
I guess if the Turnpike ever goes mile-base there is a chance they'll change. But I wonder about the Turnpike mileposts, were they placed there when NJTA took over from NJDOT in that area? Were they Somerset Freeway based before that?
Quote from: bzakharin on March 29, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
I guess if the Turnpike ever goes mile-base there is a chance they'll change. But I wonder about the Turnpike mileposts, were they placed there when NJTA took over from NJDOT in that area? Were they Somerset Freeway based before that?
I suppose that NJTA would not want to continue with their sequential exit numbers from Exit 18 up to the bridge, since they time may come when the exits on the Turnpike might be renumbered (though IMO that would be a bad idea, because perhaps more than any other road in the United States, the exit numbers on the Pike are nearly iconic).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 29, 2018, 02:20:56 PMI suppose that NJTA would not want to continue with their sequential exit numbers from Exit 18 up to the bridge,
I don't believe (and someone from North Jersey can verify/confirm/correct) NJTA has jurisdiction over the stretch of I-95 that runs north/east of the I-80 interchange to the G.W. Bridge.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 29, 2018, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 29, 2018, 02:20:56 PMI suppose that NJTA would not want to continue with their sequential exit numbers from Exit 18 up to the bridge,
I don't believe (and someone from North Jersey can verify/confirm/correct) NJTA has jurisdiction over the stretch of I-95 that runs north/east of the I-80 interchange to the G.W. Bridge.
They've had jurisdiction over that segment since 1992. In 2000 or 2001, the signs were replaced with then-current NJTA spec signs. The signs were replaced again in 2016 as part of the MUTCD conversion. Since the exit numbers were already established and it's outside of the tolled system, they left the numbers alone.
Quote from: bzakharin on March 29, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
Quote from: akotchi on March 29, 2018, 01:15:15 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2018, 10:09:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 29, 2018, 09:37:27 AM
Will exits 68 through 74 on I-95 in Bergen County have to be renumbered to suit this newly determined length of the Interstate in New Jersey?
I believe they are based on the NJ Turnpike portion of I-95 mileage. Since that has always been based on the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge state line, nothing needs to change.
They are based on the original I-95 mileage with the Somerset Freeway. The difference is about 4 based on current mileage. I-95 at the NY/NJ state line is about MP 78, and the highest signed exit is 74 (southbound at PIP).
Still highly unlikely to ever change, since the discrepancy is not evident. Mileposts posted in the field are Turnpike mainline.
I guess if the Turnpike ever goes mile-base there is a chance they'll change. But I wonder about the Turnpike mileposts, were they placed there when NJTA took over from NJDOT in that area? Were they Somerset Freeway based before that?
Yes, and there is one remnant on the entry road from exit 70 heading west.
Here's what I think the NJ Pike exit numbers would be if they went to mileage:
Mainline:
Everything south of the Exit 1 toll: Leave as is.
2 (US 322-Swedesboro, Glassboro: ) 12.
3 (NJ 168-Camden, AC Expressway: ) 26.
4 (NJ 73-Mt. Laurel, Camden, Philadelphia: ) 34.
5 (CR 541-Burlington, Mt. Holly: ) 44.
6 (I-95-Pearl Harbor Extension, PA Turnpike: ) 51.
7 (US 206-Bordentown, Trenton: ) 53.
7A (I-195-Trenton, Shore Points: ) 60.
8 (NJ 33/NJ 133-Highstown, Freehold: ) 67.
8A (NJ 32 to US 130-Jamesburg, Cranbury: ) 74.
9 (NJ 18 to US 1-New Brunswick: ) 83.
10 (NJ 440, I-287-Metuchen, Perth Amboy: ) 88.
11 (GSP, US 9-Woodbridge: ) 91.
12 (Carteret, Rahway: ) 96.
13 (I-278-Elizabeth, Staten Island, Goethals Bridge, Verrazano Bridge: ) 100.
13A (Newark Airport, Elizabeth Seaport: ) 101.
14 (I-78, Newark Airport, Holland Tunnel: ) 105A (105 SB.)
Western Spur, I-280, NJ 3: 105B.
15E (US 1-9, Newark, Jersey City: ) 107.
15W (I-280: ) 108.
15X (Seacaucus, Seacaucus Jct, Park & Ride: ) 110.
16E/17 (NJ 3/NJ 495-Seacaucus, Lincoln Tunnel: ) 112.
Western Spur SB, Meadowlands Sports Complex: 117.
Pearl Harbor Memorial Extension:
6A (US 130-Burlington, Bordentown, Florence: ) 2.
Newark Bay Extension (I-78: )
14 (I-95/NJ Pike: ) 59.
14A (NJ 440-Bayonne: ) 62.
14B (Jersey City, Liberty State Park: ) 64.
14C (NJ 139-Pulaski Skyway: ) 66.
And as for the Western Spur:
For US 1-9 and I-280, use exit numbers as Eastern Spur.
16W (NJ 3, Seacaucus, East Rutherford, Lincoln Tunnel: ) 112.
69 (I-80, Hackensack, Paterson, Cleveland, Chicago, Salt Lake City, San Francisco: ) 117.
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 29, 2018, 11:37:47 PM
And as for the Western Spur:
For US 1-9 and I-280, use exit numbers as Eastern Spur.
16W (NJ 3, Seacaucus, East Rutherford, Lincoln Tunnel: ) 112.
69 (I-80, Hackensack, Paterson, Cleveland, Chicago, Salt Lake City, San Francisco: ) 117.
Please keep the "I thinks" to Fictional. While I can't divulge things I've been told in confidence, there is a plan and it is not this. Consult the MUTCD for which road takes precedence, for starters.
That said, I really hope that they never switch to mileage-based numbering. Someone here said a few posts back that those numbers were iconic or something.
To get back to things that are more, uh, on-topic-ish, how are we to celebrate when I-95 becomes a continuous route from Florida to Maine?
Road Meet?
The state of NJ sold the portion northern portion of I-95 (Route 46 to GWB) to the turnpike authority in 92 to balance the budget, so the turnpike authority has control of it.
MUTCD doesn't say mile markers have to begin at 0. There's no reason you can't start I-95 at a nonzero mileage so it matches the Turnpike mileage at the merge.
Quote from: DrSmith on March 30, 2018, 08:31:21 PM
The state of NJ sold the portion northern portion of I-95 (Route 46 to GWB) to the turnpike authority in 92 to balance the budget, so the turnpike authority has control of it.
NYSDOT faced a similar situation in the 1990's, and handled it almost the same. See http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-84_NY/ .
QuoteONCE PART OF THE THRUWAY SYSTEM, BUT NO LONGER: To maintain a steady source of maintenance revenue during the financial crisis of the early 1990's, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) handed maintenance responsibilities of I-84 and the Cross Westchester Expressway (I-287) over to the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) in October 1991. New NYSTA reference markers were posted every one-tenth mile along the route, but the NYSDOT maintained responsibility for large-scale capital projects. On October 30, 2006, the NYSTA returned maintenance duties to the NYSDOT.
ixnay
Only I-84 was returned back to NYSDOT. Thruway still has I-287, Cross Westchester Expwy. which is logical because it connects the Thruway Mainline to the New England Section, I-95.
Quote from: NE2 on April 01, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
MUTCD doesn't say mile markers have to begin at 0. There's no reason you can't start I-95 at a nonzero mileage so it matches the Turnpike mileage at the merge.
Does anyone other than Arizona milepost Interstates that way?
PA turnpike continues I-76 mileage onto I-276
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 01, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
MUTCD doesn't say mile markers have to begin at 0. There's no reason you can't start I-95 at a nonzero mileage so it matches the Turnpike mileage at the merge.
Does anyone other than Arizona milepost Interstates that way?
NE2 is wrong, anyway:
Quote from: MUTCD, section 2H.05
13 Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 01, 2018, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 01, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
MUTCD doesn't say mile markers have to begin at 0. There's no reason you can't start I-95 at a nonzero mileage so it matches the Turnpike mileage at the merge.
Does anyone other than Arizona milepost Interstates that way?
NE2 is wrong, anyway:
Quote from: MUTCD, section 2H.05
13 Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.
That's should, not shall
Quote from: Flyer78 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:47 PM
PA turnpike continues I-76 mileage onto I-276
Right - but that's a bit different than AZ beginning I-17 at Exit 194, since at least it's continuing numbers from elsewhere. If NJ continued PA's numbering, it actually would come quite close to the NJ Turnpike. I suppose that's a theoretical option.
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 01, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
MUTCD doesn't say mile markers have to begin at 0. There's no reason you can't start I-95 at a nonzero mileage so it matches the Turnpike mileage at the merge.
Does anyone other than Arizona milepost Interstates that way?
Alaska does all kind of weird stuff with mileposts, which bleeds over to its unsigned Interstates:
Interstate A-4 starts at mile 35, picking up on A-1/AK 1's mileposts (rather like Arizona).
Interstate A-1 starts in Anchorage at mile 0, then resets twice, then runs in reverse milepost order from 1314 in Tok to 1222 at the Canadian border.
Interstate A-2 starts at its east end in Tok at mile 1314, then the mileposts reset in Delta Junction from 1422 to 266, then resume their ascent to 361 in Fairbanks.
Interstate A-3 starts at mile 94 in its west/south end in Soldotna, then the mileposts descend to 37, then start ascending from 37 to 127 where the highway changes from the Sterling to the Seward Highway at Tern Lake Junction.
Three Alaska rules account for these oddities:
-- Mileposts are based on named highways, not numbered highways, so if a numbered highway jumps from one named highway to another (A-1 does this three times, A-2 and A-3 once each), mileposts reset.
-- Mileposts don't have to start at zero, or even begin within the United States (for the Alaska Highway parts of Interstates A-1 and A-2, mile 0 is in Dawson Creek BC).
-- Alaska DOT&PF rarely if ever renumbers or recalibrates mileposts, in part because they're used in rural areas for street/mailing addresses.
Quote from: oscar on April 02, 2018, 12:26:48 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 01, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
MUTCD doesn't say mile markers have to begin at 0. There's no reason you can't start I-95 at a nonzero mileage so it matches the Turnpike mileage at the merge.
Does anyone other than Arizona milepost Interstates that way?
Alaska does all kind of weird stuff with mileposts, which bleeds over to its unsigned Interstates:
Interstate A-4 starts at mile 35, picking up on A-1/AK 1's mileposts (rather like Arizona).
Interstate A-1 starts in Anchorage at mile 0, then resets twice, then runs in reverse milepost order from 1314 in Tok to 1222 at the Canadian border.
Interstate A-2 starts at its east end in Tok at mile 1314, then the mileposts reset in Delta Junction from 1422 to 266, then resume their ascent to 361 in Fairbanks.
Interstate A-3 starts at mile 94 in its west/south end in Soldotna, then the mileposts descend to 37, then start ascending from 37 to 127 where the highway changes from the Sterling to the Seward Highway at Tern Lake Junction.
Three Alaska rules account for these oddities:
-- Mileposts are based on named highways, not numbered highways, so if a numbered highway jumps from one named highway to another (A-1 does this three times, A-2 and A-3 once each), mileposts reset.
-- Mileposts don't have to start at zero, or even begin within the United States (for the Alaska Highway parts of Interstates A-1 and A-2, mile 0 is in Dawson Creek BC).
-- Alaska DOT&PF rarely if ever renumbers or recalibrates mileposts, in part because they're used in rural areas for street/mailing addresses.
Yeah, but those aren't the mileposts for the Interstates, just the underlying state highways.
http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711 (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711)
QuoteBeginning Monday, April 2, through Friday, April 6, from 8:00 PM to 5:00 AM, periodic short-term lane closures are planned on the following highways and ramps approaching or connecting I-95:
- U.S. 13 (Bristol Pike) in Bucks County;
- Route 132 (Street Road) in Bucks County;
- Interstate 676 in Philadelphia;
- Route 63 (Woodhaven Road) in Philadelphia;
- Academy Road in Philadelphia;
- Torresdale Avenue in Philadelphia;
- Linden Avenue in Philadelphia;
- Princeton Avenue in Philadelphia;
- Vine Street in Philadelphia;
- 7th Street in Philadelphia; and
- Race Street in Philadelphia.
With the listing of intersections as far south as I-676, my guess is that this round of changes will be changing the control city on 95 North from Trenton (and Princeton) to New York.
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 01, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
MUTCD doesn't say mile markers have to begin at 0. There's no reason you can't start I-95 at a nonzero mileage so it matches the Turnpike mileage at the merge.
Does anyone other than Arizona milepost Interstates that way?
Mississippi with I-22. Indiana has the jump on I-69 so they could just add 200 north of Indy. I-70 in Illinois continues I-270's mileage.
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 01, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
MUTCD doesn't say mile markers have to begin at 0. There's no reason you can't start I-95 at a nonzero mileage so it matches the Turnpike mileage at the merge.
Does anyone other than Arizona milepost Interstates that way?
I-335 is on the Kansas Turnpike for its entire length, and its mileposts begin at 127 (where I-35 leaves the KT in Emporia) to match the Turnpike's mileposts. It ends at MM 177 where I-470 jumps onto the Turnpike in Topeka.
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:51:45 PM
Quote from: Flyer78 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:47 PM
PA turnpike continues I-76 mileage onto I-276
Right - but that's a bit different than AZ beginning I-17 at Exit 194, since at least it's continuing numbers from elsewhere. If NJ continued PA's numbering, it actually would come quite close to the NJ Turnpike. I suppose that's a theoretical option.
Under the old (sequential) interchange numbering system formerly used by the PTC, the official Pennsylvania highway maps showed the interchange on the New Jersey Turnpike's Pennsylvania Extension at U.S. 130 in Florence as Exit 30 (the easternmost interchange in Pennsylvania on the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike at U.S. 13 was Exit 29), even though I do not believe that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority ever signed it as such (I am not aware of the NJTA ever having signed it with
any exit number, though under the current numbering scheme Exit 6A would probably work well).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 02, 2018, 01:40:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:51:45 PM
Quote from: Flyer78 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:47 PM
PA turnpike continues I-76 mileage onto I-276
Right - but that's a bit different than AZ beginning I-17 at Exit 194, since at least it's continuing numbers from elsewhere. If NJ continued PA's numbering, it actually would come quite close to the NJ Turnpike. I suppose that's a theoretical option.
Under the old (sequential) interchange numbering system formerly used by the PTC, the official Pennsylvania highway maps showed the interchange on the New Jersey Turnpike's Pennsylvania Extension at U.S. 130 in Florence as Exit 30 (the easternmost interchange in Pennsylvania on the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike at U.S. 13 was Exit 29), even though I do not believe that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority ever signed it as such (I am not aware of the NJTA ever having signed it with any exit number, though under the current numbering scheme Exit 6A would probably work well).
Officially, the 130 ramp has always been 6A, but since it's not within the ticket system, it's never had a number signed to it since it was not needed (just barrier tolls for a fixed amount).
The original ramp to Exit 6A departed from the right toll lane of the former Exit 6 plaza as motorists did not need to obtain a ticket but pay the toll in cash. Then there was a partition preventing traffic to re-enter the through lanes or mainly to exit at the actual ramp from the ticketed mainline so just like Exits 16E & 18E it served two completely different interchanges.
Quote from: storm2k on April 02, 2018, 01:50:08 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 02, 2018, 01:40:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2018, 11:51:45 PM
Quote from: Flyer78 on April 01, 2018, 11:32:47 PM
PA turnpike continues I-76 mileage onto I-276
Right - but that's a bit different than AZ beginning I-17 at Exit 194, since at least it's continuing numbers from elsewhere. If NJ continued PA's numbering, it actually would come quite close to the NJ Turnpike. I suppose that's a theoretical option.
Under the old (sequential) interchange numbering system formerly used by the PTC, the official Pennsylvania highway maps showed the interchange on the New Jersey Turnpike's Pennsylvania Extension at U.S. 130 in Florence as Exit 30 (the easternmost interchange in Pennsylvania on the E-W Mainline of the Turnpike at U.S. 13 was Exit 29), even though I do not believe that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority ever signed it as such (I am not aware of the NJTA ever having signed it with any exit number, though under the current numbering scheme Exit 6A would probably work well).
Officially, the 130 ramp has always been 6A, but since it's not within the ticket system, it's never had a number signed to it since it was not needed (just barrier tolls for a fixed amount).
Exit 6A isn't signed at the interchange but it is signed on the real time destinations clock signs.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on April 02, 2018, 10:09:56 AM
http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711 (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711)
Within the press release:
QuoteHighway signs, including exit signs and mile markers, will be replaced on the mainline and approaches/ramps of I-95 to reflect the redesignation of the interstate and exit numbers. The previous exit numbers will be temporarily displayed along with the new exit numbers through late summer or early fall.
This is the same department that STILL hasn't taken down 'Old Exit XX' signs that have been posted on their interstates from the sequential to mile-based conversion a decade ago, and they claim these 'Old Exit XX' signs will only be up for several months?? :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2018, 08:15:04 AM
This is the same department that STILL hasn't taken down 'Old Exit XX' signs that have been posted on their interstates from the sequential to mile-based conversion a decade ago, and they claim these 'Old Exit XX' signs will only be up for several months?? :-D
I don't mind that at all. It does not create confusion and it saves money. They should only be removed if there is work being done in the vicinity anyway.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 03, 2018, 09:07:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2018, 08:15:04 AM
This is the same department that STILL hasn't taken down 'Old Exit XX' signs that have been posted on their interstates from the sequential to mile-based conversion a decade ago, and they claim these 'Old Exit XX' signs will only be up for several months?? :-D
I don't mind that at all. It does not create confusion and it saves money. They should only be removed if there is work being done in the vicinity anyway.
There's always work being done along the highways (the amount of short-term daytime work is insane; anything from pothole repair, drainage cleaning, street sweeping, reflectors, weed spraying, the list goes on and on...). The problem is the crews doing road work are separate from the crews doing sign work. It really should've been part of the original contract to remove the 'Old Exit' signs after a period of time. If it was...why weren't they removed, because then it's a case of paying for a service that was never done.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on April 02, 2018, 10:09:56 AM
http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711 (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711)
QuoteBeginning Monday, April 2, through Friday, April 6, from 8:00 PM to 5:00 AM, periodic short-term lane closures are planned on the following highways and ramps approaching or connecting I-95:
• U.S. 13 (Bristol Pike) in Bucks County;
• Route 132 (Street Road) in Bucks County;
• Interstate 676 in Philadelphia;
• Route 63 (Woodhaven Road) in Philadelphia;
• Academy Road in Philadelphia;
• Torresdale Avenue in Philadelphia;
• Linden Avenue in Philadelphia;
• Princeton Avenue in Philadelphia;
• Vine Street in Philadelphia;
• 7th Street in Philadelphia; and
• Race Street in Philadelphia.
With the listing of intersections as far south as I-676, my guess is that this round of changes will be changing the control city on 95 North from Trenton (and Princeton) to New York.
If they are, then kudos to them! Although I wouldn't mind keeping Trenton up for the local interests either.
Quote- Linden Avenue in Philadelphia
Hee-hee...Dept of Redundancy: https://goo.gl/maps/Q9Z2KxAyBJA2
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2018, 10:24:51 AM
Quote- Linden Avenue in Philadelphia
Hee-hee...Dept of Redundancy: https://goo.gl/maps/Q9Z2KxAyBJA2
And even better a state name Interstate shield within the Philly city limits.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2018, 08:15:04 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on April 02, 2018, 10:09:56 AM
http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711 (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711)
Within the press release:
QuoteHighway signs, including exit signs and mile markers, will be replaced on the mainline and approaches/ramps of I-95 to reflect the redesignation of the interstate and exit numbers. The previous exit numbers will be temporarily displayed along with the new exit numbers through late summer or early fall.
This is the same department that STILL hasn't taken down 'Old Exit XX' signs that have been posted on their interstates from the sequential to mile-based conversion a decade ago, and they claim these 'Old Exit XX' signs will only be up for several months?? :-D
Spotted this past weekend, heading
west south: Exit 10 advance for PA - Former Exit 51. I kept my camera ready, knowing what was coming next: Exit 51A - Former Exit 31. So yeah.
Quote from: Alps on April 03, 2018, 07:33:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2018, 08:15:04 AM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on April 02, 2018, 10:09:56 AM
http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711 (http://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-6/pages/details.aspx?newsid=2711)
Within the press release:
QuoteHighway signs, including exit signs and mile markers, will be replaced on the mainline and approaches/ramps of I-95 to reflect the redesignation of the interstate and exit numbers. The previous exit numbers will be temporarily displayed along with the new exit numbers through late summer or early fall.
This is the same department that STILL hasn't taken down 'Old Exit XX' signs that have been posted on their interstates from the sequential to mile-based conversion a decade ago, and they claim these 'Old Exit XX' signs will only be up for several months?? :-D
Spotted this past weekend, heading west south: Exit 10 advance for PA - Former Exit 51. I kept my camera ready, knowing what was coming next: Exit 51A - Former Exit 31. So yeah.
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 03, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Back when Atlases and road maps got us around, a few years would be acceptable because many people had maps a few years old. Today, a year is probably more than sufficient, and that's to satisfy the very few using maps, and businesses that need to update their online directions.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2018, 10:06:30 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 03, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Back when Atlases and road maps got us around, a few years would be acceptable because many people had maps a few years old. Today, a year is probably more than sufficient, and that's to satisfy the very few using maps, and businesses that need to update their online directions.
I believe it's supposed to be 2 years max.
Quote from: Alps on April 04, 2018, 12:12:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2018, 10:06:30 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 03, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Back when Atlases and road maps got us around, a few years would be acceptable because many people had maps a few years old. Today, a year is probably more than sufficient, and that's to satisfy the very few using maps, and businesses that need to update their online directions.
I believe it's supposed to be 2 years max.
I've seen renderings of the new interchange, and in them US 13 is signed as "Exit 43," and a tab below that says "Milepost 358." Wonder how long beyond the two years that will be there.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 03, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Those exit numbers were switched over in 2001.
Quote from: Jordanes on April 05, 2018, 07:27:15 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 03, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Those exit numbers were switched over in 2001.
Completely unacceptable that the former exit numbers are still up after that time. No other state has taken 17 years to remove that signage.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
Quote from: Jordanes on April 05, 2018, 07:27:15 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 03, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Those exit numbers were switched over in 2001.
Completely unacceptable that the former exit numbers are still up after that time. No other state has taken 17 years to remove that signage.
Only in Pennsylvania...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
Quote from: Jordanes on April 05, 2018, 07:27:15 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 03, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Those exit numbers were switched over in 2001.
Completely unacceptable that the former exit numbers are still up after that time. No other state has taken 17 years to remove that signage.
They want you to keep them as a souvenir.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2018, 08:13:49 PM
Quote from: Jordanes on April 05, 2018, 07:27:15 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 03, 2018, 09:05:34 PM
How long do those "Old Exit XX" signs really need to stay up in order for drivers to catch on?
Those exit numbers were switched over in 2001.
Completely unacceptable that the former exit numbers are still up after that time. No other state has taken 17 years to remove that signage.
No but some exits on I-4 are still with former exit numbers even though the majority have been removed on all four primary and the major 59 mile long I-275 and the smaller spurs and loops.
Finally . . . a couple of photos to offer of the progress of the changeover.
This is what I found this morning on the Pennsylvania side of the Scudder Falls Bridge. (taken April 9, 2018)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/875/40631144584_6fb2d7fe05_b.jpg)
This is what I found going "north" into New Jersey. (taken March 31, 2018)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/805/40631147364_5d0b276ff1_b.jpg)
Note the greenouts in the pull-through and exit number areas.
The connection, for now, is the portable VMS panel in the ramp nose in the top photo . . . it says "95 NORTH TO 295 SOUTH" with a large right arrow as the second message.
I wondered how the discrepancy would be addressed in this area. I-95 now (effectively) begins and ends at the Delaware River, just at different spots.
More photos coming soon of some oddities I caught over the last month, now that I have a little time to post them.
Quote from: akotchi on April 09, 2018, 11:57:05 AM
Finally . . . a couple of photos to offer of the progress of the changeover.
(See above for pics)
Note the greenouts in the pull-through and exit number areas.
The connection, for now, is the portable VMS panel in the ramp nose in the top photo . . . it says "95 NORTH TO 295 SOUTH" with a large right arrow as the second message.
I wondered how the discrepancy would be addressed in this area. I-95 now (effectively) begins and ends at the Delaware River, just at different spots.
More photos coming soon of some oddities I caught over the last month, now that I have a little time to post them.
PA should be starting work shortly on their section of 95/295, so that discrepancy should be gone probably within a month or so.
It appears that the new bridge being worked on now will be open to traffic by Spring or Summer 2019. At this point, there's going to be good brand-new signage, including for the electronic tolling coming to this bridge. Hopefully it looks decent (something the DRJTBC isn't exactly a leader in).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2018, 12:49:49 PMPA should be starting work shortly on their section of 95/295, so that discrepancy should be gone probably within a month or so.
I would think PennDOT would wait until that new
through-I-95 ramps at the Turnpike are completed & open to traffic (this fall(?)) prior to that.
Quote from: akotchi on April 09, 2018, 11:57:05 AM
Finally . . . a couple of photos to offer of the progress of the changeover.
This is what I found this morning on the Pennsylvania side of the Scudder Falls Bridge. (taken April 9, 2018)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/875/40631144584_6fb2d7fe05_b.jpg)
This is what I found going "north" into New Jersey. (taken March 31, 2018)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/805/40631147364_5d0b276ff1_b.jpg)
Note the greenouts in the pull-through and exit number areas.
The connection, for now, is the portable VMS panel in the ramp nose in the top photo . . . it says "95 NORTH TO 295 SOUTH" with a large right arrow as the second message.
I wondered how the discrepancy would be addressed in this area. I-95 now (effectively) begins and ends at the Delaware River, just at different spots.
More photos coming soon of some oddities I caught over the last month, now that I have a little time to post them.
And so it begins.
Has anyone spotted new Exit 1 signage on I-195 yet?
Quote from: yakra on April 09, 2018, 11:20:58 PM
Has anyone spotted new Exit 1 signage on I-195 yet?
As of last Tuesday, I-195 to 295 was still exit 60.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2018, 12:49:49 PM
Quote from: akotchi on April 09, 2018, 11:57:05 AM
Finally . . . a couple of photos to offer of the progress of the changeover.
(See above for pics)
Note the greenouts in the pull-through and exit number areas.
The connection, for now, is the portable VMS panel in the ramp nose in the top photo . . . it says "95 NORTH TO 295 SOUTH" with a large right arrow as the second message.
I wondered how the discrepancy would be addressed in this area. I-95 now (effectively) begins and ends at the Delaware River, just at different spots.
More photos coming soon of some oddities I caught over the last month, now that I have a little time to post them.
PA should be starting work shortly on their section of 95/295, so that discrepancy should be gone probably within a month or so.
It appears that the new bridge being worked on now will be open to traffic by Spring or Summer 2019. At this point, there's going to be good brand-new signage, including for the electronic tolling coming to this bridge. Hopefully it looks decent (something the DRJTBC isn't exactly a leader in).
akotchi's top picture is a northbound view of Taylorsville Road as it passes through the Yardley interchange (the first interchange in PA coming out of NJ). (GSV has a view of it from the same vantage point taken in July 2013.)
ixnay
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 10, 2018, 12:36:39 AM
Quote from: yakra on April 09, 2018, 11:20:58 PM
Has anyone spotted new Exit 1 signage on I-195 yet?
As of last Tuesday, I-195 to 295 was still exit 60.
Nope. I'm on the Rt. 29 portion everyday, so I'm waiting for it! The sign for I-295 North (Exit 60B) from Rt. 29 South is original back to around 1994, and is button copy. It'll be interesting to see if they replace the entire sign. The sign for 295 south (Exit 60A) is newer as it was replaced several years ago with two arrows for the 2 exit lanes, so that one really only needs the new Exit tabs.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2018, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 10, 2018, 12:36:39 AM
Quote from: yakra on April 09, 2018, 11:20:58 PM
Has anyone spotted new Exit 1 signage on I-195 yet?
As of last Tuesday, I-195 to 295 was still exit 60.
Nope. I'm on the Rt. 29 portion everyday, so I'm waiting for it! The sign for I-295 North (Exit 60B) from Rt. 29 South is original back to around 1994, and is button copy. It'll be interesting to see if they replace the entire sign. The sign for 295 south (Exit 60A) is newer as it was replaced several years ago with two arrows for the 2 exit lanes, so that one really only needs the new Exit tabs.
Yeah that sign is from when they finally finished the whole 195/295/29 freeway interchange in '94. Button copy with an early version of reflective backgrounds.
Soon these overlays will come down then this picture will be a part of history.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4524/37805094995_63a921a108_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZAGZCF)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2018, 03:49:21 PM
Soon these overlays will come down then this picture will be a part of history.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4524/37805094995_63a921a108_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZAGZCF)
And an I-95 shield will be added to that adjacent pull-through BGS.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2018, 03:51:05 PM
And an I-95 shield will be added to that adjacent pull-through BGS.
I am surprised that wasn't done with a cover-up in the first place. Those two signs were put up at the same time by the same contractor after all. Will the pull-thrus north of here (that say "Thru Traffic") be replaced entirely?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2018, 03:49:21 PM
Soon these overlays will come down then this picture will be a part of history.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4524/37805094995_63a921a108_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZAGZCF)
And yet that horrible, wrinkled, off-color patch for the arrow will remain. Was that really necessary, do we need that exact arrow over a very similar looking arrow?
Squiggly arrows for life!
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 10, 2018, 09:57:42 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2018, 03:49:21 PM
Soon these overlays will come down then this picture will be a part of history.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4524/37805094995_63a921a108_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZAGZCF)
And yet that horrible, wrinkled, off-color patch for the arrow will remain. Was that really necessary, do we need that exact arrow over a very similar looking arrow?
When you're driving under it, the patch color looks the same as the green sign behind it. Cameras seem to capture something that makes it look much darker!
And the arrow behind it was ugly, so yes it was needed!!
Quote from: bzakharin on April 10, 2018, 04:50:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 10, 2018, 03:51:05 PM
And an I-95 shield will be added to that adjacent pull-through BGS.
I am surprised that wasn't done with a cover-up in the first place. Those two signs were put up at the same time by the same contractor after all. Will the pull-thrus north of here (that say "Thru Traffic") be replaced entirely?
While the contractor
could've placed I-95 shields for the northbound ramp & pull-through signs at this location; they decided not to due to the absence of the direct-connection with the PA Turnpike at the time (such would've been an issue for I-95 southbounders). However, and I probably mentioned this several pages back, NJTA
should've IMHO placed I-95 shields and all related signage north of Exit 7A (I-195). That interchange allows for one to resume on I-95 (near Trenton) via I-195 & I-295 (or NJ 29).
The
THRU TRAFFIC pull-throughs north of this location were erected prior to NJTA adopting more MUTCD-style signage. My
guess is that those signs will remain but will have I-95 shields placed on them in the foreseeable future; these sign layouts were planned with the supplemental I-95 shields in mind.
Quote from: storm2k on April 10, 2018, 10:51:04 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2018, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 10, 2018, 12:36:39 AM
Quote from: yakra on April 09, 2018, 11:20:58 PM
Has anyone spotted new Exit 1 signage on I-195 yet?
As of last Tuesday, I-195 to 295 was still exit 60.
Nope. I'm on the Rt. 29 portion everyday, so I'm waiting for it! The sign for I-295 North (Exit 60B) from Rt. 29 South is original back to around 1994, and is button copy. It'll be interesting to see if they replace the entire sign. The sign for 295 south (Exit 60A) is newer as it was replaced several years ago with two arrows for the 2 exit lanes, so that one really only needs the new Exit tabs.
Yeah that sign is from when they finally finished the whole 195/295/29 freeway interchange in '94. Button copy with an early version of reflective backgrounds.
Based on a small sample size of 1, there may be upwards of a full sign replacement program going on around Exit 60.
On 295 this morning, this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/rLKeCrzRQg22 now has 4 shields on it, and reads something like:
NORTH EAST TO
29 195 95 NJTPK
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 08:42:22 AMBased on a small sample size of 1, there may be upwards of a full sign replacement program going on around Exit 60.
On 295 this morning, this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/rLKeCrzRQg22 now has 4 shields on it, and reads something like:
NORTH EAST TO
29 195 95 NJTPK
Was the entire sign replaced or did NJDOT just replace the three larger shields with four smaller ones?
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 08:50:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 08:42:22 AMBased on a small sample size of 1, there may be upwards of a full sign replacement program going on around Exit 60.
On 295 this morning, this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/rLKeCrzRQg22 now has 4 shields on it, and reads something like:
NORTH EAST TO
29 195 95 NJTPK
Was the entire sign replaced or did NJDOT just replace the three larger shields with four smaller ones?
I believe it was the entire sign. It took me by surprise so I only had a last-second look at it. Now that I'm aware of it I'll try to grab a pic next time.
Very recently, PennDOT changed one or two I-95 North ramp signage south of the PA Turnpike crossing that originally listed Trenton to New York. One of those changes occurred on a recent installation along Princeton Ave. in Northeast Philadelphia as part of the PA 73/Cottman Ave. interchange signage.
BGS circa Aug. 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0240107,-75.0354204,3a,75y,141.89h,74.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfpJu3QaJXDM54ejsZQYEpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
A photo showing the very recent update was posted in a Facebook forum (not sure if the poster is a member of this forum) and shows the New York text in Highway Gothic. This is probably the only BGS among the newer installments wide enough to support the longer text (due to the spacing between two words).
That said, why is PennDOT even bothering with replacing Trenton legends with New York legends at all south of the PA Turnpike crossing/interchange? Regardless of what route numbers the Delaware Expressway carries, it's still the fastest and most logical route to Trenton... at least up to the US 1 Morrisville/Langhorne interchange (current Exits 46A-B/Future Exits 5A-B).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 08:50:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 08:42:22 AMBased on a small sample size of 1, there may be upwards of a full sign replacement program going on around Exit 60.
On 295 this morning, this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/rLKeCrzRQg22 now has 4 shields on it, and reads something like:
NORTH EAST TO
29 195 95 NJTPK
Was the entire sign replaced or did NJDOT just replace the three larger shields with four smaller ones?
I believe it was the entire sign. It took me by surprise so I only had a last-second look at it. Now that I'm aware of it I'll try to grab a pic next time.
Per the design plans, the whole sign (each one in the sequence) is to be replaced.
Quote from: akotchi on April 11, 2018, 11:45:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 08:50:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 08:42:22 AMBased on a small sample size of 1, there may be upwards of a full sign replacement program going on around Exit 60.
On 295 this morning, this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/rLKeCrzRQg22 now has 4 shields on it, and reads something like:
NORTH EAST TO
29 195 95 NJTPK
Was the entire sign replaced or did NJDOT just replace the three larger shields with four smaller ones?
I believe it was the entire sign. It took me by surprise so I only had a last-second look at it. Now that I'm aware of it I'll try to grab a pic next time.
Per the design plans, the whole sign (each one in the sequence) is to be replaced.
Sweet! I knew there was someone that knew the answer...I just couldn't recall who it was!
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 11:41:30 AM
Very recently, PennDOT changed one or two I-95 North ramp signage south of the PA Turnpike crossing that originally listed Trenton to New York. One of those changes occurred on a recent installation along Princeton Ave. in Northeast Philadelphia as part of the PA 73/Cottman Ave. interchange signage.
BGS circa Aug. 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0240107,-75.0354204,3a,75y,141.89h,74.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfpJu3QaJXDM54ejsZQYEpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
A photo showing the very recent update was posted in a Facebook forum (not sure if the poster is a member of this forum) and shows the New York text in Highway Gothic. This is probably the only BGS among the newer installments wide enough to support the longer text (due to the spacing between two words).
That said, why is PennDOT even bothering with replacing Trenton legends with New York legends at all south of the PA Turnpike crossing/interchange? Regardless of what route numbers the Delaware Expressway carries, it's still the fastest and most logical route to Trenton... at least up to the US 1 Morrisville/Langhorne interchange (current Exits 46A-B/Future Exits 5A-B).
I would use Trenton and New York to cover both routes south of the interchange. Mainline I-95 goes to New York and the Delaware Expressway continues on to get you to Trenton. There's other examples of this, closest being right across the river with the North-South Freeway. I-76 and NJ 42 are both signed with Atlantic City as a secondary control although neither route ends anywhere near it.
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 11, 2018, 03:18:19 PMI would use Trenton and New York to cover both routes south of the interchange. Mainline I-95 goes to New York and the Delaware Expressway continues on to get you to Trenton.
I would too & back when FHWA/MUTCD didn't go into a hissy fit over the use of two control cities for ramp and pull-through signs for the same direction; such would be the solution.
But here's the thing... is the lack of a
New York listing
really a problem for this particular stretch of I-95 (between I-676 and PA 132)? Even had the originally-planned I-95 via the Somerset Freeway been built, the route
still bypassed Trenton's city limits and PennDOT would've still used
Trenton for its I-95 signage at least up to the US 1 Morrisville/Langhorne interchange (Exit 46A-B/Future Exit 5A-B).
IMHO, PennDOT's either overcompensating or providing a solution that's in search for a problem.
To answer the question of why Trenton.
Why does PennDOT use Carlisle from Chambersburg north on I-81? It should be Harrisburg from the state line to PA 581.
Oh, PA 581, Wertzville Road, and US 11/15 all get Harrisburg as well! Those are in the city's vicinity best served from local roads especially from US 11 & 15 NB. Who heading north on the two us routes from Wormleysburg will need to take I-81 to go to Harrisburg?
PennDOT uses small cities over large ones, even Hazleton over Wilkes-Barre from Front Street northward on I-81. Even Chester over Wilmington on I-95 the other way, or even Plymouth Meeting over Allentown on the Blue Route considering the Extension has the same route number now.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2018, 10:29:34 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 10, 2018, 09:57:42 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 10, 2018, 03:49:21 PM
Soon these overlays will come down then this picture will be a part of history.
(https://flic.kr/p/ZAGZCF)
And yet that horrible, wrinkled, off-color patch for the arrow will remain. Was that really necessary, do we need that exact arrow over a very similar looking arrow?
When you're driving under it, the patch color looks the same as the green sign behind it. Cameras seem to capture something that makes it look much darker!
And the arrow behind it was ugly, so yes it was needed!!
Could it have been
that bad? Worse than this patch that looks like it was pulled out of the garbage?
Seriously though what’s up with that arrow? The rest of that greenout looks fine, most greenout looks fine, not good, but at least fine. They aren’t a bubbled, wrinkled mess like this. Can we get a new patch when they open this so the photos aren’t marred by that monstrosity?
Ive seen it in person it’s just as glaringly separate from the rest of the sign as it appears here. Although the color is closer to the main sign in person as the previous poster said, it still appears to be almost a separate sign that should like have a white border around it with another shield in there or something, as if it’s a gore point sign embedded in a BGS. And it has a very weird 3D effect, it’s not even close to flush.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 08:32:04 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 10, 2018, 04:50:01 PM
I am surprised that wasn't done with a cover-up in the first place. Those two signs were put up at the same time by the same contractor after all. Will the pull-thrus north of here (that say "Thru Traffic") be replaced entirely?
While the contractor could've placed I-95 shields for the northbound ramp & pull-through signs at this location; they decided not to due to the absence of the direct-connection with the PA Turnpike at the time (such would've been an issue for I-95 southbounders).
The two signs are next to each other on the gantry and went up at the same time. Why did they put I-95 South with green-out on one sign, but not I-95 North on the other?
Quote
The THRU TRAFFIC pull-throughs north of this location were erected prior to NJTA adopting more MUTCD-style signage. My guess is that those signs will remain but will have I-95 shields placed on them in the foreseeable future; these sign layouts were planned with the supplemental I-95 shields in mind.
I'm talking about the signs at exits 7, 7A, and 8, which were put up at about the same time as the ones at exits 6 and 8A, when the truck lanes were being built. I'm still not sure why the former got "Thru Traffic", while the latter got "New York" (and why at Exit 5 north it's "Thru Traffic" while south it was "Wilmington" which was later taped over with "Camden")
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 04:15:52 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 11, 2018, 03:18:19 PMI would use Trenton and New York to cover both routes south of the interchange. Mainline I-95 goes to New York and the Delaware Expressway continues on to get you to Trenton.
I would too & back when FHWA/MUTCD didn't go into a hissy fit over the use of two control cities for ramp and pull-through signs for the same direction; such would be the solution.
But here's the thing... is the lack of a New York listing really a problem for this particular stretch of I-95 (between I-676 and PA 132)? Even had the originally-planned I-95 via the Somerset Freeway been built, the route still bypassed Trenton's city limits and PennDOT would've still used Trenton for its I-95 signage at least up to the US 1 Morrisville/Langhorne interchange (Exit 46A-B/Future Exit 5A-B).
IMHO, PennDOT's either overcompensating or providing a solution that's in search for a problem.
I-95 did go by the Trenton metro area, so it would have been the route to Trenton. However, with I-95 being rerouted, it won't go anywhere near Trenton, thus New York is appropriate.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2018, 06:25:02 PM
Why does PennDOT use Carlisle from Chambersburg north on I-81? It should be Harrisburg from the state line to PA 581.
Major decision point / junction point with the Turnpike?
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2018, 06:44:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 04:15:52 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 11, 2018, 03:18:19 PMI would use Trenton and New York to cover both routes south of the interchange. Mainline I-95 goes to New York and the Delaware Expressway continues on to get you to Trenton.
I would too & back when FHWA/MUTCD didn't go into a hissy fit over the use of two control cities for ramp and pull-through signs for the same direction; such would be the solution.
But here's the thing... is the lack of a New York listing really a problem for this particular stretch of I-95 (between I-676 and PA 132)? Even had the originally-planned I-95 via the Somerset Freeway been built, the route still bypassed Trenton's city limits and PennDOT would've still used Trenton for its I-95 signage at least up to the US 1 Morrisville/Langhorne interchange (Exit 46A-B/Future Exit 5A-B).
IMHO, PennDOT's either overcompensating or providing a solution that's in search for a problem.
I-95 did go by the Trenton metro area, so it would have been the route to Trenton. However, with I-95 being rerouted, it won't go anywhere near Trenton, thus New York is appropriate.
I would use New York as a control city on I-95 North from Center City up to Woodhaven Rd, then from Woodhaven Rd to the interchange I would use "95 North TO 295 New York/Trenton" . I would specifically not put a direction on any reference to 295 until the interchange itself, so not to confuse the long distance driver when 295 "reverses direction" at the state line.
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2018, 06:44:22 PM
I-95 did go by the Trenton metro area, so it would have been the route to Trenton. However, with I-95 being rerouted, it won't go anywhere near Trenton, thus New York is appropriate.
But I-95 was never the best way to get to Trenton past US 1, so it was always an indirect route.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 11, 2018, 09:43:14 PM
I would use New York as a control city on I-95 North from Center City up to Woodhaven Rd, then from Woodhaven Rd to the interchange I would use “95 North TO 295 New York/Trenton”. I would specifically not put a direction on any reference to 295 until the interchange itself, so not to confuse the long distance driver when 295 “reverses direction” at the state line.
I'd think that the further south you are the more likely it is that you are taking I-95 to some relatively local destination, such as Trenton (actually even more likely somewhere in PA if not just within Philly) as opposed to New York, so I'm not sure why you'd only sign Trenton north of Woodhaven Road, unless you sign something more local (Northeast Philadelphia?) south of there.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 11, 2018, 06:39:07 PM
I'm talking about the signs at exits 7, 7A, and 8, which were put up at about the same time as the ones at exits 6 and 8A, when the truck lanes were being built. I'm still not sure why the former got "Thru Traffic", while the latter got "New York" (and why at Exit 5 north it's "Thru Traffic" while south it was "Wilmington" which was later taped over with "Camden")
There were several different contracts for the widening. While they all were overseen together, it's possible that the middle ones had signs manufactured before the policy changeover to use destinations, while the end interchanges got their signs more recently.
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2018, 06:44:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 04:15:52 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 11, 2018, 03:18:19 PMI would use Trenton and New York to cover both routes south of the interchange. Mainline I-95 goes to New York and the Delaware Expressway continues on to get you to Trenton.
I would too & back when FHWA/MUTCD didn't go into a hissy fit over the use of two control cities for ramp and pull-through signs for the same direction; such would be the solution.
But here's the thing... is the lack of a New York listing really a problem for this particular stretch of I-95 (between I-676 and PA 132)? Even had the originally-planned I-95 via the Somerset Freeway been built, the route still bypassed Trenton's city limits and PennDOT would've still used Trenton for its I-95 signage at least up to the US 1 Morrisville/Langhorne interchange (Exit 46A-B/Future Exit 5A-B).
IMHO, PennDOT's either overcompensating or providing a solution that's in search for a problem.
I-95 did go by the Trenton metro area, so it would have been the route to Trenton. However, with I-95 being rerouted, it won't go anywhere near Trenton, thus New York is appropriate.
While I-95 is indeed being rerouted further away from Trenton, the Delaware Expressway itself (originally intended to be one route)
still heads towards Mercer County, New Jersey. Additionally, Trenton is a capital city. Having a primary route signed for such from the next nearest city (Philadelphia in this case) is logical & makes sense regardless of how many times a highway changes route numbers.
That said & as previously stated, I can see reason for
adding New York to some of the existing I-95 northbound signs in Philadelphia and Lower Bucks County (for the PA 63, 132 & 413 interchanges) but
not replacing Trenton for such.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 11, 2018, 10:44:44 PM
But I-95 was never the best way to get to Trenton past US 1, so it was always an indirect route.
I'd say the metro area is more important than whether I-95 physically enters the city. They have to use
something. Should I-90 not use Buffalo, since it doesn't enter the city?
Drove thru the 95/PA Tpk interchange under construction this morning, and as a passenger I could get a better look around. While the overpasses have their concrete set, there is an amazing amount of work left to do on the non-elevated portions of the ramps, along with present day I-95 itself. At the speed PA works at, 4 months appears to be a very optimistic estimate to have these ramps open.
On the ramps themselves, there's areas where the dirt still hasn't been fully graded yet. On 95 proper, they are still at the base dirt level, still needing to prepare for the concrete pour.
Can all of this be done within 4 month's time? Of course. But I was quite shocked at the amount of work needed to be done still along here.
The concrete roadway south of this area is in atrocious condition as well. If this was a business, people would pay to continue taking the NJ Turnpike rather than follow 95 in PA!
This sign now says 95, New York / Central Phila. It no longer uses Trenton. Appears to be a completely new sign. https://goo.gl/maps/UU2CUdkGcsM2
One has to wonder whether PennDOT or DRPA depending on location will alter their I-95 northbound signage for the three DRPA bridges coming from NJ?
Granted, it's initially a bit odd seeing Trenton on signage just after leaving the Garden State (previous DRPA signage for I-95 north from the Betsy Ross Bridge included Bristol along with Trenton in its legend); how much more awkward or weirder would it be to see New York on signs while Philly-bound leaving South Jersey?
Changing the I-95 northbound ramp signs for the other roads in Philly & Lower Bucks County is one thing but those particular signs for traffic leaving NJ shouldn't change at all IMHO.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 12, 2018, 01:47:36 PM
Drove thru the 95/PA Tpk interchange under construction this morning, and as a passenger I could get a better look around. While the overpasses have their concrete set, there is an amazing amount of work left to do on the non-elevated portions of the ramps, along with present day I-95 itself. At the speed PA works at, 4 months appears to be a very optimistic estimate to have these ramps open.
On the ramps themselves, there's areas where the dirt still hasn't been fully graded yet. On 95 proper, they are still at the base dirt level, still needing to prepare for the concrete pour.
Can all of this be done within 4 month's time? Of course. But I was quite shocked at the amount of work needed to be done still along here.
The concrete roadway south of this area is in atrocious condition as well. If this was a business, people would pay to continue taking the NJ Turnpike rather than follow 95 in PA!
This sign now says 95, New York / Central Phila. It no longer uses Trenton. Appears to be a completely new sign. https://goo.gl/maps/UU2CUdkGcsM2
My grandparents could get that done in less time, and they're dead.
Quote from: vdeane on April 12, 2018, 01:37:57 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 11, 2018, 10:44:44 PM
But I-95 was never the best way to get to Trenton past US 1, so it was always an indirect route.
I'd say the metro area is more important than whether I-95 physically enters the city. They have to use something. Should I-90 not use Buffalo, since it doesn't enter the city?
I-95 North for Trenton used to use Yardley and the old US 1 (now US 1 Business) was signed for Trenton. All the control signs leaving Philly would direct you north on I-95 to the former US 1 exit and US 1 into Trenton.
Even on US 1 which goes right to Trenton, has the control city for I-95 north as Trenton. I-95 goes way north of the Downtown of the city and you have to zig back to Trenton on NJ 29 if you let the signs for Trenton now control you.
I mentioned the same thing in Enola on US 11 & 15 as the ramp for I-81 Northbound uses Harrisburg when Harrisburg is located east of US 11 & 15 several miles to the south. PennDOT is using both Front and Cameron Streets as the two I-81 exits signed for PA's capital, so US 11 & 15 are south of those two exits so following Protocol would have Harrisburg on I-81 really north of Enola despite its awkward location.
However, some states remedy it by taking into consideration what locals experience hence KDOT along I-35 in Kansas. As soon as one enters Olathe, all signs for I-35 N Bound begin to use Des Moines instead of Kansas City despite you are still no where near Kansas City and not even close to its first exit. They figure locals know where their principal city of their own metro are is and how to get to it. Though the MUTCD says its to be signed up until one reaches that point. Even FDOT jumps the gun on I-275 north of Tampa by signing St. Pete instead of Tampa as the Center of Tampa is just south of I-4's exchange, but that one could be considered iffy as the Tampa City Limits cover I-275 up until after Livingston Avenue crosses the freeway and one could argue I-275's first southbound exit at Bearss Avenue is at Tampa cause its in the city limits at that point.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 12, 2018, 10:50:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 12, 2018, 01:37:57 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 11, 2018, 10:44:44 PM
But I-95 was never the best way to get to Trenton past US 1, so it was always an indirect route.
I'd say the metro area is more important than whether I-95 physically enters the city. They have to use something. Should I-90 not use Buffalo, since it doesn't enter the city?
I-95 North for Trenton used to use Yardley and the old US 1 (now US 1 Business) was signed for Trenton. All the control signs leaving Philly would direct you north on I-95 to the former US 1 exit and US 1 into Trenton.
Even on US 1 which goes right to Trenton, has the control city for I-95 north as Trenton. I-95 goes way north of the Downtown of the city and you have to zig back to Trenton on NJ 29 if you let the signs for Trenton now control you.
I mentioned the same thing in Enola on US 11 & 15 as the ramp for I-81 Northbound uses Harrisburg when Harrisburg is located east of US 11 & 15 several miles to the south. PennDOT is using both Front and Cameron Streets as the two I-81 exits signed for PA's capital, so US 11 & 15 are south of those two exits so following Protocol would have Harrisburg on I-81 really north of Enola despite its awkward location.
However, some states remedy it by taking into consideration what locals experience hence KDOT along I-35 in Kansas. As soon as one enters Olathe, all signs for I-35 N Bound begin to use Des Moines instead of Kansas City despite you are still no where near Kansas City and not even close to its first exit. They figure locals know where their principal city of their own metro are is and how to get to it. Though the MUTCD says its to be signed up until one reaches that point. Even FDOT jumps the gun on I-275 north of Tampa by signing St. Pete instead of Tampa as the Center of Tampa is just south of I-4's exchange, but that one could be considered iffy as the Tampa City Limits cover I-275 up until after Livingston Avenue crosses the freeway and one could argue I-275's first southbound exit at Bearss Avenue is at Tampa cause its in the city limits at that point.
I think it will remain Trenton. 95 may veer off the roadway at the new interchange, but the original roadway itself will still head towards Trenton. North of the Route 1 exit, I would be just fine with them using Princeton as the next control city since 95/295 passes through there on its way around the Trenton suburbs (even though NJDOT used Lawrence as a control city at old Exit 2 in Ewing, which does not compute to me).
Quote from: roadman65 on April 12, 2018, 10:50:34 PMEven on US 1 which goes right to Trenton, has the control city for I-95 north as Trenton. I-95 goes way north of the Downtown of the city and you have to zig back to Trenton on NJ 29 if you let the signs for Trenton now control you.
Several years ago, some of the I-95 northbound Trenton ramp signs north of the PA Turnpike crossing were replaced with ones using Princeton; including this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1933012,-74.8732405,3a,75y,264.14h,78.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skstPDnAbr71BiZHDzG7RsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at US 1 Morrisville/Langhorne interchange (although the one along US 1 northbound, based on GSV was not replaced).
The likely reasoning for having Trenton signed along I-95 northbound all the way up to the Scudder Fall Bridge may have been based on an old (now long-dead) proposal that would've had NJ 29 being a full-blown expressway at I-95.
Quote from: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 12:29:13 AMI think it will remain Trenton. 95 may veer off the roadway at the new interchange, but the original roadway itself will still head towards Trenton. North of the Route 1 exit, I would be just fine with them using Princeton as the next control city since 95/295 passes through there on its way around the Trenton suburbs (even though NJDOT used Lawrence as a control city at old Exit 2 in Ewing, which does not compute to me).
You might want to look back at the previous posts. This sub-topic started as a result of sightings of I-95 northbound ramp signage
well south of the PA Turnpike crossing now having
New York on the signs instead of
Trenton; the existing BGS' were modified not replaced.
As far as using Lawrence for the now I-295 signage. Given that the new designation is signed for the opposite direction that I-95 was; seeing a sign that reads
295 SOUTH Lawrence is less awkward than
295 SOUTH Princeton. One could argue that the use of Princeton, at least for the I-295 northbound signage south of US 1 (Exit 67A-B) theoretically dates back to when the I-95/Somerset Freeway proposal was still alive.
Quote from: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 12:29:13 AM
North of the Route 1 exit, I would be just fine with them using Princeton as the next control city since 95/295 passes through there on its way around the Trenton suburbs (even though NJDOT used Lawrence as a control city at old Exit 2 in Ewing, which does not compute to me).
295 (old 95) does not enter Princeton. Lawrence was probably signed because that is where I-95 (used to) become I-295 at the US 1 interchange. That said, Princeton is a more meaningful control city there, and it is used Northbound north of Trenton.
Lawrence, in my opinion, was just a one-off . . . what was at (old) Exit 2 before the structure was replaced was a small I-95 north to NJTP pull through without a control city.
There are only two I-295 south pull-throughs proposed along the former I-95 segment: one entering New Jersey (similar to pictured above) and at Scotch Road (old Exit 3). The former is the only one showing Princeton. Overhead signs on the interchange crossroads, such as at Route 31, are the only other ones showing the I-295 South/Princeton combination. I think there was a sniff of the awkward nature of this message during the design.
As to the rest of the control city debate . . . I would just like to see some consistency in the finished product, i.e.
Trenton/New York from NE Philly -- I have to believe that using only one city is because of the structural consequences of a bigger sign -- New York was probably chosen as the longer distance city.
Trenton/Princeton on I-295 to U.S. 1 -- New York on new I-95.
Princeton north of U.S. 1 -- Morrisville/Trenton on U.S. 1 north
Camden beginning at Exit 67.
Of I-295's control cities, Camden, Princeton and Trenton are never entered as well
295 is a loop, bypass or beltway; however you want to term an even 3 digit interstate route. And it does what it's supposed to do. Most people just think of Philly as the city bypassed, however, 295 bypasses Wilmington, Camden, Trenton and Princeton. In reality, it's about as perfect as an even 3 di as you can get in terms of definition. (In terms of congestion, UGH!!)
The only control cities that 295 enters aren't proper control cities: Delaware Memorial Bridge and Delaware.
I think of a perfect 3di as one that allows traffic between two big cities to bypass one or more big cities in between (or if the parent interstate bypasses a city, allow access into it). In this sense, 295 is only doing its job between I-95 in Delaware and the NJ Turnpike, which is doing most of the bypassing. The rest of 295 is a local commuter route.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 13, 2018, 04:24:29 PM
I think of a perfect 3di as one that allows traffic between two big cities to bypass one or more big cities in between (or if the parent interstate bypasses a city, allow access into it). In this sense, 295 is only doing its job between I-95 in Delaware and the NJ Turnpike, which is doing most of the bypassing. The rest of 295 is a local commuter route.
The NJ Turnpike is a bypass, and I-295 adds capacity to the corridor and provides frequent local access points. I-295 has both local access and bypass functions.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 13, 2018, 04:24:29 PM
I think of a perfect 3di as one that allows traffic between two big cities to bypass one or more big cities in between (or if the parent interstate bypasses a city, allow access into it). In this sense, 295 is only doing its job between I-95 in Delaware and the NJ Turnpike, which is doing most of the bypassing. The rest of 295 is a local commuter route.
So in New Jersey, only I-280 is a "perfect 3di" in your sense.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 13, 2018, 04:24:29 PM
I think of a perfect 3di as one that allows traffic between two big cities to bypass one or more big cities in between (or if the parent interstate bypasses a city, allow access into it). In this sense, 295 is only doing its job between I-95 in Delaware and the NJ Turnpike, which is doing most of the bypassing. The rest of 295 is a local commuter route.
Due to the elimination of the Somerset Freeway, 295's purpose kind of got shifted around a bit. Most people don't think of it as a bypass around Philly because 295 truly doesn't meet up with 95 the way it should have. And in New Jersey, 295 appears as THE main highway, functioning more like a 2-di interstate highway than a 3-di interstate highway
It would have been good to see the Somerset Freeway built as I-295 would have been a great alternate to I-95 being its eastern alignment east of the Delaware River.
I would have love to see how the single lane exit in Edison where the ramp to the Turnpike departs from I-287 would have handled through I-95 traffic as well as the two single lane Exit 10 SB ramps on the Turnpike doing the same though.
Also the office complex on Hadley Road would not be there and the Kohl's on Stelton Road would not be there as that was the path of that particular freeway. Part of Rutgers would have been effected too, but that university would have a direct main freeway accessing it though as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2018, 03:16:14 PM
It would have been good to see the Somerset Freeway built as I-295 would have been a great alternate to I-95 being its eastern alignment east of the Delaware River.
The I-95 Somerset Freeway in conjunction with the I-695 connector also would have provided a much better and shorter routing for the traffic wanting to use I-287 to bypass New York City. That would apply to both PA I-95 traffic and NJ I-295 traffic, and in northern distribution to either I-87 northward or to I-95 in CT.
Yes and being the Parkway forbids trucks, that would have been ideal for commerce. Now semis have to dogleg on I-287 in Edison, or use I-476 to I-81 and I-88 to NY's capital region, or for New England use I-476 and I-84.
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2018, 07:33:26 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 13, 2018, 04:24:29 PM
I think of a perfect 3di as one that allows traffic between two big cities to bypass one or more big cities in between (or if the parent interstate bypasses a city, allow access into it). In this sense, 295 is only doing its job between I-95 in Delaware and the NJ Turnpike, which is doing most of the bypassing. The rest of 295 is a local commuter route.
So in New Jersey, only I-280 is a "perfect 3di" in your sense.
I was just replying to the notion that I-295 was somehow a perfect (even numbered) 3di. I am not arguing that it shouldn't be a 3di or anything like that. I would actually propose that I-287 is a nearly perfect 3di (partially) in NJ except for the little detail that it should be an x95.
Some updates for those who care:
There have been some changes to certain Wikipedia articles in light of the signage changes. There's no longer a section about the "Trenton Section" of I-95 in the I-95 in New Jersey article. The northern terminus of I-95 in PA has been changed to I-295 in Yardley; that, and I-295's "current" north end is I-95 in Lower Makefield Township, PA.
Last but not least, one of the updates shows this sign at the junction between I-95 and I-676, showing the new control city of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#/media/File:Interstate_95_Philadelphia_sign.jpg
The rest of the resigning work for I-295 will be done in August.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Last but not least, one of the updates shows this sign at the junction between I-95 and I-676, showing the new control city of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#/media/File:Interstate_95_Philadelphia_sign.jpg
To be specific, this is the entrance from 7th St (Franklin St) at Vine St.
Here's GMSV on the Delaware Valley (US 13) interchange from last September. If you look closely on the signs for westbound I-276, you can see some covered parts of the sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1225301,-74.8542076,3a,70.5y,29.54h,90.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3vVttsc2hVNvfsHgv06g_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 08:38:54 PM
Here's GMSV on the Delaware Valley (US 13) interchange from last September. If you look closely on the signs for westbound I-276, you can see some covered parts of the sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1225301,-74.8542076,3a,70.5y,29.54h,90.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3vVttsc2hVNvfsHgv06g_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
I'm surprised that the
EAST 276 legend on that BGS to the right isn't just a temporary mask over
NORTH 95 or
95 NORTH legend.
I'm just glad that the switch from Clearview back to FHWA Series happened just in time for this interchange.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Some updates for those who care:
There have been some changes to certain Wikipedia articles in light of the signage changes. There's no longer a section about the "Trenton Section" of I-95 in the I-95 in New Jersey article. The northern terminus of I-95 in PA has been changed to I-295 in Yardley; that, and I-295's "current" north end is I-95 in Lower Makefield Township, PA.
Last but not least, one of the updates shows this sign at the junction between I-95 and I-676, showing the new control city of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#/media/File:Interstate_95_Philadelphia_sign.jpg
The rest of the resigning work for I-295 will be done in August.
I saw that in person this weekend. Think it should be "New York/Baltimore", but it'll be a cold day in hell before PA signs two out-of-state control cities.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 18, 2018, 09:53:48 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Some updates for those who care:
There have been some changes to certain Wikipedia articles in light of the signage changes. There's no longer a section about the "Trenton Section" of I-95 in the I-95 in New Jersey article. The northern terminus of I-95 in PA has been changed to I-295 in Yardley; that, and I-295's "current" north end is I-95 in Lower Makefield Township, PA.
Last but not least, one of the updates shows this sign at the junction between I-95 and I-676, showing the new control city of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#/media/File:Interstate_95_Philadelphia_sign.jpg
The rest of the resigning work for I-295 will be done in August.
I saw that in person this weekend. Think it should be "New York/Baltimore", but it'll be a cold day in hell before PA signs two out-of-state control cities.
Going North, New York City is being signed. Otherwise. It would be Trenton...still out of state. Going south, Philly is the next city and the obvious choice. Why would PennDOT use Baltimore instead of Philly?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 18, 2018, 10:50:09 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 18, 2018, 09:53:48 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Some updates for those who care:
There have been some changes to certain Wikipedia articles in light of the signage changes. There's no longer a section about the "Trenton Section" of I-95 in the I-95 in New Jersey article. The northern terminus of I-95 in PA has been changed to I-295 in Yardley; that, and I-295's "current" north end is I-95 in Lower Makefield Township, PA.
Last but not least, one of the updates shows this sign at the junction between I-95 and I-676, showing the new control city of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#/media/File:Interstate_95_Philadelphia_sign.jpg
The rest of the resigning work for I-295 will be done in August.
I saw that in person this weekend. Think it should be "New York/Baltimore", but it'll be a cold day in hell before PA signs two out-of-state control cities.
Going North, New York City is being signed. Otherwise. It would be Trenton...still out of state. Going south, Philly is the next city and the obvious choice. Why would PennDOT use Baltimore instead of Philly?
I believe TXtoNJ is referring to signage
inside Philadelphia. Even so, if PennDOT wanted to overlook Chester; Wilmington would more likely be used instead of Baltimore.
Northernmost BGS along I-95 southbound that lists
Wilmington. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8913463,-75.2220034,3a,75y,301.03h,76.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ-ER-EYMIQgiyMzEAK8aUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 17, 2018, 09:17:12 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 08:38:54 PM
Here's GMSV on the Delaware Valley (US 13) interchange from last September. If you look closely on the signs for westbound I-276, you can see some covered parts of the sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1225301,-74.8542076,3a,70.5y,29.54h,90.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3vVttsc2hVNvfsHgv06g_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
I'm surprised that the EAST 276 legend on that BGS to the right isn't just a temporary mask over NORTH 95 or 95 NORTH legend.
Same here.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 18, 2018, 09:53:48 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Some updates for those who care:
There have been some changes to certain Wikipedia articles in light of the signage changes. There's no longer a section about the "Trenton Section" of I-95 in the I-95 in New Jersey article. The northern terminus of I-95 in PA has been changed to I-295 in Yardley; that, and I-295's "current" north end is I-95 in Lower Makefield Township, PA.
Last but not least, one of the updates shows this sign at the junction between I-95 and I-676, showing the new control city of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#/media/File:Interstate_95_Philadelphia_sign.jpg
The rest of the resigning work for I-295 will be done in August.
I saw that in person this weekend. Think it should be "New York/Baltimore", but it'll be a cold day in hell before PA signs two out-of-state control cities.
It should not be Chester for sure to be consistent with New York. IMO it should be New York and Wilmington.
BTW I-78 is signed for New York both at PA 33 and PA 611 (or its connector) near Easton. From PA 33 PennDOT considers NJ to be a city like always the Garden State cities are useless to other states. NYSDOT had Perth Amboy and Jersey City for NY 440 on Staten Island and that lasted very short as both bridges are back to being control cities once again.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 18, 2018, 11:35:12 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 18, 2018, 10:50:09 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 18, 2018, 09:53:48 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Some updates for those who care:
There have been some changes to certain Wikipedia articles in light of the signage changes. There's no longer a section about the "Trenton Section" of I-95 in the I-95 in New Jersey article. The northern terminus of I-95 in PA has been changed to I-295 in Yardley; that, and I-295's "current" north end is I-95 in Lower Makefield Township, PA.
Last but not least, one of the updates shows this sign at the junction between I-95 and I-676, showing the new control city of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#/media/File:Interstate_95_Philadelphia_sign.jpg
The rest of the resigning work for I-295 will be done in August.
I saw that in person this weekend. Think it should be "New York/Baltimore", but it'll be a cold day in hell before PA signs two out-of-state control cities.
Going North, New York City is being signed. Otherwise. It would be Trenton...still out of state. Going south, Philly is the next city and the obvious choice. Why would PennDOT use Baltimore instead of Philly?
I believe TXtoNJ is referring to signage inside Philadelphia. Even so, if PennDOT wanted to overlook Chester; Wilmington would more likely be used instead of Baltimore.
Northernmost BGS along I-95 southbound that lists Wilmington. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8913463,-75.2220034,3a,75y,301.03h,76.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ-ER-EYMIQgiyMzEAK8aUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Like most big cities, there's numerous exits along 95 to enter into Philly. Central Phila is used as a control city, then Phila Int'l Airport. Control cities not involving Philadelphia aren't used until your Wilmington example.
Since there's not a major split, like, say, 75/85 thru Atlanta, there's no significant interstate highway diverge in Philly that could confuse motorists in regards to reaching the next big city. The first sign that hints of Baltimore is approaching the 95/495 split in Delaware.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 11:52:50 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 11, 2018, 11:45:10 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 11, 2018, 08:50:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2018, 08:42:22 AMBased on a small sample size of 1, there may be upwards of a full sign replacement program going on around Exit 60.
On 295 this morning, this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/rLKeCrzRQg22 now has 4 shields on it, and reads something like:
NORTH EAST TO
29 195 95 NJTPK
Was the entire sign replaced or did NJDOT just replace the three larger shields with four smaller ones?
I believe it was the entire sign. It took me by surprise so I only had a last-second look at it. Now that I'm aware of it I'll try to grab a pic next time.
Per the design plans, the whole sign (each one in the sequence) is to be replaced.
Sweet! I knew there was someone that knew the answer...I just couldn't recall who it was!
So this is interesting: I-95 is also being signed on 295 for Exit 56! I first noticed it on this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/met41YPHv8B2 . We've previously talked about this sign before because of the font issues on this fairly new sign. I believe (and I noticed it at the last second) that the font is the same as before, leading me to believe they simply shifted the route shields around.
Thinking about it, it makes sense: If the NJ Turnpike shield is on the sign, and it's 95, then the two should be together. It should've been like that for a quite a number of years, but whatever...
If I recall, the routes now read: US 206, I-95, NJ TPK, NJ 68.
Technically, none of that is correct, because the exit doesn't offer a direct connection to any of them. The sign should read, in some fashion,
TO 206/95/NJTPK/68.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 18, 2018, 09:28:32 PMIt should not be Chester for sure to be consistent with New York. IMO it should be New York and Wilmington.
This whole
which control city should be used (local or distant)? saga (which I believe caught a few of us (myself included) a tad off guard) reminds me a bit of some of the inconsistent listings of control cities for the I-95 signs in MA along the Yankee Division Highway (MA 128) stretch; Attleboro (MA 2 interchange only), Canton, Dedham, Waltham or Peabody (depending on location) vs. Portsmouth, NH or Providence, RI. As for that area, I believe the old-school two-control city listings for one direction is justified for the Philadelphia area as well. Those who write the MUTCD regs & guidelines need to realize that not all situations are a
one size fits all.
Yes, the new TOTSO alignment of I-95 in Middletown Twp., Bucks County means that I-95 no longer serves the immediate Trenton area but the highway corridor (Delaware Expressway) itself
still does. That said & in the most ideal signing conditions (as previously stated) the dual
Trenton-New York listings should be used for I-95 northbound signs between I-676 & PA 413. If
only one control city can be used in those areas;
Trenton should still be used given its closer proximity to Philadelphia; which is what existed on the signs prior to last week.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2018, 09:40:28 AMSo this is interesting: I-95 is also being signed on 295 for Exit 56! I first noticed it on this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/met41YPHv8B2 . We've previously talked about this sign before because of the font issues on this fairly new sign. I believe (and I noticed it at the last second) that the font is the same as before, leading me to believe they simply shifted the route shields around.
Thinking about it, it makes sense: If the NJ Turnpike shield is on the sign, and it's 95, then the two should be together. It should've been like that for a quite a number of years, but whatever...
If I recall, the routes now read: US 206, I-95, NJ TPK, NJ 68.
Technically, none of that is correct, because the exit doesn't offer a direct connection to any of them. The sign should read, in some fashion, TO 206/95/NJTPK/68.
If the same exact sign board is being used for those shield changes; one has to assume the smaller shields were placed on that particular sign. Such wouldn't otherwise fit too easily.
Truth be told & given the current lack of a direct connection with the Delaware Expressway & the PA Turnpike; it would not have been wise to add I-95 shields to the Exit 56 signs earlier (unless a
NORTH banner is/was included). Will the Exit 60 signs along I-295 northbound
should've have I-95 shields added as well? While the sign at the NJ 29/I-195 ramp split has such the main exit ramp from I-295 northbound itself does not.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 19, 2018, 10:04:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2018, 09:40:28 AMSo this is interesting: I-95 is also being signed on 295 for Exit 56! I first noticed it on this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/met41YPHv8B2 . We've previously talked about this sign before because of the font issues on this fairly new sign. I believe (and I noticed it at the last second) that the font is the same as before, leading me to believe they simply shifted the route shields around.
Thinking about it, it makes sense: If the NJ Turnpike shield is on the sign, and it's 95, then the two should be together. It should've been like that for a quite a number of years, but whatever...
If I recall, the routes now read: US 206, I-95, NJ TPK, NJ 68.
Technically, none of that is correct, because the exit doesn't offer a direct connection to any of them. The sign should read, in some fashion, TO 206/95/NJTPK/68.
If the same exact sign board is being used for those shield changes; one has to assume the smaller shields were placed on that particular sign. Such wouldn't otherwise fit too easily.
Truth be told & given the current lack of a direct connection with the Delaware Expressway & the PA Turnpike; it would not have been wise to add I-95 shields to the Exit 56 signs earlier (unless a NORTH banner is/was included). Will the Exit 60 signs along I-295 northbound should've have I-95 shields added as well? While the sign at the NJ 29/I-195 ramp split has such the main exit ramp from I-295 northbound itself does not.
Yeah, it was probably a long history of ignoring that 95 was on the NJ Turnpike (especially since even the Turnpike didn't really sign it in the area), along with the confusion issue. Being that akotchi is local, is on the project conversion team and has a passion for this stuff, he probably did a more extensive review of the area's signage than others would have done.
You're right in that they have to be smaller shields on that sign. I'll try to take a closer look tomorrow to see what they actually did. On average, they're replacing about 1 sign panel per day.
Got a better look at the sign on the way home for Exit 56. It appears to be a completely new sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1221076,-74.7184733,3a,75y,58.81h,88.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srCTJh1FIlcJd7uHmhX2HyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 What is odd about this is that no SOUTH banner is used for US 206 as the next exit for US 130 is signed for NB US 206. I do believe that it was signed for SB US 206 at one time, but can't be sure. I do know the NJ 68 shield was added and the road name as both McGuire and Fort Dix were the control points originally.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:37:22 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1221076,-74.7184733,3a,75y,58.81h,88.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srCTJh1FIlcJd7uHmhX2HyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 What is odd about this is that no SOUTH banner is used for US 206 as the next exit for US 130 is signed for NB US 206. I do believe that it was signed for SB US 206 at one time, but can't be sure. I do know the NJ 68 shield was added and the road name as both McGuire and Fort Dix were the control points originally.
It may have been. However, there is a mile or so gap between where Exit 56 accesses US 206, and where Exit 57 accesses 206. From Exit 56, you can get onto 206 going both directions, and NJDOT helped with that by building Connector Rd. In fact, 206 North is needed in order to get to the Turnpike from Exit 56 (albeit for just a few hundred feet). So removing any cardinal direction was correct (if it existed) on 295's signs for Rt. 206 at Exit 56, although it should've been replaced with 'TO'.
Technically, Exit 57 should be 'North 130' TO 'North 206' as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:37:22 PMI do believe that it was signed for SB US 206 at one time, but can't be sure.
It was. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1223929,-74.7182452,3a,75y,20.7h,87.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPG59NOG8u-ApDMdjpmc6-w!2e0!5s20090701T000000!7i3328!8i1664)
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2018, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:37:22 PMI do believe that it was signed for SB US 206 at one time, but can't be sure.
It was. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1223929,-74.7182452,3a,75y,20.7h,87.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPG59NOG8u-ApDMdjpmc6-w!2e0!5s20090701T000000!7i3328!8i1664)
They could easily fit banners into the new sign as there was inches all around on this previous one.
As far as US 206 being unidirectional here at 56, yes its correct, but straight through US 206 NB is better to use US 130 though. Yes it should not be implied that both US 130 and US 206 NB are together at Exit 57, and should have a TO banner. Then again NJ when a local side street goes to a signed route, where FDOT will say the street name on top and then the "TO XX" underneath. Exit 2 on FL 417 is signed Celebration Ave. TO US 192, while where here at Exit 1 on I-280 where the exit is signed TO US 46 and New Road and Edwards Road beneath it all (unless its been changed as its been near 15 years I drove that way). FDOT is right, NJDOT is technically not. It should be New Road to Edwards Road & US 46 if being correct.
Exit 56 should have the road name on top followed by TO US 206, NJ Turnpike, and NJ 68 followed by Joint Bases. Heck NJ 68 should be on a supplemental and so maybe the Joint Bases. Just leave Rising Sun Road to US 206, I-95 and NJ Turnpike all routes on bottom.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2018, 10:45:24 AM
Yeah, it was probably a long history of ignoring that 95 was on the NJ Turnpike (especially since even the Turnpike didn't really sign it in the area), along with the confusion issue. Being that akotchi is local, is on the project conversion team and has a passion for this stuff, he probably did a more extensive review of the area's signage than others would have done.
For the record, neither I nor my employer are part of the project conversion team, but I know folks who are and have looked at their plans, so I know some details of what should be happening.
My passion is derived from commuting this corridor for over 30 years and seeing the various changes occurring in the regional signing configurations. I moved to the area about 5 years after the Somerset Freeway was cancelled and travel extensively through central New Jersey for work, experiencing the traffic consequences of that cancellation. Considering this is a project 36 years in the making and practically out my office window, it interests me. I participated in a project many years ago creating a state-wide sign inventory database, and the 1993 change occurred during this project, so I got to be intimately familiar with the changes through that experience.
Most of the NJDOT overheads that change message are prescribed as new panels. The only greenouts (or <insert color>-outs) are either exit numbers or temporary signs such as in the Scudder Falls Bridge work zones. The shields on the new Exit 56 signs are the same size, but probably just closer together.
Including I-95 with the Turnpike in new signing appears, for the most part, to be filling in the signing from the opposite directions of the previous I-95 northbound routing through the gap, which used I-295 SB and I-195 EB, i.e. I-195 WB toward Exit 6 and I-295 NB toward Exit 60. The rest, such as along U.S. 206 at Tpk. Exit 7; U.S. 130 at Tpk. Exit 6A; and I-295 NB at Exit 56, are adding the designation south of Tpk. Exit 7A where it has been secret up to this point. As thorough as I would have done it . . . :nod:
Curious to see Pennsylvania's changes, as I have not been able to get those plans, and nothing has been done to date.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2018, 11:37:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2018, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:37:22 PMI do believe that it was signed for SB US 206 at one time, but can't be sure.
It was. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1223929,-74.7182452,3a,75y,20.7h,87.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPG59NOG8u-ApDMdjpmc6-w!2e0!5s20090701T000000!7i3328!8i1664)
They could easily fit banners into the new sign as there was inches all around on this previous one.
As far as US 206 being unidirectional here at 56, yes its correct, but straight through US 206 NB is better to use US 130 though.
True...if your destination is north of the 130/206 concurrence.
If your destination is between the NJ Turnpike entrance and the 130/206 concurrence, it would be confusing for a traveler to use an exit marked 206 South when they need to go north on 206. Connector Road was built to facilitate this movement. Thus, because of this 'no mans land' caused by the cardinal directions on the signage at Exit 56 & 57, the cardinal direction was eliminated at Exit 56.
I would like to know if PennDOT will ever remove Trenton as control city at the Oxford Valley Interchange along US 1 as that is for I-95 North there going NB. US 1 goes to Trenton and should be signed for it on old I-95 soon I-295 as its first ext. Before 1991 it was signed along Business US 1 and that was I-95's exit in PA for Trenton. North of there Yardley was used and NJ was used at the New Hope interchange.
Princeton is ideal, despite the freeway not going there, but its close enough to where the arc reaches its peak. Or even reinstate Yardley in PA and let NJ do what it has using Camden and New York (though NY will not make sense anymore as signs to I-95 North will soon perish) but I say that cause it takes NJ decades to upgrade a simple sign. Look at how long Morristown was removed from NJ 82 on the Garden State Parkway where NJ 24 from I-78 was a better choice since 1975 or around.
On US 206 in Lawrence I predict that New York will remain as SB I-295 control city for years to come, unless someone in NJDOT realized it for once and have already taken steps for its upgrade to Camden only!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 11:48:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2018, 11:37:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2018, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:37:22 PMI do believe that it was signed for SB US 206 at one time, but can't be sure.
It was. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1223929,-74.7182452,3a,75y,20.7h,87.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPG59NOG8u-ApDMdjpmc6-w!2e0!5s20090701T000000!7i3328!8i1664)
They could easily fit banners into the new sign as there was inches all around on this previous one.
As far as US 206 being unidirectional here at 56, yes its correct, but straight through US 206 NB is better to use US 130 though.
True...if your destination is north of the 130/206 concurrence.
If your destination is between the NJ Turnpike entrance and the 130/206 concurrence, it would be confusing for a traveler to use an exit marked 206 South when they need to go north on 206. Connector Road was built to facilitate this movement. Thus, because of this 'no mans land' caused by the cardinal directions on the signage at Exit 56 & 57, the cardinal direction was eliminated at Exit 56.
Who is going to care anyhow? Yes technically correct, but going to the NJ Turnpike people just want to go to the Turnpike. Being that 295 shifts away from the corridor is why that road is mentioned anyhow.
Fix would be to revise Exit 57 and let it say "TO North US 206." instead of implying a concurrency that don't happen for a mile.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2018, 11:57:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 11:48:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2018, 11:37:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2018, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:37:22 PMI do believe that it was signed for SB US 206 at one time, but can't be sure.
It was. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1223929,-74.7182452,3a,75y,20.7h,87.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPG59NOG8u-ApDMdjpmc6-w!2e0!5s20090701T000000!7i3328!8i1664)
They could easily fit banners into the new sign as there was inches all around on this previous one.
As far as US 206 being unidirectional here at 56, yes its correct, but straight through US 206 NB is better to use US 130 though.
True...if your destination is north of the 130/206 concurrence.
If your destination is between the NJ Turnpike entrance and the 130/206 concurrence, it would be confusing for a traveler to use an exit marked 206 South when they need to go north on 206. Connector Road was built to facilitate this movement. Thus, because of this 'no mans land' caused by the cardinal directions on the signage at Exit 56 & 57, the cardinal direction was eliminated at Exit 56.
Who is going to care anyhow? Yes technically correct, but going to the NJ Turnpike people just want to go to the Turnpike. Being that 295 shifts away from the corridor is why that road is mentioned anyhow.
The NJ Turnpike is signed on 295 at Interchanges 2 (NJ 140, Southbound only), 11 (US 322), 28 (NJ 168), 36 (NJ 73), and 47 (CR 541), with formerly just supplemental signage at Exit 60 Northbound (I-195), so Exit 56 isn't just signed with the Turnpike because of how the corridors separate there.
In reality, there's little reason to even sign the NJ Turnpike on 295 at Exit 11(A) because of the distance to get to the Turnpike, and it's a single lane road most of the distance with increasing congestion. The only reason people really need to access the Turnpike from 295 there is to avoid an incident on 295.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2018, 11:54:28 AMI would like to know if PennDOT will ever remove Trenton as control city at the Oxford Valley Interchange along US 1 as that is for I-95 North there going NB.
Actually, the exit BGS for I-95 northbound along US 1 southbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1932978,-74.8733181,3a,75y,263.48h,86.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEGAggdoU21LbwIM8i7XFWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) had its control city changed to
Princeton well over a decade ago. For some reason its (US 1) northbound counterpart wasn't changed. Not sure why the inconsistency (aside from PennDOT being PennDOT). I'm
assuming that northbound BGS will be completely replaced once PA starts with their I-295 sign changes.
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Right now there pretty much isn't even an existing 95. It's been reduced to rubble.
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2018, 04:08:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Right now there pretty much isn't even an existing 95. It's been reduced to rubble.
3,000 miles of gravel?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on April 20, 2018, 10:06:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 20, 2018, 04:08:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Right now there pretty much isn't even an existing 95. It's been reduced to rubble.
3,000 miles of gravel?
At least 3,000 feet.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2018, 11:57:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 11:48:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2018, 11:37:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2018, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:37:22 PMI do believe that it was signed for SB US 206 at one time, but can't be sure.
It was. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1223929,-74.7182452,3a,75y,20.7h,87.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPG59NOG8u-ApDMdjpmc6-w!2e0!5s20090701T000000!7i3328!8i1664)
They could easily fit banners into the new sign as there was inches all around on this previous one.
As far as US 206 being unidirectional here at 56, yes its correct, but straight through US 206 NB is better to use US 130 though.
True...if your destination is north of the 130/206 concurrence.
If your destination is between the NJ Turnpike entrance and the 130/206 concurrence, it would be confusing for a traveler to use an exit marked 206 South when they need to go north on 206. Connector Road was built to facilitate this movement. Thus, because of this 'no mans land' caused by the cardinal directions on the signage at Exit 56 & 57, the cardinal direction was eliminated at Exit 56.
Who is going to care anyhow? Yes technically correct, but going to the NJ Turnpike people just want to go to the Turnpike. Being that 295 shifts away from the corridor is why that road is mentioned anyhow.
The NJ Turnpike is signed on 295 at Interchanges 2 (NJ 140, Southbound only), 11 (US 322), 28 (NJ 168), 36 (NJ 73), and 47 (CR 541), with formerly just supplemental signage at Exit 60 Northbound (I-195), so Exit 56 isn't just signed with the Turnpike because of how the corridors separate there.
In reality, there's little reason to even sign the NJ Turnpike on 295 at Exit 11(A) because of the distance to get to the Turnpike, and it's a single lane road most of the distance with increasing congestion. The only reason people really need to access the Turnpike from 295 there is to avoid an incident on 295.
Maybe I said it wrong, but I know about the previous ones along the route. The Exit 11 thing is recent of them all. NJ 168 is to guide motorists from the Walt Whitman to the toll road being no interchange at NJ 42. Exit 47 was added later on when Exit numbers were added late in the 80's or early in the 90's. The original signs had florescant lighting from the top which were the style from the late 60's and early 70's/
Whether US 206 gets directional tabs or not is not a major issue, but thought that it was better the old way. However most people using US 206 anyway are locals as gong to Trenton now people will stay on 295 as its been completed for decades north of US 130.
Really US 130 should be resigned and before I-295 was completed to I-195 it also had Trenton as a control city beneath Bordentown due to having to use US 206 the rest of the way.
However at Exit 56 I-295 pulls away from the Turnpike and that is like the last ditch chance (other than I-195 a few miles further, but has a longer drive between the two freeways) one really has easily to convert to continue toward Newark and New York.
Did NJDOT finally remove I-95 from the WB I-195 exit guide for I-295 N Bound as it was destined for that and US 1 along with Princeton since the interchange was configured into its present state in 94>
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 16, 2018, 06:56:45 PM
Some updates for those who care:
There have been some changes to certain Wikipedia articles in light of the signage changes. There's no longer a section about the "Trenton Section" of I-95 in the I-95 in New Jersey article. The northern terminus of I-95 in PA has been changed to I-295 in Yardley; that, and I-295's "current" north end is I-95 in Lower Makefield Township, PA.
Last but not least, one of the updates shows this sign at the junction between I-95 and I-676, showing the new control city of New York.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_95_in_Pennsylvania#/media/File:Interstate_95_Philadelphia_sign.jpg
The rest of the resigning work for I-295 will be done in August.
FWIW if you look on Waze Maps, I-295 is now marked on the "old" Trenton section of I-95. Waze marks I-95 in New Jersey on the currently unsigned sections of the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Given the amount of work left, when do you predict the flyover ramps will open?
Quote from: jcn on April 25, 2018, 02:55:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Given the amount of work left, when do you predict the flyover ramps will open?
Hopefully no later than end of August.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 25, 2018, 03:22:10 AM
Quote from: jcn on April 25, 2018, 02:55:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Given the amount of work left, when do you predict the flyover ramps will open?
Hopefully no later than end of August.
That's what the PTC says. Based on the work that needs to be done, it should easily be done by then. Based on their speed of doing such work, I dunno...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2018, 06:00:16 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 25, 2018, 03:22:10 AM
Quote from: jcn on April 25, 2018, 02:55:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Given the amount of work left, when do you predict the flyover ramps will open?
Hopefully no later than end of August.
That's what the PTC says. Based on the work that needs to be done, it should easily be done by then. Based on their speed of doing such work, I dunno...
Given their speed, do you think, by the time the ramps finally open, it will be 2019?
Quote from: jcn on April 25, 2018, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2018, 06:00:16 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 25, 2018, 03:22:10 AM
Quote from: jcn on April 25, 2018, 02:55:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2018, 02:15:19 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on April 20, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
What exactly is left to be done before the I-95 gap is officially closed?
The overpasses themselves are poured. There is a lot of slope, ramp, paving and concrete work to be done though on the ramps and along existing I-95.
Given the amount of work left, when do you predict the flyover ramps will open?
Hopefully no later than end of August.
That's what the PTC says. Based on the work that needs to be done, it should easily be done by then. Based on their speed of doing such work, I dunno...
Given their speed, do you think, by the time the ramps finally open, it will be 2019?
They still say 2018, but they are very vague on it. I knew there's been something in writing previously stating August 2018, but I couldn't find it during a brief review of their site. It simply says "2018" or "thru the 2018 construction season", whatever that means.
Construction Season typically lasts until the weather gets cold, like maybe Thanksgiving, in the Northeast.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 25, 2018, 08:30:38 PM
Construction Season typically lasts until the weather gets cold, like maybe Thanksgiving, in the Northeast.
Well, they're basically done with laying the concrete on the ramps. All that's left to do is all the striping, tie-ins, signage, etc. That shouldn't take very long, but since this is PA, it could take forever. I mean, in the '50s, they built the entirety of the original NJ Turnpike in less than two years, but that was then, and this is now.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 26, 2018, 12:15:47 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 25, 2018, 08:30:38 PM
Construction Season typically lasts until the weather gets cold, like maybe Thanksgiving, in the Northeast.
Well, they're basically done with laying the concrete on the ramps. All that's left to do is all the striping, tie-ins, signage, etc. That shouldn't take very long, but since this is PA, it could take forever. I mean, in the '50s, they built the entirety of the original NJ Turnpike in less than two years, but that was then, and this is now.
They're basically done with laying the concrete on the *elevated* portions of the ramps. There's quite a bit of concrete/asphalt paving they still need to do.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 26, 2018, 12:15:47 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 25, 2018, 08:30:38 PM
Construction Season typically lasts until the weather gets cold, like maybe Thanksgiving, in the Northeast.
Well, they're basically done with laying the concrete on the ramps. All that's left to do is all the striping, tie-ins, signage, etc. That shouldn't take very long, but since this is PA, it could take forever. I mean, in the '50s, they built the entirety of the original NJ Turnpike in less than two years, but that was then, and this is now.
Well, the NJTA essentially built 32 miles of new roadway in 5 years (during the exit 6-9 widening). Not on the order of the original feat, but much faster than any other modern project I can think of.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 26, 2018, 09:05:01 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 26, 2018, 12:15:47 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 25, 2018, 08:30:38 PM
Construction Season typically lasts until the weather gets cold, like maybe Thanksgiving, in the Northeast.
Well, they're basically done with laying the concrete on the ramps. All that's left to do is all the striping, tie-ins, signage, etc. That shouldn't take very long, but since this is PA, it could take forever. I mean, in the '50s, they built the entirety of the original NJ Turnpike in less than two years, but that was then, and this is now.
Well, the NJTA essentially built 32 miles of new roadway in 5 years (during the exit 6-9 widening). Not on the order of the original feat, but much faster than any other modern project I can think of.
Not to mention it was so far under budget that they added 2 additional contracts to work on the existing lanes, and were still nearly 10% under the original budget.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 26, 2018, 09:05:01 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 26, 2018, 12:15:47 AM
Well, they're basically done with laying the concrete on the ramps. All that's left to do is all the striping, tie-ins, signage, etc. That shouldn't take very long, but since this is PA, it could take forever. I mean, in the '50s, they built the entirety of the original NJ Turnpike in less than two years, but that was then, and this is now.
Well, the NJTA essentially built 32 miles of new roadway in 5 years (during the exit 6-9 widening). Not on the order of the original feat, but much faster than any other modern project I can think of.
If the agency awards 118 miles of construction contracts in a few months then the highway can get built in 2 years or so. Most other turnpikes were built very quickly, by issuing enough bonds to cover the whole cost.
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 01:27:13 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 26, 2018, 09:05:01 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 26, 2018, 12:15:47 AM
Well, they're basically done with laying the concrete on the ramps. All that's left to do is all the striping, tie-ins, signage, etc. That shouldn't take very long, but since this is PA, it could take forever. I mean, in the '50s, they built the entirety of the original NJ Turnpike in less than two years, but that was then, and this is now.
Well, the NJTA essentially built 32 miles of new roadway in 5 years (during the exit 6-9 widening). Not on the order of the original feat, but much faster than any other modern project I can think of.
If the agency awards 118 miles of construction contracts in a few months then the highway can get built in 2 years or so. Most other turnpikes were built very quickly, by issuing enough bonds to cover the whole cost.
They were also built during a time when OSHA and overtime wasn't a factor. Oh, and there wasn't an existing road in the way which required working alongside roads with 80,000 or 180,000 vehicles passing by at the same time.
The worst of it was basically bulldozing thru existing neighborhoods and cities, especially in North Jersey, and indeed that portion of the roadway took longer to construct. South of the Brunswicks, they were mostly going thru farmland.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2018, 02:10:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 01:27:13 PM
If the agency awards 118 miles of construction contracts in a few months then the highway can get built in 2 years or so. Most other turnpikes were built very quickly, by issuing enough bonds to cover the whole cost.
They were also built during a time when OSHA and overtime wasn't a factor. Oh, and there wasn't an existing road in the way which required working alongside roads with 80,000 or 180,000 vehicles passing by at the same time.
The worst of it was basically bulldozing thru existing neighborhoods and cities, especially in North Jersey, and indeed that portion of the roadway took longer to construct. South of the Brunswicks, they were mostly going thru farmland.
They would have already acquired the right-of-way when the construction contracts were awarded. R/W acquisition probably took at least 3 years.
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2018, 02:10:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 01:27:13 PM
If the agency awards 118 miles of construction contracts in a few months then the highway can get built in 2 years or so. Most other turnpikes were built very quickly, by issuing enough bonds to cover the whole cost.
They were also built during a time when OSHA and overtime wasn't a factor. Oh, and there wasn't an existing road in the way which required working alongside roads with 80,000 or 180,000 vehicles passing by at the same time.
The worst of it was basically bulldozing thru existing neighborhoods and cities, especially in North Jersey, and indeed that portion of the roadway took longer to construct. South of the Brunswicks, they were mostly going thru farmland.
They would have already acquired the right-of-way when the construction contracts were awarded. R/W acquisition probably took at least 3 years.
The Turnpike was authorized in 1948. It was opened in 1951. So that in itself doesn't fit that timeline. Per Wikipedia, it claims that the Turnpike was actually made up of two planned state roads the state wanted to built back in the 1930's but didn't have funding for. Being that they weren't building limited access highways at the time, I'm not sure exactly what was built and how much land they actually purchased. Based on books about the NJ Turnpike, the NJTA bought most of their land they needed. Wiki's footnotes are out-of-date and you get a 404 error when clicked.
Again, back in the 1940's, building roads wasn't the struggle it was today. The state (or authority) came in, said they wanted the property, and for the most part got it. Only in the 1960's and 70's did people start fighting back, which set the tone for NJ's most well known highway no-build, the Somerset Freeway.
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2018, 02:10:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 01:27:13 PM
If the agency awards 118 miles of construction contracts in a few months then the highway can get built in 2 years or so. Most other turnpikes were built very quickly, by issuing enough bonds to cover the whole cost.
They were also built during a time when OSHA and overtime wasn't a factor. Oh, and there wasn't an existing road in the way which required working alongside roads with 80,000 or 180,000 vehicles passing by at the same time.
The worst of it was basically bulldozing thru existing neighborhoods and cities, especially in North Jersey, and indeed that portion of the roadway took longer to construct. South of the Brunswicks, they were mostly going thru farmland.
They would have already acquired the right-of-way when the construction contracts were awarded. R/W acquisition probably took at least 3 years.
3 months maybe.
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2018, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
They would have already acquired the [NJTP] right-of-way when the construction contracts were awarded. R/W acquisition probably took at least 3 years.
3 months maybe.
Acquiring thousands of properties in 3 months, some in urban areas? I did not work in the R/W acquistion process in my career, but I was aware that most would take far longer than that, and until you get them all you can't award all the construction contracts.
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2018, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
They would have already acquired the [NJTP] right-of-way when the construction contracts were awarded. R/W acquisition probably took at least 3 years.
3 months maybe.
Acquiring thousands of properties in 3 months, some in urban areas? I did not work in the R/W acquistion process in my career, but I was aware that most would take far longer than that, and until you get them all you can't award all the construction contracts.
1951 vs. 2018...
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2018, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
They would have already acquired the [NJTP] right-of-way when the construction contracts were awarded. R/W acquisition probably took at least 3 years.
3 months maybe.
Acquiring thousands of properties in 3 months, some in urban areas? I did not work in the R/W acquistion process in my career, but I was aware that most would take far longer than that, and until you get them all you can't award all the construction contracts.
1951 vs. 2018...
I am willing to be proven wrong if someone can find a credible historical cite on the NJTP.
Right-of-way acquisition is a time consuming process, especially when acquiring every parcel on 118 miles of highway. Yes, 1951 would take less time, but that is still an enormous amount of work to obtain title to all those parcels.
Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2018, 12:44:27 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2018, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 26, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
They would have already acquired the [NJTP] right-of-way when the construction contracts were awarded. R/W acquisition probably took at least 3 years.
3 months maybe.
Acquiring thousands of properties in 3 months, some in urban areas? I did not work in the R/W acquistion process in my career, but I was aware that most would take far longer than that, and until you get them all you can't award all the construction contracts.
1951 vs. 2018...
I am willing to be proven wrong if someone can find a credible historical cite on the NJTP.
Right-of-way acquisition is a time consuming process, especially when acquiring every parcel on 118 miles of highway. Yes, 1951 would take less time, but that is still an enormous amount of work to obtain title to all those parcels.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/ credible enough for you?
Talks began April 1949. Just talks. Ground broke in January 1950. That's 8 months max, and probably less. I'm sure a few bullish parcels held out longer, but no question that it was relatively easy to condemn all those properties back then - the precedent was set to just go ahead and take them.
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2018, 01:26:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2018, 12:44:27 AM
I am willing to be proven wrong if someone can find a credible historical cite on the NJTP.
Right-of-way acquisition is a time consuming process, especially when acquiring every parcel on 118 miles of highway. Yes, 1951 would take less time, but that is still an enormous amount of work to obtain title to all those parcels.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/ credible enough for you?
Talks began April 1949. Just talks. Ground broke in January 1950. That's 8 months max, and probably less. I'm sure a few bullish parcels held out longer, but no question that it was relatively easy to condemn all those properties back then - the precedent was set to just go ahead and take them.
Or
Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnrpike by Rutgers profs Michael Rockland and Angus Gillespie, which is cited in Alps' link's list of sources and discusses the condemnation issues in Elizabeth? (The NJTPA considered a waterfront route in Elizabeth but that would have condemned factories, some of whose owners threatened to leave New Jersey if the plants went. So several blocks of residences went instead.)
https://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551
ixnay
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2018, 01:26:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2018, 12:44:27 AM
I am willing to be proven wrong if someone can find a credible historical cite on the NJTP.
Right-of-way acquisition is a time consuming process, especially when acquiring every parcel on 118 miles of highway. Yes, 1951 would take less time, but that is still an enormous amount of work to obtain title to all those parcels.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/ credible enough for you?
Talks began April 1949. Just talks. Ground broke in January 1950. That's 8 months max, and probably less. I'm sure a few bullish parcels held out longer, but no question that it was relatively easy to condemn all those properties back then - the precedent was set to just go ahead and take them.
Acquiring property has always been a tedious process at least in modern times (such as the last 150 years in the U.S.). With right-of-way first the agency makes an offer on the parcel, and only when the owner refuses the offer does condemnation take place.
"About 90 major construction contracts and more than 40 miscellaneous contracts were let during the course of the projects; more than 110 contractors shared this work. There were more than 450 competitive bids received."
It is easy enough to see how the construction proceeded so quickly. I don't see anything in the article about details of the right-of-way acquisition process. It might take 100 right-of-way agents working fulltime to do all that work. In the 1940s the DOTs had relatively little experience to date on this process.
Another factor no one has mentioned is that in the immediate post WW II era there was still a can do kind of spirit in this country left over from World War II. That mentality had developed during the war of virtually doing the impossible; getting things done at a speed that would be unheard of today.
That same spirit and sense of efficiency enabled the community of Levittown Long Island to be built in about three years from 1947 to 1950. This was America's first mass produced suburb and 17,000 new houses were built in that short time to satisfy the incredible demand for new housing after the War.
By about ten years later, that spirit had evaporated and we settled into being a complacent society that now takes forever to accomplish anything, except when there's lots of money to be made by corporate giants.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 27, 2018, 08:33:25 PM
Another factor no one has mentioned is that in the immediate post WW II era there was still a can do kind of spirit in this country left over from World War II. That mentality had developed during the war of virtually doing the impossible; getting things done at a speed that would be unheard of today.
That same spirit and sense of efficiency enabled the community of Levittown Long Island to be built in about three years from 1947 to 1950. This was America's first mass produced suburb and 17,000 new houses were built in that short time to satisfy the incredible demand for new housing after the War.
By about ten years later, that spirit had evaporated and we settled into being a complacent society that now takes forever to accomplish anything, except when there's lots of money to be made by corporate giants.
Got that one right! When Walmart wants to put up a store, they can be allowed to build fast, but to update the roads to accommodate the shoppers will take years. Big businesses come first always!
However, look how long it took to rebuild the World Trade Center Post 9/11! That should have been done sooner that it did, but we drag our ass. A big superpower like America is slow to just about everything!
Enough rant on that before it leads to politics and this thread gets locked, but agree with you in the past we got simple projects done and fast. The whole turnpike was built way faster than this interchange project is taking for sure.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 27, 2018, 08:33:25 PM
Another factor no one has mentioned is that in the immediate post WW II era there was still a can do kind of spirit in this country left over from World War II. That mentality had developed during the war of virtually doing the impossible; getting things done at a speed that would be unheard of today.
That same spirit and sense of efficiency enabled the community of Levittown Long Island to be built in about three years from 1947 to 1950. This was America's first mass produced suburb and 17,000 new houses were built in that short time to satisfy the incredible demand for new housing after the War.
By about ten years later, that spirit had evaporated and we settled into being a complacent society that now takes forever to accomplish anything, except when there's lots of money to be made by corporate giants.
That is not really very fair ... between the Great Depression, and WWII with its near shutdown of the civilian economy for four years, after the war there was enormous pent-up demand to replace obsolete housing and obsolete highways. Traffic became intolerable in many places right after WW II. Then 70% of the Interstate mileage was built 1956-1970, and that only slowed down due to NEPA in 1969 and major cost inflation. We current have over $100 billion per year of public highway construction and maintenance in the U.S.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2018, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 27, 2018, 08:33:25 PM
Another factor no one has mentioned is that in the immediate post WW II era there was still a can do kind of spirit in this country left over from World War II. That mentality had developed during the war of virtually doing the impossible; getting things done at a speed that would be unheard of today.
That same spirit and sense of efficiency enabled the community of Levittown Long Island to be built in about three years from 1947 to 1950. This was America's first mass produced suburb and 17,000 new houses were built in that short time to satisfy the incredible demand for new housing after the War.
By about ten years later, that spirit had evaporated and we settled into being a complacent society that now takes forever to accomplish anything, except when there's lots of money to be made by corporate giants.
Got that one right! When Walmart wants to put up a store, they can be allowed to build fast, but to update the roads to accommodate the shoppers will take years. Big businesses come first always!
However, look how long it took to rebuild the World Trade Center Post 9/11! That should have been done sooner that it did, but we drag our ass. A big superpower like America is slow to just about everything!
Enough rant on that before it leads to politics and this thread gets locked, but agree with you in the past we got simple projects done and fast. The whole turnpike was built way faster than this interchange project is taking for sure.
Am I right in saying that most of the work involves those daft environmental impact reports that are Yellow Pages-thick?
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 28, 2018, 02:13:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2018, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 27, 2018, 08:33:25 PM
Another factor no one has mentioned is that in the immediate post WW II era there was still a can do kind of spirit in this country left over from World War II. That mentality had developed during the war of virtually doing the impossible; getting things done at a speed that would be unheard of today.
That same spirit and sense of efficiency enabled the community of Levittown Long Island to be built in about three years from 1947 to 1950. This was America's first mass produced suburb and 17,000 new houses were built in that short time to satisfy the incredible demand for new housing after the War.
By about ten years later, that spirit had evaporated and we settled into being a complacent society that now takes forever to accomplish anything, except when there's lots of money to be made by corporate giants.
Got that one right! When Walmart wants to put up a store, they can be allowed to build fast, but to update the roads to accommodate the shoppers will take years. Big businesses come first always!
However, look how long it took to rebuild the World Trade Center Post 9/11! That should have been done sooner that it did, but we drag our ass. A big superpower like America is slow to just about everything!
Enough rant on that before it leads to politics and this thread gets locked, but agree with you in the past we got simple projects done and fast. The whole turnpike was built way faster than this interchange project is taking for sure.
Am I right in saying that most of the work involves those daft environmental impact reports that are Yellow Pages-thick?
My question is: will Trump's whole "getting rid of environmental regulations" campaign mean that these lengthy studies can be avoided and new construction can proceed with throwback speed?
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 28, 2018, 11:41:52 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 28, 2018, 02:13:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2018, 09:20:19 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 27, 2018, 08:33:25 PM
Another factor no one has mentioned is that in the immediate post WW II era there was still a can do kind of spirit in this country left over from World War II. That mentality had developed during the war of virtually doing the impossible; getting things done at a speed that would be unheard of today.
That same spirit and sense of efficiency enabled the community of Levittown Long Island to be built in about three years from 1947 to 1950. This was America's first mass produced suburb and 17,000 new houses were built in that short time to satisfy the incredible demand for new housing after the War.
By about ten years later, that spirit had evaporated and we settled into being a complacent society that now takes forever to accomplish anything, except when there's lots of money to be made by corporate giants.
Got that one right! When Walmart wants to put up a store, they can be allowed to build fast, but to update the roads to accommodate the shoppers will take years. Big businesses come first always!
However, look how long it took to rebuild the World Trade Center Post 9/11! That should have been done sooner that it did, but we drag our ass. A big superpower like America is slow to just about everything!
Enough rant on that before it leads to politics and this thread gets locked, but agree with you in the past we got simple projects done and fast. The whole turnpike was built way faster than this interchange project is taking for sure.
Am I right in saying that most of the work involves those daft environmental impact reports that are Yellow Pages-thick?
My question is: will Trump's whole "getting rid of environmental regulations" campaign mean that these lengthy studies can be avoided and new construction can proceed with throwback speed?
No, because at the state level there will still be regulations on this, and once President spray tan is out of office, the next president can reverse it.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 28, 2018, 11:41:52 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 28, 2018, 02:13:47 AM
Am I right in saying that most of the work involves those daft environmental impact reports that are Yellow Pages-thick?
My question is: will Trump's whole "getting rid of environmental regulations" campaign mean that these lengthy studies can be avoided and new construction can proceed with throwback speed?
Strawman alert! These environmental regulations are a result of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which was enacted by the U.S. Congress, and the only way to "get rid of it" would be by legislation of the the U.S. Congress.
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 02:35:30 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 28, 2018, 11:41:52 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 28, 2018, 02:13:47 AM
Am I right in saying that most of the work involves those daft environmental impact reports that are Yellow Pages-thick?
My question is: will Trump's whole "getting rid of environmental regulations" campaign mean that these lengthy studies can be avoided and new construction can proceed with throwback speed?
Strawman alert! These environmental regulations are a result of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which was enacted by the U.S. Congress, and the only way to "get rid of it" would be by legislation of the the U.S. Congress.
Nah. Regulations can be changed at whim by the Executive Department. There might be a court case claiming the President has not created regulations in compliance with legislation, but regulations are quite under the President's control.
Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2018, 06:44:12 AMQuote from: Alps on April 27, 2018, 01:26:18 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 27, 2018, 12:44:27 AMI am willing to be proven wrong if someone can find a credible historical cite on the NJTP.
Right-of-way acquisition is a time consuming process, especially when acquiring every parcel on 118 miles of highway. Yes, 1951 would take less time, but that is still an enormous amount of work to obtain title to all those parcels.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/ credible enough for you?
Talks began April 1949. Just talks. Ground broke in January 1950. That's 8 months max, and probably less. I'm sure a few bullish parcels held out longer, but no question that it was relatively easy to condemn all those properties back then - the precedent was set to just go ahead and take them.
Acquiring property has always been a tedious process at least in modern times (such as the last 150 years in the U.S.). With right-of-way first the agency makes an offer on the parcel, and only when the owner refuses the offer does condemnation take place.
"About 90 major construction contracts and more than 40 miscellaneous contracts were let during the course of the projects; more than 110 contractors shared this work. There were more than 450 competitive bids received."
It is easy enough to see how the construction proceeded so quickly. I don't see anything in the article about details of the right-of-way acquisition process. It might take 100 right-of-way agents working fulltime to do all that work. In the 1940s the DOTs had relatively little experience to date on this process.
One factor we are not considering is the law at the time as to right of entry. Many states had laws that allowed the contracts to be let and the bulldozers to start rolling while right-of-way negotiations were still underway. This is one of the factors cited in the relatively short completion time for the original 1940 length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 02:58:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 02:35:30 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 28, 2018, 11:41:52 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 28, 2018, 02:13:47 AM
Am I right in saying that most of the work involves those daft environmental impact reports that are Yellow Pages-thick?
My question is: will Trump's whole "getting rid of environmental regulations" campaign mean that these lengthy studies can be avoided and new construction can proceed with throwback speed?
Strawman alert! These environmental regulations are a result of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which was enacted by the U.S. Congress, and the only way to "get rid of it" would be by legislation of the the U.S. Congress.
Nah. Regulations can be changed at whim by the Executive Department. There might be a court case claiming the President has not created regulations in compliance with legislation, but regulations are quite under the President's control.
Baloney, any way you slice it. NEPA cannot be changed by the Executive Department.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2018, 02:58:17 PM
One factor we are not considering is the law at the time as to right of entry. Many states had laws that allowed the contracts to be let and the bulldozers to start rolling while right-of-way negotiations were still underway. This is one of the factors cited in the relatively short completion time for the original 1940 length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
They couldn't begin construction in parcels that they didn't have title to. That would delay having a highway that was usable by traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 03:06:52 PMThey couldn't begin construction in parcels that they didn't have title to. That would delay having a highway that was usable by traffic.
My understanding is that while the Constitution requires fair compensation for land taken by eminent domain, it does not explicitly require that the compensation be paid before the land is taken. The mechanism I have read of is a 30-day notice of entry, at the expiry of which the state (or its agents) could enter the property and begin construction whether or not agreement had been reached.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2018, 03:33:34 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 03:06:52 PMThey couldn't begin construction in parcels that they didn't have title to. That would delay having a highway that was usable by traffic.
My understanding is that while the Constitution requires fair compensation for land taken by eminent domain, it does not explicitly require that the compensation be paid before the land is taken. The mechanism I have read of is a 30-day notice of entry, at the expiry of which the state (or its agents) could enter the property and begin construction whether or not agreement had been reached.
Each state would have its own set of laws governing how the state acquires right-of-way.
The U.S. Constitution is only a general framework on this matter.
I would hope that every state had and has laws in place that would prevent that scheme.
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 03:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 02:58:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 02:35:30 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 28, 2018, 11:41:52 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 28, 2018, 02:13:47 AM
Am I right in saying that most of the work involves those daft environmental impact reports that are Yellow Pages-thick?
My question is: will Trump's whole "getting rid of environmental regulations" campaign mean that these lengthy studies can be avoided and new construction can proceed with throwback speed?
Strawman alert! These environmental regulations are a result of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which was enacted by the U.S. Congress, and the only way to "get rid of it" would be by legislation of the the U.S. Congress.
Nah. Regulations can be changed at whim by the Executive Department. There might be a court case claiming the President has not created regulations in compliance with legislation, but regulations are quite under the President's control.
Baloney, any way you slice it. NEPA cannot be changed by the Executive Department.
No, it can't change the legislation, but it does have a lot of control over the regulations that implement the law and how strictly the law is implemented. That isn't baloney, unless you don't understand the difference between legislation and regulation.
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 08:55:49 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 03:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 02:58:10 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 02:35:30 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 28, 2018, 11:41:52 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 28, 2018, 02:13:47 AM
Am I right in saying that most of the work involves those daft environmental impact reports that are Yellow Pages-thick?
My question is: will Trump's whole "getting rid of environmental regulations" campaign mean that these lengthy studies can be avoided and new construction can proceed with throwback speed?
Strawman alert! These environmental regulations are a result of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which was enacted by the U.S. Congress, and the only way to "get rid of it" would be by legislation of the the U.S. Congress.
Nah. Regulations can be changed at whim by the Executive Department. There might be a court case claiming the President has not created regulations in compliance with legislation, but regulations are quite under the President's control.
Baloney, any way you slice it. NEPA cannot be changed by the Executive Department.
No, it can't change the legislation, but it does have a lot of control over the regulations that implement the law and how strictly the law is implemented. That isn't baloney, unless you don't understand the difference between legislation and regulation.
When you have an overreaching and activist federal judiciary, someone files a lawsuit against the Executive Department, and try to get a federal judge to legislate from the bench and overrule; even if the district court issues an unconstitutional ruling then the only recourse is to appeal to the appelate court, and if they legislate from the bench, then the only recourse is to appeal to the Supreme Court, and they only hear about 2% of the appeals that are sent to them.
We are a Common Law country. That means that laws passed by the legislature are broad frameworks. The executive and judiciary provide the specifics. If you don't like it, advocate that we switch to Civil Law.
Quote from: vdeane on April 28, 2018, 10:27:52 PM
We are a Common Law country. That means that laws passed by the legislature are broad frameworks. The executive and judiciary provide the specifics. If you don't like it, advocate that we switch to Civil Law.
Hence why the Presidency is part of the
Executive branch. He/she
carries out the laws that Congress sets.
Of course, the amount of authority the President has under that title has been a subject of debate since the Constitution was adopted.
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 03:41:19 PMEach state would have its own set of laws governing how the state acquires right-of-way. The U.S. Constitution is only a general framework on this matter.
I would hope that every state had and has laws in place that would prevent that scheme.
I don't think entry before purchase is possible anymore for federal-aid projects. The legal framework for land acquisition for federally funded construction (not just highways) underwent major reform with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, and most of the states now have "baby URAs."
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 28, 2018, 10:57:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 03:41:19 PMEach state would have its own set of laws governing how the state acquires right-of-way. The U.S. Constitution is only a general framework on this matter.
I would hope that every state had and has laws in place that would prevent that scheme.
I don't think entry before purchase is possible anymore for federal-aid projects. The legal framework for land acquisition for federally funded construction (not just highways) underwent major reform with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, and most of the states now have "baby URAs."
I don't think that it ever was, at least not since the 19th Century.
One of the recent threads had a post claiming that on the MA Turnpike Boston Extension R/W acquistion, many homeowners were kicked out and paid only one dollar for their property. I believe that came from some anti-roads book written back in the 1970s (Superhighway/Superhoax?). Certainly fairness and equity has been questioned on some R/W acquistions in the past in the early days of the Interstate system, but I can't imagine that could have happened the way that book claimed.
No, it came from former MA Secretary of Transportation Fred Salvucci, whose mother experienced the $1 deal. It was portrayed as a "down payment," but in reality, they were lucky to get half the value of their homes in the end. I can't imagine how hard that must have been, since I'd think a lot of the people were still paying their mortgages.
I also don't see why this is so hard to believe since abuse of eminent domain is well-documented in a multitude of cases and the subesequent laws that were passed to prevent it from continuing.
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities. Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized. This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations. Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders). It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:45:55 PM
No, it came from former MA Secretary of Transportation Fred Salvucci, whose mother experienced the $1 deal. It was portrayed as a "down payment," but in reality, they were lucky to get half the value of their homes in the end. I can't imagine how hard that must have been, since I'd think a lot of the people were still paying their mortgages.
I also don't see why this is so hard to believe since abuse of eminent domain is well-documented in a multitude of cases and the subesequent laws that were passed to prevent it from continuing.
While many R/W equity issues have occured in the past, and I don't doubt that, this particular story is simply not credible and claiming that someone said it doesn't make it so.
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities. Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized. This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations. Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders). It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.
And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 12:16:24 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:45:55 PM
No, it came from former MA Secretary of Transportation Fred Salvucci, whose mother experienced the $1 deal. It was portrayed as a "down payment," but in reality, they were lucky to get half the value of their homes in the end. I can't imagine how hard that must have been, since I'd think a lot of the people were still paying their mortgages.
I also don't see why this is so hard to believe since abuse of eminent domain is well-documented in a multitude of cases and the subesequent laws that were passed to prevent it from continuing.
While many R/W equity issues have occured in the past, and I don't doubt that, this particular story is simply not credible and claiming that someone said it doesn't make it so.
It is. Stop arguing for argument's sake. You're wrong, even without Lansford here.
I could only find one cite on the internet about this.
My grandmother lived in a house in north Brighton that was taken by eminent domain when they when they built the Mass Turnpike. People were treated very badly in that neighborhood. They were relatively poor and my grandmother's Italian, but most of the family -- most of the neighborhood was Lithuanian, all immigrants. Nobody spoke very good English. Didn't really know how to defend themselves against this giant bureaucracy that came in and basically ripped through the neighborhood, took people's houses. They were given a dollar for the house and told, "When we get around to it, we'll give you an appraisal." I mean imagine a 70 year-old widow gets kicked out of her house with a dollar. I mean what is she supposed to do? It's just outrageous. And the it was so bad that it did generate an understanding that this was no way to treat people, and within five years of this horrible treatment, Massachusetts ended up having some of the best relocation laws to protect people against this happening again.
Interview with Fred Salvucci, former Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation, for Program Four: "The Big Dig"
https://www-tc.pbs.org/greatprojects/interviews/salvucci.pdf
OK, assuming this recording is what he really said, why did this only happen in one place in the state? It is curious seeing such a damning indictment in one sentence and then bragging in the next sentence about how Massachusetts' RW/acquisition went from horrible (if not blatantly criminal) to one of the best in the country in a few years.
In order to get this thread back on topic, anyone notice that Google Maps hasn't changed the designations of I-95 and I-295 in New Jersey?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 19, 2018, 05:43:18 PM
Got a better look at the sign on the way home for Exit 56. It appears to be a completely new sign.
I was back up in the area over the weekend and got a chance to look at this. The exit sign and closest advance sign have been completely replaced. The sign panel is slightly larger (and actually has what appeared to be correct padding), uses FHWA, and there are no black backgrounds on the 206 or 68 shields. The farthest advance sign (the one in Clearview with pretty much no padding whatsoever) has not yet been replaced.
Looking up the ramp, the new LGS that was installed at the time the exit signage was replaced last year has not been touched (yet?) either.
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 01:01:47 AM
I could only find one cite on the internet about this.
My grandmother lived in a house in north Brighton that was taken by eminent domain when they when they built the Mass Turnpike. People were treated very badly in that neighborhood. They were relatively poor and my grandmother's Italian, but most of the family -- most of the neighborhood was Lithuanian, all immigrants. Nobody spoke very good English. Didn't really know how to defend themselves against this giant bureaucracy that came in and basically ripped through the neighborhood, took people's houses. They were given a dollar for the house and told, "When we get around to it, we'll give you an appraisal." I mean imagine a 70 year-old widow gets kicked out of her house with a dollar. I mean what is she supposed to do? It's just outrageous. And the it was so bad that it did generate an understanding that this was no way to treat people, and within five years of this horrible treatment, Massachusetts ended up having some of the best relocation laws to protect people against this happening again.
Interview with Fred Salvucci, former Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation, for Program Four: "The Big Dig"
https://www-tc.pbs.org/greatprojects/interviews/salvucci.pdf
OK, assuming this recording is what he really said, why did this only happen in one place in the state? It is curious seeing such a damning indictment in one sentence and then bragging in the next sentence about how Massachusetts' RW/acquisition went from horrible (if not blatantly criminal) to one of the best in the country in a few years.
It didn't. For Pete's sake... :D
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities. Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized. This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations. Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders). It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.
And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.
Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions. I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits. From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2018, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities. Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized. This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations. Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders). It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.
And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.
Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions. I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits. From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.
Read for comprehension. I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2018, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities. Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized. This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations. Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders). It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.
And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.
Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions. I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits. From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.
Read for comprehension. I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".
At this point, I'll let the thread speak for itself.
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2018, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2018, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities. Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized. This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations. Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders). It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.
And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.
Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions. I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits. From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.
Read for comprehension. I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".
At this point, I'll let the thread speak for itself.
Rothman is correct. Many legislative acts passed into law (like NEPA) do not specify the regulations to be enacted but instead provide the broad framework and authorize a particular agency within the executive branch to write the regulations.
Don't want to get too deep in the scholarly weeds here, but, in fact, many constitutional scholars have long criticized this as a dangerous ceding of constitutional power from elected members of the legislative branch to unelected (and publicly unaccountable) members of the executive branch, a blurring of the separation of powers between the three federal branches which is a key structural component of the constitution's protection of the natural rights of the people as individuals.
But wait, it gets worse. When regulations are challenged in court, the judicial system (including the Supreme Court) generally follows the doctrine promoted in the early 20th century by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and others that a regulation is constitutional and can be applied broadly if even one person in the most obscure of situations might consider it reasonable in even the most narrow of ways.
These are two of the biggest reasons why federal regulations spread like kudzu and any presidential administration faces an uphill battle trimming them back, no matter how onerous to the individual they may be.
Definitely. I'm not specifically aware of how much leeway NEPA gives, but laws tend not to define every aspect laid out. This even applies to the Constitution itself. Note that the 4th Amendment does not define "reasonable", for example. The laws give the broad strokes. Regulations define who and what each part of the law applies to and the specific bureaucratic processes that will occur.
Quote from: qguy on April 29, 2018, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2018, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2018, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities. Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized. This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations. Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders). It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.
And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.
Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions. I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits. From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.
Read for comprehension. I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".
At this point, I'll let the thread speak for itself.
Rothman is correct. Many legislative acts passed into law (like NEPA) do not specify the regulations to be enacted but instead provide the broad framework and authorize a particular agency within the executive branch to write the regulations.
Don't want to get too deep in the scholarly weeds here, but, in fact, many constitutional scholars have long criticized this as a dangerous ceding of constitutional power from elected members of the legislative branch to unelected (and publicly unaccountable) members of the executive branch, a blurring of the separation of powers between the three federal branches which is a key structural component of the constitution's protection of the natural rights of the people as individuals.
But wait, it gets worse. When regulations are challenged in court, the judicial system (including the Supreme Court) generally follows the doctrine promoted in the early 20th century by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and others that a regulation is constitutional and can be applied broadly if even one person in the most obscure of situations might consider it reasonable in even the most narrow of ways.
These are two of the biggest reasons why federal regulations spread like kudzu and any presidential administration faces an uphill battle trimming them back, no matter how onerous to the individual they may be.
These questions hit at what a person’s fundemental belief about what the purpose of the state is, which is why I think it gets people so passionate.
The battle basically is: is the purpose of government to accomplish certain ends for society by any means necessary, with the benefit to the great majority offsetting the callous victimization of a few? Or is it to provide services, but only to the extent that it can without victimizing any citizens? Basically, is it there to act as a godlike body to serve the great majority, or to act on behalf of all individuals, with rare exception, as a helping hand?
I can’t imagine poeole on either side that have their heels dug in backing off their argument. Personally, somewhere in the middle is probably best but the middle never wins.
Speaking as a Fundamentalist Discordian, if I-95 is just gonna go uninterrupted from Florida to Mainebub, I guess I'll just have to go find something else to dig. Like I-238 or I-99 or something. Or even Br**z*w**d
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 29, 2018, 10:25:08 PM
Quote from: qguy on April 29, 2018, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2018, 02:47:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 02:40:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 29, 2018, 10:58:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on April 29, 2018, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 28, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Quote from: Beltway on April 28, 2018, 11:17:13 PM
Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed. Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.
You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities. Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized. This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations. Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders). It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.
And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.
Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions. I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits. From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.
Read for comprehension. I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".
At this point, I'll let the thread speak for itself.
Rothman is correct. Many legislative acts passed into law (like NEPA) do not specify the regulations to be enacted but instead provide the broad framework and authorize a particular agency within the executive branch to write the regulations.
Don't want to get too deep in the scholarly weeds here, but, in fact, many constitutional scholars have long criticized this as a dangerous ceding of constitutional power from elected members of the legislative branch to unelected (and publicly unaccountable) members of the executive branch, a blurring of the separation of powers between the three federal branches which is a key structural component of the constitution's protection of the natural rights of the people as individuals.
But wait, it gets worse. When regulations are challenged in court, the judicial system (including the Supreme Court) generally follows the doctrine promoted in the early 20th century by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and others that a regulation is constitutional and can be applied broadly if even one person in the most obscure of situations might consider it reasonable in even the most narrow of ways.
These are two of the biggest reasons why federal regulations spread like kudzu and any presidential administration faces an uphill battle trimming them back, no matter how onerous to the individual they may be.
These questions hit at what a person's fundemental belief about what the purpose of the state is, which is why I think it gets people so passionate.
The battle basically is: is the purpose of government to accomplish certain ends for society by any means necessary, with the benefit to the great majority offsetting the callous victimization of a few? Or is it to provide services, but only to the extent that it can without victimizing any citizens? Basically, is it there to act as a godlike body to serve the great majority, or to act on behalf of all individuals, with rare exception, as a helping hand?
I can't imagine poeole on either side that have their heels dug in backing off their argument. Personally, somewhere in the middle is probably best but the middle never wins.
I don't know about other places, but in America, the purpose of government is clear. The founding documents describe it. From the Declaration of Independence spells it out:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." [Emphasis added, it probably goes without saying.]
First come rights (from God, or natural law if you will), then comes government. And the purpose of government is to secure the natural rights of the people. The Constitution protects those rights by limiting the power of the federal government. The Constitution enumerates specific powers (not rights) of the federal government and states that everything else is retained by the states and the people as individuals. The Constitution even goes so far as to enumerate only a relative handful of the rights of the people, leaving the field of undescribed rights of the people wide open.
To the extent that we enjoy liberty in the United States today, we do so because of the US Constitution, not in spite of it.
So the purpose of government isn't really the argument. The argument is how to best fulfill that purpose, or what the government can and cannot do within the constraints of the Constitution to fulfill that purpose.
Forgive me for being a bit pedantic but sometimes basics are helpful.
Oh and one more thing:
Quote from: yakra on April 30, 2018, 01:23:52 AM
Br**z*w**d
:rofl: Perfect.
Lol, no it's not.
So, how about those overpasses? How far from done is the interchange at this moment?
Quote from: SteveG1988 on May 01, 2018, 01:35:57 AM
So, how about those overpasses? How far from done is the interchange at this moment?
As mentioned in previous posts, they're mostly finished as far as construction and pavement is concerned. All that's left is tie-in work, lighting, striping, and putting the finishing touches on the signage, which should take until August.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 29, 2018, 03:26:28 AM
In order to get this thread back on topic, anyone notice that Google Maps hasn't changed the designations of I-95 and I-295 in New Jersey?
I have noticed. I also noticed that Mapquest and Waze have renumbered the Trenton section as I-295.
They started changing the exit numbers on Rt. 29 approaching 295. The exit tabs now say Exit 1 A - B. The signage on the ramp has the yellow Formerly Exit 60 A-B tabs. (Edited to add they added the 'Formerly 60 A-B' tabs to all the BGSs on Rt. 29 approaching the interchange).
They did NOT do a complete sign change, so the button copy signage original to the 1994~ opening of Rt. 29 remains.
On 295 North, all the signage has been changed to reflect I-95 at Exits 56 and 60 except for the 1 Mile advanced sign for Exit 56. Being this is an easy to reach ground mounted sign, I wonder if NJDOT actually found an issue that they weren't satisfied with.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on May 01, 2018, 10:04:56 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 29, 2018, 03:26:28 AM
In order to get this thread back on topic, anyone notice that Google Maps hasn't changed the designations of I-95 and I-295 in New Jersey?
I have noticed. I also noticed that Mapquest and Waze have renumbered the Trenton section as I-295.
Apple Maps hasn't done so either. Yet, there is 1 (2 if you zoom in) set of I-95 shields just south of I-195.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2018, 10:09:57 PM
They started changing the exit numbers on Rt. 29 approaching 295. The exit tabs now say Exit 1 A - B. The signage on the ramp has the yellow Formerly Exit 60 A-B tabs. (Edited to add they added the 'Formerly 60 A-B' tabs to all the BGSs on Rt. 29 approaching the interchange).
They did NOT do a complete sign change, so the button copy signage original to the 1994~ opening of Rt. 29 remains.
On 295 North, all the signage has been changed to reflect I-95 at Exits 56 and 60 except for the 1 Mile advanced sign for Exit 56. Being this is an easy to reach ground mounted sign, I wonder if NJDOT actually found an issue that they weren't satisfied with.
As a result of this, there are two 1A's and two 1B's in the eastbound direction. The two U.S. 206 exit numbers should have been changed first to avoid the duplication. I saw this this evening when I passed through there.
Hopefully now the TO I-95 signs WB for I-295 N Bound will be tossed. I imagine the TO US 1 will remain due to the tunnel restriction to some trucks, but Princeton will stay no doubt.
I-295 has entered Pennsylvania.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1726/40668658220_4e98c18901_b.jpg)
Taken 5/27/18, Taylorsville Road NB approaching I-95/I-295. First appearance of West cardinal direction. Same view as a photo upthread of previous signs. This also reflects how the transition from north/south to east-west is being handled, at least from one of the interchanges on the river. I have not looked at the NJ 29 treatments yet.
Note the small I-95 south route marker assembly still in the background.
No pull-thrus or confirmations in Pa show I-295 yet, but this and the Yardley/Newtown exit numbers have been changed to 10 and 8, respectively, and the latter southbound only. Overheads on Pa 332 (new Exit 8) still show I-95.
These changes are probably limited to Delaware River Toll Bridge Commission areas and work zones for the Scudder Falls Bridge replacement. PennDOT's changes may not be scheduled yet.
There are still isolated locations scattered in New Jersey along I-295 or interchange roadways where the sign changes have not been fully executed, which I find to be strange . . .
Did the DRJTBC ever use Clearview? They definitely don't anymore. That sign on the left looks great, but the Princeton on the right is a little squeezed together.
Is this interchange as far as I-295 has made it so far? Isn't it fully switched over in NJ by now?
So the DRJTBC-controlled portion of 295 is North-South? I thought the whole point of switching the direction at the state line was to avoid situations like the above where one direction is West and the other is South.
The signage shown (295 South) is the ramp getting onto former I-95 North at the Scudder Falls Bridge. You're only on (new) 295 East for about 1/4 mile before the PA/NJ State Line without any exiting options, so there's no reason to sign it as such.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2018, 09:24:10 PM
Hopefully now the TO I-95 signs WB for I-295 N Bound will be tossed. I imagine the TO US 1 will remain due to the tunnel restriction to some trucks, but Princeton will stay no doubt.
I drove by there this past weekend, all the signage for I-295 Northbound along I-195 Westbound have since been replaced with ones that just list
TO 1 alongside the I-295 shield on them. The lone exception is the 2-mile advance BGS which simply just lists the lone I-295 shield rather than the
295 TO 1 95 legend.
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 31, 2018, 12:58:22 PMDid the DRJTBC ever use Clearview? They definitely don't anymore. That sign on the left looks great, but the Princeton on the right is a little squeezed together.
For some reason, this seems to be the issue with every BGS in this area that has
Princeton placed over the previous legend(s).
It used to be Trenton which used less lettering.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2018, 10:13:34 PM
It used to be Trenton which used less lettering.
Looks as if they just placed
Prince over the
Tren, leaving the
ton as it was.
edit: looking closer at the pic, maybe not.
No just the same size panel in the same location. Unlike PennDOT who loves to patch and paste changes on signs.
Quote from: mdthomas8368 on June 02, 2018, 09:17:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2018, 10:13:34 PM
It used to be Trenton which used less lettering.
Looks as if they just placed Prince over the Tren, leaving the ton as it was.
edit: looking closer at the pic, maybe not.
That would be too... I don't know if "cute" is the word I'm going for, but that.
Are those signs even greenouts, or are they totally new signs with the same shape and size? They'd have to have greened-out nearly the entire sign...
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 02, 2018, 11:28:51 PM
Are those signs even greenouts, or are they totally new signs with the same shape and size? They'd have to have greened-out nearly the entire sign...
The signs in my photo are new signs -- I checked them again today when I was up there -- that are the same size as the previous panels. Princeton is a longer message than Trenton (by about 2 feet), so the spacing on the former had to be tightened to fit in the same space.
I wonder if "Princeton" was squeezed onto a same-size sign panel to avoid having to redo load calculations for the sign structure. This may or may not be related, but PennDOT is one of very few state DOTs that regard drawings for sign structures as critical infrastructure information that is not to be released to the public.
At least in the location pictured above:
Remember: this is an active construction site for the new Scudder Falls Bridge. This signs are only going to be there for another year. They're not going to create an entirely new sign just to remove it months later. The final product in a few years should have an appropriately sized sign.
Some new photos to post, from last weekend (6/2/18)
(Left) The first appearance of I-295 East on a guide sign. Route 332 WB approaching interchange (new Exit 8). Interestingly, none of the route marker assemblies posted there had the "east" banner -- no banner at all, in fact.
(Right) A new I-295 confirmation assembly, south of the new Exit 8. Suitably ugly for the treatment is represents, but that is my own opinion.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1744/40866816730_ae1b4dfdd3_b.jpg) (https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1759/40866816780_74a7531f14_b.jpg)
A change to the control city posting for the U.S. 1 interchange (new Exit 5, old Exit 46, older Exit 29). Even "southbound," Trenton is to be used for U.S. 1 North. Both were taken the same day -- the 2-mile panels had been changed, but the 1-mile panels had not. They have since then. Also a nice way to represent the recent exit numbering history of this area, as the old sign still has the previous exit number reference on it.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1759/42626917232_97a3654ae7_b.jpg) (https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1753/41776352555_a52d051d2f_b.jpg)
Milemarkers are also changing in Pa, but that is for a later post of photos. More to come as more progress is made.
Edited to add: All guide sign changes shown here are overlays of the previous information.
Quote from: akotchi on June 08, 2018, 01:11:33 PM
Some new photos to post, from last weekend (6/2/18)
(Left) The first appearance of I-295 East on a guide sign. Route 332 WB approaching interchange (new Exit 8). Interestingly, none of the route marker assemblies posted there had the "east" banner -- no banner at all, in fact.
(Right) A new I-295 confirmation assembly, south of the new Exit 8. Suitably ugly for the treatment is represents, but that is my own opinion.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1744/40866816730_ae1b4dfdd3_b.jpg) (https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1759/40866816780_74a7531f14_b.jpg)
PennDOT (at least this district (#6?)) has been using
bubble-style 3-digit Interstate shields for a while. At least this one uses Series C numerals. The bubble I-276 and I-476 shields I've seen out in the wild have Series D numerals that are either squished together (476) or somewhat elongated (276).
Quote from: akotchi on June 08, 2018, 01:11:33 PM
A change to the control city posting for the U.S. 1 interchange (new Exit 5, old Exit 46, older Exit 29). Even "southbound," Trenton is to be used for U.S. 1 North. Both were taken the same day -- the 2-mile panels had been changed, but the 1-mile panels had not. They have since then. Also a nice way to represent the recent exit numbering history of this area, as the old sign still has the previous exit number reference on it.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1759/42626917232_97a3654ae7_b.jpg) (https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1753/41776352555_a52d051d2f_b.jpg)
As of this past Tuesday (6/5/18), the northbound BGS' for that interchange weren't (yet) changed. While returning from Trenton that afternoon, I don't believe that the Exit 46A ramp BGS for US 1 northbound had its exit number and control city yet changed. Additionally, the ramp from US 1 northbound to I-95 northbound wasn't changed/revised either. It
still lists Trenton rather than Princeton per its US 1 southbound counterpart.
Personally, I would've only changed the northbound I-95 signs for US 1 northbound to
Trenton and left the ones along I-95 southbound as they were (
Morrisville).
QuotePennDOT (at least this district (#6?)) has been using bubble-style 3-digit Interstate shields for a while. At least this one uses Series C numerals. The bubble I-276 and I-476 shields I've seen out in the wild have Series D numerals that are either squished together (476) or somewhat elongated (276).
This would be District 6 since it is in Bucks County. I would not know about PennDOT in general in regards to the signage.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 09, 2018, 08:10:46 AM
QuotePennDOT (at least this district (#6?)) has been using bubble-style 3-digit Interstate shields for a while. At least this one uses Series C numerals. The bubble I-276 and I-476 shields I've seen out in the wild have Series D numerals that are either squished together (476) or somewhat elongated (276).
This would be District 6 since it is in Bucks County. I would not know about PennDOT in general.
http://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/Pages/default.aspx
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.penndot.gov%2FRegionalOffices%2FPublishingImages%2Fdistrict_map.jpg&hash=309f92bcfe2495b35569a8832c81dfd1b5556143)
ixnay
It won't be long before someone says, "Hey! Where is District 7?"
Quote from: Beltway on June 09, 2018, 08:19:35 PM
It won't be long before someone says, "Hey! Where is District 7?"
That was indeed my reaction a few hours ago...but I wasn't curious enough to Google it, or even search this thread. I assumed a reorganization in the past?
"We're with the DOT. District 7." - Agent K
Quote from: Beeper1 on June 09, 2018, 08:37:48 PM
"We're with the DOT. District 7." - Agent K
An attempt to take over a part of New Jersey?
I thought about posting something along the lines of "I wonder if they use bubble shields in District 7."
District 7 did used to exist and included Harrisburg and the surrounding area. I don't know when it was reorganized out of existence, but I have a 1940's Pennsylvania traffic manual with a district map that shows it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 09, 2018, 09:31:44 PM
District 7 did used to exist and included Harrisburg and the surrounding area. I don't know when it was reorganized out of existence, but I have a 1940's Pennsylvania traffic manual with a district map that shows it.
What counties did it have?
It was headquartered at 4th and Market Streets in Harrisburg and the counties covered were Dauphin, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Mifflin, and Perry. (Source is Pennsylvania Department of Highways, Manual of regulations for official traffic signs and signals, n.d. but probably 1937.)
Quote from: Beltway on June 09, 2018, 08:19:35 PM
It won't be long before someone says, "Hey! Where is District 7?"
I hadn't even noticed until you pointed it out. Should just renumber District 12 to District 7 and bam, problem solved: 11 districts numbered 1 through 11.
Edit: Also kind of reminds me of how MnDOT doesn't have a District 5–it's the Metro District instead.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 09, 2018, 11:07:10 PM
It was headquartered at 4th and Market Streets in Harrisburg and the counties covered were Dauphin, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Mifflin, and Perry. (Source is Pennsylvania Department of Highways, Manual of regulations for official traffic signs and signals, n.d. but probably 1937.)
So District 8 had only Adams, Cumberland, York and Franklin?
I am so happy now to see Trenton acknowledged along I-95 at former Exit 46A. For years the old US 1 at the previous exit was signed for Trenton to follow up on control city guides from Philly that read "Trenton." However, in the early 90's
when PennDOT modernized the signs and changed the new freeway to US 1 on signs (as even after the freeway was completed still had Business US 1 signed as mainline US 1 and nothing for the freeway) Trenton was signed as primary control for I-95 all the way into NJ. Morrisville made an appearance since then and has remained.
Also "Yardley" was a control city for I-95 from Pendell (as Trenton was directed via US 1 at the time) to the last PA exit before the river. I am not sure how the bridge was signed from the last exit ramps northward ( I think it was New Jersey, but am not sure) but "Trenton" was originally not used from US 1 Business (then mainline) like it has been.
Quote from: Beltway on June 09, 2018, 11:25:11 PMSo District 8 had only Adams, Cumberland, York and Franklin?
Yes. District structure was noticeably different in 1937, although the two largest cities were in the same districts (District 6 for Philadelphia and District 11 for Pittsburgh) that they are now. Not all of the differences relate to former District 7. Going district by district, comparing 1937 to this map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.penndot.gov%2FRegionalOffices%2FPublishingImages%2Fdistrict_map.jpg&hash=309f92bcfe2495b35569a8832c81dfd1b5556143)
District 1--no change
District 2--gained Juniata and Mifflin from defunct District 7
District 3--gained Bradford from District 4
District 4--lost Bradford to District 3
District 5--no change
District 6--no change (but Philadelphia not listed in 1937; did PDH have jurisdiction anywhere there?)
District 7--dissolved; Juniata and Mifflin to District 2, Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon, and Perry to District 8
District 8--gained Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon, and Perry from defunct District 7
District 9--gained Somerset from District 12
District 10--no change
District 11--lost Westmoreland to District 12
District 12--lost Somerset to District 9, gained Westmoreland from District 11
PennDOT house lore (http://www.harrisburg.ashe.pro/docs/2017Conference/3-ADE.pdf) has it that District 7 was abolished because 7 was considered unlucky in the early days of the PDH, which is also given as the reason PennDOT does not have 7XXX four-digit route designations. (I don't think this explanation is necessarily reliable and suspect it may be anachronistic in connection with four-digit routes, given that the transition from LRs to SRs did not begin until after 1980.)
As an aside, PennDOT house nomenclature is to refer to districts as unitary entities with the district number followed by an hyphen and a zero, e.g. "District 12-0" instead of just "District 12." There are occasional instances of the district number and hyphen being followed by something other than zero, e.g. "District 12-1," "District 12-2," etc. but I don't know if these relate to counties, subdistricts that may or may not be coterminous with counties, or some other type of subdivision. In any case, back in the halcyon days when PennDOT actually allowed public access to its FTP server, the districts had their own folders and the folder names were just "district" (or abbreviation) plus the district number with or without zero fill (e.g., "district3," "dist03," "district03"). PennDOT has an awful lot of official gingerbread--for example, it may be the only state DOT where plan sheets for freeway construction include the name of the governor who declared the road a freeway and the date he signed the freeway order--and it is sometimes difficult to tell how seriously agency employees take it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 10, 2018, 11:28:49 AM
As an aside, PennDOT house nomenclature is to refer to districts as unitary entities with the district number followed by an hyphen and a zero, e.g. "District 12-0" instead of just "District 12." There are occasional instances of the district number and hyphen being followed by something other than zero, e.g. "District 12-1," "District 12-2," etc. but I don't know if these relate to counties, subdistricts that may or may not be coterminous with counties, or some other type of subdivision.
Someone with more PennDOT knowledge can chime in if I'm wrong, but from my observations, "X-0" is reserved for the district engineering office, which is effectively the headquarters for the entire district–and therefore "District X-0" becomes basically synonymous with "District X".
The other subordinate numbers (like X-1, X-2) are used for maintenance offices in each of the counties of District X. For example, District 5, which is headquartered in Allentown, has a Maintenance District 5-1 office in Temple (Berks), 5-2 in Leighton (Carbon), 5-3 in Allentown (Lehigh), 5-4 in Stroudsburg (Monroe), 5-5 in Easton (Northampton), and 5-6 in Schuylkill Haven (Schuylkill).
Getting back to some more photos of the ongoing changes . . .
Found in my travels on Friday (6/8/18):
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/42669097632_16a3e7b942_b.jpg)
Not sure this should have been exposed yet . . . it is on the Turnpike WB -- the signing at the proposed Turnpike/I-95 SB split is in the background. Noteworthy about this placement and a few other covered tenth-mile reference markers is that it appears that a second set milemarkers will grace the east-west Pennsylvania Turnpike -- somewhat unusual for toll road facilities in the Northeast, which seem to carry one set of mileposts for each continuous roadway (see Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana), regardless of the different route designations it carries over its length. I assume that PTC will still maintain those last three miles when it becomes I-95, since it operates the bridge toll westbound and would maintain the shared ownership of the bridge with NJTA . . .
Also noteworthy is the following, temporary but unusual, situation, where two milemarkers for the same route in the same direction at the same mile in the same state are on two different roadways. Left is on the Turnpike (on the back of the sign in the photo above); right is on the soon-to-be-former I-95 section. Photos taken 6/9/18.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1744/42669097232_fd116d4c22_b.jpg) (https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1732/41818232225_621cdaa156_b.jpg)
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 10, 2018, 11:28:49 AM
PennDOT house lore (http://www.harrisburg.ashe.pro/docs/2017Conference/3-ADE.pdf) has it that District 7 was abolished because 7 was considered unlucky in the early days of the PDH, which is also given as the reason PennDOT does not have 7XXX four-digit route designations.
Thanks for all the detailed info (snipped)! Regarding the above, I worked for PennDOT for several years in the 1970s, in District 6-0 which is the district office near Philadelphia, and in all the many discussions about the agency I heard I am trying to recollect whether the subject of District 7 was ever mentioned, let alone whether there was any "PennDOT lore" about it.
The ASHE presentation points don't really logically associate with each other. One said it was the central office, another said District 7 originally was omitted in a clerical error, another said that the number 7 was "unlucky" (which I have never heard about that number; in Biblical works it is considered to be blessed).
Based on what you said about the 1937 map, there was an engineering district of 6 counties that was District 7.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 10, 2018, 11:28:49 AM
As an aside, PennDOT house nomenclature is to refer to districts as unitary entities with the district number followed by an hyphen and a zero, e.g. "District 12-0" instead of just "District 12." There are occasional instances of the district number and hyphen being followed by something other than zero, e.g. "District 12-1," "District 12-2," etc. but I don't know if these relate to counties, subdistricts that may or may not be coterminous with counties, or some other type of subdivision.
To answer another poster's question, District 12-0 would refer to the district office, and District 12-1 and District 12-2 would refer to county PennDOT maintenance bases, one per county.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 10, 2018, 01:36:08 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 10, 2018, 11:28:49 AM
As an aside, PennDOT house nomenclature is to refer to districts as unitary entities with the district number followed by an hyphen and a zero, e.g. "District 12-0" instead of just "District 12." There are occasional instances of the district number and hyphen being followed by something other than zero, e.g. "District 12-1," "District 12-2," etc. but I don't know if these relate to counties, subdistricts that may or may not be coterminous with counties, or some other type of subdivision.
Someone with more PennDOT knowledge can chime in if I'm wrong, but from my observations, "X-0" is reserved for the district engineering office, which is effectively the headquarters for the entire district—and therefore "District X-0" becomes basically synonymous with "District X".
The other subordinate numbers (like X-1, X-2) are used for maintenance offices in each of the counties of District X. For example, District 5, which is headquartered in Allentown, has a Maintenance District 5-1 office in Temple (Berks), 5-2 in Leighton (Carbon), 5-3 in Allentown (Lehigh), 5-4 in Stroudsburg (Monroe), 5-5 in Easton (Northampton), and 5-6 in Schuylkill Haven (Schuylkill).
I was the District Quality Coordinator in District 6-0 for ten years (hence the appellation "qguy"). What everyone is saying about the district nomenclature within PennDOT is generally true. A few additional observations:
While the formal name for a district is "District X-0," in conversational parlance a district is referred to as simply "District X." So for example the southeasternmost district would virtually always be written as "District 6-0" and usually spoken in casual conversation as "District 6."
The units ending in "-0" (what most people think of when they use the word "district" in relation to PennDOT) are technically called "engineering districts." The units ending in "-1," "-2," etc., are technically called "maintenance districts" (as in "Maintenance District 6-1"), although they are often informally referred to as "county maintenance organizations."
The hyphen is never verbalized. So for example District 6-0 is pronounced "six oh," Maintenance District 6-1 is pronounced "six one," etc.
Quote from: qguy on June 10, 2018, 03:17:56 PM
I was the District Quality Coordinator in District 6-0 for ten years (hence the appellation "qguy"). What everyone is saying about the district nomenclature within PennDOT is generally true. A few additional observations:
While the formal name for a district is "District X-0," in conversational parlance a district is referred to as simply "District X." So for example the southeasternmost district would virtually always be written as "District 6-0" and usually spoken in casual conversation as "District 6."
The units ending in "-0" (what most people think of when they use the word "district" in relation to PennDOT) are technically called "engineering districts." The units ending in "-1," "-2," etc., are technically called "maintenance districts" (as in "Maintenance District 6-1"), although they are often informally referred to as "county maintenance organizations."
The hyphen is never verbalized. So for example District 6-0 is pronounced "six oh," Maintenance District 6-1 is pronounced "six one," etc.
District 6 has Maintenance Districts 6-1 thru 6-5, but I forget the respective county assignments (Philadelphia, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Bucks).
Quote from: akotchi on June 10, 2018, 02:48:37 PM
Getting back to some more photos of the ongoing changes . . .
Found in my travels on Friday (6/8/18):
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/42669097632_16a3e7b942_b.jpg)
Not sure this should have been exposed yet . . . it is on the Turnpike WB -- the signing at the proposed Turnpike/I-95 SB split is in the background. Noteworthy about this placement and a few other covered tenth-mile reference markers is that it appears that a second set milemarkers will grace the east-west Pennsylvania Turnpike -- somewhat unusual for toll road facilities in the Northeast, which seem to carry one set of mileposts for each continuous roadway (see Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana), regardless of the different route designations it carries over its length. I assume that PTC will still maintain those last three miles when it becomes I-95, since it operates the bridge toll westbound and would maintain the shared ownership of the bridge with NJTA . . .
Also noteworthy is the following, temporary but unusual, situation, where two milemarkers for the same route in the same direction at the same mile in the same state are on two different roadways. Left is on the Turnpike (on the back of the sign in the photo above); right is on the soon-to-be-former I-95 section. Photos taken 6/9/18.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1744/42669097232_fd116d4c22_b.jpg) (https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1732/41818232225_621cdaa156_b.jpg)
Interesting to see any new mile markers on the east end of the Turnpike. I was checking out the I-95 Link site, and based on that schedule, there wouldn't be much in terms of sign changes until just before the official opening in the summer or fall. The site also leaves me the impression that the NJTA won't adjust any of their signs until just before the official opening.
http://i95link.com/schedule/
Just to let those interested know, July 30 is the five-year anniversary of groundbreaking on the project. Wait till we get the before and after shots of the interchange area; it'll be fun.
Quote from: akotchi on June 10, 2018, 02:48:37 PM
Also noteworthy is the following, temporary but unusual, situation, where two milemarkers for the same route in the same direction at the same mile in the same state are on two different roadways.
Actually relatively common in some places, such as Arkansas and Massachusetts, where numbers are reused in multiple places. I can personally confirm that MA 7A (two separate roadways) has two posted MM 1s. Arkansas's segments are all mileposted individually.
Five years eh? What did the NJ Turnpike Authority get done during the same amount of time? (hint: more then an interchange and some signing)
Quote from: Beltway on June 10, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 10, 2018, 11:28:49 AM
PennDOT house lore (http://www.harrisburg.ashe.pro/docs/2017Conference/3-ADE.pdf) has it that District 7 was abolished because 7 was considered unlucky in the early days of the PDH, which is also given as the reason PennDOT does not have 7XXX four-digit route designations.
Thanks for all the detailed info (snipped)! Regarding the above, I worked for PennDOT for several years in the 1970s, in District 6-0 which is the district office near Philadelphia, and in all the many discussions about the agency I heard I am trying to recollect whether the subject of District 7 was ever mentioned, let alone whether there was any "PennDOT lore" about it.
The ASHE presentation points don't really logically associate with each other. One said it was the central office, another said District 7 originally was omitted in a clerical error, another said that the number 7 was "unlucky" (which I have never heard about that number; in Biblical works it is considered to be blessed).
Based on what you said about the 1937 map, there was an engineering district of 6 counties that was District 7.
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 10, 2018, 11:28:49 AM
As an aside, PennDOT house nomenclature is to refer to districts as unitary entities with the district number followed by an hyphen and a zero, e.g. "District 12-0" instead of just "District 12." There are occasional instances of the district number and hyphen being followed by something other than zero, e.g. "District 12-1," "District 12-2," etc. but I don't know if these relate to counties, subdistricts that may or may not be coterminous with counties, or some other type of subdivision.
To answer another poster's question, District 12-0 would refer to the district office, and District 12-1 and District 12-2 would refer to county PennDOT maintenance bases, one per county.
Someone *way* high up in the PDH probably considered 7 unlucky and imposed his will.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on June 11, 2018, 07:20:11 AM
Someone *way* high up in the PDH probably considered 7 unlucky and imposed his will. ixnay
Simplest explanation was that a (reasonable) decision was made to consolidate the 6 counties into other districts, and that district went away. Rather than renumber all the higher numbers, they left it as is.
That shows the problem of using numbers for districts rather than names, at least for popular use.
VDOT districts are referred to by names in all internal and external usage, although there are numbers that are used in internal accounting and information systems. This goes back at least to the 1940s when the first modern accounting system was implemented.
0 Central Office
1 Bristol
2 Salem
3 Lynchburg
4 Richmond
5 Hampton Roads
6 Fredericksburg
7 Culpeper
8 Staunton
9 Research Council
A Northern Virginia
Central Office and Research Council have no counties assigned, it is just the office, and in general employee hierarchy and numbers they do resemble a geographical district.
Since all the single digits were in use when Northern Virginia was created (from Culpeper) in the 1980s, they used a letter code.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 09, 2018, 11:13:37 PM
Should just renumber District 12 to District 7 and bam, problem solved: 11 districts numbered 1 through 11.
Yes, but then 7 would not be adjacent to 6 and 8, as it should be. Right now, it's easy (despite the absence of 7) to follow the logical clockwise numbering.
I wish NYSDOT had a more logical system, too; preferably one in which every district was adjacent to the districts with adjacent numbers. Right now, it jumps all over the map after Region 5.
6 is still logical. Really NY's main issue is that 8 and 9 should theoretically be switched, and of course 7 randomly being in the North Country. 10 and 11 are forgivable because they were once one region and NYC split off.
I have actually thought about that; the easiest way to "fix" NY's regions would be to do the following:
1: (same)
2: current 7
3: current 2
4: current 3
5: current 4
6: current 5
7: current 6
8: current 9
9: current 8
10: current 11
11: current 10
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 10, 2018, 10:40:47 PM
Five years eh? What did the NJ Turnpike Authority get done during the same amount of time? (hint: more then an interchange and some signing)
When it comes to reasonably big highway projects, it seems that PTC operates with the following speeds:
1. Slow
2. Slower
3. Slowest
4. Stop
Quote from: vdeane on June 15, 2018, 08:40:51 PM
6 is still logical. Really NY's main issue is that 8 and 9 should theoretically be switched, and of course 7 randomly being in the North Country. 10 and 11 are forgivable because they were once one region and NYC split off.
I have actually thought about that; the easiest way to "fix" NY's regions would be to do the following:
1: (same)
2: current 7
3: current 2
4: current 3
5: current 4
6: current 5
7: current 6
8: current 9
9: current 8
10: current 11
11: current 10
There was also that proposal about seven years ago to reduce the number of regions. Political forces put the kibosh on that.
Quote from: webny99 on June 15, 2018, 08:21:03 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 09, 2018, 11:13:37 PM
Should just renumber District 12 to District 7 and bam, problem solved: 11 districts numbered 1 through 11.
Yes, but then 7 would not be adjacent to 6 and 8, as it should be. Right now, it's easy (despite the absence of 7) to follow the logical clockwise numbering.
District 7 is reserved for the PA Turnpike when it is absorbed into PennDOT. :rofl:
Should we not start a subtopic titled DOT Regions?
Not that I mind it here as its good stuff but it is kind of derailed after 7 posts away from the OP.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2018, 11:23:42 AM
Should we not start a subtopic titled DOT Regions?
Not that I mind it here as its good stuff but it is kind of derailed after 7 posts away from the OP.
The new I-95/Turnpike interchange should be a part of the new District 7.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 16, 2018, 12:21:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2018, 11:23:42 AM
Should we not start a subtopic titled DOT Regions?
Not that I mind it here as its good stuff but it is kind of derailed after 7 posts away from the OP.
The new I-95/Turnpike interchange should be a part of the new District 7.
2 miles of road deserves its own district?
Quote from: qguy on June 16, 2018, 10:30:39 AM
Quote from: webny99 on June 15, 2018, 08:21:03 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 09, 2018, 11:13:37 PM
Should just renumber District 12 to District 7 and bam, problem solved: 11 districts numbered 1 through 11.
Yes, but then 7 would not be adjacent to 6 and 8, as it should be. Right now, it's easy (despite the absence of 7) to follow the logical clockwise numbering.
District 7 is reserved for the PA Turnpike when it is absorbed into PennDOT. :rofl:
Coincidentally, Turnpike roads are numbered in the PennDOT system beginning with a 7 already.
I agree with splitting off the thread, though.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 16, 2018, 03:40:29 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 16, 2018, 12:21:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2018, 11:23:42 AM
Should we not start a subtopic titled DOT Regions?
Not that I mind it here as its good stuff but it is kind of derailed after 7 posts away from the OP.
The new I-95/Turnpike interchange should be a part of the new District 7.
2 miles of road deserves its own district?
'Twas a (bad) joke trying to tie in the off-topic district bits with the actual topic.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2018, 07:43:30 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 10, 2018, 10:40:47 PM
Five years eh? What did the NJ Turnpike Authority get done during the same amount of time? (hint: more then an interchange and some signing)
When it comes to reasonably big highway projects, it seems that PTC operates with the following speeds:
1. Slow
2. Slower
3. Slowest
4. Stop
Give them a little credit. From Congress dictating where I-95 should be rerouted in PA and NJ to two ramps being built to close the I-95 Gap is going on 36 YEARS now. I'm just wondering if something else will happen to delay this opening from "Fall 2018" (hopefully).
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on June 16, 2018, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2018, 07:43:30 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 10, 2018, 10:40:47 PM
Five years eh? What did the NJ Turnpike Authority get done during the same amount of time? (hint: more then an interchange and some signing)
When it comes to reasonably big highway projects, it seems that PTC operates with the following speeds:
1. Slow
2. Slower
3. Slowest
4. Stop
Give them a little credit. From Congress dictating where I-95 should be rerouted in PA and NJ to two ramps being built to close the I-95 Gap is going on 36 YEARS now. I'm just wondering if something else will happen to delay this opening from "Fall 2018" (hopefully).
Last I read, PTC says the ramps will open to complete I-95 on August 25, 2018.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2018, 11:32:20 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on June 16, 2018, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2018, 07:43:30 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 10, 2018, 10:40:47 PM
Five years eh? What did the NJ Turnpike Authority get done during the same amount of time? (hint: more then an interchange and some signing)
When it comes to reasonably big highway projects, it seems that PTC operates with the following speeds:
1. Slow
2. Slower
3. Slowest
4. Stop
Give them a little credit. From Congress dictating where I-95 should be rerouted in PA and NJ to two ramps being built to close the I-95 Gap is going on 36 YEARS now. I'm just wondering if something else will happen to delay this opening from "Fall 2018" (hopefully).
Last I read, PTC says the ramps will open to complete I-95 on August 25, 2018.
If that turns out to be right, we should all celebrate August 25, from here on out, as "I-95 Day," remembering the day our longest north-south interstate became one route from Florida to Maine.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on June 16, 2018, 08:28:18 PMGive them a little credit. From Congress dictating where I-95 should be rerouted in PA and NJ to two ramps being built to close the I-95 Gap is going on 36 YEARS now.
Truth be told that particular I-95 gap existed much longer than that. As a matter of fact, 36 years ago, there still was another gap along I-95 (although a much shorter one... roughly 2 miles) that still existed in Peabody, MA. That one would be fully closed circa 1988 with the completion of the I-95/MA 128 interchange.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 18, 2018, 09:34:44 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on June 16, 2018, 08:28:18 PMGive them a little credit. From Congress dictating where I-95 should be rerouted in PA and NJ to two ramps being built to close the I-95 Gap is going on 36 YEARS now.
Truth be told that particular I-95 gap existed much longer than that. As a matter of fact, 36 years ago, there still was another gap along I-95 (although a much shorter one... roughly 2 miles) that still existed in Peabody, MA. That one would be fully closed circa 1988 with the completion of the I-95/MA 128 interchange.
I-95 wasn't completed in Philly until 1985, and north of Miami until 1987.
So, once you start factoring in the other gaps, it's *only* taken 31 years for I-95 to be fully completed as one route.
36 years ago? 1982? I don't think the gap north of Freeport, ME on I-95 was completed back then (now I-295). :D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2018, 09:40:32 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 18, 2018, 09:34:44 AM
Truth be told that particular I-95 gap existed much longer than that. As a matter of fact, 36 years ago, there still was another gap along I-95 (although a much shorter one... roughly 2 miles) that still existed in Peabody, MA. That one would be fully closed circa 1988 with the completion of the I-95/MA 128 interchange.
I-95 wasn't completed in Philly until 1985, and north of Miami until 1987.
So, once you start factoring in the other gaps, it's *only* taken 31 years for I-95 to be fully completed as one route.
North Carolina in 1980, Virginia in 1982, and Maryland in 1985.
I don't think it was a gap in Falmouth, ME. I-95 would be via the Falmouth Spur, then north on today's I-295. These days the spur is unsigned I-495.
Quote from: Rothman on June 18, 2018, 10:30:13 AM
36 years ago? 1982? I don't think the gap north of Freeport, ME on I-95 was completed back then (now I-295). :D
I believe that the then-I-95 gap in Maine was in Freeport itself... between current I-295 Exits 17 & 20. That missing piece was completed sometime during the 1990s.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 18, 2018, 02:24:10 PM
I don't think it was a gap in Falmouth, ME. I-95 would be via the Falmouth Spur, then north on today's I-295. These days the spur is unsigned I-495.
See above, the then-I-95 gap was in Freeport; well north of Falmouth.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2018, 11:32:20 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on June 16, 2018, 08:28:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 16, 2018, 07:43:30 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 10, 2018, 10:40:47 PM
Five years eh? What did the NJ Turnpike Authority get done during the same amount of time? (hint: more then an interchange and some signing)
When it comes to reasonably big highway projects, it seems that PTC operates with the following speeds:
1. Slow
2. Slower
3. Slowest
4. Stop
Give them a little credit. From Congress dictating where I-95 should be rerouted in PA and NJ to two ramps being built to close the I-95 Gap is going on 36 YEARS now. I'm just wondering if something else will happen to delay this opening from "Fall 2018" (hopefully).
Last I read, PTC says the ramps will open to complete I-95 on August 25, 2018.
Who's organizing this meet?
^ If there's interest, I'll volunteer. This would be my first time hosting a meet–how many would be interested in attending? Provided that at least a few are interested, I'll start a thread for it.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 21, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
^ If there’s interest, I’ll volunteer. This would be my first time hosting a meet—how many would be interested in attending? Provided that at least a few are interested, I’ll start a thread for it.
If you have it opening weekend or the weekend after (Labor Day weekend) I won't be around, but I can suggest another nearby project that's so typical Jersey: The conversion of the White Horse Circle to a semi-roundabout (I believe not all entries will have to yield, preventing it from being a true roundabout).
Quote from: briantroutman on June 21, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
^ If there's interest, I'll volunteer. This would be my first time hosting a meet–how many would be interested in attending? Provided that at least a few are interested, I'll start a thread for it.
Start the thread and they will come.
Quote from: Alps on June 21, 2018, 02:26:03 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on June 21, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
^ If there's interest, I'll volunteer. This would be my first time hosting a meet–how many would be interested in attending? Provided that at least a few are interested, I'll start a thread for it.
Start the thread and they will come.
Count my son (roadsguy) and me in. [Insert disclaimer text regarding dates, factors beyond our control, etc., etc., here. ]
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2018, 12:16:13 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on June 21, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
^ If there's interest, I'll volunteer. This would be my first time hosting a meet–how many would be interested in attending? Provided that at least a few are interested, I'll start a thread for it.
If you have it opening weekend or the weekend after (Labor Day weekend) I won't be around, but I can suggest another nearby project that's so typical Jersey: The conversion of the White Horse Circle to a semi-roundabout (I believe not all entries will have to yield, preventing it from being a true roundabout).
The plans I see for it from a simple Google search have all approaches yielding.
Count me in too. Closest meet to my home. I can help organize it, too.
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 21, 2018, 06:44:38 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2018, 12:16:13 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on June 21, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
^ If there's interest, I'll volunteer. This would be my first time hosting a meet–how many would be interested in attending? Provided that at least a few are interested, I'll start a thread for it.
If you have it opening weekend or the weekend after (Labor Day weekend) I won't be around, but I can suggest another nearby project that's so typical Jersey: The conversion of the White Horse Circle to a semi-roundabout (I believe not all entries will have to yield, preventing it from being a true roundabout).
The plans I see for it from a simple Google search have all approaches yielding.
Good. I think the original concept had a direction that didn't yield on entry.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 21, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
^ If there's interest, I'll volunteer. This would be my first time hosting a meet–how many would be interested in attending? Provided that at least a few are interested, I'll start a thread for it.
This project isn't too far from where I live either and I would be very much interested in attending (as long there is no other conflict(s) with the date selected).
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2018, 10:14:26 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on June 21, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
^ If there's interest, I'll volunteer. This would be my first time hosting a meet–how many would be interested in attending? Provided that at least a few are interested, I'll start a thread for it.
This project isn't too far from where I live either and I would be very much interested in attending (as long there is no other conflict(s) with the date selected).
i may be back up in the area that weekend. as long as the time doesn't conflict, I'd be in.
I have family over in the Main Line I can crash with, so if the meet is on for Aug. 25, I'm in.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 25, 2018, 08:11:13 PM
I have family over in the Main Line I can crash with, so if the meet is on for Aug. 25, I'm in.
I don't believe that the interchange ramps will be open that early.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2018, 08:43:27 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 25, 2018, 08:11:13 PM
I have family over in the Main Line I can crash with, so if the meet is on for Aug. 25, I'm in.
I don't believe that the interchange ramps will be open that early.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2018, 11:32:20 PM
Last I read, PTC says the ramps will open to complete I-95 on August 25, 2018.
Know something we don't, Chris? Or are you just being a Nervous Nelly in reference to the PTC?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 27, 2018, 11:55:17 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2018, 08:43:27 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 25, 2018, 08:11:13 PM
I have family over in the Main Line I can crash with, so if the meet is on for Aug. 25, I'm in.
I don't believe that the interchange ramps will be open that early.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 17, 2018, 11:32:20 PM
Last I read, PTC says the ramps will open to complete I-95 on August 25, 2018.
Know something we don't, Chris? Or are you just being a Nervous Nelly in reference to the PTC?
At this point, I think Nellyism is fair.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 27, 2018, 11:55:17 PMKnow something we don't, Chris? Or are you just being a Nervous Nelly in reference to the PTC?
Oops, I did not see the earlier-mentioned Aug. 25 opening date reference. As far as being a Nervous Nelly is concerned; I believe that
Doubting Thomas would be more fitting. We shall see.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 28, 2018, 08:32:28 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 27, 2018, 11:55:17 PMKnow something we don't, Chris? Or are you just being a Nervous Nelly in reference to the PTC?
Oops, I did not see the earlier-mentioned Aug. 25 opening date reference. As far as being a Nervous Nelly is concerned; I believe that Doubting Thomas would be more fitting. We shall see.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 28, 2018, 08:32:28 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 27, 2018, 11:55:17 PMKnow something we don't, Chris? Or are you just being a Nervous Nelly in reference to the PTC?
Oops, I did not see the earlier-mentioned Aug. 25 opening date reference. As far as being a Nervous Nelly is concerned; I believe that Doubting Thomas would be more fitting. We shall see.
PTC has not done anything associated with this project with speed. It's been one (mostly slow) contract after the other. I think it reasonable to assume that there were no incentives in the contract to encourage the construction contractor(s) to get it done quickly.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 28, 2018, 11:25:13 AM
PTC has not done anything associated with this project with speed. It's been one (mostly slow) contract after the other. I think it reasonable to assume that there were no incentives in the contract to encourage the construction contractor(s) to get it done quickly.
I wonder if people will quickly forget how long it took after they see the new I-95 connection completed once and for all?
Like when I-95 and the Fort McHenry Tunnel was finally completed after about 20 years of insufferable congestion at the original Harbor Tunnel Thruway. All that pain quickly became a memory of the past.
So are there anymore sign changes planned (besides the obvious ones)? Didn't know PennDOT was going to change all their NB signage on I-95 from "Trenton" to "New York" until recently. What other surprises are in store?
Thanks for the replies from those interested in attending a meet. Given the historical significance of this project, I never really doubted that we'd be lacking interest, and I'm already looking at some preliminary planning options.
Looking back through recent posts on this thread, it appears C.P.Z. added the specific August 25th date to the discussion. C.P., I'm not sure where you read or heard that, but on the project's home page, the PTC has been listing a target completion date of "Fall 2018" since at least early October of last year (https://web.archive.org/web/20171009214031/https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/). (From what I can find prior to that, the website indicated only "2018" with regard to completion of the through ramps, D10 and D20). Google searches and searches of PTC's press releases also turned up nothing about August 25th specifically. So if you have a reliable source for that date, please share it with us.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the specific date, I think I'll wait until about 30 days prior the anticipated opening before getting into specifics. I've already made contact with a public information officer at the PTC's project office to see what additional access might be available to us and get clearer information regarding the opening date. Once I've collected some additional information, I'll start a thread for this meet on the Meets board.
One my boss's, boss's bosses was told to clear his calendar the weekend of September 21 for a high-level ceremony of some type. That's all I overheard. That cant possibly be for a fake ribbon-cutting weeks in advance. That sounded to me like the real thing.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on June 28, 2018, 09:48:56 PM
One my boss's, boss's bosses was told to clear his calendar the weekend of September 21 for a high-level ceremony of some type. That's all I overheard. That cant possibly be for a fake ribbon-cutting weeks in advance. That sounded to me like the real thing.
Sometimes ramps are opened before ribbon cutting, sometimes after, sometimes at. *shrug*
Quote from: Alps on June 28, 2018, 11:51:15 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on June 28, 2018, 09:48:56 PM
One my boss's, boss's bosses was told to clear his calendar the weekend of September 21 for a high-level ceremony of some type. That's all I overheard. That cant possibly be for a fake ribbon-cutting weeks in advance. That sounded to me like the real thing.
Sometimes ramps are opened before ribbon cutting, sometimes after, sometimes at. *shrug*
And sometimes the ribbon cutting is held when the project is only "substantially complete".
Quote from: roadman on June 29, 2018, 09:08:26 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 28, 2018, 11:51:15 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on June 28, 2018, 09:48:56 PM
One my boss's, boss's bosses was told to clear his calendar the weekend of September 21 for a high-level ceremony of some type. That's all I overheard. That cant possibly be for a fake ribbon-cutting weeks in advance. That sounded to me like the real thing.
Sometimes ramps are opened before ribbon cutting, sometimes after, sometimes at. *shrug*
And sometimes the ribbon cutting is held when the project is only "substantially complete".
That will be guaranteed at this one. Otherwise the ribbon cutting will be in 2019, well after anyone cares!
Even though I am aware of the history why there is no existing direct connection at this interchange, and the issues at Breezewood, etc. As a resident in either the Midwest or South his entire life, it is still totally ridiculous to me and nearly unfathomable as to why the h$*l there are so many crossings between various toll roads, freeways, interstates, etc. that don't have interchanges or direct connections in this part of the country. This would be virtually unheard in any other part of the country that I have traveled in or lived in. And to compound the absurdity, it has only taken 30 years to get to the point of actually buiding two flyover ramps to provide a direct interstate connection between two of the largest cities in the county (NYC and Philidelphia). Better late than never I suppose.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on June 29, 2018, 01:09:20 PM
Even though I am aware of the history why there is no existing direct connection at this interchange, and the issues at Breezewood, etc. As a resident in either the Midwest or South his entire life, it is still totally ridiculous to me and nearly unfathomable as to why the h$*l there are so many crossings between various toll roads, freeways, interstates, etc. that don't have interchanges or direct connections in this part of the country. This would be virtually unheard in any other part of the country that I have traveled in or lived in. And to compound the absurdity, it has only taken 30 years to get to the point of actually buiding two flyover ramps to provide a direct interstate connection between two of the largest cities in the county (NYC and Philidelphia). Better late than never I suppose.
As a near-thirty-year resident of eastern Pennsylvania, I share your amazement and consternation, believe me!
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on June 29, 2018, 01:09:20 PM
Even though I am aware of the history why there is no existing direct connection at this interchange, and the issues at Breezewood, etc. As a resident in either the Midwest or South his entire life, it is still totally ridiculous to me and nearly unfathomable as to why the h$*l there are so many crossings between various toll roads, freeways, interstates, etc. that don't have interchanges or direct connections in this part of the country. This would be virtually unheard in any other part of the country that I have traveled in or lived in. And to compound the absurdity, it has only taken 30 years to get to the point of actually buiding two flyover ramps to provide a direct interstate connection between two of the largest cities in the county (NYC and Philidelphia). Better late than never I suppose.
This is mostly a Pennsylvania problem.
Yes, there are Breezewood-type non-connections in other states, including New Jersey (no connection between the NJ-700 part of the Turnpike and I-76/NJ-42/ACE); Florida (no connection between I-95 and Florida's Turnpike at Fort Pierce where the Turnpike turns northwest toward Orlando) except via a Breezewood-style section of FL-70); Ohio (no connection between I-475 and the Ohio Turnpike (I-80/I-90) near the southwest corner of Toledo, but the non-connections at I-75 and at I-280 were remediated years ago).
What's clear is that Pennsylvania loved constructing non-connections, aka "Breezewoods".
What isn't clear is why they did this, or what the supposed advantages were. (Or maybe it was intentional to discourage local traffic from the turnpike?)
Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2018, 08:34:06 PM
What's clear is that Pennsylvania loved constructing non-connections, aka "Breezewoods", when building the Turnpike.
Only clear to someone who doesn't have any understanding of the history involved...
Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2018, 08:34:06 PM
What's clear is that Pennsylvania loved constructing non-connections, aka "Breezewoods", when building the Turnpike.
What isn't clear is why they did this, or what the supposed advantages were. (Or maybe it was intentional to discourage local traffic from the turnpike?)
Connect to what? The Turnpike was already long finished when the interstates were built; in fact, many of them were first thought of as Turnpike extensions!
Quote from: NE2 on June 29, 2018, 08:41:34 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2018, 08:34:06 PM
What's clear is that Pennsylvania loved constructing non-connections, aka "Breezewoods", when building the Turnpike.
Only clear to someone who doesn't have any understanding of the history involved...
OK, cut out "when building the Turnpike". I have no idea if "loved" adequately reflects the feelings of the responsible agencies, but the Breezewoods undeniably exist; they didn't just appear, and it should have been obvious they would be problematic. In so many words, I was asking for the history, so have at it.
Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2018, 08:52:46 PM
Connect to what? The Turnpike was already long finished when the interstates were built; in fact, many of them were first thought of as Turnpike extensions!
Right, so they had to add new interchanges anyways; why didn't they make them full freeway connections?
The fact that the turnpike already existed doesn't really excuse constructing non-connections. It seems to me that morphing an existing interchange (as I assume happened to Breezewood itself) shouldn't even have been considered as an option for the junction of two freeways.
Quote from: briantroutman on June 28, 2018, 07:28:42 PM
Looking back through recent posts on this thread, it appears C.P.Z. added the specific August 25th date to the discussion. C.P., I'm not sure where you read or heard that, but on the project's home page, the PTC has been listing a target completion date of "Fall 2018" since at least early October of last year (https://web.archive.org/web/20171009214031/https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/). (From what I can find prior to that, the website indicated only "2018" with regard to completion of the through ramps, D10 and D20). Google searches and searches of PTC's press releases also turned up nothing about August 25th specifically. So if you have a reliable source for that date, please share it with us.
I did. I believe it was either a PTC News release (I could not find one that matched now) or maybe of the Philadelphia-area news outlets, such as KWY, WHYY or maybe Philly.com.
Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2018, 09:16:09 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 29, 2018, 08:41:34 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2018, 08:34:06 PM
What's clear is that Pennsylvania loved constructing non-connections, aka "Breezewoods", when building the Turnpike.
Only clear to someone who doesn't have any understanding of the history involved...
OK, cut out "when building the Turnpike". I have no idea if "loved" adequately reflects the feelings of the responsible agencies, but the Breezewoods undeniably exist; they didn't just appear, and it should have been obvious they would be problematic. In so many words, I was asking for the history, so have at it.
Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2018, 08:52:46 PM
Connect to what? The Turnpike was already long finished when the interstates were built; in fact, many of them were first thought of as Turnpike extensions!
Right, so they had to add new interchanges anyways; why didn't they make them full freeway connections?
The fact that the turnpike already existed doesn't really excuse constructing non-connections. It seems to me that morphing an existing interchange (as I assume happened to Breezewood itself) shouldn't even have been considered as an option for the junction of two freeways.
The quick version of history: PA Turnpike came first. Interstates came second, but at first interstates were not permitted to have direct interchanges with toll roads. So, your last paragraph was basically against policy. If PA wanted their federal funding, they had to follow policy.
Then, interchanges with toll roads were permitted, but PA in general has never really been too excited about such designs. Maybe it has to do with the local areas, where numerous businesses have opened due to such indirect connections.
Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2018, 08:52:46 PM
Connect to what? The Turnpike was already long finished when the interstates were built; in fact, many of them were first thought of as Turnpike extensions!
There was an arcane provision in the original 1956 National Interstate and Defense Highways Act which allowed connections between "new" and "free" Interstate highways and older toll roads such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike. But if federal dollars (sometimes called "90/10" funds, since 90% came from BPR and later FHWA, and only 10% had to be provided by the states) were used at such interchanges, then effectively toll road was required to de-toll itself.
That provision is no longer in effect, and many states (including Ohio, New York and Massachusetts and probably others) long since remediated most or all of their breezewoods (there were once quite a few along the Ohio Turnpike, and once of the more-recent breezewood eliminations was on the I-87 part of the New York State Thruway at Newburgh, where drivers had to use arterial roads (I think NY-300) to get between I-87 and I-84).
When was the rule changed? The New York Thruway had interchanges with toll-free Interstates as far back as 1960. Notably the interchanges with I-287, the Cross-Westchester Expwy, and the Thruway mainline and the New England Section, I-95.
OR, was it that the NY Thruway Authority paid for the interchanges themselves, since the C.W. Expwy connected two separate sections of the Thruway? If so, then the Penn. Turnpike Comm. elected not to pay for and build interchanges with I-95, etc.
Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2018, 09:16:09 PM
Right, so they had to add new interchanges anyways; why didn't they make them full freeway connections?
The fact that the turnpike already existed doesn't really excuse constructing non-connections. It seems to me that morphing an existing interchange (as I assume happened to Breezewood itself) shouldn't even have been considered as an option for the junction of two freeways.
They didn't add new interchanges. Take I-81 and I-76. The interchange between US 11 and I-76 was always there. When I-81 came in, PennDOT built an interchange with US 11. No new interchange was added to the Turnpike.
The interstates were originally supposed to be tolled Turnpike routes. The only reason they're free is because the federal government paid for their construction. PA would have had to pay for direct interchanges, so they just didn't build them. The other states in the area weren't so cheap.
Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2018, 08:34:06 PM
What's clear is that Pennsylvania loved constructing non-connections, aka "Breezewoods", when building the Turnpike.
That makes it sound like action was involved. When in fact it was -lack of action-.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 29, 2018, 09:42:21 PM
There was an arcane provision in the original 1956 National Interstate and Defense Highways Act which allowed connections between "new" and "free" Interstate highways and older toll roads such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike. But if federal dollars (sometimes called "90/10" funds, since 90% came from BPR and later FHWA, and only 10% had to be provided by the states) were used at such interchanges, then effectively toll road was required to de-toll itself.
The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike didn't follow any such process. The five Interstate connections were connected with the turnpike as they were built between 1962 and 1968.
Quote from: Beltway on June 29, 2018, 10:56:07 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 29, 2018, 08:34:06 PM
What's clear is that Pennsylvania loved constructing non-connections, aka "Breezewoods", when building the Turnpike.
That makes it sound like action was involved. When in fact it was -lack of action-.
I didn't think it was very bold to assume deliberate action was involved. Wrong assumption, apparently.
Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2018, 10:47:29 PM
They didn't add new interchanges. Take I-81 and I-76. The interchange between US 11 and I-76 was always there. When I-81 came in, PennDOT built an interchange with US 11. No new interchange was added to the Turnpike.
So I guess the real question is what would have happened if I-81 crossed the Turnpike in the middle of nowhere, far removed from an existing interchange. Eventually, a connection would have to be built, and chances are it would have been a proper connection.
The topic of federal funding of Interstate/turnpike connections came up a few months ago in the Breezewood thread, but that discussion became such a scheiß-fest that I didn't desire to hang around.
But yes, as has been mentioned upthread, there
was a restriction written into the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that prevented the use of federal funds on direct interchanges with toll roads. States could use their own funds, but considering that every dollar that a state spent on an unapproved Interstate project was a lost opportunity to have that dollar matched nine times over by the federal government on an approved project, they had a major disincentive to do so–particularly in an era when the loudest public outcry (excluding the freeway resistance in urban cores) was to simply get more Interstate mileage open to traffic as quickly as possible.
The exception to the above prohibition, listed under Section 129(d) of the 1956 Act, was that a state
could use the 90% federal funds to build a direct to a connection to a toll road if (and only if) the state agreed to remove tolls from the toll road when existing bond obligations had been retired. And so the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, not wishing to cease toll collection, did not exercise this option for I-70 at Breezewood, I-95 in Bristol, or anywhere else. The scenario is explained in this article (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) by the FHWA.
In the other thread, this point–and even the truthfulness of the FHWA article–was challenged:
If that was true, how did a number of other states build direct connections?Wanting to know the answer myself, I wrote to Richard Weingroff, the FHWA employee who authored the above article. To my surprise, I got a detailed answer from him right away (on a weekend, no less). Here's an excerpt from that email:
Quote from: Weingroff, Richard (FHWA) - Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:35 AMWe entered into Section 129(d) agreements with nine toll authorities for approaches to toll roads involving captive approaches:
Calumet Skyway (1961)
Kansas Turnpike (1974/1988)
Massachusetts Turnpike (1964)
Ohio Turnpike (1964)
Tri-State Tollway (date unknown)
Indiana Toll Road (1961/62/63)
Maine Turnpike (1964 & 1965)
Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (1964/1971)*
I-65 Louisville-Elizabethtown, KY (1961*)
(I won't swear that there aren't others, but I think that list is correct.)
Some of those facilities did remove tolls (asterisks). However, when the time came to remove tolls, the other toll authorities changed their minds. They went to their congressional delegation to secure legislation allowing continuation of the tolls. Congress included exceptions in periodic bills reauthorizing the Federal-aid highway program. As a result, none of the other facilities is required to cease toll collection.
In other words, the facilities listed above (without asterisks) took federal funds with the promise that they'd cease collecting tolls under the terms of the agreement, but when "toll-free" day finally drew near, they reneged on their pledges. And as you can see, that list includes most long-distance toll roads in E-ZPass Land with the notable exceptions of Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.
Where PA, NY, and NJ have built direct Interstate connections to their toll roads, it was either by self-funding (during the years of original Interstate construction) or through one-off funding appropriations for individual projects. For example, the PA Turnpike's direct connection to I-79 was given approximately 45% federal funding with the remaining 55% split between the PTC and PennDOT (according to the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000515cranberry2.asp)).
And getting back to the question as to when this prohibition in the 1956 Act was repealed or rescinded, from what I've read, it appears that it wasn't. The prohibition merely became irrelevant since projects are no longer being funded under the terms of the 1956 Act (and therefore, the 1956 Act's restrictions don't apply). New projects receive funding through one-off authorizations in new legislation, with the federal share determined by that new legislation–likely much less than the 1956 Act's generous 90/10 split, as the 45/55 of the I-79 interchange project mentioned above suggests.
Quote from: webny99 on June 30, 2018, 09:26:58 AM
So I guess the real question is what would have happened if I-81 crossed the Turnpike in the middle of nowhere, far removed from an existing interchange. Eventually, a connection would have to be built, and chances are it would have been a proper connection.
No, as far as the federal government is concerned, nothing would have changed. The 90% federal funds could not be used, even if that meant there would be no connection whatsoever. The difference is this: If I-81 traffic had absolutely no way to access the Turnpike, the Turnpike would lose all of that revenue-generating traffic that otherwise would have entered there, so the PTC would be in a better fiscal position to spend its own funds to build an interchange. The interchange would possibly have paid for itself through increased toll revenue.
But since the PTC had already self-funded an interchange with US 11 in 1940–which eventually afforded access to I-81 as well, even if less than optimally–the hypothetical cost/benefit analysis above didn't exist. Perhaps traffic volumes (and therefore toll revenue) might have increased very very slightly if I-81 access was more convenient, but it certainly wouldn't recover a meaningful portion of the construction cost.
NJ's connection between toll roads and interstates received special funding arrangements too. The "missing moves" project at I-78 and the Garden State Parkway received TEA-21 funding even though it clearly connected a toll road to a free interstate.
That is very interesting, so that explains how different states addressed the connection of Interstates to turnpikes. Some followed the 1956 system for federal aid, some gamed the system, and some built the connections without federal funds or perhaps with other lower level funds such as 50:50 primary funding.
As far as when the 1956 funding system no longer was relevant to this issue, that was probably upon the enactment of the federal transportation bill ISTEA of 1991.
Quote from: webny99 on June 30, 2018, 09:26:58 AM
So I guess the real question is what would have happened if I-81 crossed the Turnpike in the middle of nowhere, far removed from an existing interchange. Eventually, a connection would have to be built, and chances are it would have been a proper connection.
It would probably be similar to I-95, with a non-connection for a long time, with eventual plans to build a double trumpet. Except unlike I-95, presumably it would have been built, since I-95's plans were restarted from scratch when it was rerouted.
Quote from: vdeane on June 30, 2018, 10:34:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 30, 2018, 09:26:58 AM
So I guess the real question is what would have happened if I-81 crossed the Turnpike in the middle of nowhere, far removed from an existing interchange. Eventually, a connection would have to be built, and chances are it would have been a proper connection.
It would probably be similar to I-95, with a non-connection for a long time, with eventual plans to build a double trumpet. Except unlike I-95, presumably it would have been built, since I-95's plans were restarted from scratch when it was rerouted.
There is ample space there today, I could come up with 2 or 3 different designs to connect I-81 to the turnpike.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2281227,-77.1411967,2786m/data=!3m1!1e3
I'd like to see those. I also wonder if it would affect the cloverleaf, though, given how close the ramps would probably be and the notorious truck traffic.
Quote from: Rothman on July 01, 2018, 08:39:15 AM
I'd like to see those. I also wonder if it would affect the cloverleaf, though, given how close the ramps would probably be and the notorious truck traffic.
It would connect to I-81 2,000 to 4,000 feet south of the turnpike.
Has the Interstate Construction fund been wound down? I don't remember reading anything to that effect, though it has become an irrelevance for nearly all Interstate construction because the eligible unbuilt Interstate mileage is now very small.
Another example of a state obtaining an exception to Interstate funding arrangements include I-287 in New Jersey, which was built in the 1980's with 100% (not 90%) federal funding.
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 11:03:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 30, 2018, 10:34:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 30, 2018, 09:26:58 AM
So I guess the real question is what would have happened if I-81 crossed the Turnpike in the middle of nowhere, far removed from an existing interchange. Eventually, a connection would have to be built, and chances are it would have been a proper connection.
It would probably be similar to I-95, with a non-connection for a long time, with eventual plans to build a double trumpet. Except unlike I-95, presumably it would have been built, since I-95's plans were restarted from scratch when it was rerouted.
There is ample space there today, I could come up with 2 or 3 different designs to connect I-81 to the turnpike.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2281227,-77.1411967,2786m/data=!3m1!1e3
I was speaking to webny99's hypothetical, not to today. But as we now seem to be discussing that, it's worth noting that double trumpets will be the most efficient design as long as cash is still used on the PA Turnpike ticket system. Plus there's a large industrial building to work around.
Was the PA Turnpike/US 11interchange always a double-trumpet, or was the junction with US 11 at-grade prior to I-81's construction?
The latter seems plausible, since there wouldn't have been a need for a full trumpet on US 11 (a surface street) prior to its function as a connector to I-81.
Quote from: webny99 on July 01, 2018, 06:01:34 PMWas the PA Turnpike/US 11interchange always a double-trumpet, or was the junction with US 11 at-grade prior to I-81's construction?
The latter seems plausible, since there wouldn't have been a need for a full trumpet on US 11 (a surface street) prior to its function as a connector to I-81.
I suspect the eastern terminus of the original Irwin-Carlisle length of the Turnpike was at US 11. HistoricAerials.com shows a jump from a flat (but very skewed) tee intersection in the 1952 map (same as that shown in the 1944 map) to the present double-trumpet configuration in the 1958 map.
Quote from: webny99 on July 01, 2018, 06:01:34 PM
Was the PA Turnpike/US 11interchange always a double-trumpet, or was the junction with US 11 at-grade prior to I-81's construction?
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 01, 2018, 06:32:24 PM
I suspect the eastern terminus of the original Irwin-Carlisle length of the Turnpike was at US 11.
This topic was the subject of a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10712.0) I began a few years ago regarding the PA Turnpike's original termini.
Yes, US 11 was the original eastern terminus, and this interchange was then known as Middlesex since there was a separate Carlisle interchange (since removed) that served the borough directly. Cave Hill Drive in Carlisle and the nearby oblong roundabout are the remnants of that interchange still visible today.
But getting back to US 11: The overpass that until recently carried the Turnpike mainline across US 11 dated from 1940. The PTC already had plans for the extension to Philadelphia, so the overpass was built wide enough to accommodate four lanes, but it carried a single eastbound lane (perhaps two with lane drop in progress) between 1940 and 1950 in its original configuration. It was used to connect the Turnpike eastbound to US 11 northbound, which was essentially the through movement for the overall Pittsburgh-to-Harrisburg route.
When PTC started work on the Philadelphia Extension after WWII, a new trumpet was built along the Turnpike mainline just west of the US 11 overpass, and it was connected to a second new trumpet on US 11 just north of the overpass. Then once the new twin trumpets were open to traffic, the original ramps connecting the mainline's terminal end to US 11 were removed, and the overpass was repurposed for through traffic to/from the Philadelphia Extension.
The western end has a different story. In the original 1940 configuration, all four lanes of the Turnpike's mainline went straight into the Irwin toll plaza, which was in the same location as it is today. This is apparent as you drive on the Turnpike mainline westbound there: It looks like you're heading straight toward the toll plaza, but the through lanes bank rather sharply to the right just prior.
When the PTC expanded westward, a new trumpet was built on the mainline just before the terminus (like at Carlisle), but that trumpet was used to connect to the existing 1940 trumpet on US 30, and new four-lane overpass was constructed to carry the extended mainline across US 30. I can't remember where I found it, but somewhere, I stumbled upon this terrific aerial photo (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1789/29268078788_af157b0b81_b.jpg) showing the Irwin interchange as it was being reconstructed. You can easily see the original through movement (going straight into the toll plaza near the center of the photo) as well as the new through movement (curving to the north–toward the left in this photo).
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 11:03:02 PM
There is ample space there today, I could come up with 2 or 3 different designs to connect I-81 to the turnpike.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2281227,-77.1411967,2786m/data=!3m1!1e3
I do not like the non-connection at Carlisle any better than the one at Breezewood, but given that PTC has officially and on-the-record said they are converting to all-electronic tolling in the fairly near future for the entire network, it would seem that engineering and designing a conventional interchange (with no double trumpets) would be easier and presumably less expensive.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 02, 2018, 11:12:33 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 30, 2018, 11:03:02 PM
There is ample space there today, I could come up with 2 or 3 different designs to connect I-81 to the turnpike.
I do not like the non-connection at Carlisle any better than the one at Breezewood, but given that PTC has officially and on-the-record said they are converting to all-electronic tolling in the fairly near future for the entire network, it would seem that engineering and designing a conventional interchange (with no double trumpets) would be easier and presumably less expensive.
Ample space for a conventional interchange where I-76 crosses I-81, except for the southeast quadrant with the large commercial building and complex very close to the highways.
How was the Carlisle interchange handled? It's not a trumpet - but a...? (https://historicaerials.com/location/40.21863444796521/-77.19041347503662/T1952/15)
It was the 1940 terminus until it was extended eastward. Also Carlisle had another interchange as that one was called the New Middlesex Interchange.
But yeah, it looked like a directional interchange for the end of the freeway.
Quote from: seicer on July 02, 2018, 12:52:08 PM
How was the Carlisle interchange handled? It's not a trumpet - but a...?
Jeff Kitsko has a diagram of the interchange on his site (also covered earlier in the thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10712.0) I linked above). Unfortunately the scan is pretty low-res, but you should get the idea.
Quote from: 1940 PA Turnpike Exit Guide via. PAHighways.com
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pahighways.com%2Fgraphics%2Fmaps%2FTPKexit10.jpg&hash=4bc4be41d407e2ba376c64049e006e7916d14029) | This Interchange is located north and adjacent to the historic town of Carlisle which in reality is the gateway to the west for traffic from all points east, as shown above. The 4-lane ticket office is located directly across the Turnpike proper, as is the ticket office at Irwin. Traffic desiring to proceed westward from this Interchange will follow the directional arrows as noted. (MILE 157) |
Middlesex didn't have a toll plaza (i.e. "ticket office" ), so the PTC had constructed a barrier toll at Carlisle to service both interchanges.
I remember reading a story in Dan Cupper's PA Turnpike book (https://archive.org/stream/pennsylvaniaturn00cupp#page/19/mode/1up) about a motorist in 1940 who entered at the Middlesex entrance ramp without realizing that he had entered a toll road. When he got to the Carlisle toll plaza, he apparently argued with the toll taker and threatened to sue the PTC, but a state trooper ordered him to "..pay the dime toll and leave via the Carlisle exit ramp."
So as that story would seem to confirm, the long off-ramp loop (westbound-to-Carlisle) was situated so that it would be impossible to drive from Middlesex to Carlisle without paying a toll–which, apparently, was 10¢. But I have to wonder: How many people would use the Turnpike to get from Middlesex to Carlisle? And if Middlesex to Carlisle was 10¢, would the toll taker give you a different ticket (with a 10¢ price difference) based on where you entered? Likewise for eastbound exiting traffic–would they charge a different toll depending on whether you took the Carlisle exit ramp or continued on to US 11? If so, I suppose they'd have needed to channelize the lanes on the east side of toll plaza to separate Carlisle and Middlesex traffic.
Update & an effort to steer the focus of this thread back to the project at-hand:
Drove round-trip from Philly to TTN for a job-related task yesterday (July 5) and noticed the that I-95 to I-295 conversion along the PA stretch north of the Turnpike interchange is essentially complete. All the interchange numbers have changed (new numerals plates placed on existing exit tabs in most instances) and all of the old 2000-era OLD EXIT XX signs have been replaced with brand-new ones bearing the old I-95 mile-marker numbers. The I-295 reassurance markers are large bbubble-like shields with large Series C numerals.
All of the mile markers along the PA stretch have changed to the new I-295 ones as well although the shield & numeral design (bubble-shields with elongated Series D numerals) doesn't look as nice IMHO as the ones along the NJ stretch (standard 3-digit shield with Series C numerals).
The travel-time on the VMS' along the Delaware Expressway (I-95/295) in PA now display the new highway designations where applicable. Example: one VMS along northbound I-95 lists the travel time to the US 1 interchange (new Exit 5/old Exit 46) as US 1 VIA I-295 EB. Conversely another VMS along the southbound Delaware Expressway (I-295 westbound) lists a travel time to the PA 63 (Exit 35 off I-95) as PA 63 VIA I-95 SB.
The NJ stretch up to Scotch Road (where I existed, Exit 73/Old Exit 3) I didn't see any changes beyond the Scudder Falls Bridge project compared to when I was last there a month ago. There are still some remaining I-95 mile markers and even one northbound reassurance marker still present. One smaller supplemental sign for Trenton-Mercer Airport along I-295 northbound/former I-95 southbound) still displays an EXIT 2 tab.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 09:14:47 AM
The travel-time on the VMS' along the Delaware Expressway (I-95/295) in PA now display the new highway designations where applicable. Example: one VMS along northbound I-95 lists the travel time to the US 1 interchange (new Exit 5/old Exit 46) as US 1 VIA I-295 EB. Conversely another VMS along the southbound Delaware Expressway (I-295 westbound) lists a travel time to the PA 63 (Exit 35 off I-95) as PA 63 VIA I-95 SB.
Per Wikipedia --
Interstate 95 (I-95) is an Interstate highway running from Miami, Florida, north to Houlton, Maine. In the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, the route is known by many as the Delaware Expressway, but is officially named the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway.
....
Is it true that Delaware Expressway is not the official name?
There is still one I-95 reassurance marker northbound up by Exit 68. There are also a handful of old designations throughout the New Jersey section, mostly old exit numbers on specific service signs. There is a JCT/95 assembly still up on Princeton Pike (right outside my office).
It also does not appear that the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission replaced all of the I-95 trailblazing outside the Scudder Falls Bridge work area. They did get the big stuff at the Route 29 interchange.
I was also on the PA Turnpike on Wednesday, and some signing eastbound approaching U.S. 1 has been changed to reflect access to I-95 South and I-295 East from that exit.
One sign was covered, presumably for I-95 north after the ramps open. Photos this weekend, since it was dark when I first saw them.
Is the transition from 95 to 295 at the interchange site signed at all, or do you just suddenly find yourself on 295? Is the transition point just the bridge over the Turnpike?
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 06, 2018, 10:34:45 AM
Is the transition from 95 to 295 at the interchange site signed at all, or do you just suddenly find yourself on 295? Is the transition point just the bridge over the Turnpike?
The transition point will be the takeoff/touchdown point of the ramps to/from the PA Turnpike.
They probably should have temporary signage there until the ramps open.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2018, 11:11:28 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 06, 2018, 10:34:45 AM
Is the transition from 95 to 295 at the interchange site signed at all, or do you just suddenly find yourself on 295? Is the transition point just the bridge over the Turnpike?
The transition point will be the takeoff/touchdown point of the ramps to/from the PA Turnpike.
They probably should have temporary signage there until the ramps open.
I know where it
will be, but I was wondering how it's signed now while it's not yet open.
Quote from: Beltway on July 06, 2018, 09:44:35 AMPer Wikipedia --
Interstate 95 (I-95) is an Interstate highway running from Miami, Florida, north to Houlton, Maine. In the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, the route is known by many as the Delaware Expressway, but is officially named the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway.
....
Is it true that Delaware Expressway is not the official name?
Given that portions of I-95 in PA existed before & during the Vietnam War; it probably
was a more official/former name than the Blue Route moniker is for I-476 (which is officially named Veterans Memorial Highway (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8860917,-75.3544933,3a,75y,344.72h,78.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC9LMCLiRt4-WiUKP3wcSYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)). Many of the now-gone original BGS' at the I-95 ramp entrances in Northeast Philadelphia included
Delaware Expwy button-copy text on the signage. Scroll down for pics of the old signage. (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-95/n.html)
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 06, 2018, 10:34:45 AM
Is the transition from 95 to 295 at the interchange site signed at all, or do you just suddenly find yourself on 295? Is the transition point just the bridge over the Turnpike?
At present, there's no signage alerting one heading along the northbound Delaware Expressway that I-95 north
becomes I-295 east. Just beyond the construction zone, there is a portable VMS that alerts of the subsequent exit number changes; I believe the message reads
I-95 EXIT CHANGES AHEAD.
Southbound approaching the new fly-over ramp to the left (still under construction); there is a propped-up BGS the reads
END 295 BEGIN 95 that looks similar to the one that used to be at the US 1 interchange in NJ; it's placed further off to the left (obviously such is not in its final/permanent location). There are some covered-up overhead pull-through BGS' w/downward arrows that likely read
95 SOUTH Philadelphia. While those particular BGS'
could be uncovered; the switching around of the through lanes during construction phases makes such unwise.
^ I think the "End 295 Begin 95" sign may be in its permanent place. I posted a photo in the "End Signs" thread, but did not pay attention to the supports (watching the road while my daughter took the shots). I don't have a good photo of the pavement layout, but can try to go up onto the Ford Ave. overpass and get a few. This is from memory of several passes through the area recently.
The two lanes carrying I-295 WB/I-95 SB traffic are on a narrow viaduct which may be a collector-distributor roadway (future single lane with shoulder) for the PA 413 interchange (current Exit 40/future Exit 39). An elevated structure left (in the direction of traffic) of these lanes is the I-95 SB connector ramp. Further left of that is the future I-295 mainline lanes, which would merge with the I-95 lanes from the left. The I-95 connector ramp may have a slip ramp to the collector-distributor so that it can access the PA 413 exit. I am not sure of the final configuration, as I have never looked closely at any interchange layouts. There may also be a future interchange ramp (EB to SB, perhaps) tying into the collector-distributor.
Worth noting that there will likely be stubs left when the first two ramps open up, for the future connection of the other six ramps in the interchange.
It is only my speculation at this point, until I can get out there to get photos.
There are temporary signs northbound at Exit 40 that still say "I-95 North Trenton," as does the existing overhead pull-through. Advance signs still have "Trenton/Princeton" for the pull-throughs. Not sure if those will be changed to "New York/Trenton," or even kept in the new signing sequence.
My question is: what is meant by "official"? Does the Pennsylvania legislature have to baptize the name as such, or is it enough for PennDOT construction plans sets to refer to it as the "Delaware Expressway"?
Quote from: akotchi on July 06, 2018, 12:55:05 PM
^ I think the "End 295 Begin 95" sign may be in its permanent place. I posted a photo in the "End Signs" thread, but did not pay attention to the supports (watching the road while my daughter took the shots). I don't have a good photo of the pavement layout, but can try to go up onto the Ford Ave. overpass and get a few. This is from memory of several passes through the area recently.
I doubt it. As of yesterday, that sign appeared to be right in the middle of new I-95 southbound connector ramp beyond the fly-over portion resting and was very low; like it was resting on a barricade of sorts.
Quote from: akotchi on July 06, 2018, 12:55:05 PMThere are temporary signs northbound at Exit 40 that still say "I-95 North Trenton," as does the existing overhead pull-through. Advance signs still have "Trenton/Princeton" for the pull-throughs. Not sure if those will be changed to "New York/Trenton," or even kept in the new signing sequence.
Those older BGS' & temporary orange signs will be ultimately taken down once the new I-95 northbound connector ramp opens. Approaching the exit ramp to PA 413 from I-95 northbound, there is a wrapped-up cantilever-mounted BGS that likely reads:
EXIT 39
413
Bristolwith an angled arrow placed to the right of the message.
There will be no pull-through for I-95 northbound at this location anymore since the ultimate configuration will no longer have a lane drop for the through traffic.
Quote from: Beltway on July 06, 2018, 09:44:35 AM
Per Wikipedia --
Interstate 95 (I-95) is an Interstate highway running from Miami, Florida, north to Houlton, Maine. In the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, the route is known by many as the Delaware Expressway, but is officially named the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway.
....
Is it true that Delaware Expressway is not the official name?
Well...that begs the question: What is the definition of a road's "official name" ? (Edit: JN Winkler beat me to it.)
Yes, there is a piece of paper (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1984/0/0013..PDF) filed away in Harrisburg stating that, as of February 17, 1984, the General Assembly declared "Interstate Route 95 in Pennsylvania" as the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Highway.
Likewise, there are similarly worded acts (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=1990&sessInd=0&act=110) filed away that declare I-90 in the Commonwealth to be the "AMVETS Memorial Highway" and US 15 as the "Marine Corps League Memorial Highway" . But other than a posting few inconspicuous token signs as specified by the act, PennDOT ignores these superfluous "official" titles in its own publications, communications, and records. The public, the media, and most mapmakers ignore them entirely, too. And I think it's worth noting that even the General Assembly does as well. For example, here's a 2004 act (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1961/0/0615..PDF), passed by the General Assembly, that appropriates $700K for resurfacing a short section of "I-95, Delaware Expressway" –no mention of "Vietnam" anywhere. Elsewhere, the same act appropriates funds for projects on I-90 and US 15 but doesn't mention AMVETS or the Marines either.
Bottom line: These names are "official" in the sense that they're backed up by an act of the General Assembly, but that act was passed once as a publicity stunt by a cadre of politicians to ingratiate themselves with a particular interest group...and then promptly ignored by PennDOT and everyone else.
I drove up the entire length of former I-95 (new I-295) in PA a few days ago myself and noticed the new guide signage and mile markers as well. But I didn't manage to see–don't know if anyone else has: Did PennDOT also replace the "little white signs" with new ones listing "SR 0295" ?
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 11:29:59 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 06, 2018, 09:44:35 AMIs it true that Delaware Expressway is not the official name?
Given that portions of I-95 in PA existed before & during the Vietnam War; it probably was a more official/former name than the Blue Route moniker is for I-476 (which is officially named Veterans Memorial Highway (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8860917,-75.3544933,3a,75y,344.72h,78.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC9LMCLiRt4-WiUKP3wcSYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)). Many of the now-gone original BGS' at the I-95 ramp entrances in Northeast Philadelphia included Delaware Expwy button-copy text on the signage. Scroll down for pics of the old signage. (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-95/n.html)
I saw some of those Delaware Expwy signs when I lived in the area in the 1970s. "Blue Route" never was an official name, it was a popular name started by the local media. The planning name was Mid-County Expressway.
Too many highways and bridges around the country are name for Veterans or Vietnam Veterans, to provide any unique identity for any one highway or bridge.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 06, 2018, 01:42:55 PMYes, there is a piece of paper (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/sentencing-scheduled-for-driver-in-i-81-tractor-trailer-chase/2012/01/09/gIQApt0FlP_blog.html?utm_term=.ade0ad7e58e2) filed away in Harrisburg stating that, as of February 17, 1984, the General Assembly declared "Interstate Route 95 in Pennsylvania" as the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Highway.
Brian, you might want to recheck your link. I clicked on it and got a Jan. 9, 2012 article regarding a sentencing for a driver involved in a tractor-trailer crash along I-81 in Hagerstown, MD.
Either way & I stated such earlier that Vietnam Veterans Memorial highway name for I-95 in PA was tacked on
well after the majority of the highway was built & open to traffic; the then-missing-link at the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) being the sole exception (such would open circa 1985).
Quote from: briantroutman on July 06, 2018, 01:42:55 PMBottom line: These names are "official" in the sense that they're backed up by an act of the General Assembly, but that act was passed once as a publicity stunt by a cadre of politicians to ingratiate themselves with a particular interest group...and then promptly ignored by PennDOT and everyone else.
Very true. How many people refer to the Blue Route portion of I-476 as the
Veterans Memorial Highway (which sounds too similar to the "official" name for I-95/295 in PA)?
Quote from: briantroutman on July 06, 2018, 01:42:55 PM
I drove up the entire length of former I-95 (new I-295) in PA a few days ago myself and noticed the new guide signage and mile markers as well. But I didn't manage to see–don't know if anyone else has: Did PennDOT also replace the "little white signs" with new ones listing "SR 0295" ?
To tell your the truth, when I was up there yesterday, I didn't even notice those signs at all regardless of what they listed. Then again, PennDOT's not always consistent with placing those little SR markers along expressways. Personal take: should PennDOT erect those for the "new" I-295, they may wait until the interchange/connection ramp construction is completed. Such are actually only used for internal purposes.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 02:34:06 PM
Brian, you might want to recheck your link.
Oops–corrected (above, and here: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1984/0/0013..PDF (http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1984/0/0013..PDF)).
About that other link: I was contributing to a conversation on another site where someone was trying to select a route based on it being the fastest, and I made the observation that, while you can calculate mileages and average speeds to come up with typical travel times, there's always the chance that something completely unforeseeable happens and delays you substantially. A family member of mine was stuck in a police imposed traffic break and held up for many minutes because that truck driver went berserk.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 02:34:06 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 06, 2018, 01:42:55 PM
I drove up the entire length of former I-95 (new I-295) in PA a few days ago myself and noticed the new guide signage and mile markers as well. But I didn't manage to see–don't know if anyone else has: Did PennDOT also replace the "little white signs" with new ones listing "SR 0295" ?
To tell your the truth, when I was up there yesterday, I didn't even notice those signs at all regardless of what they listed. Then again, PennDOT's not always consistent with placing those little SR markers along expressways. Personal take: should PennDOT erect those for the "new" I-295, they may wait until the interchange/connection ramp construction is completed. Such are actually only used for internal purposes.
TIRe (https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/tire) still indicates that section as SR 0095. I imagine they'll change it shortly after the interchange itself is complete. They're usually pretty good with changing the internal designations, though not always in completely intuitive ways.
I'm pretty sure that for a long time there were two SR 0099s, I-99 and PA 99, and it was only in 2009 with the most recent new PA I-99 segment opening that PA 99 was made SR 0699. (Which is what I meant about not completely intuitive ways. Why 0699 and not x099? 0500?)
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 01:29:27 PM
I doubt it. As of yesterday, that sign appeared to be right in the middle of new I-95 southbound connector ramp beyond the fly-over portion resting and was very low; like it was resting on a barricade of sorts.
Here is a photo taken this morning, looking north from the Ford Road overpass. The sign (End 295/Begin 95) is partially showing in the right foreground, facing away from the camera.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/843/42541940704_8b6490672a_b.jpg)
It does seem to confirm most of what I postulated upthread. It appears, though that the I-95 lanes (in the center of the photo, elevated) remain separated from the I-295 lanes (near ground) until past the PA 413 exit. The ramp from I-295 to PA 413, which through traffic is using now (the far right, where the single car is to the left of the drums), becomes an auxiliary lane at the merge with the I-95 lanes on the right. The covered guide signs along the current (and temporary) path of I-295 traffic make a lot more sense now . . .
My travels took me onto the Pa Turnpike as well, so the camera was busy, too. A couple of selected shots.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/838/28391031627_5e1af2cd5f_b.jpg)
This replaces the previous "Bensalem Exits" sign and includes the direction to I-95 south and I-295 at the U.S. 1 exit. There also seems to be some construction going on behind shoulder closings with barrier around the various advance guide signs approaching Exit 351, which may suggest new signs and/or structures.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1822/28391030417_93b7ba5ab9_b.jpg)
This sign is covered, but wind gusts occasionally reveal parts of the message. Sign will probably say
(TO?) 95 NORTH
New York
USE 276 EASTThe Y in New York and the bottom interstate shield are revealed in the photo above. I did a short video from the shoulder until the breeze exposed the message.
Are there still any high-resolution diagrams available of the whole interchange and how it ties in at the PA 413 interchange as well?
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 07, 2018, 08:08:30 PM
Are there still any high-resolution diagrams available of the whole interchange and how it ties in at the PA 413 interchange as well?
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d30-d40.aspx
Quote from: yakra on July 10, 2018, 10:42:43 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 07, 2018, 08:08:30 PM
Are there still any high-resolution diagrams available of the whole interchange and how it ties in at the PA 413 interchange as well?
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d30-d40.aspx
That's a pretty low-res JPEG. I'm pretty sure there used to be a zoomable version.
Quote from: akotchi on July 07, 2018, 02:16:24 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 06, 2018, 01:29:27 PM
I doubt it. As of yesterday, that sign appeared to be right in the middle of new I-95 southbound connector ramp beyond the fly-over portion resting and was very low; like it was resting on a barricade of sorts.
Here is a photo taken this morning, looking north from the Ford Road overpass. The sign (End 295/Begin 95) is partially showing in the right foreground, facing away from the camera.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/843/42541940704_8b6490672a_b.jpg)
It does seem to confirm most of what I postulated upthread. It appears, though that the I-95 lanes (in the center of the photo, elevated) remain separated from the I-295 lanes (near ground) until past the PA 413 exit. The ramp from I-295 to PA 413, which through traffic is using now (the far right, where the single car is to the left of the drums), becomes an auxiliary lane at the merge with the I-95 lanes on the right. The covered guide signs along the current (and temporary) path of I-295 traffic make a lot more sense now . . .
My travels took me onto the Pa Turnpike as well, so the camera was busy, too. A couple of selected shots.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/838/28391031627_5e1af2cd5f_b.jpg)
This replaces the previous "Bensalem Exits" sign and includes the direction to I-95 south and I-295 at the U.S. 1 exit. There also seems to be some construction going on behind shoulder closings with barrier around the various advance guide signs approaching Exit 351, which may suggest new signs and/or structures.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1822/28391030417_93b7ba5ab9_b.jpg)
This sign is covered, but wind gusts occasionally reveal parts of the message. Sign will probably say
(TO?) 95 NORTH
New York
USE 276 EAST
The Y in New York and the bottom interstate shield are revealed in the photo above. I did a short video from the shoulder until the breeze exposed the message.
Any idea how much of the ramp work is done? On the construction website, there are overhead photos from June, and PTC states that the future NB I-95 ramp is done.
Northbound is basically done. Some portions on the Turnpike side have had the final markings installed. Southbound is much further behind.
Interesting that they're renumbering the former Delaware Valley exit (now nameless since it's off the ticket system) to match 95's numbering instead of continuing the Turnpike numbering like they do at Valley Forge onto 276.
Maybe instead of that, they should've coordinated with DelDOT, MDSHA, and VDOT to have I-95's mileage start at the NC/VA state line and continuously rise through Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania before (roughly) matching up with the Turnpike at the new interchange. :bigass:
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 21, 2018, 07:25:14 PM
Interesting that they're renumbering the former Delaware Valley exit (now nameless since it's off the ticket system) to match 95's numbering instead of continuing the Turnpike numbering like they do at Valley Forge onto 276.
Maybe instead of that, they should've coordinated with DelDOT, MDSHA, and VDOT to have I-95's mileage start at the NC/VA state line and continuously rise through Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania before (roughly) matching up with the Turnpike at the new interchange. :bigass:
That's because it's off the ticket system. I think that's why the numbering continued even though the route number changed.
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
I just realized that I never cross-posted to this thread–and that I should, since some people following this thread may not be checking the Road Enthusiast Meets board.
I'm organizing a road meet to coincide with the completion of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange ramps next month. In addition to the usual pre-meet lunch and post-meet dinner, the current plan includes a tour of the PTC project office, a Q&A session with an engineer, and an escorted tour of the ramps on PTC vehicles. (Meet thread is here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23316.0)
After a couple of weeks of voting, the date that emerged with the least conflicts is 13 September (a Thursday), so I'm working with a contact at the PTC to start making tentative plans for that date. Once they've confirmed, I'll set up a registration page for everyone who's planning to attend, and we can work on finalizing the remaining details.
Everyone is welcome to attend, and I look forward to seeing many of you there! If you have any questions or comments on the meet, it would probably be best to post over on the meet thread (linked above).
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
Yep. That's PA for you.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
Yeah, same here.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
How much is the PTC getting out of those miles? It's a one-way toll westbound only. Are they sharing that revenue with the NJTA or does the latter use their own toll system for their side of the bridge?
Quote from: bzakharin on August 04, 2018, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
How much is the PTC getting out of those miles? It's a one-way toll westbound only. Are they sharing that revenue with the NJTA or does the latter use their own toll system for their side of the bridge?
For drivers coming off the mainline NJ Turnpike, they pay whatever toll they owe at the main Exit 6 toll plaza, which is a bit west of the 130 interchange (Exit 6A in Turnpike parlance). For drivers headed to the bridge from 130, or those coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at 130, there is a flat rate $3 toll.
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2018, 04:03:34 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 04, 2018, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
How much is the PTC getting out of those miles? It's a one-way toll westbound only. Are they sharing that revenue with the NJTA or does the latter use their own toll system for their side of the bridge?
For drivers coming off the mainline NJ Turnpike, they pay whatever toll they owe at the main Exit 6 toll plaza, which is a bit west of the 130 interchange (Exit 6A in Turnpike parlance). For drivers headed to the bridge from 130, or those coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at 130, there is a flat rate $3 toll.
There is no toll for eastbound motorists coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at US 130.
It looks like Google Maps has finally recognized the resigning of I-295 over old I-95 in PA and NJ. Other apps (Waze, Apple, Mapquest) show the resigned I-295 in NJ, but PA section as I-95.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 05, 2018, 07:05:58 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2018, 04:03:34 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 04, 2018, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
How much is the PTC getting out of those miles? It's a one-way toll westbound only. Are they sharing that revenue with the NJTA or does the latter use their own toll system for their side of the bridge?
For drivers coming off the mainline NJ Turnpike, they pay whatever toll they owe at the main Exit 6 toll plaza, which is a bit west of the 130 interchange (Exit 6A in Turnpike parlance). For drivers headed to the bridge from 130, or those coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at 130, there is a flat rate $3 toll.
There is no toll for eastbound motorists coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at US 130.
I know all about what tolls are paid in what situations. I was just wondering if NJTA is getting a cut of the new toll on the PA side, since it's basically a bridge toll now with free exits on either side of the bridge (except the westbound US 130 entrance toll).
Quote from: bzakharin on August 05, 2018, 10:38:16 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 05, 2018, 07:05:58 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2018, 04:03:34 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 04, 2018, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
How much is the PTC getting out of those miles? It's a one-way toll westbound only. Are they sharing that revenue with the NJTA or does the latter use their own toll system for their side of the bridge?
For drivers coming off the mainline NJ Turnpike, they pay whatever toll they owe at the main Exit 6 toll plaza, which is a bit west of the 130 interchange (Exit 6A in Turnpike parlance). For drivers headed to the bridge from 130, or those coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at 130, there is a flat rate $3 toll.
There is no toll for eastbound motorists coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at US 130.
I know all about what tolls are paid in what situations. I was just wondering if NJTA is getting a cut of the new toll on the PA side, since it's basically a bridge toll now with free exits on either side of the bridge (except the westbound US 130 entrance toll).
No...that is completely a PA Turnpike toll. NJ has no involvement with it whatsoever.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 05, 2018, 08:57:06 AM
It looks like Google Maps has finally recognized the resigning of I-295 over old I-95 in PA and NJ. Other apps (Waze, Apple, Mapquest) show the resigned I-295 in NJ, but PA section as I-95.
Interestingly they also dropped I-276 from the NJ Turnpike Extension, and dropped I-95 from the mainline NJTP between Exits 6 and 7A. Those numbers were on the map for years.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 05, 2018, 10:38:16 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 05, 2018, 07:05:58 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2018, 04:03:34 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 04, 2018, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
How much is the PTC getting out of those miles? It's a one-way toll westbound only. Are they sharing that revenue with the NJTA or does the latter use their own toll system for their side of the bridge?
For drivers coming off the mainline NJ Turnpike, they pay whatever toll they owe at the main Exit 6 toll plaza, which is a bit west of the 130 interchange (Exit 6A in Turnpike parlance). For drivers headed to the bridge from 130, or those coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at 130, there is a flat rate $3 toll.
There is no toll for eastbound motorists coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at US 130.
I know all about what tolls are paid in what situations. I was just wondering if NJTA is getting a cut of the new toll on the PA side, since it's basically a bridge toll now with free exits on either side of the bridge (except the westbound US 130 entrance toll).
Each turnpike handles their half of the bridge, NJ paves up to the state line, PA paves up to the state line. NJ turnpike collects a toll for all westbound crossings, they've had a free eastbound crossing for years.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 05, 2018, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 05, 2018, 10:38:16 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 05, 2018, 07:05:58 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2018, 04:03:34 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 04, 2018, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
How much is the PTC getting out of those miles? It's a one-way toll westbound only. Are they sharing that revenue with the NJTA or does the latter use their own toll system for their side of the bridge?
For drivers coming off the mainline NJ Turnpike, they pay whatever toll they owe at the main Exit 6 toll plaza, which is a bit west of the 130 interchange (Exit 6A in Turnpike parlance). For drivers headed to the bridge from 130, or those coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at 130, there is a flat rate $3 toll.
There is no toll for eastbound motorists coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at US 130.
I know all about what tolls are paid in what situations. I was just wondering if NJTA is getting a cut of the new toll on the PA side, since it's basically a bridge toll now with free exits on either side of the bridge (except the westbound US 130 entrance toll).
Each turnpike handles their half of the bridge, NJ paves up to the state line, PA paves up to the state line. NJ turnpike collects a toll for all westbound crossings, they've had a free eastbound crossing for years.
Technically speaking, there is no free crossing into NJ on the PA Turnpike bridge. If you stay on the PATP Extension to the main line, you get a ticket and pay your usual distance based toll. If you get off at 130, you pay a flat $3 toll at the exit. There's no place to exit without paying a toll unless you get off the Turnpike in PA and shunpike a bit to cross a different bridge. They just don't have a toll they explicitly call a bridge toll.
Quote from: storm2k on August 07, 2018, 02:34:54 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 05, 2018, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 05, 2018, 10:38:16 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 05, 2018, 07:05:58 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2018, 04:03:34 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 04, 2018, 11:09:45 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end.
How much is the PTC getting out of those miles? It's a one-way toll westbound only. Are they sharing that revenue with the NJTA or does the latter use their own toll system for their side of the bridge?
For drivers coming off the mainline NJ Turnpike, they pay whatever toll they owe at the main Exit 6 toll plaza, which is a bit west of the 130 interchange (Exit 6A in Turnpike parlance). For drivers headed to the bridge from 130, or those coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at 130, there is a flat rate $3 toll.
There is no toll for eastbound motorists coming into NJ over the bridge and exiting at US 130.
I know all about what tolls are paid in what situations. I was just wondering if NJTA is getting a cut of the new toll on the PA side, since it's basically a bridge toll now with free exits on either side of the bridge (except the westbound US 130 entrance toll).
Each turnpike handles their half of the bridge, NJ paves up to the state line, PA paves up to the state line. NJ turnpike collects a toll for all westbound crossings, they've had a free eastbound crossing for years.
Technically speaking, there is no free crossing into NJ on the PA Turnpike bridge. If you stay on the PATP Extension to the main line, you get a ticket and pay your usual distance based toll. If you get off at 130, you pay a flat $3 toll at the exit. There's no place to exit without paying a toll unless you get off the Turnpike in PA and shunpike a bit to cross a different bridge. They just don't have a toll they explicitly call a bridge toll.
There's still no toll to be paid when traveling eastbound and exiting at US 130.
Quote from: storm2k on August 07, 2018, 02:34:54 AM
Technically speaking, there is no free crossing into NJ on the PA Turnpike bridge. If you stay on the PATP Extension to the main line, you get a ticket and pay your usual distance based toll. If you get off at 130, you pay a flat $3 toll at the exit. There's no place to exit without paying a toll unless you get off the Turnpike in PA and shunpike a bit to cross a different bridge.
Again, there's no toll Eastbound if you exit at Rt. 130.
Here's the aerial view: https://goo.gl/maps/GHEDyuZTaj32 . You can see the toll plaza for 130 onto the NJ Turnpike Extension WB. You can also see there's NO toll plaza for traffic from the NJ Turnpike Extension EB to 130. Just to the right is the mainline toll plaza.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2018, 08:35:17 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 07, 2018, 02:34:54 AM
Technically speaking, there is no free crossing into NJ on the PA Turnpike bridge. If you stay on the PATP Extension to the main line, you get a ticket and pay your usual distance based toll. If you get off at 130, you pay a flat $3 toll at the exit. There's no place to exit without paying a toll unless you get off the Turnpike in PA and shunpike a bit to cross a different bridge.
Again, there's no toll Eastbound if you exit at Rt. 130.
Here's the aerial view: https://goo.gl/maps/GHEDyuZTaj32 . You can see the toll plaza for 130 onto the NJ Turnpike Extension WB. You can also see there's NO toll plaza for traffic from the NJ Turnpike Extension EB to 130. Just to the right is the mainline toll plaza.
The exit 6 toll on the NJTP mainline factors in a surcharge for the bridge (both coming and going), but it is not as high as the $3 flat toll when just entering at exit 6A and going west on the bridge. It seems to be about $1 higher compared to other exits with similar mileage. You can play around on the NJTP website with the toll calculator to compare these numbers...
Will 295 and 276 be signed as numbered Exits from I-95 either direction? I'm assuming both terminating interstates won't have Exit numbers, especially 276 because the turnpike continues
I believe both will be Exit 40 -- I-295 from NB, I-276 from SB. I would not expect either terminating Interstate to have an exit number for now, because there will be no exits until the rest of the ramps in the interchange are done.
On I-95 North, I-295 will be signed as a LEFT Exit 40 (a sign is already up and covered).
I believe the same thing is occurring on (new) I-95 South for I-276 West.
The PA 413 Exit on I-95 is being renumbered to be Exit 39.
_____
One add'l note...on the PennDOT Bucks County Type 10 map, I-295 is already labeled as such, and I-95 on the PA Turnpike is labeled as toll-free in blue.
And when the other movements in the interchange open, I guess it'll be something like 40A for I-295, and 40B for I-276. That's likely going to either be hidden, or put up as the time comes. While I'm at it, I shared a GSV picture of the Turnpike entrance from US 13; they had some things hidden for I-276 WB, but not going EB.
Assuming the other movements are ever built. There's some speculation that they never will be.
^ Assuming you come to the upcoming Golden Spike meet, that would be a perfect item for you to ask about during the Q&A session. I doubt we'll get a straight or complete answer, but hopefully we can get someone to break through the bureaucratic veil and give his/her gut feeling.
Quote from: Steve D on August 07, 2018, 08:58:32 AM
The exit 6 toll on the NJTP mainline factors in a surcharge for the bridge (both coming and going), but it is not as high as the $3 flat toll when just entering at exit 6A and going west on the bridge. It seems to be about $1 higher compared to other exits with similar mileage. You can play around on the NJTP website with the toll calculator to compare these numbers...
Yes, I was looking at that too (specifically comparing Exit 5), but since the toll at the 130 entrance is WB only for regular commuters who come both to and from this exit, it's still less overall.
Better yet, if you don't mind a few bridge openings, traffic lights or near head-on collisions, you can save a few bucks on our two local BudgetBridge (tm) franchises, a little to the south.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 07, 2018, 10:11:59 PM
Better yet, if you don't mind a few bridge openings, traffic lights or near head-on collisions, you can save a few bucks on our two local BudgetBridge (tm) franchises, a little to the south.
the Burlington-Bristol Bridge would like to stand and object to that statement, but it can't seem to get out of its wheelchair.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 07, 2018, 10:11:59 PM
Better yet, if you don't mind a few bridge openings, traffic lights or near head-on collisions, you can save a few bucks on our two local BudgetBridge (tm) franchises, a little to the south.
The Burlington-Bristol wishes it was a budget bridge. We're talking more Goodwill bridge at this point.
Seems PennDOT updated their SR designations when they released the 2018 Type 10 Map. (Does anyone know when exactly that was?)
I-295 has been updated to SR 0295, which begins just north of the Ford Road bridge below the Turnpike.
PA 295 in York County is still signed as PA 295, but interestingly is now SR 0297 internally.
The Turnpike east of I-95 is still SR 7276. I wonder if they'll actually update that to SR 0095 or just leave it alone. It wouldn't be the first time they cut corners with the Turnpike's SR designation; the I-70 concurrency is still SR 7076 despite I-70 being a smaller number.
On the Type 10 map, in addition to them already showing I-95 on the Turnpike as stated earlier, they also have a very crude representation of the completed ramps as well, shown as Interstate mainline. The toll-free blue mapping of the Turnpike also goes as far west as the Nehaminy toll plaza.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2018, 10:35:19 PM
the I-70 concurrency is still SR 7076 despite I-70 being a smaller number.
I'm guessing that's because I-76's the main route number, and all exit numbers are for it, not I-70.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2018, 10:35:19 PM
Seems PennDOT updated their SR designations when they released the 2018 Type 10 Map.
"Type 10 Map"? I wonder what Types 1 through 9 look like. :)
ixnay
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2018, 10:35:19 PM
PA 295 in York County is still signed as PA 295, but interestingly is now SR 0297 internally.
I guess interstates get precedence? That's what happened with PA-380 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_380), likewise with PA-283 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_283) (actually, off topic, but what was I-81E considered internally?).
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2018, 10:35:19 PM
The Turnpike east of I-95 is still SR 7276. I wonder if they'll actually update that to SR 0095 or just leave it alone. It wouldn't be the first time they cut corners with the Turnpike's SR designation; the I-70 concurrency is still SR 7076 despite I-70 being a smaller number.
Or maybe they'll change it to SR 7095? :confused:
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 10, 2018, 08:10:09 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2018, 10:35:19 PM
The Turnpike east of I-95 is still SR 7276. I wonder if they'll actually update that to SR 0095 or just leave it alone. It wouldn't be the first time they cut corners with the Turnpike's SR designation; the I-70 concurrency is still SR 7076 despite I-70 being a smaller number.
Or maybe they'll change it to SR 7095? :confused:
Whoops, that's what I meant. It'd be 7095 not 0095 because the PTC will still own it.
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 10, 2018, 08:10:09 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 09, 2018, 10:35:19 PM
PA 295 in York County is still signed as PA 295, but interestingly is now SR 0297 internally.
I guess interstates get precedence? That's what happened with PA-380 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_380), likewise with PA-283 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_283) (actually, off topic, but what was I-81E considered internally?).
Interstates do get precedence. That's the one common theme, though the way they re-internally-designate the preexisting state routes seems to get sillier over time.
I-81E's decommissioning predates the introduction of the Location Referencing System in 1987, which is what gives every state road a four-digit SR designation. Back then, the original legislative route numbers were still in use, which often had no rhyme or reason to them. All of Pennsylvania's suffixed routes were eliminated by 1987, so it's unknown how exactly they'd handle them today, though the one exception is US 6N in Erie County, which is internally designated SR 3006.
Did they finish the Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange? I'm pretty late to the conversation but last I heard they were still constructing it.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 10, 2018, 06:01:30 PM
Did they finish the Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange? I'm pretty late to the conversation but last I heard they were still constructing it.
It's just about done, if you're talking about the NB-EB and WB-SB connector ramps. They're supposed to open later this month.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 10, 2018, 05:18:53 PM
I-81E's decommissioning predates the introduction of the Location Referencing System in 1987, which is what gives every state road a four-digit SR designation. Back then, the original legislative route numbers were still in use, which often had no rhyme or reason to them. All of Pennsylvania's suffixed routes were eliminated by 1987, so it's unknown how exactly they'd handle them today, though the one exception is US 6N in Erie County, which is internally designated SR 3006.
IIRC the I-476 Mid-County Expressway was L.R. 1010, and most of the Surekill was L.R. 769, and most of I-95 in the city was L.R. 1000. I don't recall what the other segments were.
Not route specific in their coding. I would surmise that I-81E and I-380 had the same legislative route number.
Quote from: Beltway on August 10, 2018, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 10, 2018, 05:18:53 PM
I-81E's decommissioning predates the introduction of the Location Referencing System in 1987, which is what gives every state road a four-digit SR designation. Back then, the original legislative route numbers were still in use, which often had no rhyme or reason to them. All of Pennsylvania's suffixed routes were eliminated by 1987, so it's unknown how exactly they'd handle them today, though the one exception is US 6N in Erie County, which is internally designated SR 3006.
IIRC the I-476 Mid-County Expressway was L.R. 1010, and most of the Surekill was L.R. 769, and most of I-95 in the city was L.R. 1000. I don't recall what the other segments were.
Not route specific in their coding. I would surmise that I-81E and I-380 had the same legislative route number.
That's kind of like DelDOT's maintenance road numbering (used in their AADT tables (https://www.deldot.gov/Publications/manuals/traffic_counts/index.shtml)). There, I know US-13 in parts of Kent County is maintenance road 5 and parts of DE-1 somewhere are road 156. It's odd.
Quote from: Beltway on August 10, 2018, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 10, 2018, 05:18:53 PM
I-81E's decommissioning predates the introduction of the Location Referencing System in 1987, which is what gives every state road a four-digit SR designation. Back then, the original legislative route numbers were still in use, which often had no rhyme or reason to them. All of Pennsylvania's suffixed routes were eliminated by 1987, so it's unknown how exactly they'd handle them today, though the one exception is US 6N in Erie County, which is internally designated SR 3006.
IIRC the I-476 Mid-County Expressway was L.R. 1010, and most of the Surekill was L.R. 769, and most of I-95 in the city was L.R. 1000. I don't recall what the other segments were.
Not route specific in their coding. I would surmise that I-81E and I-380 had the same legislative route number.
There were few if any changes to the legislative routes. This resulted in many situations where a legislative number will turn from a major road to a minor road and some new number will take over for the major road. This depends sometimes on construction times, but sometimes has no apparent reason.
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
What is the currently scheduled date?
The latest news stories don't reference a date at all. I don't think there's anything on the PA Turnpike/95 site that references a date either. In the past I think there was a single, causal mention on the website of late August, which I don't believe is posted anymore.
And from a personal observation, it's no where close to being ready.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.
FTFY. If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. :sombrero:
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 08:13:28 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.
FTFY. If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. :sombrero:
Hell they could finally fix Breezwood if Act 44 didn't exist.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 08:13:28 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.
FTFY. If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. :sombrero:
True! ;-)
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 08:13:28 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.
FTFY. If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. :sombrero:
I don't know if Act 44 truly made a difference here.
It was around 1983 when it was decided to kill the Somerset Freeway and have PennDOT and the PTC build an interchange to connect 95 to the PA Turnpike. Act 44 was first enacted in 2007. So that's 24 YEARS where both agencies did nothing about the interchange other than play around with a few designs.
Additionally, Act 44 was to help PennDOT with Pennsylvania's transportation needs. The interchange is a transportation need; one that not only completes the interchange, but will reduce the traffic on existing 95 north of the interchange. There's nothing in Act 44 that prevented PennDOT from funding, even in part, the interchange project.
In November, 2013, Act 89 was approved which dedicated the annual payment to support transit and other non-highway projects. In reality it should've been a paper-shifting exercise; existing monies going to mass transit could've been used for highway projects. But regardless, that means that since 1983, 30 YEARS went by and the interchange project was finally getting started, years behind schedule.
Clearly, neither PTC or PennDOT pushed to get this project done sooner. To say Act 44 (or 89) delayed this project ignores a few decades of other delays that 44 & 89 can't account for.
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
To continue on the above...per https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/project-overview.aspx
1982 was when the Feds told PA they needed to build the interchange.
In 1985 PA passed Act 61, which told the PTC to build the interchange.
So ignore Act 44 & 89. Why didn't Act 61 push the PTC to get working sooner? I did find something that Act 61 was repealed, but didn't see anything on a quick search that mentioned when it was appealed.
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
Well, some portions of the system were never built at all (ie: DC, Boston), so there's that. New Jersey hasn't had anything to do with it for 35 years.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 12:56:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 08:13:28 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.
FTFY. If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. :sombrero:
I don't know if Act 44 truly made a difference here.
It was around 1983 when it was decided to kill the Somerset Freeway and have PennDOT and the PTC build an interchange to connect 95 to the PA Turnpike. Act 44 was first enacted in 2007. So that's 24 YEARS where both agencies did nothing about the interchange other than play around with a few designs.
Additionally, Act 44 was to help PennDOT with Pennsylvania's transportation needs. The interchange is a transportation need; one that not only completes the interchange, but will reduce the traffic on existing 95 north of the interchange. There's nothing in Act 44 that prevented PennDOT from funding, even in part, the interchange project.
In November, 2013, Act 89 was approved which dedicated the annual payment to support transit and other non-highway projects. In reality it should've been a paper-shifting exercise; existing monies going to mass transit could've been used for highway projects. But regardless, that means that since 1983, 30 YEARS went by and the interchange project was finally getting started, years behind schedule.
Clearly, neither PTC or PennDOT pushed to get this project done sooner. To say Act 44 (or 89) delayed this project ignores a few decades of other delays that 44 & 89 can't account for.
Jeff, I am more than well aware that this issue
long predated Act 44 (& 89). I only injected such to
countermand the earlier-mentioned notion (from Roadwarrior79) that if I-95 in PA was tolled; more money would've been available to build this interchange quicker/earlier than currently scheduled. That notion, given the history, is complete 100% bunk.
With regards to your-earlier posted comment regarding Act 61 (that was supposedly later repealed?): Did such actually specify/involved
funding to build the interchange?
Playing devil's advocate for a few seconds here: PennDOT & PTC could've used the (very lame) excuse of insufficient funding as a reason for why both of them dragged their feet on building the interchange for so long (decades). The 1982 Federal mandate to build the interchange apparently was more of an
unfunded mandate measure.
Given that the cancellation of the original I-95 was in NJ; one question that IMHO
should be asked was; why wasn't the the needed portion of the Federal money that was originally set aside to build the Somerset Freeway version of I-95 not transferred over to build the PA Turnpike/Delaware Expressway interchange?
Aside from a couple of toll increases (prior to Act 44) and then the subsequent Act-related increases (along with Act 89); there wasn't an infusion of funding to make such happen (sooner).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 06:15:41 AM
The latest news stories don't reference a date at all. I don't think there's anything on the PA Turnpike/95 site that references a date either. In the past I think there was a single, causal mention on the website of late August, which I don't believe is posted anymore.
And from a personal observation, it's no where close to being ready.
I've looked around the internet, and there's nothing concrete (pun not intended) I've been able to come up with. I've heard late 2018; don't know how that is going to work. Hope it's open before the weather turns sour.
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 13, 2018, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 06:15:41 AM
The latest news stories don't reference a date at all. I don't think there's anything on the PA Turnpike/95 site that references a date either. In the past I think there was a single, causal mention on the website of late August, which I don't believe is posted anymore.
And from a personal observation, it's no where close to being ready.
I've looked around the internet, and there's nothing concrete (pun not intended) I've been able to come up with. I've heard late 2018; don't know how that is going to work. Hope it's open before the weather turns sour.
I actually heard a radio commercial from PennDOT today about the route number changes stating the interchange would open in September.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 01:48:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 12:56:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 08:13:28 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.
FTFY. If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. :sombrero:
I don't know if Act 44 truly made a difference here.
It was around 1983 when it was decided to kill the Somerset Freeway and have PennDOT and the PTC build an interchange to connect 95 to the PA Turnpike. Act 44 was first enacted in 2007. So that's 24 YEARS where both agencies did nothing about the interchange other than play around with a few designs.
Additionally, Act 44 was to help PennDOT with Pennsylvania's transportation needs. The interchange is a transportation need; one that not only completes the interchange, but will reduce the traffic on existing 95 north of the interchange. There's nothing in Act 44 that prevented PennDOT from funding, even in part, the interchange project.
In November, 2013, Act 89 was approved which dedicated the annual payment to support transit and other non-highway projects. In reality it should've been a paper-shifting exercise; existing monies going to mass transit could've been used for highway projects. But regardless, that means that since 1983, 30 YEARS went by and the interchange project was finally getting started, years behind schedule.
Clearly, neither PTC or PennDOT pushed to get this project done sooner. To say Act 44 (or 89) delayed this project ignores a few decades of other delays that 44 & 89 can't account for.
Jeff, I am more than well aware that this issue long predated Act 44 (& 89). I only injected such to countermand the earlier-mentioned notion (from Roadwarrior79) that if I-95 in PA was tolled; more money would've been available to build this interchange quicker/earlier than currently scheduled. That notion, given the history, is complete 100% bunk.
With regards to your-earlier posted comment regarding Act 61 (that was supposedly later repealed?): Did such actually specify/involved funding to build the interchange?
Playing devil's advocate for a few seconds here: PennDOT & PTC could've used the (very lame) excuse of insufficient funding as a reason for why both of them dragged their feet on building the interchange for so long (decades). The 1982 Federal mandate to build the interchange apparently was more of an unfunded mandate measure.
Given that the cancellation of the original I-95 was in NJ; one question that IMHO should be asked was; why wasn't the the needed portion of the Federal money that was originally set aside to build the Somerset Freeway version of I-95 not transferred over to build the PA Turnpike/Delaware Expressway interchange?
Aside from a couple of toll increases (prior to Act 44) and then the subsequent Act-related increases (along with Act 89); there wasn't an infusion of funding to make such happen (sooner).
The more pertinent question is why PA should get specific money that NJ is giving up, instead of it going to the general transportation fund? There are 48 other states that wouldn't like that idea one bit.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on August 13, 2018, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 01:48:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 12:56:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 08:13:28 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 04, 2018, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2018, 07:51:12 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 04, 2018, 05:56:40 PM
For those of you interested, this past Monday marked five years to the day ground broke on the interchange. Now that it's August, we can look forward to I-95 being a complete highway from Florida to Maine within the month.
That's just insane...5 years...2 ramps. Incredible.
I wonder if the PTC would have worked faster if I-95 would have had more toll mileage in PA than the couple miles on the east end Act 44 toll revenue diversions did not exist.
FTFY. If I didn't do such, CPZ would've. :sombrero:
I don't know if Act 44 truly made a difference here.
It was around 1983 when it was decided to kill the Somerset Freeway and have PennDOT and the PTC build an interchange to connect 95 to the PA Turnpike. Act 44 was first enacted in 2007. So that's 24 YEARS where both agencies did nothing about the interchange other than play around with a few designs.
Additionally, Act 44 was to help PennDOT with Pennsylvania's transportation needs. The interchange is a transportation need; one that not only completes the interchange, but will reduce the traffic on existing 95 north of the interchange. There's nothing in Act 44 that prevented PennDOT from funding, even in part, the interchange project.
In November, 2013, Act 89 was approved which dedicated the annual payment to support transit and other non-highway projects. In reality it should've been a paper-shifting exercise; existing monies going to mass transit could've been used for highway projects. But regardless, that means that since 1983, 30 YEARS went by and the interchange project was finally getting started, years behind schedule.
Clearly, neither PTC or PennDOT pushed to get this project done sooner. To say Act 44 (or 89) delayed this project ignores a few decades of other delays that 44 & 89 can't account for.
Jeff, I am more than well aware that this issue long predated Act 44 (& 89). I only injected such to countermand the earlier-mentioned notion (from Roadwarrior79) that if I-95 in PA was tolled; more money would've been available to build this interchange quicker/earlier than currently scheduled. That notion, given the history, is complete 100% bunk.
With regards to your-earlier posted comment regarding Act 61 (that was supposedly later repealed?): Did such actually specify/involved funding to build the interchange?
Playing devil's advocate for a few seconds here: PennDOT & PTC could've used the (very lame) excuse of insufficient funding as a reason for why both of them dragged their feet on building the interchange for so long (decades). The 1982 Federal mandate to build the interchange apparently was more of an unfunded mandate measure.
Given that the cancellation of the original I-95 was in NJ; one question that IMHO should be asked was; why wasn't the the needed portion of the Federal money that was originally set aside to build the Somerset Freeway version of I-95 not transferred over to build the PA Turnpike/Delaware Expressway interchange?
Aside from a couple of toll increases (prior to Act 44) and then the subsequent Act-related increases (along with Act 89); there wasn't an infusion of funding to make such happen (sooner).
The more pertinent question is why PA should get specific money that NJ is giving up, instead of it going to the general transportation fund? There are 48 other states that wouldn't like that idea one bit.
There was never specific money for this anyway. The feds said they would fund the original interstate plan 90/10. The states came up with the designs, submitted them to the feds for approval; got cost estimates, and the feds provided for 90% of that. NJ probably got federal funding for the design and planning work they had already done, but that was it. It's not like NJ got tens of millions of dollars for the project and used that money elsewhere.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 01:08:42 PM
To continue on the above...per https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/project-overview.aspx
1982 was when the Feds told PA they needed to build the interchange.
In 1985 PA passed Act 61, which told the PTC to build the interchange.
So ignore Act 44 & 89. Why didn't Act 61 push the PTC to get working sooner? I did find something that Act 61 was repealed, but didn't see anything on a quick search that mentioned when it was appealed.
I did not and do not agree with New Jersey caving to NIMBYs in Somerset County and not building the Somerset Freeway (though IMO it should have been the Southwest Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike).
But regardless,
PTC and PennDOT still are to blame, for they should not have been able to build the Delaware Expressway without a connection between that road (I-95) and the East-West Mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-276).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2018, 03:28:27 PM
I did not and do not agree with New Jersey caving to NIMBYs in Somerset County and not building the Somerset Freeway (though IMO it should have been the Southwest Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike).
I'm sure the NJTA would have loved that idea, and maybe it would have been built, but wasn't there some requirement that newly built Interstates could not be tolled?
Quote from: bzakharin on August 13, 2018, 03:49:20 PM
I'm sure the NJTA would have loved that idea, and maybe it would have been built, but wasn't there some requirement that newly built Interstates could not be tolled?
I think NJTA could have easily funded construction of the Somerset Freeway as a toll road, with no federal dollars needed. And effectively, that is what NJTA did with the widening of the Turnpike between Exit 8A and just south of Exit 6, though the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge also needs to be twinned (and is presumably not happening now because PTC is so starved for cash thanks to the Act 44/Act 89 requirement to provide transit subsidy dollars to PennDOT).
Maryland and Delaware built the JFK Highway section of I-95 with no federal dollars, even though it was planned and built several years after the 1956 Interstate Act was signed into law by President Eisenhower. I cannot speak for Delaware, but Maryland has never used one cent of federal tax money to maintain or improve their part of the original Northeast Expressway/JFK Highway (Exit 67 in White Marsh to the Delaware border beyond Exit 109).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 03:23:58 PMThere was never specific money for this anyway. The feds said they would fund the original interstate plan 90/10. The states came up with the designs, submitted them to the feds for approval; got cost estimates, and the feds provided for 90% of that. NJ probably got federal funding for the design and planning work they had already done, but that was it. It's not like NJ got tens of millions of dollars for the project and used that money elsewhere.
That contradicts with what happened when other segments of I-95 were cancelled in both Boston & DC. In MA's case; the federal money that was originally set aside to build the Southwest Expressway (I-95) and the Inner Belt (I-695) went to the MBTA instead (likely for the Orange Line relocation and the extensions of the Red Line to Alewife & Braintree that were constructed in the 1980s). Such was the first case where federal Interstate highway dollars was diverted to mass transit projects.
The federal money originally set aside to build I-95 from College Park, MD to DC was likely diverted to WMATA (Metro) projects (CPZ and/or any other Capitol/Potomac area AARoads brethren can confirm).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2018, 04:02:58 PMMaryland and Delaware built the JFK Highway section of I-95 with no federal dollars, even though it was planned and built several years after the 1956 Interstate Act was signed into law by President Eisenhower. I cannot speak for Delaware, but Maryland has never used one cent of federal tax money to maintain or improve their part of the original Northeast Expressway/JFK Highway (Exit 67 in White Marsh to the Delaware border beyond Exit 109).
IIRC, the reason why that stretch of I-95 was built as a toll road, despite it being designated as an Interstate from the get-go, was due to the need to expedite building it. A
free I-95 in DE & MD would've likely taken longer to build due to limited funding.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2018, 04:46:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 03:23:58 PMThere was never specific money for this anyway. The feds said they would fund the original interstate plan 90/10. The states came up with the designs, submitted them to the feds for approval; got cost estimates, and the feds provided for 90% of that. NJ probably got federal funding for the design and planning work they had already done, but that was it. It's not like NJ got tens of millions of dollars for the project and used that money elsewhere.
That contradicts with what happened when other segments of I-95 were cancelled in both Boston & DC. In MA's case; the federal money that was originally set aside to build the Southwest Expressway (I-95) and the Inner Belt (I-695) went to the MBTA instead (likely for the Orange Line relocation and the extensions of the Red Line to Alewife & Braintree that were constructed in the 1980s). Such was the first case where federal Interstate highway dollars was diverted to mass transit projects.
The federal money originally set aside to build I-95 from College Park, MD to DC was likely diverted to WMATA (Metro) projects (CPZ and/or any other Capitol/Potomac area AARoads brethren can confirm).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2018, 04:02:58 PMMaryland and Delaware built the JFK Highway section of I-95 with no federal dollars, even though it was planned and built several years after the 1956 Interstate Act was signed into law by President Eisenhower. I cannot speak for Delaware, but Maryland has never used one cent of federal tax money to maintain or improve their part of the original Northeast Expressway/JFK Highway (Exit 67 in White Marsh to the Delaware border beyond Exit 109).
IIRC, the reason why that stretch of I-95 was built as a toll road, despite it being designated as an Interstate from the get-go, was due to the need to expedite building it. A free I-95 in DE & MD would've likely taken longer to build due to limited funding.
The original tolling plan for I-95 in DE and the JFK Highway portion in MD was likely considered acceptable as it was essentially a southern extension of the coastal toll continuum (much of which was signed as I-95) of the CT Tpk, the New England section of the NYT, and the NJT. The traveling public was accustomed to toll facilities along the "Northeast Corridor"; deploying new ones even in the Interstate era was, at least in that region, simply a continuation of an already internalized practice; the fact that it enabled the corridor to be completed earlier was just icing on the cake!
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
My nominee for that title is the widening of I-95 and I-93 between Wellesley (MA) and Randolph (MA) at 44 years and counting. Initial design for that project began in 1974 (the work was a condition of the Feds allowing I-95 through Downtown Boston to be discontinued), and they're only just wrapping up construction on the final section.
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 13, 2018, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 13, 2018, 02:05:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2018, 06:15:41 AM
The latest news stories don't reference a date at all. I don't think there's anything on the PA Turnpike/95 site that references a date either. In the past I think there was a single, causal mention on the website of late August, which I don't believe is posted anymore.
And from a personal observation, it's no where close to being ready.
I've looked around the internet, and there's nothing concrete (pun not intended) I've been able to come up with. I've heard late 2018; don't know how that is going to work. Hope it's open before the weather turns sour.
I actually heard a radio commercial from PennDOT today about the route number changes stating the interchange would open in September.
Heard the tail end of that ad as well.
Quote from: roadman on August 14, 2018, 11:52:49 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
My nominee for that title is the widening of I-95 and I-93 between Wellesley (MA) and Randolph (MA) at 44 years and counting. Initial design for that project began in 1974 (the work was a condition of the Feds allowing I-95 through Downtown Boston to be discontinued), and they're only just wrapping up construction on the final section.
Off-topic side bar: the widening of I-95 between Woburn (I-93) and S. Lynnfield/Peabody (US 1)
still needs to be done. I'm assuming a similar promise was made to compensate for not building the originally-planned I-95 through Lynn & Saugus.
If one rides along the stretch between I-93 and Walnut St. in S. Lynnfield; one notices that the overpasses/underpasses were originally built to accommodate a future widening (eight travel lanes plus right shoulders). Why such wasn't done when that stretch was overhauled circa 1982 boggles the mind. Yes, the I-95/MA 128 interchange was still a few years away at the time and the US 1 overpasses would've eventually needed to be rebuilt to accommodate the additional lanes; but such would've moved the current lane-drop bottleneck further north/east and softened the current pressure points at the I-93 cloverleaf.
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
Well, there was the Blue Route (I-476) which took 37 years(?) to be completed (1956-1993).
Further west, it took ODOT almost 50 years(!) to get I-70/670 completed on the west side of Columbus (1956-2004)
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
:clap:
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
It's not (presently) in the Interstate system, but surely the slated-for-construction 132/99 split in Modesto counts if it was the originally planned 5W/5E junction right? :D (At least for delays, not so much the other stuff)
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
Is there something about having to go all the way around Trenton or take surface streets to get to/from the northeast that people in PA are OK with?
Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
Is there something about having to go all the way around Trenton or take surface streets to get to/from the northeast that people in PA are OK with?
Yes. This.
I can see people in the Bensalem/Langhorne area not having any issues with it, but anyone coming up from Philly, PHL, and points south have a little work to do.
The easiest way with fewest traffic lights would be 95 North to 1 North to 29 South to 195 East to the NJ Turnpike (2 lights total on 29).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2018, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
Is there something about having to go all the way around Trenton or take surface streets to get to/from the northeast that people in PA are OK with?
Yes. This.
I can see people in the Bensalem/Langhorne area not having any issues with it, but anyone coming up from Philly, PHL, and points south have a little work to do.
The easiest way with fewest traffic lights would be 95 North to 1 North to 29 South to 195 East to the NJ Turnpike (2 lights total on 29).
Right now, the quickest way from the Mid-Atlantic region to NYC and New England (or vice versa) is still 95-295-Delaware Memorial Bridge-NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 15, 2018, 02:05:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2018, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
Is there something about having to go all the way around Trenton or take surface streets to get to/from the northeast that people in PA are OK with?
Yes. This.
I can see people in the Bensalem/Langhorne area not having any issues with it, but anyone coming up from Philly, PHL, and points south have a little work to do.
The easiest way with fewest traffic lights would be 95 North to 1 North to 29 South to 195 East to the NJ Turnpike (2 lights total on 29).
Right now, the quickest way from the Mid-Atlantic region to NYC and New England (or vice versa) is still 95-295-Delaware Memorial Bridge-NJ Turnpike.
From Wilmington, DE and points south; yes.
But from Philadelpha (which is considered to be part of the Mid-Atlantic region, although the northernmost part) and points to the immediate north; no. Jeff's earlier-mentioned 95 (to now-295) to 1 in PA to 29 to 195 to NJTP is still the most direct route with the least amount of traffic lights (until the new connection opens).
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 15, 2018, 02:05:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2018, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
Is there something about having to go all the way around Trenton or take surface streets to get to/from the northeast that people in PA are OK with?
Yes. This.
I can see people in the Bensalem/Langhorne area not having any issues with it, but anyone coming up from Philly, PHL, and points south have a little work to do.
The easiest way with fewest traffic lights would be 95 North to 1 North to 29 South to 195 East to the NJ Turnpike (2 lights total on 29).
Right now, the quickest way from the Mid-Atlantic region to NYC and New England (or vice versa) is still 95-295-Delaware Memorial Bridge-NJ Turnpike.
In the future, the quickest way from the Mid-Atlantic region to NYC and New England (or vice versa) is still 95-295-Delaware Memorial Bridge-NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
How about extending that sentiment to getting Breezewood resolved...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2018, 03:10:07 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 15, 2018, 02:05:19 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2018, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 15, 2018, 01:37:50 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
Is there something about having to go all the way around Trenton or take surface streets to get to/from the northeast that people in PA are OK with?
Yes. This.
I can see people in the Bensalem/Langhorne area not having any issues with it, but anyone coming up from Philly, PHL, and points south have a little work to do.
The easiest way with fewest traffic lights would be 95 North to 1 North to 29 South to 195 East to the NJ Turnpike (2 lights total on 29).
Right now, the quickest way from the Mid-Atlantic region to NYC and New England (or vice versa) is still 95-295-Delaware Memorial Bridge-NJ Turnpike.
In the future, the quickest way from the Mid-Atlantic region to NYC and New England (or vice versa) is still 95-295-Delaware Memorial Bridge-NJ Turnpike.
And it will be, until the end of time.
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2018, 03:56:26 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 15, 2018, 03:31:19 AM
Quite frankly, I can't wait until the new I-95 movements are opened just so non-Pennsylvanians will shut the fuck up.
How about extending that sentiment to getting Breezewood resolved...
That'll take maybe another 50 years or so, if someone doesn't pick up on my recommendation of installing EZ-Pass only ramps on the bit of I-70 heading out of town towards Maryland.
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
Big Dig still says hello.
Quote from: Alps on August 15, 2018, 11:37:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
Big Dig still says hello.
For total duration from inception to completion, Big Dig doesn't even come close to the other projects mentioned. Sure, it had much controversy and issues (especially with management changes and funding). But it was designed and completed in a relatively short period of time.
Big Dig was in the planning phases very early on. Took years just to get it to a green light for actual design.
So what's the possibility of a partial opening in September? Say the northbound ramp for I-95 opens to the public before the southbound ramp? From pics and videos I've seen, it looks like the northbound (eastbound) side (at least on the Turnpike) looks like its farther along.
Quote from: Rothman on August 16, 2018, 09:42:47 AM
Big Dig was in the planning phases very early on. Took years just to get it to a green light for actual design.
Planning began in 1982 and the construction work was carried out between 1991 and 2006.
[Wikipedia]
That was my recollection as to when the concept was first adopted.
The Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T), known unofficially as the Big Dig, was a megaproject in Boston that rerouted the Central Artery of Interstate 93, the chief highway through the heart of the city, into the 1.5-mile (2.4 km) Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. Tunnel. The project also included the construction of the Ted Williams Tunnel (extending Interstate 90 to Logan International Airport), the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge over the Charles River, and the Rose Kennedy Greenway in the space vacated by the previous I-93 elevated roadway.
Quote from: Beltway on August 16, 2018, 11:57:38 AM
^^Actually,
talk of the
depression of the Central Artery dates back to the early 70s; right around the time then-Gov. Sargent imposed a moratorium on all highway construction within then-just-128 except for a short stretch of I-93 (that opened circa 1973). The cancellation of the proposed I-695/Inner Belt triggered discussing the need for a wider Central Artery so officials thought, at the time, they could kill two birds with one stone; build a wider Artery underground.
During the first term of the Dukakis Administration ('75-'79), plans were taking shape for just the Central Artery replacement (a tunneled version) but not what was then called the
Third Harbor Tunnel (such was proposed as far back as 1969 and would've ran along the Fort Point Channel).
However, Gov. King, who served '79-'83, placed the emphasis on the Third Tunnel and the depressed Artery concept was put on the back-burner. Some say that had he been re-elected for a second term (he lost in a primary rematch to Dukakis circa 1982); ground would've probably been broken for the Third Tunnel prior to him leaving office.
When Dukakis became governor again in 1983; planning for the tunneled Artery resumed, this time
including a re-aligned Third Harbor Tunnel (that became the Ted Williams Tunnel when it initially opened to commercial traffic circa 1995). Funding to build such didn't happen until 1987 when a highway bill containing such passed via an over-ride of a Presidential veto and the rest is history.
So the question would be when did the Central Artery / Third Harbor Tunnel Project (CA/THT) become an officially approved Interstate highway project by the state transportation board and the FHWA.
The fact that it was being discussed in 1972 likely doesn't meet that level.
Quote from: Beltway on August 16, 2018, 01:20:49 PM
So the question would be when did the Central Artery / Third Harbor Tunnel Project (CA/THT) become an officially approved Interstate highway project by the state transportation board and the FHWA.
The fact that it was being discussed in 1972 likely doesn't meet that level.
You're overthinking something exactly 4 people probably care about, and may not even be the definitive answer to the original question of which project has taken the longest. (I-287 in northern NJ might win that one for example.)
Quote from: TheStranger on August 15, 2018, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
It's not (presently) in the Interstate system, but surely the slated-for-construction 132/99 split in Modesto counts if it was the originally planned 5W/5E junction right? :D (At least for delays, not so much the other stuff)
Well, seeing as it's been
off the Interstate system for 60 years and counting, the short-term pressure was removed from this project. But with the rapid population increase in Modesto and environs, one would have thought that upgrading 132 west of town might have gotten a bit of interest. Perhaps the much shorter CA 120 Manteca bypass to the north provided a viable alternative; but now that
that facility is increasingly clogged with commuter traffic, perhaps CA 132 -- possibly all the way to the beginning of the freeway between I-580 and I-5 -- might yet be in line for at least a 4-lane expressway. But, I know, with Caltrans these days it's all "baby steps" in the beginning of a corridor concept; I suppose we all should consider it fortunate that even a mile-or-two stub is even in the queue!
Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 04:14:33 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 15, 2018, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2018, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 13, 2018, 12:06:08 AM
There was a suggestion in a Facebook post that the currently scheduled date won't be hit. Does anyone have a news story to back this up?
Question: does this project come close to setting a record for the most delayed, procrastinated, back-burnered, interjurisdictionally footballed, under-or-mis-funded, kick-it-down-the-road enterprise ever undertaken on or near the Interstate System? :-o
It's not (presently) in the Interstate system, but surely the slated-for-construction 132/99 split in Modesto counts if it was the originally planned 5W/5E junction right? :D (At least for delays, not so much the other stuff)
Well, seeing as it's been off the Interstate system for 60 years and counting, the short-term pressure was removed from this project. But with the rapid population increase in Modesto and environs, one would have thought that upgrading 132 west of town might have gotten a bit of interest. Perhaps the much shorter CA 120 Manteca bypass to the north provided a viable alternative; but now that that facility is increasingly clogged with commuter traffic, perhaps CA 132 -- possibly all the way to the beginning of the freeway between I-580 and I-5 -- might yet be in line for at least a 4-lane expressway. But, I know, with Caltrans these days it's all "baby steps" in the beginning of a corridor concept; I suppose we all should consider it fortunate that even a mile-or-two stub is even in the queue!
I'm surprised that the right of way was maintained for over 53 years, even when Modesto has become a bedroom community for Silicon Valley jobs! (Even considering the realities of how sentiment towards road construction in California changed significantly in the 1960s, it is amazing how prescient much of the 1950s freeway/expressway planning was, in retrospect)
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2018, 04:11:33 PM...the original question of which project has taken the longest. (I-287 in northern NJ might win that one for example.)
Looking through a couple of websites; the short piece of I-295 in NJ between Exits 57 (US 130) & 60 (I-195/NJ 29) was completed December of 1994 (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-295_denj.html) whereas I-287 was completed August (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-287-nj/) of that same year.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 16, 2018, 12:43:10 PMWhen Dukakis became governor again in 1983; planning for the tunneled Artery resumed, this time including a re-aligned Third Harbor Tunnel (that became the Ted Williams Tunnel when it initially opened to commercial traffic circa 1995). Funding to build such didn't happen until 1987 when a highway bill containing such passed via an over-ride of a Presidential veto and the rest is history.
And not just funding for the tunneled Artery, but the raising of the speed limit on rural Interstates to 65 mph IIRC. Also IIRC, the bill was overridden in the Senate with exactly the 67 votes needed, and only because Terry Sanford (D-NC) changed his mind and voted to override. (All I remember about the bill was the speed limit rising and Reagan calling it a "budget buster" as he vetoed it. I didn't know that the Big Dig was included until I saw a
Modern Marvels ep about the project years later.)
I always called that vote "the 65 mph override".
ixnay
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 16, 2018, 05:17:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2018, 04:11:33 PM...the original question of which project has taken the longest. (I-287 in northern NJ might win that one for example.)
Looking through a couple of websites; the short piece of I-295 in NJ between Exits 57 (US 130) & 60 (I-195/NJ 29) was completed December of 1994 (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-295_denj.html) whereas I-287 was completed August (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-287-nj/) of that same year.
Well the question is, when did they first start designing the gap completion in I-295? I-287 was pretty much set in stone from the late 60s - designed and everything.
Quote from: ixnay on August 16, 2018, 09:35:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 16, 2018, 12:43:10 PMWhen Dukakis became governor again in 1983; planning for the tunneled Artery resumed, this time including a re-aligned Third Harbor Tunnel (that became the Ted Williams Tunnel when it initially opened to commercial traffic circa 1995). Funding to build such didn't happen until 1987 when a highway bill containing such passed via an over-ride of a Presidential veto and the rest is history.
And not just funding for the tunneled Artery, but the raising of the speed limit on rural Interstates to 65 mph IIRC. Also IIRC, the bill was overridden in the Senate with exactly the 67 votes needed, and only because Terry Sanford (D-NC) changed his mind and voted to override. (All I remember about the bill was the speed limit rising and Reagan calling it a "budget buster" as he vetoed it. I didn't know that the Big Dig was included until I saw a Modern Marvels ep about the project years later.)
I always called that vote "the 65 mph override".
ixnay
I'm well aware of that part of the bill too (I first received my driver's license five years prior). The only reason why I didn't mention such was due to it not being relevant to this already OT-tangent. The increase was added to the bill as a means to persuade President Reagan to sign it. He wouldn't bite; his reasoning for his veto was indeed the (excessive) amount of money being allocated to
one project (Boston's Big Dig).
___________________________________________
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2018, 11:41:24 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 16, 2018, 05:17:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2018, 04:11:33 PM...the original question of which project has taken the longest. (I-287 in northern NJ might win that one for example.)
Looking through a couple of websites; the short piece of I-295 in NJ between Exits 57 (US 130) & 60 (I-195/NJ 29) was completed December of 1994 (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-295_denj.html) whereas I-287 was completed August (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-287-nj/) of that same year.
Well the question is, when did they first start designing the gap completion in I-295? I-287 was pretty much set in stone from the late 60s - designed and everything.
Guess on my part, probably when the rest of I-295 in NJ was designed & planned. The likely reason for that leg being the last to be completed was due to it going through what was later viewed as an environmentally sensitive area coupled with increased regulations & permitting. While the road corridor & interchanges themselves
likely didn't change too much in terms of design & layout over the decades; the adjacent areas alongside did in terms of environmental mitigation & remediation efforts.
____________________________________________________
In an effort to steer the thread back on topic; according to this article (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-20/after-60-years-i-95-is-complete), the interchange is slated to be open on Sept. 24.
Quote from: Bloomberg ArticleThe Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, which oversees the I-95 Interchange Project, said the new infrastructure–which includes the creation of flyover ramps, toll plaza facilities, environmental mitigation sites, intersections, six overhead bridges, widened highways and new connections to the New Jersey and Pennsylvania turnpikes–will be open to the public by Sept. 24.
Here's a similar article from a more
local source.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2018, 12:14:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2018, 11:41:24 PM
Well the question is, when did they first start designing the gap completion in I-295? I-287 was pretty much set in stone from the late 60s - designed and everything.
Guess on my part, probably when the rest of I-295 in NJ was designed & planned. The likely reason for that leg being the last to be completed was due to it going through what was later viewed as an environmentally sensitive area coupled with increased regulations & permitting. While the road corridor & interchanges themselves likely didn't change too much in terms of design & layout over the decades; the adjacent areas alongside did in terms of environmental mitigation & remediation efforts.
The unbuilt segments of I-295, I-195 and NJ-29, about 4 miles, 3 miles and 4 miles respectively, and their connection interchange, were collectively called the Trenton Complex by the project engineers. Delays due to environmental issues as you said, plus the design issues to provide an adequate traffic capacity and connections.
I think that the I-295 alignment planned from the 1970s changed little or not at all, but the long bridge thru wetlands along the river was a later design, as in the 1970s they probably would have built it on fill embankment.
Quote from: Beltway on August 21, 2018, 09:58:55 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2018, 12:14:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2018, 11:41:24 PM
Well the question is, when did they first start designing the gap completion in I-295? I-287 was pretty much set in stone from the late 60s - designed and everything.
Guess on my part, probably when the rest of I-295 in NJ was designed & planned. The likely reason for that leg being the last to be completed was due to it going through what was later viewed as an environmentally sensitive area coupled with increased regulations & permitting. While the road corridor & interchanges themselves likely didn't change too much in terms of design & layout over the decades; the adjacent areas alongside did in terms of environmental mitigation & remediation efforts.
The unbuilt segments of I-295, I-195 and NJ-29, about 4 miles, 3 miles and 4 miles respectively, and their connection interchange, were collectively called the Trenton Complex by the project engineers. Delays due to environmental issues as you said, plus the design issues to provide an adequate traffic capacity and connections.
I think that the I-295 alignment planned from the 1970s changed little or not at all, but the long bridge thru wetlands along the river was a later design, as in the 1970s they probably would have built it on fill embankment.
In the state library I recalled seeing plans for the 295/195/29 interchange as originally designed in the 1960's. You're right - those plans from back then were still basically the same plans used when they actually built the interchange. It was actually a bit interesting, as back in the 60's I-95 was still on the books, and in the late 80's/early 90's it wasn't. Yet, they still built the connections to/from 295 and 195 as 1 lane ramps, even though traffic patterns no doubt differed from what was originally envisioned.
Also, without the interchange, there was a 2 lane connector between 195 and 295, which eventually became the 1 lane ramp from 195 West to 295 North. I wished they kept the pavement down and made this ramp 2 lanes as traffic volumes seem to warrant such at times.
I got a response from i95link.com, and they reached out to PennDOT and confirmed that they will be updating their internal designation of the Turnpike east of the interchange to SR 7095.
One month till I-95 is one continuous highway, but who's counting?
Is there a time of day set for the opening, or just the day itself?
A quick update (no photos yet):
The I-95/PA 413 interchange is now Exit 39 from I-95 northbound (was Exit 40). Along what is now I-295 westbound, the exit number still says 40, but there are other overhead signs that are covered that look like they refer to the same exit. I wonder if they will carry the I-95 exit (39) or be I-295 Exit 1, since the proposed ramp exits prior to the I-95 merge.
I Street Viewed the interchange, and there's an "Exit 40" tab with an obviously covered up "Exit 39." Also, it shows Trenton as I-95's NB control city with some things covered up. (The image is from September of last year.)
I also found new (from April of this year) SV pictures of the US 13 interchange on the turnpike. There's plenty of covered-up signage, but I can't spot the "Exit 358" tabs covering up what should obviously be "Exit 42" tabs.
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 29, 2018, 01:11:08 AM
I Street Viewed the interchange, and there's an "Exit 40" tab with an obviously covered up "Exit 39." Also, it shows Trenton as I-95's NB control city with some things covered up. (The image is from September of last year.)
I also found new (from April of this year) SV pictures of the US 13 interchange on the turnpike. There's plenty of covered-up signage, but I can't spot the "Exit 358" tabs covering up what should obviously be "Exit 42" tabs.
Where's the signs with covered Exit 39? All I see from the most recent NB Street View are the newish (from around 2012) Clearview signs that don't seem to have been designed for the new interchange at all.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2018, 08:22:24 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 29, 2018, 01:11:08 AM
I Street Viewed the interchange, and there's an "Exit 40" tab with an obviously covered up "Exit 39." Also, it shows Trenton as I-95's NB control city with some things covered up. (The image is from September of last year.)
I also found new (from April of this year) SV pictures of the US 13 interchange on the turnpike. There's plenty of covered-up signage, but I can't spot the "Exit 358" tabs covering up what should obviously be "Exit 42" tabs.
Where's the signs with covered Exit 39? All I see from the most recent NB Street View are the newish (from around 2012) Clearview signs that don't seem to have been designed for the new interchange at all.
I do now have a photo to offer, which was taken late last week. The existing signs (in front) have been taken down -- the covered portion at the bottom of the right panel was an "Exit Only" banner, which has not applied during construction. Looks like the new sign will still advise of an Exit Only situation, as yellow showed through when I passed under it on a windier day.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1860/43627588934_4da1c83160_b.jpg)
Any exit number overlays on existing signs in this sequence on StreetView from that era would have covered the original exit number 26. The downstream supplemental guide sign for the Turnpike (which I did not photograph) has also now been overlaid with Exit 39 -- this happened since last Friday.
As for the Exit 358 signs, on my last few trips that way, I could not tell that the exit numbers are overlaid, but it would not surprise me if they were.
Quote from: akotchi on August 29, 2018, 10:06:40 AMI do now have a photo to offer, which was taken late last week. The existing signs (in front) have been taken down -- the covered portion at the bottom of the right panel was an "Exit Only" banner, which has not applied during construction. Looks like the new sign will still advise of an Exit Only situation, as yellow showed through when I passed under it on a windier day.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1860/43627588934_4da1c83160_b.jpg)
Any exit number overlays on existing signs in this sequence on StreetView from that era would have covered the original exit number 26.
I'm more curious to know what the legend for the covered BGS on the left is. Given its close proximity to the new interchange (new Exit 40), one has to wonder if a
TO 295 legend is included. Had all the ramp to I-276 westbound been built; the through-BGS could've included an I-276 shield as well.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2018, 11:25:10 AM
Quote from: akotchi on August 29, 2018, 10:06:40 AMI do now have a photo to offer, which was taken late last week. The existing signs (in front) have been taken down -- the covered portion at the bottom of the right panel was an "Exit Only" banner, which has not applied during construction. Looks like the new sign will still advise of an Exit Only situation, as yellow showed through when I passed under it on a windier day.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1860/43627588934_4da1c83160_b.jpg)
Any exit number overlays on existing signs in this sequence on StreetView from that era would have covered the original exit number 26.
I'm more curious to know what the legend for the covered BGS on the left is. Given its close proximity to the new interchange (new Exit 40), one has to wonder if a TO 295 legend is included. Had all the ramp to I-276 westbound been built; the through-BGS could've included an I-276 shield as well.
I would think it'll just say "95 North - New York". It should be treated just like any other pull-thru sign here. 295 at this location isn't really important, and signage further north will start to denote the exit for 295.
^^ Besides, there is an existing supplemental guide sign between the 2-mile and 1-mile advance guide signs providing direction to I-276/Pa Tpk. and Burlington-Bristol Bridge via Pa. 413. The exit number has been patched over to reflect the new Exit 39, so that sign is probably not going anywhere.
Both the 2-mile and 1-mile signs have been replaced with new panels and structures, with a covered panel alongside. The sign previously pictured (with the 2-mile) is probably a pull-through panel -- not sure why covered. The other sign, pictured below (with the 1-mile), may be the first advance guide sign for I-295. The installation may not have been complete when the photo was taken.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1873/43630681834_62ed0044d5_b.jpg)
Next question: When you're getting on the PA Turnpike, at the bottom of the guide signs after the toll plaza, they list the exits from the next exit to the end of the road (X-359 EB, X-2 WB.) I assume that will largely stay the same, or will they have to change the EB exits to X-353 (the Neshaminy Falls toll plaza) or 44, or something?
Interesting point, which I did not even think of . . . there would be potentially quite a number of signs to change!
Just guessing . . . Since the only way to access this end from any signs marked with 359 is eastbound, it would probably have to be changed to 353. Current 358 (future 42?) would be considered outside the toll system (ticket or barrier).
Internally, 359 may still exist for the AET gantry WB entering Pennsylvania -- my E-ZPass statement may tell me that -- but no signing would note that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2018, 12:08:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2018, 11:25:10 AM
Quote from: akotchi on August 29, 2018, 10:06:40 AMI do now have a photo to offer, which was taken late last week. The existing signs (in front) have been taken down -- the covered portion at the bottom of the right panel was an "Exit Only" banner, which has not applied during construction. Looks like the new sign will still advise of an Exit Only situation, as yellow showed through when I passed under it on a windier day.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1860/43627588934_4da1c83160_b.jpg)
Any exit number overlays on existing signs in this sequence on StreetView from that era would have covered the original exit number 26.
I'm more curious to know what the legend for the covered BGS on the left is. Given its close proximity to the new interchange (new Exit 40), one has to wonder if a TO 295 legend is included. Had all the ramp to I-276 westbound been built; the through-BGS could've included an I-276 shield as well.
I would think it'll just say "95 North - New York". It should be treated just like any other pull-thru sign here. 295 at this location isn't really important, and signage further north will start to denote the exit for 295.
It certainly is sized for such. However, given that the lane-drop from 6-lanes to 4-lanes will ultimately occur at the new interchange; IMHO, providing a pull-through BGS at this location let alone this interchange (PA 413) is no longer necessary.
Quote from: akotchi on August 29, 2018, 01:13:37 PMInternally, 359 may still exist for the AET gantry WB entering Pennsylvania -- my E-ZPass statement may tell me that -- but no signing would note that.
The current E-ZPass/Toll-By-Plate schedule for that area (https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/tolls/tolls_2018/DRB/DRB_tollbyplate_ezpass.pdf) still lists the westbound AET gantry as Exit 359. No doubt that next year's toll schedules (containing increases), coming out this January, will have any revised numbers.
I-95 NB won't drop to two lanes at new Exit 39, right? It seems like the pictured sign might have a covered-up "Exit Only".
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2018, 01:32:47 PM
I-95 NB won't drop to two lanes at new Exit 39, right? It seems like the pictured sign might have a covered-up "Exit Only".
The covered portion on the sign on the right indeed is a yellow
EXIT ONLY with a downward arrow.
Nonetheless, the interchange project includes widening of I-95 from 4-lanes to 6 from PA 413 to the new interchange.
My
guess would be that this portion of I-95 northbound will be 4-lanes (one-way) with the far-right one being for Exit 39 (PA 413). Such isn't unlike what was done further south in Northeast Philly approaching the Academy Rd. interchange (Exit 32).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2018, 02:07:31 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2018, 01:32:47 PM
I-95 NB won't drop to two lanes at new Exit 39, right? It seems like the pictured sign might have a covered-up "Exit Only".
The covered portion on the sign on the right indeed is a yellow EXIT ONLY with a downward arrow.
Nonetheless, the interchange project includes widening of I-95 from 4-lanes to 6 from PA 413 to the new interchange.
My guess would be that this portion of I-95 northbound will be 4-lanes (one-way) with the far-right one being for Exit 39 (PA 413). Such isn't unlike what was done further south in Northeast Philly approaching the Academy Rd. interchange (Exit 32).
I checked the Mapbox Satellite imagery usable in JOSM, which is the newest imagery I've seen of the interchange area. It seems to suggest that the NB right lane crossing the Neshaminy Creek will indeed drop, but that immediately after the bridge a new left lane will form, effectively having the left two lanes of I-95 feed directly onto the new ramp. The new left lane would probably be extended south if they replace/widen the creek bridges.
The project's website does indeed mention that I-95 will be widened between Neshaminy Creek (south of the PA 413 interchange) and the Turnpike connection. Such is no-brainer.
Interesting, the old signs are in Clearview and the new ones behind it are in FWHA.
Quote from: artmalk on August 29, 2018, 07:27:53 PM
Interesting, the old signs are in Clearview and the new ones behind it are in FWHA.
PennDOT and the PTC started using Highway Gothic again right away when the interim approval was yanked, and they haven't shown any sign (heh) of switching back, except for the occasional Clearview sign from an old enough project like the 83-283 Turnpike widening.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2018, 04:01:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2018, 02:07:31 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2018, 01:32:47 PM
I-95 NB won't drop to two lanes at new Exit 39, right? It seems like the pictured sign might have a covered-up "Exit Only".
The covered portion on the sign on the right indeed is a yellow EXIT ONLY with a downward arrow.
Nonetheless, the interchange project includes widening of I-95 from 4-lanes to 6 from PA 413 to the new interchange.
My guess would be that this portion of I-95 northbound will be 4-lanes (one-way) with the far-right one being for Exit 39 (PA 413). Such isn't unlike what was done further south in Northeast Philly approaching the Academy Rd. interchange (Exit 32).
I checked the Mapbox Satellite imagery usable in JOSM, which is the newest imagery I've seen of the interchange area. It seems to suggest that the NB right lane crossing the Neshaminy Creek will indeed drop, but that immediately after the bridge a new left lane will form, effectively having the left two lanes of I-95 feed directly onto the new ramp. The new left lane would probably be extended south if they replace/widen the creek bridges.
If on 95 North, the two right lanes feed 95 onto the PA Turnpike.
Quote from: akotchi on August 29, 2018, 10:06:40 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2018, 08:22:24 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on August 29, 2018, 01:11:08 AM
I Street Viewed the interchange, and there's an "Exit 40" tab with an obviously covered up "Exit 39." Also, it shows Trenton as I-95's NB control city with some things covered up. (The image is from September of last year.)
I also found new (from April of this year) SV pictures of the US 13 interchange on the turnpike. There's plenty of covered-up signage, but I can't spot the "Exit 358" tabs covering up what should obviously be "Exit 42" tabs.
Where's the signs with covered Exit 39? All I see from the most recent NB Street View are the newish (from around 2012) Clearview signs that don't seem to have been designed for the new interchange at all.
I do now have a photo to offer, which was taken late last week. The existing signs (in front) have been taken down -- the covered portion at the bottom of the right panel was an "Exit Only" banner, which has not applied during construction. Looks like the new sign will still advise of an Exit Only situation, as yellow showed through when I passed under it on a windier day.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1860/43627588934_4da1c83160_b.jpg)
Any exit number overlays on existing signs in this sequence on StreetView from that era would have covered the original exit number 26. The downstream supplemental guide sign for the Turnpike (which I did not photograph) has also now been overlaid with Exit 39 -- this happened since last Friday.
As for the Exit 358 signs, on my last few trips that way, I could not tell that the exit numbers are overlaid, but it would not surprise me if they were.
They are overlaid. Makes it a lot easier to update with the new 95 exit numbers once the ramps open.
Quote from: artmalk on August 29, 2018, 07:27:53 PMInteresting, the old signs are in Clearview and the new ones behind it are in FWHA.
Not to mention that the PA 413 shield on the new sign has its numerals in the proper position (the shield on the old sign has the numerals too low). :thumbsup:
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 08:26:40 AM
Quote from: artmalk on August 29, 2018, 07:27:53 PMInteresting, the old signs are in Clearview and the new ones behind it are in FWHA.
Not to mention that the PA 413 shield on the new sign has its numerals in the proper position (the shield on the old sign has the numerals too low). :thumbsup:
Yes, unless some fabricator messes up, PennDOT vertically centers the numerals between the top and bottom of the entire keystone, not just the top and bottom of the lower portion. When I was but a wee lad I thought that looked odd, but it long ago became normal to me.
Quote from: qguy on September 01, 2018, 10:03:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 08:26:40 AM
Quote from: artmalk on August 29, 2018, 07:27:53 PMInteresting, the old signs are in Clearview and the new ones behind it are in FWHA.
Not to mention that the PA 413 shield on the new sign has its numerals in the proper position (the shield on the old sign has the numerals too low). :thumbsup:
Yes, unless some fabricator messes up, PennDOT vertically centers the numerals between the top and bottom of the entire keystone, not just the top and bottom of the lower portion. When I was but a wee lad I thought that looked odd, but it long ago became normal to me.
Why do they do that? I always assumed it was intended to be centered on the main portion of the keystone. What's the point in squashing it up there? The top thingy is more of an artistic element, plus it makes the text look off-center.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 01, 2018, 07:37:44 PM
Quote from: qguy on September 01, 2018, 10:03:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 08:26:40 AM
Quote from: artmalk on August 29, 2018, 07:27:53 PMInteresting, the old signs are in Clearview and the new ones behind it are in FWHA.
Not to mention that the PA 413 shield on the new sign has its numerals in the proper position (the shield on the old sign has the numerals too low). :thumbsup:
Yes, unless some fabricator messes up, PennDOT vertically centers the numerals between the top and bottom of the entire keystone, not just the top and bottom of the lower portion. When I was but a wee lad I thought that looked odd, but it long ago became normal to me.
Why do they do that? I always assumed it was intended to be centered on the main portion of the keystone. What's the point in squashing it up there? The top thingy is more of an artistic element, plus it makes the text look off-center.
The "top thingy" is there because whole thing represents a keystone symbol, so it's more than an artistic element.
I tried to see what any other state with a special route marker does and closest I could find was Wisconsin, but they center it without their "top thingy": www.routemarkers.com/states/
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 01, 2018, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 01, 2018, 07:37:44 PM
Quote from: qguy on September 01, 2018, 10:03:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 08:26:40 AM
Quote from: artmalk on August 29, 2018, 07:27:53 PMInteresting, the old signs are in Clearview and the new ones behind it are in FWHA.
Not to mention that the PA 413 shield on the new sign has its numerals in the proper position (the shield on the old sign has the numerals too low). :thumbsup:
Yes, unless some fabricator messes up, PennDOT vertically centers the numerals between the top and bottom of the entire keystone, not just the top and bottom of the lower portion. When I was but a wee lad I thought that looked odd, but it long ago became normal to me.
Why do they do that? I always assumed it was intended to be centered on the main portion of the keystone. What's the point in squashing it up there? The top thingy is more of an artistic element, plus it makes the text look off-center.
The "top thingy" is there because whole thing represents a keystone symbol, so it's more than an artistic element.
I tried to see what any other state with a special route marker does and closest I could find was Wisconsin, but they center it without their "top thingy": www.routemarkers.com/states/
Yea I understand what the keystone is and what the design is. I just think that not centering the text on the bottom portion makes the text look
un-centered.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 01, 2018, 08:21:10 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 01, 2018, 08:06:35 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 01, 2018, 07:37:44 PM
Quote from: qguy on September 01, 2018, 10:03:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 08:26:40 AM
Quote from: artmalk on August 29, 2018, 07:27:53 PMInteresting, the old signs are in Clearview and the new ones behind it are in FWHA.
Not to mention that the PA 413 shield on the new sign has its numerals in the proper position (the shield on the old sign has the numerals too low). :thumbsup:
Yes, unless some fabricator messes up, PennDOT vertically centers the numerals between the top and bottom of the entire keystone, not just the top and bottom of the lower portion. When I was but a wee lad I thought that looked odd, but it long ago became normal to me.
Why do they do that? I always assumed it was intended to be centered on the main portion of the keystone. What's the point in squashing it up there? The top thingy is more of an artistic element, plus it makes the text look off-center.
The "top thingy" is there because whole thing represents a keystone symbol, so it's more than an artistic element.
I tried to see what any other state with a special route marker does and closest I could find was Wisconsin, but they center it without their "top thingy": www.routemarkers.com/states/
Yea I understand what the keystone is and what the design is. I just think that not centering the text on the bottom portion makes the text look un-centered.
I still feel like it makes more sense to have the number centered on the whole shield but I have spent a lot of time in PA so I'm used to it being that way - having it centered on the bottom part only looks weird and actually doesn't look centered to me.
Seen in my travels this weekend . . . There are portable VMS out proclaiming that the Turnpike will be closed between Exits 351 and 358 and I-95(/I-295) will be closed between Route 413 and U.S. 1 Business on September 22 between midnight and 4:00 a.m.
Fair warning for anyone who may choose to travel to this area for the opening a day or two later . . .
Quote from: akotchi on September 03, 2018, 04:11:57 PM
Seen in my travels this weekend . . . There are portable VMS out proclaiming that the Turnpike will be closed between Exits 351 and 358 and I-95(/I-295) will be closed between Route 413 and U.S. 1 Business on September 22 between midnight and 4:00 a.m.
Fair warning for anyone who may choose to travel to this area for the opening a day or two later . . .
Sounds in line with what I'm hearing, that the connections will open on the 24th.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2018, 04:41:57 PM
Here's a similar article from a more local source (http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/20180820/after-60-years-i-95-is-complete).
I drove the NJ Tpke from the NYC area all the way down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge at least a couple of times from 1998-2004. IIRC, the northern portion was I-95, but there was no signage that indicated at what point the Tpke stopped being I-95. Is my recollection correct?
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 02:59:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2018, 04:41:57 PM
Here's a similar article from a more local source (http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/20180820/after-60-years-i-95-is-complete).
I drove the NJ Tpke from the NYC area all the way down to the Delaware Memorial Bridge at least a couple of times from 1998-2004. IIRC, the northern portion was I-95, but there was no signage that indicated at what point the Tpke stopped being I-95. Is my recollection correct?
Correct. Not only that, but the signage stopped before the designation stopped. I-95 officially went down to Exit 6 of the Turnpike, but there was nothing indicating such south of Exit 9, and I believe it was nearly completely unsigned north of Exit 9 as well.
Thanks.
One issue I didn't understand about the gap from was that it didn't prevent you from continuing south on a highway.
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 04:48:41 PMOne issue I didn't understand about the gap from was that it didn't prevent you from continuing south on a highway.
No but it did prevent one from having all-highway access between NYC & Philadelphia.
What about the Pearl Harbor Extension?
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
What about the Pearl Harbor Extension?
The what? No, seriously, nobody calls it that. I had to look it up to find out that you're talking about the NJ Turnpike (I-95) to I-276. In any case, the current lack of an interchange means you can't turn south from there to go into the city on a freeway.
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
What about the Pearl Harbor Extension?
Has not been signed as I-95 to date, but is about to be.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2018, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 04:48:41 PMOne issue I didn't understand about the gap from was that it didn't prevent you from continuing south on a highway.
No but it did prevent one from having all-highway access between NYC & Philadelphia.
NJ Turnpike South to Exit 7A to 195 West to 295 South to 76 West.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2018, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2018, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 04:48:41 PMOne issue I didn't understand about the gap from was that it didn't prevent you from continuing south on a highway.
No but it did prevent one from having all-highway access between NYC & Philadelphia.
NJ Turnpike South to Exit 7A to 195 West to 295 South to 76 West.
"I took the all-freeway route from NYC to Philly" said no one ever.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2018, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2018, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 04:48:41 PMOne issue I didn't understand about the gap from was that it didn't prevent you from continuing south on a highway.
No but it did prevent one from having all-highway access between NYC & Philadelphia.
NJ Turnpike South to Exit 7A to 195 West to 295 South to 76 West.
Haven't we been through this ad nauseum already? The predicament is usually (and accurately) expressed as "no
direct highway access between Phila and NYC." Sure, there's a roundabout highway path to get between the two, but it puts you into south Phila. You can't get from NYC to the nearest part of Philadelphia, northeast Phila.
Quote from: qguy on September 05, 2018, 07:37:29 AM
Sure, there's a roundabout highway path to get between the two
Taking that a bit more literally, there is also another option (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Philadelphia,+PA/New+York,+NY/@40.3963566,-75.0983093,9.27z/data=!4m24!4m23!1m15!1m1!1s0x89c6b7d8d4b54beb:0x89f514d88c3e58c1!2m2!1d-75.1652215!2d39.9525839!3m4!1m2!1d-74.7666333!2d40.2898678!3s0x89c3e2c9061377c7:0xca23fc3e424549c0!3m4!1m2!1d-74.6476607!2d40.2028793!3s0x89c15eefffe8fc57:0xaed5c2d7ab0a9152!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!3e0). :D
Quote from: qguy on September 05, 2018, 07:37:29 AM
Haven't we been through this ad nauseum already? The predicament is usually (and accurately) expressed as "no direct highway access between Phila and NYC." Sure, there's a roundabout highway path to get between the two, but it puts you into south Phila. You can't get from NYC to the nearest part of Philadelphia, northeast Phila.
To/from Center City it would involve backtracking via I-676, I-76 and I-295. That whole area from Center City thru Northeast Philadelphia is a huge area that is much better served by a connection between I-95 and the PA Turnpike when connecting to I-95 north, NYC, New England, etc.
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 06:52:01 PMWhat about the Pearl Harbor Extension?
As others have mentioned, there's no direct connection between that and the Delaware Expressway; but that will change come Sept. 24; hence, the purpose of this meet.
While others have pointed out several other alternative highway routings between Philly & NYC; one needs to keep in mind that prior to 1994, many of those routings that involved using I-195 & I-295 weren't yet completed/present. Such was the reasoning behind selecting the Turnpike Connector as the
de-facto I-95 circa 1982. It was
naively thought that the interchange in PA would be completed prior to those I-195/295 segments.
Quote from: qguy on September 05, 2018, 07:37:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2018, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2018, 04:54:01 PM
Quote from: jon daly on September 04, 2018, 04:48:41 PMOne issue I didn't understand about the gap from was that it didn't prevent you from continuing south on a highway.
No but it did prevent one from having all-highway access between NYC & Philadelphia.
NJ Turnpike South to Exit 7A to 195 West to 295 South to 76 West.
Haven't we been through this ad nauseum already? The predicament is usually (and accurately) expressed as "no direct highway access between Phila and NYC." Sure, there's a roundabout highway path to get between the two, but it puts you into south Phila. You can't get from NYC to the nearest part of Philadelphia, northeast Phila.
Yes, we have.
But you're also thinking of solely one route - I-95 - and thinking solely of a very, very specific area of Northeast Philly near the Delaware River. US 1 also runs thru Northeast Philly and connects directly into the PA Turnpike already. In fact, the border from Northeast Philly to the PA Turnpike is only a mile. You're correct in that there's no direct highway route from the north THRU Northeast Philly towards Center City Philly. But there is, and always has been, direct access to Northeast Philly.
But there's always going to be issues getting from/to certain areas of cities. We can say the same thing about Washington DC that there's no direct highway access to much of the city if you're coming from the north.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 09:29:24 AM
But you're also thinking of solely one route - I-95 - and thinking solely of a very, very specific area of Northeast Philly near the Delaware River.
A huge swath of population and business and industry along the I-95 corridor from Center City to Bensalem.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 09:29:24 AM
US 1 also runs thru Northeast Philly and connects directly into the PA Turnpike already. In fact, the border from Northeast Philly to the PA Turnpike is only a mile. You're correct in that there's no direct highway route from the north THRU Northeast Philly towards Center City Philly. But there is, and always has been, direct access to Northeast Philly.
Not direct -freeway- access to I-95 north in New Jersey. Other options involve 6 to 15 miles of extra routings on already busy freeways, and Roosevelt Blvd. is not a freeway.
Quote from: qguy on September 05, 2018, 07:37:29 AMHaven't we been through this ad nauseum already?
Yes, per this other thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.1650).
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2018, 09:39:33 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 09:29:24 AM
But you're also thinking of solely one route - I-95 - and thinking solely of a very, very specific area of Northeast Philly near the Delaware River.
A huge swath of population and business and industry along the I-95 corridor from Center City to Bensalem.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 09:29:24 AM
US 1 also runs thru Northeast Philly and connects directly into the PA Turnpike already. In fact, the border from Northeast Philly to the PA Turnpike is only a mile. You're correct in that there's no direct highway route from the north THRU Northeast Philly towards Center City Philly. But there is, and always has been, direct access to Northeast Philly.
Not direct -freeway- access to I-95 north in New Jersey. Other options involve 6 to 15 miles of extra routings on already busy freeways, and Roosevelt Blvd. is not a freeway.
I'm just pointing out that yes, there's direct access to Northeast Philly. If you want to locate individual properties in specific sections of the city and say they don't have freeway access, then you're welcome to do so. But the fact is you can take I-95 to Exit 6 of the NJ Turnpike, cross over to the PA Turnpike, and exit at US 1. Go one mile, and you're in Northeast Philly.
If you're at Northeast Philly airport, it will still be more direct to take US 1 to the PA Turnpike. If you're at Torresdale Hospital, then 95 will be more direct once the interchange is open. The two are only a mile or two apart in Northeast Philly; it all depends where your destination is located.
And yes, because people like to volley back and forth, if anyone continues to say direct access thru the Northeast to Center City, yes, it will be more direct. Will it be faster? That's subject to debate, depending on traffic. Will it be cheaper? Absolutely not. It will cost you about $2 more in tolls to go the new direct all-highway route than today's shortest all-direct highway route.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 10:55:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 05, 2018, 09:39:33 AM
Not direct -freeway- access to I-95 north in New Jersey. Other options involve 6 to 15 miles of extra routings on already busy freeways, and Roosevelt Blvd. is not a freeway.
I'm just pointing out that yes, there's direct access to Northeast Philly. If you want to locate individual properties in specific sections of the city and say they don't have freeway access, then you're welcome to do so. But the fact is you can take I-95 to Exit 6 of the NJ Turnpike, cross over to the PA Turnpike, and exit at US 1. Go one mile, and you're in Northeast Philly.
No direct *FREEWAY* access to I-95. Freeway networks exist for a reason, and they have far more capacity than a surface road.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 10:55:22 AM
If you're at Northeast Philly airport, it will still be more direct to take US 1 to the PA Turnpike. If you're at Torresdale Hospital, then 95 will be more direct once the interchange is open. The two are only a mile or two apart in Northeast Philly; it all depends where your destination is located.
Nevertheless, the PA I-95 corridor CC/Northeast has by far the greatest concentration of businesses and industries.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2018, 10:55:22 AM
And yes, because people like to volley back and forth, if anyone continues to say direct access thru the Northeast to Center City, yes, it will be more direct. Will it be faster? That's subject to debate, depending on traffic. Will it be cheaper? Absolutely not. It will cost you about $2 more in tolls to go the new direct all-highway route than today's shortest all-direct highway route.
How do you figure that? If you are referring to Roosevelt Blvd., I would not call that a 'highway', and you have to use a longer section of PA Turnpike to get to it than with the new I-95 connection.
If anyone's interested in seeing some pictures of signs and construction from a ride from New Jersey 31 onto (now) I-295 into Pennsylvania and down through the construction site for the new interchange, you can check out the first several pictures on the page below. They're from August 14.
http://www.teresco.org/pics/florida-20180814-22/14/roads.html
it will never not strike me as odd to see "295 NORTH / Philadelphia" and "295 SOUTH / Princeton" in the same place.
Yes, thanks to the PTC, PA finally has a Interstate x95 that is not only in the Keystone State but of the Commonwealth. (As has been noted elsewhere on these boards, SB I-495 takes leave of SB I-95 just before entering DE, rendering that roadway in PA but not of it).
ixnay
Is Trenton now signed as US 1's NB control city all the way from Street Road, or just from I-295?
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 06, 2018, 09:39:26 AM
Is Trenton now signed as US 1's NB control city all the way from Street Road, or just from I-295?
To my knowledge, nothing south of I-295 has changed (except for the I-295 BGS). Pull-throughs at Street Road and Bus. U.S. 1 still say Morrisville, as do U.S. 1 BGS on Street Road. Can't speak for smaller destination signs at the other interchanges, like Route 213.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 01, 2018, 08:21:10 PMYea I understand what the keystone is and what the design is. I just think that not centering the text on the bottom portion makes the text look un-centered.
Centering the digits on the whole shield, rather than just the lower portion, expands the room that is available for them, and in practice allows more space padding to improve readability. Most states that don't center digits vertically on their state route shields, like Minnesota, Maryland, Tennessee, and Colorado, have a "rectangle" somewhere in the design that serves as a well-defined message space for them, while others like Virginia and California would have to accept smaller message spaces if they tried to center digits vertically.
Quote from: ixnay on September 06, 2018, 06:11:09 AM
Yes, thanks to the PTC, PA finally has a Interstate x95 that is not only in the Keystone State but of the Commonwealth. (As has been noted elsewhere on these boards, SB I-495 takes leave of SB I-95 just before entering DE, rendering that roadway in PA but not of it).
There have been arguments either way on I-495, but I-295 most definitely now has a major presence in PA.
Quote from: Beltway on September 06, 2018, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: ixnay on September 06, 2018, 06:11:09 AM
Yes, thanks to the PTC, PA finally has a Interstate x95 that is not only in the Keystone State but of the Commonwealth. (As has been noted elsewhere on these boards, SB I-495 takes leave of SB I-95 just before entering DE, rendering that roadway in PA but not of it).
There have been arguments either way on I-495, but I-295 most definitely now has a major presence in PA.
I don't know how AASHTO or the FHWA define I-495, but PennDOT considers it a ramp.
You could certainly argue that the ramp is signed as mainline I-495, but this is in the same way that the PA Turnpike Extension of the NJ Turnpike is kinda sorta signed as I-276 right now (signs that will say "South I-95, To West I-276" now say "West I-276").
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 06, 2018, 12:40:12 PM
I don't know how AASHTO or the FHWA define I-495, but PennDOT considers it a ramp.
You could certainly argue that the ramp is signed as mainline I-495, but this is in the same way that the PA Turnpike Extension of the NJ Turnpike is kinda sorta signed as I-276 right now (signs that will say "South I-95, To West I-276" now say "West I-276").
The 2-lane southbound roadway does fully separate from I-95 in PA -- https://tinyurl.com/y8j85w2y
https://tinyurl.com/y7w6jdak
Two more weeks, but who's counting?
Took these yesterday. Click on the little green button on the right for a slide show view. Sorry they aren't labelled yet.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pennsylvania_Turnpike/Interstate_95_Interchange_Project_on_September_9,_2018
Quote from: famartin on September 10, 2018, 09:17:49 PM
Took these yesterday. Click on the little green button on the right for a slide show view. Sorry they aren't labelled yet.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pennsylvania_Turnpike/Interstate_95_Interchange_Project_on_September_9,_2018
Hard to believe we're just about there after having to wait almost forever.
Quote from: famartin on September 10, 2018, 09:17:49 PM
Took these yesterday. Click on the little green button on the right for a slide show view. Sorry they aren't labelled yet.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pennsylvania_Turnpike/Interstate_95_Interchange_Project_on_September_9,_2018
Should the yellow TOLL banner stretch over both the 276 and Pa Tpk Shields?
Pixel 2
Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!
^ I don't think you're alone there. Several people who submitted questions for this Thursday's road meet and Q&A session with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission registered the same objection. I hope that the project engineers provide some background on the process that led to the final arrangement.
Quote from: billpa on September 11, 2018, 06:28:58 PM
Should the yellow TOLL banner stretch over both the 276 and Pa Tpk Shields?
For the sake of consistency with the recently unveiled assembly (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2410.msg2355471#msg2355471) at the Harrisburg East Interchange, I'd say the answer is yes. But at the same time, I can see a counterargument: The Pennsylvania Turnpike is a road that almost everyone already knows is a toll road even without being told. An Interstate shield, on the other hand, implies that the road is free of tolls unless otherwise signified. That said, I think I'd prefer the TOLL banner centered over both shields as was done at Harrisburg East.
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!
You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey.
This was by far the most controversial part of the project for many here. If you do a search on these forums, you'll find a nearly unanimous dislike for how the cardinal directions were chosen.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 11, 2018, 07:41:55 PM
^ I don't think you're alone there. Several people who submitted questions for this Thursday's road meet and Q&A session with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission registered the same objection. I hope that the project engineers provide some background on the process that led to the final arrangement.
Quote from: billpa on September 11, 2018, 06:28:58 PM
Should the yellow TOLL banner stretch over both the 276 and Pa Tpk Shields?
For the sake of consistency with the recently unveiled assembly (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2410.msg2355471#msg2355471) at the Harrisburg East Interchange, I'd say the answer is yes. But at the same time, I can see a counterargument: The Pennsylvania Turnpike is a road that almost everyone already knows is a toll road even without being told. An Interstate shield, on the other hand, implies that the road is free of tolls unless otherwise signified. That said, I think I'd prefer the TOLL banner centered over both shields as was done at Harrisburg East.
The one at Harrisburg East was put up by PennDOT, whereas the pull through/soon-to-be-exit sign at the new interchange is by the PTC. I haven't seen any other PTC signs with a yellow toll banner to compare it to. Even the I-376 extension was done early enough that PennDOT and the PTC don't seem to have quite figured out how to use those newfangled 2009 MUTCD features yet.
295 is a little tough because of the hook it forms in a relatively tight radius around Trenton.
In general I don't see a need to worry about having the signed direction match the current direction of the roadway. There are plenty of roads signed into the overall direction of travel, or best approximate for travel direction.
In Conn, there are Route 1 and I-95 that are all east-west signed as north-south. Route 15 is signed north-south even though it is east-west for a long distance.
Mass has Route 128, 495, and 28 as ones that are signed north-south despite east-west segments because it is in reference of the entire route going north-south. There's also I-290 that is signed east-west which goes both east-west and north-south.
So like 287 in NJ makes sense as north-south as it at least in NJ it starts south of NYC and goes to the north in an arc.
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!
You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west
Wasn't the southern part of NJ 440 east-west not too long ago?
Quote from: DrSmith on September 11, 2018, 08:37:49 PM
295 is a little tough because of the hook it forms in a relatively tight radius around Trenton.
In general I don't see a need to worry about having the signed direction match the current direction of the roadway. There are plenty of roads signed into the overall direction of travel, or best approximate for travel direction.
In Conn, there are Route 1 and I-95 that are all east-west signed as north-south. Route 15 is signed north-south even though it is east-west for a long distance.
Mass has Route 128, 495, and 28 as ones that are signed north-south despite east-west segments because it is in reference of the entire route going north-south. There's also I-290 that is signed east-west which goes both east-west and north-south.
So like 287 in NJ makes sense as north-south as it at least in NJ it starts south of NYC and goes to the north in an arc.
While I agree that there are many instances where it doesn't really matter, it does here since we now have a segment in one state which is signed completely differently from its direction...
Quote from: DrSmith on September 11, 2018, 08:37:49 PM
295 is a little tough because of the hook it forms in a relatively tight radius around Trenton.
In general I don't see a need to worry about having the signed direction match the current direction of the roadway. There are plenty of roads signed into the overall direction of travel, or best approximate for travel direction.
In Conn, there are Route 1 and I-95 that are all east-west signed as north-south. Route 15 is signed north-south even though it is east-west for a long distance.
Mass has Route 128, 495, and 28 as ones that are signed north-south despite east-west segments because it is in reference of the entire route going north-south. There's also I-290 that is signed east-west which goes both east-west and north-south.
So like 287 in NJ makes sense as north-south as it at least in NJ it starts south of NYC and goes to the north in an arc.
Except the PA portion of I-295 is in no way, shape, or form east-west. In fact, it would be pretty hard to find a more perfect north-south orientation. I could see the argument for NJ having I-295 north-south the whole way based on the orientation of the entire route if such didn't cause problems for PA. Given that PA
can't sign their section properly unless NJ compromises or the directions flip at the border, the logical solution would be for NJ to compromise on this.
The only possible explanation I can come up with is that NJDOT simply wouldn't entertain any solution that involved the road changing cardinal directions within their jurisdiction. Instead, they insisted that they simply extend existing I-295's "North" designation right up around Trenton and down to the state line (even though the road is bound SW at that point), forcing PennDOT to sign its section of I-295 as E-W to avoid a direct North to South conflict at the state border.
I have no idea why NJDOT would force this (if they did...this is pure speculation on my part).
Regardless, this question is on the roster for Thursday's road meet, and I'm very much looking forward to the engineers' explanation of the circumstances that lead to this outcome.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 11, 2018, 09:06:21 PM
The only possible explanation I can come up with is that NJDOT simply wouldn't entertain any solution that involved the road changing cardinal directions within their jurisdiction. Instead, they insisted that they simply extend existing I-295's "North" designation right up around Trenton and down to the state line (even though the road is bound SW at that point), forcing PennDOT to sign its section of I-295 as E-W to avoid a direct North to South conflict at the state border.
I have no idea why NJDOT would force this (if they did...this is pure speculation on my part).
Regardless, this question is on the roster for Thursday's road meet, and I'm very much looking forward to the engineers' explanation of the circumstances that lead to this outcome.
Would love if you could post what information you can find out here so those of us who can't be there can have some insight into their decision-making process!
Quote from: briantroutman on September 11, 2018, 09:06:21 PM
The only possible explanation I can come up with is that NJDOT simply wouldn't entertain any solution that involved the road changing cardinal directions within their jurisdiction. Instead, they insisted that they simply extend existing I-295's "North" designation right up around Trenton and down to the state line (even though the road is bound SW at that point), forcing PennDOT to sign its section of I-295 as E-W to avoid a direct North to South conflict at the state border.
I have no idea why NJDOT would force this (if they did...this is pure speculation on my part).
Regardless, this question is on the roster for Thursday's road meet, and I'm very much looking forward to the engineers' explanation of the circumstances that lead to this outcome.
I would be mildly surprised if they admitted the reason was because NJDOT forced their hand, whether they did or not. (I suspect they did, though)
I was thinking of what I said several posts back in the thread of the PA Turnpike guide signs when motorists enter the turnpike; the ones that show exits from the next exit to the end of the turnpike ("Exits X-359" EB; "Exits X-2" WB.) They didn't change them to "Exits X-32 (the milepost for the Warrendale toll plaza)" WB when they made Gateway one-way and removed the tolls on those exits; I see no reason why they'd do anything different here.
What's ironic about this whole matter is that on the German Autobahns they don't even use cardinal directions. They list multiple city names and route numbers and let you figure out for yourself which way you're going. I don't necessarily agree with that system, but if we did that in the U.S. it would eliminate this problem. LOL
^ I see what you're saying, but I don't think that it would necessarily result in a particularly elegant or intuitive solution in this instance. From the perspective of someone heading NB on I-95 out of Philadelphia and approaching this interchange, they'd see, what: "I-295 - Trenton - Cherry Hill - Wilmington" ? It seems a little problematic to me because the most logical route to two out of three of those destinations would be to either make a U-turn or continue on I-95 North–essentially the opposite of what the control cities on the sign are suggesting that the motorist do.
You're right Brian, but those kinds of issues re: misleading control cities sometimes happen even with the use of cardinal directions.
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!
You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west
Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).
I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)
Quote from: Alps on September 11, 2018, 10:24:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!
You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west
Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).
I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)
NJ 208 is diagonal. It is signed as North- South but should be East-West. If you are coming North on 287 it is weird that you go on 208 South, especially since if you take it all the way you get to NJ 4 East and the GW Bridge.
SM-G960U
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 11, 2018, 09:20:46 PM
I was thinking of what I said several posts back in the thread of the PA Turnpike guide signs when motorists enter the turnpike; the ones that show exits from the next exit to the end of the turnpike ("Exits X-359" EB; "Exits X-2" WB.) They didn't change them to "Exits X-32 (the milepost for the Warrendale toll plaza)" WB when they made Gateway one-way and removed the tolls on those exits; I see no reason why they'd do anything different here.
In this case, Exits 358 and 359 are being "removed" -- the former renamed I-95 Exit 42. So the east end should be changed, even if the west end is not.
Quote from: artmalk on September 11, 2018, 10:32:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 11, 2018, 10:24:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!
You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west
Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).
I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)
NJ 208 is diagonal. It is signed as North- South but should be East-West. If you are coming North on 287 it is weird that you go on 208 South, especially since if you take it all the way you get to NJ 4 East and the GW Bridge.
208 has always been signed north-south, so it is not in my list. NJ has a lot of diagonal routes, particularly in the north. That's getting off topic - my point was related to why I think I-295 wasn't signed with a change.
One question/observation that I have had that is not necessarily related to the long-overdue completion of the new I-95 interchange. I am a bit surprised that I-95 is only a four-lane freeway as it is still close to Philadelphia. I would think it would be at least 6 lanes. Does the traffic not warrant a wider freeway in this area, or is the roadway just under-built for the traffic demand? I wonder if there will be a noticeable increase in traffic on I-95 when the connection to the turnpike finally opens this fall. BTW, living in the Atlanta area, I don't claim to know much about Philadelphia, only that I avoided it the only time I drove through that area.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 12, 2018, 06:23:31 AM
One question/observation that I have had that is not necessarily related to the long-overdue completion of the new I-95 interchange. I am a bit surprised that I-95 is only a four-lane freeway as it is still close to Philadelphia. I would think it would be at least 6 lanes. Does the traffic not warrant a wider freeway in this area, or is the roadway just under-built for the traffic demand? I wonder if there will be a noticeable increase in traffic on I-95 when the connection to the turnpike finally opens this fall. BTW, living in the Atlanta area, I don't claim to know much about Philadelphia, only that I avoided it the only time I drove through that area.
Below the PA Turnpike I-95 was mostly 3 lanes wide in each direction already. There was a very small stretch of 2 lane highway (between 413 and the Turnpike) which is being widened to 3 lanes. Otherwise, the 2 lane sections you see are all north of the PA Turnpike/95 connection and aren't affected by the current project.
Traffic does not warrant it to be 3 lanes north of the Turnpike. For the most part, traffic free-flows in this area. As you get closer to NJ, the former I-95 which is now I-295 will be widened for a few miles near the PA/NJ border, but that's due to traffic demands of traffic heading north into NJ, not south towards Philly!
Do I think traffic will increase after the connection is open? Yes, for those that exclusively are following the I-95 signage. There's already projects going on to repair the roadway and provide some slight widening in a few areas, but for the most part if it's 3 lanes wide now, it'll be 3 lanes wide for several decades in the future. The traffic that isn't going towards Philly will still be able to remain on the NJ Turnpike, bypassing Philly.
Quote from: billpa on September 11, 2018, 06:28:58 PM
Should the yellow TOLL banner stretch over both the 276 and Pa Tpk Shields?
For argument sake: One could consider the Toll banner is centered over the cardinal direction, Interstate shield, and Turnpike shield...
Quote from: Flyer78 on September 12, 2018, 08:50:55 AM
Quote from: billpa on September 11, 2018, 06:28:58 PM
Should the yellow TOLL banner stretch over both the 276 and Pa Tpk Shields?
Whatever the case, it brings me a probably irrational level of joy to see the new signs in Highway Gothic rather than Clearview, particularly as Pennsylvania was at the vanguard of that unfortunate trend. I'm a scientist and so should be attracted to the rational design of Clearview, but just found it so aesthetically unappealing. Plus, I don't know why, but somehow the signs always looked sloppier/less polished generally with Clearview -- more often issues with misalignment of the text, the copy often seemed disproportionately large relative to the shields, and just overall had kind of a slapped-together appearance. Anyway, I know I'm going off topic here, sorry...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2018, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey.
This was by far the most controversial part of the project for many here. If you do a search on these forums this thread, you'll find a nearly unanimous dislike for how the cardinal directions were chosen.
FTFY. Not only that, one would find an alternative solution of redesignating the stretch between the PA Turnpike & US 1/Exit 67 as a separate route (I-695). Such would've kept the PA stretch marked as north-south, had the NJ stretch to I-295/US 1 marked as east-west
and would've kept the interchange/mile marker numbers (1-8) as they were. Most locals were already used to the highway changing numbers at the US 1 interchange so the change from I-95 South to I-695 West would no be as traumatic as one would think.
I actually submitted such a suggestion earlier this year to the contact on the interchange project (where I basically received a
"too late" reply) but I don't know whether such was ever shared/contemplated w/the PTC. My guess would be either
"No." or very little due to the redesignations aren't in PTC's network.
Quote from: motorway on September 12, 2018, 10:43:38 AMWhatever the case, it brings me a probably irrational level of joy to see the new signs in Highway Gothic rather than Clearview, particularly as Pennsylvania was at the vanguard of that unfortunate trend. I'm a scientist and so should be attracted to the rational design of Clearview, but just found it so aesthetically unappealing. Plus, I don't know why, but somehow the signs always looked sloppier/less polished generally with Clearview -- more often issues with misalignment of the text, the copy often seemed disproportionately large relative to the shields, and just overall had kind of a slapped-together appearance. Anyway, I know I'm going off topic here, sorry...
While Clearview certainly contributed to the miss-mash of text heights on many signs (and not just in PA); some states that since went back to Highway Gothic
still carried over the overtly-large text heights (see the new post-Clearview BGS' along I-95 in northern Delaware for examples of such).
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:48:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2018, 08:16:32 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey.
This was by far the most controversial part of the project for many here. If you do a search on these forums this thread, you'll find a nearly unanimous dislike for how the cardinal directions were chosen.
FTFY. Not only that, one would find an alternative solution of redesignating the stretch between the PA Turnpike & US 1/Exit 67 as a separate route (I-695). Such would've kept the PA stretch marked as north-south, had the NJ stretch to I-295/US 1 marked as east-west and would've kept the interchange/mile marker numbers (1-8) as they were. Most locals were already used to the highway changing numbers at the US 1 interchange so the change from I-95 South to I-695 West would no be as traumatic as one would think.
I actually submitted such a suggestion earlier this year to the contact on the interchange project (where I basically received a "too late" reply) but I don't know whether such was ever shared/contemplated w/the PTC. My guess would be either "No." or very little due to the redesignations aren't in PTC's network.
Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
That said if they're really hell bent on using 295 throughout the entire freeway then they should simply abandon the cardinal directions after Exit 60. I know this isn't a full beltway but the Inner Loop/Outer Loop designations would work just fine here.
Quote from: Alps on September 11, 2018, 10:24:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!
You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west
Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).
I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)
This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.525104,-74.3313051,3a,53.9y,68.87h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slCAt0SI-uaPrz_GVMw4SpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) still shows it as 440 East. NJDOT replacement in kind done in 2010 (around when they changed out a lot of the signs along the southern stretch of 440). Extra confusing since the NJTA signage that precedes it shows it "correctly" as 440NB.
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 12, 2018, 11:59:16 AMActually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
Actually, since the highway is essentially a loop or bypass with respect to Trenton; an even-number prefix is warranted (the
even numbered 3di must terminate at its parent at both ends notion is not gospel). Odd 3dis are typically issued for spur routes. Since neither NJ nor PA used 695 elsewhere (original plans for separate I-695s in both NJ & PA died decades ago); that number is available & IMHO would've been the most-fitting.
It's the same road, another number is not necessary. Much easier and less confusing to change directions. 295 is a beltway, nothing wrong with having it turn. Having another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 05:45:20 PMHaving another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.
You are aware that for many decades, the western portion of that highway was designated (& until very recently signed) as I-95?
Heck, 12 years after the Somerset Freeway portion of I-95 was cancelled; the I-95/295 handoff point was moved roughly 4 miles to the
east (from where the Somerset Freeway was to connect to the US 1/Exit 67 interchange) thereby creating a 95 South/295 South interchange ramp scenario at the US 1 interchange. Although odd, I do not believe that anyone complained about one side of that interchange being I-95 and the other side being I-295.
Long story short, had the I-695 designation been selected for that former-piece of I-95; the location of the I-295/695 handoff point
would not have changed at all. The fore-mentioned 95 South/295 South interchange ramp scenario at US 1
that's been there for 24 years would've become 695 West/295 South instead. The mile markers & interchange numbers along the former I-95 stretch in NJ wouldn't have needed to be changed. It would've been the proverbial
path of least resistance scenario compared to what was actually done.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 06:21:18 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 05:45:20 PMHaving another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.
You are aware that for many decades, the western portion of that highway was designated (& until very recently signed) as I-95?
No, I had no idea. I also definitely had nothing to do with this webpage which was created many years ago.
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html
:-D
Quote from: storm2k on September 12, 2018, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 11, 2018, 10:24:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 07:56:39 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 11, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.
Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!
You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west
Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).
I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)
This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.525104,-74.3313051,3a,53.9y,68.87h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slCAt0SI-uaPrz_GVMw4SpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) still shows it as 440 East. NJDOT replacement in kind done in 2010 (around when they changed out a lot of the signs along the southern stretch of 440). Extra confusing since the NJTA signage that precedes it shows it "correctly" as 440NB.
*NJTA, not NJDOT, for those ramps I believe.
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 05:45:20 PM
It's the same road, another number is not necessary. Much easier and less confusing to change directions. 295 is a beltway, nothing wrong with having it turn. Having another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.
You mean like how it turns into 440 at the Turnpike?
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 12, 2018, 11:59:16 AM
Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:27:05 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 05:45:20 PM
It's the same road, another number is not necessary. Much easier and less confusing to change directions. 295 is a beltway, nothing wrong with having it turn. Having another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.
You mean like how it turns into 440 at the Turnpike? Quote from: ekt8750 on September 12, 2018, 11:59:16 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:48:57 AM
Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.
Regarding 287/440, its not the worst idea, though then you'd have to sign it east/west from 278 to 78.
That I-195 plan was dumb IMHO... It would act partly as a beltway and not be an even 3DI, not to mention the route was just wacky.
Here's a neat idea... after the 95/276 interchange is complete, extend I-295 westward along the PA Turnpike and then south along the Blue Route. Then it would be an almost complete beltway.
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 06:26:55 PMI also definitely had nothing to do with this webpage which was created many years ago.
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html
Then you, of all people, should know that highways sometimes do change numbers when going through interchanges. In addition to the fore-mentioned I-287/NJ 440 example there's:
I-76/NJ 42
I-195/NJ 29
I-495/MA 25 (originally, this
handoff was to occur at the I-95/495 interchange in Mansfield)
I-195/MD 166
I-264/I-664 in VA
There's probably some others but you get the idea.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:27:05 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:48:57 AM
Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.
Two things:
1. The above-quote is from ekt8750 (not me).
Edit/modification shown below in blue italics2. The I-195 extension
would've forced might trigger an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange
down the road; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 09:52:36 AMHere's a neat idea... after the 95/276 interchange is complete, extend I-295 westward along the PA Turnpike and then south along the Blue Route. Then it would be an almost complete beltway.
Not a bad idea per say, but such would only work if the remaining additional ramps at the Delaware Expressway/PA Turnpike interchange were actually built. Something tells me that the ramps to/from I-276 west of the interchange to I-295 will likely be the
last ones built because one does have an-all-highway routing for those two movements between I-276 & I-295 via US 1.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 06:26:55 PMI also definitely had nothing to do with this webpage which was created many years ago.
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html
Then you, of all people, should know that highways sometimes do change numbers when going through interchanges. In addition to the fore-mentioned I-287/NJ 440 example there's:
I-76/NJ 42
I-195/NJ 29
I-495/MA 25 (originally, this handoff was to occur at the I-95/495 interchange in Mansfield)
I-195/MD 166
I-264/I-664 in VA
There's probably some others but you get the idea.
I get the idea, but that doesn't mean most of them make sense. The I-76/42 one particularly makes no sense, they should've just grandfathered 42 into the Interstate system along with the ACE (though I realize the ACE is actually a little younger than that).
NJ 29/I-195 has to happen that way since NJ 29 downgrades. If they had built it to full freeway standards from I-95 to I-295 as had once been imagined, or at least straight to US 1, then they could've extended I-195 further, but it would still have to end somewhere.
I can't say I know much about two more of those, but the I-264/I-664 one also makes no sense to me currently (I think it made sense once upon a time, but I don't recall the details).
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:27:05 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:48:57 AM
Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.
Two things:
1. The above-quote is from ekt8750 (not me).
2. The I-195 extension would've forced an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 09:52:36 AMHere's a neat idea... after the 95/276 interchange is complete, extend I-295 westward along the PA Turnpike and then south along the Blue Route. Then it would be an almost complete beltway.
Not a bad idea per say, but such would only work if the remaining additional ramps at the Delaware Expressway/PA Turnpike interchange were actually built. Something tells me that the ramps to/from I-276 west of the interchange to I-295 will likely be the last ones built because one does have an-all-highway routing for those two movements between I-276 & I-295 via US 1.
Fair point. I would hope the 95 S to 295 E/295 W to 95 N ramps get built sooner, but obviously, I'm not sure the PTC really cares one way or the other when the rest gets done. They definitely didn't care about getting even this much done, considering its taken 36 years.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 10:12:52 AMThe I-76/42 one particularly makes no sense, they should've just grandfathered 42 into the Interstate system along with the ACE (though I realize the ACE is actually a little younger than that).
Such has been tossed about in this forum for quite some time. IIRC, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7685458,-75.0485047,3a,75y,152.42h,84.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGRRnJS5uVt3DuHR1S_29mQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the reason why the ACE won't receive an Instate designation anytime soon. IIRC, Interstates typically require higher clearances for the majority of overpasses.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 10:12:52 AM
NJ 29/I-195 has to happen that way since NJ 29 downgrades. If they had built it to full freeway standards from I-95 to I-295 as had once been imagined, or at least straight to US 1, then they could've extended I-195 further, but it would still have to end somewhere.
Prior to the completion of the NJ 29 Freeway & tunnel, some maps erroneously showed the proposed dashes with an I-195 shield. If such was fully built to the Scudder Falls Bridge during the 1980s; that (along w/I-195 west of the NJ Turnpike)
may have been a possible alternative I-95 routing.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 10:12:52 AMI would hope the 95 S to 295 E/295 W to 95 N ramps get built sooner, but obviously, I'm not sure the PTC really cares one way or the other when the rest gets done.
And that will certainly be a (recurring) discussion on these boards for years to come (right up there w/Breezwood).
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 10:12:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 06:26:55 PMI also definitely had nothing to do with this webpage which was created many years ago.
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html
Then you, of all people, should know that highways sometimes do change numbers when going through interchanges. In addition to the fore-mentioned I-287/NJ 440 example there's:
I-76/NJ 42
I-195/NJ 29
I-495/MA 25 (originally, this handoff was to occur at the I-95/495 interchange in Mansfield)
I-195/MD 166
I-264/I-664 in VA
There's probably some others but you get the idea.
NJ 29/I-195 has to happen that way since NJ 29 downgrades. If they had built it to full freeway standards from I-95 to I-295 as had once been imagined, or at least straight to US 1, then they could've extended I-195 further, but it would still have to end somewhere.
Being that NJ had interest in downgrading NJ 29 from a highway to an urban blvd., they definitely won't be upgrading it anytime soon! Thankfully those plans seemed to have evaporated for now.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:27:05 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:48:57 AM
Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.
2. The I-195 extension would've forced an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).
It wouldn't have forced anything - those ramps would've remained 1 lane ramps. If the temporary routing of I-95 from 295 South to 195 East didn't force them to rebuild that ramp, a simple numbering change wouldn't have done it either!
QuoteHere's a neat idea... after the 95/276 interchange is complete, extend I-295 westward along the PA Turnpike and then south along the Blue Route. Then it would be an almost complete beltway.
Not a bad idea per say, but such would only work if the remaining additional ramps at the Delaware Expressway/PA Turnpike interchange were actually built. Something tells me that the ramps to/from I-276 west of the interchange to I-295 will likely be the last ones built because one does have an-all-highway routing for those two movements between I-276 & I-295 via US 1.
Fair point. I would hope the 95 S to 295 E/295 W to 95 N ramps get built sooner, but obviously, I'm not sure the PTC really cares one way or the other when the rest gets done. They definitely didn't care about getting even this much done, considering its taken 36 years.
Also with a beltway idea, it would be a loop involving I-476, I-95, US 322, US 130, I-295, and I-476, with numerous one-lane ramps to keep it somewhat continuous. It wouldn't make any sense to most travelers that it functions like a beltway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:50:07 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:27:05 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:48:57 AM
Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.
2. The I-195 extension would've forced might trigger an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange down the road; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).
It wouldn't have forced anything - those ramps would've remained 1 lane ramps. If the temporary routing of I-95 from 295 South to 195 East didn't force them to rebuild that ramp, a simple numbering change wouldn't have done it either!
Perhaps (and I've reworded my previous post as shown above), but for the record; that
Temporary routing of I-95 (more like some
TO 95 signage along I-195 & 295) was
never fully marked as such, especially for I-95 southbound with respect to the NJ Turnpike. To this day, I-95 signage at Exit 7A/I-195 (even beyond the toll plaza) is non-existent. Heck only recent post-toll-plaza signage has a
TO 295 legend placed on the I-195 westbound ramp signage. Previous-generation signage did not include such.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 10:12:52 AM
I can't say I know much about two more of those, but the I-264/I-664 one also makes no sense to me currently (I think it made sense once upon a time, but I don't recall the details).
I-64 and I-264 and I-664 terminate at that interchange. There was VDOT and local brainstorming in the 1990s about how to change that, but the other options would have also caused multiple 3-way Interstate junctions, so there would have been nothing gained by changing it.
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 11:20:34 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 10:12:52 AM
I can't say I know much about two more of those, but the I-264/I-664 one also makes no sense to me currently (I think it made sense once upon a time, but I don't recall the details).
I-64 and I-264 and I-664 terminate at that interchange. There was VDOT and local brainstorming in the 1990s about how to change that, but the other options would have also caused multiple 3-way Interstate junctions, so there would have been nothing gained by changing it.
While it might've caused other three way junctions, it would've avoided a three way termination, so I think something could've been gained...
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 11:00:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:50:07 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 09:59:31 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:27:05 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2018, 10:48:57 AM
Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.
For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.
2. The I-195 extension would've forced might trigger an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange down the road; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).
It wouldn't have forced anything - those ramps would've remained 1 lane ramps. If the temporary routing of I-95 from 295 South to 195 East didn't force them to rebuild that ramp, a simple numbering change wouldn't have done it either!
Perhaps (and I've reworded my previous post as shown above), but for the record; that Temporary routing of I-95 (more like some TO 95 signage along I-195 & 295) was never fully marked as such, especially for I-95 southbound with respect to the NJ Turnpike. To this day, I-95 signage at Exit 7A/I-195 (even beyond the toll plaza) is non-existent. Heck only recent post-toll-plaza signage has a TO 295 legend placed on the I-195 westbound ramp signage. Previous-generation signage did not include such.
We all know why no one has ever signed the way to connect to I-95 southbound... its because the NJ Turnpike wanted to keep its customers. The only real reason the "To 95 north" signs existed was so that people who got lost on their way up 95 would find their way back... to the turnpike.
Another thought I had was that PennDOT and NJDOT/NJTA could've forced PTC to get this fixed faster. Instead of truncating 95 just recently, they could've truncated it back in 1982 after the legislation was signed, and PennDOT could've signed the connection to the turnpike via 413 as the way to find 95 north. The NJTA could've signed Exit 6 as 95 south back in 1982, as well. That would've quickly overloaded the connection. Though, maybe it also would've created a second Breezewood.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:00:52 PM
We all know why no one has ever signed the way to connect to I-95 southbound... its because the NJ Turnpike wanted to keep its customers.
What are they going to do this coming Sept. 24 and afterwards?
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:00:52 PMAnother thought I had was that PennDOT and NJDOT/NJTA could've forced PTC to get this fixed faster.
While one could argue that PennDOT could've leaned on the PTC more; NJDOT & NJTA have no authority whatsoever to dictate what a toll agency in another state can do. Since closing/fixing the
I-95 Gap was more of a
federal mandate; the feds should've been the ones to push the PTC more.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:00:52 PMInstead of truncating 95 just recently, they could've truncated it back in 1982 after the legislation was signed, and PennDOT could've signed the connection to the turnpike via 413 as the way to find 95 north. The NJTA could've signed Exit 6 as 95 south back in 1982, as well. That would've quickly overloaded the connection. Though, maybe it also would've created a second Breezewood.
As one who's used that routing many times prior to the completion of I-295/195 as well as the adoption of one-way tolling across the Delaware circa the mid-1990s; such would've been a monumental traffic nightmare/bottleneck. I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe that Federal law prohibits the use of non-highways as alternate
"TO" Interstate route connections if there's another nearby highway/freeway available (even if such routing is a longer distance). Prior to 1994, the temporary/alternate routing between the two I-95s in NJ was via US 1 (& a small section of I-287, that was once slated to be I-95); the US 1 Northbound ramp signage at the I-295 interchange one had a
TO 95 New York legend on it. Such might've been the reasoning behind the moving of the I-95/295 handoff 4 miles to the east (thereby
increasing I-95 mileage in NJ).
Additionally, and such has been stated
multiple times at nauseam on the previous pages of this thread, I-295 east of Trenton (as well as the western part of I-195) was still incomplete when the I-95 re-routing decision was made. Those gaps wouldn't be closed until some 12 years later. I could see NJ truncating I-95 to the Scudder Falls Bridge
once I-295 was fully complete but that's about it.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 12:31:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 11:20:34 AM
I-64 and I-264 and I-664 terminate at that interchange. There was VDOT and local brainstorming in the 1990s about how to change that, but the other options would have also caused multiple 3-way Interstate junctions, so there would have been nothing gained by changing it.
While it might've caused other three way junctions, it would've avoided a three way termination, so I think something could've been gained...
Current I-64/I-464 would become a three way termination, or current Norfolk I-264/I-64 would become a three way termination if I-64 was routed to the beachfront, or current Hampton I-64/I-664 which is a three-leg interchange would have I-664 on two legs and I-64 on one leg.
The last would remove I-64 from Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and (very near) Portsmouth, something that those cities had since 1968, and didn't want to lose.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 01:32:13 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:00:52 PM
We all know why no one has ever signed the way to connect to I-95 southbound... its because the NJ Turnpike wanted to keep its customers.
What are they going to do this coming Sept. 24 and afterwards?
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:00:52 PMAnother thought I had was that PennDOT and NJDOT/NJTA could've forced PTC to get this fixed faster.
While one could argue that PennDOT could've leaned on the PTC more; NJDOT & NJTA have no authority whatsoever to dictate what a toll agency in another state can do. Since closing/fixing the I-95 Gap was more of a federal mandate; the feds should've been the ones to push the PTC more.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:00:52 PMInstead of truncating 95 just recently, they could've truncated it back in 1982 after the legislation was signed, and PennDOT could've signed the connection to the turnpike via 413 as the way to find 95 north. The NJTA could've signed Exit 6 as 95 south back in 1982, as well. That would've quickly overloaded the connection. Though, maybe it also would've created a second Breezewood.
As one who's used that routing many times prior to the completion of I-295/195 as well as the adoption of one-way tolling across the Delaware circa the mid-1990s; such would've been a monumental traffic nightmare/bottleneck. I'm not 100% sure on this but I believe that Federal law prohibits the use of non-highways as alternate"TO" Interstate route connections if there's another nearby highway/freeway available (even if such routing is a longer distance). Prior to 1994, the temporary/alternate routing between the two I-95s in NJ was via US 1 (& a small section of I-287, that was once slated to be I-95); the US 1 Northbound ramp signage at the I-295 interchange one had a TO 95 New York legend on it. Such might've been the reasoning behind the moving of the I-95/295 handoff 4 miles to the east (thereby increasing I-95 mileage in NJ).
Additionally, and such has been stated multiple times at nauseam on the previous pages of this thread, I-295 east of Trenton (as well as the western part of I-195) was still incomplete when the I-95 re-routing decision was made. Those gaps wouldn't be closed until some 12 years later. I could see NJ truncating I-95 to the Scudder Falls Bridge once I-295 was fully complete but that's about it.
You miss my point. The idea WAS to force the creation of a bottleneck. That would've forced PTC's hand to get it fixed properly. Technically PennDOT, NJDOT and NJTA wouldn't be forcing PTC to do anything, but they'd be making a mess that PTC would want to fix. PTC couldn't force PennDOT, NJDOT or NJTA to sign things THEIR way just as is the case likewise, so if they had banded together and signed all the existing I-95 as legislated, then signed a connection via 413 and 13 as TO 95, PTC wouldn't have been able to stop them.
The federal law, I wasn't aware of, though it depends on whether a "highway" is adequate or if it must be "freeway". Based on that law, you could argue that I-68/79 should be signed as "TO 70" to avoid the mess in Breezewood.
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 01:46:48 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 12:31:22 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2018, 11:20:34 AM
I-64 and I-264 and I-664 terminate at that interchange. There was VDOT and local brainstorming in the 1990s about how to change that, but the other options would have also caused multiple 3-way Interstate junctions, so there would have been nothing gained by changing it.
While it might've caused other three way junctions, it would've avoided a three way termination, so I think something could've been gained...
Current I-64/I-464 would become a three way termination, or current Norfolk I-264/I-64 would become a three way termination if I-64 was routed to the beachfront, or current Hampton I-64/I-664 which is a three-leg interchange would have I-664 on two legs and I-64 on one leg.
The last would remove I-64 from Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and (very near) Portsmouth, something that those cities had since 1968, and didn't want to lose.
I guess I didn't realize there was some I-64 love going on there, but I-64's current bend backwards is pretty stupid IMHO. That portion from 264 southwestward should be 664.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:52:31 PM
I guess I didn't realize there was some I-64 love going on there, but I-64's current bend backwards is pretty stupid IMHO. That portion from 264 southwestward should be 664.
No "love" just the usual interest in major cities to have a mainline Interstate route.
I-664 was one of the 1968 additions to the Interstate system, when I-64 was built there was no plan for any Interstate connection at Bowers Hill. The final segment of I-64 throughout the Hampton Roads area was completed in 1976. I-664 wasn't completed until 1992. That is why the renumbering study was conducted in the 1990s. After 22 years of I-64 being as it is, would take a lot of justification for making major route number changes.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:47:29 PMYou miss my point. The idea WAS to force the creation of a bottleneck. That would've forced PTC's hand to get it fixed properly. Technically PennDOT, NJDOT and NJTA wouldn't be forcing PTC to do anything, but they'd be making a mess that PTC would want to fix. PTC couldn't force PennDOT, NJDOT or NJTA to sign things THEIR way just as is the case likewise, so if they had banded together and signed all the existing I-95 as legislated, then signed a connection via 413 and 13 as TO 95, PTC wouldn't have been able to stop them.
No, I didn't
miss your point per say; but I do believe what you were proposing has some ethics issues and could yield to engineering malpractice.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:47:29 PMThe federal law, I wasn't aware of, though it depends on whether a "highway" is adequate or if it must be "freeway". Based on that law, you could argue that I-68/79 should be signed as "TO 70" to avoid the mess in Breezewood.
Such routing doesn't help one seeking to get to the
closest stretch of I-70 between I-79 and the PA Turnpike (I-76) in New Stanton. The purpose/idea of an alternate routing (for an "incomplete/gapped" Interstate route) is to connect one segment of the route to the next
nearest segment.
On the subject of avoiding the I-70 Breezewood is concerned; IIRC, there was a sign somewhere along I-70 westbound that suggested I-68 as an alternate routing (mainly to avoid the PA Turnpike tolls moreso that the Breezewood situation) but I could not find it via GSV or Google Image Search.
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:52:31 PM
I guess I didn't realize there was some I-64 love going on there, but I-64's current bend backwards is pretty stupid IMHO.
At least I-64 where it bends backwards direction-wise is not signed with direction cardinals. Several previous pages on this thread, it was suggested that the
extended I-295 in NJ not be signed with direction cardinals.
I threw this together to count down to the opening: http://isi95completeyet.tk/
Here are some pics from the Golden Spike Meet that Brian Troutman organized. All are from 13 Sep 2018 except the button.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y8SoxU8.jpg)
The group photo. One of the Turnpike officials climbed up onto the top of a water tanker truck he had strategically positioned for the shot. We're on the I-95 southbound flyover, looking roughly toward the northeast.
(https://i.imgur.com/Xy9DBHV.jpg)
The vanity shot of my son (Roadsguy) and me. I forget who brought the shields from their private collection (profuse apologies). It was a great touch! (Someone please claim credit or provide a shoutout.)
(https://i.imgur.com/aRWkk8Y.jpg)
An overview image, the view from the I-95 southbound flyover, looking roughly toward the northest. Visible are (from left to right) the I-95 southbound flyover, the I-295 westbound carriageway, the I-295 eastbound carriageway, and the I-95 northbound flyover.
(https://i.imgur.com/76Hg6uW.jpg)
The I-95 northbound carriageway just before the beginning of the flyover, looking toward the north. For more information on the project, heed the billboard. Visible to the left of the carriageway are (from left to right) the I-95 southbound flyover, the I-295 westbound carriageway, and the I-295 eastbound carriageway. Note the enhanced mile marker at the far right.
(https://i.imgur.com/GpDEIFh.jpg)
Oooh, shiny and new! The I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. The northbound flyover was almost entirely striped, while the southbound flyover wasn't striped at all yet. The roomy outer shoulder provides for safe sight distance on the curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ofOxfJT.png)
The art shot. Three inches above the deck of the I-95 northbound flyover.
(https://i.imgur.com/5KRpPvM.png)
The I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. Visible off the starboard bow are (from right to left) the westbound lanes of the PA Turnpike (I-276 here for a few more feet) and the eastbound lanes of the PA Turnpike (I-276). The local roadway visible passing under the Turnpike is PA 413, New Rogers Rd.
(https://i.imgur.com/bd3CTGA.jpg)
A little further along on the I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. Visible in the distance (just right of center) is the steel arch of the Delaware River Bridge.
(https://i.imgur.com/X5sgZee.jpg)
The I-95 northbound carriageway as it touches down from the flyover, looking toward the east. Visible in the distance is the merge from PA Turnpike (I-276) eastbound (at right) and the PA Turnpike (I-276) westbound split (at left). Also visible in the distance is the Bristol Oxford Valley Road overpass.
(https://i.imgur.com/sjsEfH8.png)
At the start of the I-95 southbound flyover, looking toward the west.
(https://i.imgur.com/aRTOIPD.jpg)
The I-95 southbound flyover, looking toward the east. As noted above, the northbound flyover was striped while the southbound was not.
(https://i.imgur.com/2ErTnTL.jpg)
The I-95 southbound flyover touching down, looking toward the south. Visible (from left to right) are the I-295 eastbound carriageway, the I-295 westbound carriageway, the I-95 southbound flyover, and the extended ramp entrance from the PA 413 interchange. Visible ahead is the Ford Road overpass. Note the "END I-295 BEGIN I-95" signage.
(https://i.imgur.com/XxEJL21.jpg)
Prior to going out the project site, the group was briefed by two of the contractors.
(https://i.imgur.com/AiQTMhF.png)
Brian provided this button for each participant in the meet.
Outstanding meet, Brian!
Excellent photos! Thank you qguy!
So my first question: Looking east as the N/B I-95 flyover touches down, you see the signs for the upcoming exit for US 13, Levittown, Bristol. It carries the Penn. Tpke. exit number. Shouldn't that exit now have an I-95 exit number?
Who is the woman in the middle ... a PTC employee?
Quote from: Beltway on September 16, 2018, 08:33:05 PM
Who is the woman in the middle ... a PTC employee?
Maybe it's a hen's tooth.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 16, 2018, 08:26:31 PM
Excellent photos! Thank you qguy!
So my first question: Looking east as the N/B I-95 flyover touches down, you see the signs for the upcoming exit for US 13, Levittown, Bristol. It carries the Penn. Tpke. exit number. Shouldn't that exit now have an I-95 exit number?
That is the I-95 mileage for the exit. The current exit number is 358.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 16, 2018, 08:26:31 PM
Excellent photos! Thank you qguy!
So my first question: Looking east as the N/B I-95 flyover touches down, you see the signs for the upcoming exit for US 13, Levittown, Bristol. It carries the Penn. Tpke. exit number. Shouldn't that exit now have an I-95 exit number?
The 358 is an overlay of the I-95 exit, 42. I looked at one of the signs up close in one of my passes-by a couple of weeks ago.
Thanks for posting the pictures, qguy. I was the one that provided the shields.
The two women in the office photo work in the project office -- not sure if direct PTC employees or employed by one of the CM consultants.
Quote from: Beltway on September 16, 2018, 08:33:05 PM
Who is the woman in the middle ... a PTC employee?
If you mean in the group photo, that's the wife of one of the participants.
Quote from: akotchi on September 16, 2018, 08:52:53 PM
I was the one that provided the shields.
Thanks for bringing them. Made for a fantastic group photo.
Thanks akotchi. That's the answer I was hoping for.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 02:26:00 PM
On the subject of avoiding the I-70 Breezewood is concerned; IIRC, there was a sign somewhere along I-70 westbound that suggested I-68 as an alternate routing (mainly to avoid the PA Turnpike tolls moreso that the Breezewood situation) but I could not find it via GSV or Google Image Search.
It's still there. I passed it just last weekend when driving home from Baltimore. But I forget how far before the I-68 interchange it's located.
Thanks for posting all of those great meet photos, Len! I don't think I took photos of anything that you didn't, so you basically saved me the effort of posting mine.
Regarding the women in the photos (depending on which photo)... In the group photo, that's Sonia Hooper, the wife of Jimmy Hooper (standing to her right in the orange vest)–they came down from Connecticut for the meet. I hadn't met them before, but they both seemed like very affable people.
In the meeting room photo: I don't recall their names, but the woman on the left (with the light brown hair and yellow vest) is an engineer for Jacobs Engineering Group, the lead contractor on the project. The woman on the right (with the dark hair) is an engineer for the PTC. The man at the head of the table (with the beard and glasses on his head) is Mike Phillips, the PTC's lead engineer on the project, and the guy to his right is Pat Kelly, Jacobs' lead engineer for the project.
And just to expand upon some comments made earlier regarding mileposts, exit numbers, and the ownership of the roadway: The PTC is constructing the new flyovers from the Delaware Expressway to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the flyovers will be transferred to PennDOT upon completion. The mainline of the Turnpike from the flyovers eastward to the NJ line will remain PTC property (and will technically still be a part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System), but signage both on the mainline and on intersecting roads will carry only I-95 shields–no "Penna Turnpike" keystones. So unlike I-70 and I-76, a motorist driving through on I-95 may be completely unaware that he or she has ever been on the Pennsylvania Turnpike for part of the journey. And Mike Phillips emphasized that the westbound-only toll at the Delaware River Bridge was a "bridge toll" , not a road toll. So in a manner of speaking, I-95 in Pennsylvania remains toll-free.
Quote from: akotchi on September 16, 2018, 08:52:53 PM
I was the one that provided the shields.
And I want to point out that not only did Al provide the shields, he had the idea to use them. Thanks again for thinking of it, Al! (And for suggesting Golden Dawn–lunch was great.)
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 15, 2018, 09:49:25 PM
I threw this together to count down to the opening: http://isi95completeyet.tk/
Only a week now? Alright!
Nice photos, qguy!
Just saw a traffic cam on the local news in Philly that was trained on a VMS on I-95 warning of an overnight closure on the 22nd around the interchange. Looks like it's happening.
Quote from: qguy on September 16, 2018, 07:31:30 PM
Here are some pics from the Golden Spike Meet that Brian Troutman organized. All are from 13 Sep 2018 except the button.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y8SoxU8.jpg)
The group photo. One of the Turnpike officials climbed up onto the top of a water tanker truck he had strategically positioned for the shot. We're on the I-95 southbound flyover, looking roughly toward the northeast.
(https://i.imgur.com/Xy9DBHV.jpg)
The vanity shot of my son (Roadsguy) and me. I forget who brought the shields from their private collection (profuse apologies). It was a great touch! (Someone please claim credit or provide a shoutout.)
(https://i.imgur.com/aRWkk8Y.jpg)
An overview image, the view from the I-95 southbound flyover, looking roughly toward the northest. Visible are (from left to right) the I-95 southbound flyover, the I-295 westbound carriageway, the I-295 eastbound carriageway, and the I-95 northbound flyover.
(https://i.imgur.com/76Hg6uW.jpg)
The I-95 northbound carriageway just before the beginning of the flyover, looking toward the north. For more information on the project, heed the billboard. Visible to the left of the carriageway are (from left to right) the I-95 southbound flyover, the I-295 westbound carriageway, and the I-295 eastbound carriageway. Note the enhanced mile marker at the far right.
(https://i.imgur.com/GpDEIFh.jpg)
Oooh, shiny and new! The I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. The northbound flyover was almost entirely striped, while the southbound flyover wasn't striped at all yet. The roomy outer shoulder provides for safe sight distance on the curve.
(https://i.imgur.com/ofOxfJT.png)
The art shot. Three inches above the deck of the I-95 northbound flyover.
(https://i.imgur.com/5KRpPvM.png)
The I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. Visible off the starboard bow are (from right to left) the westbound lanes of the PA Turnpike (I-276 here for a few more feet) and the eastbound lanes of the PA Turnpike (I-276). The local roadway visible passing under the Turnpike is PA 413, New Rogers Rd.
(https://i.imgur.com/bd3CTGA.jpg)
A little further along on the I-95 northbound flyover, looking toward the east. Visible in the distance (just right of center) is the steel arch of the Delaware River Bridge.
(https://i.imgur.com/X5sgZee.jpg)
The I-95 northbound carriageway as it touches down from the flyover, looking toward the east. Visible in the distance is the merge from PA Turnpike (I-276) eastbound (at right) and the PA Turnpike (I-276) westbound split (at left). Also visible in the distance is the Bristol Oxford Valley Road overpass.
(https://i.imgur.com/sjsEfH8.png)
At the start of the I-95 southbound flyover, looking toward the west.
(https://i.imgur.com/aRTOIPD.jpg)
The I-95 southbound flyover, looking toward the east. As noted above, the northbound flyover was striped while the southbound was not.
(https://i.imgur.com/2ErTnTL.jpg)
The I-95 southbound flyover touching down, looking toward the south. Visible (from left to right) are the I-295 eastbound carriageway, the I-295 westbound carriageway, the I-95 southbound flyover, and the extended ramp entrance from the PA 413 interchange. Visible ahead is the Ford Road overpass. Note the "END I-295 BEGIN I-95" signage.
(https://i.imgur.com/XxEJL21.jpg)
Prior to going out the project site, the group was briefed by two of the contractors.
(https://i.imgur.com/AiQTMhF.png)
Brian provided this button for each participant in the meet.
Outstanding meet, Brian!
Nice pics!
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 29, 2018, 05:27:21 PM
Ohio (no connection between I-475 and the Ohio Turnpike (I-80/I-90) near the southwest corner of Toledo, but the non-connections at I-75 and at I-280 were remediated years ago).
I-280 always had a direct connection to the Turnpike as that at-grade expressway was built a few years before it got the I-280 designation. I-77, between Cleveland and Akron, got a direct Turnpike connection in the late 90's. Remaining "Breezewoods" along the Ohio Turnpike include I-271 (not needed) and I-475/US-23.
"Half-Breezewoods" due to single-direction interchanges include the I-80/90 split (SR-57 is the Half-Breezewood route), the Western terminus of I-480 (Old SR-10) and I-680 (SR-7).
Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 16, 2018, 11:38:02 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 15, 2018, 09:49:25 PM
I threw this together to count down to the opening: http://isi95completeyet.tk/
Only a week now? Alright!
Nice photos, qguy!
I clarified the timing with one of the contractors and will adjust the countdown accordingly. It will actually open at 6am on Saturday the 22nd at the earliest if all goes well with the sign changes. The goal is to have it open
by 6am on Monday the 24th. I'll set the countdown for 6am the 23rd and edit it again near the end if weather looks good.
The photos look amazing. Makes me wish I could have gone, but my family was visiting from northeastern PA.
Bold emphasis added below:
Quote from: briantroutman on September 16, 2018, 09:32:59 PMAnd just to expand upon some comments made earlier regarding mileposts, exit numbers, and the ownership of the roadway: The PTC is constructing the new flyovers from the Delaware Expressway to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the flyovers will be transferred to PennDOT upon completion. The mainline of the Turnpike from the flyovers eastward to the NJ line will remain PTC property (and will technically still be a part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System), but signage both on the mainline and on intersecting roads will carry only I-95 shields–no "Penna Turnpike" keystones. So unlike I-70 and I-76, a motorist driving through on I-95 may be completely unaware that he or she has ever been on the Pennsylvania Turnpike for part of the journey. And Mike Phillips emphasized that the westbound-only toll at the Delaware River Bridge was a "bridge toll" , not a road toll. So in a manner of speaking, I-95 in Pennsylvania remains toll-free.
I know you're just posting what was told at the meet (kudos again BTW); however that being the case, then the toll for that gantry should
not be increasing next year IMHO. Unlike this year's Act 44-related toll increase; next year's (2019) upcoming increase
includes that westbound AET gantry. It will increase both E-ZPass/Toll-By-Plate rates ($5/$6.75 to $5.30/$7.20) making it the most expensive
Delaware River crossing to date.
Source (https://www.paturnpike.com/Press/2018/20180703144436.htm)
Quote from: PA Turnpike July 3, 2018 Press ReleaseThe cashless toll at the westbound Delaware River Bridge will increase from $5.00 to $5.30 for E-ZPass customers and from $6.75 to $7.20 for those who use PA Turnpike TOLL-BY-PLATE.
Quote from: MASTERNC on September 17, 2018, 06:54:49 AM
Just saw a traffic cam on the local news in Philly that was trained on a VMS on I-95 warning of an overnight closure on the 22nd around the interchange. Looks like it’s happening.
Those messages were present during the meet.
How long will the toll hikes go on for?
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 17, 2018, 01:07:56 PM
How long will the toll hikes go on for?
Annually for the foreseeable future.
I'll be driving thru Saturday morning, so hopefully I'll have more photos to share, this time showing it actually open (about damn time)
Anybody know if the NJT Authority is uncovering the "95 South - Philadelphia" legend on their signs at Exit-6 in coordination with the Interchange opening?
Quote from: SignBridge on September 17, 2018, 08:59:42 PM
Anybody know if the NJT Authority is uncovering the "95 South - Philadelphia" legend on their signs at Exit-6 in coordination with the Interchange opening?
We were told at the meet that the opening would be coordinated with NJ and the signs would be changed accordingly.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on September 17, 2018, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 17, 2018, 08:59:42 PM
Anybody know if the NJT Authority is uncovering the "95 South - Philadelphia" legend on their signs at Exit-6 in coordination with the Interchange opening?
We were told at the meet that the opening would be coordinated with NJ and the signs would be changed accordingly.
Are they going to do it simultaneously or what?
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 17, 2018, 12:07:17 PM
Bold emphasis added below:
Quote from: briantroutman on September 16, 2018, 09:32:59 PMAnd just to expand upon some comments made earlier regarding mileposts, exit numbers, and the ownership of the roadway: The PTC is constructing the new flyovers from the Delaware Expressway to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the flyovers will be transferred to PennDOT upon completion. The mainline of the Turnpike from the flyovers eastward to the NJ line will remain PTC property (and will technically still be a part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System), but signage both on the mainline and on intersecting roads will carry only I-95 shields–no "Penna Turnpike" keystones. So unlike I-70 and I-76, a motorist driving through on I-95 may be completely unaware that he or she has ever been on the Pennsylvania Turnpike for part of the journey. And Mike Phillips emphasized that the westbound-only toll at the Delaware River Bridge was a "bridge toll" , not a road toll. So in a manner of speaking, I-95 in Pennsylvania remains toll-free.
I know you're just posting what was told at the meet (kudos again BTW); however that being the case, then the toll for that gantry should not be increasing next year IMHO. Unlike this year's Act 44-related toll increase; next year's (2019) upcoming increase includes that westbound AET gantry. It will increase both E-ZPass/Toll-By-Plate rates ($5/$6.75 to $5.30/$7.20) making it the most expensive Delaware River crossing to date.
Also, if that toll is just a bridge toll, and there's no toll per-se on the I-95 portion of the PA Turnpike, who would be responsible for maintaining it and spending money on it? (Obvious answer - the PTC). I don't see the PA Turnpike allocating all the money from the bridge toll solely for their half of the bridge after not having a dedicated toll for the past 60 years for the bridge. Honestly, it's more likely just a bookkeeping issue more than anything.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 17, 2018, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on September 17, 2018, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 17, 2018, 08:59:42 PM
Anybody know if the NJT Authority is uncovering the "95 South - Philadelphia" legend on their signs at Exit-6 in coordination with the Interchange opening?
We were told at the meet that the opening would be coordinated with NJ and the signs would be changed accordingly.
Are they going to do it simultaneously or what?
I would suspect it would be done over the weekend. While the Interchange 6 signs are probably the most important, there are other signs they need to uncover the I-95 shield, or put up an I-95 shield.
It may also be the case that it's more important for the PA Turnpike to open up their section first prior to the NJ Turnpike I-95 signs being uncovered, in case an issue arises!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2018, 08:25:24 AMI don't see the PA Turnpike allocating all the money from the bridge toll solely for their half of the bridge after not having a dedicated toll for the past 60 years for the bridge. Honestly, it's more likely just a bookkeeping issue more than anything.
Unfortunately, I only arrived towards the tail-end of the meet so I was not able to ask/rebut Mike Phillips on that matter.
However (playing devil's advocate for a few seconds), for the last 60 years, neither the PTC (nor the NJTA for that matter, since the original bridge was a joint-venture between both agencies IIRC) had plans to build a parallel span set in motion until recently. Granted, the recent closure due a to finding a crack in one of the bridge members
might've been a wake-up call to the PTC.
Either way, the PA-bound toll (especially for those without E-ZPass and/or coming from US 130) is too high with respect to the other surrounding crossings.
Given PTC's history; this is one case (& I don't believe I'm saying this) where a separate agency (either DRJTBC or DRPA) taking ownership/responsibility for the existing and future parallel span wouldn't be a bad thing. At least then, the risk/threat of having the tolls increased
annually would be nulled.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 08:45:33 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2018, 08:25:24 AMI don't see the PA Turnpike allocating all the money from the bridge toll solely for their half of the bridge after not having a dedicated toll for the past 60 years for the bridge. Honestly, it's more likely just a bookkeeping issue more than anything.
Unfortunately, I only arrived towards the tail-end of the meet so I was not able to ask/rebut Mike Phillips on that matter.
However (playing devil's advocate for a few seconds), for the last 60 years, neither the PTC (nor the NJTA for that matter, since the original bridge was a joint-venture between both agencies IIRC) had plans to build a parallel span set in motion until recently. Granted, the recent closure due a to finding a crack in one of the bridge members might've been a wake-up call to the PTC.
Either way, the PA-bound toll (especially for those without E-ZPass and/or coming from US 130) is too high with respect to the other surrounding crossings.
Given PTC's history; this is one case (& I don't believe I'm saying this) where a separate agency (either DRJTBC or DRPA) taking ownership/responsibility for the existing and future parallel span wouldn't be a bad thing. At least then, the risk/threat of having the tolls increased annually would be nulled.
Well the bridge still
is jointly owned. It's structure P0.0 for the NJTA. When the crack was found in it, they mobilized on their end, as well as the PTC.
Quote from: storm2k on September 18, 2018, 10:19:52 AM
Well the bridge still is jointly owned. It's structure P0.0 for the NJTA. When the crack was found in it, they mobilized on their end, as well as the PTC.
I have seen data that the AADT is about 47,000. Given that by its location there might not be much in the way of rush hour peaks, does it have any real traffic problems that would make providing more capacity an urgent issue?
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2018, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 18, 2018, 10:19:52 AM
Well the bridge still is jointly owned. It's structure P0.0 for the NJTA. When the crack was found in it, they mobilized on their end, as well as the PTC.
I have seen data that the AADT is about 47,000. Given that by its location there might not be much in the way of rush hour peaks, does it have any real traffic problems that would make providing more capacity an urgent issue?
When it was just 276 and the connector between the NJT and the PATP, not really. Now that a major mainline interstate is being routed onto it, it may increase, but I still don't think as much as people think. A lot of people who are thru-travelling from Baltimore, DC, and points south on 95 are probably already taking the NJ Turnpike from the Del Mem Br already, and drivers in the Philadelphia area are coming back via the Walt Whitman, Ben Franklin, or other bridges from the city itself. Time will tell. The bridge does need to be replaced in the long term, though. The crack should be enough to prove that.
I thought the plan was to build a parallel bridge, and then rehab the original bridge.
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2018, 10:45:03 AM
I thought the plan was to build a parallel bridge, and then rehab the original bridge.
Correct - the plan was for it to be rehabbed for future traffic. I don't think it's ever been publicized if the incident that occurred will shorten the lifespan of the bridge. Neither Authority seems to have publicly indicated that there's any current concern as to the bridge's driveability; such an issue could have been addressed by not signing I-95 on it which is assumed to increase traffic on the bridge.
Quote from: storm2k on September 18, 2018, 10:27:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2018, 10:22:57 AMI have seen data that the AADT is about 47,000. Given that by its location there might not be much in the way of rush hour peaks, does it have any real traffic problems that would make providing more capacity an urgent issue?
When it was just 276 and the connector between the NJT and the PATP, not really. Now that a major mainline interstate is being routed onto it, it may increase, but I still don't think as much as people think. A lot of people who are thru-travelling from Baltimore, DC, and points south on 95 are probably already taking the NJ Turnpike from the Del Mem Br already, and drivers in the Philadelphia area are coming back via the Walt Whitman, Ben Franklin, or other bridges from the city itself. Time will tell.
One has to wonder (not to beat a dead horse here) that had these new ramps been completed
prior to the completion of I-195 & I-295 east of Trenton (both would happen during the early 90s); would the increased capacity due to the new ramps opening and said-I-95 designation on the Turnpike Connector been more than what will eventually take place after this weekend?
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 11:07:47 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 18, 2018, 10:27:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 18, 2018, 10:22:57 AMI have seen data that the AADT is about 47,000. Given that by its location there might not be much in the way of rush hour peaks, does it have any real traffic problems that would make providing more capacity an urgent issue?
When it was just 276 and the connector between the NJT and the PATP, not really. Now that a major mainline interstate is being routed onto it, it may increase, but I still don't think as much as people think. A lot of people who are thru-travelling from Baltimore, DC, and points south on 95 are probably already taking the NJ Turnpike from the Del Mem Br already, and drivers in the Philadelphia area are coming back via the Walt Whitman, Ben Franklin, or other bridges from the city itself. Time will tell.
One has to wonder (not to beat a dead horse here) that had these new ramps been completed prior to the completion of I-195 & I-295 east of Trenton (both would happen during the early 90s); would the increased capacity due to the new ramps opening and said-I-95 designation on the Turnpike Connector been more than what will eventually take place after this weekend?
At this point you're talking 25 years ago...So much could have happened between then and now that you can't really analyze it. Everything from Wilmington to Trenton along I-95, I-295 and the NJ Turnpike, along with nearly every other major road in the region, has been studied and constructed based on what was existing at the time.
One more note regarding the I-95 Delaware River Bridge toll being a "bridge toll" : It's only charged westbound (to Pennsylvania), which is consistent with the DRPA bridges.
I think there's a natural limit to toll increases, though, because the Turnpike bridge is, to an extent, in competition with the other Delaware River crossings as well as the New Jersey Turnpike. Continuous toll increases may be a way to wring more money out of the essentially captive audience that is headed from the NJ Turnpike to Harrisburg and points west, but it at the same time potentially kills off the new revenue streams from commuter and long-distance I-95 traffic that the PTC is currently not profiting from. And I tend to think that the latter group has greater potential to bring more revenue to PTC coffers. The officials on hand for the meet basically said as much.
With regard to the Delaware River Bridge, the PTC and NJTA are considering multiple options. The long-standing plan has been to construct a parallel bridge, then rehabilitate the existing one. This option is still on the table.
They're also considering options that would result in demolition of the existing bridge–after being replaced with either a single new bridge carrying both directions or two new parallel bridges. The chief engineer from Jacobs (the lead contractor on the I-95 project) said during the meet that opinions among engineers at both toll agencies and all contractors is split roughly in half. About 50% are emphatic that the existing Delaware River Bridge is perfectly sound and that replacing it outright would be a waste of resources. The other 50% are equally emphatic that the bridge must be replaced. The Jacobs engineer (who seemed to be in the "save" camp) stated that no other bridge in the country has been inspected more carefully or more thoroughly.
Regardless, the PTC will be carefully monitoring traffic trends after the opening of the I-95 flyovers to analyze trends that will influence the plan of action for the bridge.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 18, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
One more note regarding the I-95 Delaware River Bridge toll being a "bridge toll" : It's only charged westbound (to Pennsylvania), which is consistent with the DRPA bridges.
I think there's a natural limit to toll increases, though, because the Turnpike bridge is, to an extent, in competition with the other Delaware River crossings as well as the New Jersey Turnpike. Continuous toll increases may be a way to wring more money out of the essentially captive audience that is headed from the NJ Turnpike to Harrisburg and points west, but it at the same time potentially kills off the new revenue streams from commuter and long-distance I-95 traffic that the PTC is currently not profiting from. And I tend to think that the latter group has greater potential to bring more revenue to PTC coffers. The officials on hand for the meet basically said as much.
With regard to the Delaware River Bridge, the PTC and NJTA are considering multiple options. The long-standing plan has been to construct a parallel bridge, then rehabilitate the existing one. This option is still on the table.
They're also considering options that would result in demolition of the existing bridge–after being replaced with either a single new bridge carrying both directions or two new parallel bridges. The chief engineer from Jacobs (the lead contractor on the I-95 project) said during the meet that opinions among engineers at both toll agencies and all contractors is split roughly in half. About 50% are emphatic that the existing Delaware River Bridge is perfectly sound and that replacing it outright would be a waste of resources. The other 50% are equally emphatic that the bridge must be replaced. The Jacobs engineer (who seemed to be in the "save" camp) stated that no other bridge in the country has been inspected more carefully or more thoroughly.
Regardless, the PTC will be carefully monitoring traffic trends after the opening of the I-95 flyovers to analyze trends that will influence the plan of action for the bridge.
At this stage in the game, that's appropriate.
When it comes to construction projects, usually there's a obscene number of alternatives that are preliminary designed and considered. Often, many of those plans are rejected in-house before they ever make it to the public. The NJ Turnpike considered numerous ideas for their 6-9 widening, including what would be frequently considered the easiest and cheapest option - just having all the lanes on one roadway, rather than dividing them 3-3 as they ultimately did. Sure, it seemed like the natural progression considering what they've done up north, but it was by far not the only option considered.
In the project I know and love, the 295/76/42 interchange, 26 options were considered and even made public. Those 26 were whittled down to 5. And ultimately the final design has still undergone some changes after it was picked.
So what does it mean for the NJ/PA Turnpike bridge? Anything is possible. Someone could even toss in the idea of a tunnel. It'll be soundly rejected within 30 seconds because of the hazmat issue, but it's nonetheless an alternative idea that was considered and documented. Expect other groups to chime in, wanting pedestrian/bicycle/rail access. And especially in NJ but true in PA as well, the towns affected have to give their blessing to the projects also, and sometimes those towns will use their power to demand a few extra favors from the transportation authorities.
The Bucks County Courier-Times has a story today stating that both I-95 and the PA Turnpike will be closed near the interchange Friday Night so they can complete the final work needed to make I-95 continuous.
http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/20180917/pa-turnpike-i-95-to-close-friday-night
The last paragraph mentions what we've been talking about today - the PA/NJ Turnpike Bridge. It's extremely general in nature and no timeline is given.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 18, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
They're also considering options that would result in demolition of the existing bridge–after being replaced with either a single new bridge carrying both directions or two new parallel bridges. The chief engineer from Jacobs (the lead contractor on the I-95 project) said during the meet that opinions among engineers at both toll agencies and all contractors is split roughly in half. About 50% are emphatic that the existing Delaware River Bridge is perfectly sound and that replacing it outright would be a waste of resources. The other 50% are equally emphatic that the bridge must be replaced. The Jacobs engineer (who seemed to be in the "save" camp) stated that no other bridge in the country has been inspected more carefully or more thoroughly.
Regarding the load carrying capacity and the structural integrity and the approximate lifespan at that load carrying capacity, sound engineering sources should be pretty close in their analysis results. If they are not then that is a concern.
On the other hand if the question is how much it would cost to rehab the original bridge and how long the rehab would last, then it becomes a valid question as to whether the cost versus benefits are worth rehabbing and not replacing.
Edit/correction in blue:
Quote from: briantroutman on September 18, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
One more note regarding the I-95 Delaware River Bridge toll being a "bridge toll" : It's only charged westbound (to Pennsylvania), which is consistent with the DRPA bridges.
FYI,
all the tolled Delaware River crossings (sans the Dingman's Ferry Bridge) are one-way (westbound) not just the DRPA ones (although those have the next-highest toll rate (of $5)).
Quote from: briantroutman on September 18, 2018, 12:03:58 PMI think there''s a natural limit to toll increases, though, because the Turnpike bridge is, to an extent, in competition with the other Delaware River crossings as well as the New Jersey Turnpike.
Given that the current Toll-By-Plate rate is
already higher than that of the four DRPA bridges; I honestly don't believe the PTC (at least the operatives in Harrisburg) took such into consideration (was such a question even asked at the meet?)... especially that the locals (from US 130) are/were
already paying a $2.20/$3
on top of whatever the PTC charged. In short, one's looking at $7.20 to $9.75 toll to use that bridge from US 130 to US 13 (or continue along I-95 southbound to where-ever once the ramp opens).
Bold emphasis added below:
Quote from: briantroutman on September 18, 2018, 12:03:58 PMContinuous toll increases may be a way to wring more money out of the essentially captive audience that is headed from the NJ Turnpike to Harrisburg and points west, but it at the same time potentially kills off the new revenue streams from commuter and long-distance I-95 traffic that the PTC is currently not profiting from. And I tend to think that the latter group has greater potential to bring more revenue to PTC coffers. The officials on hand for the meet basically said as much.
So what you're saying is that the officials are
in agreement that the significantly higher tolls could potentially kill off the new revenue potentials from these new ramps (actually just the new through I-95 southbound ramp)... something I've been saying ever since that new one-way Turnpike toll rate was set for that AET gantry.
Personal note: Ever since that AET gantry went
live; I actually
stopped using that crossing (to access I-95 South via US 13 & PA 413) for my return trips from New England and points to the northeast due to the new toll rate (it was no longer cheaper than using the Walt Whitman Bridge off I-295).
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 01:40:45 PM
Given that the current Toll-By-Plate rate is already higher than that of the four DRPA bridges
One could actually argue DRPA is more when you factor in the mileage + fees. DRPA charges $25 on top of the $5 toll if you were to toll by plate. The Delaware River Bridge toll by plate is what? Around $7 if you get off at US13. I know you pay the full length rate + fees if you go any further.
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 18, 2018, 01:57:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 01:40:45 PM
Given that the current Toll-By-Plate rate is already higher than that of the four DRPA bridges
One could actually argue DRPA is more when you factor in the mileage + fees. DRPA charges $25 on top of the $5 toll if you were to toll by plate. The Delaware River Bridge toll by plate is what? Around $7 if you get off at US13. I know you pay the full length rate + fees if you go any further.
The DRPA does
not have Toll-By-Plate. It's either cash or E-ZPass and the toll rate of $5 applies for both user types (not counting the commuter discount for NJ E-ZPass accounts that use DRPA facilities 18+ times per month).
As matter of fact,
none of the Delaware River Crossings either south or north of the Turnpike bridge have AET/Toll-By-Plate yet.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 01:40:45 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 18, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
One more note regarding the I-95 Delaware River Bridge toll being a “bridge toll”: It’s only charged westbound (to Pennsylvania), which is consistent with the DRPA bridges.
FYI, all the tolled Delaware River crossings are one-way (westbound) not just the DRPA ones (although those have the next-highest toll rate (of $5)).
The Dingman's Ferry bridge is still $1 each way, I believe.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 18, 2018, 03:15:47 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 01:40:45 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 18, 2018, 12:03:58 PM
One more note regarding the I-95 Delaware River Bridge toll being a "bridge toll" : It's only charged westbound (to Pennsylvania), which is consistent with the DRPA bridges.
FYI, all the tolled Delaware River crossings (sans the Dingmans Ferry Bridge) are one-way (westbound) not just the DRPA ones (although those have the next-highest toll rate (of $5)).
The Dingman's Ferry bridge is still $1 each way, I believe.
Previous post has been edited/corrected in blue per the above. Such is rather odd given that every other tolled Delaware River crossing has been one-way since the mid-1990s. Then again, such (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2200477,-74.8603535,3a,75y,106.56h,65.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgErfVuaCK1Kz3PlekbvH0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) isn't exactly a high volume bridge.
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 18, 2018, 01:57:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 01:40:45 PM
Given that the current Toll-By-Plate rate is already higher than that of the four DRPA bridges
One could actually argue DRPA is more when you factor in the mileage + fees. DRPA charges $25 on top of the $5 toll if you were to toll by plate. The Delaware River Bridge toll by plate is what? Around $7 if you get off at US13. I know you pay the full length rate + fees if you go any further.
That's really a fine, not toll-by-plate. It is assessed each time you go thru.
That's like saying you can stop at a stop sign, or pay a $115 fee to roll thru a stop sign because they have cameras there.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 03:42:27 PM
Such is rather odd given that every other tolled Delaware River crossing has been one-way since the mid-1990s. Then again, such (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2200477,-74.8603535,3a,75y,106.56h,65.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgErfVuaCK1Kz3PlekbvH0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) isn't exactly a high volume bridge.
It's also the only privately owned bridge on the Delaware.
The DRPA EZpass rate for senior citizens is $2.50.
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
We charge the stupid and the lazy. If you can figure out how to leave the state without paying a toll, you get away free.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
Canada's delightful Prince Edward Island is the same way, only with no free escape routes.
Quote from: oscar on September 18, 2018, 11:55:32 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
Canada's delightful Prince Edward Island is the same way, only with no free escape routes.
Because with NJ, at least there are a few free bridges over the Delaware, and the overland escape routes are free.
Quote from: Alps on September 18, 2018, 11:37:55 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
We charge the stupid and the lazy. If you can figure out how to leave the state without paying a toll, you get away free.
Ah, a stupidity tax. But isn't that what the state lotteries already are? :-D
Thunderstorms are forecast for Friday night. :angry:
Quote from: qguy on September 19, 2018, 06:22:21 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 18, 2018, 11:37:55 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
We charge the stupid and the lazy. If you can figure out how to leave the state without paying a toll, you get away free.
Ah, a stupidity tax. But isn't that what the state lotteries already are? :-D
No. State lotteries are a tax on the mathematically challenged. Especially in Massachusetts, where the Lottery keeps between 60 and 90 (depending upon which of the 92,486 agents you choose to patronize) separate and distinct scratch tickets in circulation at any given time.
Quote from: NE2 on September 18, 2018, 06:26:05 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 18, 2018, 03:42:27 PM
Such is rather odd given that every other tolled Delaware River crossing has been one-way since the mid-1990s. Then again, such (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2200477,-74.8603535,3a,75y,106.56h,65.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgErfVuaCK1Kz3PlekbvH0g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) isn't exactly a high volume bridge.
It's also the only privately owned bridge on the Delaware.
Good to know. Such explains why the toll (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2200384,-74.8606294,3a,75y,281.45h,61.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0tC6oOgarX85pwufVLL8Nw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is
cash only.
Quote from: roadman on September 19, 2018, 09:25:00 AM
Quote from: qguy on September 19, 2018, 06:22:21 AM
Ah, a stupidity tax. But isn't that what the state lotteries already are? :-D
No. State lotteries are a tax on the mathematically challenged. Especially in Massachusetts, where the Lottery keeps between 60 and 90 (depending upon which of the 92,486 agents you choose to patronize) separate and distinct scratch tickets in circulation at any given time.
State lotteries consume disposable income that might have been spent on durable goods that would help stimulate the economy, or placed in savings that might have been spent on durable goods in the future, or placed in savings for retirement.
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2018, 09:42:42 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 19, 2018, 09:25:00 AM
Quote from: qguy on September 19, 2018, 06:22:21 AM
Ah, a stupidity tax. But isn't that what the state lotteries already are? :-D
No. State lotteries are a tax on the mathematically challenged. Especially in Massachusetts, where the Lottery keeps between 60 and 90 (depending upon which of the 92,486 agents you choose to patronize) separate and distinct scratch tickets in circulation at any given time.
State lotteries consume disposable income that might have been spent on durable goods that would help stimulate the economy, or placed in savings that might have been spent on durable goods in the future, or placed in savings for retirement.
On the other hand, proceeds generally go to state departments such as education, senior services, etc, which keeps taxes down.
Many lottery tickets are purchased in stores where the purchaser is also buying other items as well.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 19, 2018, 12:39:47 AM
Quote from: oscar on September 18, 2018, 11:55:32 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
Canada's delightful Prince Edward Island is the same way, only with no free escape routes.
Because with NJ, at least there are a few free bridges over the Delaware, and the overland escape routes are free.
Only issue is if you're coming from any point south of Trenton and heading to a point south of Trenton, however. There comes a point where the toll becomes cheaper than the extra gas used to get across the Delaware (cough, Delaware Memorial Bridge/Commodore Barry Bridge, cough).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2018, 10:48:29 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 19, 2018, 09:42:42 AM
State lotteries consume disposable income that might have been spent on durable goods that would help stimulate the economy, or placed in savings that might have been spent on durable goods in the future, or placed in savings for retirement.
On the other hand, proceeds generally go to state departments such as education, senior services, etc, which keeps taxes down.
Often get siphoned off into who-knows-where...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2018, 10:48:29 AM
Many lottery tickets are purchased in stores where the purchaser is also buying other items as well.
Still consumes disposable income that might have been spent on durable goods ...
Regarding our side topic of lotteries, here's an excerpt from the description of one piece of an assignment my Data Structures students are wrapping up, where they simulate playing a lottery game over many drawings and track winnings and losses.
QuoteThe good folks in charge of the lottery were concerned that people who did well in math, and in particular computer scientists, were not playing their "Numbers Game" nearly often enough compared to the general public. This is the game where bettors pick a 3-digit number (000 to 999 in boring old base 10) to bet on, and if they win, they get a 500:1 payout. In an attempt to combat the dismal play rate among the state's best and brightest, they decided to introduce a variant of the game that would tempt this particular group with the numbers drawn in hexadecimal and payout rates that are powers of 2! What computer scientist will be able to resist that?!
In the new game, a bettor wagers on which random hexadecimal number between 00 and FF (0-255 for the uninitiated) will be selected that day. The payoff in our game is 128:1, i.e., for a $1 bet, a match will result in a $128 payout. A $2 bet will result in a $256 payout, etc..
Unfortunately, just like the standard "Numbers Game", this only sounds great to anyone who never passed elementary school math or to those who are looking for ways to get rid of some of their money. In reality, if you play this game long enough, you should expect to lose half of the money you've wagered.
And thank you all for today's updates re: the interchange.......
Quote from: Alps on September 18, 2018, 11:37:55 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
We charge the stupid and the lazy. If you can figure out how to leave the state without paying a toll, you get away free.
If you're driving through New Jersey on the way to somewhere else it is very hard to get anywhere without going on the NJ Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, or one of the various toll bridges in New Jersey and New York. It is just massively inconvenient to go out of your way to do otherwise.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 20, 2018, 03:09:11 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 18, 2018, 11:37:55 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
We charge the stupid and the lazy. If you can figure out how to leave the state without paying a toll, you get away free.
If you're driving through New Jersey on the way to somewhere else it is very hard to get anywhere without going on the NJ Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, or one of the various toll bridges in New Jersey and New York. It is just massively inconvenient to go out of your way to do otherwise.
Well, certainly, those roads are placed in corridors where they would produce the most traffic, and after those roads were built, many other roads and highways were built in such a way to often lead motorists to those main, existing toll roads and bridges.
That said, it's not impossible, and in many cases the willingness to trade a slightly longer drive, either in miles or minutes, for a free drive can be accomplished, especially for the toll roads. The bridges are a bit harder to get around though, but again, not impossible.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 20, 2018, 08:00:43 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on September 20, 2018, 03:09:11 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 18, 2018, 11:37:55 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 18, 2018, 06:56:20 PM
What made NJ such a bad place that if you want to leave it, you have to pay a toll?
We charge the stupid and the lazy. If you can figure out how to leave the state without paying a toll, you get away free.
If you're driving through New Jersey on the way to somewhere else it is very hard to get anywhere without going on the NJ Turnpike, Pennsylvania Turnpike, New York State Thruway, or one of the various toll bridges in New Jersey and New York. It is just massively inconvenient to go out of your way to do otherwise.
Well, certainly, those roads are placed in corridors where they would produce the most traffic, and after those roads were built, many other roads and highways were built in such a way to often lead motorists to those main, existing toll roads and bridges.
That said, it's not impossible, and in many cases the willingness to trade a slightly longer drive, either in miles or minutes, for a free drive can be accomplished, especially for the toll roads. The bridges are a bit harder to get around though, but again, not impossible.
What slightly longer route would avoid the NJ Turnpike north of I-195? US 1? That'll be jammed almost 24 hours a day. As for bridges, as has been mentioned before, if you're south of Trenton there is no slightly longer route to avoid paying a toll completely. And if you're going to New York City from points south and west it's even worse. There are no free Hudson river crossings south of Dunn Memorial Bridge. That (along with not touching any other toll roads along the way) will cost you >250 miles and 6 hours of driving.
So, I did a few quick routes to see what the time difference was.
Remember...the closest parallel route may not be the best free route. And for something like US 1 as you mentioned, that road actually moves quite well, even in rush hour traffic (especially away from the traffic lights).
The below times and mileage are taken from Google Maps. You'll have to type the cities in yourself to get exact directions and travel times, which can change slightly due to time of day, accidents, etc.
Newark, DE to New Haven, CT:
Shortest way, involving toll roads: 225 Miles, 3 hours 51 minutes.
Cheapest way, no toll roads or bridges: 235 Miles, 4 hours 24 minutes.
Newark, DE to Albany, NY:
Tolls: 270 Miles, 4 hours 12 minutes
No Tolls: 274 Miles, 5 hours 52 minutes
So as you see, you're not really putting any significant extra mileage on your car, and in the case of DE to CT, for 30 minutes extra travel time you're saving upwards of $25 - $30!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 20, 2018, 09:37:28 AM
So, I did a few quick routes to see what the time difference was.
Remember...the closest parallel route may not be the best free route. And for something like US 1 as you mentioned, that road actually moves quite well, even in rush hour traffic (especially away from the traffic lights).
Away from traffic lights is just a tiny portion of the route if you're looking for a long-distance alternative in NJ.
Quote
The below times and mileage are taken from Google Maps. You'll have to type the cities in yourself to get exact directions and travel times, which can change slightly due to time of day, accidents, etc.
Newark, DE to New Haven, CT:
Shortest way, involving toll roads: 225 Miles, 3 hours 51 minutes.
Cheapest way, no toll roads or bridges: 235 Miles, 4 hours 24 minutes.
You are paying for the Tappan Zee (sorry, Cuomo) bridge on that "toll free" route
Quote
Newark, DE to Albany, NY:
Tolls: 270 Miles, 4 hours 12 minutes
No Tolls: 274 Miles, 5 hours 52 minutes
Even if those times are realistic (which they're not) you've just increased your travel time by 40%
Yeah, I trusted Google Maps when I said 'No Tolls'...didn't look closely to see that they still involved a toll!
Less than two days (http://isi95completeyet.tk/) for the earliest possible opening! (Weather looks good this weekend, so it could only be delayed if the PTC, NJTA, or PennDOT mess up the signs.)
One would have to drive all the way to Albany to avoid paying an eastbound toll to cross the Hudson River and continue to New Haven. But then the NYSBA EZPass tolls are only $1.25.
As all of the toll bridges have their one-way toll in the direction leaving NJ, returning here is a whole another story. New Haven CT to Newark DE could be close to the example cited for the reverse journey.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 20, 2018, 10:23:36 AM
Less than two days (http://isi95completeyet.tk/) for the earliest possible opening! (Weather looks good this weekend, so it could only be delayed if the PTC, NJTA, or PennDOT mess up the signs.)
Opening now scheduled for 5AM Saturday per KYW
https://kywnewsradio.radio.com/articles/news/pa-turnpike-commission-reaches-milestone-new-i-95-interchange
Just gonna throw in here that from the I-80/287 junction, it is equally fast to take 287, 206-Great Road or 202-31, what's now I-295 to I-95 and head south toward Baltimore/DC as it is to take NJ 24, GS Parkway, NJ Tpk to the same. And much cheaper.
Anyone want to take bets whether the remaining proposed ramps for this interchange get built in the near future or ever get built at all? At the speed the PTC does these projects, I'll bet I won't see it in my lifetime.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 20, 2018, 09:13:05 PM
Anyone want to take bets whether the remaining proposed ramps for this interchange get built in the near future or ever get built at all? At the speed the PTC does these projects, I'll bet I won't see it in my lifetime.
Are these projects scheduled yet?
Speaking of the roads going into Connecticut:
https://www.facebook.com/CTDepartmentofMemes/photos/a.365897293935661/425540854637971/?type=3&theater
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 20, 2018, 09:13:05 PM
Anyone want to take bets whether the remaining proposed ramps for this interchange get built in the near future or ever get built at all? At the speed the PTC does these projects, I'll bet I won't see it in my lifetime.
Are these projects scheduled yet?
Those are Sections D30 and D40. (The current flyovers are Sections D10 and D20.) They have not been scheduled for construction yet; they're scheduled to go to final design this year if they haven't already.
When I was the Philadelphia representative on the Community Design Coordination Committee (or whatever it was called, memory fails) from around 1992 to around 2002, the locals in the immediate vicinity of the project area felt very strongly that if so much I-95 corridor traffic was going to be shifted into their community, at least they would see a local benefit in the form of increased convenience for themselves.
When I spoke with the PA Turnpike engineer and Jacobs Engineering engineer at the Golden Spike Meet, they assured me that they and their colleagues were keenly aware of the "promise" forged with the locals over the years. For their part, the two of them were obviously very enthusiastic about the
entire project, and were personally committed to pushing the organization toward completing the entire project. They said the PTC remains committed to completing it.
As with anything, it's a matter of funding. The original federal contribution was not nearly enough to pay for entire project. In fact, the current construction has exhausted the federal funding. So now we wait. No one, not even at the PTC, has a precise answer as to when the remaining ramps will be built.
If I were forced to make a prediction, I'd say they'll start construction possibly within five years, almost certainly within ten (real bold on my part, eh?), if only because anything farther out would be a political scandal.
Just notice the following message on the project website:
Highway Advisory I-276 between Bensalem and Delaware Valley: Planned Turnpike Closure September 22, 2018. Last Updated: 9/19/2018 5:43:08 PM
The Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 276) will be closed in both directions Saturday, September 22nd from 12:01AM until 6AM, between the Bensalem Exit #351 & the Delaware Valley Exit #358. The closure is required for I-95 sign re-designation & opening of the I-95 flyovers.
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2018, 10:52:35 PM
Just notice the following message on the project website:
Highway Advisory I-276 between Bensalem and Delaware Valley: Planned Turnpike Closure September 22, 2018. Last Updated: 9/19/2018 5:43:08 PM
The Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 276) will be closed in both directions Saturday, September 22nd from 12:01AM until 6AM, between the Bensalem Exit #351 & the Delaware Valley Exit #358. The closure is required for I-95 sign re-designation & opening of the I-95 flyovers.
It's happening.
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2018, 10:45:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 20, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
Are these projects scheduled yet?
Those are Sections D30 and D40. (The current flyovers are Sections D10 and D20.) They have not been scheduled for construction yet; they're scheduled to go to final design this year if they haven't already.
[....]
It would be helpful if they would include a cost estimate, but given the amount of bridgework surely it will be expensive.
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d30-d40.aspx
Article in the Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www2.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/i-95-completed-after-62-years-bucks-highway-finished-turnpike-20180921.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&cid=Philly.com+Facebook&utm_campaign=Philly.com+Facebook+Account
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2018, 10:52:35 PM
Just notice the following message on the project website:
Highway Advisory I-276 between Bensalem and Delaware Valley: Planned Turnpike Closure September 22, 2018. Last Updated: 9/19/2018 5:43:08 PM
The Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 276) will be closed in both directions Saturday, September 22nd from 12:01AM until 6AM, between the Bensalem Exit #351 & the Delaware Valley Exit #358. The closure is required for I-95 sign re-designation & opening of the I-95 flyovers.
Is there anything being done on the NJ side ? Are they just removing the panels from the Exit 6 signs that cover the I-95 shields, or are there any other signs going up?
Quote from: Steve D on September 21, 2018, 08:42:09 AMIs there anything being done on the NJ side ? Are they just removing the panels from the Exit 6 signs that cover the I-95 shields, or are there any other signs going up?
I don't know about
other signs going up per se; but there are still several sign panels along/near the NJ Turnpike that need to have I-95 shields placed on them. Additionally, that 3-mile advance (Clearview) BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1076882,-74.8014066,3a,75y,299.33h,77.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPjQkyygx8EihWbt6UoWu-OSjor3Sg0hP9PIGeA!2e10!3e11!7i2508!8i1254) for the US 13 interchange (formerly known as the
Delaware Valleyinterchange) will need to have its EXIT number tab changed from 358 to 42.
Tid bit (& I noticed such towards the end of the meet): there does not seem to be any new/covered signage at the US 13 interchange from the former interchange toll plaza location to and along US 13/Bristol Pike itself. Meaning there's no hint of its new I-95 identity at this interchange (off the Turnpike) as of yet.
_____________________________________________________________
Once these new ramps open, the only traffic movement issue I see, and one or two others commented on such during the meet, is that I-95 northbounders seeking to get on US 13 at Exit 358/42 will need to cross-over two lanes in order to reach the ramp. Such can be more of a challenge should traffic along/from I-276 be heavier.
All of us at the meet had to do such towards the end and were successful (nobody I know of accidentally overshot the exit & wound up in NJ); but then again, I-276 eastbound traffic was relatively light at the time.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 20, 2018, 11:21:25 PM
It's happening.
Check my countdown at 11am when the ceremony starts. :colorful:EDIT: Scratch that, check after midnight when they close it for the sign changes.
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2018, 10:45:41 PMThose are Sections D30 and D40. (The current flyovers are Sections D10 and D20.) They have not been scheduled for construction yet; they're scheduled to go to final design this year if they haven't already.
Has there been a decision on who advertises the projects for construction? PennDOT advertised the current project, notwithstanding the plans having PTC plan sheet collars.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 21, 2018, 09:41:10 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 20, 2018, 11:21:25 PM
It's happening.
Check my countdown at 11am when the ceremony starts. :colorful:
EDIT: Scratch that, check after midnight when they close it for the sign changes.
Well, the ceremony, at least, did happen. Just got back from it. Many politicians (federal, state and local) and higher-level transportation agency folks spoke. Audience included a large number of past and present participants in various aspects of the project over the years and folks from several other agencies (Delaware River Toll Bridge Commission, for instance). I estimate around 400 people or so. I did not see any New Jersey folks (DOT or TA) in my mingling. There was a symbolic ribbon cutting, but my view was blocked by many folks rushing the stage to film it.
Confirmed that the closures would still occur tonight (based on weather outlook). Project folks I spoke to were not thrilled that the internally targeted time of opening (5:00 a.m. tomorrow) was reported to the media, because of the potential for vehicles queuing up on the I-95 NB shoulder waiting for the opening. (Who would be thinking of doing that -- not me . . . :biggrin:) Officially, it is Monday morning rush hour, with the earliest being 5:00 a.m. tomorrow if all goes well with the sign changes.
Edited to add link to PTC press release.
https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2018/20180921112832.htm (https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2018/20180921112832.htm)
I suppose it's kind of sad that due to where I live in southern NJ there is absolutely zero chance of me ever needing that interchange unless I'm going somewhere right next to it, and even then there would be at least one alternate (and cheaper) route that would not take any more time. Now if they ever build the remaining ramps I could envision it as an alternative route to get to the Poconos (Betsy Ross Bridge to I-95 North to I-276 West to I-476 North) or places along now-295 in PA (NJ Turnpike North to I-95 South to I-295 East). Even those are a bit of a stretch.
I'm sorry for the fact that I had to do this...well, I'm not sorry...but I had to do this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otZKdoHs06g
I'm sorry you have the wrong Valjean in that video. :-D :-D :-D
Now that we've reached this point, will there actually be an ongoing effort to complete the multiple remaining missing movements at the interchange? Or will this be similar to the Second Avenue Subway in which there is the tacit common sentiment that we were lucky enough to get part of a public works project opened and best not to press our luck with actually completing the entire vision?
Quote from: motorway on September 21, 2018, 04:59:59 PM
Now that we've reached this point, will there actually be an ongoing effort to complete the multiple remaining missing movements at the interchange? Or will this be similar to the Second Avenue Subway in which there is the tacit common sentiment that we were lucky enough to get part of a public works project opened and best not to press our luck with actually completing the entire vision?
Last I heard, the other six interchange ramps were going into the final design phase. I sure hope that they can get it all done.
Quote from: motorway on September 21, 2018, 04:59:59 PM
Now that we've reached this point, will there actually be an ongoing effort to complete the multiple remaining missing movements at the interchange? Or will this be similar to the Second Avenue Subway in which there is the tacit common sentiment that we were lucky enough to get part of a public works project opened and best not to press our luck with actually completing the entire vision?
No one knows the answer to be sure, but I think the best response to the question was already given upthread.
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2018, 10:45:41 PM
When I was the Philadelphia representative on the Community Design Coordination Committee (or whatever it was called, memory fails) from around 1992 to around 2002, the locals in the immediate vicinity of the project area felt very strongly that if so much I-95 corridor traffic was going to be shifted into their community, at least they would see a local benefit in the form of increased convenience for themselves.
When I spoke with the PA Turnpike engineer and Jacobs Engineering engineer at the Golden Spike Meet, they assured me that they and their colleagues were keenly aware of the "promise" forged with the locals over the years. For their part, the two of them were obviously very enthusiastic about the entire project, and were personally committed to pushing the organization toward completing the entire project. They said the PTC remains committed to completing it.
As with anything, it's a matter of funding. The original federal contribution was not nearly enough to pay for entire project. In fact, the current construction has exhausted the federal funding. So now we wait. No one, not even at the PTC, has a precise answer as to when the remaining ramps will be built.
If I were forced to make a prediction, I'd say they'll start construction possibly within five years, almost certainly within ten (real bold on my part, eh?), if only because anything farther out would be a political scandal.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 21, 2018, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: motorway on September 21, 2018, 04:59:59 PM
Now that we've reached this point, will there actually be an ongoing effort to complete the multiple remaining missing movements at the interchange? Or will this be similar to the Second Avenue Subway in which there is the tacit common sentiment that we were lucky enough to get part of a public works project opened and best not to press our luck with actually completing the entire vision?
No one knows the answer to be sure, but I think the best response to the question was already given upthread.
Quote from: qguy on September 20, 2018, 10:45:41 PM
When I was the Philadelphia representative on the Community Design Coordination Committee (or whatever it was called, memory fails) from around 1992 to around 2002, the locals in the immediate vicinity of the project area felt very strongly that if so much I-95 corridor traffic was going to be shifted into their community, at least they would see a local benefit in the form of increased convenience for themselves.
When I spoke with the PA Turnpike engineer and Jacobs Engineering engineer at the Golden Spike Meet, they assured me that they and their colleagues were keenly aware of the "promise" forged with the locals over the years. For their part, the two of them were obviously very enthusiastic about the entire project, and were personally committed to pushing the organization toward completing the entire project. They said the PTC remains committed to completing it.
As with anything, it's a matter of funding. The original federal contribution was not nearly enough to pay for entire project. In fact, the current construction has exhausted the federal funding. So now we wait. No one, not even at the PTC, has a precise answer as to when the remaining ramps will be built.
If I were forced to make a prediction, I'd say they'll start construction possibly within five years, almost certainly within ten (real bold on my part, eh?), if only because anything farther out would be a political scandal.
This is to say that they will be built; we just don't know when.
We know that they'll be updating the signs on the PA side, but does anyone know when they will uncover the I-95 signs at Exit 6 on the New Jersey Turnpike?
Quote from: jcn on September 21, 2018, 06:58:34 PM
We know that they'll be updating the signs on the PA side, but does anyone know when they will uncover the I-95 signs at Exit 6 on the New Jersey Turnpike?
I will let you know tomorrow when I go through that area. Some signs north and west of Exit 6 also need to be adjusted as well.
Quote from: akotchi on September 21, 2018, 07:23:18 PM
Quote from: jcn on September 21, 2018, 06:58:34 PM
We know that they'll be updating the signs on the PA side, but does anyone know when they will uncover the I-95 signs at Exit 6 on the New Jersey Turnpike?
I will let you know tomorrow when I go through that area. Some signs north and west of Exit 6 also need to be adjusted as well.
I'm surprised that there's nothing under the sign for I-276 East from US 13.
Quote from: jcn on September 21, 2018, 06:58:34 PM
We know that they'll be updating the signs on the PA side, but does anyone know when they will uncover the I-95 signs at Exit 6 on the New Jersey Turnpike?
They're pretty with it. If PTC notifies NJTA that the new road is open, they'll come through and do it.
Even if there's any delay in modifying the signs at NJT Exit-6, no real harm will be done. Only way there would be any problem was if the signs were changed before the new ramps are opened.
Local coverage of the I-95/PA Turnpike opening:
http://www.fox29.com/news/interchange-connecting-i-95-and-the-paturnpike-set-to-open
https://6abc.com/traffic/ramps-connecting-i-95-with-pa-turnpike-set-to-open/4302270/
The Turnpike and I-95/295 closures have begun, and what appear to be the first signs to be uncovered are the ones at the entrance to new I-95 from U.S. 13. Posted on barricades are Jct/95, To/Toll/West/276, and To/PaTP route marker assemblies. Photos later in daylight – my shots did not come out tonight.
Gonna go to bed out here on the west coast. When I wake up, I-95 will be a complete route from Florida to Maine.
PTC reports ramps opened at 6:52 a.m. EDT.
Just drove through– it's open!
Signage on I-95 northbound is APL. Southbound/westbound is diagrammatic.
I will post photos when I get the opportunity to take them...if someone else doesn't first. Not only does the new signage lack Penna Turnpike keystone markers, it's post TO with NJTP shields.
There's a video of the ceremony opening and the ceremonial ribbon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ_ztb-QfsU
Here's northbound on I-95 approaching the interchange:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1923/30969274478_781218f011_b.jpg)
On the flyover:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1956/30969274808_daae9d2884_b.jpg)
Merging with the PA Turnpike mainline northbound/eastbound:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1896/44841655001_235cb57be3_b.jpg)
Southbound/westbound on I-95/PA Turnpike approaching the interchange:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1960/44841382341_858fe1db86_b.jpg)
At the I-95/I-276 split:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1914/43030147380_f3a6306eab_b.jpg)
Signage for the PA 413 exit on the flyover:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1928/30969272828_b860916640_z.jpg)
Merging with I-295 southbound/westbound:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1914/44841382081_ae2b06386c_b.jpg)
With Exit 358 now Exit 42, what is the highest numbered exit in PA now?
And, do I understand correctly, that PennDOT has no desire to return to Clearview?
A trivial concern among all the destruction down there, but the ongoing flooding in North Carolina means it's not quite possible yet to drive from Miami to the Canadian border on now-continuous I-95.
Thanks so much for posting the photos!
Thanks for posting the photos, Brian!! I just did the circuit this morning and took many of the same shots ... I will have others to post later from the Turnpike and U.S. 13 approaches.
^^ (Both above) Absolutely–glad I can be the eyes on the ground for everyone who can't be here.
At first, I wondered why there was the inconsistency in signing approaches–APL northbound but diagrammatic southbound–but then I realized that it's because the mainline Turnpike has yet to be widened from the new interchange east to the Delaware River Bridge. And as a result, and APL would be an odd in fit in the current southbound/westbound configuration since the primary since the primary I-95 through lane doesn't yet exist at the point of the two advance guide signs. So the old-style diagrammatic interchange is probably a better fit for the time being. I wouldn't be surprised if the southbound signage is changed to APL after the widening and additional interchange segments are completed.
By the way, I after a few passes through the interchange and as daytime traffic volumes began to grow, I noticed a fair amount of confusion westbound–drivers getting into the far right lane (despite the multiple advance signs–plus mobile VMSes displaying "I-95 - KEEP RIGHT" ), then cutting across two lanes and the gore when they realized that the right lane does not continue to I-276 westbound.
^ The confusion may be because a three-lane diagrammatic sits over a two lane roadway, and the third lane opens on the left. Folks are still used to the Turnpike as the through move and expect the third lane to open to the right for I-95 traffic. This needs a few weeks for people to get used to it.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 10:26:44 AMAt first, I wondered why there was the inconsistency in signing approaches–APL northbound but diagrammatic southbound–but then I realized that it's because the mainline Turnpike has yet to be widened from the new interchange east to the Delaware River Bridge. And as a result, and APL would be an odd in fit in the current southbound/westbound configuration since the primary since the primary I-95 through lane doesn't yet exist at the point of the two advance guide signs. So the old-style diagrammatic interchange is probably a better fit for the time being. I wouldn't be surprised if the southbound signage is changed to APL after the widening and additional interchange segments are completed.
Stippled-arrow diagrammatics are cheaper since they have less sign panel area, and so are better suited for temporary or interim use. However, the one actually posted is misleading since it shows three lanes at the stem of the arrow when in fact there are just two. The motorist confusion you observed would likely have been less if the diagrammatic representation had shown on which side the third lane is gained prior to the diverge.
And in fairness, the confused motorists I observed could possibly be written off as locals on autopilot who are accustomed to the way it used to be. These were cars with NJ and PA plates and some delivery trucks of local businesses.
I did also see a NY-plated car follow the through I-95 southbound movement decisively–anecdotal evidence that the interchange's role in facilitating through I-95 traffic is already being fulfilled.
So does anyone know if the NJTA has uncovered any of its I-95 signs yet? I'm curious to see if any of the newer signage at Exit 9 and north will make its way south any time soon, or if the current signage from Exits 6 to 8A will carryover.
Overall I like what the PTC and PennDOT have done.
^ I will find out this afternoon when I go through that area. Chances are that the signs currently there will be overlaid with a shield or an existing overlay removed.
A handful in NJ are uncovered at Exit 6, though not even all of them. Most remain with blank spaces. Just drove through there 30-45 minutes ago.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on September 22, 2018, 10:53:50 AM
So does anyone know if the NJTA has uncovered any of its I-95 signs yet? I'm curious to see if any of the newer signage at Exit 9 and north will make its way south any time soon, or if the current signage from Exits 6 to 8A will carryover.
Overall I like what the PTC and PennDOT have done.
The "classic" NJ Turnpike signage from 8A southward won't be replaced with MUTCD signage anytime soon. It's too new. It was installed with the provision for adding the 95 shields when this finally opened.
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 22, 2018, 08:54:29 AM
With Exit 358 now Exit 42, what is the highest numbered exit in PA now?
That would most likely be PA-132, Street Road (Exit 352.) In terms of fully accessible interchanges, Exit 351--US 1--is the highest.
While I'm at it, I pulled up the PA Turnpike interactive map, and there's two VMSs near US 1 that are telling drivers, "I-276 EB becomes I-95 NB, 6 miles ahead."
I wonder if the I-95 interchange will be named Philadelphia interchange now then US-1 interchange is known as Bensalem interchange?
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 22, 2018, 01:22:14 PM
I wonder if the I-95 interchange will be named Philadelphia interchange now then US-1 interchange is known as Bensalem interchange?
I think the I-95 interchange could also rightfully be named Delaware Valley, given that -- particularly starting now -- it really is the main artery for the region.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 22, 2018, 01:22:14 PM
I wonder if the I-95 interchange will be named Philadelphia interchange now then US-1 interchange is known as Bensalem interchange?
I think that was the idea with renaming US 1.
Quote from: Alps on September 22, 2018, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 22, 2018, 01:22:14 PM
I wonder if the I-95 interchange will be named Philadelphia interchange now then US-1 interchange is known as Bensalem interchange?
I think that was the idea with renaming US 1.
IIRC the Bensalem interchange was once Philadelphia.
Yes, US 1 was once named Philadelphia; it was changed to Bensalem at least five years ago. I never understood the logic of endowing that one interchange with Philadelphia's name since Valley Forge is the de facto gateway to the city for through I-76 traffic, and from Bucks County or New Jersey, a number of other routes are essentially equivalent if not faster into the city from the westbound Turnpike.
Perhaps the PTC will have some internal name for the interchange, but whatever name it has will be essentially irrelevant to the public. It's not signed as a Turnpike interchange with a name banner at the top of the interchange, and since it's not part of the ticket system, it will never show up on a ticket or toll schedule. Likewise, the Delaware Valley Interchange ceases to carry that name publicly and is now just signed US 13 - Levittown - Bristol just as any PennDOT-maintained interchange would.
As was mentioned upthread, the PTC is truly abandoning any sense of Turnpike identity for the I-95 stretch: No keystone markers, no ticket system, no toll (except the bridge southbound/westbound), I-95 exit numbers, "through" I-276 signed as an exit.
For anyone interested in seeing a drive-through of the new I-95 through ramp (northbound, anyway), here's a sped up version of video I took on my first pass through this morning at approximately 7:20 a.m. Unfortunately, I didn't have a decent camera on hand, and my phone–which I wedged between the dashboard and the windshield while still driving–tried to auto-stabilize the image based on the hood of the car, so the footage doesn't look great. But at least it will give you an idea of what it's like to drive the new northbound flyover. If I have time later, I'll try to get better footage (busy with a work project today).
As of right now, only the signs in the outer roadway of the NJ Turnpike have the full signage with 95 shields. None of the signs in the inner roadway, nor the 2 mile approach sign which is one of the ones in the median only do. Nor do any of the signs on the Pearl Harbor extension have them yet. Got a few pictures and will post once I'm back in front of a computer and not on mobile.
iPhone
Here are the pictures I grabbed today:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2FJK2p7h.jpg&hash=c35d70fcafa5995d4bcdb9ec65b64f879ab79815) (https://imgur.com/2FJK2p7)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FT9BkERSh.jpg&hash=e9dd9ff2a4a18b5eca7a335f145db486ae143920) (https://imgur.com/T9BkERS)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQGea8Gnh.jpg&hash=d2cb9b2856dd131b543c2ac741d46d536148c0e9) (https://imgur.com/QGea8Gn)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0iR0IWZh.jpg&hash=3964468211531be33c9cda30a11a5891aa054062) (https://imgur.com/0iR0IWZ)
fixed photo order
Looks good, man. Can't wait to see the inner roadway signs once they're done.
So now, the NJ Turnpike between exit 6 and the Delaware Memorial Bridge has no route number?
Quote from: wilbur_the_goose on September 22, 2018, 06:04:16 PM
So now, the NJ Turnpike between exit 6 and the Delaware Memorial Bridge has no route number?
It's (unofficially) NJ-700.
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 04:16:52 PM
As of right now, only the signs in the outer roadway of the NJ Turnpike have the full signage with 95 shields. None of the signs in the inner roadway, nor the 2 mile approach sign which is one of the ones in the median only do.
This makes sense. When the topic of the NJ Turnpike's signage changes came up during the road meet, the Jacobs representative said that the NJTA would close the outer carriageway to change its signs, then when that was complete, separately close the inner carriageway and change its signs. So apparently, the NJTA decided to split the task over two separate days.
Quote from: wilbur_the_goose on September 22, 2018, 06:04:16 PM
So now, the NJ Turnpike between exit 6 and the Delaware Memorial Bridge has no route number?
Other than its internal number, the section south of roughly I-287 wasn't posted with a route number before, either. Certainly not the section south of Exit 6–it wasn't previously posted as I-95 if that's what you were thinking.
There are "TO I-95" shields posted on the NJ-700 section. Some say it should be posted as a I-x95 as its interstate standard and provides a bypass route. It likely would be if the highway was in NC. :P
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 10:50:11 AM
I did also see a NY-plated car follow the through I-95 southbound movement decisively–anecdotal evidence that the interchange's role in facilitating through I-95 traffic is already being fulfilled.
So it seems like some through traffic is shifting over to I-95 now.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 06:11:09 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 04:16:52 PM
As of right now, only the signs in the outer roadway of the NJ Turnpike have the full signage with 95 shields. None of the signs in the inner roadway, nor the 2 mile approach sign which is one of the ones in the median only do.
This makes sense. When the topic of the NJ Turnpike's signage changes came up during the road meet, the Jacobs representative said that the NJTA would close the outer carriageway to change its signs, then when that was complete, separately close the inner carriageway and change its signs. So apparently, the NJTA decided to split the task over two separate days.
That's the typical construction pattern for the NJ Turnpike - close the outer roadway one night, the inner roadway another. I suspect that tomorrow morning, the inner roadway signage will be updated, assuming the weather cooperates.
That's the thing. Double the roadways=double the trouble.
Quote from: Jim on September 22, 2018, 08:56:21 AM
A trivial concern among all the destruction down there, but the ongoing flooding in North Carolina means it's not quite possible yet to drive from Miami to the Canadian border on now-continuous I-95.
NCDOT reported yesterday that they hope I-95 can open through Robeson County on October 10. If one was so inclined to try it nonstop with empty Gatorade bottles--since in my college youth, I could do NJ to Tampa in 18 hrs--nonstop to Canada or Florida would be sometime on October 11.
Forty-two years after I first drove from NYC to Philadelphia and was shocked that I couldn't transition from the Penn. Tpke. to I-95, it's finally done. Glad it finally happened in my lifetime and I'll get to drive it on my next trip in that direction.
And many thanks to all for posting your photos and video of the new signage. Good job guys!
I kind of have a rough week ahead, so I'm glad to see some of these signs which I've been waiting for about a year now to see uncovered!
Somebody better tell Google Maps about the newly opened connection. GM is still not showing the ramps, even if you activate Traffic.
ixnay
As of now, Waze has the rerouted I-95 correctly marked. Good for them.
I saw a video of the SB I-95 approaching the WB I-276 split. That may be an issue for a little while. Maybe an extra sign or two stressing staying in the left lane for I-276 would help.
It will be interesting to see how much signage the PTC changes for EB I-276. The old EB control city was "New Jersey" but ALL the NB I-95 signage is "TO NJTP/New York" .
Approaching the westbound/southbound split are there any temporary or lighted signs in place warning of a "new traffic pattern" ahead? That might help some of the confused and disoriented drivers a little bit.
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 22, 2018, 08:54:29 AM
With Exit 358 now Exit 42, what is the highest numbered exit in PA now?
And, do I understand correctly, that PennDOT has no desire to return to Clearview?
354 from 76 EB to 676 NB coming off the Walt Whitman. The exit is actually in NJ but signed with a PA exit number.
iPhone
Quote from: Jim on September 22, 2018, 08:56:21 AM
A trivial concern among all the destruction down there, but the ongoing flooding in North Carolina means it's not quite possible yet to drive from Miami to the Canadian border on now-continuous I-95.
But what if you had this car (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr0iC4wZg2E) (skip to 1 minute in)?
I finished gathering some of the pictures my dad took this morning to post here. There are a lot, so I put them in this Imgur album (https://imgur.com/a/HpwfohJ).
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 06:11:09 PM
This makes sense. When the topic of the NJ Turnpike's signage changes came up during the road meet, the Jacobs representative said that the NJTA would close the outer carriageway to change its signs, then when that was complete, separately close the inner carriageway and change its signs. So apparently, the NJTA decided to split the task over two separate days.
Question: why would they even need to shut down the whole carriageway just to remove some greenout patches?
Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2018, 11:08:15 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 06:11:09 PM
This makes sense. When the topic of the NJ Turnpike's signage changes came up during the road meet, the Jacobs representative said that the NJTA would close the outer carriageway to change its signs, then when that was complete, separately close the inner carriageway and change its signs. So apparently, the NJTA decided to split the task over two separate days.
Question: why would they even need to shut down the whole carriageway just to remove some greenout patches?
They routinely schedule these things to do work. So they'll line up a bunch of people and do it then. Think of it this way - let's say someone up there accidentally drops the patch and it clatters to the roadway...
So, is the PTA handing PennDot the I-95 segment east of the I-276 interchange, or will it remain part of the PA Turnpike? Or hidden? It's not the first toll road to have several interstate designations, even though it ends at the bridge and feeds into the NJTP connector. Also which state or authority actually built the bridge, or was it a combined effort?
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 22, 2018, 11:02:40 PM
I finished gathering some of the pictures my dad took this morning to post here. There are a lot, so I put them in this Imgur album (https://imgur.com/a/HpwfohJ).
Interesting they used Princeton instead of Trenton as a control city for 295 East on that first sign.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on September 23, 2018, 02:07:31 AM
So, is the PTA handing PennDot the I-95 segment east of the I-276 interchange, or will it remain part of the PA Turnpike? Or hidden? It's not the first toll road to have several interstate designations, even though it ends at the bridge and feeds into the NJTP connector. Also which state or authority actually built the bridge, or was it a combined effort?
The PTC will maintain the former I276 segment and the PA half of the bridge as they have always done. The NJTA will maintain the NJ half of the bridge and the connector to the mainline as they have always done. PennDOT will maintain the flyovers, though.
Quote from: OracleUsr on September 23, 2018, 03:26:59 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 22, 2018, 11:02:40 PM
I finished gathering some of the pictures my dad took this morning to post here. There are a lot, so I put them in this Imgur album (https://imgur.com/a/HpwfohJ).
Interesting they used Princeton instead of Trenton as a control city for 295 East on that first sign.
295 is only Trenton up to US 1. By the time you get to 295 on US 1, Trenton is straight ahead.
As anticipated, the car lane signs were mostly fixed last night. Mostly.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on September 23, 2018, 02:07:31 AM
So, is the PTA handing PennDot the I-95 segment east of the I-276 interchange, or will it remain part of the PA Turnpike? Or hidden? It's not the first toll road to have several interstate designations, even though it ends at the bridge and feeds into the NJTP connector. Also which state or authority actually built the bridge, or was it a combined effort?
As already said, the PTC will continue to own I-95 east of the interchange, but it's no longer part of the Turnpike from the public's perspective. There are no Turnpike shields here, only "To I-276/PA Turnpike" from US 13.
I believe PennDOT plans to change their internal number for this stretch to 7095. The flyovers themselves were built by the PTC but will be transferred to PennDOT as mainline I-95, SR 0095.
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2018, 01:50:01 AMThey routinely schedule these things to do work. So they'll line up a bunch of people and do it then. Think of it this way - let's say someone up there accidentally drops the patch and it clatters to the roadway...
I don't think I have heard of signing work (either sign installation or field alteration of already-installed signs) occurring over live traffic in any recent year. I don't know about the NJTA, but there is also a trend (driven partly by graffiti prevention) toward using overhead sign structures that lack hardware for human access from ground level. Such structures require at minimum a shoulder and lane closure for cherrypicker access.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 23, 2018, 11:25:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2018, 01:50:01 AMThey routinely schedule these things to do work. So they'll line up a bunch of people and do it then. Think of it this way - let's say someone up there accidentally drops the patch and it clatters to the roadway...
I don't think I have heard of signing work (either sign installation or field alteration of already-installed signs) occurring over live traffic in any recent year. I don't know about the NJTA, but there is also a trend (driven partly by graffiti prevention) toward using overhead sign structures that lack hardware for human access from ground level. Such structures require at minimum a shoulder and lane closure for cherrypicker access.
Driven mainly by no longer needing to have sign lighting thanks to retroreflectivity.
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2018, 11:39:51 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 23, 2018, 11:25:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2018, 01:50:01 AMThey routinely schedule these things to do work. So they'll line up a bunch of people and do it then. Think of it this way - let's say someone up there accidentally drops the patch and it clatters to the roadway...
I don't think I have heard of signing work (either sign installation or field alteration of already-installed signs) occurring over live traffic in any recent year. I don't know about the NJTA, but there is also a trend (driven partly by graffiti prevention) toward using overhead sign structures that lack hardware for human access from ground level. Such structures require at minimum a shoulder and lane closure for cherrypicker access.
Driven mainly by no longer needing to have sign lighting thanks to retroreflectivity.
Guess the days of Richard Ankrom doing DIY sign modifications are long over.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on September 22, 2018, 09:40:33 PM
As of now, Waze has the rerouted I-95 correctly marked. Good for them.
The beauty of Waze still having Crowd Sourced maps. Google, unfortunately, removed the Mapmaker system, so everything is falling behind.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 23, 2018, 12:33:19 PMGuess the days of Richard Ankrom doing DIY sign modifications are long over.
Ankrom's 2001 guerrilla signing project was all about doing the work 100% to Caltrans District 7 specifications. This did not apply to the traffic control (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM) and in fact Ankrom installed the I-5 shield and the cardinal direction word over live traffic, but to an extent he was camouflaged by a (presumably properly signed) Caltrans workzone further downstream (cones following the left shoulder stripe are visible in the video).
I think it would be very difficult to do now because both the public and law enforcement have higher expectations of advance notice of any scheduled construction or maintenance activity involving traffic control. As a result of almost a generation's worth of investment in ITS infrastructure, a much greater proportion of the freeway network (especially in congested urban areas) is also under surveillance now than was the case back in 2001, so any traffic disruption due to unauthorized work is bound to attract official attention much sooner.
The best bet for someone looking to pull an Ankrom today is probably a lightly travelled rural freeway at night, but only if the traffic control is to specification, the equipment matches that used by the owning agency, and a state trooper doesn't drive past.
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 22, 2018, 01:00:17 PM
While I'm at it, I pulled up the PA Turnpike interactive map, and there's two VMSs near US 1 that are telling drivers, "I-276 EB becomes I-95 NB, 6 miles ahead."
The VMS I saw on I-276 EB east of PA 132 said "4.5 miles ahead".
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 23, 2018, 11:25:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2018, 01:50:01 AMThey routinely schedule these things to do work. So they'll line up a bunch of people and do it then. Think of it this way - let's say someone up there accidentally drops the patch and it clatters to the roadway...
I don't think I have heard of signing work (either sign installation or field alteration of already-installed signs) occurring over live traffic in any recent year. I don't know about the NJTA, but there is also a trend (driven partly by graffiti prevention) toward using overhead sign structures that lack hardware for human access from ground level. Such structures require at minimum a shoulder and lane closure for cherrypicker access.
Yeah, I think it's usually shoulder/lane closures, though maybe the large number of signs combined with having two carriageways each direction changes things.
The New Jersey Tpk. Authority is the most safety-conscious agency. Since they have two roadways in each direction, they probably figure safer to close the entire roadway to do overhead sign work late at night, than to close lanes with traffic flowing past and risk any kind of accident.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 23, 2018, 08:59:45 PM
The New Jersey Tpk. Authority is the most safety-conscious agency. Since they have two roadways in each direction, they probably figure safer to close the entire roadway to do overhead sign work late at night, than to close lanes with traffic flowing past and risk any kind of accident.
They'll usually gather up work for various sections of each roadway and have them all done during a closure, since they have to close the entire roadway from 6 to 14. So you might have sign repairs in one place, paving in another, structure repairs somewhere else, pothole maintenance, etc.
Quote from: famartin on September 23, 2018, 09:52:14 AM
As anticipated, the car lane signs were mostly fixed last night. Mostly.
As of 9:30 tonight, they still are not all fixed.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on September 22, 2018, 09:40:33 PM
As of now, Waze has the rerouted I-95 correctly marked. Good for them.
The new ramps are visible only if you zoom in just close enough, no more, no less.
ixnay
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 22, 2018, 08:04:49 PM
Quote from: Jim on September 22, 2018, 08:56:21 AM
A trivial concern among all the destruction down there, but the ongoing flooding in North Carolina means it's not quite possible yet to drive from Miami to the Canadian border on now-continuous I-95.
NCDOT reported yesterday that they hope I-95 can open through Robeson County on October 10. If one was so inclined to try it nonstop with empty Gatorade bottles--since in my college youth, I could do NJ to Tampa in 18 hrs--nonstop to Canada or Florida would be sometime on October 11.
I-95 in NC has reopened. Bring the Gatorade bottles.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-09-23-interstate-95-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-09-23-interstate-95-reopens.aspx)
Quote from: famartin on September 23, 2018, 03:46:57 AM
The PTC will maintain the former I276 segment and the PA half of the bridge as they have always done. The NJTA will maintain the NJ half of the bridge and the connector to the mainline as they have always done. PennDOT will maintain the flyovers, though.
IMO that is unfortunate. While PTC is far from perfect, they do a decent job of maintaining their bridges, and these flyovers are quite long, and the structural steel needs to be cleaned and painted from time to time, something PennDOT does not do (a prime example being the two structures that carried I-95 (now I-295) over the mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike).
Those bridges have never had the structural steel cleaned and the rust scraped off and a new paint system put in place.
This was a long time coming, but I am glad that I-95 is now one continuous route all the way from Houlton to Miami. While it's not quite the intended route (thanks to the Somerset cancellation decades ago), at least we can go nonstop on it.
Quote from: Henry on September 24, 2018, 09:51:58 AM
This was a long time coming, but I am glad that I-95 is now one continuous route all the way from Houlton to Miami. While it's not quite the intended route (thanks to the Somerset cancellation decades ago), at least we can go nonstop on it.
It's not the route intended thru Boston and DC either.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 10:07:10 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 24, 2018, 09:51:58 AM
This was a long time coming, but I am glad that I-95 is now one continuous route all the way from Houlton to Miami. While it's not quite the intended route (thanks to the Somerset cancellation decades ago), at least we can go nonstop on it.
It's not the route intended thru Boston and DC either.
Somebody mentioned that they saw a NY plated car on the new 95 ramps, so it seems that at least some through traffic is switching over.
Quote from: jcn on September 24, 2018, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 10:07:10 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 24, 2018, 09:51:58 AM
This was a long time coming, but I am glad that I-95 is now one continuous route all the way from Houlton to Miami. While it's not quite the intended route (thanks to the Somerset cancellation decades ago), at least we can go nonstop on it.
It's not the route intended thru Boston and DC either.
Somebody mentioned that they saw a NY plated car on the new 95 ramps, so it seems that at least some through traffic is switching over.
I just took a tour of it, and a car with Virginia tags was behind me.
Quote from: Henry on September 24, 2018, 09:51:58 AM
This was a long time coming, but I am glad that I-95 is now one continuous route all the way from Houlton to Miami. While it's not quite the intended route (thanks to the Somerset cancellation decades ago), at least we can go nonstop on it.
That's all I wanted for I-95. As long as it's nonstop from Florida to Maine I'll be happy.
Driving videos (not mine) of the "new" I-95 are now posted on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiOmC641kdA
So at Lunchtime I took a quick tour of the new interchange. The remarkable thing was I drove it in both directions, and never paid a penny in tolls!
I entered the PA Turnpike Westbound/I-95 Southbound at US 13. Any ground-based signage there is construction type signage, but does include the I-95 shield. After you get on the ramp and go thru some construction, the overhead BGSs do display I-95 for both directions. I took I-95 South, taking the new ramp, and immediately exited at PA 413.
When I returned, I took I-95 North thru the new interchange. I noticed nothing referencing the PA Turnpike whatsoever for their stretch of I-95 North. The only thing related to the PA Turnpike was old mileage markers approaching and on the bridge over the Delaware. Otherwise, many users would never even realize they're on the PA Turnpike.
After entering NJ, I took the first exit for US 130, allowing me to complete the maximum permissible toll-free journey on the 2 Turnpikes. On the NJ Turnpike itself, there's one overhead pull-thru sign prior to US 130 that doesn't have the I-95 shield on it yet, and there's no other indication on this stretch of the NJ Turnpike that you're on I-95.
HOWEVER...on US 130, there are ground-mounted signs that state: (95) (NJTP) TO (PA TPK) at the 1/4 Mile ahead point, and just before the ramp. At the ramp itself is the older-style NJ Turnpike Entrance sign with the NJ Turnpike shield on it. There's no room for a 95 shield, so they may just have to mount one on the post, if one is shown at all.
There were no 95 shields on any of the overhead BGSs in the interchange area that I saw.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 02:29:51 PMSo at Lunchtime I took a quick tour of the new interchange. The remarkable thing was I drove it in both directions, and never paid a penny in tolls!
I did similar this past Saturday afternoon.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 02:29:51 PMWhen I returned, I took I-95 North thru the new interchange. I noticed nothing referencing the PA Turnpike whatsoever for their stretch of I-95 North. The only thing related to the PA Turnpike was old mileage markers approaching and on the bridge over the Delaware. Otherwise, many users would never even realize they're on the PA Turnpike.
I believe (someone who was there for the entire event can confirm) such was mentioned at the Golden Spike meet (may have been mentioned in that thread) & is completely intentional.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 02:29:51 PMWhen I returned, I took I-95 North thru the new interchange. I noticed nothing referencing the PA Turnpike whatsoever for their stretch of I-95 North. The only thing related to the PA Turnpike was old mileage markers approaching and on the bridge over the Delaware. Otherwise, many users would never even realize they're on the PA Turnpike.
I believe (someone who was there for the entire event can confirm) such was mentioned at the Golden Spike meet (may have been mentioned in that thread) & is completely intentional.
I agree. I don't there are any official sources indicating that this is the case, though, only what was told to us and the existing signage.
Now to convince the Wikipedia community of this change...
still not on google yet
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 24, 2018, 03:23:11 PM
still not on google yet
Which is strange because wherever Google gets their info from, emergency road closures show up before the road is actually closed sometimes!
One of the attendees at the meet works for Tom-Tom; so that firm should've been aware of when the ramps and related-route changes were to take place.
it's on OSM and Here Maps.
Does anyone use Here maps?
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 24, 2018, 03:23:11 PM
still not on google yet
Same for Bing Maps and Mapquest. I wonder if they'll do the changes more faster than Google? ;)
Two minor sign gripes:
1. All of the former
EXIT 358 tabs along the eastbound PA Turnpike (new I-95 northbound) have the replacement
42 in a Helvetica font. I can see using a narrower font if the new exit number had more digits than the old one but this scenario is the opposite; a narrower font is not needed let alone a non-standard one. Note: the new 1-3/4 mile advance BGS along the new I-95 Northbound ramp has the standard Series E numerals for
422. The
END 276 BEGIN 95 and
END 295 BEGIN 95 signs at the route number hand-off locations (the latter mimicking what was previously done at the old 95-295 handoff location at US 1/Exit 67) are not technically accurate with respect to I-95; especially now that it is continuous route from Miami, FL to Houlton, ME.
The signs IMHO
should read
END 276 JCT. NORTH 95 and
END 295 JCT. SOUTH 95 respectively.
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 05:27:30 PM
Here are the pictures I grabbed today:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2FJK2p7h.jpg&hash=c35d70fcafa5995d4bcdb9ec65b64f879ab79815) (https://imgur.com/2FJK2p7)
It's been over two years since I've used that interchange (& seen the signage) but I don't remember those control legends (granted, on
Penn Turnpike was showing at the time) on that sign being Series F. The
SOUTH cardinal is also misaligned with respect to the I-95 shield (both cardinals appear to be Series F as well). Was this particular panel replaced within the last two years (due to damage/vandalism)?
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 05:27:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FT9BkERSh.jpg&hash=e9dd9ff2a4a18b5eca7a335f145db486ae143920) (https://imgur.com/T9BkERS)
Nice to see the old-school NJTP-style arrow make a comeback.
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 05:27:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQGea8Gnh.jpg&hash=d2cb9b2856dd131b543c2ac741d46d536148c0e9) (https://imgur.com/QGea8Gn)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0iR0IWZh.jpg&hash=3964468211531be33c9cda30a11a5891aa054062) (https://imgur.com/0iR0IWZ)
Nice pics.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 24, 2018, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 02:29:51 PMWhen I returned, I took I-95 North thru the new interchange. I noticed nothing referencing the PA Turnpike whatsoever for their stretch of I-95 North. The only thing related to the PA Turnpike was old mileage markers approaching and on the bridge over the Delaware. Otherwise, many users would never even realize they're on the PA Turnpike.
I believe (someone who was there for the entire event can confirm) such was mentioned at the Golden Spike meet (may have been mentioned in that thread) & is completely intentional.
I agree. I don't there are any official sources indicating that this is the case, though, only what was told to us and the existing signage.
Now to convince the Wikipedia community of this change...
It’s not a “change” though. Just because there aren’t PTC shields doesn’t mean it’s not part of the turnpike. It’s owned and tolled by the turnpike and is physically part of the mainline.
It just would be confusing to people to keep PTC shields on that section, given the PTC is associated with 276 by many people, while they relate I-95 to the New Jersey Turnpike.
Signage stating “I-95/PTC North TO NJTP” would be confusing and cluttered.
But new 95 is still the Penna Turnpike no doubt about it, Turnpike signage/MMs or not
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 24, 2018, 04:22:04 PM
Does anyone use Here maps?
Many OEM GPS systems in cars use Here as the map source. Ironically, using Android Auto (and Google maps) is preferred by many, for the up-to-date maps (that are free). Are Apple's maps updated?
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 25, 2018, 10:10:57 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 24, 2018, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 02:29:51 PMWhen I returned, I took I-95 North thru the new interchange. I noticed nothing referencing the PA Turnpike whatsoever for their stretch of I-95 North. The only thing related to the PA Turnpike was old mileage markers approaching and on the bridge over the Delaware. Otherwise, many users would never even realize they're on the PA Turnpike.
I believe (someone who was there for the entire event can confirm) such was mentioned at the Golden Spike meet (may have been mentioned in that thread) & is completely intentional.
I agree. I don't there are any official sources indicating that this is the case, though, only what was told to us and the existing signage.
Now to convince the Wikipedia community of this change...
It's not a "change" though. Just because there aren't PTC shields doesn't mean it's not part of the turnpike. It's owned and tolled by the turnpike and is physically part of the mainline.
It just would be confusing to people to keep PTC shields on that section, given the PTC is associated with 276 by many people, while they relate I-95 to the New Jersey Turnpike.
Signage stating "I-95/PTC North TO NJTP" would be confusing and cluttered.
But new 95 is still the Penna Turnpike no doubt about it, Turnpike signage/MMs or not
Concur.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 25, 2018, 10:10:57 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 24, 2018, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 02:29:51 PMWhen I returned, I took I-95 North thru the new interchange. I noticed nothing referencing the PA Turnpike whatsoever for their stretch of I-95 North. The only thing related to the PA Turnpike was old mileage markers approaching and on the bridge over the Delaware. Otherwise, many users would never even realize they're on the PA Turnpike.
I believe (someone who was there for the entire event can confirm) such was mentioned at the Golden Spike meet (may have been mentioned in that thread) & is completely intentional.
I agree. I don't there are any official sources indicating that this is the case, though, only what was told to us and the existing signage.
Now to convince the Wikipedia community of this change...
It’s not a “change” though. Just because there aren’t PTC shields doesn’t mean it’s not part of the turnpike. It’s owned and tolled by the turnpike and is physically part of the mainline.
It just would be confusing to people to keep PTC shields on that section, given the PTC is associated with 276 by many people, while they relate I-95 to the New Jersey Turnpike.
Signage stating “I-95/PTC North TO NJTP” would be confusing and cluttered.
But new 95 is still the Penna Turnpike no doubt about it, Turnpike signage/MMs or not
No one said it wasn't owned by the PTC, but that calling that section the Turnpike is like saying to take PA 300 to Lancaster. No one unfamiliar with the PennDOT/PTC system will know what that means. And "physically part of the mainline" doesn't really mean much in terms of publicly signed naming, especially the way the lanes are set up in each direction. Is the new I-295 physically a part of the I-95 mainline? Is I-376 between I-79 and the Point physically a part of the I-279 mainline?
Everything was converted so that I-95 from Center City to the Delaware River Bridge is the interstate mainline.
Is it fully open with updated signage now or not?
Now that I see the two BGSs side by side, I'm even more convinced Baltimore should've been used as a pull-thru destination on the NJ Turnpike. Would I have replaced Camden or Wilmington? Either could be eliminated without a problem.
Also one of many cases where a control state would've been fine rather than a control city.
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 05:27:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2FJK2p7h.jpg&hash=c35d70fcafa5995d4bcdb9ec65b64f879ab79815) (https://imgur.com/2FJK2p7)
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2018, 05:41:55 PM
It's been over two years since I've used that interchange (& seen the signage) but I don't remember those control legends (granted, on Penn Turnpike was showing at the time) on that sign being Series F. The SOUTH cardinal is also misaligned with respect to the I-95 shield (both cardinals appear to be Series F as well). Was this particular panel replaced within the last two years (due to damage/vandalism)?
Nope. This is the same panel that's always been there.
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 05:27:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQGea8Gnh.jpg&hash=d2cb9b2856dd131b543c2ac741d46d536148c0e9) (https://imgur.com/QGea8Gn)
In the days of old, both these errors would have never been given the green light. The 'South' in the first pic is very obvious. The 'West' in the 2nd pic is less so (I shrunk the pics, but scroll to the original to see it is slightly off-centered with the 276 shield. But either way, there are project managers that are paid handsomely to make sure things are right. Sure, misaligned wording on signage is not as huge of an issue as, say, concrete that isn't cured to specs. But it's still an easy fix to make in the shop before it sees the light of day.
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2018, 12:12:13 PM
Is it fully open with updated signage now or not?
It's fully open.
Updated signage on all the pull-thrus will eventually be put up. The important interchange - Interchange 6 - is complete. US 130 has ground-mounted signage installed with I-95 on it in the area of (unsigned) 6A, but they still need to install the shields on the BGS signage.
There's a significant amount of work to do, and with the weather this week, it's not exactly working in the Turnpike's favor.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2018, 12:16:05 PM
Now that I see the two BGSs side by side, I'm even more convinced Baltimore should've been used as a pull-thru destination on the NJ Turnpike. Would I have replaced Camden or Wilmington? Either could be eliminated without a problem.
Also one of many cases where a control state would've been fine rather than a control city.
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 05:27:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2FJK2p7h.jpg&hash=c35d70fcafa5995d4bcdb9ec65b64f879ab79815) (https://imgur.com/2FJK2p7)
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2018, 05:41:55 PM
It's been over two years since I've used that interchange (& seen the signage) but I don't remember those control legends (granted, on Penn Turnpike was showing at the time) on that sign being Series F. The SOUTH cardinal is also misaligned with respect to the I-95 shield (both cardinals appear to be Series F as well). Was this particular panel replaced within the last two years (due to damage/vandalism)?
Nope. This is the same panel that's always been there.
Quote from: storm2k on September 22, 2018, 05:27:30 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQGea8Gnh.jpg&hash=d2cb9b2856dd131b543c2ac741d46d536148c0e9) (https://imgur.com/QGea8Gn)
In the days of old, both these errors would have never been given the green light. The 'South' in the first pic is very obvious. The 'West' in the 2nd pic is less so (I shrunk the pics, but scroll to the original to see it is slightly off-centered with the 276 shield. But either way, there are project managers that are paid handsomely to make sure things are right. Sure, misaligned wording on signage is not as huge of an issue as, say, concrete that isn't cured to specs. But it's still an easy fix to make in the shop before it sees the light of day.
I agree that Baltimore makes more sense as a control city for the Turnpike than Wilmington does. More people going to Wilmington would probably take 95 thru Philadelphia and down than the Turnpike -> DMB -> 95 North. The bulk of traffic that's continuing south on the Turnpike is probably headed down the 95 corridor to Baltimore, DC, or points south.
I would keep Camden, though. It's a rough city, but it's still a city in NJ. It's also a popular destination for certain tourist things like the entertainment center, aquarium, battleship memorial, and a few other things on the waterfront.
Regarding control cities, isn't Wilmington an official I-95 control city? I think it's appropriate, though I agree that Baltimore would be useful in addition.
Give the poor connection between the southern turnpike and the southern NJ freeways, I'd argue Camden isn't the greatest choice, though. I'd personally like to see Wilmington and Baltimore used for south of Exit 6.
I'd also suggest that Philadelphia is now more appropriate as the main southbound control city north of Exit 6. While I personally enjoy seeing Trenton listed, it's more or less bypassed now.
However, this change should be in concert with the MDTA updating it's northbound I-95 control to include Philadelphia.
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 12:39:04 PM
Regarding control cities, isn't Wilmington an official I-95 control city? I think it's appropriate, though I agree that Baltimore would be useful in addition.
Give the poor connection between the southern turnpike and the southern NJ freeways, I'd argue Camden isn't the greatest choice, though. I'd personally like to see Wilmington and Baltimore used for south of Exit 6.
I'd also suggest that Philadelphia is now more appropriate as the main southbound control city north of Exit 6. While I personally enjoy seeing Trenton listed, it's more or less bypassed now.
However, this change should be in concert with the MDTA updating it's northbound I-95 control to include Philadelphia.
Trenton is the state capital and there is a direct connection to it from the Turnpike by getting off at 7A and going on 195 west to 29 north. It should stay.
Honestly, that doesn't matter. The next big city I-95 visits is Philadelphia. Way more people are heading towards Philly metro than they are to Trenton metro. It makes more sense for it to be Philadelphia, or at least to include Philadelphia, than for the turnpike southbound to include Baltimore versus Wilmington.
Also, if we are going to insist on keeping local cities... why does the northbound Turnpike never say anything but New York? Why not Trenton or at least Newark? Newark is the biggest city in NJ and the Turnpike goes right through it, but heading northbound, until you got to the exit, you'd never know it. Meanwhile, the turnpike passes quite a few miles east of Trenton but its the prominent southbound city. Doesn't make sense. Philly makes as much sense for southbound as New York does for northbound.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 25, 2018, 11:54:29 AM
No one said it wasn't owned by the PTC, but that calling that section the Turnpike is like saying to take PA 300 to Lancaster.
Which is flat out wrong. It's State Route 300, not Pennsylvania Traffic Route 300. There's nothing wrong about saying that the road from the new interchange to the Delaware River is part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2018, 05:21:57 PM
There's nothing wrong about saying that the road from the new interchange to the Delaware River is part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Always has been, ever since its inception in 1956.
J&N suggested above that the southbound NJT destinations at exit-6 could reasonably use state names were it not for the MUTCD control-city requirement. So if it said "Delaware-Maryland", yeah that would certainly be reasonable at that location.
Kind of like that old sign entering the southbound Turnpike at Exit-16 from the Lincoln Tunnel that said "Pa-Del-Md". How I miss that old sign that was there for decades.
As far as control cities, I don't like the fact that Penn Turnpike is used on the control city line. Also not a fan of using Philadelphia as a control city northbound Exit 6 when most traffic either exited at Exit 3 or 4, or took 295 coming from the Delaware Bridge. The left would've been how I did it northbound, and the right would be the southbound signage
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4679/38375224795_5d6c701d86_n.jpg)
As for on the Turnpike, here is how I would have the control cities
NB Exits 1-14: Newark/New York City
Exit 14 North: Fort Lee/GW Bridge
SB: GWB-Exit 14: Newark/Trenton
Exit 14-8: Trenton/Camden
Exit 7A-7 & Exit 5-3: Camden/Wilmington
Exit 6 and south of Exit 3: Wilmington/Baltimore
I'd also like to see PennDOT make some changes in Center City at the I-95/I-676 junction. For pull through BGS's on I-95, and for Exit BGS's on 676, I would like to see NB signage say "95 North/New York/Trenton" Southbound, I would like to see Chester bypassed and have the signage say "95 South TO (in symbol form) Philadelphia Int'l Airport/Wilmington/Baltimore
" to better serve long distance travelers passing through or leaving Center City. If Boston can use New York on an I-90 sign in Boston, then Philly can use Baltimore
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 25, 2018, 11:01:35 PM
As far as control cities, I don't like the fact that Penn Turnpike is used on the control city line. Also not a fan of using Philadelphia as a control city northbound Exit 6 when most traffic either exited at Exit 3 or 4, or took 295 coming from the Delaware Bridge. The left would've been how I did it northbound, and the right would be the southbound signage
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4679/38375224795_5d6c701d86_n.jpg)
As for on the Turnpike, here is how I would have the control cities
NB Exits 1-14: Newark/New York City
Exit 14 North: Fort Lee/GW Bridge
SB: GWB-Exit 14: Newark/Trenton
Exit 14-8: Trenton/Camden
Exit 7A-7 & Exit 5-3: Camden/Wilmington
Exit 6 and south of Exit 3: Wilmington/Baltimore
I'd also like to see PennDOT make some changes in Center City at the I-95/I-676 junction. For pull through BGS's on I-95, and for Exit BGS's on 676, I would like to see NB signage say "95 North/New York/Trenton" Southbound, I would like to see Chester bypassed and have the signage say "95 South TO (in symbol form) Philadelphia Int'l Airport/Wilmington/Baltimore
" to better serve long distance travelers passing through or leaving Center City. If Boston can use New York on an I-90 sign in Boston, then Philly can use Baltimore
I do agree with the idea that the Penn Turnpike blazer (versus the word Penn Turnpike) should have been used, and that Harrisburg is a better control city. That said, I think the usage of Philadelphia is fine for the northbound exit, if only because, lets face it, the number of people going that way (NB NJTP to SB 95) is low to begin with. Valley Forge is kinda obscure, by comparison, with no reflection on where I-95 goes.
Also, I think its fine that PennDOT has yet to adopt Baltimore anywhere, considering that Maryland pretends Philly doesn't exist on I-95 northbound. When Maryland signs Philly as the prominent next stop on I-95, then PennDOT can sign Baltimore.
I've already explained why Philly should be used for I-95/NJTP southbound, so I won't rehash that...
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 12:39:04 PM
Regarding control cities, isn't Wilmington an official I-95 control city? I think it's appropriate, though I agree that Baltimore would be useful in addition.
Give the poor connection between the southern turnpike and the southern NJ freeways, I'd argue Camden isn't the greatest choice, though. I'd personally like to see Wilmington and Baltimore used for south of Exit 6.
I'd also suggest that Philadelphia is now more appropriate as the main southbound control city north of Exit 6. While I personally enjoy seeing Trenton listed, it's more or less bypassed now.
However, this change should be in concert with the MDTA updating it's northbound I-95 control to include Philadelphia.
Philly should now be used from Exit 14 southward, or even both Trenton and Philadelphia as it does go through to there more directly.
Using Wilmington from Exit 6 shows traffic that the NJ Turnpike is a bypass to the next major city beyond Philly for I-95, so that one is a great call by the NJTA.
I do agree though that having Penn Turnpike used on a line instead of in shield is a waste of sign space. Should be Harrisburg and NB should not even include it at all. Ditto to Exit 3 spelling out the ACE. It should be Bellmawr- Camden and Philadelphia on supplemental signs. The ACE shield should be used in conjunction with NJ 168, but like another thread it most likely is the fact that the shield the ACE uses is not that catchy as the NJ Turnpike or Garden State Parkway is. So the ACE on a supplemental would work best there.
However, I am glad that Woodbury was finally removed SB at Exit 3 as it was not served directly by that particular interchange where you had other nearby cities or towns that should have been used.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2018, 11:45:51 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 12:39:04 PM
Regarding control cities, isn't Wilmington an official I-95 control city? I think it's appropriate, though I agree that Baltimore would be useful in addition.
Give the poor connection between the southern turnpike and the southern NJ freeways, I'd argue Camden isn't the greatest choice, though. I'd personally like to see Wilmington and Baltimore used for south of Exit 6.
I'd also suggest that Philadelphia is now more appropriate as the main southbound control city north of Exit 6. While I personally enjoy seeing Trenton listed, it's more or less bypassed now.
However, this change should be in concert with the MDTA updating it's northbound I-95 control to include Philadelphia.
Philly should now be used from Exit 14 southward, or even both Trenton and Philadelphia as it does go through to there more directly.
Using Wilmington from Exit 6 shows traffic that the NJ Turnpike is a bypass to the next major city beyond Philly for I-95, so that one is a great call by the NJTA.
I do agree though that having Penn Turnpike used on a line instead of in shield is a waste of sign space. Should be Harrisburg and NB should not even include it at all. Ditto to Exit 3 spelling out the ACE. It should be Bellmawr- Camden and Philadelphia on supplemental signs. The ACE shield should be used in conjunction with NJ 168, but like another thread it most likely is the fact that the shield the ACE uses is not that catchy as the NJ Turnpike or Garden State Parkway is. So the ACE on a supplemental would work best there.
However, I am glad that Woodbury was finally removed SB at Exit 3 as it was not served directly by that particular interchange where you had other nearby cities or towns that should have been used.
I'm actually starting to think that the reason that neither the PA Turnpike blazer, nor the ACE blazer, is used on NJTA signage is because, they just don't do that. It occurs to me that I am not sure of any other blazers on their signs (perhaps the PIP blazer is the one exception). Certainly the PA Turnpike blazer is familiar to Pennsylvanians, as familiar as the NJTP/GSP blazers are to New Jerseyans.
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 11:32:42 PM
I do agree with the idea that the Penn Turnpike blazer (versus the word Penn Turnpike) should have been used, and that Harrisburg is a better control city. That said, I think the usage of Philadelphia is fine for the northbound exit, if only because, lets face it, the number of people going that way (NB NJTP to SB 95) is low to begin with. Valley Forge is kinda obscure, by comparison, with no reflection on where I-95 goes.
Valley Forge is part of the signing to Harrisburg and west on I-276. Having lived near Valley Forge I would not consider it to be obscure for people familiar with SE PA or PA in general; and for people that aren't familiar with PA, Harrisburg probably would not be any less obscure than Valley Forge. Valley Forge is not a city but it is a pretty famous place and is known to be just west of Philadelphia.
I always thought Valley Forge was strange to use on I-76 in Philadelphia considering that I-76 continues to Harrisburg, the next major city and the state capital.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2018, 11:59:51 PM
I always thought Valley Forge was strange to use on I-76 in Philadelphia considering that I-76 continues to Harrisburg, the next major city and the state capital.
Kinda similar to the way NJDOT uses Del Water Gap for I-80 west...
Having lived out of NJ for a while, I realize now how stupid some of NJDOT's control cities are.
Quote from: famartin on September 26, 2018, 12:01:38 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2018, 11:59:51 PM
I always thought Valley Forge was strange to use on I-76 in Philadelphia considering that I-76 continues to Harrisburg, the next major city and the state capital.
Kinda similar to the way NJDOT uses Del Water Gap for I-80 west...
Having lived out of NJ for a while, I realize now how stupid some of NJDOT's control cities are.
Can't be as bad as Bear Mountain in NY. Both are part of mountain ranges, but one could argue that Delaware Water Gap is the town located where the I-80 bridge is on the PA side, but still why is not Stroudsburg not used instead.
I still cannot figure out why the Garden State Parkway uses Secaucus over New York City for the new 153 signs on the GSP. Considering the Lincoln Tunnel was used for a long time and now the MUTCD forbids it, that NYC would have took its place. Even Clifton would be better.
I used Valley Forge because it's one of those major junctions. I-76, I-276, US 202, and US 422 all meet there, so it's kind of a major crossroads. Using Philly NB at Exit 6 isn't 1/100th as bad as MassDOT using NYC for Exit 9 EB on the Pike.
Here's a couple of signs I came up with for Exit 3. I used Camden/Philadelphia NB and Camden/AC southbound. I figured AC bound traffic from Delaware would take the US 40 exit just over the Delaware Bridge. Note: I used mileage based exit numbers.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1902/31049229158_d2442f3c2c_n.jpg)
As you can probably tell, I'm a big fan of using trailblazers instead of wording for highways.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 26, 2018, 01:56:10 AM
I used Valley Forge because it's one of those major junctions. I-76, I-276, US 202, and US 422 all meet there, so it's kind of a major crossroads.
That too. It is also the historic name of the Turnpike interchange there. King of Prussia is closer to the junction and might be a better control city today, but was a minor village when the Turnpike was originally built.
A casual glance thru signage via Google street view suggests that the most common place where Valley Forge is used as a control city is I-76 westbound heading out of Philly. Its used a little bit on the turnpike entrances, but Philly (eastbound) and Harrisburg (westbound) seem more favored overall. Plymouth Meeting is used by I-476 northbound, Philadelphia by I-476 southbound.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 25, 2018, 09:04:19 PM
J&N suggested above that the southbound NJT destinations at exit-6 could reasonably use state names were it not for the MUTCD control-city requirement. So if it said "Delaware-Maryland", yeah that would certainly be reasonable at that location.
Previous generation signage
approaching Exit 6 had
Camden/Delaware listed for the southbound NJ Turnpike panels. Needless to say,
Wilmington was chosen en lieu of
Delaware for the new signs per the more stringent MUTCD standards.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2018, 11:59:51 PM
I always thought Valley Forge was strange to use on I-76 in Philadelphia considering that I-76 continues to Harrisburg, the next major city and the state capital.
Valley Forge is used because such is the name of the toll plaza where the Schuylkill Expressway (early on, such wasn't always part of I-76) meets the PA Turnpike. That said, using such for the Turnpike Connector (which is now I-95) is not appropriate IMHO.
Agreed that Valley Forge is totally inappropriate to be signed from the New Jersey Turnpike. If you look upthread at some of the photos that have been posted of the new interchange signage in Pennsylvania, you'll notice that the PTC has made what I think is the appropriate signing decision: "I-276 WEST - Harrisburg" . No mention of Valley Forge or any other point along the way.
In my opinion, Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting are both place names that have no business being used as Interstate control cities. Out of Center City, I-76 WB should be signed "Harrisburg" ; I-476 NB should be signed "Allentown" –all the way down to I-95. Locals–very few of whom are actually traveling to Valley Forge or Plymouth Meeting anyway–know the metropolitan freeway network and don't need control cities to guide them.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 26, 2018, 09:45:08 AMIn my opinion, Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting are both place names that have no business being used as Interstate control cities. Out of Center City, I-76 WB should be signed "Harrisburg" ; I-476 NB should be signed "Allentown " –all the way down to I-95. Locals–very few of whom are actually traveling to Valley Forge or Plymouth Meeting anyway–know the metropolitan freeway network and don't need control cities to guide them.
There was one pull-through BGS along I-476 northbound at the I-76 interchange that listed
Allentown as a control city but that was prior to the Dec. 1991 opening of I-476 south of I-76 so motorists never saw it unless they looked up at the I-476 overpass. The sign was removed once the the lower part of I-476 opened.
PennDOT likely chose to use
Plymouth Meeting for a northbound 476 control city due to it being the northern terminus of that route; prior to the 1992 extension to the PA Turnpike (I-276 & then-PA 9) as well as the 1996 redesignation along the Northeast Extension.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 26, 2018, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 26, 2018, 09:45:08 AMIn my opinion, Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting are both place names that have no business being used as Interstate control cities. Out of Center City, I-76 WB should be signed "Harrisburg" ; I-476 NB should be signed "Allentown " –all the way down to I-95. Locals–very few of whom are actually traveling to Valley Forge or Plymouth Meeting anyway–know the metropolitan freeway network and don't need control cities to guide them.
There was one pull-through BGS along I-476 northbound at the I-76 interchange that listed Allentown as a control city but that was prior to the Dec. 1991 opening of I-476 south of I-76 so motorists never saw it unless they looked up at the I-476 overpass. The sign was removed once the the lower part of I-476 opened.
PennDOT likely chose to use Plymouth Meeting for a northbound 476 control city due to it being the northern terminus of that route; prior to the 1992 extension to the PA Turnpike (I-276 & then-PA 9) as well as the 1996 redesignation along the Northeast Extension.
My thinking is that I-476 North uses Plymouth Meeting as the control city and I-76 West uses Valley Forge as the control city because those are the last points where you can exit before paying a toll. I know it sounds silly, but I just imagine it as a fair warning to those who weren't expecting to pay a toll.
Granted, I know DelDOT uses Dover as the destination on DE-1 south of the Christiana Mall/I-95 complex, but then again I would imagine nobody going to the beach (most of DE-1's summer traffic) would have any clue what "Delaware City" (a small town of 1,000 people) is. Plus, DelDOT seems to favor using municipalities on BGS's if they can (the vast majority of DE is unincorporated).
Speaking of DE 1, one thing I would like to see is that for Exit 4A SB on I-95 only, DelDOT uses Dover and Norfolk as control cities, or at least puts Norfolk on supplemental signage. It's a faster and more direct way than going down 95 to 64.
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 11:48:54 PM
I'm actually starting to think that the reason that neither the PA Turnpike blazer, nor the ACE blazer, is used on NJTA signage is because, they just don't do that. It occurs to me that I am not sure of any other blazers on their signs (perhaps the PIP blazer is the one exception). Certainly the PA Turnpike blazer is familiar to Pennsylvanians, as familiar as the NJTP/GSP blazers are to New Jerseyans.
The new MUTCD signage does use the GSP shield in addition to the text. I wonder the the PIP shields northbound were a carryover from NJDOT signage. The southbound one would be a PANYNJ install.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 26, 2018, 01:56:10 AM
I used Valley Forge because it's one of those major junctions. I-76, I-276, US 202, and US 422 all meet there, so it's kind of a major crossroads. Using Philly NB at Exit 6 isn't 1/100th as bad as MassDOT using NYC for Exit 9 EB on the Pike.
Here's a couple of signs I came up with for Exit 3. I used Camden/Philadelphia NB and Camden/AC southbound. I figured AC bound traffic from Delaware would take the US 40 exit just over the Delaware Bridge. Note: I used mileage based exit numbers.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1902/31049229158_d2442f3c2c_n.jpg)
As you can probably tell, I'm a big fan of using trailblazers instead of wording for highways.
While shorter in mileage, US 40 is not necessarily faster, and can definitely be more confusing and frustrating. Most everyday travelers appear to prefer using the NJ Turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.
While it's not a lot, there's a surprising number of people that take the Turnpike from Exit 2 to Exit 3 to get to Philadelphia. This is one of those things I could never figure out.
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2018, 01:07:37 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 11:48:54 PM
I'm actually starting to think that the reason that neither the PA Turnpike blazer, nor the ACE blazer, is used on NJTA signage is because, they just don't do that. It occurs to me that I am not sure of any other blazers on their signs (perhaps the PIP blazer is the one exception). Certainly the PA Turnpike blazer is familiar to Pennsylvanians, as familiar as the NJTP/GSP blazers are to New Jerseyans.
The new MUTCD signage does use the GSP shield in addition to the text. I wonder the the PIP shields northbound were a carryover from NJDOT signage. The southbound one would be a PANYNJ install.
Yes, but the GSP is a NJTA road, so it doesn't count in this context.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 25, 2018, 11:54:29 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 25, 2018, 10:10:57 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 24, 2018, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 24, 2018, 03:10:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 02:29:51 PMWhen I returned, I took I-95 North thru the new interchange. I noticed nothing referencing the PA Turnpike whatsoever for their stretch of I-95 North. The only thing related to the PA Turnpike was old mileage markers approaching and on the bridge over the Delaware. Otherwise, many users would never even realize they're on the PA Turnpike.
I believe (someone who was there for the entire event can confirm) such was mentioned at the Golden Spike meet (may have been mentioned in that thread) & is completely intentional.
I agree. I don't there are any official sources indicating that this is the case, though, only what was told to us and the existing signage.
Now to convince the Wikipedia community of this change...
It's not a "change" though. Just because there aren't PTC shields doesn't mean it's not part of the turnpike. It's owned and tolled by the turnpike and is physically part of the mainline.
It just would be confusing to people to keep PTC shields on that section, given the PTC is associated with 276 by many people, while they relate I-95 to the New Jersey Turnpike.
Signage stating "I-95/PTC North TO NJTP" would be confusing and cluttered.
But new 95 is still the Penna Turnpike no doubt about it, Turnpike signage/MMs or not
No one said it wasn't owned by the PTC, but that calling that section the Turnpike is like saying to take PA 300 to Lancaster. No one unfamiliar with the PennDOT/PTC system will know what that means. And "physically part of the mainline" doesn't really mean much in terms of publicly signed naming, especially the way the lanes are set up in each direction. Is the new I-295 physically a part of the I-95 mainline? Is I-376 between I-79 and the Point physically a part of the I-279 mainline?
Everything was converted so that I-95 from Center City to the Delaware River Bridge is the interstate mainline.
This is a straw man argument becaus the turnpike isn't a route designation, it is the name of the physical road itself.
No I-295 isn't a "continuation of the I-95" mainline but that's not my argument. The name Pennsylvania Turnpike is equivalent to the name Delaware Expressway. Just because I-95 is now I-295 doesn't mean that stretch is no longer the Delaware Expressway. And just because I-276 is now I-95 and there are no longer PTC shields doesn't mean that stretch is no longer the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2018, 01:37:09 PM
While shorter in mileage, US 40 is not necessarily faster, and can definitely be more confusing and frustrating.
What's worse, once US 40 has you it won't let you go. Surely no one will argue that taking US 40 all the way to Atlantic City instead of getting on the ACE at some point is the fastest route, but that's exactly what US 40 tells you. In fact many of the routes you might take from US 40 to the ACE will happily sign "Atlantic City" at US 40 instead. This even used to happen on the GS Parkway, though the recent construction project removed Atlantic City from the US 40 exit BGSs. The one exit off of US 40 that does have the ACE shield on it (CR 575 to ACE's exit 12) has Pomona as the control city.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 26, 2018, 12:10:44 AM
I still cannot figure out why the Garden State Parkway uses Secaucus over New York City for the new 153 signs on the GSP. Considering the Lincoln Tunnel was used for a long time and now the MUTCD forbids it, that NYC would have took its place. Even Clifton would be better.
The new signs favor the city of route terminus or immediate local destination vs. a logical distant control city on a connecting highway. The same happened at Exit 98 for NJ-34 South as the signs now say "Brielle" as opposed to "Pt. Pleasant". Exit 63 now signs NJ-72 west for "Pemberton" instead of "Camden".
Here's my question: Is Exit 4 in Mount Laurel (NJ Route 73) still signed as Philadelphia? I haven't been on that part of the NJ Turnpike since Memorial Day weekend 2017.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 26, 2018, 01:56:10 AM
Here's a couple of signs I came up with for Exit 3. I used Camden/Philadelphia NB and Camden/AC southbound. I figured AC bound traffic from Delaware would take the US 40 exit just over the Delaware Bridge. Note: I used mileage based exit numbers.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1902/31049229158_d2442f3c2c_n.jpg)
Remember that NJ Turnpike guide signs need to say the same thing in both directions to the extent possible to be congruent with the toll ticket. I think the exception to this at the moment is Exit 15E, which I think was an error in their last sign upgrade effort. There may be others. I haven't been up there in a while.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2018, 07:51:05 PM
Here's my question: Is Exit 4 in Mount Laurel (NJ Route 73) still signed as Philadelphia? I haven't been on that part of the NJ Turnpike since Memorial Day weekend 2017.
It had "Philadelphia" as an add on below the main panel. I suspect they were thinking it would get axed as soon as I-95 was finished. Not 100% sure its been removed but it may have been. I don't remember seeing it recently.
Quote from: famartin on September 26, 2018, 10:18:06 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2018, 07:51:05 PM
Here's my question: Is Exit 4 in Mount Laurel (NJ Route 73) still signed as Philadelphia? I haven't been on that part of the NJ Turnpike since Memorial Day weekend 2017.
It had "Philadelphia" as an add on below the main panel. I suspect they were thinking it would get axed as soon as I-95 was finished. Not 100% sure its been removed but it may have been. I don't remember seeing it recently.
I doubt this is the Turnpike's highest priority sign. I wouldn't be surprised if it stays for a while.
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4, 5, 7, or 7A?
FTFY based on both personal usage/experience and feedback from others (my brother always used Exit 5).
Once Exit 7 was upgraded and I-295 between Exits 57 & 60 was completed (which made 7A an option) during the early-to-mid 1990s; it is my
guess that southbound traffic usage of Exit 4 for Philadelphia/Greater Philadelphia trips likely dropped a bit... at least early on.
The real answer to your question is dependent upon where in Philly or Greater Philly is one heading to?
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends where you're going and what time of day it is. We used exit 6 to go to Northeast Philly from New York even back when there was no interchange. I suspect further south you're going the more Exit 4 would make sense, more so during rush hour than not.
As for those other exits, I suspect *their* usage will drop, at least for those going to Philly except for shunpikers, since at this point they are only competing on the amount of toll you pay, not any kind of time savings.
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 27, 2018, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
That listed $11.25 does not include the bridge toll to Philly/PA: add $5 for the DPRA bridges or $4 ($3 for E-ZPass) for the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.
So that Exit 18 to Exit 4 trip to Philly/PA would equate either a
total toll ranging from $14.25 to $16.25 depending on which bridge one uses and whether or not one has E-ZPass.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 27, 2018, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
That listed $11.25 does not include the bridge toll to Philly/PA: add $5 for the DPRA bridges or $4 ($3 for E-ZPass) for the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.
So that Exit 18 to Exit 4 trip to Philly/PA would equate either a total toll ranging from $14.25 to $16.25 depending on which bridge one uses and whether or not one has E-ZPass.
You could use exit 6A and get onto I-295 there if you really want to use the DRPA bridges and save money. What's one extra bit of surface street if you are already using NJ 73 at a minimum if not also NJ 38 or NJ 70?
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 27, 2018, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
What is the return trip toll using each Exit?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on September 27, 2018, 10:42:15 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 27, 2018, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
What is the return trip toll using each Exit?
$11.80 for Exit 6 to 18; $11.25 for Exit 4 to 18. Note & per my earlier-post: TXtoNJ forgot to include the PA-bound bridge toll for the listed Exit 4 example.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 10:50:55 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on September 27, 2018, 10:42:15 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 27, 2018, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
What is the return trip toll using each Exit?
$11.80 for Exit 6 to 18; $11.25 for Exit 4 to 18. Note & per my earlier-post: TXtoNJ forgot to include the PA-bound bridge toll for the listed Exit 4 example.
Yup, I did.
I haven't explicitly measured, but the mileage of taking Ezit 6 vs Exit 4 looks roughly equivalent between Exit 6 and the 95/Betsy Ross or 95/73 junctions in Philly. Thus, while it does depend on time of day, I suspect Exit 6 will now be faster for nearly all parts of Philly much of the time. Not sure about points closer to Exit 3, but given the annoyance of Route 168, who would want to use that if you don't have to...
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, or 7A?
Might as well include 2 and 3. 2 is South of Philly and usually not all that convenient, but if there's huge issues with 95 north of the airport, and the airport is your destination, 2 is a reasonable alternative from the south.
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 12:47:31 PM
Not sure about points closer to Exit 3, but given the annoyance of Route 168, who would want to use that if you don't have to...
While 168 is one lane each way, with 4 traffic lights in the 3/4 mile between the Turnpike and 295, it's not a bad alternative outside of the evening/summer weekend rush hour. And if 295 is jammed between Routes 73 and 42 as it often is, it's normally the faster alternative.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2018, 01:01:11 PMWhile 168 is one lane each way, with 4 traffic lights in the 3/4 mile between the Turnpike and 295...
4? Have they recently added a traffic light? 1 at Benigno, 1 at Browning, and only if you go I-295 south there's one at the I-295 ramp.
Quote from: BrianP on September 27, 2018, 01:51:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2018, 01:01:11 PMWhile 168 is one lane each way, with 4 traffic lights in the 3/4 mile between the Turnpike and 295...
4? Have they recently added a traffic light? 1 at Benigno, 1 at Browning, and only if you go I-295 south there's one at the I-295 ramp.
Benigno, Browning, 295 North, 295 South. All 4 have been there forever.
And since we're talking about going to Philly, most will go 295 South to 76 West. Usually you can get on the 295 South ramp prior to the traffic light, but 1 truck or 3 cars will block getting to that ramp until the light turns green.
Played around with Google Maps a bit... here's the estimates. I used the average travel time and arrival times of midnight, 8AM, noon and 530 PM.
Mileage from Exit 6 to Route 90
Via I-95: 24.2 miles
Via NJTP/73/90: 26.6 miles
Mileage from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 38.9 miles
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 40.2 miles
Mileage from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 46.2 miles
Via NJTP/322: 48.5 miles
Overnight from Exit 6 to Route 90
Via I-95: 26 min
Via NJTP/73/90: 31 min
Overnight from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 42 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 45 min
Overnight from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 50 min
Via NJTP/322: 50 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 6 to Route 90
Via I-95: 41 min
Via NJTP/73/90: 33 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 60 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 48 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 68 min
Via NJTP/322: 55 min
Noon from Exit 6 to Route 90
Via I-95: 26 min
Via NJTP/73/90: 33 min
Noon from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 44 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 47 min
Noon from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 50 min
Via NJTP/322: 53 min
PM Rush Time from Exit 6 to Route 90
Via I-95: 29 min
Via NJTP/73/90: 37 min
PM Rush Time from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 53 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 53 min
PM Rush Time from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 68 min
Via NJTP/322: 55 min
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 02:14:41 PM
Overnight from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 50 min
Via NJTP/322: 50 min
...
PM Rush Time from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 53 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 53 min
I'd suggest you use a different color than yellow for the above-two listings; such is very hard to read with respect to the light-green background; although such does show up better when inside the "quote" box.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 02:14:41 PM
Overnight from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 50 min
Via NJTP/322: 50 min
...
PM Rush Time from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 53 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 53 min
I'd suggest you use a different color than yellow for the above-two listings; such is very hard to read with respect to the light-green background; although such does show up better when inside the "quote" box.
fixed
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 02:21:20 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 02:14:41 PM
Overnight from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 50 min
Via NJTP/322: 50 min
...
PM Rush Time from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 53 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 53 min
I'd suggest you use a different color than yellow for the above-two listings; such is very hard to read with respect to the light-green background; although such does show up better when inside the "quote" box.
fixed
It's probably a lot of trouble, but how about to downtown locations. Let's say, City Hall and 30th Street Station. These 2 locations are near the office commuting sections of Philly.
And I know 322 will be longer and out of the way, so Exit 6, Route 168 (Exit 3), and maybe Route 73 (Exit 4) can be options.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2018, 03:08:31 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 02:21:20 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 02:14:41 PM
Overnight from Exit 6 to Chester
Via I-95: 50 min
Via NJTP/322: 50 min
...
PM Rush Time from Exit 6 to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 53 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 53 min
I'd suggest you use a different color than yellow for the above-two listings; such is very hard to read with respect to the light-green background; although such does show up better when inside the "quote" box.
fixed
It's probably a lot of trouble, but how about to downtown locations. Let's say, City Hall and 30th Street Station. These 2 locations are near the office commuting sections of Philly.
And I know 322 will be longer and out of the way, so Exit 6, Route 168 (Exit 3), and maybe Route 73 (Exit 4) can be options.
Mileage from Exit 6 to 30th Street Station
Via I-95: 30.9 miles
Via NJTP/73/90: 33.4 miles
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 37.3 miles
Overnight from Exit 6 to 30th Street Station
Via I-95: 35 min
Via NJTP/73/90: 40 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 43 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 6 to 30th Street Station
Via I-95: 58 min
Via NJTP/73/90: 53 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 58 min
Noon from Exit 6 to 30th Street Station
Via I-95: 40 min
Via NJTP/73/90: 48 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 50 min
PM Rush Time from Exit 6 to 30th Street Station
Via I-95: 50 min
Via NJTP/73/90: 58 min
Via NJTP/168/295/76: 60 min
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 03:43:46 PM
A better comparison might be to use Exit 7A (I-195) as the northern point of origin and compare travel mileage & time with Via NJTP/195/295/76 (using Exit 7A) or Via NJTP/206/Rising Sun Rd./295/76 (using Exit 7) vs. Via I-95/Exit 6.
Most of my trips from Greater Philly to/from Massachusetts over the last 24 years involved using the above routings.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 03:52:43 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 03:43:46 PM
A better comparison might be to use Exit 7A (I-195) as the northern point of origin and compare travel mileage & time with Via NJTP/195/295/76 (using Exit 7A) or Via NJTP/206/Rising Sun Rd./295/76 (using Exit 7) vs. Via I-95/Exit 6.
Most of my trips from Greater Philly to/from Massachusetts over the last 24 years involved using the above routings.
The time estimate between Exit 7 to 295 vs Exit 7A to 295 is extremely close, so I just did one of them. Subtract about a minute for Exit 7.
Mileage from Exit 7A to Route 90
Via I-95: 34.1 miles
Via 195/295/73/90: 40.5 miles
Mileage from Exit 7A to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 48.8 miles
Via 195/295/76: 53.7 miles
Mileage from Exit 7A to Chester
Via I-95: 56.1 miles
Via 195/295/322: 60.5 miles
Overnight from Exit 7A to Route 90
Via I-95: 35 min
Via 195/295/73/90: 45 min
Overnight from Exit 7A to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 51 min
Via 195/295/76: 58 min
Overnight from Exit 7A to Chester
Via I-95: 59 min
Via 195/295/322: 63 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 7A to Route 90
Via I-95: 50 min
Via 195/295/73/90: 48 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 7A to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 69 min
Via 195/295/76: 60 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 7A to Chester
Via I-95: 77 min
Via 195/295/322: 65 min
Noon from Exit 7A to Route 90
Via I-95: 35 min
Via 195/295/73/90: 48 min
Noon from Exit 7A to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 53 min
Via 195/295/76: 60 min
Noon from Exit 7A to Chester
Via I-95: 59 min
Via 195/295/322: 63 min
PM Rush Time from Exit 7A to Route 90
Via I-95: 38 min
Via 195/295/73/90: 55 min
PM Rush Time from Exit 7A to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 62 min
Via 195/295/76: 75 min
PM Rush Time from Exit 7A to Chester
Via I-95: 77 min
Via 195/295/322: 83 min
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 04:14:14 PMAM Rush Time from Exit 7A to Route 90
Via I-95: 50 min
Via 195/295/73/90: 48 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 7A to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 69 min
Via 195/295/76: 60 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 7A to Chester
Via I-95: 77 min
Via 195/295/322: 65 min
In a nutshell, using I-95/Exit 6 is shorter in distance & quicker
except during the AM rush... at least based on Google Maps.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 04:36:31 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 04:14:14 PMAM Rush Time from Exit 7A to Route 90
Via I-95: 50 min
Via 195/295/73/90: 48 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 7A to PHL Airport
Via I-95: 69 min
Via 195/295/76: 60 min
AM Rush Time from Exit 7A to Chester
Via I-95: 77 min
Via 195/295/322: 65 min
In a nutshell, using I-95/Exit 6 is shorter in distance & quicker except during the AM rush... at least based on Google Maps.
Pretty much. I imagine heading NB in the PM may be better to stick to the other routes as well. But that jives with my personal experience given that outside of the rush hour, 95 in Philly usually flows well.
It will be interesting to see if there are any changes in these numbers once the mapping services start routinely routing people down I-95, which could affect the traffic.
How are you doing Gooogle analysis with Google not showing the interchange yet?
Quote from: bzakharin on September 27, 2018, 04:56:09 PM
How are you doing Gooogle analysis with Google not showing the interchange yet?
Good point. Just did directions from MetLife Stadium to City Hall, and it took me over the Betsy Ross. Taking the NJTP option isn't even an option.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 27, 2018, 04:56:09 PM
How are you doing Gooogle analysis with Google not showing the interchange yet?
Manually adding the estimate from the starting point (exit 6, exit 7a) to where the interchange is now, then the time estimate from the point where the interchange is now to the destination (95/Betsy Ross junction, 30th Street Station, airport, Chester)
Quote from: bzakharin on September 27, 2018, 10:29:12 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 27, 2018, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
That listed $11.25 does not include the bridge toll to Philly/PA: add $5 for the DPRA bridges or $4 ($3 for E-ZPass) for the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.
So that Exit 18 to Exit 4 trip to Philly/PA would equate either a total toll ranging from $14.25 to $16.25 depending on which bridge one uses and whether or not one has E-ZPass.
You could use exit 6A and get onto I-295 there if you really want to use the DRPA bridges and save money. What's one extra bit of surface street if you are already using NJ 73 at a minimum if not also NJ 38 or NJ 70?
No you can't. 130 is the farthest from 295 at 6A and there's really no convenient way to backtrack. Tremendous time cost, may as well take Exit 5 at that point. (If you cared about saving money, you'd have taken 7 or 7A anyway.)
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 10:09:02 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 27, 2018, 04:56:09 PM
How are you doing Gooogle analysis with Google not showing the interchange yet?
Manually adding the estimate from the starting point (exit 6, exit 7a) to where the interchange is now, then the time estimate from the point where the interchange is now to the destination (95/Betsy Ross junction, 30th Street Station, airport, Chester)
Now that's dedication!
Quote from: Alps on September 28, 2018, 12:15:56 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 27, 2018, 10:29:12 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 27, 2018, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
That listed $11.25 does not include the bridge toll to Philly/PA: add $5 for the DPRA bridges or $4 ($3 for E-ZPass) for the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.
So that Exit 18 to Exit 4 trip to Philly/PA would equate either a total toll ranging from $14.25 to $16.25 depending on which bridge one uses and whether or not one has E-ZPass.
You could use exit 6A and get onto I-295 there if you really want to use the DRPA bridges and save money. What's one extra bit of surface street if you are already using NJ 73 at a minimum if not also NJ 38 or NJ 70?
No you can't. 130 is the farthest from 295 at 6A and there's really no convenient way to backtrack. Tremendous time cost, may as well take Exit 5 at that point. (If you cared about saving money, you'd have taken 7 or 7A anyway.)
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 10:09:02 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 27, 2018, 04:56:09 PM
How are you doing Gooogle analysis with Google not showing the interchange yet?
Manually adding the estimate from the starting point (exit 6, exit 7a) to where the interchange is now, then the time estimate from the point where the interchange is now to the destination (95/Betsy Ross junction, 30th Street Station, airport, Chester)
Now that's dedication!
Or shear boredom/fatigue (currently working night shifts, nothing better to do besides fail to sleep at that particular hour :-D )
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2018, 04:39:17 PM
...that jives with my personal experience...
Apologies in advance, but my inner pedant says, "It's
jibes, not 'jives' (unless, of course, you're groovin' to dico or something at the same time)." ;-)
Quote from: Alps on September 28, 2018, 12:15:56 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 27, 2018, 10:29:12 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2018, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 27, 2018, 09:56:50 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:06:33 AM
So does it now make sense if going from NY to Philly to take exit 6 off the NJTP instead of exit 4?
Depends on how much you want to pay. $16.80 to take exit 6 with EZPass, $11.25 exit 4.
That listed $11.25 does not include the bridge toll to Philly/PA: add $5 for the DPRA bridges or $4 ($3 for E-ZPass) for the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge.
So that Exit 18 to Exit 4 trip to Philly/PA would equate either a total toll ranging from $14.25 to $16.25 depending on which bridge one uses and whether or not one has E-ZPass.
You could use exit 6A and get onto I-295 there if you really want to use the DRPA bridges and save money. What's one extra bit of surface street if you are already using NJ 73 at a minimum if not also NJ 38 or NJ 70?
No you can't. 130 is the farthest from 295 at 6A and there's really no convenient way to backtrack. Tremendous time cost, may as well take Exit 5 at that point. (If you cared about saving money, you'd have taken 7 or 7A anyway.)
If you continued south, Exit 5 and Exit 4 are both cheaper than Exit 6 as well, despite the longer drive. And Exit 3 is only 5c to 50c more expensive.
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 01:01:34 PM
Also, if we are going to insist on keeping local cities... why does the northbound Turnpike never say anything but New York? Why not Trenton or at least Newark? Newark is the biggest city in NJ and the Turnpike goes right through it, but heading northbound, until you got to the exit, you'd never know it. Meanwhile, the turnpike passes quite a few miles east of Trenton but its the prominent southbound city. Doesn't make sense. Philly makes as much sense for southbound as New York does for northbound.
The NJ Turnpike needs to add Newark as a main Northbound city like they did New York. It's should be. It does go thru Newark and just past Newark Airport. No exceptions.
Quote from: EricJV95 on September 29, 2018, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 01:01:34 PM
Also, if we are going to insist on keeping local cities... why does the northbound Turnpike never say anything but New York? Why not Trenton or at least Newark? Newark is the biggest city in NJ and the Turnpike goes right through it, but heading northbound, until you got to the exit, you'd never know it. Meanwhile, the turnpike passes quite a few miles east of Trenton but its the prominent southbound city. Doesn't make sense. Philly makes as much sense for southbound as New York does for northbound.
The NJ Turnpike needs to add Newark as a main Northbound city like they did New York. It's should be. It does go thru Newark and just past Newark Airport. No exceptions.
One has to remember why the SB Turnpike uses Trenton and why it was never phased out. Before 195 was finished, the only way into Trenton westbound was Rt 33 at Interchange 8. There was never an opportunity to remove Trenton except for the 6-9 Widening. There are a number of obvious reasons why it was not going to be removed at that time. Primarily in my opinion is the fact that it will always be a primary destination NB at Interchange 7. The NJTA couldn't present themselves the problem of signing for it NB, but not all at SB.
The other rumor I've heard is that starting Newark NB at Interchange 1 could be the potential for disorientation with Newark, DE.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 29, 2018, 04:12:52 PM
Quote from: EricJV95 on September 29, 2018, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 01:01:34 PM
Also, if we are going to insist on keeping local cities... why does the northbound Turnpike never say anything but New York? Why not Trenton or at least Newark? Newark is the biggest city in NJ and the Turnpike goes right through it, but heading northbound, until you got to the exit, you'd never know it. Meanwhile, the turnpike passes quite a few miles east of Trenton but its the prominent southbound city. Doesn't make sense. Philly makes as much sense for southbound as New York does for northbound.
The NJ Turnpike needs to add Newark as a main Northbound city like they did New York. It's should be. It does go thru Newark and just past Newark Airport. No exceptions.
One has to remember why the SB Turnpike uses Trenton and why it was never phased out. Before 195 was finished, the only way into Trenton westbound was Rt 33 at Interchange 8. There was never an opportunity to remove Trenton except for the 6-9 Widening. There are a number of obvious reasons why it was not going to be removed at that time. Primarily in my opinion is the fact that it will always be a primary destination NB at Interchange 7. The NJTA couldn't present themselves the problem of signing for it NB, but not all at SB.
The other rumor I've heard is that starting Newark NB at Interchange 1 could be the potential for disorientation with Newark, DE.
Do what Indiana did at Indianapolis to avoid confusion with Columbus, IN, They signed I-70 E Bound as Columbus, OH! Now of course its not applicable due to Dayton rising to fame in both Ohio and Indiana, as both of their respected road agencies sign "Dayton" over either Columbus or Indianapolis, but nonetheless they signed Columbus, OH eastbound on I-70 from Indy before the change.
Quote from: EricJV95 on September 29, 2018, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 01:01:34 PM
Also, if we are going to insist on keeping local cities... why does the northbound Turnpike never say anything but New York? Why not Trenton or at least Newark? Newark is the biggest city in NJ and the Turnpike goes right through it, but heading northbound, until you got to the exit, you'd never know it. Meanwhile, the turnpike passes quite a few miles east of Trenton but its the prominent southbound city. Doesn't make sense. Philly makes as much sense for southbound as New York does for northbound.
The NJ Turnpike needs to add Newark as a main Northbound city like they did New York. It's should be. It does go thru Newark and just past Newark Airport. No exceptions.
The exception's lasted 65 years.
I think the idea is that most northbound travelers are heading to NYC or beyond, whereas people are getting out at various points southbound. True or not, volumes steadily drop south of interchange 10 except from 3-2 I believe.
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2018, 10:57:27 PM
I think the idea is that most northbound travelers are heading to NYC or beyond, whereas people are getting out at various points southbound. True or not, volumes steadily drop south of interchange 10 except from 3-2 I believe.
While true that volumes drop, I'm sure a lot of those are hops on and off to various north Jersey points.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2018, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2018, 12:12:13 PM
Is it fully open with updated signage now or not?
It's fully open.
Updated signage on all the pull-thrus will eventually be put up. The important interchange - Interchange 6 - is complete. US 130 has ground-mounted signage installed with I-95 on it in the area of (unsigned) 6A, but they still need to install the shields on the BGS signage.
There's a significant amount of work to do, and with the weather this week, it's not exactly working in the Turnpike's favor.
Six days later, and the condition is largely unchanged. It appears that NJTA exposed the I-95 shields for all of the Exit 6 signing that used overlays to hide it previously. The pull-through signs NB and EB at that interchange also show I-95. Easy (not considering traffic control) to just remove the overlays.
The rest of the affected signs, including the 2-mile and 1-mile Exit 6 SB advance signs (installed by a different contractor from the other Exit 6 signs), appear to have been installed without the shield (and consequently without overlays). None have had the shield mounted as of this morning. Not sure when we will start seeing the shields on these panels.
Any new I-95 signage between exits 6 and 9?
Quote from: EricJV95 on September 29, 2018, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2018, 01:01:34 PM
Also, if we are going to insist on keeping local cities... why does the northbound Turnpike never say anything but New York? Why not Trenton or at least Newark? Newark is the biggest city in NJ and the Turnpike goes right through it, but heading northbound, until you got to the exit, you'd never know it. Meanwhile, the turnpike passes quite a few miles east of Trenton but its the prominent southbound city. Doesn't make sense. Philly makes as much sense for southbound as New York does for northbound.
The NJ Turnpike needs to add Newark as a main Northbound city like they did New York. It's should be. It does go thru Newark and just past Newark Airport. No exceptions.
Look at Connecticut for example, heading NB on I-95 New Haven is used when you have to pass through Connecticut's largest city of Bridgeport to reach.
Then in Florida we use Miami on I-95 S Bound south of Jax ( a few places primarily in FDOT-D4 uses West Palm) but the exception has been Miami elsewhere despite I-95 heading right through West Palm about an hour before you reach Miami itself.
Can anyone really justify not using Philly as the main I-95 control city between Baltimore and NYC? The whole section from Baltimore to NYC needs an overhaul in control city signage, IMHO.
Quote from: famartin on September 30, 2018, 04:41:30 PM
Can anyone really justify not using Philly as the main I-95 control city between Baltimore and NYC? The whole section from Baltimore to NYC needs an overhaul in control city signage, IMHO.
Because most traffic between Baltimore and NYC will take 95 into Delaware, then onto 295, over the Del Mem Br, and onto the Turnpike to continue to NYC. This is why Philly only pops up once you're in Delaware approaching the 295 split, and as far as I'm concerned, this is the correct way to sign this because it best matches the traffic patterns of the majority of drivers.
You're probably right storm2k re: signing for the majority's direction of travel. But technically Philadelphia should be shown because it is the next control city on I-95, and then New York.
The NJTA has a link that shows their signing standards:
https://www.njta.com/doing-business/professional-services/standard-drawings
ALL of the northbound signage uses "New York" as the control city. There are also signs that read "North (Turnpike shield) to I-95, New York".
The southbound signage is basically what you see in the field today. SB control cities are Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 30, 2018, 08:43:51 PM
You're probably right storm2k re: signing for the majority's direction of travel. But technically Philadelphia should be shown because it is the next control city on I-95, and then New York.
Philadelphia probably should be the NB control city for I-95 north of Baltimore, but what motivation does Maryland have to change their signage? Unless a future signing project changes all the signs, Maryland will probably just use "Philadelphia" in mileage signs.
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2018, 07:31:33 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 30, 2018, 04:41:30 PM
Can anyone really justify not using Philly as the main I-95 control city between Baltimore and NYC? The whole section from Baltimore to NYC needs an overhaul in control city signage, IMHO.
Because most traffic between Baltimore and NYC will take 95 into Delaware, then onto 295, over the Del Mem Br, and onto the Turnpike to continue to NYC. This is why Philly only pops up once you're in Delaware approaching the 295 split, and as far as I'm concerned, this is the correct way to sign this because it best matches the traffic patterns of the majority of drivers.
Well yes, if that is what you are doing, then of course, but I'm not disputing the I-295/NJTP signage, which should remain intact as-is. But, for example, at the I-95/I-295 junction in Delaware, a majority of traffic is going to and coming from I-95 and I-495 north of I-295, not heading for I-295 and the NJTP. Which makes sense given the lane layout favoring those movements.
I'd be fine to see Philly added in with New York in MD, or Baltimore added in with Wilmington on the NJTP SB at Exit 6, for example. But Philly should not be ignored on signage the way it currently is.
NJTA already strayed from the standard drawings in regards to control cities on the GSP (both Cape May and Paramus are signed in the field). Its pretty silly that Exit 129 on the GSP is signed for Camden (SB ramp due to US-1 using Trenton at Exit 130) and Trenton (NB ramp) instead of Philadelphia.
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2018, 10:57:27 PM
I think the idea is that most northbound travelers are heading to NYC or beyond, whereas people are getting out at various points southbound.
That would explain why you see signs for NYC as far south as at least Salisbury MD when coming up US-13. Also interesting is that this seems to be one of the rare points where MDOT recognizes that Philadelphia exists.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGntdA7.png)
Living in Dover, though, I never have seen any sign pointing traffic to Philadelphia or NYC around here. Furthest north these signs go is Wilmington and the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGnuprI.png)
I think it's a fundamental constant of the universe that almost every thread on this forum devolves into some kind of discussion about control cities.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 30, 2018, 11:46:18 PM
I think it's a fundamental constant of the universe that almost every thread on this forum devolves into some kind of discussion about control cities.
Agreed. Specifically on this thread, every time I check back thinking there's some talk on the new interchange or somebody noticed that Google Maps has finally decided to recognize it, I just get more control cities.
And regarding Google Maps, I'm surprised that somebody here hasn't found a way to get it changed yet.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 01, 2018, 12:25:01 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 30, 2018, 11:46:18 PM
I think it's a fundamental constant of the universe that almost every thread on this forum devolves into some kind of discussion about control cities.
Agreed. Specifically on this thread, every time I check back thinking there's some talk on the new interchange or somebody noticed that Google Maps has finally decided to recognize it, I just get more control cities.
And regarding Google Maps, I'm surprised that somebody here hasn't found a way to get it changed yet.
I tried the "usual route" to report it to them, which as you can tell, worked wonders :-D
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 01, 2018, 12:25:01 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 30, 2018, 11:46:18 PM
I think it's a fundamental constant of the universe that almost every thread on this forum devolves into some kind of discussion about control cities.
Agreed. Specifically on this thread, every time I check back thinking there's some talk on the new interchange or somebody noticed that Google Maps has finally decided to recognize it, I just get more control cities.
And regarding Google Maps, I'm surprised that somebody here hasn't found a way to get it changed yet.
It takes ages for Google Maps to reflect new road construction.
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 01, 2018, 02:36:37 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 01, 2018, 12:25:01 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 30, 2018, 11:46:18 PM
I think it's a fundamental constant of the universe that almost every thread on this forum devolves into some kind of discussion about control cities.
Agreed. Specifically on this thread, every time I check back thinking there's some talk on the new interchange or somebody noticed that Google Maps has finally decided to recognize it, I just get more control cities.
And regarding Google Maps, I'm surprised that somebody here hasn't found a way to get it changed yet.
It takes ages for Google Maps to reflect new road construction.
Yet, close a road for emergency construction and they know about it instantly.
I have seen new roads shown in Google Maps instantly, so I'm not sure why it's taking them so long to recognize these new ramps. Maybe they weren't named for a politician so they don't care about them! LOL
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2018, 08:09:40 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 01, 2018, 02:36:37 AM
It takes ages for Google Maps to reflect new road construction.
Yet, close a road for emergency construction and they know about it instantly.
To be fair, adding new roads to the database and/or changing their display status is completely different from road closures, which are typically part of traffic conditions and so update live.
Quote from: famartin on September 30, 2018, 04:41:30 PM
Can anyone really justify not using Philly as the main I-95 control city between Baltimore and NYC? The whole section from Baltimore to NYC needs an overhaul in control city signage, IMHO.
Philadelphia is inconsequential.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 01, 2018, 10:28:43 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 30, 2018, 04:41:30 PM
Can anyone really justify not using Philly as the main I-95 control city between Baltimore and NYC? The whole section from Baltimore to NYC needs an overhaul in control city signage, IMHO.
Philadelphia is inconsequential.
Give it some more time. They were bypassed by a superhighway in Delaware and New Jersey back in 1951. It is only in 2018 that a continuous I-95 route now exists.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 01, 2018, 09:45:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2018, 08:09:40 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 01, 2018, 02:36:37 AM
It takes ages for Google Maps to reflect new road construction.
Yet, close a road for emergency construction and they know about it instantly.
To be fair, adding new roads to the database and/or changing their display status is completely different from road closures, which are typically part of traffic conditions and so update live.
Why did you remove the very next sentence in my quote which nullifies what you just typed?
While new roads don't occur very often near me, the US 322 Bypass was shown on Google Maps the day it opened.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2018, 08:09:40 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 01, 2018, 02:36:37 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 01, 2018, 12:25:01 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 30, 2018, 11:46:18 PM
I think it's a fundamental constant of the universe that almost every thread on this forum devolves into some kind of discussion about control cities.
Agreed. Specifically on this thread, every time I check back thinking there's some talk on the new interchange or somebody noticed that Google Maps has finally decided to recognize it, I just get more control cities.
And regarding Google Maps, I'm surprised that somebody here hasn't found a way to get it changed yet.
It takes ages for Google Maps to reflect new road construction.
Yet, close a road for emergency construction and they know about it instantly.
I have seen new roads shown in Google Maps instantly, so I'm not sure why it's taking them so long to recognize these new ramps.
And yet, they replaced
old I-95 shields with I-295 shields before all the related-sign conversions in the field were completed; though they have not yet updated all of the interchange number changes.
Another tidbit regarding Google Maps: if one switches over to the Satellite view. The aerial photo shown predates the construction of the two ramps. Maybe Google's waiting for an updated aerial photograph so the new ramp routings can be accurately plotted.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 08:44:29 AM
Southbound/westbound on I-95/PA Turnpike approaching the interchange:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1960/44841382341_858fe1db86_b.jpg)
Something I just thought of, doesn't PennDOT have an aversion to using the same exit number to reference different roads (northbound is Exit 40 for I-295)? I know on the Cross Valley Expressway (PA-309) in Wilkes-Barre, Exit 4 goes to Rutter Avenue ("To US-11") and Exit 5 goes to US-11/Wyoming Avenue, even though they both are serving the same area.
If it helps, I did some research, and as of now, the toll from Exit 6 to Exit 1 on the NJ Pike is $5.45 cash/EZ-Pass, and $4.15 EZ-Pass off-peak, and the Delaware Memorial Bridge toll is $4.00 cash/EZ-Pass. The Turnpike Bridge toll is $6.75 toll-by-plate, and $5.00 EZ-Pass. Knowing this should factor into which route(s) a southbound driver should use, same with a northbound driver, minus the bridge tolls.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 01, 2018, 12:03:30 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 08:44:29 AM
Southbound/westbound on I-95/PA Turnpike approaching the interchange:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1960/44841382341_858fe1db86_b.jpg)
Something I just thought of, doesn't PennDOT have an aversion to using the same exit number to reference different roads (northbound is Exit 40 for I-295)? I know on the Cross Valley Expressway (PA-309) in Wilkes-Barre, Exit 4 goes to Rutter Avenue ("To US-11") and Exit 5 goes to US-11/Wyoming Avenue, even though they both are serving the same area.
This is all part of I-95, so it's correct in using Interchange 40 throughout the entire area. You're thinking of the PA Turnpike and 'old' I-95 as being different roads, whereas now PA treats I-95 as one road, regardless of jurisdiction, and the breakoff roads are I-276 and I-295..
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 30, 2018, 11:46:18 PM
I think it's a fundamental constant of the universe that almost every thread on this forum devolves into some kind of discussion about control cities.
I never had a real problem with Philly not being used on the NJ Turnpike living in NJ my entire childhood and early adulthood life, but did think it was odd though. Not odd enough though to get anal like some here do, but since old NJ road photos submitted here did show Philadelphia as a control city on US 1 & 9 south at US 22 back in the 1940's does now allow me to see why Philadelphia is now wanting to be changed to all I-95 signage.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 01, 2018, 11:37:30 AM
Another tidbit regarding Google Maps: if one switches over to the Satellite view. The aerial photo shown predates the construction of the two ramps. Maybe Google's waiting for an updated aerial photograph so the new ramp routings can be accurately plotted.
There's some construction on the 2d view... not a lot, though more than the section of I-11 they added soon after it opened.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2018, 12:23:23 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 01, 2018, 12:03:30 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 08:44:29 AM
Southbound/westbound on I-95/PA Turnpike approaching the interchange:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1960/44841382341_858fe1db86_b.jpg)
Something I just thought of, doesn't PennDOT have an aversion to using the same exit number to reference different roads (northbound is Exit 40 for I-295)? I know on the Cross Valley Expressway (PA-309) in Wilkes-Barre, Exit 4 goes to Rutter Avenue ("To US-11") and Exit 5 goes to US-11/Wyoming Avenue, even though they both are serving the same area.
This is all part of I-95, so it's correct in using Interchange 40 throughout the entire area. You're thinking of the PA Turnpike and 'old' I-95 as being different roads, whereas now PA treats I-95 as one road, regardless of jurisdiction, and the breakoff roads are I-276 and I-295..
I think he meant the same number going to different roads depending on which direction you're on.
Of course when they build the remaining movements, presumably they will become Exit 40A and 40B, which for both directions of I-95 will probably lead to I-295 and the Turnpike, respectively, based on what I can gather of how exit letter suffixes are determined.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 01, 2018, 11:37:30 AM
Another tidbit regarding Google Maps: if one switches over to the Satellite view. The aerial photo shown predates the construction of the two ramps. Maybe Google's waiting for an updated aerial photograph so the new ramp routings can be accurately plotted.
I doubt it - I've seen many occasions where new roadways are just shown over forested areas. Aerial photos can take a while to occur; sometimes it takes a few years. I don't think they use these aerials as the base layer in determining how to plot a roadway as there can be some issues with the photography.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 01, 2018, 11:37:30 AM
Another tidbit regarding Google Maps: if one switches over to the Satellite view. The aerial photo shown predates the construction of the two ramps. Maybe Google's waiting for an updated aerial photograph so the new ramp routings can be accurately plotted.
The 3D imagery predates the start of construction, but the non-3D imagery was taken I think sometime in 2016 when construction was well underway, but still nowhere near complete.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2018, 12:47:02 PM
I never had a real problem with Philly not being used on the NJ Turnpike living in NJ my entire childhood and early adulthood life, but did think it was odd though. Not odd enough though to get anal like some here do, but since old NJ road photos submitted here did show Philadelphia as a control city on US 1 & 9 south at US 22 back in the 1940's does now allow me to see why Philadelphia is now wanting to be changed to all I-95 signage.
The NJTP has always been an outer bypass superhighway of SE PA. I-295 is the local access freeway that provides access between NJ and SE PA. As such it makes sense to have Philadelphia directive signing on I-295 but not on the NJTP.
Quote from: Beltway on October 01, 2018, 03:31:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2018, 12:47:02 PM
I never had a real problem with Philly not being used on the NJ Turnpike living in NJ my entire childhood and early adulthood life, but did think it was odd though. Not odd enough though to get anal like some here do, but since old NJ road photos submitted here did show Philadelphia as a control city on US 1 & 9 south at US 22 back in the 1940's does now allow me to see why Philadelphia is now wanting to be changed to all I-95 signage.
The NJTP has always been an outer bypass superhighway of SE PA. I-295 is the local access freeway that provides access between NJ and SE PA. As such it makes sense to have Philadelphia directive signing on I-295 but not on the NJTP.
Aside from the signage along the
new I-295 in Mercer (NJ) & Bucks Counties (PA), I don't believe that there has been any mention of Philadelphia on I-295 signage elsewhere.
No its Bordentown from US 1 in Lawrence and its Camden from I-195/NJ 29 and Del. Mem. Br. south of there (if any ramp has signs other than shields and pull throughs).
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2018, 04:42:16 PM
No its Bordentown from US 1 in Lawrence and its Camden from I-195/NJ 29 and Del. Mem. Br. south of there (if any ramp has signs other than shields and pull throughs).
My point exactly.
The aerials are in serious need of updating around NYC and New Jersey, the old Tappan Zee Bridge is shown to still be in use and the I-95 Penn turnpike interchange just started construction. I mean, come on google, this is a major metropolis.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 01, 2018, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2018, 12:23:23 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 01, 2018, 12:03:30 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on September 22, 2018, 08:44:29 AM
Southbound/westbound on I-95/PA Turnpike approaching the interchange:
(pic)
Something I just thought of, doesn't PennDOT have an aversion to using the same exit number to reference different roads (northbound is Exit 40 for I-295)? I know on the Cross Valley Expressway (PA-309) in Wilkes-Barre, Exit 4 goes to Rutter Avenue ("To US-11") and Exit 5 goes to US-11/Wyoming Avenue, even though they both are serving the same area.
This is all part of I-95, so it's correct in using Interchange 40 throughout the entire area. You're thinking of the PA Turnpike and 'old' I-95 as being different roads, whereas now PA treats I-95 as one road, regardless of jurisdiction, and the breakoff roads are I-276 and I-295..
I think he meant the same number going to different roads depending on which direction you're on.
Of course when they build the remaining movements, presumably they will become Exit 40A and 40B, which for both directions of I-95 will probably lead to I-295 and the Turnpike, respectively, based on what I can gather of how exit letter suffixes are determined.
That makes sense. It would be odd to make them 40A and 40B in their existing configuration, I was just wondering if it would ever be changed since technically the two exit 40s, while serving the same interchange, are not exiting to the same road.
Quote from: Beltway on October 01, 2018, 03:31:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2018, 12:47:02 PM
I never had a real problem with Philly not being used on the NJ Turnpike living in NJ my entire childhood and early adulthood life, but did think it was odd though. Not odd enough though to get anal like some here do, but since old NJ road photos submitted here did show Philadelphia as a control city on US 1 & 9 south at US 22 back in the 1940's does now allow me to see why Philadelphia is now wanting to be changed to all I-95 signage.
The NJTP has always been an outer bypass superhighway of SE PA. I-295 is the local access freeway that provides access between NJ and SE PA. As such it makes sense to have Philadelphia directive signing on I-295 but not on the NJTP.
It may be a bypass, but it's also the main highway to Philly from NYC and points north in the magalopolis. I-95 also bypasses DC, but Washington is prominently signed, because it's the main access. Philly is one of the largest cities in the country, larger than Baltimore, and certainly far larger than Wilmington and Trenton. Now that it is truly directly connected, it deserves proper signage.
Honestly I can't really fathom why this is even argument.
Quote from: famartin on October 01, 2018, 06:31:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 01, 2018, 03:31:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2018, 12:47:02 PM
I never had a real problem with Philly not being used on the NJ Turnpike living in NJ my entire childhood and early adulthood life, but did think it was odd though. Not odd enough though to get anal like some here do, but since old NJ road photos submitted here did show Philadelphia as a control city on US 1 & 9 south at US 22 back in the 1940's does now allow me to see why Philadelphia is now wanting to be changed to all I-95 signage.
The NJTP has always been an outer bypass superhighway of SE PA. I-295 is the local access freeway that provides access between NJ and SE PA. As such it makes sense to have Philadelphia directive signing on I-295 but not on the NJTP.
It may be a bypass, but it’s also the main highway to Philly from NYC and points north in the magalopolis. I-95 also bypasses DC, but Washington is prominently signed, because it’s the main access. Philly is one of the largest cities in the country, larger than Baltimore, and certainly far larger than Wilmington and Trenton. Now that it is truly directly connected, it deserves proper signage.
Honestly I can’t really fathom why this is even argument.
While I don't think it's much of an argument, you're not going to find Maryland in any hurry to change a bunch of signs due to a highway project a few states away. And being "New York" fits nicely on a smaller sign than "Philadelphia", don't be surprised if Maryland never changes their choice of a control city.
Quote from: famartin on October 01, 2018, 06:31:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 01, 2018, 03:31:05 PM
The NJTP has always been an outer bypass superhighway of SE PA. I-295 is the local access freeway that provides access between NJ and SE PA. As such it makes sense to have Philadelphia directive signing on I-295 but not on the NJTP.
It may be a bypass, but it's also the main highway to Philly from NYC and points north in the magalopolis. I-95 also bypasses DC, but Washington is prominently signed, because it's the main access. Philly is one of the largest cities in the country, larger than Baltimore, and certainly far larger than Wilmington and Trenton. Now that it is truly directly connected, it deserves proper signage.
Now that the I-95/PA Turnpike connection is complete, certainly so. But before then the NJTP didn't really connect Philadelphia from/to the north, it is an outer bypass with widely spaced interchanges, and it was only thru long connecting freeways that it would connect to Philadelphia, or thru sections of surface highway.
The Capital Beltway provides far more access and much closer to Washington, along with 3 Interstate auxiliary routes into D.C., than the NJTP/DMBridge that completely bypasses Pennsylvania.
Quote from: famartin on October 01, 2018, 06:31:54 PM
It may be a bypass, but it's also the main highway to Philly from NYC and points north in the magalopolis. I-95 also bypasses DC, but Washington is prominently signed, because it's the main access. Philly is one of the largest cities in the country, larger than Baltimore, and certainly far larger than Wilmington and Trenton. Now that it is truly directly connected, it deserves proper signage.
Honestly I can't really fathom why this is even argument.
The issue IMO is I-95 in Maryland. Especially I-95 between Baltimore and the Delaware border (in particular Baltimore City, Baltimore County (north and east of Baltimore), Harford County and Cecil County), where the road is maintained by the Maryland Transportation Authority (the state toll road and toll crossing agency). Formerly (as in up to the 1980's), many of the signs on MDTA-maintained I-95 northbound had "N J Turnpike" as the "control city," which may influence current control city choice of New York and one of the small towns along the way in Maryland. No mention currently of Wilmington and no mention of Philadelphia.
Even south of Baltimore, where the "free" road is maintained by the State Highway Administration, there's exactly one mention of Philadelphia on a mileage sign (mostly obscured by an illegally parked tractor-trailer combination (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1432011,-76.8448842,3a,15y,34.83h,89.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svLuAH9tw7PqgId-uJstEYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) just north of the rest area at North Laurel, and the emphasis on the northbound side everywhere else south of Baltimore is on New York and Baltimore.
Prior to now, when the I-95 gap existed, I could make sense of signing only New York, because putting (for example) New York, Philadelphia and Wilmington on one panel implied at least to some drivers that taking I-95 past Wilmington and Philly would lead to New York City, which the road did not.
But that is no longer an issue, since I-95 is complete, and I personally believe all three of the major cities beyond Maryland should be on the mileage signs starting at some point north of the Capital Beltway.
If all 3 are put on a mileage sign, the question would be if the mileage to NYC is via I-95 or via the NJTP. Might need to label NYC as "New York City via NJTP" assuming it is the mileage if you take the Delaware Bridge instead of going through Philly.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 01, 2018, 11:41:40 PM
If all 3 are put on a mileage sign, the question would be if the mileage to NYC is via I-95 or via the NJTP. Might need to label NYC as "New York City via NJTP" assuming it is the mileage if you take the Delaware Bridge instead of going through Philly.
It might be implied because once you arrive in Delaware (specifically past the Christiana Mall complex), traffic towards New York and New Jersey is directed onto I-295, traffic towards Philadelphia is directed onto I-495, and traffic towards Wilmington is directed to stay on I-95.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 01, 2018, 11:41:40 PM
If all 3 are put on a mileage sign, the question would be if the mileage to NYC is via I-95 or via the NJTP. Might need to label NYC as "New York City via NJTP" assuming it is the mileage if you take the Delaware Bridge instead of going through Philly.
It wouldn't matter anyway. There are so many exits to take from the NJ Turnpike to get into NYC that another few miles added on via 95 won't make much of a difference. It's probably real tough to find a mileage sign that exists today and figure out exactly what they're determining where that mileage leads to at or within the city.
I agree with J&N. If you're in Maryland, an approx. mileage by either route to NYC should suffice for most drivers.
Quote from: famartin on October 01, 2018, 06:31:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 01, 2018, 03:31:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2018, 12:47:02 PM
I never had a real problem with Philly not being used on the NJ Turnpike living in NJ my entire childhood and early adulthood life, but did think it was odd though. Not odd enough though to get anal like some here do, but since old NJ road photos submitted here did show Philadelphia as a control city on US 1 & 9 south at US 22 back in the 1940's does now allow me to see why Philadelphia is now wanting to be changed to all I-95 signage.
The NJTP has always been an outer bypass superhighway of SE PA. I-295 is the local access freeway that provides access between NJ and SE PA. As such it makes sense to have Philadelphia directive signing on I-295 but not on the NJTP.
It may be a bypass, but it's also the main highway to Philly from NYC and points north in the magalopolis. I-95 also bypasses DC, but Washington is prominently signed, because it's the main access. Philly is one of the largest cities in the country, larger than Baltimore, and certainly far larger than Wilmington and Trenton. Now that it is truly directly connected, it deserves proper signage.
Honestly I can't really fathom why this is even argument.
More precisely, the Turnpike does not go to Philly. I-95 does. I assume signing or not signing Philadelphia would depend on how much the NJ Turnpike wants to acknowledge that it's I-95. The PA Turnpike seems to be all in on the identity change, but they have nothing to lose from such unlike the NJ Turnpike.
Google Maps is finally showing the ramps tonight, but not traffic on them yet. Still 276 for now, too...
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 02, 2018, 11:43:40 PM
Google Maps is finally showing the ramps tonight, but not traffic on them yet. Still 276 for now, too...
Only as ramps, though, which they're not; they're Interstate mainline. I suspect they'll change that when they fix the routes in another week and a half, since that's how they usually handle Interstates on "ramps" at interchanges.
EDIT: Seems the routes are changed in the database, but not fully updated yet. Try reporting a data problem on any of new I-95 (or I-295 between the start of the flyovers and the bridge over the Turnpike) and checking off "select the entire road." The new designations are listed in there, though actually selecting all of them shows that it hasn't fully gone through yet.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 03, 2018, 12:43:30 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 02, 2018, 11:43:40 PM
Google Maps is finally showing the ramps tonight, but not traffic on them yet. Still 276 for now, too...
Only as ramps, though, which they're not; they're Interstate mainline. I suspect they'll change that when they fix the routes in another week and a half, since that's how they usually handle Interstates on "ramps" at interchanges.
EDIT: Seems the routes are changed in the database, but not fully updated yet. Try reporting a data problem on any of new I-95 (or I-295 between the start of the flyovers and the bridge over the Turnpike) and checking off "select the entire road." The new designations are listed in there, though actually selecting all of them shows that it hasn't fully gone through yet.
It looks like the routes are now correctly displayed (except the ramps are not designated as I-95). The exit number for US 13 is still listed as 359
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 09:20:43 AMIt looks like the routes are now correctly displayed (except the ramps are not designated as I-95). The exit number for US 13 is still listed as 359
Don't you mean
358?
When I saw your post, I had to double-check to see if Google Maps indeed made a mistake in editing/updating (they didn't). 359 was for the now-gone mainline toll plaza at the base of the Delaware River Bridge.
Next Google Maps has to get the new spelling of the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge correct.
Today's "update" to Google Maps is completely useless. The system doesn't even recognize that it's a traversable road. Here's the route it suggests to use getting from I-95 just south of the interchange to I-95 just north (east) of the interchange:
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1937/43265700720_c30538e963_b.jpg)
If you try to drag your starting point onto the flyover structure itself, Google Maps shows a dashed line indicating that you're first supposed to walk to the old Delaware Expressway mainline, then continue your journey eastbound (northbound) on I-295.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 03, 2018, 12:43:30 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 02, 2018, 11:43:40 PM
Google Maps is finally showing the ramps tonight, but not traffic on them yet. Still 276 for now, too...
Only as ramps, though, which they're not; they're Interstate mainline. I suspect they'll change that when they fix the routes in another week and a half, since that's how they usually handle Interstates on "ramps" at interchanges.
EDIT: Seems the routes are changed in the database, but not fully updated yet. Try reporting a data problem on any of new I-95 (or I-295 between the start of the flyovers and the bridge over the Turnpike) and checking off "select the entire road." The new designations are listed in there, though actually selecting all of them shows that it hasn't fully gone through yet.
How they have them is not inconsistent with how they've done other interstate TOTSO situations.
Quote from: vdeane on October 03, 2018, 01:08:19 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 03, 2018, 12:43:30 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 02, 2018, 11:43:40 PM
Google Maps is finally showing the ramps tonight, but not traffic on them yet. Still 276 for now, too...
Only as ramps, though, which they're not; they're Interstate mainline. I suspect they'll change that when they fix the routes in another week and a half, since that's how they usually handle Interstates on "ramps" at interchanges.
EDIT: Seems the routes are changed in the database, but not fully updated yet. Try reporting a data problem on any of new I-95 (or I-295 between the start of the flyovers and the bridge over the Turnpike) and checking off "select the entire road." The new designations are listed in there, though actually selecting all of them shows that it hasn't fully gone through yet.
How they have them is not inconsistent with how they've done other interstate TOTSO situations.
Really they're not very consistent with it at all. Compare the Springfield Interchange in Virginia to the other 95 split in Maryland. Or the two 83/695 interchanges north of Baltimore. Or the two 70-79 interchanges in Washington, PA, which are mapped the opposite of how each one should be.
----
And while the map should've been updated immediately, it's not surprising that different parts of the update take a while to go through.
Also see all the interstate TOTSOs in Memphis and Nashville. These ramps don't appear to be too dissimilar to those.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 03, 2018, 09:24:54 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 09:20:43 AMIt looks like the routes are now correctly displayed (except the ramps are not designated as I-95). The exit number for US 13 is still listed as 359
Don't you mean 358?
When I saw your post, I had to double-check to see if Google Maps indeed made a mistake in editing/updating (they didn't). 359 was for the now-gone mainline toll plaza at the base of the Delaware River Bridge.
You are right about 358. I was looking at this point: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1224305,-74.8541054,3a,75y,28.24h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHbPav2__mFR_stBQXaDM8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1 which Google marks as Exit 359. It's a mistake Google makes in a few places (including on the NJ Turnpike southbound where the Southbound Eastern/Western spur split is marked 16W) when an overhead sign can be interpreted as exit signage if you don't know the area
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 05:54:23 PM
(including on the NJ Turnpike southbound where the Southbound Eastern/Western spur split [on the ramp from I-80] is marked 16W)
As it should be: http://www.google.com/maps/@40.8381936,-74.0198008,3a,75y,200.6h,92.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSshzLN8uO2_FngpIuZ3HA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That's pretty clear that they intend the western spur for only exit 16W, and the eastern spur for all other traffic.
Quote from: NE2 on October 03, 2018, 07:00:58 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 05:54:23 PM
(including on the NJ Turnpike southbound where the Southbound Eastern/Western spur split [on the ramp from I-80] is marked 16W)
As it should be: http://www.google.com/maps/@40.8381936,-74.0198008,3a,75y,200.6h,92.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSshzLN8uO2_FngpIuZ3HA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That's pretty clear that they intend the western spur for only exit 16W, and the eastern spur for all other traffic.
That's only true for traffic coming from I-80. I-95's corresponding signs (which are visible in your link) say that the eastern spur is only for exit 17 and the Western spur is "I-95 / NJ Turnpike / 16W". Both splits are marked 16W on Google Maps. And anyway those are VMSs that are potentially changeable.
Would it be correct if it said "TO EXIT 16W"?
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 03, 2018, 07:00:58 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 05:54:23 PM
(including on the NJ Turnpike southbound where the Southbound Eastern/Western spur split [on the ramp from I-80] is marked 16W)
As it should be: http://www.google.com/maps/@40.8381936,-74.0198008,3a,75y,200.6h,92.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSshzLN8uO2_FngpIuZ3HA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That's pretty clear that they intend the western spur for only exit 16W, and the eastern spur for all other traffic.
That's only true for traffic coming from I-80. I-95's corresponding signs (which are visible in your link) say that the eastern spur is only for exit 17 and the Western spur is "I-95 / NJ Turnpike / 16W". Both splits are marked 16W on Google Maps. And anyway those are VMSs that are potentially changeable.
Bzakharin, do you know if that is the normal default setting for those NJT signs and/or does the NJTA change those recommended routes based on traffic conditions, events at the Meadowlands, etc.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 03, 2018, 08:29:16 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 03, 2018, 07:00:58 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 05:54:23 PM
(including on the NJ Turnpike southbound where the Southbound Eastern/Western spur split [on the ramp from I-80] is marked 16W)
As it should be: http://www.google.com/maps/@40.8381936,-74.0198008,3a,75y,200.6h,92.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSshzLN8uO2_FngpIuZ3HA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That's pretty clear that they intend the western spur for only exit 16W, and the eastern spur for all other traffic.
That's only true for traffic coming from I-80. I-95's corresponding signs (which are visible in your link) say that the eastern spur is only for exit 17 and the Western spur is "I-95 / NJ Turnpike / 16W". Both splits are marked 16W on Google Maps. And anyway those are VMSs that are potentially changeable.
Bzakharin, do you know if that is the normal default setting for those NJT signs and/or does the NJTA change those recommended routes based on traffic conditions, events at the Meadowlands, etc.
Judging by the fact that all the GSV snapshots over 10 years are showing the same settings, I'd guess they are the default. I don't go out that way much. I do know that they change them due to congestion or closures, but not how frequently.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 03, 2018, 08:29:16 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 03, 2018, 07:00:58 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 05:54:23 PM
(including on the NJ Turnpike southbound where the Southbound Eastern/Western spur split [on the ramp from I-80] is marked 16W)
As it should be: http://www.google.com/maps/@40.8381936,-74.0198008,3a,75y,200.6h,92.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSshzLN8uO2_FngpIuZ3HA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That's pretty clear that they intend the western spur for only exit 16W, and the eastern spur for all other traffic.
That's only true for traffic coming from I-80. I-95's corresponding signs (which are visible in your link) say that the eastern spur is only for exit 17 and the Western spur is "I-95 / NJ Turnpike / 16W". Both splits are marked 16W on Google Maps. And anyway those are VMSs that are potentially changeable.
Bzakharin, do you know if that is the normal default setting for those NJT signs and/or does the NJTA change those recommended routes based on traffic conditions, events at the Meadowlands, etc.
They set the default to balance traffic between the legs. However, this strikes me as only balancing north of Route 3, as the Easterly is much more heavily loaded south of there. Of course, if you dump everyone on the Westerly, there are only 2 lanes to handle them north of Route 3, and it does get plenty congested over the Passaic River thanks to all the through traffic already going that way... so I'd say they're doing the best they can.
Google maps appears to function properly now!
(Wipes away pretend tear...) SIGH! It's so beautiful! :-P
(https://i.imgur.com/KzcE3aY.jpg)
It's gonna be fun for those neighbors if those other movements are ever built though! :paranoid:
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 04, 2018, 07:35:33 AM
(Wipes away pretend tear...) SIGH! It's so beautiful! :-P
(https://i.imgur.com/KzcE3aY.jpg)
It's gonna be fun for those neighbors if those other movements are ever built though! :paranoid:
Very Nice! Yeah, those neighbors have already had a significant impact. Many of them will be perfectly fine if the interchange was never completed.
So I went in Google Maps between 7:50am and 8am, 10/4/18, just to see what travel times would be. I used my starting point as Exit 8A of the NJ Turnpike; my ending point was the I-95/DE 1 interchange. The 3 options that came up are as follows:
Going south:
NJ Turnpike to Del Mem Br: 83.3 Miles, 1 Hour 13 Minutes
NJ Turnpike to Exit 7 to I-295 to Del Mem Br: 86.7 Miles, 1:23
I-95: 87.3 Miles, 1:44
Going north:
Del Mem Br to NJ Turnpike: 82.9 Miles, 1:13
Del Mem Br to I-295's Exit 36A to the NJ Turnpike: 85.3 Miles, 1:19
I-95: 87.5 Miles, 1:35
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 04, 2018, 07:35:33 AM
(Wipes away pretend tear...) SIGH! It's so beautiful! :-P
(https://i.imgur.com/KzcE3aY.jpg)
It's gonna be fun for those neighbors if those other movements are ever built though! :paranoid:
Very Nice! Yeah, those neighbors have already had a significant impact. Many of them will be perfectly fine if the interchange was never completed.
So I went in Google Maps between 7:50am and 8am, 10/4/18, just to see what travel times would be. I used my starting point as Exit 8A of the NJ Turnpike; my ending point was the I-95/DE 1 interchange. The 3 options that came up are as follows:
Going south:
NJ Turnpike to Del Mem Br: 83.3 Miles, 1 Hour 13 Minutes
NJ Turnpike to Exit 7 to I-295 to Del Mem Br: 86.7 Miles, 1:23
I-95: 87.3 Miles, 1:44
Going north:
Del Mem Br to NJ Turnpike: 82.9 Miles, 1:13
Del Mem Br to I-295's Exit 36A to the NJ Turnpike: 85.3 Miles, 1:19
I-95: 87.5 Miles, 1:35
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
As anticipated. That said, as late as when I checked (715), 95 was the best option both ways to/from downtown NYC and downtown Philly. That probably changed later, at least going into Philly.
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia (east of the Delaware River) area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
Yes, for someone coming from central Jersey & north. However, someone traveling from Wilmington & south to Bucks County, PA or vice-versa is
not going to use I-295 or the NJTP to bypass Philadelphia in most instances.
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
But someone strictly following I-95 signage won't know that. If they know they want to take I-95 to Baltimore or Washington DC., you'll be amazed at how many people have no clue where Wilmington is located, because they don't care.
Geography has never been a strong suite for many people. Neither is highway driving. Many people are directionally challenged.
Remember...this has been a long-time issue for those taking I-95 North, and having it disappear on them after they enter New Jersey.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
But someone strictly following I-95 signage won't know that. If they know they want to take I-95 to Baltimore or Washington DC., you'll be amazed at how many people have no clue where Wilmington is located, because they don't care.
Geography has never been a strong suite for many people. Neither is highway driving. Many people are directionally challenged.
Remember...this has been a long-time issue for those taking I-95 North, and having it disappear on them after they enter New Jersey.
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGUxhAV.png)
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
But someone strictly following I-95 signage won't know that. If they know they want to take I-95 to Baltimore or Washington DC., you'll be amazed at how many people have no clue where Wilmington is located, because they don't care.
Geography has never been a strong suite for many people. Neither is highway driving. Many people are directionally challenged.
Remember...this has been a long-time issue for those taking I-95 North, and having it disappear on them after they enter New Jersey.
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
That's not the point. Some people will strictly follow the I-95 routing. And not everyone is going to a destination listed on those signs. If a driver is going to Boston, those signs don't matter if they don't know or care that they have to go thru NJ or NY.
Think about it next time you're on a road trip. You're taking I-80 to Chicago. Do you care about Hazelton, even though PA uses that as a control city? To you, the driver, you care that you're staying on I-80, not some city in between you and your destination.
So I guess those drivers never make it to Boston then? They got stuck in the Trenton area. Even now they have no I-95 to follow since they're still stuck in Trenton. They settled down and made a new life in NJ. Waiting for I-95 to be built and show them the way. So oblivious that not even the new I-95 connection can help them. :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
But someone strictly following I-95 signage won't know that. If they know they want to take I-95 to Baltimore or Washington DC., you'll be amazed at how many people have no clue where Wilmington is located, because they don't care.
Geography has never been a strong suite for many people. Neither is highway driving. Many people are directionally challenged.
Remember...this has been a long-time issue for those taking I-95 North, and having it disappear on them after they enter New Jersey.
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
That's not the point. Some people will strictly follow the I-95 routing. And not everyone is going to a destination listed on those signs. If a driver is going to Boston, those signs don't matter if they don't know or care that they have to go thru NJ or NY.
Think about it next time you're on a road trip. You're taking I-80 to Chicago. Do you care about Hazelton, even though PA uses that as a control city? To you, the driver, you care that you're staying on I-80, not some city in between you and your destination.
Considering that New York (population 8 million) and Philadelphia (population 1.6 million) are larger, more notable destinations than places like Wilmington (population 70k), I would imagine that a destination which I figure is on the way to Boston (and further away from me than Philadelphia, because there's a sign upon entering Delaware that says Philadelphia is 42 miles away) is more important.
I am more than well aware that people don't pay attention on the road and blindly listen to their GPS. However, whenever I type in my route back home to Connecticut on Google Maps, it always directs me onto I-295 or the NJTP anyway.
The point made earlier in this thread was that nobody cares about Wilmington, but I would assume people have a better understanding of Philadelphia and New York's proximity to each other, considering that they are vastly more important cities.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 12:48:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
But someone strictly following I-95 signage won't know that. If they know they want to take I-95 to Baltimore or Washington DC., you'll be amazed at how many people have no clue where Wilmington is located, because they don't care.
Geography has never been a strong suite for many people. Neither is highway driving. Many people are directionally challenged.
Remember...this has been a long-time issue for those taking I-95 North, and having it disappear on them after they enter New Jersey.
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
That's not the point. Some people will strictly follow the I-95 routing. And not everyone is going to a destination listed on those signs. If a driver is going to Boston, those signs don't matter if they don't know or care that they have to go thru NJ or NY.
Think about it next time you're on a road trip. You're taking I-80 to Chicago. Do you care about Hazelton, even though PA uses that as a control city? To you, the driver, you care that you're staying on I-80, not some city in between you and your destination.
Considering that New York (population 8 million) and Philadelphia (population 1.6 million) are larger, more notable destinations than places like Wilmington (population 70k), I would imagine that a destination which I figure is on the way to Boston (and further away from me than Philadelphia, because there's a sign upon entering Delaware that says Philadelphia is 42 miles away) is more important.
I am more than well aware that people don't pay attention on the road and blindly listen to their GPS. However, whenever I type in my route back home to Connecticut on Google Maps, it always directs me onto I-295 or the NJTP anyway.
The point made earlier in this thread was that nobody cares about Wilmington, but I would assume people have a better understanding of Philadelphia and New York's proximity to each other, considering that they are vastly more important cities.
While the current generation is used to things like GPS, many people still don't use those things. Heck, maps and atlases are still sold in stores. Not because there's a huge roadgeek population that likes to see what changes are made; it's because people still utilize them to get around. These even a fair number of people on these boards that don't have smartphones, so unless they have a GPS unit within their car, they're using maps, pre-printed directions or signage as displayed on the roadway. While some people think everyone has a GPS, that's shockingly far from reality.
And when it comes to those signs, what would the point of the route number be if one is just looking for cities on the way to the destination, or what purpose is a control city if people just rely on route numbers? It's been learned thru the years of driving that people utilize different things on those signs; enough to show both options. The FHWA also learned that too much info is bad, so they try limiting the signage to 2 cities, even on signs where the road splits. The states have at least slightly battled on that one, still showing 2 cities per direction if they believe it's prudent to do so.
I provided Boston as an example, because of an experience collecting tolls on the NJ Turnpike. This particular person, I learned thru our discussion, was on I-80 East. He wanted to head up to Boston. When he got to I-95, he took South, not North. I mean, he could see NYC from that area, and a few minutes later he doesn't, because he's driving away from it. He went 2 hours south, and passed thru my toll lane at Interchange 1. He thought I was joking when I said he went 2 hours in the wrong direction, and there was not a single thing that made him think otherwise. Signs for Philly; the lack of signage for New York City, etc didn't mean a thing to him. He simply wanted I-95, and didn't give another thought about anything else. He probably saw I-95 signage up north on the Turnpike, but it didn't phase him in the least that there wasn't a bit of 95 signage for over an hour before he saw me.
They're the people that have no clue what city is between Point A and Point B. And they're the people you're driving alongside at 75 mph on the highways.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 08:05:05 AM
So in all cases, at least for this snapshot during this morning rush hour, remaining on I-95 the whole length was the worst option in both time and mileage. There was significant congestion in Northeast Philly slowing I-95 down there. For both directions, Google Maps used the NJ Turnpike as the primary route due to the fastest time.
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
But someone strictly following I-95 signage won't know that. If they know they want to take I-95 to Baltimore or Washington DC., you'll be amazed at how many people have no clue where Wilmington is located, because they don't care.
Geography has never been a strong suite for many people. Neither is highway driving. Many people are directionally challenged.
Remember...this has been a long-time issue for those taking I-95 North, and having it disappear on them after they enter New Jersey.
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGUxhAV.png)
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
That final set of signs really needs replacing with an APL with "Philadelphia" alone on the left, and "New York" alone on the right.
Isn't part of the design of the Interstate system that mainline Interstates are supposed to go through big cities, with bypasses for those heading for longer distance destinations? If that's the case, wouldn't drivers know that blindly following a route number won't necessarily be the best way to get somewhere? If such is the case, most people will know to follow New York signs and not Philadelphia in Delaware. Will they know Wilmington is further away than Philadelphia? That it's on the way to (let's say) Washington, DC? Will they end up on I-95 North because they were still following Wilmington signs?
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 04, 2018, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGUxhAV.png)
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
That final set of signs really needs replacing with an APL with "Philadelphia" alone on the left, and "New York" alone on the right.
For the approach signage, yes; but at this location, no because there isn't a
shared lane anymore.
As far as the control city/point listing is concerned; except for the incorrect
NY - NJ order, such is fine as is. It covers all the bases.
While many
tourist drivers may not know the Delaware Memorial Bridge by name per se; they
do know that they need to cross the Delaware River in order to get into NJ.
Additionally, do you honestly believe that DelDOT is going to omit their largest city (Wilmington's population is almost double that of DE's capital city of Dover) on their signs in favor of a larger city that is not in their own state?
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 01:49:11 PM
While many tourist drivers may not know the Delaware Memorial Bridge by name per se; they do know that they need to cross the Delaware River in order to get into NJ.
I think you're giving the average motorist far too much credit for knowledge of geography.
In fact, if you stopped a hundred random out-of-region cars (i.e. not DE, PA, or NJ) on I-95 in Delaware and asked what body of water they need to cross to enter NJ, I wouldn't be surprised if the top five responses were as absurd as this:
5.) Bay of Fundy
4.) What's a "˜body of water'?
3.) Lake Erie
2.) Is Jimmy Hoffa's body a "˜body of water'?
1.) Hudson River
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 04, 2018, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGUxhAV.png)
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
That final set of signs really needs replacing with an APL with "Philadelphia" alone on the left, and "New York" alone on the right.
For the approach signage, yes; but at this location, no because there isn't a shared lane anymore.
There is at the 95-495 split though and there should be an APL there.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 09:09:42 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia (east of the Delaware River) area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
Yes, for someone coming from central Jersey & north. However, someone traveling from Wilmington & south to Bucks County, PA or vice-versa is not going to use I-295 or the NJTP to bypass Philadelphia in most instances.
When I said "carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area" that meant to include the suburban areas such as Delaware and Bucks counties, so that would be traffic from/to points south of Wilmington and to/from points north of SE PA, or using the nearest large metro areas between Baltimore and New York City.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
But someone strictly following I-95 signage won't know that. If they know they want to take I-95 to Baltimore or Washington DC., you'll be amazed at how many people have no clue where Wilmington is located, because they don't care.
That is not the fault of the signing, people need to gain some minimal understanding of road networks if they want to optimize their travel. There are numbers of places in the country where they will need to make a judgement call about whether to take the I-xx route thru the center of the city or take the I-xxx route to bypass the city. They can start with a paper map of the area. More and more areas are posting on VMS signs the estimates of minutes for the route alternates, using data from their smart traffic centers.
For example, Richmond VA has time estimates posted on VMS signs for the routes thru the center of the city (I-64 and I-95) versus using the I-295 bypass. I saw this scheme on my recent trip thru Indianapolis. Baltimore has a system like this. No reason why the Philadelphia area can't have a system like this. Harrisburg does.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 04, 2018, 02:04:34 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 01:49:11 PM
While many tourist drivers may not know the Delaware Memorial Bridge by name per se; they do know that they need to cross the Delaware River in order to get into NJ.
I think you're giving the average motorist far too much credit for knowledge of geography.
In fact, if you stopped a hundred random out-of-region cars (i.e. not DE, PA, or NJ) on I-95 in Delaware and asked what body of water they need to cross to enter NJ, I wouldn't be surprised if the top five responses were as absurd as this:
5.) Bay of Fundy
4.) What's a "˜body of water'?
3.) Lake Erie
2.) Is Jimmy Hoffa's body a "˜body of water'?
1.) Hudson River
I crossed a bridge?
(Yes...people are oblivious to such)
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 02:37:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 08:22:21 AM
I-95 never was intended to carry the thru traffic in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area. That would be the job of I-295 and NJTP. I-95 was intended to handle many trips originating and/or ending within that region.
But someone strictly following I-95 signage won't know that. If they know they want to take I-95 to Baltimore or Washington DC., you'll be amazed at how many people have no clue where Wilmington is located, because they don't care.
That is not the fault of the signing, people need to gain some minimal understanding of road networks if they want to optimize their travel. There are numbers of places in the country where they will need to make a judgement call about whether to take the I-xx route thru the center of the city or take the I-xxx route to bypass the city. They can start with a paper map of the area. More and more areas are posting on VMS signs the estimates of minutes for the route alternates, using data from their smart traffic centers.
For example, Richmond VA has time estimates posted on VMS signs for the routes thru the center of the city (I-64 and I-95) versus using the I-295 bypass. I saw this scheme on my recent trip thru Indianapolis. Baltimore has a system like this. No reason why the Philadelphia area can't have a system like this. Harrisburg does.
Honestly, I never used the 295 bypass around Richmond until recently. #1 - I always figured it was out of my way and would take longer, and #2 - I heard the horror stories of people getting pulled over. Using those timed signs, I found out that 295 is much easier than staying on 95, and I found out the horror stories are greatly exaggerated, especially with the highway being mostly 70 mph. I never had a problem driving 75, and I'm still getting passed.
PA has travel times on the signs near Philly. However, the region as a whole doesn't work well when it comes to interacting with others. Delaware or New Jersey would need to post travel times that involve 3 states - PA, NJ & DE - in order to inform the public of the travel times for long distances. The various transportation departments don't have the capability of doing that. Even the NJ Turnpike posting the travel time to Wilmington, DE is really them posting the time to the Delaware Memorial Bridge from what I can tell. Since bypassing Richmond or Harrisburg only involves the state those cities are in, it's much easier to accomplish.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 02:56:10 PM
PA has travel times on the signs near Philly. However, the region as a whole doesn't work well when it comes to interacting with others. Delaware or New Jersey would need to post travel times that involve 3 states - PA, NJ & DE - in order to inform the public of the travel times for long distances. The various transportation departments don't have the capability of doing that. Even the NJ Turnpike posting the travel time to Wilmington, DE is really them posting the time to the Delaware Memorial Bridge from what I can tell. Since bypassing Richmond or Harrisburg only involves the state those cities are in, it's much easier to accomplish.
Maryland and Virginia does it. Indiana and Illinois does it. I'm sure there are others.
The smart traffic centers in the associated states need to get together and "just do it".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 02:56:10 PM
Even the NJ Turnpike posting the travel time to Wilmington, DE is really them posting the time to the Delaware Memorial Bridge from what I can tell.
I would think it's to US 13 since there is a US 13 shield on that sign.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 04, 2018, 02:20:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 04, 2018, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGUxhAV.png)
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
That final set of signs really needs replacing with an APL with "Philadelphia" alone on the left, and "New York" alone on the right.
For the approach signage, yes; but at this location, no because there isn't a shared lane anymore.
There is at the 95-495 split though and there should be an APL there.
An aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wilmington,+DE/@39.6981535,-75.6106662,59m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!8m2!3d39.744655!4d-75.5483909) shows that gantry slightly
beyond where the lane splits in two. If such were placed
prior to the split, then yes.
A similar example (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4169356,-73.4287947,3a,75y,68.09h,73.64t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6atEVN0pnVFUGvEMrZ4Zqw!2e0!5s20161001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) in Danbury, CT (granted there's a longer stretch where the shared lane splits into two separate lanes) where there's APLs for the approach signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4155009,-73.434491,3a,75y,61.13h,90.33t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjIVawiVPA4ZDRQLX790VOg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656) but separate sign panels at the actual split.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 04, 2018, 02:04:34 PMI think you're giving the average motorist far too much credit for knowledge of geography.
In fact, if you stopped a hundred random out-of-region cars (i.e. not DE, PA, or NJ) on I-95 in Delaware and asked what body of water they need to cross to enter NJ, I wouldn't be surprised if the top five responses were as absurd as this:
5.) Bay of Fundy
4.) What's a "˜body of water'?
3.) Lake Erie
2.) Is Jimmy Hoffa's body a "˜body of water'?
1.) Hudson River
I crossed a bridge?
(Yes...people are oblivious to such)
Fair enough; but is that an excuse
not to include it on the main signage? If the answer to that question is
yes; then one might as well remove the Commodore Barry, Walt Whitman & Betsy Ross Bridge references off the main signs along I-95 as well.
Side bar: When the 1991-vintage I-95 signage for I-676 were first erected; the Ben Franklin Bridge reference originally only appeared on supplemental signs. The ramp signs for I-676 eastbound (via Callowhill St.) were changed to include the bridge about three years later (gee, I wonder why...)
So the listing of
prominent bridges on major signs are relevant
regardless of whether the driver knows (or cares) about them or not.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 02:56:10 PM
I crossed a bridge?
(Yes...people are oblivious to such)
I've heard this many times. I've had conversations like this:
"Are we still in New Jersey?"
"No....Don't you remember us crossing the bridge?"
"We crossed a bridge?"
"Uh.....Yes..."
Quote from: bzakharin on October 04, 2018, 03:14:39 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 02:56:10 PM
Even the NJ Turnpike posting the travel time to Wilmington, DE is really them posting the time to the Delaware Memorial Bridge from what I can tell.
I would think it's to US 13 since there is a US 13 shield on that sign.
For some reason there was something about the time or the distance that made me wonder if that was really true.
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 03:07:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 02:56:10 PM
PA has travel times on the signs near Philly. However, the region as a whole doesn't work well when it comes to interacting with others. Delaware or New Jersey would need to post travel times that involve 3 states - PA, NJ & DE - in order to inform the public of the travel times for long distances. The various transportation departments don't have the capability of doing that. Even the NJ Turnpike posting the travel time to Wilmington, DE is really them posting the time to the Delaware Memorial Bridge from what I can tell. Since bypassing Richmond or Harrisburg only involves the state those cities are in, it's much easier to accomplish.
Maryland and Virginia does it. Indiana and Illinois does it. I'm sure there are others.
The smart traffic centers in the associated states need to get together and "just do it".
I always joked that NJDOT and NJTA might as well have been on different planets. There seemed to be no connection between those two agencies, and they're in the same state!
If there's a significant issue in another state, NJDOT often reports it on their signs. It's common for something to be mentioned on I-295 if the Schuylkill Expressway is closed, for example. But for traffic time signs, there doesn't appear to be any connection between the adjoining states, and nothing indicates that's going to change anytime soon. There's probably an issue with priorities and funding as well, and providing travel times to a point 80 miles away in another state isn't high on either list.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 03:36:15 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 04, 2018, 02:20:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 04, 2018, 01:30:49 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 04, 2018, 11:53:00 AM
However, as I think I've mentioned before, heading northbound, traffic from Baltimore/Washington heading towards New Jersey/New York is directed onto I-295 through the Wilmington area.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGUxhAV.png)
Southbound signage is, of course, problematic as not only are drivers directed towards Wilmington but also towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, which I'm sure plenty of drivers cannot identify.
That final set of signs really needs replacing with an APL with "Philadelphia" alone on the left, and "New York" alone on the right.
For the approach signage, yes; but at this location, no because there isn't a shared lane anymore.
There is at the 95-495 split though and there should be an APL there.
An aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wilmington,+DE/@39.6981535,-75.6106662,59m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!8m2!3d39.744655!4d-75.5483909) shows that gantry slightly beyond where the lane splits in two. If such were placed prior to the split, then yes.[/url]
I agree, here at this location the signage is fine. The ones after the 295 split though would be better served with APLs. I believe they still have dancing arrow signs on that stretch.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 03:42:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 04, 2018, 03:07:45 PM
The smart traffic centers in the associated states need to get together and "just do it".
I always joked that NJDOT and NJTA might as well have been on different planets. There seemed to be no connection between those two agencies, and they're in the same state!
If there's a significant issue in another state, NJDOT often reports it on their signs. It's common for something to be mentioned on I-295 if the Schuylkill Expressway is closed, for example. But for traffic time signs, there doesn't appear to be any connection between the adjoining states, and nothing indicates that's going to change anytime soon. There's probably an issue with priorities and funding as well, and providing travel times to a point 80 miles away in another state isn't high on either list.
But the completion of I-95 is a major change in the corridor of NJTP/I-295/I-95.
There was no real need for that before.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 03:42:23 PM
I always joked that NJDOT and NJTA might as well have been on different planets. There seemed to be no connection between those two agencies, and they're in the same state!
Even PennDOT and the PTC are more connected. PennDOT gives traffic
data counts for PTC roads, though I'm not sure if they measure it themselves or get the data from the PTC. (Turnpike traffic counts tend to have interesting segment-segment discrepancies that make no sense.) NJDOT gives no traffic
data counts from the NJTP or GSP (nor ACE I believe, though that isn't NJTA). I still haven't found NJTA traffic data from anywhere.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 04, 2018, 03:49:24 PMI agree, here at this location the signage is fine. The ones after the 295 split though would be better served with APLs. I believe they still have dancing arrow signs on that stretch.
IIRC, the signs at those splits (I-95/295 & I-95/495 that you mentioned) predated the existence of APLs or at least DelDOT's use of them. The approach signage for the I-95/295 split also uses dancing arrows for the shared lane as well.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 04, 2018, 03:53:25 PM
Even PennDOT and the PTC are more connected. PennDOT gives traffic data for PTC roads, though I'm not sure if they measure it themselves or get the data from the PTC. (Turnpike traffic counts tend to have interesting segment-segment discrepancies that make no sense.) NJDOT gives no traffic data from the NJTP or GSP (nor ACE I believe, though that isn't NJTA). I still haven't found NJTA traffic data from anywhere.
It really depends on the smart traffic centers, they are the source of the time estimate data.
The questions would be, where are the smart traffic centers, how wide of a radius does each cover, how much automated sharing of data exists between the individual smart traffic centers, and does each state have at least one smart traffic center in the Delaware Valley region?
In this day and age there should be full coverage of the whole region from northern Delaware to the Trenton area. But that would depend on each state having at least one smart traffic center and there being automated sharing of data between each. For example, JerDOT could not force DelDOT to build a smart traffic center.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 04, 2018, 03:53:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 03:42:23 PM
I always joked that NJDOT and NJTA might as well have been on different planets. There seemed to be no connection between those two agencies, and they're in the same state!
Even PennDOT and the PTC are more connected. PennDOT gives traffic data for PTC roads, though I'm not sure if they measure it themselves or get the data from the PTC. (Turnpike traffic counts tend to have interesting segment-segment discrepancies that make no sense.) NJDOT gives no traffic data from the NJTP or GSP (nor ACE I believe, though that isn't NJTA). I still haven't found NJTA traffic data from anywhere.
This cannot be true. The NJ 511 service, both online and over the phone, provides info on NJDOT roads as well as the toll roads. I've seen plenty of warnings about issues on the Turnpike on I-295 and NJ 42 VMSs. The NJ Turnpike shows travel times to Wilmington both via Turnpike and I-295. NJ 42 provides travel times to points on the Atlantic City Expressway.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 04, 2018, 04:05:29 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 04, 2018, 03:53:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 03:42:23 PM
I always joked that NJDOT and NJTA might as well have been on different planets. There seemed to be no connection between those two agencies, and they're in the same state!
Even PennDOT and the PTC are more connected. PennDOT gives traffic data for PTC roads, though I'm not sure if they measure it themselves or get the data from the PTC. (Turnpike traffic counts tend to have interesting segment-segment discrepancies that make no sense.) NJDOT gives no traffic data from the NJTP or GSP (nor ACE I believe, though that isn't NJTA). I still haven't found NJTA traffic data from anywhere.
This cannot be true. The NJ 511 service, both online and over the phone, provides info on NJDOT roads as well as the toll roads. I've seen plenty of warnings about issues on the Turnpike on I-295 and NJ 42 VMSs. The NJ Turnpike shows travel times to Wilmington both via Turnpike and I-295. NJ 42 provides travel times to points on the Atlantic City Expressway.
My mistake. I meant traffic
counts, i.e. AADT.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 04, 2018, 04:05:29 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 04, 2018, 03:53:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 03:42:23 PM
I always joked that NJDOT and NJTA might as well have been on different planets. There seemed to be no connection between those two agencies, and they're in the same state!
Even PennDOT and the PTC are more connected. PennDOT gives traffic data for PTC roads, though I'm not sure if they measure it themselves or get the data from the PTC. (Turnpike traffic counts tend to have interesting segment-segment discrepancies that make no sense.) NJDOT gives no traffic data from the NJTP or GSP (nor ACE I believe, though that isn't NJTA). I still haven't found NJTA traffic data from anywhere.
This cannot be true. The NJ 511 service, both online and over the phone, provides info on NJDOT roads as well as the toll roads. I've seen plenty of warnings about issues on the Turnpike on I-295 and NJ 42 VMSs. The NJ Turnpike shows travel times to Wilmington both via Turnpike and I-295. NJ 42 provides travel times to points on the Atlantic City Expressway.
I should've emphasized the past tense of what I was saying. They do seem to be in better communication now, including and up to having a centralized command center in the NJTA headquarters where ALL New Jersey transportation departments and agencies can meet during weather or other severe event issues. It's not perfect, but much better than what it was during, say, the early 2000's and before.
Regarding people "following I-95," bear in mind a lot of people who use the I-95-->I-295 over the bridge-->NJTP route in fact think they're "following I-95," regardless of there having been a BGS there for at least the past 40 years ("at least" denoting that I'm 45 and there's been an I-95 sign for the left-hand route for as long as I can remember). I don't think the new ramps are going to make the slightest bit of difference for the vast majority of long-distance northbound travellers, with the possible exception of some people who might be making the trip for the first time. (Southbound, I don't know. I could maybe see some people noticing the new I-95 shield on the Exit 6 BGS, being surprised, and following it to see where it goes, although I daresay for the average driver that's likely to be a one-time mistake unlikely to be repeated!)
Based on the traffic I saw Friday for the mini-holiday weekend, it appeared to be congested as normal SB approaching Exit 4, and extremely heavy with slowdowns around Deptford, about 2-3 miles south of Interchange 3.
I think the number of people just following I-95 because of the signs are dwindling and will continue to dwindle as GPS followers continue to gain numbers. Hell, I am perfectly fine navigating myself and I use it all the time even on routes I know well, if only as a check for congestion and to be able to quickly ascertain time to destination at a glance. So, thru traffic will continue using I-295 and the southern Turnpike.
It does occur to me that if the Turnpike really wanted more people to stay for as long as possible, they would've built an interchange with Route 42 back in the 50s or 60s, back when it was relatively easy (i.e. far fewer environmental constraints). It would've been more expensive with the wetlands to fill, but I'm honestly surprised they never thought to themselves, "Hmm, lets encourage people to get on and off at Exit 3 by building an interchange with the main freeway heading out of Philly into NJ. It'll be expensive but we'll probably make more money that way in the end." Of course, had that occurred, even with I-95's completion in its current form, it probably WOULD be faster to get to Philly via the turnpike/42 even now, versus I-95.
Quote from: famartin on October 06, 2018, 10:42:44 AM
I think the number of people just following I-95 because of the signs are dwindling and will continue to dwindle as GPS followers continue to gain numbers. Hell, I am perfectly fine navigating myself and I use it all the time even on routes I know well, if only as a check for congestion and to be able to quickly ascertain time to destination at a glance. So, thru traffic will continue using I-295 and the southern Turnpike.
It does occur to me that if the Turnpike really wanted more people to stay for as long as possible, they would've built an interchange with Route 42 back in the 50s or 60s, back when it was relatively easy (i.e. far fewer environmental constraints). It would've been more expensive with the wetlands to fill, but I'm honestly surprised they never thought to themselves, "Hmm, lets encourage people to get on and off at Exit 3 by building an interchange with the main freeway heading out of Philly into NJ. It'll be expensive but we'll probably make more money that way in the end." Of course, had that occurred, even with I-95's completion in its current form, it probably WOULD be faster to get to Philly via the turnpike/42 even now, versus I-95.
NJDOT built Rt. 42 in the late 1950s. Until then, Rt. 168 WAS the primary route to and from Philly and the shore. It had the hotels and the restaurants. It had the Howard Johnson's. It had everything everyone wanted. It made perfect sense to have Exit 3 where it was.
As the interstate system was built up and traffic patterns unfolded, it probably became more sensible to build a new interchange with Rt. 42. But who would build it? Who would pay for it? Those questions became hard to answer. The businesses on 168 don't want to lose a significant traffic feeder. So what seems like an obvious fix...one many want...becomes much harder to undergo. And the environmental hurdles we have today are another challange. It can be done...And hopefully with ETC only pay structures to reduce costs and land needed. And with any luck they'll seriously look at it when they eventually will need to widen the Turnpike between Interchanges 1 & 4.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 06, 2018, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 06, 2018, 10:42:44 AM
I think the number of people just following I-95 because of the signs are dwindling and will continue to dwindle as GPS followers continue to gain numbers. Hell, I am perfectly fine navigating myself and I use it all the time even on routes I know well, if only as a check for congestion and to be able to quickly ascertain time to destination at a glance. So, thru traffic will continue using I-295 and the southern Turnpike.
It does occur to me that if the Turnpike really wanted more people to stay for as long as possible, they would've built an interchange with Route 42 back in the 50s or 60s, back when it was relatively easy (i.e. far fewer environmental constraints). It would've been more expensive with the wetlands to fill, but I'm honestly surprised they never thought to themselves, "Hmm, lets encourage people to get on and off at Exit 3 by building an interchange with the main freeway heading out of Philly into NJ. It'll be expensive but we'll probably make more money that way in the end." Of course, had that occurred, even with I-95's completion in its current form, it probably WOULD be faster to get to Philly via the turnpike/42 even now, versus I-95.
NJDOT built Rt. 42 in the late 1950s. Until then, Rt. 168 WAS the primary route to and from Philly and the shore. It had the hotels and the restaurants. It had the Howard Johnson's. It had everything everyone wanted. It made perfect sense to have Exit 3 where it was.
As the interstate system was built up and traffic patterns unfolded, it probably became more sensible to build a new interchange with Rt. 42. But who would build it? Who would pay for it? Those questions became hard to answer. The businesses on 168 don't want to lose a significant traffic feeder. So what seems like an obvious fix...one many want...becomes much harder to undergo. And the environmental hurdles we have today are another challange. It can be done...And hopefully with ETC only pay structures to reduce costs and land needed. And with any luck they'll seriously look at it when they eventually will need to widen the Turnpike between Interchanges 1 & 4.
I'm just surprised they didn't have the foresight to realize most traffic would be moving to freeways, away from arterials. In northern NJ, as various freeways were constructed, turnpike exits were realigned or rebuilt to accommodate them at various locations. Its curious it somehow never happened at Route 42.
Quote from: famartin on October 06, 2018, 11:03:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 06, 2018, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 06, 2018, 10:42:44 AM
I think the number of people just following I-95 because of the signs are dwindling and will continue to dwindle as GPS followers continue to gain numbers. Hell, I am perfectly fine navigating myself and I use it all the time even on routes I know well, if only as a check for congestion and to be able to quickly ascertain time to destination at a glance. So, thru traffic will continue using I-295 and the southern Turnpike.
It does occur to me that if the Turnpike really wanted more people to stay for as long as possible, they would've built an interchange with Route 42 back in the 50s or 60s, back when it was relatively easy (i.e. far fewer environmental constraints). It would've been more expensive with the wetlands to fill, but I'm honestly surprised they never thought to themselves, "Hmm, lets encourage people to get on and off at Exit 3 by building an interchange with the main freeway heading out of Philly into NJ. It'll be expensive but we'll probably make more money that way in the end." Of course, had that occurred, even with I-95's completion in its current form, it probably WOULD be faster to get to Philly via the turnpike/42 even now, versus I-95.
NJDOT built Rt. 42 in the late 1950s. Until then, Rt. 168 WAS the primary route to and from Philly and the shore. It had the hotels and the restaurants. It had the Howard Johnson's. It had everything everyone wanted. It made perfect sense to have Exit 3 where it was.
As the interstate system was built up and traffic patterns unfolded, it probably became more sensible to build a new interchange with Rt. 42. But who would build it? Who would pay for it? Those questions became hard to answer. The businesses on 168 don't want to lose a significant traffic feeder. So what seems like an obvious fix...one many want...becomes much harder to undergo. And the environmental hurdles we have today are another challange. It can be done...And hopefully with ETC only pay structures to reduce costs and land needed. And with any luck they'll seriously look at it when they eventually will need to widen the Turnpike between Interchanges 1 & 4.
I'm just surprised they didn't have the foresight to realize most traffic would be moving to freeways, away from arterials. In northern NJ, as various freeways were constructed, turnpike exits were realigned or rebuilt to accommodate them at various locations. Its curious it somehow never happened at Route 42.
The NJ State Library has plenty of interesting documents related to highways built long ago. I'd bet the answer lies somewhere there. I'll have to take a walk down someday to see if I can find out something.
As for foresight, I think I-76 was originally built 2 or 3 lanes wide. It was quickly widened to 5-6 lanes wide. The early traffic estimates continously were blown out of the water all over the place.
Quote from: famartin on October 06, 2018, 10:42:44 AM
It does occur to me that if the Turnpike really wanted more people to stay for as long as possible, they would've built an interchange with Route 42 back in the 50s or 60s, back when it was relatively easy (i.e. far fewer environmental constraints). It would've been more expensive with the wetlands to fill, but I'm honestly surprised they never thought to themselves, "Hmm, lets encourage people to get on and off at Exit 3 by building an interchange with the main freeway heading out of Philly into NJ. It'll be expensive but we'll probably make more money that way in the end." Of course, had that occurred, even with I-95's completion in its current form, it probably WOULD be faster to get to Philly via the turnpike/42 even now, versus I-95.
From someone who lives south of New Jersey, the foolishness of not being able to connect directly between the Turnpike and NJ-42/AC Expressway to utilize the Expressway to the coast. The NJ-42/AC Expressway was completed by 1965 and that should have been a no-brainer.
Route 42 was only two lanes in each direction, south of I-295, until 1965. Likewise, I-295, north of NJ42, wasn't widened to three lanes each direction until the 1970's.
From what J&N said above about the businesses on Rt.168 back in earlier times, it sounds like another Breezewood type situation. Interchange not built at Rt. 42 so as not to take customers away from the businesses on Rt.168.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 06, 2018, 07:57:47 PM
From what J&N said above about the businesses on Rt.168 back in earlier times, it sounds like another Breezewood type situation. Interchange not built at Rt. 42 so as not to take customers away from the businesses on Rt.168.
Also doesn't help now that the area around that interchange is very congested and developed (even without traffic connecting between the NJ Turnpike and Philadelphia/I-76/NJ-42).
Breezewood is in the middle of nowhere, so there's no excuse there. :sombrero:
Quote from: SignBridge on October 06, 2018, 07:57:47 PM
From what J&N said above about the businesses on Rt.168 back in earlier times, it sounds like another Breezewood type situation. Interchange not built at Rt. 42 so as not to take customers away from the businesses on Rt.168.
But it there are no other freeway junctions omitted on the Turnpike, so I don't know that I would conclude that.
There is the I-295/Turnpike extension crossing, but that is a special situation where I-295 and the mainline Turnpike are very close, to where it would complicate building an interchange. Other than the northwest quadrant, the other quadrants have little or no need for connections.
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
Quote from: famartin on October 06, 2018, 10:42:44 AM
It does occur to me that if the Turnpike really wanted more people to stay for as long as possible, they would've built an interchange with Route 42 back in the 50s or 60s, back when it was relatively easy (i.e. far fewer environmental constraints). It would've been more expensive with the wetlands to fill, but I'm honestly surprised they never thought to themselves, "Hmm, lets encourage people to get on and off at Exit 3 by building an interchange with the main freeway heading out of Philly into NJ. It'll be expensive but we'll probably make more money that way in the end." Of course, had that occurred, even with I-95's completion in its current form, it probably WOULD be faster to get to Philly via the turnpike/42 even now, versus I-95.
From someone who lives south of New Jersey, the foolishness of not being able to connect directly between the Turnpike and NJ-42/AC Expressway to utilize the Expressway to the coast. The NJ-42/AC Expressway was completed by 1965 and that should have been a no-brainer.
While most people don't think of it, 95 to 76 in Philly then to 42 is all freeway.
When there's no congestion, compared to taking the NJ Turnpike to Exit 3 to AC it takes 1 additional minute and 4 extra miles longer to use 95 and 495 from DE into PA, then 76 to 42 if you must have an all freeway route. If you take I-295 in NJ to 76 West and make a u-turn at Market Street (Exit 1C), it's 1 extra mile and the same amount of time as it is to take the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 06, 2018, 08:15:37 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 06, 2018, 07:57:47 PM
From what J&N said above about the businesses on Rt.168 back in earlier times, it sounds like another Breezewood type situation. Interchange not built at Rt. 42 so as not to take customers away from the businesses on Rt.168.
Also doesn't help now that the area around that interchange is very congested and developed (even without traffic connecting between the NJ Turnpike and Philadelphia/I-76/NJ-42).
Breezewood is in the middle of nowhere, so there's no excuse there. :sombrero:
Also, THE Breezewood is I-70, an Interstate highway. NJ 168 is no highway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
From someone who lives south of New Jersey, the foolishness of not being able to connect directly between the Turnpike and NJ-42/AC Expressway to utilize the Expressway to the coast. The NJ-42/AC Expressway was completed by 1965 and that should have been a no-brainer.
While most people don't think of it, 95 to 76 in Philly then to 42 is all freeway.
Of course they don't. It is considerably longer and goes thru highly urbanized areas. The Turnpike is an outer bypass of the area and in any case I-95 wasn't complete until 1985. I was responding to a comment about including it in the initial construction of NJ-42.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
When there's no congestion, compared to taking the NJ Turnpike to Exit 3 to AC it takes 1 additional minute and 4 extra miles longer to use 95 and 495 from DE into PA, then 76 to 42 if you must have an all freeway route. If you take I-295 in NJ to 76 West and make a u-turn at Market Street (Exit 1C), it's 1 extra mile and the same amount of time as it is to take the NJ Turnpike.
A left turn onto a 2-lane street and then a loop. Could only carry very low volumes of freeway traffic before congesting.
Westerly I-295 doesn't connect with southerly NJ-42, either. So I-295 can't take the place of the missing Turnpike interchange.
Most likely if the NJ 42 freeway was built before or during the Turnpike Construction, it would have interchanged there and no current Exit 3.
However, we must live with the consequences of not having a freeway to freeway direct connection and the fact the NJ Turnpike will never be connected to Downtown (or Center City as PA does not like to use that word) Philadelphia. NJ 90 will never go beyond its current terminus, so the only way to get a freeway spur or connection would be to all the area residents to raise hell, which they won't. I see NJ 55 completion a better chance than an Exit 2A on the NJ Turnpike. Plus adding an interchange there would effect the flow on NJ 42 anyhow being way to close to NJ 55 as that interchange is practically up the NJ Turnpike/ Route 42 crossing. Too much land needed for braiding and adding extra ramps which they do not have there.
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 08:35:14 AM
Westerly I-295 doesn't connect with southerly NJ-42, either.
It might: http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2018, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 08:35:14 AM
Westerly I-295 doesn't connect with southerly NJ-42, either.
It might: http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
I was aware of that project. Any scheduled date yet to begin construction?
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 07:49:19 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2018, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 08:35:14 AM
Westerly I-295 doesn't connect with southerly NJ-42, either.
It might: http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
I was aware of that project. Any scheduled date yet to begin construction?
Without Googling it (since I'm sure you've done the same before asking), I've heard that it's going to start before the current interchange work is completed (i.e., final striping, planting/seeding, punchlist).
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
From someone who lives south of New Jersey, the foolishness of not being able to connect directly between the Turnpike and NJ-42/AC Expressway to utilize the Expressway to the coast. The NJ-42/AC Expressway was completed by 1965 and that should have been a no-brainer.
While most people don't think of it, 95 to 76 in Philly then to 42 is all freeway.
Of course they don't. It is considerably longer and goes thru highly urbanized areas.
You saw my answer below, right? 4 additional miles. Not a lot.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
When there's no congestion, compared to taking the NJ Turnpike to Exit 3 to AC it takes 1 additional minute and 4 extra miles longer to use 95 and 495 from DE into PA, then 76 to 42 if you must have an all freeway route. If you take I-295 in NJ to 76 West and make a u-turn at Market Street (Exit 1C), it's 1 extra mile and the same amount of time as it is to take the NJ Turnpike.
A left turn onto a 2-lane street and then a loop. Could only carry very low volumes of freeway traffic before congesting.
Westerly I-295 doesn't connect with southerly NJ-42, either. So I-295 can't take the place of the missing Turnpike interchange.
I live 3 miles from the interchange. It's not as bad as you're trying to make it out to be. It's actually the recommended route to get from 295 North to 42 South.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 09:16:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
From someone who lives south of New Jersey, the foolishness of not being able to connect directly between the Turnpike and NJ-42/AC Expressway to utilize the Expressway to the coast. The NJ-42/AC Expressway was completed by 1965 and that should have been a no-brainer.
While most people don't think of it, 95 to 76 in Philly then to 42 is all freeway.
Of course they don't. It is considerably longer and goes thru highly urbanized areas.
You saw my answer below, right? 4 additional miles. Not a lot.
There is no way that a rational person is going to go thru Philadelphia, Chester and Wilmington when there is a shorter route that bypasses them entirely, especially when those roads congest frequently.
Besides, take a close look at the ramps between I-76 and I-95 -- it is not "all freeway".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
A left turn onto a 2-lane street and then a loop. Could only carry very low volumes of freeway traffic before congesting.
Westerly I-295 doesn't connect with southerly NJ-42, either. So I-295 can't take the place of the missing Turnpike interchange.
I live 3 miles from the interchange. It's not as bad as you're trying to make it out to be. It's actually the recommended route to get from 295 North to 42 South.
Recommended by who? I didn't say that it was "bad", just that it is not a freeway-grade connection between two freeways. It is a very substandard connection and it involves backtracking on a freeway.
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 09:58:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 09:16:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
From someone who lives south of New Jersey, the foolishness of not being able to connect directly between the Turnpike and NJ-42/AC Expressway to utilize the Expressway to the coast. The NJ-42/AC Expressway was completed by 1965 and that should have been a no-brainer.
While most people don't think of it, 95 to 76 in Philly then to 42 is all freeway.
Of course they don't. It is considerably longer and goes thru highly urbanized areas.
You saw my answer below, right? 4 additional miles. Not a lot.
There is no way that a rational person is going to go thru Philadelphia, Chester and Wilmington when there is a shorter route that bypasses them entirely, especially when those roads congest frequently.
Besides, take a close look at the ramps between I-76 and I-95 -- it is not "all freeway".
Dude...95 North to 76 East is all freeway. That's what I said. Stop looking at a map and instead live in the area and drive it daily if not weekly so you know what you're talking about.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
A left turn onto a 2-lane street and then a loop. Could only carry very low volumes of freeway traffic before congesting.
Westerly I-295 doesn't connect with southerly NJ-42, either. So I-295 can't take the place of the missing Turnpike interchange.
I live 3 miles from the interchange. It's not as bad as you're trying to make it out to be. It's actually the recommended route to get from 295 North to 42 South.
Recommended by who? I didn't say that it was "bad", just that it is not a freeway-grade connection between two freeways. It is a very substandard connection and it involves backtracking on a freeway.
Lots of people and things (GPSs, written directions by companies etc). Yes it's not ideal, but it's the recommended way to get from 295 North to 42 South until the missing moves ramps are built.
Quote from: Alps on October 07, 2018, 08:26:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 07:49:19 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2018, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 08:35:14 AM
Westerly I-295 doesn't connect with southerly NJ-42, either.
It might: http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
I was aware of that project. Any scheduled date yet to begin construction?
Without Googling it (since I'm sure you've done the same before asking), I've heard that it's going to start before the current interchange work is completed (i.e., final striping, planting/seeding, punchlist).
It's currently in the books to start this fiscal year (FY19). We'll see...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2018, 07:51:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 09:58:34 PM
There is no way that a rational person is going to go thru Philadelphia, Chester and Wilmington when there is a shorter route that bypasses them entirely, especially when those roads congest frequently.
Besides, take a close look at the ramps between I-76 and I-95 -- it is not "all freeway".
Dude...95 North to 76 East is all freeway. That's what I said. Stop looking at a map and instead live in the area and drive it daily if not weekly so you know what you're talking about.
I-76 West to I-95 South is NOT "all freeway". Playing the "local card" in that manner just makes you look trollish.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
Recommended by who? I didn't say that it was "bad", just that it is not a freeway-grade connection between two freeways. It is a very substandard connection and it involves backtracking on a freeway.
Lots of people and things (GPSs, written directions by companies etc). Yes it's not ideal, but it's the recommended way to get from 295 North to 42 South until the missing moves ramps are built.
I still find that hard to believe. Seems more logical to use NJ-168. Even if true it shows how dysfunctional that movement is and that there is no worthwhile connection.
I will grant that a fully modernized and full connection between I-295 and NJ-55 could provide full functionality in lieu of the missing interchange between the Turnpike and NJ-55 given what would be involved in building such an interchange today. Traffic to/from Delaware and south would be directed to use I-295, and traffic to/from the north would be directed to use I-195 and I-295. Full superhighway connections.
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 08:32:04 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2018, 07:51:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 09:58:34 PM
There is no way that a rational person is going to go thru Philadelphia, Chester and Wilmington when there is a shorter route that bypasses them entirely, especially when those roads congest frequently.
Besides, take a close look at the ramps between I-76 and I-95 -- it is not "all freeway".
Dude...95 North to 76 East is all freeway. That's what I said. Stop looking at a map and instead live in the area and drive it daily if not weekly so you know what you're talking about.
I-76 West to I-95 South is NOT "all freeway". Playing the "local card" in that manner just makes you look trollish.
Trollish is ignoring what one says. I never said 76 West to 95 South is all freeway. Not once.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
Recommended by who? I didn't say that it was "bad", just that it is not a freeway-grade connection between two freeways. It is a very substandard connection and it involves backtracking on a freeway.
Lots of people and things (GPSs, written directions by companies etc). Yes it's not ideal, but it's the recommended way to get from 295 North to 42 South until the missing moves ramps are built.
I still find that hard to believe. Seems more logical to use NJ-168. Even if true it shows how dysfunctional that movement is and that there is no worthwhile connection.
Making the u-turn at 168 adds another 1.5 miles to the drive. Also, the light getting off of 295 onto 168 can be about 2 minutes or more in length.
Also, NJDOT signs the Exit 1C ramp from I-76 for making that u-turn: https://goo.gl/maps/TeoVLqkQWdo , then https://goo.gl/maps/SvQQKLNXirK2
I will grant that a fully modernized and full connection between I-295 and NJ-55 could provide full functionality in lieu of the missing interchange between the Turnpike and NJ-55 given what would be involved in building such an interchange today. Traffic to/from Delaware and south would be directed to use I-295, and traffic to/from the north would be directed to use I-195 and I-295. Full superhighway connections.
Why 195? No one that far north would be directed to anything involving 55.
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 08:32:04 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2018, 07:51:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 09:58:34 PM
There is no way that a rational person is going to go thru Philadelphia, Chester and Wilmington when there is a shorter route that bypasses them entirely, especially when those roads congest frequently.
Besides, take a close look at the ramps between I-76 and I-95 -- it is not "all freeway".
Dude...95 North to 76 East is all freeway. That's what I said. Stop looking at a map and instead live in the area and drive it daily if not weekly so you know what you're talking about.
I-76 West to I-95 South is NOT "all freeway". Playing the "local card" in that manner just makes you look trollish.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
Recommended by who? I didn't say that it was "bad", just that it is not a freeway-grade connection between two freeways. It is a very substandard connection and it involves backtracking on a freeway.
Lots of people and things (GPSs, written directions by companies etc). Yes it's not ideal, but it's the recommended way to get from 295 North to 42 South until the missing moves ramps are built.
I still find that hard to believe. Seems more logical to use NJ-168. Even if true it shows how dysfunctional that movement is and that there is no worthwhile connection.
I will grant that a fully modernized and full connection between I-295 and NJ-55 could provide full functionality in lieu of the missing interchange between the Turnpike and NJ-55 given what would be involved in building such an interchange today. Traffic to/from Delaware and south would be directed to use I-295, and traffic to/from the north would be directed to use I-195 and I-295. Full superhighway connections.
I'm guessing you mean NJ 42 and not NJ 55. Because once the missing moves are taken care of you get a full modern connection from 295 to 55 and vice versa via 42. If I understand correctly, 55 North, instead of dropping down to one lane approaching the terminus, will continue as the right two lanes of NJ 42, and will become the exit lanes to I-295 north and south. it remains to be seen whether this will do anything about constant backups on 55 North, and how increased weaving will impact things
Quote from: bzakharin on October 08, 2018, 09:15:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 08:32:04 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2018, 07:51:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 09:58:34 PM
There is no way that a rational person is going to go thru Philadelphia, Chester and Wilmington when there is a shorter route that bypasses them entirely, especially when those roads congest frequently.
Besides, take a close look at the ramps between I-76 and I-95 -- it is not "all freeway".
Dude...95 North to 76 East is all freeway. That's what I said. Stop looking at a map and instead live in the area and drive it daily if not weekly so you know what you're talking about.
I-76 West to I-95 South is NOT "all freeway". Playing the "local card" in that manner just makes you look trollish.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
Recommended by who? I didn't say that it was "bad", just that it is not a freeway-grade connection between two freeways. It is a very substandard connection and it involves backtracking on a freeway.
Lots of people and things (GPSs, written directions by companies etc). Yes it's not ideal, but it's the recommended way to get from 295 North to 42 South until the missing moves ramps are built.
I still find that hard to believe. Seems more logical to use NJ-168. Even if true it shows how dysfunctional that movement is and that there is no worthwhile connection.
I will grant that a fully modernized and full connection between I-295 and NJ-55 could provide full functionality in lieu of the missing interchange between the Turnpike and NJ-55 given what would be involved in building such an interchange today. Traffic to/from Delaware and south would be directed to use I-295, and traffic to/from the north would be directed to use I-195 and I-295. Full superhighway connections.
I'm guessing you mean NJ 42 and not NJ 55. Because once the missing moves are taken care of you get a full modern connection from 295 to 55 and vice versa via 42. If I understand correctly, 55 North, instead of dropping down to one lane approaching the terminus, will continue as the right two lanes of NJ 42, and will become the exit lanes to I-295 north and south. it remains to be seen whether this will do anything about constant backups on 55 North, and how increased weaving will impact things
Correct. It will help, but probably won't eliminate all congestion on 55 North. But at least the annoying off-time congestion should be gone.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2018, 08:47:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 08:32:04 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2018, 07:51:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 07, 2018, 09:58:34 PM
There is no way that a rational person is going to go thru Philadelphia, Chester and Wilmington when there is a shorter route that bypasses them entirely, especially when those roads congest frequently.
Besides, take a close look at the ramps between I-76 and I-95 -- it is not "all freeway".
Dude...95 North to 76 East is all freeway. That's what I said. Stop looking at a map and instead live in the area and drive it daily if not weekly so you know what you're talking about.
I-76 West to I-95 South is NOT "all freeway". Playing the "local card" in that manner just makes you look trollish.
Trollish is ignoring what one says. I never said 76 West to 95 South is all freeway. Not once.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 06, 2018, 04:35:36 PM
Recommended by who? I didn't say that it was "bad", just that it is not a freeway-grade connection between two freeways. It is a very substandard connection and it involves backtracking on a freeway.
Lots of people and things (GPSs, written directions by companies etc). Yes it's not ideal, but it's the recommended way to get from 295 North to 42 South until the missing moves ramps are built.
I still find that hard to believe. Seems more logical to use NJ-168. Even if true it shows how dysfunctional that movement is and that there is no worthwhile connection.
Making the u-turn at 168 adds another 1.5 miles to the drive. Also, the light getting off of 295 onto 168 can be about 2 minutes or more in length.
Also, NJDOT signs the Exit 1C ramp from I-76 for making that u-turn: https://goo.gl/maps/TeoVLqkQWdo , then https://goo.gl/maps/SvQQKLNXirK2
I will grant that a fully modernized and full connection between I-295 and NJ-55 could provide full functionality in lieu of the missing interchange between the Turnpike and NJ-55 given what would be involved in building such an interchange today. Traffic to/from Delaware and south would be directed to use I-295, and traffic to/from the north would be directed to use I-195 and I-295. Full superhighway connections.
Why 195? No one that far north would be directed to anything involving 55.
Will you please fix your attributions? I am tired of having to fix your posts to quote correctly, and I left this one as is.
You: "I never said 76 West to 95 South is all freeway. Not once."
Your original wording implied that I-76 and I-95 had a full freeway connection. You have a writing style that seems to cleverly words things at times that say things that they really don't say.
You: "NJDOT signs the Exit 1C ramp from I-76 for making that u-turn:"
Like I said, it shows how dysfunctional that movement is and that there is no worthwhile connection.
You: "Why 195? No one that far north would be directed to anything involving 55."
Because northern Turnpike==>I-195==>I-295==>NJ-42 and vice versa would be a full freeway-grade route. [I meant NJ-42]
Why weren't the legs of I-295 built in a conventional manner so that I-295 and NJ-42 cross in a normal 4-way interchange? That would have greately alleviated the current problems.
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
Why weren't the legs of I-295 built in a conventional manner so that I-295 and NJ-42 cross in a normal 4-way interchange? That would have greately alleviated the current problems.
I'm only guessing, but it's probably not a coincidence that NJ 42 was completed to I-295 in 1958, and that I-295 was completed from the south to NJ 42 in 1958. I'm not sure, though, why the situation wasn't fixed when I-295 was extended northward. I don't think there was ever any plan to terminated 295 at the North-South Freeway or vice versa.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 08, 2018, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
Why weren't the legs of I-295 built in a conventional manner so that I-295 and NJ-42 cross in a normal 4-way interchange? That would have greately alleviated the current problems.
I'm only guessing, but it's probably not a coincidence that NJ 42 was completed to I-295 in 1958, and that I-295 was completed from the south to NJ 42 in 1958. I'm not sure, though, why the situation wasn't fixed when I-295 was extended northward. I don't think there was ever any plan to terminated 295 at the North-South Freeway or vice versa.
The existing geography of the area encouraged the current layout... much of the development in that area was already present when the highways were built. In addition, stream corridors were seen as less valuable in those days, so the idea of plowing a highway right through one seemed like a good idea back then. Finally, the general thought was that traffic would be using I-295 to funnel into Philly via I-76/I-676, rather than continue along I-295.
Quote from: famartin on October 08, 2018, 02:01:40 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 08, 2018, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
Why weren't the legs of I-295 built in a conventional manner so that I-295 and NJ-42 cross in a normal 4-way interchange? That would have greately alleviated the current problems.
I'm only guessing, but it's probably not a coincidence that NJ 42 was completed to I-295 in 1958, and that I-295 was completed from the south to NJ 42 in 1958. I'm not sure, though, why the situation wasn't fixed when I-295 was extended northward. I don't think there was ever any plan to terminated 295 at the North-South Freeway or vice versa.
The existing geography of the area encouraged the current layout... much of the development in that area was already present when the highways were built. In addition, stream corridors were seen as less valuable in those days, so the idea of plowing a highway right through one seemed like a good idea back then. Finally, the general thought was that traffic would be using I-295 to funnel into Philly via I-76/I-676, rather than continue along I-295.
But wasn't I-295 planned (in addition to being a local access freeway in the NJTP corridor) to be a bypass of I-95 and SE PA between Delaware and Trenton with the connection to the new I-95 that was planned then between Trenton and New Brunswick? It still does that today albeit via I-195 to the NJTP.
If the east leg of I-295 was lined up with where the west leg was built and a full interchange was built with NJ-42, it would barely miss the edge of a large cemetary, take out at least 100 homes and maybe up to 10 businesses. Big impacts. But lots of freeways were being built back then in the 1950s and 1960s with much greater R/W impacts, such as NJ I-676 and PA I-95.
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 03:38:28 PM
Quote from: famartin on October 08, 2018, 02:01:40 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 08, 2018, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
Why weren't the legs of I-295 built in a conventional manner so that I-295 and NJ-42 cross in a normal 4-way interchange? That would have greately alleviated the current problems.
I'm only guessing, but it's probably not a coincidence that NJ 42 was completed to I-295 in 1958, and that I-295 was completed from the south to NJ 42 in 1958. I'm not sure, though, why the situation wasn't fixed when I-295 was extended northward. I don't think there was ever any plan to terminated 295 at the North-South Freeway or vice versa.
The existing geography of the area encouraged the current layout... much of the development in that area was already present when the highways were built. In addition, stream corridors were seen as less valuable in those days, so the idea of plowing a highway right through one seemed like a good idea back then. Finally, the general thought was that traffic would be using I-295 to funnel into Philly via I-76/I-676, rather than continue along I-295.
But wasn't I-295 planned (in addition to being a local access freeway in the NJTP corridor) to be a bypass of I-95 and SE PA between Delaware and Trenton with the connection to the new I-95 that was planned then between Trenton and New Brunswick? It still does that today albeit via I-195 to the NJTP.
If the east leg of I-295 was lined up with where the west leg was built and a full interchange was built with NJ-42, it would barely miss the edge of a large cemetary, take out at least 100 homes and maybe up to 10 businesses. Big impacts. But lots of freeways were being built back then in the 1950s and 1960s with much greater R/W impacts, such as NJ I-676 and PA I-95.
I honestly think I-295 was meant to be an intermediate road between the NJTP and US 130, with a bit less thought given to it being a bypass of I-95 (which I suspect even then, they realized was something the NJTP acted as). In other words, they intended I-295 to supplant US 130, much like I-95 was supposed to supplant US 1, I-78 supplanted US 22, I-80 supplanted US 46, etc.
As far as deciding not to plow through existing developments, yes that certainly did happen in NJ and elsewhere during the freeway building period. One thing that might've discouraged it, though, was that while in other parts of the state, you might be plowing through neighborhoods while the actual percentage of the town affected wasn't that big, this section of I-295 passes along the edges of a bunch of pretty small boroughs, so as far as local government was concerned, the effects would be extraordinarily large. That's just a thought, no evidence necessarily to back that up, but take a look at a map of the municipalities in that area. There's A LOT, and they are all pretty small.
Quote from: famartin on October 08, 2018, 05:23:03 PM
I honestly think I-295 was meant to be an intermediate road between the NJTP and US 130, with a bit less thought given to it being a bypass of I-95 (which I suspect even then, they realized was something the NJTP acted as). In other words, they intended I-295 to supplant US 130, much like I-95 was supposed to supplant US 1, I-78 supplanted US 22, I-80 supplanted US 46, etc.
The Turnpike averages over 10 mile interchange spacing between the southern end and Trenton, which is great for a thru superhighway, but provides little if any local connectivity.
Allocating I-295 to the Interstate system seemed to provide three major benefits to that corridor, 1) parallel additional superhighway capacity, 2) an alignment closer to the populated areas, and 3) close interchange spacing which provides a high degree of local connectivity.
Quote from: famartin on October 08, 2018, 05:23:03 PM
As far as deciding not to plow through existing developments, yes that certainly did happen in NJ and elsewhere during the freeway building period. One thing that might've discouraged it, though, was that while in other parts of the state, you might be plowing through neighborhoods while the actual percentage of the town affected wasn't that big, this section of I-295 passes along the edges of a bunch of pretty small boroughs, so as far as local government was concerned, the effects would be extraordinarily large. That's just a thought, no evidence necessarily to back that up, but take a look at a map of the municipalities in that area. There's A LOT, and they are all pretty small.
True, Bellmawr looks like a high percentage of it would have been acquired for the alignment I suggested.
Back in the late 1950s when the alignments were originally planned, there was -vastly- less traffic than there is today. The configuration as built probably worked well enough for the first 20 years or so, and that was an adequate design year for the times.
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
Will you please fix your attributions? I am tired of having to fix your posts to quote correctly, and I left this one as is.
My bad - Easy to mess up on a cell phone when there's multiple quotes. Without manually adding in another "/quote", it messes it up.
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
You: "I never said 76 West to 95 South is all freeway. Not once."
Your original wording implied that I-76 and I-95 had a full freeway connection. You have a writing style that seems to cleverly words things at times that say things that they really don't say.
Here are the exact references I've made:
Reply #2094 on: October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM: "While most people don't think of it, 95 to 76 in Philly then to 42 is all freeway."
Reply #2103 on: October 08, 2018, 07:51:15 AM: "95 North to 76 East is all freeway."
So I never once claimed there was a full freeway connection here. I fully said - twice - that entering NJ from PA is freeway. You repeating responded back with someone I didn't say. I can't help that you read into what I said wrong. Twice.
Quote from: famartin on October 08, 2018, 02:01:40 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 08, 2018, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
Why weren't the legs of I-295 built in a conventional manner so that I-295 and NJ-42 cross in a normal 4-way interchange? That would have greately alleviated the current problems.
I'm only guessing, but it's probably not a coincidence that NJ 42 was completed to I-295 in 1958, and that I-295 was completed from the south to NJ 42 in 1958. I'm not sure, though, why the situation wasn't fixed when I-295 was extended northward. I don't think there was ever any plan to terminated 295 at the North-South Freeway or vice versa.
The existing geography of the area encouraged the current layout... much of the development in that area was already present when the highways were built. In addition, stream corridors were seen as less valuable in those days, so the idea of plowing a highway right through one seemed like a good idea back then. Finally, the general thought was that traffic would be using I-295 to funnel into Philly via I-76/I-676, rather than continue along I-295.
This question was asked to NJDOT somewhat recently. The problem is, the interchange was designed and built back in the 1950's. Anyone who worked on the project at NJDOT back then is long since retired, and most likely dead. So answers are really hard to come by, unless it's written in project notes somewhere, which are in some box in some warehouse never to be seen again.
If you look at the historic layout, I think famartin is pretty close here. The highway already plowed thru an existing community, which I believe was built for those that had fought in WW1. 295 had good connections for those wanting to get onto I-76 West, especially going North thru Gloucester County. Going North on I-295, motorists could take Exit 26 and get onto the Express lanes, which lead you directly onto the Walt Whitman Bridge. Motorists on 295 North wanting the Ben Franklin Bridge, US 130 or I-676 stayed on 295 past Exit 26 and could merge over where 295/76/42 were a combined 4 lanes wide within the interchange, picking up I-76 Local.
Motorists on NJ 42 also could take the left lane to get onto the Express lanes for the Walt Whitman Bridge, or use the 2 right lanes to use local I-76 West, 295 North, or any other exit.
Motorists coming South on I-295 could only use I-76 Local, and there was a single lane merge onto the Walt Whitman Bridge.
Coming off the Walt Whitman Bridge into NJ, motorists in the 2 left lanes were put onto the 76 East Express lanes, where 1 lane eventually exited onto I-295 South, and 1 lane became NJ 42 South. The right lane coming off the Walt Whitman Bridge put traffic onto I-76 East's Local lanes, where it merged with I-676 South, and motorists could access US 130, I-295 North and Rt. 42 South.
This was all designed at a time when there was no Commodore Barry Bridge, nor I don't believe it was even conceived at the time. North of 76, there was already the Ben Franklin, Tacony Palmyra and Burlington Bristol Bridges. So with 3 bridges and decent roadway access, it would make sense to planners at the time that traffic from the south needed better access than traffic from the north.
In the 1990's, after Rt. 55 had opened, widening of Rt. 42 was needed. It was decided to fully eliminate the Express/Local lane divider on 76 East, and reduce its length on I-76 West.
The current project eliminated the express/local lane barrier completely.
Of course, none of this explains why the missing moves ramps were missing. It's a question that you have to asked people from the 1950's about. Should they still be missing? No. They originally going to be built back around 2006. However, a developer owns the rights to a capped landfill area in Bellmawr near where the missing moves ramps would be built. He wanted better access to his project, and NJDOT, being overly patient, decided to hold off and listen. It would've been a Breezewood-like connection, where the ramp would've become a surface street for a bit. The developer though had a bigger issue - the main stakeholders in his project, which at one time would've included a Bass Pro Shop and even a minor league ballpark, didn't want to build at a time when there was going to be a major construction project going on, which is the 295 Direct Connection currently being built. So the developer lost that leverage. However, NJDOT has been very slow to actually push this thru. Originally, it was claimed the Feds wanted that connection built prior to the 295 Direct Connection project. Now, it's barely going to be done before the Direct Connection. And there's still no hint as to a start date.
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 03:38:28 PMIf the east leg of I-295 was lined up with where the west leg was built and a full interchange was built with NJ-42, it would barely miss the edge of a large cemetary, take out at least 100 homes and maybe up to 10 businesses. Big impacts. But lots of freeways were being built back then in the 1950s and 1960s with much greater R/W impacts, such as NJ I-676 and PA I-95.
I do recall when the designed were developed for the current project, one was using a 70 mph design speed. I believe it would require full or partial elimination of 170 homes and businesses. It was an early proposal that everyone knew wouldn't be accepted, but the feds require such analysis. Of course, it was soundly rejected. It's shown in a basic form here: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/pdf/altE.pdf . Because it wasn't really going to be researched further, this is the only basic design that was done and publicized.
The actual design that was ultimately selected is Alternative D, and even that has undergone some tweaking. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/alternatives_map-d.shtm
The current project resulted in 13 property acquisitions. As shown on this link: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/pdf/AltMatrix.pdf , there were a few options that took fewer properties, but would've resulted in a double-decked 295. Cool to look at from our standpoint; not from the standpoint of residents living nearly under the overpass. I believe because of the properties being taken, NJDOT took the unusual step of rebuilding all but one of the properties elsewhere in the vicinity of the development, and I've heard that they were direct reproductions of the homes the residents currently had. The 1 not rebuilt was a rancher on Creek Rd next to an overpass that was lengthened and widened.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 09:31:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
You: "I never said 76 West to 95 South is all freeway. Not once."
Your original wording implied that I-76 and I-95 had a full freeway connection. You have a writing style that seems to cleverly words things at times that say things that they really don't say.
Here are the exact references I've made:
Reply #2094 on: October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM: "While most people don't think of it, 95 to 76 in Philly then to 42 is all freeway."
Reply #2103 on: October 08, 2018, 07:51:15 AM: "95 North to 76 East is all freeway."
So I never once claimed there was a full freeway connection here. I fully said - twice - that entering NJ from PA is freeway. You repeating responded back with someone I didn't say. I can't help that you read into what I said wrong. Twice.
You promoted the I-95 and I-76 route in lieu of the lack of southerly connection between I-295 and NJ-42, and the lack of southerly connection between NJTP and NJ-42. It was the first reference (2094) that I made the first comment about the one direction not being full freeway. Why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection as well? The whole idea of using that route thru Philadelphia instead of bypassing it is rather odd in the first place.
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:03:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 09:31:09 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 08, 2018, 10:37:26 AM
You: "I never said 76 West to 95 South is all freeway. Not once."
Your original wording implied that I-76 and I-95 had a full freeway connection. You have a writing style that seems to cleverly words things at times that say things that they really don't say.
Here are the exact references I've made:
Reply #2094 on: October 07, 2018, 12:12:52 AM: "While most people don't think of it, 95 to 76 in Philly then to 42 is all freeway."
Reply #2103 on: October 08, 2018, 07:51:15 AM: "95 North to 76 East is all freeway."
So I never once claimed there was a full freeway connection here. I fully said - twice - that entering NJ from PA is freeway. You repeating responded back with someone I didn't say. I can't help that you read into what I said wrong. Twice.
You promoted the I-95 and I-76 route in lieu of the lack of southerly connection between I-295 and NJ-42, and the lack of southerly connection between NJTP and NJ-42. It was the first reference (2094) that I made the first comment about the one direction not being full freeway. Why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection as well? The whole idea of using that route thru Philadelphia instead of bypassing it is rather odd in the first place.
95 to 76 doesn't have a missing connection. 76 to 95 does, which is why I didn't mention it. I can't answer your question of why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection BECAUSE I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT.
While you keep claiming the 95 to 76 connection isn't comparable, it comes up on Google Maps as an option when the times are very comparable. Maybe your beef is with Google Maps. No guarantees it'll show it when you look at it, but when I type in Newark, DE to Atlantic City, NJ, the 2 options shown are for 295 in NJ and 95 in PA. The NJ route shown is 2 miles shorter and 2 minutes quicker. You may not think of it this way, but both routes take a Northeasterly turn. If one desires a truly full-freeway route, for an additional 2 minutes you get what you want.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Newark,+Delaware/Atlantic+City,+NJ/@39.6348873,-75.3664692,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!3e0
If you desire a full-freeway return route between AC and Delaware/Points South, there's two possible ways to do it:
A) AC Expressway West to Rt. 42 North to I-76 West, across the Walt Whitman Bridge to I-676 East to I-95 South.
B) AC Expressway West to Rt. 42 North to I-676 North,. across the Ben Franklin Bridge to I-676 East to I-95 South.
Both involve several miles of extra distance and sometimes a decent additional extra time; not worth either in my opinion.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:03:55 AM
You promoted the I-95 and I-76 route in lieu of the lack of southerly connection between I-295 and NJ-42, and the lack of southerly connection between NJTP and NJ-42. It was the first reference (2094) that I made the first comment about the one direction not being full freeway. Why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection as well? The whole idea of using that route thru Philadelphia instead of bypassing it is rather odd in the first place.
95 to 76 doesn't have a missing connection. 76 to 95 does, which is why I didn't mention it. I can't answer your question of why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection BECAUSE I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT.
While you keep claiming the 95 to 76 connection isn't comparable, it comes up on Google Maps as an option when the times are very comparable.
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
95 to 76 doesn't have a missing connection. 76 to 95 does, which is why I didn't mention it. I can't answer your question of why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection BECAUSE I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT.
While you keep claiming the 95 to 76 connection isn't comparable, it comes up on Google Maps as an option when the times are very comparable.
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
For grins & giggles, I went to Google Maps to see what routing choices I would get if I entered a Newark, DE to Atlantic City trip. Here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Newark,+DE/Atlantic+City,+NJ/@39.7359412,-75.5703063,10.25z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!3e0) were the two generated choices: one of them was indeed involves using I-95 into South Philly and then taking I-76 East along the Walt Whitman Bridge.
The reverse trip (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Atlantic+City,+NJ/Newark,+DE/@39.6084047,-75.6081093,9.75z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!3e0) gave me three routing choices: the opposite of the two previous routings plus one that uses the NJ Turnpike (exiting off NJ 42 & using NJ 168/Black Horse Pike to enter the Turnpike at Exit 3).
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 09, 2018, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
95 to 76 doesn't have a missing connection. 76 to 95 does, which is why I didn't mention it. I can't answer your question of why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection BECAUSE I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT.
While you keep claiming the 95 to 76 connection isn't comparable, it comes up on Google Maps as an option when the times are very comparable.
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
For grins & giggles, I went to Google Maps to see what routing choices I would get if I entered a Newark, DE to Atlantic City trip. Here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Newark,+DE/Atlantic+City,+NJ/@39.7359412,-75.5703063,10.25z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!3e0) were the two generated choices: one of them was indeed involves using I-95 into South Philly and then taking I-76 East along the Walt Whitman Bridge.
The reverse trip (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Atlantic+City,+NJ/Newark,+DE/@39.6084047,-75.6081093,9.75z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!3e0) gave me three routing choices: the opposite of the two previous routings plus one that uses the NJ Turnpike (exiting off NJ 42 & using NJ 168/Black Horse Pike to enter the Turnpike at Exit 3).
Would 95 North to 76 East across the Walt Whitman ever be the fastest? I could certainly see that happening - holiday traffic heading to the NJ Turnpike would slow 95 and 295 in Delaware. Or construction on the Delaware Memorial Bridge when only 1 or 2 lanes are open at night - that's a notorious speed killer. I personally have taken 95 into PA then crossed the Commodore Barry bridge to escape construction traffic on the bridge.
So there's most likely some times when 95 to 76 within PA is the fastest route.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 12:48:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 09, 2018, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
95 to 76 doesn't have a missing connection. 76 to 95 does, which is why I didn't mention it. I can't answer your question of why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection BECAUSE I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT.
While you keep claiming the 95 to 76 connection isn't comparable, it comes up on Google Maps as an option when the times are very comparable.
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
For grins & giggles, I went to Google Maps to see what routing choices I would get if I entered a Newark, DE to Atlantic City trip. Here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Newark,+DE/Atlantic+City,+NJ/@39.7359412,-75.5703063,10.25z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!3e0) were the two generated choices: one of them was indeed involves using I-95 into South Philly and then taking I-76 East along the Walt Whitman Bridge.
The reverse trip (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Atlantic+City,+NJ/Newark,+DE/@39.6084047,-75.6081093,9.75z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!3e0) gave me three routing choices: the opposite of the two previous routings plus one that uses the NJ Turnpike (exiting off NJ 42 & using NJ 168/Black Horse Pike to enter the Turnpike at Exit 3).
Would 95 North to 76 East across the Walt Whitman ever be the fastest? I could certainly see that happening - holiday traffic heading to the NJ Turnpike would slow 95 and 295 in Delaware. Or construction on the Delaware Memorial Bridge when only 1 or 2 lanes are open at night - that's a notorious speed killer. I personally have taken 95 into PA then crossed the Commodore Barry bridge to escape construction traffic on the bridge.
So there's most likely some times when 95 to 76 within PA is the fastest route.
Ah yes, reminds me of a time when I came back to Delaware from Connecticut on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and spent an hour on the Delaware Memorial Bridge just to cross. I then just made a semi-dangerous maneuver to get off onto DE-9 and took 273/58/4 back to Newark (I prefer that over just taking 273). When crossing 95 while on 58, I realized I made the right decision since the local roads were moving just fine and 95 was still gridlocked.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 09, 2018, 03:01:55 PM
Ah yes, reminds me of a time when I came back to Delaware from Connecticut on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and spent an hour on the Delaware Memorial Bridge just to cross. I then just made a semi-dangerous maneuver to get off onto DE-9 and took 273/58/4 back to Newark (I prefer that over just taking 273). When crossing 95 while on 58, I realized I made the right decision since the local roads were moving just fine and 95 was still gridlocked.
In cases like that, I've learned to stay to the right on the bridge. Most people keep left because they want to get to I-95 on the left several miles away. Get thru the toll plaza - which I think I did at about 20 mph even though the lanes to the left were at a standstill. Then size it up there. Last time I kept right past Rt. 9 thru the construction zone, then merged into 95 traffic before the US 13 exit. Saved me a bit of time, even though I lost time overall due to the congestion.
I've never found DE 9 overly congested although the numerous traffic lights can suck, so if 295 is real bad Rt. 9 is a decent alternative.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 09, 2018, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
For grins & giggles, I went to Google Maps to see what routing choices I would get if I entered a Newark, DE to Atlantic City trip. Here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Newark,+DE/Atlantic+City,+NJ/@39.7359412,-75.5703063,10.25z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!3e0) were the two generated choices: one of them was indeed involves using I-95 into South Philly and then taking I-76 East along the Walt Whitman Bridge.
The reverse trip (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Atlantic+City,+NJ/Newark,+DE/@39.6084047,-75.6081093,9.75z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!3e0) gave me three routing choices: the opposite of the two previous routings plus one that uses the NJ Turnpike (exiting off NJ 42 & using NJ 168/Black Horse Pike to enter the Turnpike at Exit 3).
You still don't seem to understand. Most people know well enough not to blindly follow mapping software, that it can be wrong or else not account for peak hours traffic.
Someone from outside the area, from the southerly I-95 corridor, who does not know the Philadelphia area, that wants to get to Atlantic City, Ocean City, etc. is going to look at a map (paper or electronic) and they are not going to go thru a city as large as Philadelphia.
I would find the simplist and most reliable route would be to take the NJTP, NJ-42 and the AC Expressway, knowing what I know, and for someone who doesn't know the area most would likely do the same.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 09, 2018, 03:01:55 PM
Ah yes, reminds me of a time when I came back to Delaware from Connecticut on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and spent an hour on the Delaware Memorial Bridge just to cross.
The Walt Whitman Bridge is no less prone to serious traffic problems. At least the Delaware Memorial Bridge is not going to have the morning and afternoon rush periods that a large urban area would have.
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 09, 2018, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
For grins & giggles, I went to Google Maps to see what routing choices I would get if I entered a Newark, DE to Atlantic City trip. Here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Newark,+DE/Atlantic+City,+NJ/@39.7359412,-75.5703063,10.25z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!3e0) were the two generated choices: one of them was indeed involves using I-95 into South Philly and then taking I-76 East along the Walt Whitman Bridge.
The reverse trip (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Atlantic+City,+NJ/Newark,+DE/@39.6084047,-75.6081093,9.75z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!3e0) gave me three routing choices: the opposite of the two previous routings plus one that uses the NJ Turnpike (exiting off NJ 42 & using NJ 168/Black Horse Pike to enter the Turnpike at Exit 3).
You still don't seem to understand. Most people know well enough not to blindly follow mapping software, that it can be wrong or else not account for peak hours traffic.
Someone from outside the area, from the southerly I-95 corridor, who does not know the Philadelphia area, that wants to get to Atlantic City, Ocean City, etc. is going to look at a map (paper or electronic) and they are not going to go thru a city as large as Philadelphia.
I would find the simplist and most reliable route would be to take the NJTP, NJ-42 and the AC Expressway, knowing what I know, and for someone who doesn't know the area most would likely do the same.
You think people look at a map? Hahahahahaha.
I guess those people that followed their GPS onto railroad tracks or into a river is just fake news, right?
Philadelphia is completely absent from NJTP Exit 4 signage.
Getting back on topic, does anyone know if the intercity bus companies have started to use the new flyovers?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 04:41:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 03:59:14 PM
I would find the simplist and most reliable route would be to take the NJTP, NJ-42 and the AC Expressway, knowing what I know, and for someone who doesn't know the area most would likely do the same.
You think people look at a map? Hahahahahaha.
I guess those people that followed their GPS onto railroad tracks or into a river is just fake news, right?
Given how recent is the common usage of electronic mapping, yes, motorists have been using paper maps for almost 100 years, and plenty of people still do. After all, people need some way to figure out how to get to a destination if they don't already know.
That routing above is the one that the old paper AAA Triptiks utilized.
Curiously, even though Google Maps now shows the I-95 connectors, it does not show the traffic on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Ffekrxg.png&hash=1d4eb4fbd4bedfcb4e2cbc7e43343031e7719666)
Beltway, I'm with you pal. Still using paper road maps and Atlas. Never owned a GPS. The map enables you to see the big picture and plan your route intelligently.
And for J&N: I've never had to ask a toll collector for directions, but thank you for your service anyway. :)
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:03:55 AM
You promoted the I-95 and I-76 route in lieu of the lack of southerly connection between I-295 and NJ-42, and the lack of southerly connection between NJTP and NJ-42. It was the first reference (2094) that I made the first comment about the one direction not being full freeway. Why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection as well? The whole idea of using that route thru Philadelphia instead of bypassing it is rather odd in the first place.
95 to 76 doesn't have a missing connection. 76 to 95 does, which is why I didn't mention it. I can't answer your question of why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection BECAUSE I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT.
While you keep claiming the 95 to 76 connection isn't comparable, it comes up on Google Maps as an option when the times are very comparable.
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
WHEN THE TIMES ARE COMPARABLE. I'm sorry, are you even trying to read or are you just arguing because you can't stand being wrong?
Quote from: Alps on October 09, 2018, 08:43:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 10:49:04 AM
95 to 76 doesn't have a missing connection. 76 to 95 does, which is why I didn't mention it. I can't answer your question of why suggest it as an alternate when it has a missing connection BECAUSE I DIDN'T SUGGEST IT.
While you keep claiming the 95 to 76 connection isn't comparable, it comes up on Google Maps as an option when the times are very comparable.
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
WHEN THE TIMES ARE COMPARABLE. I'm sorry, are you even trying to read or are you just arguing because you can't stand being wrong?
Wrong about what? Your post is incoherent. My experience with Google Maps is that sometimes they account for traffic problems and sometimes they don't. I'm not going to drive thru PHILADELPHIA if I don't need to.
Maybe this was already asked (I'm not 100% sure.): When and if the next movements (ramps?) get built at the new interchange, which ones will be built next? As an example...
1- Pennsylvania Turnpike East to I-95 south
2- I-95 South to I-295 East/North
(etc...)
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 09, 2018, 06:37:46 PM
Curiously, even though Google Maps now shows the I-95 connectors, it does not show the traffic on them.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi63.tinypic.com%2Ffekrxg.png&hash=1d4eb4fbd4bedfcb4e2cbc7e43343031e7719666)
Probably it takes a while to get the system adjusted to the fact a new road is open. :D
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 09, 2018, 10:38:38 PM
Maybe this was already asked (I'm not 100% sure.): When and if the next movements (ramps?) get built at the new interchange, which ones will be built next? As an example...
1- Pennsylvania Turnpike East to I-95 south
2- I-95 South to I-295 East/North
The northeast quadrant is the next most major movement pair, as it is a missing link in the freeway loop around Trenton --
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d30-d40.aspx
The remaining two quadrants have considerably lower needs/priority.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 09, 2018, 10:38:38 PM
Maybe this was already asked (I'm not 100% sure.): When and if the next movements (ramps?) get built at the new interchange, which ones will be built next? As an example...
1- Pennsylvania Turnpike East to I-95 south
2- I-95 South to I-295 East/North
(etc...)
Hopefully the remaining 6.
Of those, I think both the 95 North to 276 West and 276 East to 95 South movements, along with 295 West to 276 West and 276 East to 295 East movements, are equally important. The former will help traffic get to areas due North of Philly where there's not convenient highway access currently. The latter will help move traffic from eastern Bucks County and some of the western NJ counties towards the PA Turnpike.
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:57:53 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 09, 2018, 10:38:38 PM
Maybe this was already asked (I'm not 100% sure.): When and if the next movements (ramps?) get built at the new interchange, which ones will be built next? As an example...
1- Pennsylvania Turnpike East to I-95 south
2- I-95 South to I-295 East/North
The northeast quadrant is the next most major movement pair, as it is a missing link in the freeway loop around Trenton --
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d30-d40.aspx
The remaining two quadrants have considerably lower needs/priority.
That loop would be much more effective if 295 connected to the Penn Turnpike extension in NJ. That probably will never happen, it's even less likely than a NJTP/42 interchange.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 09, 2018, 10:38:38 PM
Maybe this was already asked (I'm not 100% sure.): When and if the next movements (ramps?) get built at the new interchange, which ones will be built next? As an example...
1- Pennsylvania Turnpike East to I-95 south
2- I-95 South to I-295 East/North
(etc...)
All of them will be built at once in the next contract.
Quote from: famartin on October 09, 2018, 11:03:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:57:53 PM
The northeast quadrant is the next most major movement pair, as it is a missing link in the freeway loop around Trenton --
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d30-d40.aspx
The remaining two quadrants have considerably lower needs/priority.
That loop would be much more effective if 295 connected to the Penn Turnpike extension in NJ.
They would need to build just one quadrant, the northwest quadrant, a pair of ramps, and that could be done without interfering with the mainline NJTP.
https://goo.gl/maps/N19nDZNogxT2
I see the US 13 interchange new signs omit the Delaware Valley name on top of the sign now.
Is that just for I-95 or is the whole turnpike going to start omitting the interchange names that have been on top for well over 30 years?
So the northeast quadrant...I-95 South to I-295 East/North? Correct?
Here in central Connecticut, one part of a beltway around Hartford which never got built (BUT SHOULD!) was from the current stack interchange of I-84/CT Route 9 in Farmington to the interchange of I-91/I-291 in Windsor. That would take a ton of traffic of the Aetna Viaduct, which is I-84 from Exit 46 to 48A in Hartford. It would also help those heading to Bradley Airport from the south and west. (BUT...I-84 has been complete through Connecticut for years, unlike I-95 in PA until now!)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2018, 10:59:43 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 09, 2018, 10:38:38 PM
Maybe this was already asked (I'm not 100% sure.): When and if the next movements (ramps?) get built at the new interchange, which ones will be built next? As an example...
1- Pennsylvania Turnpike East to I-95 south
2- I-95 South to I-295 East/North
(etc...)
Hopefully the remaining 6.
Of those, I think both the 95 North to 276 West and 276 East to 95 South movements, along with 295 West to 276 West and 276 East to 295 East movements, are equally important. The former will help traffic get to areas due North of Philly where there's not convenient highway access currently. The latter will help move traffic from eastern Bucks County and some of the western NJ counties towards the PA Turnpike.
As Alps notes, they will all be built at once, but I agree with J&N at least on the importance of the SW quadrant (95N to 276W and vice versa), which would complete a beltway around Philly via 95 and also provide better access to and from the northern suburbs. The NW quadrant is served via US1 right now, which is more or less a freeway connection. I'm not so sure of the critical importance of the "Trenton Beltway" via the NE quadrant, especially without direct connectivity to 295 on the Jersey side. Drivers on the NJTP south at least could probably just as well continue to use 195-29-1 or 95/276 to 13 or 1 to get to eastern Bucks County. Of course I want to see all ramps done ASAP though...
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2018, 11:27:29 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/N19nDZNogxT2
I see the US 13 interchange new signs omit the Delaware Valley name on top of the sign now.
Is that just for I-95 or is the whole turnpike going to start omitting the interchange names that have been on top for well over 30 years?
Just for I-95. All of the "legacy" exits within the ticket system seem to be retaining their names.
A pseudo-exception is the PA 29 exit. When it was completed a few years ago, it wasn't given a name, so it has no name to lose. And I believe the Virginia Drive exit no longer has a name. But those aren't legacy exits.
Quote from: qguy on October 10, 2018, 06:20:10 AM
A pseudo-exception is the PA 29 exit. When it was completed a few years ago, it wasn't given a name, so it has no name to lose.
They could call it Devault.
The signs use the control cities Phoenixville and Malvern.
Quote from: famartin on October 09, 2018, 05:13:44 PM
Philadelphia is completely absent from NJTP Exit 4 signage.
Philadelphia is on a supplementary sign for Exit 3 NB and Exit 4 SB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.953768,-74.92412,3a,15y,221.52h,88.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9y0OZ-h3MbiYtlPOdHGyKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). (it's difficult to see clearly in this imagery; once you get closer, the blurring applied to the logo sign panel behind this sign masks out the text.)
also, who thought nighttime Street View imagery is in any way useful?!
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 09, 2018, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 09, 2018, 10:59:26 AM
IN FREE FLOWING TRAFFIC. No thinking driver (again we are talking about people from Maryland and south who may have no local knowledge) is going to drive I-95 in SE PA, I-95 in Philadelphia, cross the WWB, use NJ I-76, when they can bypass all of it. Nor should they even consider it just because NJ didn't properly connect I-295 to NJ-42.
For grins & giggles, I went to Google Maps to see what routing choices I would get if I entered a Newark, DE to Atlantic City trip. Here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Newark,+DE/Atlantic+City,+NJ/@39.7359412,-75.5703063,10.25z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!3e0) were the two generated choices: one of them was indeed involves using I-95 into South Philly and then taking I-76 East along the Walt Whitman Bridge.
The reverse trip (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Atlantic+City,+NJ/Newark,+DE/@39.6084047,-75.6081093,9.75z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c0dd576e5cc721:0x4a6fcb43e9675262!2m2!1d-74.4229266!2d39.3642834!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c77a9ae39789eb:0x2ee246f2974c385c!2m2!1d-75.7496572!2d39.6837226!3e0) gave me three routing choices: the opposite of the two previous routings plus one that uses the NJ Turnpike (exiting off NJ 42 & using NJ 168/Black Horse Pike to enter the Turnpike at Exit 3).
You still don't seem to understand. Most people know well enough not to blindly follow mapping software, that it can be wrong or else not account for peak hours traffic.
Someone from outside the area, from the southerly I-95 corridor, who does not know the Philadelphia area, that wants to get to Atlantic City, Ocean City, etc. is going to look at a map (paper or electronic) and they are not going to go thru a city as large as Philadelphia.
I would find the simplist and most reliable route would be to take the NJTP, NJ-42 and the AC Expressway, knowing what I know, and for someone who doesn't know the area most would likely do the same.
In the days before Google Maps & GPS systems; I would be more inclined to agree (I'm a paper road map/atlas user myself but do use Google Maps for estimated travel times and detailed street information not available on most paper maps). However, I have seen & known
many GPS users (many of whom are my age & older) over the last few years to have:
1. Driven from Pittsburgh to Florida by way of Washington, DC
without any intent of stopping over there (DC). She posted such on Facebook and got rebuked by her mother (on FB) for not looking at an overall road map beforehand (
hear-hear).
2. Use US 322 all the way from South Jersey to Lititz, PA (in Lancaster County) & wondered why it took him so long to get there (this was before Waze existed & there were no known issues with the various freeways).
3. While meeting me at a gathering north of Doylestown, PA; my friend's navigation system in his vehicle (a 2013 Chevy Equinox) wasn't yet updated to include the then recently-opened US 202 Parkway and called me on his cell phone stating that such
didn't exist. I tried to tell him that such was indeed there (signs were present) & open to traffic but no avail.
4. Following my Feb. 13, 2016 car accident, a friend taking myself & my passenger from Abington Hospital (he was released after two hours of examination, he bore the brunt of the 2nd impact & sustained internal injuries) to our originally-planned destination in Ambler kept making these ridiculous turns on and off Susquehanna Rd. because his GPS was directing him to do such (to avoid traffic lights, not a real issue for a Saturday night) when all he needed to do was just
stay on Susquehanna Rd. to get from Abington to Ambler. Had I taken my street map of the area out of my car at the time; I would've told the driver that he did not need to meander off-and-on the main road.
And I won't go into the number of times trucks (& even busses) have blindly used vehicle-height-restricted roadways (like the various parkways in the NYC area as well as Storrow Drive/Soldiers Field Road in Boston)
despite the various prohibition signs & devices out there. Many of these more-recent offenders likely used an
off-the-shelf GPS rather than one specifically set-up for trucks to filter out those roadways.
Bottom line: if one's navigation system directs an AC-bound traveler from Delaware/points south to use I-95 to I-76 (due to either accident, construction or peak-travel-related delays on either the Delaware Memorial Bridge or on the NJ side of such), they're more likely to use such. Not everybody out there is either geographically or road savvy as those here on this site.
Quote from: qguy on October 10, 2018, 06:20:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2018, 11:27:29 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/N19nDZNogxT2
I see the US 13 interchange new signs omit the Delaware Valley name on top of the sign now.
Is that just for I-95 or is the whole turnpike going to start omitting the interchange names that have been on top for well over 30 years?
Just for I-95. All of the "legacy" exits within the ticket system seem to be retaining their names.
A pseudo-exception is the PA 29 exit. When it was completed a few years ago, it wasn't given a name, so it has no name to lose. And I believe the Virginia Drive exit no longer has a name. But those aren't legacy exits.
All of the newer
E-ZPass Only interchanges within the legacy-ticketed system do not feature separate names. Examples, aside from the fore-mentioned PA 29 (Exit 320 off I-76), include Virginia Drive (Exit 340 off I-276 westbound), PA 132 (Exit 352 off I-276 eastbound) & the more-recent PA 903 (Exit 87 off I-476).
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2018, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: qguy on October 10, 2018, 06:20:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2018, 11:27:29 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/N19nDZNogxT2
I see the US 13 interchange new signs omit the Delaware Valley name on top of the sign now.
Is that just for I-95 or is the whole turnpike going to start omitting the interchange names that have been on top for well over 30 years?
Just for I-95. All of the "legacy" exits within the ticket system seem to be retaining their names.
A pseudo-exception is the PA 29 exit. When it was completed a few years ago, it wasn't given a name, so it has no name to lose. And I believe the Virginia Drive exit no longer has a name. But those aren't legacy exits.
All of the newer E-ZPass Only interchanges within the legacy-ticketed system do not feature separate names. Examples, aside from the fore-mentioned PA 29 (Exit 320 off I-76), include Virginia Drive (Exit 340 off I-276 westbound), PA 132 (Exit 352 off I-276 eastbound) & the more-recent PA 903 (Exit 87 off I-476).
Though I notice that the first exits cut off from the ticket system kept their names: New Castle, Beaver Valley, and Cranberry on the mainline and Wyoming Valley, Keyser Avenue (which was never an original ticket system interchange) and Clarks Summit on the Northeast Extension. This seems to be a holdover and not their current practice. These interchange names may not survive the next wave of sign replacements. (All of their signs were replaced recently enough that they're probably in no hurry.)
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 10, 2018, 11:07:56 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2018, 09:45:39 AM
Quote from: qguy on October 10, 2018, 06:20:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2018, 11:27:29 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/N19nDZNogxT2
I see the US 13 interchange new signs omit the Delaware Valley name on top of the sign now.
Is that just for I-95 or is the whole turnpike going to start omitting the interchange names that have been on top for well over 30 years?
Just for I-95. All of the "legacy" exits within the ticket system seem to be retaining their names.
A pseudo-exception is the PA 29 exit. When it was completed a few years ago, it wasn't given a name, so it has no name to lose. And I believe the Virginia Drive exit no longer has a name. But those aren't legacy exits.
All of the newer E-ZPass Only interchanges within the legacy-ticketed system do not feature separate names. Examples, aside from the fore-mentioned PA 29 (Exit 320 off I-76), include Virginia Drive (Exit 340 off I-276 westbound), PA 132 (Exit 352 off I-276 eastbound) & the more-recent PA 903 (Exit 87 off I-476).
Though I notice that the first exits cut off from the ticket system kept their names: New Castle, Beaver Valley, and Cranberry on the mainline and Wyoming Valley, Keyser Avenue (which was never an original ticket system interchange) and Clarks Summit on the Northeast Extension. This seems to be a holdover and not their current practice. These interchange names may not survive the next wave of sign replacements. (All of their signs were replaced recently enough that they're probably in no hurry.)
Those interchanges also weren't on a portion of the Turnpike which received an entirely new route designation and exit numbering. As noted upthread, it's now entirely possible someone on the PA Turnpike's I-95 won't even be aware they're on the PA Turnpike.
It could also be similar to the fate that befell the NJ Turnpike and their BGSs: Interchange names aren't MUTCD-friendly. While that next sign replacement project you mentioned may change things, the PA Turnpike also has the interchange names on their toll tickets, so there would need to be some additional changes made if the interchange names came off the BGSs approaching the exits.
Quote from: odditude on October 10, 2018, 07:38:35 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 09, 2018, 05:13:44 PM
Philadelphia is completely absent from NJTP Exit 4 signage.
Philadelphia is on a supplementary sign for Exit 3 NB and Exit 4 SB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.953768,-74.92412,3a,15y,221.52h,88.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9y0OZ-h3MbiYtlPOdHGyKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). (it's difficult to see clearly in this imagery; once you get closer, the blurring applied to the logo sign panel behind this sign masks out the text.)
also, who thought nighttime Street View imagery is in any way useful?!
No, the supplementary panels for Exit 4 have been removed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 10, 2018, 11:41:40 AMIt could also be similar to the fate that befell the NJ Turnpike and their BGSs: Interchange names aren't MUTCD-friendly. While that next sign replacement project you mentioned may change things, the PA Turnpike also has the interchange names on their toll tickets, so there would need to be some additional changes made if the interchange names came off the BGSs approaching the exits.
IMHO, those interchange names (at least those
within the ticketed system) will likely remain until the system & related booths are completely phased out. The
Delaware Valley name for the US 13 interchange (Exit 42/formerly Exit 358) became expendable once the mainline ticketed/toll plaza was relocated west of the I-95 connection and the tolling of said-interchange ceased.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 09, 2018, 05:40:23 PM
Getting back on topic, does anyone know if the intercity bus companies have started to use the new flyovers?
Apparently Greyhound does: http://locations.greyhound.com/bus-routes/destination/new-york-ny/philadelphia-pa
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2018, 09:45:39 AM
Bottom line: if one's navigation system directs an AC-bound traveler from Delaware/points south to use I-95 to I-76 (due to either accident, construction or peak-travel-related delays on either the Delaware Memorial Bridge or on the NJ side of such), they're more likely to use such. Not everybody out there is either geographically or road savvy as those here on this site.
When I got my car in 2016 it had a 6 month free trial of the full OnStar subscription. It was going to cost about $30 per month to continue it, so I let it devolve into the lowest package which costs nothing, it has the full nav system but no traffic messages, so I won't hear about any of those delays nor will my routing be adjusted due to traffic conditions. Given the cost I would surmise that many people do the same thing. So we wouldn't get a routing like above.
I'm wondering about Greyhound and Peter Pan for Philly routes. Any time I took them to or from New York City, it always involved NJ Turnpike Exit 4 (NJ Route 73).
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 05:30:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2018, 09:45:39 AM
Bottom line: if one's navigation system directs an AC-bound traveler from Delaware/points south to use I-95 to I-76 (due to either accident, construction or peak-travel-related delays on either the Delaware Memorial Bridge or on the NJ side of such), they're more likely to use such. Not everybody out there is either geographically or road savvy as those here on this site.
When I got my car in 2016 it had a 6 month free trial of the full OnStar subscription. It was going to cost about $30 per month to continue it, so I let it devolve into the lowest package which costs nothing, it has the full nav system but no traffic messages, so I won't hear about any of those delays nor will my routing be adjusted due to traffic conditions. Given the cost I would surmise that many people do the same thing. So we wouldn't get a routing like above.
We're going to have to
agree to disagree here. Also, keep in mind that not everyone has a vehicle that is either new enough nor is equipped with a built-in navigation system (it's optional on many models). I've known many drivers that use their smart-phones or a separate unit for GPS/Waze/etc. systems. My friend that kept going off-and-on Susquehanna Rd. was using the GPS on his phone.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 10, 2018, 06:22:23 PM
I'm wondering about Greyhound and Peter Pan for Philly routes. Any time I took them to or from New York City, it always involved NJ Turnpike Exit 4 (NJ Route 73).
See NE2's post two replies back (reposted below).
Quote from: NE2 on October 10, 2018, 03:04:05 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 09, 2018, 05:40:23 PM
Getting back on topic, does anyone know if the intercity bus companies have started to use the new flyovers?
Apparently Greyhound does: http://locations.greyhound.com/bus-routes/destination/new-york-ny/philadelphia-pa
Don't know whether Peter Pan bus lines has started using such.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2018, 06:40:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 05:30:50 PM
When I got my car in 2016 it had a 6 month free trial of the full OnStar subscription. It was going to cost about $30 per month to continue it, so I let it devolve into the lowest package which costs nothing, it has the full nav system but no traffic messages, so I won't hear about any of those delays nor will my routing be adjusted due to traffic conditions. Given the cost I would surmise that many people do the same thing. So we wouldn't get a routing like above.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Also, keep in mind that not everyone has a vehicle that is either new enough nor is equipped with a navigation system (it's optional on many models). I've known many drivers that use GPS/Waze/etc. systems on their smart-phones.
I am not disagreeing with you ... just mentioning that there are some people like me that don't get those messages ... I have a cell phone but no smart phone.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 06:44:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2018, 06:40:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 05:30:50 PM
When I got my car in 2016 it had a 6 month free trial of the full OnStar subscription. It was going to cost about $30 per month to continue it, so I let it devolve into the lowest package which costs nothing, it has the full nav system but no traffic messages, so I won't hear about any of those delays nor will my routing be adjusted due to traffic conditions. Given the cost I would surmise that many people do the same thing. So we wouldn't get a routing like above.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. Also, keep in mind that not everyone has a vehicle that is either new enough nor is equipped with a navigation system (it's optional on many models). I've known many drivers that use GPS/Waze/etc. systems on their smart-phones.
I am not disagreeing with you ... just mentioning that there are some people like me that don't get those messages ... I have a cell phone but no smart phone.
Same here (regarding the cell phone).
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 10, 2018, 06:45:31 PM
Same here (regarding the cell phone).
I spend too much time online already ... a smart phone would just it make more excessive. :-) The cell phone has texting, calendar, calculator, alarm clock, and is a timepiece (don't need to wear a watch), so I do OK with this.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 06:55:13 AM
Quote from: qguy on October 10, 2018, 06:20:10 AM
A pseudo-exception is the PA 29 exit. When it was completed a few years ago, it wasn't given a name, so it has no name to lose.
They could call it Devault.
A lot of people, myself included, call it the Great Valley exit, because that's what that area is called. In fact, the nearby Penn State branch campus is called the Great Valley Campus.
Quote from: qguy on October 10, 2018, 10:32:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 06:55:13 AM
Quote from: qguy on October 10, 2018, 06:20:10 AM
A pseudo-exception is the PA 29 exit. When it was completed a few years ago, it wasn't given a name, so it has no name to lose.
They could call it Devault.
A lot of people, myself included, call it the Great Valley exit, because that's what that area is called. In fact, the nearby Penn State branch campus is called the Great Valley Campus.
That area is indeed called the Great Valley, but for some reason that name is not on the official state highway map.
I think that Phoenixville is the largest boro that is nearby, and I suppose they could use that for the name as well. The interchange does provide the first good connectivity between the Turnpike and the boro.
Or they could omit the name entirely and give it the control cities of Phoenixville and Malvern. :spin:
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 11, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
Or they could omit the name entirely and give it the control cities of Phoenixville and Malvern. :spin:
I get grief from my own son!
(I feel like I should be doing a Rodney Dangerfield impression. [Grips tie.])
The PTC is not giving names to the EZPass-only exits (as mentioned upstream in this thread) because those exits will never appear on tickets, IMO - so there's real no need.
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 11:17:40 PMThat area is indeed called the Great Valley, but for some reason that name is not on the official state highway map.
That's because
Great Valley (aka Chester Valley per Wiki) is more of a region than a community.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 11, 2018, 08:34:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 11:17:40 PMThat area is indeed called the Great Valley, but for some reason that name is not on the official state highway map.
That's because Great Valley (aka Chester Valley per Wiki) is more of a region than a community.
Correct. That area is generally the Borough of Malvern and the surrounding townships all have areas that are apart of the Malvern zip code.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 11, 2018, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 11, 2018, 08:34:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 11:17:40 PMThat area is indeed called the Great Valley, but for some reason that name is not on the official state highway map.
That's because Great Valley (aka Chester Valley per Wiki) is more of a region than a community.
Correct. That area is generally the Borough of Malvern and the surrounding townships all have areas that are apart of the Malvern zip code.
Didn't that name kinda originate because of 'Silicon Valley' in California, so they just wanted something more catchy than "Malvern"?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2018, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 11, 2018, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 11, 2018, 08:34:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 11:17:40 PMThat area is indeed called the Great Valley, but for some reason that name is not on the official state highway map.
That's because Great Valley (aka Chester Valley per Wiki) is more of a region than a community.
Correct. That area is generally the Borough of Malvern and the surrounding townships all have areas that are apart of the Malvern zip code.
Didn't that name kinda originate because of 'Silicon Valley' in California, so they just wanted something more catchy than "Malvern"?
Wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of corporate campuses in that area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2018, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 11, 2018, 12:57:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 11, 2018, 08:34:01 AM
Quote from: Beltway on October 10, 2018, 11:17:40 PMThat area is indeed called the Great Valley, but for some reason that name is not on the official state highway map.
That's because Great Valley (aka Chester Valley per Wiki) is more of a region than a community.
Correct. That area is generally the Borough of Malvern and the surrounding townships all have areas that are apart of the Malvern zip code.
Didn't that name kinda originate because of 'Silicon Valley' in California, so they just wanted something more catchy than "Malvern"?
Hey! Malvern was a catchy name back in its day. Mind you that day being over a century ago, but it had its day.
If you're intimating that the "Great Valley" name was cut from whole cloth by some local developer or booster group seeking an easily marketable name for developable suburban land–no, that's not the case.
Great Valley is an old name for the real geological valley in this area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Valley_(Pennsylvania))–really, a narrow strip of "Piedmont Lowland" running through Chester County sandwiched between two sections of "Piedmont Upland" (See this geological map of Pennsylvania (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Physiographic_provinces_of_Pennsylvania%2C_Pennsylvania_Geological_Survey%2C_4th_ser.%2C_Map_13%2C_Pennsylvania_Geological_Survey_of_the_PennDepCons%26NatRes.jpg)). It's roughly parallel to the much better known "Great Valley" , the wide and mostly flat area south and east of Blue Mountain that spans multiple states.
Moreover, Great Valley can't be considered a rebranding of Malvern because Malvern isn't in the valley. Take a look at a topographical map (https://goo.gl/maps/fd28Vi8VTmK2). Malvern, Paoli, Berwyn, etc. are on the ridge south of the valley. It's Exton, Tredyffrin Township, Chesterbrook, and King of Prussia that are in the valley.
I guess now the MUTCD does not like the all upper case interchange name. Too bad they cannot get rid of the Norristown department of redundancy department guide there.
That got to be as it was when I-476 never connected to the Mid- County exchange. Germantown Pike was the way into the city from the extension plus on the mainline it was signed as one of 5 interchanges on the East- West Mainline. When the Blue Route opened, PTC thought it was not needed to sign that exit for Philly no more with the better standard route nearby. So it got replaced keeping the original format resulting in NORRISTOWN to Norristown exit signage.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 11, 2018, 03:26:45 PM
If you’re intimating that the “Great Valley” name was cut from whole cloth by some local developer or booster group seeking an easily marketable name for developable suburban land—no, that’s not the case.
Great Valley is an old name for the real geological valley in this area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Valley_(Pennsylvania))—really, a narrow strip of “Piedmont Lowland” running through Chester County sandwiched between two sections of “Piedmont Upland” (See this geological map of Pennsylvania (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Physiographic_provinces_of_Pennsylvania%2C_Pennsylvania_Geological_Survey%2C_4th_ser.%2C_Map_13%2C_Pennsylvania_Geological_Survey_of_the_PennDepCons%26NatRes.jpg)). It’s roughly parallel to the much better known “Great Valley”, the wide and mostly flat area south and east of Blue Mountain that spans multiple states.
Moreover, Great Valley can’t be considered a rebranding of Malvern because Malvern isn’t in the valley. Take a look at a topographical map (https://goo.gl/maps/fd28Vi8VTmK2). Malvern, Paoli, Berwyn, etc. are on the ridge south of the valley. It’s Exton, Tredyffrin Township, Chesterbrook, and King of Prussia that are in the valley.
Exactly right...I learned about this in grade school being so close to the area.
From a municipality, Malvern Borough is a small borough on the southern ridge. Paoli and Berwyn are unincorporated place names on the south ridge.
Tredyffrin, and East and West Whiteland Twps are mainly in the valley. Chesterbrook, Great Valley, Frazer, and Exton are unincorporated place names in the valley.
US 202 uses Paoli (PA 252), Great Valley (PA 29 N), Malvern (PA 29 S), Frazer (PA 401 and US 30), and Exton (US 30/Bus US 30) as control cities on it's exits in the area.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2018, 03:55:29 PMI guess now the MUTCD does not like the all upper case interchange name.
What makes you say that? All the recent replacement signage (for existing interchanges) elsewhere along the PA Turnpike still feature such.
Example of a new sign at the Lansdale (PA 63) interchange (additional E-ZPass-Only slip ramps were added since this pic was taken):
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3xfUHqvU5NSBJUWeYWidiDs-SZ_zoY9oQGmzTwokdqji0OOTy)
Edit in blue:
As previously mentioned, the only reason why the US 13 interchange signage lost its
Delaware Valley name was due to it no longer being within the tolled system of the Turnpike.
Keyser Avenue is not within the system.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8152969676/in/album-72157632305207556/
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2018, 04:47:22 PMKeyser Avenue is not within the system.
Looking through Historic Aerials, this interchange, while outside the ticketed system, was constructed during the mid-1990s & prior to E-ZPass. Toll collecting along this stretch was done similar to the Garden State Parkway (cash booths along the mainline). The likely reason that newish interchange was named was likely tradition.
I have since edited my post to reflect the above. That said, I would suggest that further discussion on other parts of the PA Turnpike be done on that thread. This one IMHO has been derailed enough.
As of today, the only map updates for the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange have been from Waze and Google. Apple, Bing, Mapquest have yet to show any changes.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 11, 2018, 07:50:41 PM
As of today, the only map updates for the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange have been from Waze and Google. Apple, Bing, Mapquest have yet to show any changes.
OSM has had it since the change over.
Someone got the PA Turnpike article wrong about the turnpike crosses over I-295 instead of the other way around like it really is.
Scroll down to the Delaware River Extension part of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Turnpike
The highway narrows back to four lanes before another E-ZPass-only exit for PA 132, with an eastbound exit and entrance. A short distance later, the turnpike arrives at the east end of the ticket system at the Neshaminy Falls toll plaza. After passing through more suburbs, the road reaches a partial interchange with I-95 (passing over I-295 with no access), at which point I-276 ends and the Pennsylvania Turnpike becomes part of I-95. Continuing westbound on the turnpike from southbound I-95 is signed as a left exit from I-95, the only place where continuing on the mainline turnpike is signed as an exit.[12][13]
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2018, 11:09:14 AM
Someone got the PA Turnpike article wrong about the turnpike crosses over I-295 instead of the other way around like it really is.
Scroll down to the Delaware River Extension part of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Turnpike
The highway narrows back to four lanes before another E-ZPass-only exit for PA 132, with an eastbound exit and entrance. A short distance later, the turnpike arrives at the east end of the ticket system at the Neshaminy Falls toll plaza. After passing through more suburbs, the road reaches a partial interchange with I-95 (passing over I-295 with no access), at which point I-276 ends and the Pennsylvania Turnpike becomes part of I-95. Continuing westbound on the turnpike from southbound I-95 is signed as a left exit from I-95[/b], the only place where continuing on the mainline turnpike is signed as an exit.[12][13]
Blue = It shouldn't start out as "Continuing westbound", because one can't continue westbound after going eastbound. This should be a totally different paragraph.
Whoops, I was the one who wrote that right after the interchange opened. I'm surprised no one else has caught that yet. The Turnpike article is pretty high-traffic (heh) and most of what I wrote has been tweaked since. I also agree on the bit about the left exit. I reworded it to make more sense.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2018, 11:09:14 AM
Someone got the PA Turnpike article wrong about the turnpike crosses over I-295 instead of the other way around like it really is.
Scroll down to the Delaware River Extension part of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Turnpike
The highway narrows back to four lanes before another E-ZPass-only exit for PA 132, with an eastbound exit and entrance. A short distance later, the turnpike arrives at the east end of the ticket system at the Neshaminy Falls toll plaza. After passing through more suburbs, the road reaches a partial interchange with I-95 (passing over I-295 with no access), at which point I-276 ends and the Pennsylvania Turnpike becomes part of I-95. Continuing westbound on the turnpike from southbound I-95 is signed as a left exit from I-95, the only place where continuing on the mainline turnpike is signed as an exit.[12][13]
Somebody went and edited it and it now says "passing
under I-295 with no access."
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 12, 2018, 06:12:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2018, 11:09:14 AM
Someone got the PA Turnpike article wrong about the turnpike crosses over I-295 instead of the other way around like it really is.
Scroll down to the Delaware River Extension part of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Turnpike
The highway narrows back to four lanes before another E-ZPass-only exit for PA 132, with an eastbound exit and entrance. A short distance later, the turnpike arrives at the east end of the ticket system at the Neshaminy Falls toll plaza. After passing through more suburbs, the road reaches a partial interchange with I-95 (passing over I-295 with no access), at which point I-276 ends and the Pennsylvania Turnpike becomes part of I-95. Continuing westbound on the turnpike from southbound I-95 is signed as a left exit from I-95, the only place where continuing on the mainline turnpike is signed as an exit.[12][13]
Somebody went and edited it and it now says "passing under I-295 with no access."
Whoever did that must be a great editor with how on top of things they are. :spin:
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 12, 2018, 05:55:31 PM
Whoops, I was the one who wrote that right after the interchange opened. I'm surprised no one else has caught that yet. The Turnpike article is pretty high-traffic (heh) and most of what I wrote has been tweaked since. I also agree on the bit about the left exit. I reworded it to make more sense.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 12, 2018, 11:56:40 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on October 12, 2018, 06:12:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2018, 11:09:14 AM
Someone got the PA Turnpike article wrong about the turnpike crosses over I-295 instead of the other way around like it really is.
Scroll down to the Delaware River Extension part of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Turnpike
The highway narrows back to four lanes before another E-ZPass-only exit for PA 132, with an eastbound exit and entrance. A short distance later, the turnpike arrives at the east end of the ticket system at the Neshaminy Falls toll plaza. After passing through more suburbs, the road reaches a partial interchange with I-95 (passing over I-295 with no access), at which point I-276 ends and the Pennsylvania Turnpike becomes part of I-95. Continuing westbound on the turnpike from southbound I-95 is signed as a left exit from I-95, the only place where continuing on the mainline turnpike is signed as an exit.[12][13]
Somebody went and edited it and it now says "passing under I-295 with no access."
Whoever did that must be a great editor with how on top of things they are. :spin:
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 12, 2018, 05:55:31 PM
Whoops, I was the one who wrote that right after the interchange opened. I'm surprised no one else has caught that yet. The Turnpike article is pretty high-traffic (heh) and most of what I wrote has been tweaked since. I also agree on the bit about the left exit. I reworded it to make more sense.
Job well done. :clap:
Update regarding additional I-95 shields along the NJ Turnpike & Connector:
As of this past weekend (Oct. 13-14):
1. An I-95 shield have been added to the northbound sign at the Connector's eastern end (where the ramps to the mainline NJ Turnpike split).
2. Just north of the above-ramp merge with the northbound NJ Turnpike, a NORTH 95 with an NJTP shield (placed underneath) reassurance marker has been erected. This is the first time I've personally seen an NJTP shield used as a route reassurance marker.
3. Westbound Connector (I-95 Southbound) at the US 130 interchange; SOUTH 95 TO legend has been added to the existing WEST 276 legend on the pull-through sign.
Along the Delaware River Bridge; there's still I-276/full-length PA Turnpike-based mile markers from mid-span (MM 359.0) to the PA side. However, one or two I-95-based makers (MM 42.6 or 42.8 (?)) have since been erected; interestingly, right next to the markers.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 08:50:33 AM
Update regarding additional I-95 shields along the NJ Turnpike & Connector:
As of this past weekend (Oct. 13-14):
1. An I-95 shield have been added to the northbound sign at the Connector's eastern end (where the ramps to the mainline NJ Turnpike split).
2. Just north of the above-ramp merge with the northbound NJ Turnpike, a NORTH 95 with an NJTP shield (placed underneath) reassurance marker has been erected. This is the first time I've personally seen an NJTP shield used as a route reassurance marker.
3. Westbound Connector (I-95 Southbound) at the US 130 interchange; SOUTH 95 TO legend has been added to the existing WEST 276 legend on the pull-through sign.
Along the Delaware River Bridge; there's still I-276/full-length PA Turnpike-based mile markers from mid-span (MM 359.0) to the PA side. However, one or two I-95-based makers (MM 42.6 or 42.8 (?)) have since been erected; interestingly, right next to the markers.
Most of that stuff you reference has been up since the last time I went through there, which was about 2 weeks ago. I have not had the time to post pictures from that ride through. At that time, the connector and Interchange 6 seemed to be complete, except for the eastbound (I-95 NB) pull-through at the U.S. 130 exit and the signs entering the Turnpike extension from U.S. 130. Nothing obvious had changed north of Interchange 6.
Curious as to whether the first reassurance marker WB/SB in Pennsylvania (just past the AET gantry) has since been corrected. Last I saw, the incorrect "North" beneath the marker was taped over. Too expensive to keep checking . . .
Quote from: akotchi on October 15, 2018, 01:16:12 PMCurious as to whether the first reassurance marker WB/SB in Pennsylvania (just past the AET gantry) has since been corrected. Last I saw, the incorrect "North" beneath the marker was taped over. Too expensive to keep checking . . .
So that's what was taped over. As of last night (Oct. 14), it's still there.
So am I to understand now the NB I-95 to the Delaware River Bridge is free in PA? I see the cashless gantry where the Exit 30 plaza once stood is WB only. Plus the US 13 exit has no plaza anymore either and from streetview it looks as one can enter the Turnpike from the new I-95 flyover and get off at Route 13 and pay no toll at all.
Just wondering if you must pay to stay on the Turnpike into NJ, at least on PA's side? I know that like other crossings traveling into NJ requires no toll except for Dingman's Ferry further north. However all the other tolled crossings from Montague to the Delaware Memorial Bridge are WB only, so I assume that both the NJTA and PTC both implemented that way as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:35:04 PM
So am I to understand now the NB I-95 to the Delaware River Bridge is free in PA? I see the cashless gantry where the Exit 30 plaza once stood is WB only. Plus the US 13 exit has no plaza anymore either and from streetview it looks as one can enter the Turnpike from the new I-95 flyover and get off at Route 13 and pay no toll at all.
Just wondering if you must pay to stay on the Turnpike into NJ, at least on PA's side? I know that like other crossings traveling into NJ requires no toll except for Dingman's Ferry further north. However all the other tolled crossings from Montague to the Delaware Memorial Bridge are WB only, so I assume that both the NJTA and PTC both implemented that way as well.
No toll on 95 NB thru PA at all; first toll point is Exit 6 on NJ. You can cross the bridge into NJ and exit into US 130 and never pay a toll. The US 13 interchange in PA is completely free.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on October 15, 2018, 01:16:12 PMCurious as to whether the first reassurance marker WB/SB in Pennsylvania (just past the AET gantry) has since been corrected. Last I saw, the incorrect "North" beneath the marker was taped over. Too expensive to keep checking . . .
So that's what was taped over. As of last night (Oct. 14), it's still there.
Roadsguy and I noticed that when we drove it shortly after it opened; Roadsguy emailed the project engineers about it.
You're welcome. :thumbsup:
They must've hurriedly sent someone out to cover it up. They used tape, you say? What, so duct tape really does fix everything?
Looks like it to me . . .
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1940/43549301260_b9b942cf34_b.jpg)
And thank you! I had emailed also and was told that they had been made aware of it. Now I know who . . .
The change was made within a day, I think. Alas . . . a new sign is taking much longer.
One would think there would be a stock of directional tabs that could be quickly accessed, or am I just thick?
(Don't answer that, Roadsguy!)
I mean, they're not individually custom-made for each location. There's gotta be a pile of them somewhere, right?
Quote from: qguy on October 16, 2018, 05:10:21 PM
One would think there would be a stock of directional tabs that could be quickly accessed, or am I just thick?
(Don't answer that, Roadsguy!)
I mean, they're not individually custom-made for each location. There's gotta be a pile of them somewhere, right?
Given that this is the Turnpike's (PTC) stretch & not PennDOT's; maybe PTC doesn't have as any spare blue
NORTH/SOUTH tabs on hand (the only N/S Interstate in their jurisdiction is I-476, north of I-276). :sombrero:
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 16, 2018, 05:23:27 PM
Quote from: qguy on October 16, 2018, 05:10:21 PM
One would think there would be a stock of directional tabs that could be quickly accessed, or am I just thick?
(Don't answer that, Roadsguy!)
I mean, they're not individually custom-made for each location. There's gotta be a pile of them somewhere, right?
Given that this is the Turnpike's (PTC) stretch & not PennDOT's; maybe PTC doesn't have as any spare blue NORTH/SOUTH tabs on hand (the only N/S Interstate in their jurisdiction is I-476, north of I-276). :sombrero:
I'd like to think that the PTC only made a couple dozen in the '90s when I-476 was extended and used the last ones on this project? :awesomeface:
There are still no I-95 shields above the inner or outer roadways, in either direction, at Exits 7 or 7A as of today.
So Bing maps has the new I-95 flyover ramps from what I can see (as of 10/26). It doesn't look like Bing made any changes to exit numbers or to the various number changes to current I-95 and current I-295.
https://www.bing.com/maps/p/Bristol-PA
Looks like Google is showing traffic conditions on the ramps now.
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1967/45571981381_5c159666f7_z.jpg)
Quote from: briantroutman on October 26, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1967/45571981381_5c159666f7_z.jpg)
Interesting. Does Apple Maps usually show shields on ramps carrying designations?
Bing may be taking their sweet old time in getting everything done with updating it, but at least they properly show the flyovers as freeway mainline.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 26, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(Apple Maps)
Interesting. Does Apple Maps usually show shields on ramps carrying designations?
Bing may be taking their sweet old time in getting everything done with updating it, but at least they properly show the flyovers as freeway mainline.
Does this qualify for "freeway mainline"? I thought the part of I-95 between the new interchange and the New Jersey line were technically part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike still.
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 08:13:36 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 26, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(Apple Maps)
Interesting. Does Apple Maps usually show shields on ramps carrying designations?
Bing may be taking their sweet old time in getting everything done with updating it, but at least they properly show the flyovers as freeway mainline.
Does this qualify for "freeway mainline"? I thought the part of I-95 between the new interchange and the New Jersey line were technically part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike still.
It's owned by the PTC, yes, but is only signed as I-95. At Brian Troutman's Golden Spike meet last month, the PTC and contractor employees that we spoke to said that essentially that's what they intended, though it's certainly still
officially part of the Turnpike. In fact, entering from US 13, the westbound sign says "South I-95 To I-276/PA Turnpike," and the northbound signs on I-95 before the I-295 left exit make no reference to the Turnpike at all. The westbound Turnpike is also signed as a left exit from I-95, using I-95's mileage, which is unprecedented for the Turnpike. They certainly intended to have I-95 be the mainline through it all, and when the flyovers are transferred to PennDOT (Have they been already? They're not included in their TIRe map), they're expected to become SR 0095, not an SR 8xxx ramp designation. (Though the same is true for I-83 through the Eisenhower Interchange...)
Quote from: briantroutman on October 26, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1967/45571981381_5c159666f7_z.jpg)
I just looked at Apple Maps this morning. Yes, I-95 is now shown on the flyovers at the new interchange. But Apple still has I-95 and I-276 marked on their old alignments in PA.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 11:13:18 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 08:13:36 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 26, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(Apple Maps)
Interesting. Does Apple Maps usually show shields on ramps carrying designations?
Bing may be taking their sweet old time in getting everything done with updating it, but at least they properly show the flyovers as freeway mainline.
Does this qualify for "freeway mainline"? I thought the part of I-95 between the new interchange and the New Jersey line were technically part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike still.
[276W] is also signed as a left exit from I-95, using I-95's mileage, which is unprecedented for the Turnpike.
It may be unprecedented for the turnpike but it should be the norm everywhere and not just elsewhere on the turnpike it should be universal for TOTSOs to be labeled as mainline even with a loop ramp (See US6&3 interchange in cape cod)
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 28, 2018, 02:34:56 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 11:13:18 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 08:13:36 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 26, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(Apple Maps)
Interesting. Does Apple Maps usually show shields on ramps carrying designations?
Bing may be taking their sweet old time in getting everything done with updating it, but at least they properly show the flyovers as freeway mainline.
Does this qualify for "freeway mainline"? I thought the part of I-95 between the new interchange and the New Jersey line were technically part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike still.
[276W] is also signed as a left exit from I-95, using I-95's mileage, which is unprecedented for the Turnpike.
It may be unprecedented for the turnpike but it should be the norm everywhere and not just elsewhere on the turnpike it should be universal for TOTSOs to be labeled as mainline even with a loop ramp (See US6&3 interchange in cape cod)
Well the Turnpike has had the convenience of never really needing its exit numbers to change. (At least not since I-76 was rerouted out of Pittsburgh and into Ohio, replacing I-80S.) Even at Valley Forge, it's not too much of a stretch to have I-276 continue the Turnpike's mileage and exit numbering, even if the Schuylkill Expressway does the same.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 28, 2018, 08:13:21 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 28, 2018, 02:34:56 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 11:13:18 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 08:13:36 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 26, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(Apple Maps)
Interesting. Does Apple Maps usually show shields on ramps carrying designations?
Bing may be taking their sweet old time in getting everything done with updating it, but at least they properly show the flyovers as freeway mainline.
Does this qualify for "freeway mainline"? I thought the part of I-95 between the new interchange and the New Jersey line were technically part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike still.
[276W] is also signed as a left exit from I-95, using I-95's mileage, which is unprecedented for the Turnpike.
It may be unprecedented for the turnpike but it should be the norm everywhere and not just elsewhere on the turnpike it should be universal for TOTSOs to be labeled as mainline even with a loop ramp (See US6&3 interchange in cape cod)
Well the Turnpike has had the convenience of never really needing its exit numbers to change. (At least not since I-76 was rerouted out of Pittsburgh and into Ohio, replacing I-80S.) Even at Valley Forge, it's not too much of a stretch to have I-276 continue the Turnpike's mileage and exit numbering, even if the Schuylkill Expressway does the same.
Huh? The PA Turnpike remembered all their exits years ago. They were sequential.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2018, 12:47:35 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 28, 2018, 08:13:21 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 28, 2018, 02:34:56 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 11:13:18 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 26, 2018, 08:13:36 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 26, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 26, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
Apple Maps is now showing the flyovers–with 95 shields on them.
(Apple Maps)
Interesting. Does Apple Maps usually show shields on ramps carrying designations?
Bing may be taking their sweet old time in getting everything done with updating it, but at least they properly show the flyovers as freeway mainline.
Does this qualify for "freeway mainline"? I thought the part of I-95 between the new interchange and the New Jersey line were technically part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike still.
[276W] is also signed as a left exit from I-95, using I-95's mileage, which is unprecedented for the Turnpike.
It may be unprecedented for the turnpike but it should be the norm everywhere and not just elsewhere on the turnpike it should be universal for TOTSOs to be labeled as mainline even with a loop ramp (See US6&3 interchange in cape cod)
Well the Turnpike has had the convenience of never really needing its exit numbers to change. (At least not since I-76 was rerouted out of Pittsburgh and into Ohio, replacing I-80S.) Even at Valley Forge, it's not too much of a stretch to have I-276 continue the Turnpike's mileage and exit numbering, even if the Schuylkill Expressway does the same.
Huh? The PA Turnpike remembered all their exits years ago. They were sequential.
In hindsight that was worded poorly, but I meant that the exit numbers of the mainline didn't need to reset at any interchange to match a designation. They still didn't, though, even when I-76 only entered it at the Pittsburgh interchange, though that's more because of the ticket system.
The Youtube user "roadwaywiz" drove around the various roads in PA/NJ affected by the sign changes due to the new I-95 rerouting. Video link is below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfHxWQlxNrc
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 28, 2018, 06:58:27 PM
The Youtube user "roadwaywiz" drove around the various roads in PA/NJ affected by the sign changes due to the new I-95 rerouting. Video link is below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfHxWQlxNrc
I notice I-95 NB drops to two lanes through the PA 413 interchange, with the third lane beginning on the right just before the ramp merge. This means that I-95 NB does not have two continuous lanes as southbound does. This seems strange. I was expecting them to have a fourth lane form on the left right before the PA 413 split, with the new left lane becoming the left lane of I-295. (The northbound carriageway through exit 39 still had some cattlechutes when I was last there. Seems they're still not done at the flyover split.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 28, 2018, 08:40:17 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 28, 2018, 06:58:27 PM
The Youtube user "roadwaywiz" drove around the various roads in PA/NJ affected by the sign changes due to the new I-95 rerouting. Video link is below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfHxWQlxNrc
I notice I-95 NB drops to two lanes through the PA 413 interchange, with the third lane beginning on the right just before the ramp merge. This means that I-95 NB does not have two continuous lanes as southbound does. This seems strange. I was expecting them to have a fourth lane form on the left right before the PA 413 split, with the new left lane becoming the left lane of I-295. (The northbound carriageway through exit 39 still had some cattlechutes when I was last there. Seems they're still not done at the flyover split.
I was expecting them to build a continuous 3rd lane but that is clearly not the case based on guiderail alignment. So yeah, puzzlement.
Roadwarriors79, were you one of today's Youtube commenters?
@Alps no, I wasn't one of the commenters. I didn't see it live, only found this video a couple hours ago.
Without viewing roadwaywiz's entire 2+ hour video to see/confirm such; having made another trip to New England this past weekend (Oct. 27-28), there has been no additional I-95 shields placed along the NJ Turnpike between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge than what's already there/reported.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 29, 2018, 10:09:19 AM
Without viewing roadwaywiz's entire 2+ hour video to see/confirm such; having made another trip to New England this past weekend (Oct. 27-28), there has been no additional I-95 shields placed along the NJ Turnpike between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge than what's already there/reported.
I was on there Fri night, from Exit 8 to Exit 4. And confirmed the supplemental 'Philadelphia' BGS on the Exit 4 sign was removed as well.
Also, just spot gauging, but early indications are the I-95 routing via Exit 6 isn't going to keep much traffic from continuing south towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
This entire project was designed back in the early 2000's, well before GPSs became a mainstay in most people's vehicles and on their phones. At that time, it was probably guessed that a lot of traffic would follow I-95's routing. Today, GPSs will encourage people to stay on the NJ Turnpike. The holdouts that will follow I-95 along with those needing to get to Philly, will go via 95, but probably not as many as envisioned.
Thanksgiving weekend will be the true test. We will see how the NJ Turnpike performs from Exit 6 to Exit 1. If Columbus Day weekend was any indication, it's going to be congested. That said, as we've noted, a lot of GPS and mapping companies hadn't updated I-95's routing on the PA Turnpike, so it may have kept many on the Turnpike anyway.
But, I'm guessing that the NJ Turnpike may have to reconsider the timeline they may have as to widening the NJ Turnpike south of Exit 6. And based on visual observations, 3 lanes each way between 1 & 4 may not be enough. They may seriously need to consider 4 lanes between Interchange 4 & 6 or 3 & 6, along with 3 lanes from the Del. Mem. Bridge to Interchanges 3 or 4.
Could an electronic-only toll (and pay-by-plate) interchange between the Turnpike and 42 be a part of this? One could only hope.
Since GPSes these days incorporate live traffic info, one would assume that once the map data is fully updated, the new routing will be suggested by the GPS once the Turnpike is congested enough to not be the fastest route
Just from the PA side and personal observation, more than half the traffic on 95 stayed on 95.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 29, 2018, 02:14:39 PM
Since GPSes these days incorporate live traffic info, one would assume that once the map data is fully updated, the new routing will be suggested by the GPS once the Turnpike is congested enough to not be the fastest route
And I'm trying to think when that will take place. If it's a busy holiday weekend, 95 in PA is often backed up, but there's going to be the option of taking 295 in NJ still. I guess it would take a major accident, or involve delays on the Turnpike, delays on the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and delays on 295 in Delaware to force GPSs to say 95 in PA is the quickest route.
Quote from: Alps on October 29, 2018, 03:09:47 PM
Just from the PA side and personal observation, more than half the traffic on 95 stayed on 95.
Just to clarify, you mean they followed the new ramps to NJ?
That's definitely a change from a month ago, but a good sign that they are getting properly used.
Quote from: famartin on October 29, 2018, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 29, 2018, 03:09:47 PM
Just from the PA side and personal observation, more than half the traffic on 95 stayed on 95.
Just to clarify, you mean they followed the new ramps to NJ?
That's definitely a change from a month ago, but a good sign that they are getting properly used.
Yeah, at least northbound, more traffic took 95 than 295, and of course 13 is not heavily used. But that's anecdotal, and good data is starting to come in already. (Not that I would abuse my position by requesting it without a work-related reason.)
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 29, 2018, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 29, 2018, 03:09:47 PM
Just from the PA side and personal observation, more than half the traffic on 95 stayed on 95.
Just to clarify, you mean they followed the new ramps to NJ?
That's definitely a change from a month ago, but a good sign that they are getting properly used.
Yeah, at least northbound, more traffic took 95 than 295, and of course 13 is not heavily used. But that's anecdotal, and good data is starting to come in already. (Not that I would abuse my position by requesting it without a work-related reason.)
So does 295 now have much less traffic than it did before, or does 95 south of the interchange now have much more traffic? In 2016 at least, I-95 had about 70k AADT south of 413 and 60k north of it.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 30, 2018, 12:17:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 29, 2018, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 29, 2018, 03:09:47 PM
Just from the PA side and personal observation, more than half the traffic on 95 stayed on 95.
Just to clarify, you mean they followed the new ramps to NJ?
That's definitely a change from a month ago, but a good sign that they are getting properly used.
Yeah, at least northbound, more traffic took 95 than 295, and of course 13 is not heavily used. But that's anecdotal, and good data is starting to come in already. (Not that I would abuse my position by requesting it without a work-related reason.)
So does 295 now have much less traffic than it did before, or does 95 south of the interchange now have much more traffic? In 2016 at least, I-95 had about 70k AADT south of 413 and 60k north of it.
"Anecdotal"...
295 seems lighter in traffic. I don't think you can shovel that many more people on I-95 during a weekday, but you may get more on a weekend. I think the biggest change will be lightening the NJ Turnpike from Interchanges 3-6, but that remains to be seen. We'll need to look at the actual numbers first.
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2018, 07:58:32 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 30, 2018, 12:17:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2018, 12:07:11 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 29, 2018, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 29, 2018, 03:09:47 PM
Just from the PA side and personal observation, more than half the traffic on 95 stayed on 95.
Just to clarify, you mean they followed the new ramps to NJ?
That's definitely a change from a month ago, but a good sign that they are getting properly used.
Yeah, at least northbound, more traffic took 95 than 295, and of course 13 is not heavily used. But that's anecdotal, and good data is starting to come in already. (Not that I would abuse my position by requesting it without a work-related reason.)
So does 295 now have much less traffic than it did before, or does 95 south of the interchange now have much more traffic? In 2016 at least, I-95 had about 70k AADT south of 413 and 60k north of it.
"Anecdotal"...
295 seems lighter in traffic. I don't think you can shovel that many more people on I-95 during a weekday, but you may get more on a weekend. I think the biggest change will be lightening the NJ Turnpike from Interchanges 3-6, but that remains to be seen. We'll need to look at the actual numbers first.
It would be interesting to see if traffic volumes going North are heavier than traffic going South, or if it's about equal.
Also, further down the line...are non-EZ Pass motorists actually paying the Toll-by-plate toll invoices they receive from the PTC.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2018, 09:05:41 AM
Also, further down the line...are non-EZ Pass motorists actually paying the Toll-by-plate toll invoices they receive from the PTC.
Does non-payment make it more difficult for you to renew your registration or something like that? I know that's supposed to be the case with red light camera violations (because they're mailed) in Delaware.
Nevermind, looked it up, it seems like they'll suspend the registration of a PA motorist, but what about out of state cars? https://www.paturnpike.com/toll/violation_enforcement_registration_suspension.aspx (https://www.paturnpike.com/toll/violation_enforcement_registration_suspension.aspx)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2018, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 29, 2018, 02:14:39 PM
Since GPSes these days incorporate live traffic info, one would assume that once the map data is fully updated, the new routing will be suggested by the GPS once the Turnpike is congested enough to not be the fastest route
And I'm trying to think when that will take place. If it's a busy holiday weekend, 95 in PA is often backed up, but there's going to be the option of taking 295 in NJ still. I guess it would take a major accident, or involve delays on the Turnpike, delays on the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and delays on 295 in Delaware to force GPSs to say 95 in PA is the quickest route.
I am responding directly to your post above:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2018, 12:13:55 PM
This entire project was designed back in the early 2000's, well before GPSs became a mainstay in most people's vehicles and on their phones. At that time, it was probably guessed that a lot of traffic would follow I-95's routing. Today, GPSs will encourage people to stay on the NJ Turnpike. The holdouts that will follow I-95 along with those needing to get to Philly, will go via 95, but probably not as many as envisioned.
So ... the NJTA was relying on people leaving the Turnpike early even though it's not a better option in terms of speed, and would cost them toll revenue? You'd think they'd be the ones to drag their feet, not the PTC, which only stands to gain revenue from the new interchange (yes, I get that the interchange is in PA and NJTA wasn't directly involved in building it, but I'm sure there is some sort of obstruction that could have gone on).
Quote from: bzakharin on October 30, 2018, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2018, 12:13:55 PM
This entire project was designed back in the early 2000's, well before GPSs became a mainstay in most people's vehicles and on their phones. At that time, it was probably guessed that a lot of traffic would follow I-95's routing. Today, GPSs will encourage people to stay on the NJ Turnpike. The holdouts that will follow I-95 along with those needing to get to Philly, will go via 95, but probably not as many as envisioned.
So ... the NJTA was relying on people leaving the Turnpike early even though it's not a better option in terms of speed, and would cost them toll revenue? You'd think they'd be the ones to drag their feet, not the PTC, which only stands to gain revenue from the new interchange (yes, I get that the interchange is in PA and NJTA wasn't directly involved in building it, but I'm sure there is some sort of obstruction that could have gone on).
I would imagine that the PTC and NJTA were aware of the upcoming growth of GPS even back in the early 2000s, since the technology existed but was just not commonplace yet.
PennDOT finally indicates the flyovers as distinct segments of SR 0095 in their TIRe (https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/tire) map. Does anyone know if they've actually posted LRS markers?
Seems the I-95 portion of the Turnpike is still SR 7276. This they may not change...
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 31, 2018, 12:07:24 AM
PennDOT finally indicates the flyovers as distinct segments of SR 0095 in their TIRe (https://www.dot7.state.pa.us/tire) map.
PennDOT went shopping at Acronyms R Us, obviously...
ixnay
Quote from: ipeters61 on October 30, 2018, 09:38:24 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 30, 2018, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2018, 12:13:55 PM
This entire project was designed back in the early 2000's, well before GPSs became a mainstay in most people's vehicles and on their phones. At that time, it was probably guessed that a lot of traffic would follow I-95's routing. Today, GPSs will encourage people to stay on the NJ Turnpike. The holdouts that will follow I-95 along with those needing to get to Philly, will go via 95, but probably not as many as envisioned.
So ... the NJTA was relying on people leaving the Turnpike early even though it's not a better option in terms of speed, and would cost them toll revenue? You'd think they'd be the ones to drag their feet, not the PTC, which only stands to gain revenue from the new interchange (yes, I get that the interchange is in PA and NJTA wasn't directly involved in building it, but I'm sure there is some sort of obstruction that could have gone on).
I would imagine that the PTC and NJTA were aware of the upcoming growth of GPS even back in the early 2000s, since the technology existed but was just not commonplace yet.
I don't know if that's really possible. Take something today that is in its infancy, and predict how it would be used 15 years from now. We argue that on these forums about self-driving cars and such, and it's a huge debate. TVs 10 years ago predicted 3D technology would be the wave of the future, which self-combusted.
15 years ago, smart phones didn't really exist. Yeah, look up the history and there was a 'smart phone' at that time, but nothing like what we had today. The iPhone wasn't even released until 2007, when the smartphone era took off. GPSs weren't taking off until the later 2000s as well.
When I worked the NJ Turnpike from 2001 - 2004 collecting tolls, I would have people show me MapQuest printouts that detailed driving directions showing me how they got on the Turnpike behind a service plaza and that's how they didn't get a toll ticket. Nearly every printout detailed them to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge into Delaware, then to take Exit 5 onto I-95 South. As you may know, Exit 5 is for Rt. 141, not I-95 South. And driving, I would see people quite often pull to the left, then back out onto the real lanes for I-95 South. The technology honestly sucked at that time compared to what can be done today. Sure, it was much, much better than looking at a paper map...except when it took you the wrong way.
So I don't think there could be any real vision of GPSs being commonplace in cars at that time, when nearly nobody had GPSs. After all, if you can predict with accuracy this forum will be around in 15 years, or used in a different way in 15 years, it would be nearly impossible to predict such.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2018, 09:21:10 PM
When I worked the NJ Turnpike from 2001 - 2004 collecting tolls, I would have people show me MapQuest printouts that detailed driving directions showing me how they got on the Turnpike behind a service plaza and that's how they didn't get a toll ticket.
I didn't realize you could do that. It does look like there are "employees only" entrances, but I can't tell from GSV whether there is access from an employee parking lot onto the service area proper.
Quote
Nearly every printout detailed them to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge into Delaware, then to take Exit 5 onto I-95 South. As you may know, Exit 5 is for Rt. 141, not I-95 South. And driving, I would see people quite often pull to the left, then back out onto the real lanes for I-95 South. The technology honestly sucked at that time compared to what can be done today. Sure, it was much, much better than looking at a paper map...except when it took you the wrong way.
Why is exit 5 even signed there? You're not on I-95 yet and I-295 has no exit numbers. The only other place I can think of that used to have this is the new Atlantic City Expressway exit ramp to the Garden State Parkway. When that was under construction, the construction signage showed the Pleasantville exit off the ramp as Exit 37, because before construction you would enter the Parkway and take Exit 37 for this movement. Once the construction was over, they removed the exit tab from that ramp split, though.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 01, 2018, 09:32:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2018, 09:21:10 PM
When I worked the NJ Turnpike from 2001 - 2004 collecting tolls, I would have people show me MapQuest printouts that detailed driving directions showing me how they got on the Turnpike behind a service plaza and that's how they didn't get a toll ticket.
I didn't realize you could do that. It does look like there are "employees only" entrances, but I can't tell from GSV whether there is access from an employee parking lot onto the service area proper.
There's a gate between the employee parking area and the public area of the service area parking lot. They're rarely shut, which allows people to get on and off without paying. If a State Trooper is back there though, it's gonna cost someone a lot more than the toll they would've paid!
Quote
Nearly every printout detailed them to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge into Delaware, then to take Exit 5 onto I-95 South. As you may know, Exit 5 is for Rt. 141, not I-95 South. And driving, I would see people quite often pull to the left, then back out onto the real lanes for I-95 South. The technology honestly sucked at that time compared to what can be done today. Sure, it was much, much better than looking at a paper map...except when it took you the wrong way.
Why is exit 5 even signed there? You're not on I-95 yet and I-295 has no exit numbers. The only other place I can think of that used to have this is the new Atlantic City Expressway exit ramp to the Garden State Parkway. When that was under construction, the construction signage showed the Pleasantville exit off the ramp as Exit 37, because before construction you would enter the Parkway and take Exit 37 for this movement. Once the construction was over, they removed the exit tab from that ramp split, though.
[/quote]
I guess because it's all part of the I-95 interchange, they give it the interchange number found on the rest of the interchange. If it was I-295's exit number, it would be Exit 1 (or 0, if they used it).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 01, 2018, 07:27:11 PM
I guess because it's all part of the I-95 interchange, they give it the interchange number found on the rest of the interchange. If it was I-295's exit number, it would be Exit 1 (or 0, if they used it).
DelDOT has recently embraced the idea of Exit 0. The exit for I-295 North from I-495 South was recently signed as Exit 0, at least at the 2 mile advance (not sure why not beyond that). https://goo.gl/maps/qvbj2m6JV142
Also, interestingly, on I-495 South, I-95 Exit 5 is signed as "To Exit 5" but that could be because it leads you to the lanes on I-95 that face Exit 5/DE-141, not directly to DE-141.
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 01, 2018, 10:47:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 01, 2018, 07:27:11 PM
I guess because it's all part of the I-95 interchange, they give it the interchange number found on the rest of the interchange. If it was I-295's exit number, it would be Exit 1 (or 0, if they used it).
DelDOT has recently embraced the idea of Exit 0. The exit for I-295 North from I-495 South was recently signed as Exit 0, at least at the 2 mile advance (not sure why not beyond that). https://goo.gl/maps/qvbj2m6JV142
Since it's within the DRBA's jurisdiction, I guess DelDOT and DRBA would needs to work with each other on that exit number.
On the NJ side of the bridge, Exit 1A is clearly within DRBA's jurisdiction as well, although NJDOT makes them use the exit number on it. Could be the case for Rt. 141 as well. That just leaves the DE 9 and US 13/40 interchanges numberless.
Got a few points:
1) Why isn't Philadelphia used as a control city for the NJTP southbound from the GWB?
In fact, even on the GWB in NY, they sign 'Trenton' or 'NJ' going south on I-95, YET if you go on I-95 north they use 'New Haven' as a control city.
I'm not a Philly fan, but I don't get why Philly is so snubbed, it's the 5th or so largest US metro area.
If you are going to sign 'New Haven' which is 130,000 people 70 miles away, why not sign 'Philadelphia' which is 1 million people and 90 miles away?
2) In regards to the I-95/PATP interchange:
-Isn't I-95 from the NJTP to the PATP/I-295 junction in PA supposed to be widened (including the bridge)?
3) Why is it that I-95 in NJ from the NJTP to the PA border DOES NOT intersect with I-295 in NJ?
-Very weird that an interstates spur route would not connect.
-It would make sense for it to connect, this way motorists exiting the NJTP at 6 could use I-295 to head to Camden/NJ suburbs of Philly or go into PA to get to Philly.
Quote from: Beltway on October 01, 2018, 10:49:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 01, 2018, 10:28:43 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 30, 2018, 04:41:30 PM
Can anyone really justify not using Philly as the main I-95 control city between Baltimore and NYC? The whole section from Baltimore to NYC needs an overhaul in control city signage, IMHO.
Philadelphia is inconsequential.
Give it some more time. They were bypassed by a superhighway in Delaware and New Jersey back in 1951. It is only in 2018 that a continuous I-95 route now exists.
I keep in mind how many of us take for granted just the brilliance of the NJTP in South Jersey.
It should have been a model for ALL major cities, especially DC, on how to properly divide and move local/long distance traffic.
I love it.
-The NJTP from the DE Bridge north is for New York/Northeast long distance traffic.
-I-295 in NJ is for local Philly suburb traffic
-I-95 from DE north is for Philly/PA suburb traffic
Brilliant, and so easy to take for granted.
Then you have DC, where there is just ONE road (I-95) which doesn't even bisect the central core and has both direct DC traffic, local DC suburb traffic, AND long distance Northeast to FL traffic. Just terrible.
It is amazing how they did it so right with the Philly model.
I have thought, if the NJTP/I-95 was conceived 20 years later or nowadays, would we have gotten three parallel northbound interstates in the Philly area or would we have all been stuck on either I-95 going through Philly or I-295 would have been shared like I-495 in MD/VA is between local and long distance traffic?
It would have made the trip from NY south so much worse.
Anybody else ever think that?
Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north). Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed. I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s. Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.
The "Philly model" with respect to the NJ Turnpike and I-295, one a bypass for thru traffic and the other a local freeway -- keep in mind that this was the work of New Jersey and Delaware, Pennsylvania had nothing to do with it.
Th D.C. area -- three freeway routes possible for I-95 thru traffic, the eastern half of the Beltway, the western half of the Beltway, and the route thru the city (I-395, I-695, Kenilworth, BW Parkway). Not that the area doesn't need an outer bypass!!!
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2018, 04:16:12 PM
The "Philly model" with respect to the NJ Turnpike and I-295, one a bypass for thru traffic and the other a local freeway -- keep in mind that this was the work of New Jersey and Delaware, Pennsylvania had nothing to do with it.
Technically, 295 was a byproduct of the feds designing the interstate system, and Delaware definitely had something to do with it as it branches off from 95 there.
And based on the plans at the time, it's how PennDOT designed their portion of 95.
I believe I-95 was originally supposed to go straight through Washington DC, but it was never built. So the east half of the Beltway became I-95 instead. Same is true in Boston I believe. There SR 128 became I-95 in a similar re-routing. Apologies for being off-topic.
^ Yes, the Southeast Expressway was supposed to carry I-95 into Boston.
I-395 in Virginia and D.C. formerly was I-95, and unbuilt I-95 would have been the North Central Freeway and Northeast Freeway in D.C. and Maryland, connecting into I-95 at I-495.
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2018, 04:16:12 PM
Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north). Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed. I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s. Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.
Its doubtful the NJ Turnpike Authority is going to change the southbound control cites on all their signs from Trenton/Camden to Philadelphia. They were all recently replaced and no provision was made to change the control city after the interchange opened.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 04, 2018, 12:17:44 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2018, 04:16:12 PM
Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north). Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed. I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s. Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.
Its doubtful the NJ Turnpike Authority is going to change the southbound control cites on all their signs from Trenton/Camden to Philadelphia. They were all recently replaced and no provision was made to change the control city after the interchange opened.
Based on the NJTA sign plans, the only control cities used on the SB Turnpike are Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington. Once you're at exit 6, I-95 SB is signed "Penn Turnpike - Philadelphia" on the Pearl Harbor Extension.
I don't see much signage changing within New York City either. Most of the signage refers to "Newark NJ". Older signs use "Trenton", and one or two say "New Jersey".
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 04, 2018, 12:17:44 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2018, 04:16:12 PM
Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north). Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed. I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s. Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.
Its doubtful the NJ Turnpike Authority is going to change the southbound control cites on all their signs from Trenton/Camden to Philadelphia. They were all recently replaced and no provision was made to change the control city after the interchange opened.
They certainly could, but they'll discuss internally, announce a decision through plan revisions (all acceptable control cities are listed on their Standard Drawings), and then cycle it in through sign replacements.
As for bluecountry's Question #2, I think both PA and NJ want to sit back and take stock of what is happening with traffic before making any decisions on widening. It's been known since the great bridge closure a year or two ago that the Delaware River Bridge needs to be replaced in the relatively short term, and the idea is probably going to be to pull an Egg Harbor - the new bridge would be wide enough for both directions of traffic, and then they can either reconstruct the existing bridge or construct a completely new one in its place. If traffic volumes warrant, both bridges will carry 3 lanes and enough widening will be done to connect them to existing 3-lane freeway. If traffic volumes don't warrant and don't appear to be growing that way, you may see the new bridge in one direction at 2 lanes and the other at 3. No final decision has been made about any of this to my knowledge.
They've already deviated from the published control cities twice, so who knows. Maybe they'll surprise us. I'd love to see New York City and Philadelphia share a sign at Exit 129 of the GSP.
Quote from: Alps on November 04, 2018, 12:15:36 PM
It's been known since the great bridge closure a year or two ago that the Delaware River Bridge needs to be replaced in the relatively short term,
Has there been a final determination made as to whether it can be rehabbed into being able to handle 3 lanes well into the future after a parallel bridge is built?
The original plan was to just build a parallel three-lane span and reconstruct the current bridge to carry three lanes in the other direction. I believe they settled on the new bridge to the south at one point. However, from speaking with the engineers at Brian Troutman's Golden Spike meet back in September, they're unsure of what they will do. A total replacement with a six-lane bridge is one possibility that they mentioned.
I think if they do twin it, the new bridge should be wide enough for four lanes plus a left and right shoulder. The old bridge certainly would be unless they drastically reduce the deck width for no reason. It would be a while before an eight-lane widening is warranted, though.
Quote from: Beltway on November 04, 2018, 03:37:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 04, 2018, 12:15:36 PM
It's been known since the great bridge closure a year or two ago that the Delaware River Bridge needs to be replaced in the relatively short term,
Has there been a final determination made as to whether it can be rehabbed into being able to handle 3 lanes well into the future after a parallel bridge is built?
Nope. I spoke too broadly. That is definitely one of the items under consideration that will be costed out.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 04, 2018, 06:22:01 PM
The original plan was to just build a parallel three-lane span and reconstruct the current bridge to carry three lanes in the other direction. I believe they settled on the new bridge to the south at one point. However, from speaking with the engineers at Brian Troutman's Golden Spike meet back in September, they're unsure of what they will do. A total replacement with a six-lane bridge is one possibility that they mentioned.
I think if they do twin it, the new bridge should be wide enough for four lanes plus a left and right shoulder. The old bridge certainly would be unless they drastically reduce the deck width for no reason. It would be a while before an eight-lane widening is warranted, though.
Don't forget the bike and pedestrian lane, because the regional bicycle coalition will remind everyone that many of their members want to bike between Bristol PA and Florence NJ, and they'll have 218 people send identical form letters with vague names and addresses to the Turnpikes reminding them of its importance to the region's economy and employment potential.
The existing bridge originally had 6 lanes and a painted lines divider and no shoulders. IOW at least 72 feet wide (6 lanes at 12 feet wide each).
So it is wide enough for a directional roadway with four 12-foot lanes and two 12-foot shoulders.
Quote from: Beltway on November 04, 2018, 09:56:01 PM
The existing bridge originally had 6 lanes and a painted lines divider and no shoulders. IOW at least 72 feet wide (6 lanes at 12 feet wide each).
So it is wide enough for a directional roadway with four 12-foot lanes and two 12-foot shoulders.
Did it really have only a painted center line right up to the time they reduced it to four lanes?
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on November 04, 2018, 07:37:39 AMBased on the NJTA sign plans, the only control cities used on the SB Turnpike are Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington. Once you're at exit 6, I-95 SB is signed "Penn Turnpike - Philadelphia" on the Pearl Harbor Extension.
Where are you finding these sign plans?
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 04, 2018, 10:13:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 04, 2018, 09:56:01 PM
The existing bridge originally had 6 lanes and a painted lines divider and no shoulders. IOW at least 72 feet wide (6 lanes at 12 feet wide each).
So it is wide enough for a directional roadway with four 12-foot lanes and two 12-foot shoulders.
Did it really have only a painted center line right up to the time they reduced it to four lanes?
That I am not sure about. Just that the above was what I saw when I lived in the area in the 1970s.
This postcard shows the bridge without a median barrier, and with lane-control light gantries --
https://www.hippostcard.com/listing/postcard-pennsylvania-delaware-river-bridge-turnpike-nj-free-shipping-2656a/16162492
Quote from: Beltway on November 04, 2018, 11:39:20 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 04, 2018, 10:13:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 04, 2018, 09:56:01 PM
The existing bridge originally had 6 lanes and a painted lines divider and no shoulders. IOW at least 72 feet wide (6 lanes at 12 feet wide each).
So it is wide enough for a directional roadway with four 12-foot lanes and two 12-foot shoulders.
Did it really have only a painted center line right up to the time they reduced it to four lanes?
That I am not sure about. Just that the above was what I saw when I lived in the area in the 1970s.
This postcard shows the bridge without a median barrier, and with lane-control light gantries --
https://www.hippostcard.com/listing/postcard-pennsylvania-delaware-river-bridge-turnpike-nj-free-shipping-2656a/16162492
1971 Historic Aerials show what appears to be 6 striped lanes, 3 each way with a solid or double-solid centerline, still with lane use gantries. At that resolution I can't confirm whether it's a centerline or a barrier, but it suggests the closure of the right lane was very close in time, if not contemporaneous, with barrier installation.
Quote from: bluecountry on November 03, 2018, 03:45:53 PM
Got a few points:
1) Why isn't Philadelphia used as a control city for the NJTP southbound from the GWB?
Because the highway itself doesn't enter into PA let alone Philadelphia. Keep in mind that the NJTP's existence
predates that of I-95. And when I-95 came to be; the original plan was to have it leave the NJTP at Exit 10 (I-287/NJ 440) and follow what is now I-287 to a point where the northern end of the cancelled Somerset Freeway portion of I-95 would've been built. Had such (the Somerset Freeway) been built as planned;
Philadelphia would've been likely displayed on either the primary signs for Exit 10 or via supplemental signage.
Heck, had NJ 90 been built further east to I-295 & NJTP (near/at Exit 4); such would've served as a direct link between those two parallel highways and Northeast Philadelphia.
Quote from: bluecountry on November 03, 2018, 03:45:53 PM
2) In regards to the I-95/PATP interchange:
-Isn't I-95 from the NJTP to the PATP/I-295 junction in PA supposed to be widened (including the bridge)?
When I first checked out the area following the interchange's opening; I did notice a widened but unused deck along the northern stretch of the westbound Turnpike (I-95 southbound). So it would
seem that a future widening of that stretch
is the ultimate plan.
Quote from: bluecountry on November 03, 2018, 03:45:53 PM
3) Why is it that I-95 in NJ from the NJTP to the PA border DOES NOT intersect with I-295 in NJ?
-Very weird that an interstates spur route would not connect.
-It would make sense for it to connect, this way motorists exiting the NJTP at 6 could use I-295 to head to Camden/NJ suburbs of Philly or go into PA to get to Philly.
I-295 in that area was built during the early 1970s(?) back when the fore-mentioned-plan for I-95 was to have it leave the NJTP at Exit 10. The reasoning for not building an interchange between I-295 & the Connector when the latter was built is not completely known other than either the conditions, at the time, didn't warrant it or the money to acquire the real-estate to build the interchange ramps
plus the required-toll plaza wasn't availble. Again it was likely assumed that I-95 in its original form along with the completion of I-195 to the west would've handled I-295 traffic coming from the north.
Quote from: jon daly on November 03, 2018, 09:52:31 PM
^ Yes, the Southeast Expressway was supposed to carry I-95 into Boston.
Since this comment is OT; I'll insert my reply here rather than another post. The Southeast Expressway was
not the original plan for how I-95 would enter/leave Boston to/from the south. I-95 at the Canton interchange w/then-just MA 128 was to be extended via the Southwest Expressway up to where it would connect with another unbuilt-expressway known as the Inner-Belt (I-695). From there, I-95 would've linked with the Fitzgerald Expressway system at the Mass Ave. interchange (its original configuration was a 3-way highway interchange). From there, it would have ran along the existing elevated Pulaski Skyway to the South Station Tunnel to the Central Artery to the Northeast Expressway/Tobin Bridge.
When plans to build both the Inner Belt & Southwest Expressway were killed off in 1970; there
was a plan to designate the Southeast Expressway and the Braintree-to-Canton stretch of MA 128 as a de-facto routing for I-95 south of Boston that lingered for about two years until the plan to extend the Northeast Expressway (then-I-95) north of MA 60 in Revere to where I-95 was being built in Peabody/Danvers (north of 128) was ultimately killed off. The result of the cancellation for
that project lead to the current routing of I-95 as well as the extension of I-93 to Canton.
The thing is that even nearby US 1 does not use Philly even though it goes through it. So basically Philly has gotten the raw end of the stick just like even in MD with New York on I-95 from Baltimore northward.
Considering that having the NJ Turnpike not using it is nothing else new.
Anyway, the NJ Turnpike was originally intended to be a bypass of Philadelphia and has no real freeway to it. NJ 42 has no connection to it. NJ 90 was scrapped as well. So up until now only did Philly and NYC have a direct freeway.
Now things could easily change. Maybe in ten years when the current signs become old or a change in MUTCD, the NJTA might consider Philadelphia, but not anytime soon.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2018, 02:20:01 PM
The thing is that even nearby US 1 does not use Philly even though it goes through it. So basically Philly has gotten the raw end of the stick just like even in MD with New York on I-95 from Baltimore northward.
I assume you are talking about US 1 in New Jersey. US 1 is a local road. Nobody would take US 1 all the way from Trenton to Philly.
I-295 used to sign Philadelphia at the US 1 interchange when it used become I-95 there. Those signs are all gone, but US 1 still has Philadelphia as the control city for "I-295 North TO I-95 South" (which may also explain why US 1 itself isn't signed "Philadelphia"), as do US 206 and NJ 31.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 05, 2018, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2018, 02:20:01 PM
The thing is that even nearby US 1 does not use Philly even though it goes through it. So basically Philly has gotten the raw end of the stick just like even in MD with New York on I-95 from Baltimore northward.
Nobody would take US 1 all the way from Trenton to Philly.
Sure they would. US 1 runs directly into Philly about 15 miles from Trenton.
It also depends where in Philly one wants to go. If they want to go to Center City, it may not make sense. But if they're going to Somerton or Bustleton, it makes perfect sense.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 05, 2018, 02:48:07 PMI-295 used to sign Philadelphia at the US 1 interchange when it used become I-95 there. Those signs are all gone, but US 1 still has Philadelphia as the control city for "I-295 North TO I-95 South" (which may also explain why US 1 itself isn't signed "Philadelphia"), as do US 206 and NJ 31.
It does. At that interchange, US 1 Southbound is signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2860106,-74.6931062,3a,75y,224.22h,75.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD8WH2IcK-bFfFArvEBq6JQ!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) for Trenton & Morrisville.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 05, 2018, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2018, 02:20:01 PM
The thing is that even nearby US 1 does not use Philly even though it goes through it. So basically Philly has gotten the raw end of the stick just like even in MD with New York on I-95 from Baltimore northward.
I assume you are talking about US 1 in New Jersey. US 1 is a local road. Nobody would take US 1 all the way from Trenton to Philly.
I-295 used to sign Philadelphia at the US 1 interchange when it used become I-95 there. Those signs are all gone, but US 1 still has Philadelphia as the control city for "I-295 North TO I-95 South" (which may also explain why US 1 itself isn't signed "Philadelphia"), as do US 206 and NJ 31.
Depends on where you are starting and where you are ending. If you are going to the northwestern parts of the city, and are starting fairy close to US 1 in Trenton or points northeast, then US 1 all the way may well be the right way to go, or at least have only a modest reduction in time compared to hopping on I-295/I-95.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 05, 2018, 02:56:16 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 05, 2018, 02:48:07 PMI-295 used to sign Philadelphia at the US 1 interchange when it used become I-95 there. Those signs are all gone, but US 1 still has Philadelphia as the control city for "I-295 North TO I-95 South" (which may also explain why US 1 itself isn't signed "Philadelphia"), as do US 206 and NJ 31.
It does. At that interchange, US 1 Southbound is signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2860106,-74.6931062,3a,75y,224.22h,75.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD8WH2IcK-bFfFArvEBq6JQ!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) for Trenton & Morrisville.
BTW, one thing the signing/designation of I-295 fixed was the silliness of not signing Trenton at the US 1 exit in PA (Formerly Exit 46, maybe Exit 5 now? I don't recall). Formerly, US 1 was signed as just Morrisville, while even on US 1 NB, US 1 NB was signed for Morrisville while I-95 NB was signed for Trenton (which made ZERO sense if you were actually going to Trenton).
Quote from: famartin on November 05, 2018, 03:10:43 PMBTW, one thing the signing/designation of I-295 fixed was the silliness of not signing Trenton at the US 1 exit in PA (Formerly Exit 46, maybe Exit 5 now? I don't recall). Formerly, US 1 was signed as just Morrisville, while even on US 1 NB, US 1 NB was signed for Morrisville while I-95 NB was signed for Trenton (which made ZERO sense if you were actually going to Trenton).
I completely agree. Although for the US 1 North ramp signage along I-295 Westbound/Delaware Expressway Southbound, IMHO, could've kept its
Morrisville legend for the simple reason that the traffic in that direction (I-295 West) is already coming from the Trenton area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 05, 2018, 02:52:45 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 05, 2018, 02:48:07 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2018, 02:20:01 PM
The thing is that even nearby US 1 does not use Philly even though it goes through it. So basically Philly has gotten the raw end of the stick just like even in MD with New York on I-95 from Baltimore northward.
Nobody would take US 1 all the way from Trenton to Philly.
Sure they would. US 1 runs directly into Philly about 15 miles from Trenton.
In fact, US 1 is THE way between Northeast Phila and Trenton, unless you live close to an I-95 interchange, in which case you'd take I-95 (and old I-95) to US 1 to Trenton. But you'd still use US 1.
US 1 is a freeway for the entire distance except for a short length just outside the Phila border. It's very convenient.
When I lived in Northeast Phila, I used the US 1 expressway every time I drove to Trenton and back.
US 1 is all freeway from Business US 1 in Lawrence to PA 132 in Trevose, PA. It could be another great route into Philly from Central Jersey.
Though I was talking about in North Jersey as Trenton was always the main control city going SB from Newark and that Philadelphia never made it on any signs the rest of the way in NJ. Yes some decades ago Philly was used in Newark, but never appeared again since.
I thought I saw Philadelphia mentioned near one of the smaller Delaware river bridges up north. I think it wasn't pointing across the bridge, but south on some minor state or county road in NJ.
There is one on NJ 179 at CR 579 in Ringoes pointing further south on NJ 179. That is leftover from when US 202 went through Ringoes (and been copied over for some time) but the intention was to follow old US 202 (now 179) and to PA 263 and use that one into Philly basically using the Old York Road alignment south of there.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 04, 2018, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on November 04, 2018, 07:37:39 AMBased on the NJTA sign plans, the only control cities used on the SB Turnpike are Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington. Once you're at exit 6, I-95 SB is signed "Penn Turnpike - Philadelphia" on the Pearl Harbor Extension.
Where are you finding these sign plans?
I saw sign plans on the NJ Turnpike Authority website. There are a few examples in PDFs. I don't know if there's a 2018 version. What's online is from 2015 or 2016.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on November 10, 2018, 03:09:16 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 04, 2018, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on November 04, 2018, 07:37:39 AMBased on the NJTA sign plans, the only control cities used on the SB Turnpike are Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington. Once you're at exit 6, I-95 SB is signed "Penn Turnpike - Philadelphia" on the Pearl Harbor Extension.
Where are you finding these sign plans?
I saw sign plans on the NJ Turnpike Authority website. There are a few examples in PDFs. I don't know if there's a 2018 version. What's online is from 2015 or 2016.
That stuff is typically updated as needed. Since the Turnpike has all new pull-thru signage, there doesn't appear to be any reason to update it anytime soon.
FYI; as of this past weekend, no additional I-95 shields have yet been added to the existing NJTP signs between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge. There are still some blank spaces on those signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 09:04:25 AM
FYI; as of this past weekend, no additional I-95 shields have yet been added to the existing NJTP signs between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge. There are still some blank spaces on those signs.
I noticed that, too, on the ramps at Exit 6A -- I was on them Saturday afternoon, expecting to see updates on those panels, but no change there, either . . .
Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday will be the ultimate tests of how the region processes traffic with the new 95 routing. It should be looked at from, say, Route 1 in Delaware to Exit 8 on the NJ Turnpike, as that will encompass all the possible routing options with 95, 295, 495 and the NJ Tpk.
It's also going to be a test to see how many people that follow the I-95 signage going south actually pay the open road toll. That won't be known for a few months after the initial invoice goes out, along with the late notices. Many people driving Thanksgiving weekend aren't used to the toll structure, and they're going to be surprised at a bill a month later when they already paid $10 or $20 in tolls.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 09:04:25 AM
FYI; as of this past weekend, no additional I-95 shields have yet been added to the existing NJTP signs between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge. There are still some blank spaces on those signs.
NJDOT only took about 2 months to get the NJ 18 shields up when that was completed. Can the NJTA really be slower?!
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2018, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 09:04:25 AM
FYI; as of this past weekend, no additional I-95 shields have yet been added to the existing NJTP signs between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge. There are still some blank spaces on those signs.
NJDOT only took about 2 months to get the NJ 18 shields up when that was completed. Can the NJTA really be slower?!
I think it's more a question of how much they care. I'm pretty sure the answer is very little.
Quote from: storm2k on November 20, 2018, 02:32:38 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2018, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 09:04:25 AM
FYI; as of this past weekend, no additional I-95 shields have yet been added to the existing NJTP signs between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge. There are still some blank spaces on those signs.
NJDOT only took about 2 months to get the NJ 18 shields up when that was completed. Can the NJTA really be slower?!
I think it's more a question of how much they care. I'm pretty sure the answer is very little.
was it in this FY budget? even if it was, given the number of delays in the project as a whole, it wouldn't surprise me if the funds were reallocated when someone hedged against the two ramps actually being completed this year.
Quote from: odditude on November 20, 2018, 09:59:39 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 20, 2018, 02:32:38 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2018, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 09:04:25 AM
FYI; as of this past weekend, no additional I-95 shields have yet been added to the existing NJTP signs between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge. There are still some blank spaces on those signs.
NJDOT only took about 2 months to get the NJ 18 shields up when that was completed. Can the NJTA really be slower?!
I think it's more a question of how much they care. I'm pretty sure the answer is very little.
was it in this FY budget? even if it was, given the number of delays in the project as a whole, it wouldn't surprise me if the funds were reallocated when someone hedged against the two ramps actually being completed this year.
Given that
some of NJTA's signs were modified when the ramps opened, that reasoning falls flat; especially since NJDOT has long since modified their applicable signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: odditude on November 20, 2018, 09:59:39 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 20, 2018, 02:32:38 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2018, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 09:04:25 AM
FYI; as of this past weekend, no additional I-95 shields have yet been added to the existing NJTP signs between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge. There are still some blank spaces on those signs.
NJDOT only took about 2 months to get the NJ 18 shields up when that was completed. Can the NJTA really be slower?!
I think it's more a question of how much they care. I'm pretty sure the answer is very little.
was it in this FY budget? even if it was, given the number of delays in the project as a whole, it wouldn't surprise me if the funds were reallocated when someone hedged against the two ramps actually being completed this year.
Given that some of NJTA's signs were modified when the ramps opened, that reasoning falls flat; especially since NJDOT has long since modified their applicable signs.
NJDOT and NJTA budgeting would be completely independent, so NJDOT's completion isn't really relevant here. as for the partial completion - you're absolutely right, unless NJTA allows for budget lines to be partially reallocated.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 11:23:28 AM
Quote from: odditude on November 20, 2018, 09:59:39 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 20, 2018, 02:32:38 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 19, 2018, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 19, 2018, 09:04:25 AM
FYI; as of this past weekend, no additional I-95 shields have yet been added to the existing NJTP signs between Exits 8A and the Delaware River Bridge. There are still some blank spaces on those signs.
NJDOT only took about 2 months to get the NJ 18 shields up when that was completed. Can the NJTA really be slower?!
I think it's more a question of how much they care. I'm pretty sure the answer is very little.
was it in this FY budget? even if it was, given the number of delays in the project as a whole, it wouldn't surprise me if the funds were reallocated when someone hedged against the two ramps actually being completed this year.
Given that some of NJTA's signs were modified when the ramps opened, that reasoning falls flat; especially since NJDOT has long since modified their applicable signs.
If I understand correctly, aside from a single new I-95 reassurance marker, only signs already sporting I-95 shields were uncovered, i.e. no new signs or modifications occurred in NJTA land.
Quote from: odditude on November 20, 2018, 01:19:19 PM
NJDOT and NJTA budgeting would be completely independent, so NJDOT's completion isn't really relevant here.
Fair enough.
Quote from: odditude on November 20, 2018, 01:19:19 PMas for the partial completion - you're absolutely right, unless NJTA allows for budget lines to be partially reallocated.
Additionally & as stated
multiple times upthread; NJTA, IMHO, has/had absolutely
no excuse not to sign the Turnpike north of Exit 7A as I-95 since the early 90s (when I-195 connected to at least the northern stretch of I-295). The signs erected during the recent widening (from roughly Exit 8A down to Exit 6) project included blank spaces large enough to accommodate the I-95 shields. Had NJTA placed shields on
all of the applicable signs north of Exit 7A when such were first erected; the number of remaining sign updates & limits of work would've been much smaller (& less costly).
Quote from: bzakharin on November 20, 2018, 01:30:39 PMIf I understand correctly, aside from a single new I-95 reassurance marker, only signs already sporting I-95 shields were uncovered, i.e. no new signs or modifications occurred in NJTA land.
This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0963246,-74.7400035,3a,75y,62.73h,109.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTac4AuRWkJLlXMRGMWkt3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has since had an I-95 shield placed on it. Even more odd was that the sign legend layout wasn't originally planned for two shields (the NJTP shield &
NORTH cardinal would've been positioned more towards the right). Had the control city legend just read
New York rather than
New York City; there may not have been room for the I-95 shield. Definite oversight on either part of the fabricator and/or designer.
I didn't take pictures of it (shame on me) but I think the pull-throughs at the US 130 exit also have had 95 shields posted on them. I have pictures of the before with no cover panels, but not the current.
Here are the pull-throughs at Exit 6 that I do have before and after's of:
Mainline northbound before:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-05-21_18_24_41_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_(New_Jersey_Turnpike)_at_Exit_6_(Interstate_276_WEST,_Pennsylvania_Turnpike)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg
Mainline northbound after:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-23_16_05_10_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_(New_Jersey_Turnpike)_at_Exit_6_(Interstate_95_SOUTH_to_Interstate_276_WEST,_Pennsylvania_Turnpike,_Philadelphia)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg
Penn Extension northbound before:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-05-21_17_10_20_View_north_along_Interstate_95_(New_Jersey_Turnpike_Pennsylvania_Extension)_at_the_exit_for_the_New_Jersey_Turnpike_SOUTH_(Camden,_Wilmington)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg
Penn Extension northbound after:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-23_15_50_15_View_north_along_Interstate_95_(New_Jersey_Turnpike_Pennsylvania_Extension)_at_the_exit_for_the_New_Jersey_Turnpike_SOUTH_(Camden,_Wilmington)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg
Quote from: famartin on November 20, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
I didn't take pictures of it (shame on me) but I think the pull-throughs at the US 130 exit also have had 95 shields posted on them.
As of this past Saturday; yes for the south/westbound pull-throughs; no for the north/eastbound pull-throughs.
Descriptions & links merged together in the below-quotes:
Quote from: famartin on November 20, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
Here are the pull-throughs at Exit 6 that I do have before and after's of:
Mainline northbound before (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-05-21_18_24_41_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_(New_Jersey_Turnpike)_at_Exit_6_(Interstate_276_WEST,_Pennsylvania_Turnpike)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg)
Mainline northbound after (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-23_16_05_10_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_(New_Jersey_Turnpike)_at_Exit_6_(Interstate_95_SOUTH_to_Interstate_276_WEST,_Pennsylvania_Turnpike,_Philadelphia)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg)
Good to know regarding that one; such hasn't received much
press coverage as of late.
Quote from: famartin on November 20, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
Penn Extension northbound before (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-05-21_17_10_20_View_north_along_Interstate_95_(New_Jersey_Turnpike_Pennsylvania_Extension)_at_the_exit_for_the_New_Jersey_Turnpike_SOUTH_(Camden,_Wilmington)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg)
Penn Extension northbound after (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-23_15_50_15_View_north_along_Interstate_95_(New_Jersey_Turnpike_Pennsylvania_Extension)_at_the_exit_for_the_New_Jersey_Turnpike_SOUTH_(Camden,_Wilmington)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg)
As mentioned in my previous post; I would like to know what the designer/fabricator was thinking when those northbound pull-through signs were made with regards to the centering of the
NJTP NORTH legend. It appears that
both signs were designed for only one route shield in mind rather than two.
For comparison purposes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3432871,-74.4766352,3a,75y,14h,70.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv7_kVkY9L7LRWjLtnuxwug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) regarding the centering for signs with (ultimately) two route shields.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 03:02:46 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 20, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
I didn't take pictures of it (shame on me) but I think the pull-throughs at the US 130 exit also have had 95 shields posted on them.
As of this past Saturday; yes for the south/westbound pull-throughs; no for the north/eastbound pull-throughs.
Descriptions & links merged together in the below-quotes:
Quote from: famartin on November 20, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
Here are the pull-throughs at Exit 6 that I do have before and after's of:
Mainline northbound before (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-05-21_18_24_41_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_(New_Jersey_Turnpike)_at_Exit_6_(Interstate_276_WEST,_Pennsylvania_Turnpike)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg)
Mainline northbound after (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-23_16_05_10_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_(New_Jersey_Turnpike)_at_Exit_6_(Interstate_95_SOUTH_to_Interstate_276_WEST,_Pennsylvania_Turnpike,_Philadelphia)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg)
Good to know regarding that one; such hasn't received much press coverage as of late.
Quote from: famartin on November 20, 2018, 02:26:15 PM
Penn Extension northbound before (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-05-21_17_10_20_View_north_along_Interstate_95_(New_Jersey_Turnpike_Pennsylvania_Extension)_at_the_exit_for_the_New_Jersey_Turnpike_SOUTH_(Camden,_Wilmington)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg)
Penn Extension northbound after (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-23_15_50_15_View_north_along_Interstate_95_(New_Jersey_Turnpike_Pennsylvania_Extension)_at_the_exit_for_the_New_Jersey_Turnpike_SOUTH_(Camden,_Wilmington)_in_Mansfield_Township,_Burlington_County,_New_Jersey.jpg)
As mentioned in my previous post; I would like to know what the designer/fabricator was thinking when those northbound pull-through signs were made with regards to the centering of the NJTP NORTH legend. It appears that both signs were designed for only one route shield in mind rather than two.
For comparison purposes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3432871,-74.4766352,3a,75y,14h,70.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv7_kVkY9L7LRWjLtnuxwug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) regarding the centering for signs with (ultimately) two route shields.
The NJTP shield and word NORTH were definitely put a little too far to the left, but they're still noticeably off-center to the point where if you hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have realized that the final setup is slightly to the left of center.
For a recap, the following pull-through NJTP signs still do not yet have I-95 shields placed on them:
Exits 8A, 8, 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A, north/eastbound only)
Ramp signs beyond the toll plazas that currently do not yet have I-95 shields on them:
Exits 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A).
Did Jim update former I-95 around Trenton, New Jersey/Langhorne, Pennsylvania to I-295?
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 01:34:52 PM
Additionally & as stated multiple times upthread; NJTA, IMHO, has/had absolutely no excuse not to sign the Turnpike north of Exit 7A as I-95 since the early 90s (when I-195 connected to at least the northern stretch of I-295). The signs erected during the recent widening (from roughly Exit 8A down to Exit 6) project included blank spaces large enough to accommodate the I-95 shields. Had NJTA placed shields on all of the applicable signs north of Exit 7A when such were first erected; the number of remaining sign updates & limits of work would've been much smaller (& less costly).
i'm with you 100% there. i'm talking about budgeting / reallocation, though, not common sense - unfortunately, it's pretty easy to argue that they don't always have a lot in common!
^^As the designer of the Exit 6 pull through signs, I can tell you what I was thinking ... the design plans provided the appropriate spacing for the I-95 shields. Guessing that it was a fabrication issue, as I did not review the shop drawing submittals.
It's not overly noticeable. It would have been replaced or overlaid if it were really out of whack. Shit happens ...
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 04:53:17 PM
For a recap, the following pull-through NJTP signs still do not yet have I-95 shields placed on them:
Exits 8A, 8, 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A, north/eastbound only)
Ramp signs beyond the toll plazas that currently do not yet have I-95 shields on them:
Exits 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A).
Is anyone going to blame PennDot for this?
Quote from: epzik8 on November 20, 2018, 04:59:27 PM
Did Jim update former I-95 around Trenton, New Jersey/Langhorne, Pennsylvania to I-295?
Yes.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on November 20, 2018, 09:53:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 04:53:17 PM
For a recap, the following pull-through NJTP signs still do not yet have I-95 shields placed on them:
Exits 8A, 8, 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A, north/eastbound only)
Ramp signs beyond the toll plazas that currently do not yet have I-95 shields on them:
Exits 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A).
Is anyone going to blame PennDot for this?
They were 4 years late in getting their project done, so yeah, why not!
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
My iPhone maps (not google) has shown a stretch of I-95 in Philly closed for weeks. I just checked and it still insists that the turnpike is faster.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
The Goog claims it's still 10 minutes faster (as of 6:20 pm) to take the Turnpoo (there's some orange on I-95 in Philly).
Quote from: NE2 on November 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
The Goog claims it's still 10 minutes faster (as of 6:20 pm) to take the Turnpoo (there's some orange on I-95 in Philly).
Are you using the ap? The web version just sends you down I-95.
Quote from: famartin on November 21, 2018, 06:34:10 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 21, 2018, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
The Goog claims it's still 10 minutes faster (as of 6:20 pm) to take the Turnpoo (there's some orange on I-95 in Philly).
Are you using the ap? The web version just sends you down I-95.
Nope. Now there's no backup so fuck it.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
When traffic is free-flowing, the Turnpike is about 6 minutes or so faster than 95. So if 95 had a delay in PA relatively equivalent to or even slightly less than the one on the NJ Turnpike, the Turnpike would still be the better way to go.
There was definitely orange and red on 95 around the time you looked (because I was checking area traffic in general around the same time), so most likely 95 was still the slower option.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2018, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
When traffic is free-flowing, the Turnpike is about 6 minutes or so faster than 95. So if 95 had a delay in PA relatively equivalent to or even slightly less than the one on the NJ Turnpike, the Turnpike would still be the better way to go.
I don't think that's correct.
Quote from: famartin on November 21, 2018, 09:02:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2018, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
When traffic is free-flowing, the Turnpike is about 6 minutes or so faster than 95. So if 95 had a delay in PA relatively equivalent to or even slightly less than the one on the NJ Turnpike, the Turnpike would still be the better way to go.
I don't think that's correct.
What do you think it should be then? 12:40am, and Google is showing no congestion. The time difference is still 6 minutes, with the NJ Turnpike being the faster route.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2018, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 21, 2018, 09:02:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2018, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
When traffic is free-flowing, the Turnpike is about 6 minutes or so faster than 95. So if 95 had a delay in PA relatively equivalent to or even slightly less than the one on the NJ Turnpike, the Turnpike would still be the better way to go.
I don't think that's correct.
What do you think it should be then? 12:40am, and Google is showing no congestion. The time difference is still 6 minutes, with the NJ Turnpike being the faster route.
Is that an ap? Web version clearly shows I-95. If I could figure out how to attach images, I would.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Philadelphia,+PA/New+York/@40.3404249,-75.145265,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c6b7d8d4b54beb:0x89f514d88c3e58c1!2m2!1d-75.1652215!2d39.9525839!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!3e0
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York/Philadelphia,+PA/@40.3404249,-75.145265,9z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c6b7d8d4b54beb:0x89f514d88c3e58c1!2m2!1d-75.1652215!2d39.9525839!3e0
Is that first one telling you to use Old York Road (CR 514) and bypass Flemington?
I find that odd that it did not choose US 1 as the first alternate.
Quote from: famartin on November 22, 2018, 12:57:36 AM
[directions to Philly]
That's the problem. The majority of Turnpike travelers are going beyond into Delaware, so that's what we all set our destination to.
I took I-95 instead of the NJTP just to see it.
I wouldn't do it again, the NJTP is definitely easier (wider lanes, fewer traffic).
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on November 04, 2018, 07:37:39 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 04, 2018, 12:17:44 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 03, 2018, 04:16:12 PM
Until a few weeks ago I-95 was not complete between Philadelphia/SE PA and the GW Bridge (or to the north). Not appropriate for control city signing until that was completed. I-95 passes thru New Haven and is completed between the GW Bridge and Canada, and has been since the 1970s. Make sense to use New Haven as a control city.
Its doubtful the NJ Turnpike Authority is going to change the southbound control cites on all their signs from Trenton/Camden to Philadelphia. They were all recently replaced and no provision was made to change the control city after the interchange opened.
Based on the NJTA sign plans, the only control cities used on the SB Turnpike are Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington. Once you're at exit 6, I-95 SB is signed "Penn Turnpike - Philadelphia" on the Pearl Harbor Extension.
I don't see much signage changing within New York City either. Most of the signage refers to "Newark NJ". Older signs use "Trenton", and one or two say "New Jersey".
So maybe once the signs need replaced, Philadelphia will be used as the control city?
I'd like to re-ask:
I have thought, if the NJTP/I-95 was conceived 20 years later or nowadays, would we have gotten three parallel northbound interstates in the Philly area or would we have all been stuck on either I-95 going through Philly or I-295 would have been shared like I-495 in MD/VA is between local and long distance traffic?
It would have made the trip from NY south so much worse.
Anybody else ever think that?
Quote from: famartin on November 22, 2018, 12:57:36 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2018, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 21, 2018, 09:02:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2018, 08:19:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 21, 2018, 05:39:52 PM
Google Maps Traffic is currently showing a lengthy southbound back-up on the NJTP approaching Exit 4. This is quite typical for the night before Thanksgiving Day.
Shouldn't their GPS equipment have directed these drivers to remain on I-95 so as to avoid this delay?
When traffic is free-flowing, the Turnpike is about 6 minutes or so faster than 95. So if 95 had a delay in PA relatively equivalent to or even slightly less than the one on the NJ Turnpike, the Turnpike would still be the better way to go.
I don't think that's correct.
What do you think it should be then? 12:40am, and Google is showing no congestion. The time difference is still 6 minutes, with the NJ Turnpike being the faster route.
Is that an ap? Web version clearly shows I-95. If I could figure out how to attach images, I would.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Philadelphia,+PA/New+York/@40.3404249,-75.145265,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c6b7d8d4b54beb:0x89f514d88c3e58c1!2m2!1d-75.1652215!2d39.9525839!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!3e0
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York/Philadelphia,+PA/@40.3404249,-75.145265,9z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c6b7d8d4b54beb:0x89f514d88c3e58c1!2m2!1d-75.1652215!2d39.9525839!3e0
As NE2 said, we're considering what most of the traffic is doing: going from points North of North Jersey to Delaware and points South (and vice versa). Choosing a destination inbetween dramatically alters the results.
Quote from: bluecountry on November 22, 2018, 09:05:31 AM
I'd like to re-ask:
I have thought, if the NJTP/I-95 was conceived 20 years later or nowadays, would we have gotten three parallel northbound interstates in the Philly area or would we have all been stuck on either I-95 going through Philly or I-295 would have been shared like I-495 in MD/VA is between local and long distance traffic?
It would have made the trip from NY south so much worse.
Anybody else ever think that?
We don't have 3 interstates. We have one: I-95. I-295 is a bypass of 95, found around most major cities. NJ Turnpike is essentially a private roadway.
295 definitely still would exist. The Turnpike served as a great bypass also in a congested region, so no reason it wouldn't exist as well. Much like the Balt-Wash Parkway.
If I-95 got routed on the whole NJ Turnpike would I-295 ever been built or even the Delaware Expressway in DE in PA is a better question?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2018, 09:35:26 AM
If I-95 got routed on the whole NJ Turnpike would I-295 ever been built or even the Delaware Expressway in DE in PA is a better question?
And no north-south interstate thru Philly at all? Highly doubtful.
Quote from: bluecountry on November 22, 2018, 09:05:31 AM
I'd like to re-ask:
I have thought, if the NJTP/I-95 was conceived 20 years later or nowadays, would we have gotten three parallel northbound interstates in the Philly area or would we have all been stuck on either I-95 going through Philly or I-295 would have been shared like I-495 in MD/VA is between local and long distance traffic?
It would have made the trip from NY south so much worse.
Anybody else ever think that?
Definitely probable. I've said many times in the past that when DE and NJ teamed up to build a superhighway SE PA and Philadelphia bypass long before the beginning of the Interstate system, that they created a bypass that is still unique. Nothing guaranteed about a Delaware Memorial Bridge being built where it was built, and no guarantee that an I-295 would be routed there if an NJTP hadn't been built.
If the freeway system around Philadelphia and thru NJ didn't exist by now, they'd have a hard time building anything, thanks to the built-up areas everything would need to go through and environmental laws, not to mention the money and/or funding by the feds. Then again, if the freeway system didn't exist, maybe the built-up areas would be a lot more sparse, allowing the Turnpike to be built through completely undeveloped areas. It would have to take a more easterly route to avoid the Philadelphia suburbs that would have existed no matter what, and then a more westerly route through North Jersey, maybe even terminating at the Garden State Parkway, assuming that still existed, or use the Parkway's route into New York state, if not. Similarly, any I-95 would have to bypass Philadelphia, maybe via I-476 and the PA Turnpike.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or when this was done, but going north on the NJ Turnpike today, I see a JCT I-95 approaching exit 6, and then JCT NORTH I-95 right before the I-95 lanes join the main line. There is also a directionless I-95 shield approaching exit 7A, probably used to have a "TO" that was removed.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 22, 2018, 11:28:45 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or when this was done, but going north on the NJ Turnpike today, I see a JCT I-95 approaching exit 6, and then JCT NORTH I-95 right before the I-95 lanes join the main line. There is also a directionless I-95 shield approaching exit 7A, probably used to have a "TO" that was removed.
That I-95 shield has been there since the late 90s at least, but even back then, did not have a "To" banner. Not sure about before the late 90s, as I don't think I ever drove down the turnpike south of 7A before 1999, but in 1999, that shield was there, without the "To".
Quote from: bzakharin on November 22, 2018, 11:28:45 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or when this was done, but going north on the NJ Turnpike today, I see a JCT I-95 approaching exit 6, and then JCT NORTH I-95 right before the I-95 lanes join the main line. There is also a directionless I-95 shield approaching exit 7A, probably used to have a "TO" that was removed.
Also of note, the only I-95 shield in NJ with a direction banner on I-95 itself that I know of is just north of Exit 18E, in the median. There could be one or more others, but I drove the whole stretch multiple times this year, and that's the only one I saw with a banner. In any case, it says "I-95 north", probably because that's where you leave the ticket system and are on "Free I-95".
Here's that I-95 shield you speak of south of 7A. I took this picture last October.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017-10-02_12_57_46_View_north_along_Interstate_95_(New_Jersey_Turnpike)_just_south_of_Exit_7A_(Interstate_195,_Trenton,_Shore_Points)_in_Hamilton_Township,_Mercer_County,_New_Jersey.jpg
And here's the one just north of Exit 18E I mentioned, with the "NORTH" banner. (If anyone knows of another, do let me know, because I'd love to photograph it). I took this just this past September, a day after the interchange ramps in PA opened.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-23_12_12_52_IMG_3106_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg
Quote from: famartin on November 23, 2018, 02:15:56 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 22, 2018, 11:28:45 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or when this was done, but going north on the NJ Turnpike today, I see a JCT I-95 approaching exit 6, and then JCT NORTH I-95 right before the I-95 lanes join the main line. There is also a directionless I-95 shield approaching exit 7A, probably used to have a "TO" that was removed.
Also of note, the only I-95 shield in NJ with a direction banner on I-95 itself that I know of is just north of Exit 18E, in the median. There could be one or more others, but I drove the whole stretch multiple times this year, and that's the only one I saw with a banner. In any case, it says "I-95 north", probably because that's where you leave the ticket system and are on "Free I-95".
Have you driven thru Interchange 6 from Interchange 5 (or points south) since the PA ramps were opened? I believe the ones bzakharin is referring to are a North 95/NJ Tpk sign on the shoulder within the Interchange 6 ramps inner roadway, and then a North 95/NJ TPK sign just after the Interchange 6 ramps meet the mainline. These appeared just after the 95 ramps opened in PA.
That sign is exactly at MM52.0.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2018, 07:08:17 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 23, 2018, 02:15:56 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 22, 2018, 11:28:45 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or when this was done, but going north on the NJ Turnpike today, I see a JCT I-95 approaching exit 6, and then JCT NORTH I-95 right before the I-95 lanes join the main line. There is also a directionless I-95 shield approaching exit 7A, probably used to have a "TO" that was removed.
Also of note, the only I-95 shield in NJ with a direction banner on I-95 itself that I know of is just north of Exit 18E, in the median. There could be one or more others, but I drove the whole stretch multiple times this year, and that's the only one I saw with a banner. In any case, it says "I-95 north", probably because that's where you leave the ticket system and are on "Free I-95".
Have you driven thru Interchange 6 from Interchange 5 (or points south) since the PA ramps were opened? I believe the ones bzakharin is referring to are a North 95/NJ Tpk sign on the shoulder within the Interchange 6 ramps inner roadway, and then a North 95/NJ TPK sign just after the Interchange 6 ramps meet the mainline. These appeared just after the 95 ramps opened in PA.
There is one before (south of) the interchange that's "JCT I-95". The one within the interchange (after the exit ramps leave, but before the entrance ramps merge) is "JCT North I-95". There may have been a "North I-95" after the interchange, but I can't be certain.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2018, 10:01:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2018, 09:35:26 AM
If I-95 got routed on the whole NJ Turnpike would I-295 ever been built or even the Delaware Expressway in DE in PA is a better question?
And no north-south interstate thru Philly at all? Highly doubtful.
Probably you are right, though I do remember before the Delaware Expressway got completed and the area did not look bad trafficwise, but then again traffic counts have skyrocketed in the past 3 or 4 decades. However, there was nothing to miss then and I am sure people might of adjusted.
However though to support your point, around the airport PA 291 was a nightmare until the last segment of I-95 opened in 1985. The problem is here living in Florida I have seen new roads generate new traffic as the area around them seem to develop into housing or shopping centers or something to add counts to the new facilities. Philadelphia if anything exploded not from building, but from normal population increases instead. I think if anything in Philly or around it would be a redevelopment and just replacing one kind of development for another, keeping things steady.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 23, 2018, 10:51:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2018, 07:08:17 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 23, 2018, 02:15:56 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 22, 2018, 11:28:45 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or when this was done, but going north on the NJ Turnpike today, I see a JCT I-95 approaching exit 6, and then JCT NORTH I-95 right before the I-95 lanes join the main line. There is also a directionless I-95 shield approaching exit 7A, probably used to have a "TO" that was removed.
Also of note, the only I-95 shield in NJ with a direction banner on I-95 itself that I know of is just north of Exit 18E, in the median. There could be one or more others, but I drove the whole stretch multiple times this year, and that's the only one I saw with a banner. In any case, it says "I-95 north", probably because that's where you leave the ticket system and are on "Free I-95".
Have you driven thru Interchange 6 from Interchange 5 (or points south) since the PA ramps were opened? I believe the ones bzakharin is referring to are a North 95/NJ Tpk sign on the shoulder within the Interchange 6 ramps inner roadway, and then a North 95/NJ TPK sign just after the Interchange 6 ramps meet the mainline. These appeared just after the 95 ramps opened in PA.
There is one before (south of) the interchange that's "JCT I-95". The one within the interchange (after the exit ramps leave, but before the entrance ramps merge) is "JCT North I-95". There may have been a "North I-95" after the interchange, but I can't be certain.
The Jct/95 panel is just north of Interchange 5 (M.P. 45 or so), which is prior to the inner-outer split.
The Jct/North/95 panels are between the exit and entrance ramps, and are on both the inner and outer roadways.
The North/95 assembly is in the outer roadway only, and includes a free-standing Turnpike shield.
Photos below.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4832/45104098305_0a173f6191_b.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4803/45966083752_7255a8ff9b_b.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4814/45103920165_9cbf8c6cfe_b.jpg)
Quote from: akotchi on November 23, 2018, 11:33:43 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 23, 2018, 10:51:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2018, 07:08:17 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 23, 2018, 02:15:56 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 22, 2018, 11:28:45 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or when this was done, but going north on the NJ Turnpike today, I see a JCT I-95 approaching exit 6, and then JCT NORTH I-95 right before the I-95 lanes join the main line. There is also a directionless I-95 shield approaching exit 7A, probably used to have a "TO" that was removed.
Also of note, the only I-95 shield in NJ with a direction banner on I-95 itself that I know of is just north of Exit 18E, in the median. There could be one or more others, but I drove the whole stretch multiple times this year, and that's the only one I saw with a banner. In any case, it says "I-95 north", probably because that's where you leave the ticket system and are on "Free I-95".
Have you driven thru Interchange 6 from Interchange 5 (or points south) since the PA ramps were opened? I believe the ones bzakharin is referring to are a North 95/NJ Tpk sign on the shoulder within the Interchange 6 ramps inner roadway, and then a North 95/NJ TPK sign just after the Interchange 6 ramps meet the mainline. These appeared just after the 95 ramps opened in PA.
There is one before (south of) the interchange that's "JCT I-95". The one within the interchange (after the exit ramps leave, but before the entrance ramps merge) is "JCT North I-95". There may have been a "North I-95" after the interchange, but I can't be certain.
The Jct/95 panel is just north of Interchange 5 (M.P. 45 or so), which is prior to the inner-outer split.
The Jct/North/95 panels are between the exit and entrance ramps, and are on both the inner and outer roadways.
The North/95 assembly is in the outer roadway only, and includes a free-standing Turnpike shield.
Photos below.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4832/45104098305_0a173f6191_b.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4803/45966083752_7255a8ff9b_b.jpg)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4814/45103920165_9cbf8c6cfe_b.jpg)
Those are new! I'll definitely have to check them out, thanks!
Great. Thanks for the pics.
I do think the first one near MP 45 is a bit misplaced, as it's several miles prior to Interchange 6. It should be posted no sooner than a mile or so of Int. 6.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 23, 2018, 10:53:37 AM
Probably you are right, though I do remember before the Delaware Expressway got completed and the area did not look bad trafficwise, but then again traffic counts have skyrocketed in the past 3 or 4 decades. However, there was nothing to miss then and I am sure people might of adjusted.
However though to support your point, around the airport PA 291 was a nightmare until the last segment of I-95 opened in 1985. The problem is here living in Florida I have seen new roads generate new traffic as the area around them seem to develop into housing or shopping centers or something to add counts to the new facilities. Philadelphia if anything exploded not from building, but from normal population increases instead. I think if anything in Philly or around it would be a redevelopment and just replacing one kind of development for another, keeping things steady.
Traffic was awful and very slow on the pre-existing routes before the Delaware Expressway was built.
Major segments were completed by 1969, Delaware to Chester, and north edge of Center City to PA-413, and these provided major improvements in those segments, but it wasn't completed between the airport and Center City until 1977, and the last segment in 1985.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2018, 01:32:00 PM
Great. Thanks for the pics.
I do think the first one near MP 45 is a bit misplaced, as it's several miles prior to Interchange 6. It should be posted no sooner than a mile or so of Int. 6.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it also be standard practice to have reassurance I-95 North/South signs after each entrance ramp? Maybe the NJTP will start doing that, since they seem to be moving towards compliance with standards.
Also, I wonder if in concert with the new I-95 north sign, there might also be a I-95 south sign on the extension just south(west) of Exit 6? Has anyone seen one there?
Quote from: famartin on November 23, 2018, 01:43:30 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2018, 01:32:00 PM
Great. Thanks for the pics.
I do think the first one near MP 45 is a bit misplaced, as it's several miles prior to Interchange 6. It should be posted no sooner than a mile or so of Int. 6.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it also be standard practice to have reassurance I-95 North/South signs after each entrance ramp? Maybe the NJTP will start doing that, since they seem to be moving towards compliance with standards.
It would be. But then again, we've yet to see any other I-95 signage anywhere on the Turnpike except near Interchange 6/6A. Even south of Int. 6 on the mainline Turnpike, there should be reassurance signage from Interchanges 1 - 5 as well, which could've been installed long ago.
QuoteAlso, I wonder if in concert with the new I-95 north sign, there might also be a I-95 south sign on the extension just south(west) of Exit 6? Has anyone seen one there?
I've yet to go that way, and per various reports of what others have seen (or not seen, as the case may be), there are no reports of a reassurance sign on I-95 South after the Interchange 6 ramps.
No other new ground-mounted shields in either direction around Exit 6. Appears that the minimum was done for now to sign the change in direction for I-95 at Exit 6.
There use to be confirmations between most interchanges north of Exit 10, but they were not replaced when they fell down or wore out. The new pull through signs are now achieving that purpose.
Quote from: akotchi on November 23, 2018, 06:01:23 PM
No other new ground-mounted shields in either direction around Exit 6. Appears that the minimum was done for now to sign the change in direction for I-95 at Exit 6.
There use to be confirmations between most interchanges north of Exit 10, but they were not replaced when they fell down or wore out. The new pull through signs are now achieving that purpose.
If NJTA ever changes to the style of mile markers NJDOT now uses, there would almost be no need for reassurance shields (assuming I-95 appears on those markers of course)
Quote from: bzakharin on November 24, 2018, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: akotchi on November 23, 2018, 06:01:23 PM
No other new ground-mounted shields in either direction around Exit 6. Appears that the minimum was done for now to sign the change in direction for I-95 at Exit 6.
There use to be confirmations between most interchanges north of Exit 10, but they were not replaced when they fell down or wore out. The new pull through signs are now achieving that purpose.
If NJTA ever changes to the style of mile markers NJDOT now uses, there would almost be no need for reassurance shields (assuming I-95 appears on those markers of course)
NJTA does have a handful of mile markers on its non-Interstate segment with the turnpike emblem. Here's a couple:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-08-15_09_32_23_IMG_0548_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-08-26_08_34_27_IMG_0966_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-08-26_16_41_47_IMG_1087_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg
However, since it's supposed to mark the mileage on the route shield, and the NJTP uses its own mileage, I don't think I-95 should be shown on the markers. Not unless they decide to use I-95 mileage, which would be great but highly doubt will happen.
There is precedent to use the toll road mileage with the appropriate Interstate shield, even if they do not match. On the Pa Tpk, mile 327 has an I-276 shield, where the previous mile 326 had the I-76 marker before I-76 exits at Valley Forge.
Also, my understanding of the sign details is that any 10-mile increment on the NJ Tpk north of Exit 6 would have both Tpk and I-95 shields.
Quote from: akotchi on November 25, 2018, 02:01:29 AM
There is precedent to use the toll road mileage with the appropriate Interstate shield, even if they do not match. On the Pa Tpk, mile 327 has an I-276 shield, where the previous mile 326 had the I-76 marker before I-76 exits at Valley Forge.
Also, my understanding of the sign details is that any 10-mile increment on the NJ Tpk north of Exit 6 would have both Tpk and I-95 shields.
Whatever they're gonna be doing, it's not in the Standard Drawings.
Quote from: akotchi on November 25, 2018, 02:01:29 AM
There is precedent to use the toll road mileage with the appropriate Interstate shield, even if they do not match. On the Pa Tpk, mile 327 has an I-276 shield, where the previous mile 326 had the I-76 marker before I-76 exits at Valley Forge.
Also, my understanding of the sign details is that any 10-mile increment on the NJ Tpk north of Exit 6 would have both Tpk and I-95 shields.
My understanding is that I-276 uses a loophole in the rules by which a route doesn't have to begin at MM 0. Presumably NJ routes such as NJ 55 and NJ 18 fall under this as well. This doesn't apply to I-95 since it doesn't begin where it enters the NJ Turnpike mainline.
EDIT: A better example would by the NYS Thruway, but they don't post shields on their mile markers (when they post mile markers at all)
Quote from: bzakharin on November 25, 2018, 09:50:43 AM
Quote from: akotchi on November 25, 2018, 02:01:29 AM
There is precedent to use the toll road mileage with the appropriate Interstate shield, even if they do not match. On the Pa Tpk, mile 327 has an I-276 shield, where the previous mile 326 had the I-76 marker before I-76 exits at Valley Forge.
Also, my understanding of the sign details is that any 10-mile increment on the NJ Tpk north of Exit 6 would have both Tpk and I-95 shields.
My understanding is that I-276 uses a loophole in the rules by which a route doesn't have to begin at MM 0. Presumably NJ routes such as NJ 55 and NJ 18 fall under this as well. This doesn't apply to I-95 since it doesn't begin where it enters the NJ Turnpike mainline.
EDIT: A better example would by the NYS Thruway, but they don't post shields on their mile markers (when they post mile markers at all)
Yup, the rules do not REQUIRE beginning at 0. I'm sure Texas and Arizona had something to say about that as well.
Stress-testing of all roads in the area is underway with the emergency closing of both Delaware Memorial Bridges due to a leak at the DuPont plant.
Quote from: davewiecking on November 25, 2018, 05:53:25 PM
Stress-testing of all roads in the area is underway with the emergency closing of both Delaware Memorial Bridges due to a leak at the DuPont plant.
Traffic is backing up on 95 NB in De, Some drivers are aware & certain backup roads are starting to back up.
iPhone
Look at that, I-95 is the fastest way now :-D
Seems awfully convenient though, don't ya think? :eyebrow:
Quote from: famartin on November 25, 2018, 06:27:57 PM
Look at that, I-95 is the fastest way now :-D
Seems awfully convenient though, don't ya think? :eyebrow:
Still plenty of backups at the 3-2 lane merge. If you hate sitting in traffic, 195-29-"295" says hi.
Quote from: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on November 25, 2018, 05:53:25 PM
Stress-testing of all roads in the area is underway with the emergency closing of both Delaware Memorial Bridges due to a leak at the DuPont plant.
Traffic is backing up on 95 NB in De, Some drivers are aware & certain backup roads are starting to back up.
Looking at DelDOT's VMS map (http://www.deldot.gov/map/), they are suggesting that traffic moves onto the Commodore Barry Bridge.
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 25, 2018, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on November 25, 2018, 05:53:25 PM
Stress-testing of all roads in the area is underway with the emergency closing of both Delaware Memorial Bridges due to a leak at the DuPont plant.
Traffic is backing up on 95 NB in De, Some drivers are aware & certain backup roads are starting to back up.
Looking at DelDOT's VMS map (http://www.deldot.gov/map/), they are suggesting that traffic moves onto the Commodore Barry Bridge.
Yea, I figured that, wonder how 95 thru Chester is looking right now.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 07:38:03 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 25, 2018, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on November 25, 2018, 05:53:25 PM
Stress-testing of all roads in the area is underway with the emergency closing of both Delaware Memorial Bridges due to a leak at the DuPont plant.
Traffic is backing up on 95 NB in De, Some drivers are aware & certain backup roads are starting to back up.
Looking at DelDOT's VMS map (http://www.deldot.gov/map/), they are suggesting that traffic moves onto the Commodore Barry Bridge.
Yea, I figured that, wonder how 95 thru Chester is looking right now.
Google suggests that everything is just a disaster right now (although, oddly, US-322 between the NJ Turnpike and I-295 doesn't look awful).
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HOSoRY3.png)
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 25, 2018, 07:40:50 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 07:38:03 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 25, 2018, 07:36:59 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on November 25, 2018, 05:53:25 PM
Stress-testing of all roads in the area is underway with the emergency closing of both Delaware Memorial Bridges due to a leak at the DuPont plant.
Traffic is backing up on 95 NB in De, Some drivers are aware & certain backup roads are starting to back up.
Looking at DelDOT's VMS map (http://www.deldot.gov/map/), they are suggesting that traffic moves onto the Commodore Barry Bridge.
Yea, I figured that, wonder how 95 thru Chester is looking right now.
Google suggests that everything is just a disaster right now (although, oddly, US-322 between the NJ Turnpike and I-295 doesn't look awful).
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HOSoRY3.png)
This is where a 3rd crossing into Delaware & New Jersey would be beneficial right now. This should show the Dots how important 295 is & they need to give it more respect.
iPhone
Quote from: Alps on November 25, 2018, 02:03:34 AM
Quote from: akotchi on November 25, 2018, 02:01:29 AM
There is precedent to use the toll road mileage with the appropriate Interstate shield, even if they do not match. On the Pa Tpk, mile 327 has an I-276 shield, where the previous mile 326 had the I-76 marker before I-76 exits at Valley Forge.
Also, my understanding of the sign details is that any 10-mile increment on the NJ Tpk north of Exit 6 would have both Tpk and I-95 shields.
Whatever they're gonna be doing, it's not in the Standard Drawings.
I stand corrected. I thought I had seen something, but I clearly do not know what I am talking about ...
Quote from: akotchi on November 25, 2018, 11:15:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 25, 2018, 02:03:34 AM
Quote from: akotchi on November 25, 2018, 02:01:29 AM
There is precedent to use the toll road mileage with the appropriate Interstate shield, even if they do not match. On the Pa Tpk, mile 327 has an I-276 shield, where the previous mile 326 had the I-76 marker before I-76 exits at Valley Forge.
Also, my understanding of the sign details is that any 10-mile increment on the NJ Tpk north of Exit 6 would have both Tpk and I-95 shields.
Whatever they're gonna be doing, it's not in the Standard Drawings.
I stand corrected. I thought I had seen something, but I clearly do not know what I am talking about ...
No, I've seen something too, but it's something they decided internally. When we did the Standard Drawings we had one in there and they wanted it out.
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 25, 2018, 07:40:50 PM
Google suggests that everything is just a disaster right now (although, oddly, US-322 between the NJ Turnpike and I-295 doesn't look awful).
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HOSoRY3.png)
While on my return trip from Massachusetts last night, the first VMS I saw regarding the Delaware Memorial Bridge closure was just south of Exit 11 (there may have been VMS postings regarding such further north along I-95/NJTP, but I wasn't on that northern stretch). Some of the VMS' south of Exit 8A stated that the Turnpike south of Exit 2 was closed and listed Exits 6 & 4 as alternates. Since my destination was Delaware County, PA; notice of south of Exit 2 & DMB closures didn't directly impact me. I followed I-95 South via Exit 6 (I crossed into PA as of 9:30 PM last night) and had no real traffic issues through Philly and down to Exit 9 (PA 420, my exit).
However, I
did notice a back up of cars in the opposite direction (I-95 northbound) between merge w/I-276 and the Delaware River Bridge.
Once in PA, I did check KYW's traffic reports for any I-95 southbound related traffic info. I report I received while approaching Center City mentioned that the I-95 southbound backup started at the airport (Exit 12); when I got near the airport, an updated report mentioned that the backup started at I-476 (Exit 7), so I did not have to exit early.
Your posted graphic's about 2 hours prior to my entering the area. The likely explanation for US 322 eastbound between I-295 & NJTP not being so bad is that many northbound travelers used I-295 northbound (which is only accessible from US 130 northbound from US 322 eastbound) as an alternate route. Whether they got back on the Turnpike further north or not would dependent on their final destination.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 26, 2018, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 25, 2018, 07:40:50 PM
Google suggests that everything is just a disaster right now (although, oddly, US-322 between the NJ Turnpike and I-295 doesn't look awful).
Your posted graphic's about 2 hours prior to my entering the area. The likely explanation for US 322 eastbound between I-295 & NJTP not being so bad is that many northbound travelers used I-295 northbound (which is only accessible from US 130 northbound from US 322 eastbound) as an alternate route. Whether they got back on the Turnpike further north or not would dependent on their final destination.
Oh I was referring to US-322 WB. I was thinking of the backup from the NJ Turnpike exit to US-322 and how it didn't carry over to the actual mainline of US-322. I'm not too familiar with that area though. Are there any lights? If so, I wonder if NJDOT prioritized US-322 traffic to get it to the Commodore Barry Bridge.
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 26, 2018, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 26, 2018, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 25, 2018, 07:40:50 PM
Google suggests that everything is just a disaster right now (although, oddly, US-322 between the NJ Turnpike and I-295 doesn't look awful).
Your posted graphic's about 2 hours prior to my entering the area. The likely explanation for US 322 eastbound between I-295 & NJTP not being so bad is that many northbound travelers used I-295 northbound (which is only accessible from US 130 northbound from US 322 eastbound) as an alternate route. Whether they got back on the Turnpike further north or not would dependent on their final destination.
Oh I was referring to US-322 WB. I was thinking of the backup from the NJ Turnpike exit to US-322 and how it didn't carry over to the actual mainline of US-322. I'm not too familiar with that area though. Are there any lights? If so, I wonder if NJDOT prioritized US-322 traffic to get it to the Commodore Barry Bridge.
US 322 between the Turnpike and I-295 is mostly a 2-lane road with, I think 3 lights. No idea how they are configured, since that stretch is only useful to me when there are multiple delays on not only the Delaware Memorial Bridge, but also 295 and/or 130
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 26, 2018, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 26, 2018, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 25, 2018, 07:40:50 PM
Google suggests that everything is just a disaster right now (although, oddly, US-322 between the NJ Turnpike and I-295 doesn't look awful).
Your posted graphic's about 2 hours prior to my entering the area. The likely explanation for US 322 eastbound between I-295 & NJTP not being so bad is that many northbound travelers used I-295 northbound (which is only accessible from US 130 northbound from US 322 eastbound) as an alternate route. Whether they got back on the Turnpike further north or not would dependent on their final destination.
Oh I was referring to US-322 WB. I was thinking of the backup from the NJ Turnpike exit to US-322 and how it didn't carry over to the actual mainline of US-322. I'm not too familiar with that area though. Are there any lights? If so, I wonder if NJDOT prioritized US-322 traffic to get it to the Commodore Barry Bridge.
NJDOT can't remotely change the timing on Rt. 322 (otherwise, they have reasons to do it on a daily basis, especially at certain lights).
Here's the biggest issue: The NJ Turnpike only has 2 exit lanes at Exit 2 (one cash, one EZ Pass only), so that in itself will limit the amount of traffic going thru. Being that it's a holiday weekend, I'm gonna guess a more-than-average amount of traffic is paying via cash, not EZ Pass. The traffic jammed on the Turnpike for a few miles approaching this exit.
There's a traffic light after the toll plaza to turn onto US 322. I'm not sure what the max time is for traffic exiting the Turnpike, but probably not a whole heckuva lot of time.
Once traffic got onto US 322, there's not too much to hold them back on a Sunday evening. If this was a weekday, the first traffic light at Kings Highway (CR 551, https://goo.gl/maps/cPofKBJ283A2) would have been overrun with congestion with not only commuting traffic, but with a high school right there. In fact, the state just put that intersection out to bid to widen it a bit and add turn lanes. But because it was Sunday evening, traffic was much lighter. After that, there's a light at Swedesboro-Paulsboro Rd (fun fact, this is the road that eventually crosses 295 at Exit 16A), then a light at Berkley Drive which is where 322 becomes 4 lanes wide for a bit. Neither light has congestion issues.
So, that's why the brunt of congestion remained on the Turnpike, and didn't get backed up again until closer to the Commodore Barry Bridge.
This is something I was thinking of as well: The financial loss to the Delaware Memorial Bridge due to the closure:
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/11/officials_adding_up_the_toll_of_massive_holiday_br.html
In the article, based on traffic volumes during the past 2 years, we can probably estimate about 130,000 vehicles would have used the span on Sunday. The roughly 7 hour closure, during what would've been a fairly high travel period, probably would've seen roughly 1/3 of that volume, so let's say, rounded, about 43,000 vehicles had to detour. If most of those vehicles paid the car rate, that's a $172,000 loss to the DRBA.
The NJ Turnpike suffered a loss as well due to the closure; probably in the tens of thousands, due to both the southbound closures and not coming over the Delaware Memorial Bridge and utilizing the Turnpike Northbound.
I wonder if the DRPA (and maybe PTC to a lesser extent) made as much money as DRBA (and NJTA) lost
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 09:08:51 AM
I wonder if the DRPA (and maybe PTC to a lesser extent) made as much money as DRBA (and NJTA) lost
Here's a random comparison for a Delaware-bound motorist getting on I-95/NJTP at Exit 11 (GSP) and heading south.
Using NJTP & DMB: $7.25 (NJTA) + $4.00 (DRBA) = $11.25
Using I-95 (via Exit 6 & DRB): $4.60 (NJTA) + $6.75* (PTC's Toll-By-Plate* rate) = $11.35
*E-ZPass rate for PA-bound DRB is $5.00 (PTC) which would yield a total of $9.60
Using NJTP to Exit 2 (US 322) & CBB: $6.10 (NJTA) + $5.00 (DRPA) = $11.10
Using Exits 7A**, 7, 4 or 3 would likely mean $5.00 toll for any DRPA crossing.
**While one can use NJ 29 to Trenton to access US 1 south (& ultimately get on I-295 & I-95) and pay a $1.00 (DRJTBC) PA-bound toll; most aren't savvy/shrewd enough to do so.
Long story short & in theory: anyone that used either the DRPA bridges or the DRB to bypass the closed-DMB paid
more towards those agencies (DRPA or PTC) than they would've to the DRBA.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 09:08:51 AM
I wonder if the DRPA (and maybe PTC to a lesser extent) made as much money as DRBA (and NJTA) lost
Here's a random comparison for a Delaware-bound motorist getting on I-95/NJTP at Exit 11 (GSP) and heading south.
Using NJTP & DMB: $7.25 (NJTA) + $4.00 (DRBA) = $11.25
Using I-95 (via Exit 6 & DRB): $4.60 (NJTA) + $6.75* (PTC's Toll-By-Plate* rate) = $11.35
*E-ZPass rate for PA-bound DRB is $5.00 (PTC) which would yield a total of $9.60
Is this correct? NJTP Exit 11 to 6 including the DRB is $4.60; on the PA side it's $6.75 (PTC Toll By Plate) or $5.00 (cash)
The NJ side is 40+ miles and the bridge; the PA side is a couple of miles and the bridge! I guess this is related to the mandatory payments the PATP makes to the state.
Bold emphasis added to below-post:
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 09:08:51 AM
I wonder if the DRPA (and maybe PTC to a lesser extent) made as much money as DRBA (and NJTA) lost
Here's a random comparison for a Delaware-bound motorist getting on I-95/NJTP at Exit 11 (GSP) and heading south.
Using NJTP & DMB: $7.25 (NJTA) + $4.00 (DRBA) = $11.25
Using I-95 (via Exit 6 & DRB): $4.60 (NJTA) + $6.75* (PTC's Toll-By-Plate* rate) = $11.35
*E-ZPass rate for PA-bound DRB is $5.00 (PTC) which would yield a total of $9.60
Is this correct? NJTP Exit 11 to 6 including the DRB is $4.60; on the PA side it's $6.75 (PTC Toll By Plate) or $5.00 (cash)
You need to reread my post (that you quoted) more carefully. The toll is only $4.60 for someone heading I-95 northbound from PA/DE to NJTP's Exit 11 in NJ.
That $4.60 toll is
only for the NJ Turnpike portion, hence, the NJTA acronym in parenthesis next to amount. The PTC toll for the DRB ($6.75/$5.00) needs to be added to that $4.60 amount (which I indeed listed/included). The
total-combined toll amounts for each of the listed scenarios are also included.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 09:08:51 AM
I wonder if the DRPA (and maybe PTC to a lesser extent) made as much money as DRBA (and NJTA) lost
Here's a random comparison for a Delaware-bound motorist getting on I-95/NJTP at Exit 11 (GSP) and heading south.
Using NJTP & DMB: $7.25 (NJTA) + $4.00 (DRBA) = $11.25
Using I-95 (via Exit 6 & DRB): $4.60 (NJTA) + $6.75* (PTC's Toll-By-Plate* rate) = $11.35
*E-ZPass rate for PA-bound DRB is $5.00 (PTC) which would yield a total of $9.60
Using NJTP to Exit 2 (US 322) & CBB: $6.10 (NJTA) + $5.00 (DRPA) = $11.10
Using Exits 7A**, 7, 4 or 3 would likely mean $5.00 toll for any DRPA crossing.
**While one can use NJ 29 to Trenton to access US 1 south (& ultimately get on I-295 & I-95) and pay a $1.00 (DRJTBC) PA-bound toll; most aren't savvy/shrewd enough to do so.
Long story short & in theory: anyone that used either the DRPA bridges or the DRB to bypass the closed-DMB paid more towards those agencies (DRPA or PTC) than they would've to the DRBA.
There are also those who paid full price for the Turnpike and were sent back up 295 to cross the Commodore Barry Bridge
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 12:20:59 PMThere are also those who paid full price for the Turnpike and were sent back up 295 to cross the Commodore Barry Bridge
The toll difference there is only $1 more to use the Commodore Barry. Anyone here know whether the DMB and NJTP south of Exit 2 closures occurred simultaneously or did the latter closure occur some time after the former closure?
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 12:18:55 PM
Bold emphasis added to below-post:
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 09:08:51 AM
I wonder if the DRPA (and maybe PTC to a lesser extent) made as much money as DRBA (and NJTA) lost
Here's a random comparison for a Delaware-bound motorist getting on I-95/NJTP at Exit 11 (GSP) and heading south.
Using NJTP & DMB: $7.25 (NJTA) + $4.00 (DRBA) = $11.25
Using I-95 (via Exit 6 & DRB): $4.60 (NJTA) + $6.75* (PTC's Toll-By-Plate* rate) = $11.35
*E-ZPass rate for PA-bound DRB is $5.00 (PTC) which would yield a total of $9.60
Is this correct? NJTP Exit 11 to 6 including the DRB is $4.60; on the PA side it's $6.75 (PTC Toll By Plate) or $5.00 (cash)
You need to reread my post (that you quoted) more carefully. The toll is only $4.60 for someone heading I-95 northbound from PA/DE to NJTP's Exit 11 in NJ.
That $4.60 toll is only for the NJ Turnpike portion, hence, the NJTA acronym in parenthesis next to amount. The PTC toll for the DRB ($6.75/$5.00) needs to be added to that $4.60 amount (which I indeed listed/included). The total-combined toll amounts for each of the listed scenarios are also included.
Let me ask my question a different way- how is the toll captured that specifically covers the DRB? Does it come only from the PA side, or is it also baked into the toll charged for exit 6 on the NJTP? I know hat both NJ and PA split the cost of maintenance and I thought they both captured it on their respective sides.
For one travelling from US 130 in New Jersey over the DRB into Pennsylvania there is a $3.00 NJTA toll and then the $5.00 PTC toll. So the total toll just to cross the DRB westbound is $8.00.
No toll is collected by either agency for eastbound travel.
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 12:36:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 12:18:55 PM
Bold emphasis added to below-post:
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 09:08:51 AM
I wonder if the DRPA (and maybe PTC to a lesser extent) made as much money as DRBA (and NJTA) lost
Here's a random comparison for a Delaware-bound motorist getting on I-95/NJTP at Exit 11 (GSP) and heading south.
Using NJTP & DMB: $7.25 (NJTA) + $4.00 (DRBA) = $11.25
Using I-95 (via Exit 6 & DRB): $4.60 (NJTA) + $6.75* (PTC's Toll-By-Plate* rate) = $11.35
*E-ZPass rate for PA-bound DRB is $5.00 (PTC) which would yield a total of $9.60
Is this correct? NJTP Exit 11 to 6 including the DRB is $4.60; on the PA side it's $6.75 (PTC Toll By Plate) or $5.00 (cash)
You need to reread my post (that you quoted) more carefully. The toll is only $4.60 for someone heading I-95 northbound from PA/DE to NJTP's Exit 11 in NJ.
That $4.60 toll is only for the NJ Turnpike portion, hence, the NJTA acronym in parenthesis next to amount. The PTC toll for the DRB ($6.75/$5.00) needs to be added to that $4.60 amount (which I indeed listed/included). The total-combined toll amounts for each of the listed scenarios are also included.
Let me ask my question a different way- how is the toll captured that specifically covers the DRB? Does it come only from the PA side, or is it also baked into the toll charged for exit 6 on the NJTP? I know hat both NJ and PA split the cost of maintenance and I thought they both captured it on their respective sides.
Generally speaking, there's no specific toll that covers the DRB (Delaware River Bridge, aka the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge). Bridge maintenance is covered 50/50 by the NJ & PA Turnpikes.
Any toll paid on the NJ side stays with the NJ Turnpike. Any toll on the PA side stays with the PA Turnpike.
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 11:55:23 AM
Is this correct? NJTP Exit 11 to 6 including the DRB is $4.60; on the PA side it's $6.75 (PTC Toll By Plate) or $5.00 (cash)
On the PA side, it's EZ Pass or Toll-by-Plate only. If you have EZ Pass you're charged $5.00. If you don't have EZ Pass, the owner of the vehicle will get a bill in the mail in the upcoming weeks for $6.75.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 12:28:33 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 12:20:59 PMThere are also those who paid full price for the Turnpike and were sent back up 295 to cross the Commodore Barry Bridge
The toll difference there is only $1 more to use the Commodore Barry. Anyone here know whether the DMB and NJTP south of Exit 2 closures occurred simultaneously or did the latter closure occur some time after the former closure?
I'm going to say there was a difference in time. Once the bridge was closed, the DRBA immediately shut down the bridge. Eventually, motorists between Interchange 1 and the bridge were turned around via the median at the base of the bridge and could head back up 295, 130 or even the NJ Turnpike if they so chose to do so. There's a lot of people that were already between Interchanges 2 and 1 that had to pay the toll at Int. 1, then probably took 140 West to 295 North. Once the closure impact was determined to be long-term, the NJ Turnpike was closed at Interchange 2. And then eventually at Interchange 4.
At Interchange 3, they may have allowed motorists to access the NJ Turnpike southbound, but they would be forced off at Interchange 2 again. Otherwise, they'd be forced to go north to Interchange 4.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 27, 2018, 12:42:11 PM
For one travelling from US 130 in New Jersey over the DRB into Pennsylvania there is a $3.00 NJTA toll and then the $5.00 PTC toll. So the total toll just to cross the DRB westbound is $8.00.
No toll is collected by either agency for eastbound travel.
To add/clarify, the total toll for a non-E-ZPass user for the above is $9.75; the difference being the $6.75 Toll-By-Plate rate for the PTC gantry.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 27, 2018, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 12:36:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 12:18:55 PM
Bold emphasis added to below-post:
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 27, 2018, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2018, 09:08:51 AM
I wonder if the DRPA (and maybe PTC to a lesser extent) made as much money as DRBA (and NJTA) lost
Here's a random comparison for a Delaware-bound motorist getting on I-95/NJTP at Exit 11 (GSP) and heading south.
Using NJTP & DMB: $7.25 (NJTA) + $4.00 (DRBA) = $11.25
Using I-95 (via Exit 6 & DRB): $4.60 (NJTA) + $6.75* (PTC's Toll-By-Plate* rate) = $11.35
*E-ZPass rate for PA-bound DRB is $5.00 (PTC) which would yield a total of $9.60
Is this correct? NJTP Exit 11 to 6 including the DRB is $4.60; on the PA side it's $6.75 (PTC Toll By Plate) or $5.00 (cash)
You need to reread my post (that you quoted) more carefully. The toll is only $4.60 for someone heading I-95 northbound from PA/DE to NJTP's Exit 11 in NJ.
That $4.60 toll is only for the NJ Turnpike portion, hence, the NJTA acronym in parenthesis next to amount. The PTC toll for the DRB ($6.75/$5.00) needs to be added to that $4.60 amount (which I indeed listed/included). The total-combined toll amounts for each of the listed scenarios are also included.
Let me ask my question a different way- how is the toll captured that specifically covers the DRB? Does it come only from the PA side, or is it also baked into the toll charged for exit 6 on the NJTP? I know hat both NJ and PA split the cost of maintenance and I thought they both captured it on their respective sides.
Generally speaking, there's no specific toll that covers the DRB (Delaware River Bridge, aka the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge). Bridge maintenance is covered 50/50 by the NJ & PA Turnpikes.
Any toll paid on the NJ side stays with the NJ Turnpike. Any toll on the PA side stays with the PA Turnpike.
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 11:55:23 AM
Is this correct? NJTP Exit 11 to 6 including the DRB is $4.60; on the PA side it's $6.75 (PTC Toll By Plate) or $5.00 (cash)
On the PA side, it's EZ Pass or Toll-by-Plate only. If you have EZ Pass you're charged $5.00. If you don't have EZ Pass, the owner of the vehicle will get a bill in the mail in the upcoming weeks for $6.75.
Thank you, you have proven my point. You can go 40+ miles from exit 11 on the NJTP to the DRB and pay $4.60 for that; once you are in PA you pay $6.75 (or $5.00) to travel just a couple of miles to the new 95 ramps.
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 01:21:51 PM
Thank you, you have proven my point. You can go 40+ miles from exit 11 on the NJTP to the DRB and pay $4.60 for that; once you are in PA you pay $6.75 (or $5.00) to travel just a couple of miles to the new 95 ramps.
BUT....(there's always a but...)
The toll on the PA side is one way. So while you're correct in going to PA, returning from PA, you pay nothing for those few miles, but $4.60 on the NJ Turnpike.
Of course, if you want to average it out, on a per mile basis, round trip, you're still paying a lot more on the PA side than the NJ side.
Quote from: Steve D on November 27, 2018, 01:21:51 PMYou can go 40+ miles from exit 11 on the NJTP to the DRB and pay $4.60 for that; once you are in PA you pay $6.75 (or $5.00) to travel just a couple of miles to the new 95 ramps.
How is that any different than exiting off NJ Turnpike elsewhere and using one of the DRPA bridges to cross the river and paying the $5.00 toll for such... or, had the DMB not been closed, use the NJTP all the way down and cross via the DMB ($7.25 Turnpike + $4.00 bridge toll) for that matter.
While the westbound PTC toll gantry at the PA-side of the DRB isn't
officially for the bridge itself; it essentially acts as such in terms of operations & in the eyes of the motorist.
I was perusing PhillyRoads.com just today and found this on the I-276 page:
"When the new I-95 / I-276 interchange is completed in 2014, the Delaware River-Turnpike Toll Bridge will be prominently signed as I-95. To eliminate confusion among motorists traveling on the East Coast, the following new "local" and "express" designations for I-95 should be assigned as follows:
Beginning in Newport, Delaware, the "express" I-95 would comprise of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the current I-295 approaches, and the length of the New Jersey Turnpike north to EXIT 6.
A companion route, "local" I-95, would serve Delaware via the existing I-495 alignment, and Pennsylvania through the existing I-95 alignment (Delaware Expressway). It would then cross the Delaware River-Turnpike Toll Bridge (I-276) and rejoin the "express" I-95 at EXIT 6 of the New Jersey Turnpike."
To further clarify, or maybe confuse, the toll structure discussion for the DRB, the NJTA also has an off-peak westbound E-Z Pass rate of $2.20 at Exit 6A. Furthermore, the off-peak Green and Senior Citizen programs' E-Z Pass rate is $1.95 there.
Quote from: theroadwayone on November 27, 2018, 10:16:27 PM
I was perusing PhillyRoads.com just today and found this on the I-276 page:
"When the new I-95 / I-276 interchange is completed in 2014, the Delaware River-Turnpike Toll Bridge will be prominently signed as I-95. To eliminate confusion among motorists traveling on the East Coast, the following new "local" and "express" designations for I-95 should be assigned as follows:
Beginning in Newport, Delaware, the "express" I-95 would comprise of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the current I-295 approaches, and the length of the New Jersey Turnpike north to EXIT 6.
A companion route, "local" I-95, would serve Delaware via the existing I-495 alignment, and Pennsylvania through the existing I-95 alignment (Delaware Expressway). It would then cross the Delaware River-Turnpike Toll Bridge (I-276) and rejoin the "express" I-95 at EXIT 6 of the New Jersey Turnpike."
It has said that for at least 10 if not 15 years. That's just a Steve Anderson recommendation and has no actual clout with any agency. And, 2014 :-D
Quote from: famartin on November 27, 2018, 11:19:39 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on November 27, 2018, 10:16:27 PM
I was perusing PhillyRoads.com just today and found this on the I-276 page:
"When the new I-95 / I-276 interchange is completed in 2014, the Delaware River-Turnpike Toll Bridge will be prominently signed as I-95. To eliminate confusion among motorists traveling on the East Coast, the following new "local" and "express" designations for I-95 should be assigned as follows:
Beginning in Newport, Delaware, the "express" I-95 would comprise of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the current I-295 approaches, and the length of the New Jersey Turnpike north to EXIT 6.
A companion route, "local" I-95, would serve Delaware via the existing I-495 alignment, and Pennsylvania through the existing I-95 alignment (Delaware Expressway). It would then cross the Delaware River-Turnpike Toll Bridge (I-276) and rejoin the "express" I-95 at EXIT 6 of the New Jersey Turnpike."
It has said that for at least 10 if not 15 years. That's just a Steve Anderson recommendation and has no actual clout with any agency. And, 2014 :-D
Yeah, 2014. Sigh...
As for Express/Local - the distance is much too long for such designations. People get confused enough on highways where the express lanes are directly next to the local lanes, as it's tough for motorists to know if taking the Express lanes will get them to their exit, or if they're going to bypass their exit. We're also talking two different states, with numerous exiting options in both states.
The Turnpike and 95 are 2 different highways completely, and guidance signage is used to promote the optimal direction one should go. We've talked about control cities, and replacing Wilmington with Baltimore would assist in this respect, IMO. Also, more and more people have GPSs now that'll route them down the NJ Turnpike in most instances anyway when their destination is below Wilmington, DE, or route them via 95 if they want to go towards Philly.
From the experiences throughout the entire weekend, it seems like motorists choose the NJ Turnpike when it was the proper thing to do, and we saw what happens when a major bridge is shut down, virtually eliminating one of the routes.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 27, 2018, 10:35:59 PMTo further clarify, or maybe confuse, the toll structure discussion for the DRB, the NJTA also has an off-peak westbound E-Z Pass rate of $2.20 at Exit 6A. Furthermore, the off-peak Green and Senior Citizen programs' E-Z Pass rate is $1.95 there.
Given that the recent toll discussion in this thread was focused on holiday travelers this past weekend who either have E-ZPass accounts from other states or no E-ZPass at all; those listed discounts don't apply to them. Transponder discrimination at work here; but such is another topic for another thread.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2018, 06:07:14 AM
....
The Turnpike and 95 are 2 different highways completely ....
There are a surprisingly large number of average motorists who use this corridor regularly and who have no clue of the truth of the statement you make here, or who believe your statement is incorrect.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 28, 2018, 09:33:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2018, 06:07:14 AM
....
The Turnpike and 95 are 2 different highways completely ....
There are a surprisingly large number of average motorists who use this corridor regularly and who have no clue of the truth of the statement you make here, or who believe your statement is incorrect.
:nod: :nod: :nod:
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2018, 08:24:50 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 27, 2018, 10:35:59 PMTo further clarify, or maybe confuse, the toll structure discussion for the DRB, the NJTA also has an off-peak westbound E-Z Pass rate of $2.20 at Exit 6A. Furthermore, the off-peak Green and Senior Citizen programs' E-Z Pass rate is $1.95 there.
Given that the recent toll discussion in this thread was focused on holiday travelers this past weekend who either have E-ZPass accounts from other states or no E-ZPass at all; those listed discounts don't apply to them. Transponder discrimination at work here; but such is another topic for another thread.
Not even transponder discrimination. That's dealing with the general population from a state or specific area that gets a discounts others don't (ie: Maryland residents paying $6 in Maryland; all other users paying $8). Senior citizen discounts are common; ie: 10% off on Wednesdays at a department store, or 25 cent coffee at McDonalds.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2018, 10:18:25 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 28, 2018, 08:24:50 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 27, 2018, 10:35:59 PMTo further clarify, or maybe confuse, the toll structure discussion for the DRB, the NJTA also has an off-peak westbound E-Z Pass rate of $2.20 at Exit 6A. Furthermore, the off-peak Green and Senior Citizen programs' E-Z Pass rate is $1.95 there.
Given that the recent toll discussion in this thread was focused on holiday travelers this past weekend who either have E-ZPass accounts from other states or no E-ZPass at all; those listed discounts don't apply to them. Transponder discrimination at work here; but such is another topic for another thread.
Not even transponder discrimination. That's dealing with the general population from a state or specific area that gets a discounts others don't (ie: Maryland residents paying $6 in Maryland; all other users paying $8). Senior citizen discounts are common; ie: 10% off on Wednesdays at a department store, or 25 cent coffee at McDonalds.
Yes & no. During the early years of E-ZPass, the discounted toll rates along the NJTP applied towards
all accounts not just the in-state accounts.
______________________________________________________________________________
On the subject of river-crossing tolls has been discussed in light of the recent DMB closure:
From the PA-NJ-DE Delaware River Crossings thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16136.75).
Quote from: BrianP on November 28, 2018, 11:26:35 AM
Delaware Memorial Bridge toll could rise $1 on March 1 (https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2018/11/27/delaware-memorial-bridge-toll-could-rise-1-march-1/2124227002/)
QuoteThe following projects are planned to take place over the next five to 10 years:
Bridge paint removal and recoating: $48.2 million
Suspension rope replacement: $24.5 million
Bridge steelwork repairs: $40.5 million
Pin and link rehabilitation: $19.7 million
Ship collision protection system: $45.2 million
Bridge deck repair: $21.5 million
Transfer bridge repairs at the Cape May-Lewes Ferry: $4.3 million
Ferry repowering program: $9.5 million
As far as I'm concerned, it should be illegal for states to set different rates for in-state and out of state motorists. Specific commuter plans (ONLY for commuters, including a minimum trip requirement and/or upfront cost a la the Thruway's annual permit plan) or residence plans for certain areas (such as an island that's inaccessible without paying a toll - not an area that has shunpike routes available, and definitely not an entire state) are one thing, but setting different in-state and out of state rates is just plain transponder discrimination.
Getting back to the actual interchange in Bucks County, PA...has any work started for the other 6 movements? (e.g. Pennsylvania Turnpike EB to I-95 SB)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2018, 04:25:48 PM
Getting back to the actual interchange in Bucks County, PA...has any work started for the other 6 movements? (e.g. Pennsylvania Turnpike EB to I-95 SB)
Those won't start until at least 2020. Knowing the PTC, who knows how long it'll take?
They are still serious about completing them, though the original funding only covered everything completed so far.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 04:38:30 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2018, 04:25:48 PM
Getting back to the actual interchange in Bucks County, PA...has any work started for the other 6 movements? (e.g. Pennsylvania Turnpike EB to I-95 SB)
Those won't start until at least 2020.
According to the website, there are two other projects going on now, albeit not part of the direct movements.
- Reconstruction of the Bensalem interchange ramps
- Realigning the lengthy on/off ramp to US-13. This is being converted from a trumpet interchange to a signalized T-intersection. However, the designs suggest that the loop ramp on the far side won't be taken out completely, but reduced to what appears to be a jughandle of sorts. Anyone know what that's for? https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/Route13ConnectorProjectLimits.pdf (https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/Route13ConnectorProjectLimits.pdf)
Don't forget that before the construction of the ramps can begin, the New Falls Rd. bridge over the pike needs to be replaced so there'll be room for the ramps. This is currently under design.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2018, 04:25:48 PM
Getting back to the actual interchange in Bucks County, PA...has any work started for the other 6 movements? (e.g. Pennsylvania Turnpike EB to I-95 SB)
Several years before they're put out to bid.
Lepidopteran, why would anyone prefer a T-intersection vs. a trumpet at the end of the Route-13 interchange? Or do they anticipate a reduction in traffic there now that the I-95 interchange is open?
Quote from: SignBridge on November 28, 2018, 09:19:03 PM
Lepidopteran, why would anyone prefer a T-intersection vs. a trumpet at the end of the Route-13 interchange? Or do they anticipate a reduction in traffic there now that the I-95 interchange is open?
Reduction in anticipated traffic was also my guess; it seems odd to tear out a bridge just because it won't be used as much. On the other hand, if the bridge requires major work, I can see it being cheaper to tear it out.
My theory on the jug handle is it's a turn around for Turnpike snow plows...
One of the things we talked with the PTC officials with at Brian Troutman's meet back in September was this interchange. The loop is for emergency turnarounds on the Turnpike now that the toll plaza is removed (note the temporary turn-around that was once present at the site of the former Delaware Valley toll plaza and today is blocked by barriers).
As for the trumpet removal, a large part of it was for pedestrian safety on the improved US 13, especially since the it isn't meant to be a high-speed road. Plus, it's one fewer bridge to maintain.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 11:07:25 PMAs for the trumpet removal, a large part of it was for pedestrian safety on the improved US 13, especially since the it isn't meant to be a high-speed road. Plus, it's one fewer bridge to maintain.
About 2 miles north of the interchange area, US 13/Bristol Pike does become an expressway. One has to wonder if there were ever plans to extend that expressway further south to at least the Turnpike interchange. Not to mention that fact that the original plan to extend the PA 413 connector to the Delaware Valley interchange
would've also included a separate interchange/connection to US 13. That connection along with an expressway upgrade to US 13 would've likely relocated the current trumpet connection further south.
In preliminary plans, the US 13 freeway was part of I-95. Hence I-276 ended at the Bristol interchange, and there was no need to build a new interchange at I-95 to give I-276 an end at an Interstate.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm "Pennsylvania Turnpike, 359 miles: from the Ohio State line to Bristol (the entire route except a short section at the eastern end)."
PA 295 is being renumbered to PA 297 due to this being completed:
https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-8/pages/details.aspx?newsid=868 (https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-8/pages/details.aspx?newsid=868)
QuoteUpon the completion of a recent construction project on Interstate 95 in Bucks County, a portion of the existing limited access roadway was renamed Interstate 295. Due to the potential conflict involved in having two major Pennsylvania traffic routes designated as 295, it was decided that State Route 295 in York County would be renumbered State Route 297.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 30, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
PA 295 is being renumbered to PA 297 due to this being completed:
https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-8/pages/details.aspx?newsid=868 (https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-8/pages/details.aspx?newsid=868)
QuoteUpon the completion of a recent construction project on Interstate 95 in Bucks County, a portion of the existing limited access roadway was renamed Interstate 295. Due to the potential conflict involved in having two major Pennsylvania traffic routes designated as 295, it was decided that State Route 295 in York County would be renumbered State Route 297.
Oh well, such is another reason why the old I-95 should've been redesignated as I-695 instead of I-295. :sombrero:
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 30, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
PA 295 is being renumbered to PA 297 due to this being completed:
https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-8/pages/details.aspx?newsid=868 (https://www.penndot.gov/regionaloffices/district-8/pages/details.aspx?newsid=868)
QuoteUpon the completion of a recent construction project on Interstate 95 in Bucks County, a portion of the existing limited access roadway was renamed Interstate 295. Due to the potential conflict involved in having two major Pennsylvania traffic routes designated as 295, it was decided that State Route 295 in York County would be renumbered State Route 297.
Oh well, such is another reason why the old I-95 should've been redesignated as I-695 instead of I-295. :sombrero:
Wasn't the original plan to make the "new" I-295 into I-195 and truncate I-295 to Exit 60/I-195 anyway?
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 30, 2018, 07:50:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 30, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
Upon the completion of a recent construction project on Interstate 95 in Bucks County, a portion of the existing limited access roadway was renamed Interstate 295. Due to the potential conflict involved in having two major Pennsylvania traffic routes designated as 295, it was decided that State Route 295 in York County would be renumbered State Route 297.
Oh well, such is another reason why the old I-95 should've been redesignated as I-695 instead of I-295. :sombrero:
Wasn't the original plan to make the "new" I-295 into I-195 and truncate I-295 to Exit 60/I-195 anyway?
Bottom line: Blame AASHTO for the "I-295 East" silliness.
As was explained during the Golden Spike meet by representatives of the PTC and the engineering firm on the I-95 interchange project (Jacobs)–yes, that was basically the original plan (extend I-195 around Trenton to the PA Turnpike). That plan was eventually rejected by AASHTO. The PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT jointly proposed other solutions, such as designating "old I-95" as a new x95, and AASHTO finally just told them to "number it I-295" .
NJDOT wasn't interested in having I-295 change cardinal directions within its jurisdiction, and it also wanted to reduce the resulting resigning effort (exit numbers, milemarkers, and cardinal directions)–which would have been extensive if I-295 was thoroughly resigned as a beltway. The path of least resistance for NJDOT was to extend the existing cardinal directions, milemarker sequence from South Jersey up around Trenton and the wrong direction to the PA/NJ border. Then to avoid an immediate north-to-south transition at the border, the PTC and PennDOT had no choice but to sign its portion of I-295 as East/West.
Quote from: briantroutman on November 30, 2018, 08:26:51 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 30, 2018, 07:50:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 30, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
Upon the completion of a recent construction project on Interstate 95 in Bucks County, a portion of the existing limited access roadway was renamed Interstate 295. Due to the potential conflict involved in having two major Pennsylvania traffic routes designated as 295, it was decided that State Route 295 in York County would be renumbered State Route 297.
Oh well, such is another reason why the old I-95 should've been redesignated as I-695 instead of I-295. :sombrero:
Wasn't the original plan to make the "new" I-295 into I-195 and truncate I-295 to Exit 60/I-195 anyway?
Bottom line: Blame AASHTO for the "I-295 East" silliness.
As was explained during the Golden Spike meet by representatives of the PTC and the engineering firm on the I-95 interchange project (Jacobs)–yes, that was basically the original plan (extend I-195 around Trenton to the PA Turnpike). That plan was eventually rejected by AASHTO. The PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT jointly proposed other solutions, such as designating "old I-95" as a new x95, and AASHTO finally just told them to "number it I-295" .
NJDOT wasn't interested in having I-295 change cardinal directions within its jurisdiction, and it also wanted to reduce the resulting resigning effort (exit numbers, milemarkers, and cardinal directions)–which would have been extensive if I-295 was thoroughly resigned as a beltway. The path of least resistance for NJDOT was to extend the existing cardinal directions, milemarker sequence from South Jersey up around Trenton and the wrong direction to the PA/NJ border. Then to avoid an immediate north-to-south transition at the border, the PTC and PennDOT had no choice but to sign its portion of I-295 as East/West.
Heh, I knew NJDOT was the stickler that caused 295 to be north-south all the way thru NJ and then switch to east west in PA...
Quote from: famartin on November 30, 2018, 08:36:52 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 30, 2018, 08:26:51 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 30, 2018, 07:50:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 30, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
Upon the completion of a recent construction project on Interstate 95 in Bucks County, a portion of the existing limited access roadway was renamed Interstate 295. Due to the potential conflict involved in having two major Pennsylvania traffic routes designated as 295, it was decided that State Route 295 in York County would be renumbered State Route 297.
Oh well, such is another reason why the old I-95 should've been redesignated as I-695 instead of I-295. :sombrero:
Wasn't the original plan to make the "new" I-295 into I-195 and truncate I-295 to Exit 60/I-195 anyway?
Bottom line: Blame AASHTO for the "I-295 East" silliness.
As was explained during the Golden Spike meet by representatives of the PTC and the engineering firm on the I-95 interchange project (Jacobs)–yes, that was basically the original plan (extend I-195 around Trenton to the PA Turnpike). That plan was eventually rejected by AASHTO. The PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT jointly proposed other solutions, such as designating "old I-95" as a new x95, and AASHTO finally just told them to "number it I-295" .
NJDOT wasn't interested in having I-295 change cardinal directions within its jurisdiction, and it also wanted to reduce the resulting resigning effort (exit numbers, milemarkers, and cardinal directions)–which would have been extensive if I-295 was thoroughly resigned as a beltway. The path of least resistance for NJDOT was to extend the existing cardinal directions, milemarker sequence from South Jersey up around Trenton and the wrong direction to the PA/NJ border. Then to avoid an immediate north-to-south transition at the border, the PTC and PennDOT had no choice but to sign its portion of I-295 as East/West.
Heh, I knew NJDOT was the stickler that caused 295 to be north-south all the way thru NJ and then switch to east west in PA...
As if we weren't already cleaning up NJDOT's original mess in the first place :pan:
How would having I-295 be east-west from the PA/NJ border to US 1 change how exit numbers or mile markers would have changed? There's precedent for beltways with counter-clockwise numbering (see: I-95/I-495, DC/MD/VA).
Quote from: famartin on November 30, 2018, 08:36:52 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 30, 2018, 08:26:51 PM
Quote from: ipeters61 on November 30, 2018, 07:50:54 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2018, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on November 30, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
Upon the completion of a recent construction project on Interstate 95 in Bucks County, a portion of the existing limited access roadway was renamed Interstate 295. Due to the potential conflict involved in having two major Pennsylvania traffic routes designated as 295, it was decided that State Route 295 in York County would be renumbered State Route 297.
Oh well, such is another reason why the old I-95 should've been redesignated as I-695 instead of I-295. :sombrero:
Wasn't the original plan to make the "new" I-295 into I-195 and truncate I-295 to Exit 60/I-195 anyway?
Bottom line: Blame AASHTO for the “I-295 East” silliness.
As was explained during the Golden Spike meet by representatives of the PTC and the engineering firm on the I-95 interchange project (Jacobs)—yes, that was basically the original plan (extend I-195 around Trenton to the PA Turnpike). That plan was eventually rejected by AASHTO. The PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT jointly proposed other solutions, such as designating “old I-95” as a new x95, and AASHTO finally just told them to “number it I-295”.
NJDOT wasn’t interested in having I-295 change cardinal directions within its jurisdiction, and it also wanted to reduce the resulting resigning effort (exit numbers, milemarkers, and cardinal directions)—which would have been extensive if I-295 was thoroughly resigned as a beltway. The path of least resistance for NJDOT was to extend the existing cardinal directions, milemarker sequence from South Jersey up around Trenton and the wrong direction to the PA/NJ border. Then to avoid an immediate north-to-south transition at the border, the PTC and PennDOT had no choice but to sign its portion of I-295 as East/West.
Heh, I knew NJDOT was the stickler that caused 295 to be north-south all the way thru NJ and then switch to east west in PA...
Jersey should have just did all of I-295 that was originally I-95 as East- West and have it changed directions at the US 1 interchange.
https://goo.gl/maps/7qK1Es9RtVx I do see though that "Trenton" is not the control city for East I-295 like it was for North i-95 on this Google image.
QuoteJersey should have just did all of I-295 that was originally I-95 as East- West and have it changed directions at the US 1 interchange.
Completely agree. It should absolutely be east west from the PA state line to US 1, north south in PA
Oh goodie...beating this dead horse again...
For what it's worth, the local area doesn't seem to care about the highway renumbering. I haven't heard any coworkers discussing it. Any newspaper/media articles on it didn't generate any talk either. On the rare occasion when the traffic reports mention the area, usually they will say the old 95 North, new 295 East in Bucks County or something to that effect.
What people do care about:
The new roundabouts they're putting on 29 at the 295 interchange.
Gas taxes.
Snow removal.
What they will care about when it starts up:
The new Scudders Falls Bridge tolling.
The 295 East/West thing doesn't even register as an issue. I'd imagine for many people, they'd have more of a problem with it if it did switch directions mid-state.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2018, 09:38:59 AM
Oh goodie...beating this dead horse again...
For what it's worth, the local area doesn't seem to care about the highway renumbering. I haven't heard any coworkers discussing it. Any newspaper/media articles on it didn't generate any talk either. On the rare occasion when the traffic reports mention the area, usually they will say the old 95 North, new 295 East in Bucks County or something to that effect.
What people do care about:
The new roundabouts they're putting on 29 at the 295 interchange.
Gas taxes.
Snow removal.
What they will care about when it starts up:
The new Scudders Falls Bridge tolling.
The 295 East/West thing doesn't even register as an issue. I'd imagine for many people, they'd have more of a problem with it if it did switch directions mid-state.
Of course not. They are just going the same way they've always gone, ignoring the signs as they've always done. Nothing physical has changed for them. Most people hardly notice signs when they live there and drive that way all the time.
This is all for people who are not from the area. And for them, this may be confusing.
Quote from: famartin on December 01, 2018, 09:56:27 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2018, 09:38:59 AM
Oh goodie...beating this dead horse again...
For what it's worth, the local area doesn't seem to care about the highway renumbering. I haven't heard any coworkers discussing it. Any newspaper/media articles on it didn't generate any talk either. On the rare occasion when the traffic reports mention the area, usually they will say the old 95 North, new 295 East in Bucks County or something to that effect.
What people do care about:
The new roundabouts they're putting on 29 at the 295 interchange.
Gas taxes.
Snow removal.
What they will care about when it starts up:
The new Scudders Falls Bridge tolling.
The 295 East/West thing doesn't even register as an issue. I'd imagine for many people, they'd have more of a problem with it if it did switch directions mid-state.
Of course not. They are just going the same way they've always gone, ignoring the signs as they've always done. Nothing physical has changed for them. Most people hardly notice signs when they live there and drive that way all the time.
This is all for people who are not from the area. And for them, this may be confusing.
How so? They have directions, telling them which roads to be on and what exit to take. They're not out there orienting themselves with the sun to determine what's east and west of them.
No more confusing than if someone enters I-95 from US 13 or US 130. Those people are actually going Northward if they want I-95 South, and Southward if they want I-95 North. Same thing with any number of 'wrong way' signings.
If there's any issues out there, no one's mentioning them. I'm sure it'll be popping up somewhere - articles about businesses complaining people are lost or something like that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2018, 10:23:40 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 01, 2018, 09:56:27 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2018, 09:38:59 AM
Oh goodie...beating this dead horse again...
For what it's worth, the local area doesn't seem to care about the highway renumbering. I haven't heard any coworkers discussing it. Any newspaper/media articles on it didn't generate any talk either. On the rare occasion when the traffic reports mention the area, usually they will say the old 95 North, new 295 East in Bucks County or something to that effect.
What people do care about:
The new roundabouts they're putting on 29 at the 295 interchange.
Gas taxes.
Snow removal.
What they will care about when it starts up:
The new Scudders Falls Bridge tolling.
The 295 East/West thing doesn't even register as an issue. I'd imagine for many people, they'd have more of a problem with it if it did switch directions mid-state.
Of course not. They are just going the same way they've always gone, ignoring the signs as they've always done. Nothing physical has changed for them. Most people hardly notice signs when they live there and drive that way all the time.
This is all for people who are not from the area. And for them, this may be confusing.
How so? They have directions, telling them which roads to be on and what exit to take. They're not out there orienting themselves with the sun to determine what's east and west of them.
No more confusing than if someone enters I-95 from US 13 or US 130. Those people are actually going Northward if they want I-95 South, and Southward if they want I-95 North. Same thing with any number of 'wrong way' signings.
If there's any issues out there, no one's mentioning them. I'm sure it'll be popping up somewhere - articles about businesses complaining people are lost or something like that.
First, you misunderstand my meaning. Most signs are still basically the same (exits etc), and even the I-295 north signs in NJ all say "To 95 South" where they used to say just "95 south". A lot of the 95 north signs also had "to 295 south" and now just say "295 south". Signs haven't changed THAT much.
Second, what happens on the new segment of I-95 is completely different. The overall route still goes north-south. 295 turns completely around, it doesn't end up going north again later on. Its directional signage, as such, is therefore inappropriate. NJDOT gets away with things like I-287 since it only turns around partly at the south end. But I-295 loops back almost completely. NJDOT basically said "no we're going to ignore that", because they definitely have an internal issue with signing any road in more than one set of cardinal directions. They only grudgingly do so on the few roads where it happens (Route 36, Route 7, maybe one or two more I can't think of).
BTW, speaking of the new segment of I-95 being slightly wrong-way where it crosses from NJ to PA... its also slightly wrong-way where it crosses from NJ to NY. Not sure if that was mentioned here.
It seems odd that from US 1 in Langhorne that East is to the left of north and west to the right going against all conventional logic, but I have seen it worse. In Orlando where I am from we have W Bound US 92 intersect FL 417 with the SB 417 to the right of WB US 92, and in Tennessee you have both US 11 traveling northbound with US 41 Southbound on the same two lane road.
As far as folks reading road signs I agree no one does anymore so this confusion is only to us minority who are into roads (who know what is right anyway) as people now do not even bother to orient themselves with their surroundings in strange places thanks to our phone already figuring it out for them.
Quote from: famartin on December 01, 2018, 10:45:23 AM
BTW, speaking of the new segment of I-95 being slightly wrong-way where it crosses from NJ to PA... its also slightly wrong-way where it crosses from NJ to NY. Not sure if that was mentioned here.
So is Business US 90 crossing the Mississippi. Just as the Business banner is not what it is either, but every road cannot be straight. US 441 inside Great Smoky Mountain Park has SB 441 travel north looking back (up) at the overlook ahead of you that was visited several miles ago before.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2018, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 01, 2018, 10:45:23 AM
BTW, speaking of the new segment of I-95 being slightly wrong-way where it crosses from NJ to PA... its also slightly wrong-way where it crosses from NJ to NY. Not sure if that was mentioned here.
So is Business US 90 crossing the Mississippi. Just as the Business banner is not what it is either, but every road cannot be straight. US 441 inside Great Smoky Mountain Park has SB 441 travel north looking back (up) at the overlook ahead of you that was visited several miles ago before.
I was trying to key in on the fact that at both state crossings into/out of NJ, I-95 is slightly wrong way.
J&N made a good point up above. This issue of 95/295 and where it goes north/south vs. east/west and what control cities should be shown where has been discussed in these pages backwards, forwards and sideways. It's good that so many of us find this an interesting subject, but really enough is enough. LOL
NJ creates its own issues.
* NJ 7: Mileposted entirely north/south, so you see NORTH 7 MILE 3 next to a WEST 7 assembly.
* US 1/9 TRUCK: Mileposted entirely east/west for absolutely no reason at all.
Quote from: briantroutman on November 30, 2018, 08:26:51 PM
Bottom line: Blame AASHTO for the "I-295 East" silliness.
As was explained during the Golden Spike meet by representatives of the PTC and the engineering firm on the I-95 interchange project (Jacobs)–yes, that was basically the original plan (extend I-195 around Trenton to the PA Turnpike). That plan was eventually rejected by AASHTO. The PTC, PennDOT, and NJDOT jointly proposed other solutions, such as designating "old I-95" as a new x95, and AASHTO finally just told them to "number it I-295" .
NJDOT wasn't interested in having I-295 change cardinal directions within its jurisdiction, and it also wanted to reduce the resulting resigning effort (exit numbers, milemarkers, and cardinal directions)– which would have been extensive if I-295 was thoroughly resigned as a beltway. The path of least resistance for NJDOT was to extend the existing cardinal directions, milemarker sequence from South Jersey up around Trenton and the wrong direction to the PA/NJ border. Then to avoid an immediate north-to-south transition at the border, the PTC and PennDOT had no choice but to sign its portion of I-295 as East/West.
IMHO, and I know that
such was mentioned several times in previous posts, the
path of least resistance would've actually been selecting a separate number (I-395 or I-695). Such would
not have required NJDOT to change their exit numbers & mile markers (which they did for the I-295 conversion). The only change in the NJ side would've been the route number & direction cardinals; such would've allowed that stretch to be logically signed as east-west. Had I arrived at the Golden Spike Meet earlier; I would've voiced the above.
Additionally, when I did arrive late at the Golden Spike Meet; I handed out copies of a 1957 Master Plan of Trenton-Mercer Airport (TTN) that showed the then-proposed I-95 (now I-295) as proposed NJ 129. Obviously the plan, predated the now-familiar Interstate designations becoming official. Had the arced highway indeed became NJ 129; it most certainly would've been signed as an east-west route. Restating the obvious here but the only reason why that western portion of the highway was signed as a north-south route in the first place was because it was planned to be the southernmost segment of the overall I-95 in NJ.
J&N, had you been able to attend that meet; I would have certainly given you a copy of that plan. I still have some extras with me. Maybe I'll bring them to whatever local relatively local meet that may come up.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2018, 10:59:06 PMJersey should have just did all of I-295 that was originally I-95 as East- West and have it changed directions at the US 1 interchange.
Agreed.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2018, 10:59:06 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/7qK1Es9RtVx I do see though that "Trenton" is not the control city for East I-295 like it was for North i-95 on this Google image.
It's worth noting that the change from
Trenton to
Princeton for the northbound Delaware Expressway in that area occurred several years prior to the recent I-95/295 changeover. 2009 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1933309,-74.8734888,3a,75y,255.68h,92.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYtFCuOtJ-surU4QYzK3OvQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664) of US 1 southbound approaching the then-I-95 interchange near Langhorne, PA. IMHO, regardless of which I-95 alignment prevailed; the Delaware Expressway from this US 1 interchange and northward should've never been signed for Trenton. The current
Princeton control city is more appropriate.
NJ is pretty much screwy with cardinal directions anyhow. Look at Route 42 for example. Yes it runs north and south, but it is part of a larger east-west corridor and really should be signed as east-west, but NJDOT don't see the big picture there, and they do not here.
Route 73 is another, though understandable and not part of the east to west process, however PennDOT signs their portion as east-west though and should keep the uniform like PennDOT does with PA 179 where in New Hope it does run more east-west than north-south, but in NJ it is more north - south and they decided not to confuse folks and signed it like they did. I cannot see why NJ does not look at that aspect and keep it uniform even if it breaks rules som.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2018, 09:06:56 AM
NJ is pretty much screwy with cardinal directions anyhow. Look at Route 42 for example. Yes it runs north and south, but it is part of a larger east-west corridor and really should be signed as east-west, but NJDOT don't see the big picture there, and they do not here.
IIRC, the north-south signing of NJ 42 dates back to when that designation once
included both of the I-76 & I-676 stretches; though designation of the latter I don't believe ever happened.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2018, 09:06:56 AMRoute 73 is another, though understandable and not part of the east to west process, however PennDOT signs their portion as east-west though and should keep the uniform like PennDOT does with PA 179 where in New Hope it does run more east-west than north-south, but in NJ it is more north - south and they decided not to confuse folks and signed it like they did. I cannot see why NJ does not look at that aspect and keep it uniform even if it breaks rules som.
IIRC, there's no law that requires state routes to retain their direction cardinals when crossing state lines & the SR 73 vs. SR 179 (which only has a short segment in PA) is an apple-to-oranges comparison.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2018, 09:00:24 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 30, 2018, 10:59:06 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/7qK1Es9RtVx I do see though that "Trenton" is not the control city for East I-295 like it was for North i-95 on this Google image.
It's worth noting that the change from Trenton to Princeton for the northbound Delaware Expressway in that area occurred several years prior to the recent I-95/295 changeover. 2009 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1933309,-74.8734888,3a,75y,255.68h,92.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYtFCuOtJ-surU4QYzK3OvQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664) of US 1 southbound approaching the then-I-95 interchange near Langhorne, PA. IMHO, regardless of which I-95 alignment prevailed; the Delaware Expressway from this US 1 interchange and northward should've never been signed for Trenton. The current Princeton control city is more appropriate.
Maybe it made sense before US 1 was completed between Oxford Valley Road and US 13, but having Trenton be the control city on
95 295 all the way to NJ 29 was really dumb.
Fortunately, Princeton is only used as the primary control city north of US 1. Trenton is used from I-95 at the new interchange. They also replaced Morrisville with Trenton at least at the I-295/US 1 cloverleaf for the NB US 1 control city, which again makes much more sense.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2018, 09:06:56 AM
NJ is pretty much screwy with cardinal directions anyhow. Look at Route 42 for example. Yes it runs north and south, but it is part of a larger east-west corridor and really should be signed as east-west, but NJDOT don't see the big picture there, and they do not here.
From the end of the AC Expressway in AC to the middle of the Walt Whitman Bridge, its 36.86 miles due west and 37.59 miles due north... so, BARELY more north-south. At least, if you only include the NJ portion. Of course, if you measure from the Ben Franklin Bridge, its even more north-south.
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2018, 09:06:56 AM
NJ is pretty much screwy with cardinal directions anyhow. Look at Route 42 for example. Yes it runs north and south, but it is part of a larger east-west corridor and really should be signed as east-west, but NJDOT don't see the big picture there, and they do not here.
From the end of the AC Expressway in AC to the middle of the Walt Whitman Bridge, its 36.86 miles due west and 37.59 miles due north... so, BARELY more north-south. At least, if you only include the NJ portion. Of course, if you measure from the Ben Franklin Bridge, its even more north-south.
This idea that its really a north-south corridor in NJ is also supported by mileposting, since both I-76 and the AC Expressway are mileposted east-to-west (instead of the proper west-to-east)... if the direction was changed to south-north, then the mileposting would be proper.
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 10:49:57 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2018, 09:06:56 AM
NJ is pretty much screwy with cardinal directions anyhow. Look at Route 42 for example. Yes it runs north and south, but it is part of a larger east-west corridor and really should be signed as east-west, but NJDOT don't see the big picture there, and they do not here.
From the end of the AC Expressway in AC to the middle of the Walt Whitman Bridge, its 36.86 miles due west and 37.59 miles due north... so, BARELY more north-south. At least, if you only include the NJ portion. Of course, if you measure from the Ben Franklin Bridge, its even more north-south.
This idea that its really a north-south corridor in NJ is also supported by mileposting, since both I-76 and the AC Expressway are mileposted east-to-west (instead of the proper west-to-east)... if the direction was changed to south-north, then the mileposting would be proper.
Not to mention that the non-ACE section is literally called the North-South Freeway.
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2018, 09:06:56 AM
NJ is pretty much screwy with cardinal directions anyhow. Look at Route 42 for example. Yes it runs north and south, but it is part of a larger east-west corridor and really should be signed as east-west, but NJDOT don't see the big picture there, and they do not here.
From the end of the AC Expressway in AC to the middle of the Walt Whitman Bridge, its 36.86 miles due west and 37.59 miles due north... so, BARELY more north-south. At least, if you only include the NJ portion. Of course, if you measure from the Ben Franklin Bridge, its even more north-south.
It's tough to think of it this way, but Atlantic City is actually almost due east of Baltimore. Toms River and Seaside Heights are due east of Philly. Cape May is due east of Washington, DC.
If you're using I-95, you go further east-west on 95 between Philly and Baltimore than you do between Philly and AC.
So when it comes to cardinal directions, NJ could've gone either way. Heck, even I-295 could've been East-West from I-95 in Delaware to Bordentown, NJ, when it finally decidedly takes a noticeable North/South alignment.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 03, 2018, 09:00:24 AM
J&N, had you been able to attend that meet; I would have certainly given you a copy of that plan. I still have some extras with me. Maybe I'll bring them to whatever local relatively local meet that may come up.
Absolutely. I was very disappointed to miss that meet, being just a few miles away.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2018, 03:00:15 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 10:33:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2018, 09:06:56 AM
NJ is pretty much screwy with cardinal directions anyhow. Look at Route 42 for example. Yes it runs north and south, but it is part of a larger east-west corridor and really should be signed as east-west, but NJDOT don't see the big picture there, and they do not here.
From the end of the AC Expressway in AC to the middle of the Walt Whitman Bridge, its 36.86 miles due west and 37.59 miles due north... so, BARELY more north-south. At least, if you only include the NJ portion. Of course, if you measure from the Ben Franklin Bridge, its even more north-south.
It's tough to think of it this way, but Atlantic City is actually almost due east of Baltimore. Toms River and Seaside Heights are due east of Philly. Cape May is due east of Washington, DC.
If you're using I-95, you go further east-west on 95 between Philly and Baltimore than you do between Philly and AC.
So when it comes to cardinal directions, NJ could've gone either way. Heck, even I-295 could've been East-West from I-95 in Delaware to Bordentown, NJ, when it finally decidedly takes a noticeable North/South alignment.
South Jersey's cardinal directions are kinda skewed by the decidedly northeast/southwest urban corridor through the region. US 30 is probably the only true outlier (being slightly more north/south in NJ than east/west, but signed east/west because of the entire route being east/west), with 322 and 40 more east/west than north/south. The issue COULD be forced if I-76 was ever extended to AC, which would likely force a re-mileposting from the Walt Whitman being the new mile zero, east to AC (which would reverse all the mileposts in this stretch, but give them a single set of them). Not that such a thing will ever happen...
I-295 could (perhaps should) be signed east/west in Delaware... I'm actually sometimes surprised that it isn't. Before, when it was just Delaware and NJ, it made more sense to keep it north/south, but now that the new PA section breaks from the mold, Delaware could get away with it. Of course, no one really even notices what the direction is there... all they pay attention to is the "To NJTP/NY/NJ" signs going north and "To I-95/Baltimore" signs going south.
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 03:37:01 PM
I-295 could (perhaps should) be signed east/west in Delaware... I'm actually sometimes surprised that it isn't. Before, when it was just Delaware and NJ, it made more sense to keep it north/south, but now that the new PA section breaks from the mold, Delaware could get away with it. Of course, no one really even notices what the direction is there... all they pay attention to is the "To NJTP/NY/NJ" signs going north and "To I-95/Baltimore" signs going south.
My own personal opinion is that I-295 should remain north/south in Delaware since, at least from my understanding, the vast majority of traffic taking I-295 from DE is either taking the NJ Turnpike or I-295 towards New York/New England. Considering I-295 only exists in Delaware for about 5 miles, it's not worth the extra confusion, since most traffic is heading "north" (yes, technically northeast, but most people, at least around DE, refer to New York and New England as "up north"). The US-40 multiplex that exists for half of those 5 miles takes care of the "east" part.
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 03, 2018, 03:55:25 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 03:37:01 PM
I-295 could (perhaps should) be signed east/west in Delaware... I'm actually sometimes surprised that it isn't. Before, when it was just Delaware and NJ, it made more sense to keep it north/south, but now that the new PA section breaks from the mold, Delaware could get away with it. Of course, no one really even notices what the direction is there... all they pay attention to is the "To NJTP/NY/NJ" signs going north and "To I-95/Baltimore" signs going south.
My own personal opinion is that I-295 should remain north/south in Delaware since, at least from my understanding, the vast majority of traffic taking I-295 from DE is either taking the NJ Turnpike or I-295 towards New York/New England. Considering I-295 only exists in Delaware for about 5 miles, it's not worth the extra confusion, since most traffic is heading "north" (yes, technically northeast, but most people, at least around DE, refer to New York and New England as "up north"). The US-40 multiplex that exists for half of those 5 miles takes care of the "east" part.
Since I don't think they're even paying attention to the I-295 part of those signs, I doubt it even matters what direction is signed.
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
How quickly are they expected to build an interchange (or at least ramps for the two major quadrants)?
It was just designated as I-95 in 2018.
Quote from: Beltway on December 03, 2018, 09:03:27 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
How quickly are they expected to build an interchange (or at least ramps for the two major quadrants)?
It was just designated as I-95 in 2018.
Its not happening. Probably ever. Certainly I'm not aware of any plans for it. Neither agency desires it.
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
I don't know about most people, but when I need to gt from 95 to 295 there, it's to go south not north. Not to mention, where would you be going on 295 if you came from PA and are exiting at exit 7 or 7A?
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2018, 09:05:52 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
I don't know about most people, but when I need to gt from 95 to 295 there, it's to go south not north. Not to mention, where would you be going on 295 if you came from PA and are exiting at exit 7 or 7A?
Prior to the new connection opening; I used Exit 7A & 7 (prior to the 1994 completion of I-295) on my numerous trips to/from New England over the span of at least 27 years.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
It does, but a 95/295 link would be the most direct and I suspect it would suck a decent amount of trafffic from 7 and a bit more from 7A. But if you are the NJTA, you don't want to lose the money, and if you are NJDOT, you don't want the added congestion and increased maintenance costs.
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2018, 11:37:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
It does, but a 95/295 link would be the most direct and I suspect it would suck a decent amount of trafffic from 7 and a bit more from 7A. But if you are the NJTA, you don't want to lose the money, and if you are NJDOT, you don't want the added congestion and increased maintenance costs.
For traffic coming to and from
the north, a direct connection w/I-295 near Exit 6 would actually translate into
more revenue for the NJTA than if such are currently using Exits 7 or 7A to get to I-295. Not to mention the corresponding
drop in thru-traffic to and from the north along I-295 between MM 53.3 (where I-295 crosses over I-95) and Exits 56 (US 206/NJ 68) or Exit 60 (I-195/NJ 29).
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2018, 11:37:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
It does, but a 95/295 link would be the most direct and I suspect it would suck a decent amount of trafffic from 7 and a bit more from 7A. But if you are the NJTA, you don't want to lose the money, and if you are NJDOT, you don't want the added congestion and increased maintenance costs.
For traffic coming to and from the north, a direct connection w/I-295 near Exit 6 would actually translate into more revenue for the NJTA than if such are currently using Exits 7 or 7A to get to I-295. Not to mention the corresponding drop in thru-traffic to and from the north along I-295 between MM 53.3 (where I-295 crosses over I-95) and Exits 56 (US 206/NJ 68) or Exit 60 (I-195/NJ 29).
While true, I think the reasoning is the traffic south of there that would be further encouraged to bypass the turnpike via 295... a longer stretch of road and greater revenue loss, I suspect
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2018, 12:10:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2018, 11:37:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
It does, but a 95/295 link would be the most direct and I suspect it would suck a decent amount of trafffic from 7 and a bit more from 7A. But if you are the NJTA, you don't want to lose the money, and if you are NJDOT, you don't want the added congestion and increased maintenance costs.
For traffic coming to and from the north, a direct connection w/I-295 near Exit 6 would actually translate into more revenue for the NJTA than if such are currently using Exits 7 or 7A to get to I-295. Not to mention the corresponding drop in thru-traffic to and from the north along I-295 between MM 53.3 (where I-295 crosses over I-95) and Exits 56 (US 206/NJ 68) or Exit 60 (I-195/NJ 29).
While true, I think the reasoning is the traffic south of there that would be further encouraged to bypass the turnpike via 295... a longer stretch of road and greater revenue loss, I suspect
The way I see it, a direct connection w/I-295 near Exit 6 would mostly be more convenient for traffic to/from North Jersey and beyond; but the trade-off would be higher toll costs for entering/exiting the Turnpike further south.
For traffic coming to/from points south of the Turnpike Connector (I-95) via I-295; a direct connection with the Turnpike Connector only benefits traffic to/from the PA side of the river. Such was the reasoning why the original Exit 6A partial-interchange w/US 130 was constructed. All other traffic to/from points south needing to get to/from the mainline NJTP would simply use Exits 56 (US 206/NJ 68) or Exit 60 (I-195/NJ 29) as they're doing now.
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. My Opinion is it's an economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Fixed for you, as you don't know the real reason.
In reality, there's available land, as in land that's mostly used for agriculture reasons (and thus still owned by someone, rather than just available right of way sitting there). But you also have a major interchange on the NJ/PA Turnpike Connector 3,200 feet to the east from I-295. And to the west, 1 3/4 miles away is the US 130 interchange. They are not desired distances to build anther interchange in-between, especially one that'll be a major interstate-interstate interchange when you have to consider where the actual interchange and ramps will be placed, along with the necessary accel and decal lanes.
While you're looking at it as a way for people to shorten their trip on the Turnpike, that's not entirely true. Many motorists - and especially truckers, enter I-295 from the Burlington/Florence area. Most of them head north to where they can access the NJ Turnpike at Exit 7 or 7A. They would more easily be able to access it from this new interchange, which means they'll be spending more time (and money) on the NJ Turnpike. Same is true for southbound travel - they wouldn't need to exit the Turnpike at 7A or 7 to get to I-295.
The Turnpike is also going to build interchanges where there's a need. There are needs up and down the Turnpike where interchanges could be built. The only 'need' I keep hearing here is because two interstates cross each other. Due to nearby parallel routes and exits, it's not an urgent issue.
For travelers on the PA Extension of the NJ Turnpike (I-95 SB), there is still a ground mounted sign that points to I-295 via the US 130 exit. See at 3:18 of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJnrU8nD4wc
NJTA seems to be SLOWLY adding or uncovering more I-95 shields, based on some of the roadwaywiz videos I checked out that were posted around Thanksgiving weekend.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on December 04, 2018, 02:34:53 PM
For travelers on the PA Extension of the NJ Turnpike (I-95 SB), there is still a ground mounted sign that points to I-295 via the US 130 exit. See at 3:18 of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJnrU8nD4wc
NJTA seems to be SLOWLY adding or uncovering more I-95 shields, based on some of the roadwaywiz videos I checked out that were posted around Thanksgiving weekend.
See Page 92, Reply #2276 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.2275) of this thread. Those updates shown in the video were there before Thanksgiving weekend. No known additional I-95 shields have been erected anywhere near/along the NJTP since then.
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2018, 12:10:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2018, 11:37:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
It does, but a 95/295 link would be the most direct and I suspect it would suck a decent amount of trafffic from 7 and a bit more from 7A. But if you are the NJTA, you don't want to lose the money, and if you are NJDOT, you don't want the added congestion and increased maintenance costs.
For traffic coming to and from the north, a direct connection w/I-295 near Exit 6 would actually translate into more revenue for the NJTA than if such are currently using Exits 7 or 7A to get to I-295. Not to mention the corresponding drop in thru-traffic to and from the north along I-295 between MM 53.3 (where I-295 crosses over I-95) and Exits 56 (US 206/NJ 68) or Exit 60 (I-195/NJ 29).
While true, I think the reasoning is the traffic south of there that would be further encouraged to bypass the turnpike via 295... a longer stretch of road and greater revenue loss, I suspect
Why don't they take a page from PA's book and build some EZ-Pass-only "slip ramps" there; one from I-295 north to the turnpike north, and from the turnpike south to I-295 south?
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 04, 2018, 06:38:38 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2018, 12:10:16 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2018, 11:37:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 03, 2018, 08:07:02 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on December 03, 2018, 07:58:34 PM
How is it now that I-95 and I-295 in NJ cross without an interchange?
Its been suggested that there isn't room for an interchange, but I'm sure that's not really true. The real reason is the economic one (for the NJTA): They don't want to further encourage bypassing the mainline by providing a better connection.
Not to mention that such already exists further north with both Exit 7A (I-195) & Exit 7 (US 206/NJ 68).
It does, but a 95/295 link would be the most direct and I suspect it would suck a decent amount of trafffic from 7 and a bit more from 7A. But if you are the NJTA, you don't want to lose the money, and if you are NJDOT, you don't want the added congestion and increased maintenance costs.
For traffic coming to and from the north, a direct connection w/I-295 near Exit 6 would actually translate into more revenue for the NJTA than if such are currently using Exits 7 or 7A to get to I-295. Not to mention the corresponding drop in thru-traffic to and from the north along I-295 between MM 53.3 (where I-295 crosses over I-95) and Exits 56 (US 206/NJ 68) or Exit 60 (I-195/NJ 29).
While true, I think the reasoning is the traffic south of there that would be further encouraged to bypass the turnpike via 295... a longer stretch of road and greater revenue loss, I suspect
Why don't they take a page from PA's book and build some EZ-Pass-only "slip ramps" there; one from I-295 north to the turnpike north, and from the turnpike south to I-295 south?
This.
Especially near NJ 38 would be good crossover point.
Just to put this to bed, there is absolutely no discussion by any highway agency that I'm aware of regarding a new Turnpike connection to anything. The last considerations that I've heard anything about are extending NJ 17 (briefly talked about but never seriously considered) or doing something at Interchange 3 (not even talked about as much as 17).
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 04, 2018, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on December 04, 2018, 02:34:53 PM
For travelers on the PA Extension of the NJ Turnpike (I-95 SB), there is still a ground mounted sign that points to I-295 via the US 130 exit. See at 3:18 of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJnrU8nD4wc
NJTA seems to be SLOWLY adding or uncovering more I-95 shields, based on some of the roadwaywiz videos I checked out that were posted around Thanksgiving weekend.
See Page 92, Reply #2276 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.2275) of this thread. Those updates shown in the video were there before Thanksgiving weekend. No known additional I-95 shields have been erected anywhere near/along the NJTP since then.
Wow... Noticed the sign in the video for US 13 on the NJ side three miles away!
Quote from: Steve D on December 05, 2018, 08:54:56 AMWow... Noticed the sign in the video for US 13 on the NJ side three miles away!
IIRC, that sign has been there prior to the AET gantry on the PA side of the bridge was erected.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 04:53:17 PM
For a recap, the following pull-through NJTP signs still do not yet have I-95 shields placed on them:
Exits 8A, 8, 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A, north/eastbound only)
Ramp signs beyond the toll plazas that currently do not yet have I-95 shields on them:
Exits 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A).
Sounds like NJTA really is in no hurry to properly sign I-95!
Quote from: artmalk on December 07, 2018, 10:52:25 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 04:53:17 PM
For a recap, the following pull-through NJTP signs still do not yet have I-95 shields placed on them:
Exits 8A, 8, 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A, north/eastbound only)
Ramp signs beyond the toll plazas that currently do not yet have I-95 shields on them:
Exits 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A).
Sounds like NJTA really is in no hurry to properly sign I-95!
I mean they don’t really properly sign I-95 or I-78 on even the most established sections of the Turnpike, and for the last 40 years have been signing the Lincoln Tunnel exit as “NJ 3” instead of “NJ 495”. Maybe in about 2028 there will be I-95 shields from exits 10-6…
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:18:59 AM
Quote from: artmalk on December 07, 2018, 10:52:25 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 04:53:17 PM
For a recap, the following pull-through NJTP signs still do not yet have I-95 shields placed on them:
Exits 8A, 8, 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A, north/eastbound only)
Ramp signs beyond the toll plazas that currently do not yet have I-95 shields on them:
Exits 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A).
Sounds like NJTA really is in no hurry to properly sign I-95!
I mean they don't really properly sign I-95 or I-78 on even the most established sections of the Turnpike, and for the last 40 years have been signing the Lincoln Tunnel exit as "NJ 3" instead of "NJ 495" . Maybe in about 2028 there will be I-95 shields from exits 10-6...
They seem to do a good job with signing the routes where they have MUTCD signage, but they're in no hurry to update the rest it seems.
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 07, 2018, 11:44:54 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:18:59 AM
Quote from: artmalk on December 07, 2018, 10:52:25 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 04:53:17 PM
For a recap, the following pull-through NJTP signs still do not yet have I-95 shields placed on them:
Exits 8A, 8, 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A, north/eastbound only)
Ramp signs beyond the toll plazas that currently do not yet have I-95 shields on them:
Exits 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A).
Sounds like NJTA really is in no hurry to properly sign I-95!
I mean they don’t really properly sign I-95 or I-78 on even the most established sections of the Turnpike, and for the last 40 years have been signing the Lincoln Tunnel exit as “NJ 3” instead of “NJ 495”. Maybe in about 2028 there will be I-95 shields from exits 10-6…
They seem to do a good job with signing the routes where they have MUTCD signage, but they're in no hurry to update the rest it seems.
True but that could indicate that we might never see proper route signage on the Exit 10-6 stretch because that stretch will be the last portion of the turnpike to get MUTCD signage and that’s not happening for 20 years
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:47:47 AMTrue but that could indicate that we might never see proper route signage on the Exit 10 8A-6 stretch because that stretch will be the last portion of the turnpike to get MUTCD signage and that's not happening for 20 years
FTFY. Exits 9 & 10 received MUTCD-style signage, that included I-95 shields on the ramp & pull-through signs, within the last two years.
The dual-carriageway/widening extension project that went from Exits 8A to 6 of several years ago included ramp (except for Exit 7) & pull-through signs that were mostly spaced to accommodate I-95 shields in the foreseeable future. Hence, the bone of contention here; to date, the majority of those signs haven't had I-95 shields added to them yet.
I stated this before several times in this thread & I will state such again; NJTA had absolutely
no excuse not to place I-95 shields north of Exit 7A during that last widening project. Such would've confined the post-interchange-completion-induced sign mods/retrofits to a smaller region.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on December 07, 2018, 11:18:59 AM
Quote from: artmalk on December 07, 2018, 10:52:25 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 20, 2018, 04:53:17 PM
For a recap, the following pull-through NJTP signs still do not yet have I-95 shields placed on them:
Exits 8A, 8, 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A, north/eastbound only)
Ramp signs beyond the toll plazas that currently do not yet have I-95 shields on them:
Exits 7A, 7 & US 130 (aka Exit 6A).
Sounds like NJTA really is in no hurry to properly sign I-95!
I mean they don't really properly sign I-95 or I-78 on even the most established sections of the Turnpike, and for the last 40 years have been signing the Lincoln Tunnel exit as "NJ 3" instead of "NJ 495" . Maybe in about 2028 there will be I-95 shields from exits 10-6...
Depends on what you mean by "proper". If you mean the lack of reassurance signs after entrance ramps, yes for the most part they are missing. However, pull-through signs north of Exit 8A have been updated thoroughly. Here's a few pictures I took this past summer going northbound (sorry this post will take up lots of browser window space):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/2018-05-21_08_42_04_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_9_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_18%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_New_Brunswick%29_in_East_Brunswick_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/2018-05-21_08_50_52_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_10_%28Interstate_287_NORTH%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_440_NORTH%2C_Metuchen%2C_Perth_Amboy%29_in_Edison_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/2018-05-21_08_55_17_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_at_Exit_11_%28Garden_State_Parkway%2C_U.S._Route_9%2C_Woodbridge%29_in_Woodbridge_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/2018-05-21_09_00_44_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_12_%28Carteret%2C_Rahway%29_in_Carteret%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2018-05-21_09_00_44_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_12_%28Carteret%2C_Rahway%29_in_Carteret%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/2018-06-20_08_55_09_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_13_%28Interstate_278%2C_Elizabeth%2C_Staten_Island%29_in_Linden%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/2018-06-20_09_06_04_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_13A_%28Newark_Airport%2C_Elizabeth_Seaport%29_in_Elizabeth%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/2018-07-16_10_40_30_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_14-14C_%28Interstate_78%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_U.S._Route_9%2C_Newark_Airport%2C_Holland_Tunnel%29_in_Newark%2C_Essex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/2018-07-08_14_40_01_IMG_6160_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_14_40_01_IMG_6160_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/2018-07-21_18_08_18_IMG_8168_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_18_08_18_IMG_8168_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
And here are some southbound ones:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/2018-07-21_17_49_29_IMG_8165_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_17_49_29_IMG_8165_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/2018-07-21_17_51_52_IMG_8166_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_17_51_52_IMG_8166_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/2018-07-21_17_54_49_IMG_8167_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_17_54_49_IMG_8167_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/2018-07-08_09_06_36_IMG_6024_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_09_06_36_IMG_6024_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/2018-07-16_11_35_00_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike_Western_Spur%29_just_north_of_Exit_15E_%28U.S._Route_1%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_Newark%2C_Jersey_City%29_in_Newark%2C_Essex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/2018-06-20_09_22_32_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_13_%28Interstate_278%2C_Elizabeth%2C_Staten_Island%29_in_Elizabeth%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/2018-06-20_09_31_17_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_12_%28Carteret%2C_Rahway%29_in_Linden%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2018-06-20_09_31_17_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_12_%28Carteret%2C_Rahway%29_in_Linden%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/2018-05-21_09_19_30_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_9_%28Garden_State_Parkway%2C_U.S._Route_9%2C_Woodbridge%29_in_Woodbridge_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/2018-05-21_09_23_12_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_10_%28Interstate_287_NORTH%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_440_NORTH%2C_Metuchen%2C_Perth_Amboy%29_in_Edison_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/2018-05-21_09_31_36_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_9_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_18%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_New_Brunswick%29_in_New_Brunswick%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
A few from the 78 section:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/2018-07-08_13_11_26_IMG_6120_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_13_11_26_IMG_6120_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/2018-07-08_08_16_17_IMG_6017_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_08_16_17_IMG_6017_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/2018-07-08_08_19_10_IMG_6018_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_08_19_10_IMG_6018_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/2018-07-08_08_23_07_IMG_6019_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_08_23_07_IMG_6019_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
Quote from: famartin on December 07, 2018, 02:13:00 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/2018-05-21_08_42_04_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_9_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_18%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_New_Brunswick%29_in_East_Brunswick_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/2018-05-21_08_50_52_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_10_%28Interstate_287_NORTH%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_440_NORTH%2C_Metuchen%2C_Perth_Amboy%29_in_Edison_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/2018-05-21_08_55_17_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_at_Exit_11_%28Garden_State_Parkway%2C_U.S._Route_9%2C_Woodbridge%29_in_Woodbridge_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/2018-05-21_09_00_44_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_12_%28Carteret%2C_Rahway%29_in_Carteret%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2018-05-21_09_00_44_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_12_%28Carteret%2C_Rahway%29_in_Carteret%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/2018-06-20_08_55_09_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_13_%28Interstate_278%2C_Elizabeth%2C_Staten_Island%29_in_Linden%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/2018-06-20_09_06_04_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_13A_%28Newark_Airport%2C_Elizabeth_Seaport%29_in_Elizabeth%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/2018-07-16_10_40_30_IMG_6206_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-16_10_40_30_IMG_6206_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/2018-07-08_14_40_01_IMG_6160_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_14_40_01_IMG_6160_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
I still think that those northbound pull-throughs up to & including Exit 12 with the blank space underneath the shields
should list
New York. Since the practice of using
George Washington Bridge as a control point
is still being applied for the new signs through Exit 18E; why not use that (or
G. W. Bridge given the size of the panels) for the Exit 13 & 13A pull-throughs?
Quote from: famartin on December 07, 2018, 02:23:02 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/2018-07-21_17_49_29_IMG_8165_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_17_49_29_IMG_8165_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/2018-07-21_17_51_52_IMG_8166_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_17_51_52_IMG_8166_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
Now that the revised I-95 routing has become visible to the general public; will, at least, the interchange numbers north of the NJTP be changed to reflect the its mileage? Exit 68 would become Exit 72 and Exit 69 would become Exit 74.
Quote from: famartin on December 07, 2018, 02:23:02 PM
And here are some southbound ones:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/2018-07-21_17_49_29_IMG_8165_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_17_49_29_IMG_8165_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/2018-07-21_17_51_52_IMG_8166_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_17_51_52_IMG_8166_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/2018-07-21_17_54_49_IMG_8167_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_17_54_49_IMG_8167_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/2018-07-08_09_06_36_IMG_6024_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_09_06_36_IMG_6024_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/2018-07-16_11_35_00_IMG_6210_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-07-16_11_35_00_IMG_6210_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/2018-06-20_09_22_32_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_13_%28Interstate_278%2C_Elizabeth%2C_Staten_Island%29_in_Elizabeth%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/2018-06-20_09_31_17_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_12_%28Carteret%2C_Rahway%29_in_Linden%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2018-06-20_09_31_17_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_12_%28Carteret%2C_Rahway%29_in_Linden%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/2018-05-21_09_19_30_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_9_%28Garden_State_Parkway%2C_U.S._Route_9%2C_Woodbridge%29_in_Woodbridge_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/2018-05-21_09_23_12_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_10_%28Interstate_287_NORTH%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_440_NORTH%2C_Metuchen%2C_Perth_Amboy%29_in_Edison_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/2018-05-21_09_31_36_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_north_of_Exit_9_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_18%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_New_Brunswick%29_in_New_Brunswick%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
I know 95 and 78 are properly signed now, but my point is this is an organization that will not change unless forced.
But a good point that I forgot is indeed the fact that they allocated space for 95 shields on the reconstructed corridor and haven't installled them. I think you and other commenters are right in that, because they clearly have plans to install them, there is no excuse
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2018, 04:18:15 PM
I still think that those northbound pull-throughs up to & including Exit 12 with the blank space underneath the shields should list New York. Since the practice of using George Washington Bridge as a control point for the new signs through Exit 18E; why not use that (or G. W. Bridge given the size of the panels) for the Exit 13 & 13A pull-throughs?
Agree.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2018, 04:18:15 PM
Now that the revised I-95 routing has become visible to the general public; will, at least, the interchange numbers north of the NJTP be changed to reflect the its mileage? Exit 68 would become Exit 72 and Exit 69 would become Exit 74.
It would make sense, but I'm not aware of any plans, not that I'd really be in the know. Maybe Steve has heard something. Alternatives could be to renumber the entire turnpike to either I-95 mileage or NJ Turnpike mileage.
Quote from: famartin on December 07, 2018, 05:55:45 PMIt would make sense, but I'm not aware of any plans, not that I'd really be in the know. Maybe Steve has heard something. Alternatives could be to renumber the entire turnpike to either I-95 mileage or NJ Turnpike mileage.
While true, renumbering the stretch of I-95 north of the Turnpike can conceivably be done
independent of whatever is ultimately decided/planned regarding the interchange numbering along the NJTP itself.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2018, 06:16:13 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 07, 2018, 05:55:45 PMIt would make sense, but I'm not aware of any plans, not that I'd really be in the know. Maybe Steve has heard something. Alternatives could be to renumber the entire turnpike to either I-95 mileage or NJ Turnpike mileage.
While true, renumbering the stretch of I-95 north of the Turnpike can conceivably be done independent of whatever is ultimately decided/planned regarding the interchange numbering along the NJTP itself.
While I agree theoretically, since the turnpike put all its own mileposts on that section, if they do milepost based exits, I can see the NJTA disagreeing.
Honestly, I'd just leave them as they are until the NJTP is ready to redo the whole road with mileage-based numbers, since at that point it would be most logical to have them on the Turnpike's mileage.
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2018, 07:32:39 PM
Honestly, I'd just leave them as they are until the NJTP is ready to redo the whole road with mileage-based numbers, since at that point it would be most logical to have them on the Turnpike's mileage.
I think doing the NJ Turnpike's mileage makes the most sense, following the method of the PA Turnpike with I-276.
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 07, 2018, 08:08:50 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2018, 07:32:39 PM
Honestly, I'd just leave them as they are until the NJTP is ready to redo the whole road with mileage-based numbers, since at that point it would be most logical to have them on the Turnpike's mileage.
I think doing the NJ Turnpike's mileage makes the most sense, following the method of the PA Turnpike with I-276.
Sort of. The PA Turnpike's mileage continuing onto I-276 is easy because they split in the direction of increasing mileage. I-95 and the NJTP are reversed. There was a situation like this on the PA Turnpike, though, when I-76 started in Pittsburgh and the Turnpike was I-80S west of the Pittsburgh interchange. I-76 had its exit numbering starting from Pittsburgh, but the Turnpike's exit numbering was continuous from Ohio as it is today, so I-76 had two of every sequential exit number from 6 to 18.
But the NJTP Pennsylvania Extension is much shorter than I-276 or the former I-80S and only has one exit. It should have I-95 mileage, but the NJTP north of exit 6 should keep NJTP mileage and, hopefully one day, exit numbers. (The current unsigned exit 6A to US 130 could become exit 2, but I'd just have it be 50A or 51A depending on where they measure for the mainline exit number.)
Kudos to famartin for a great set of photos! I might have missed some logic here. Do we know why NJTA shows a destination on the southbound pull-thru signs but not on the northbound ones?
BTW famartin, did you know it's illegal to take photos on the NJ Turnpike? LOL No kidding, it's in the Turnpike Authority's regulations. Not sure how strictly it's enforced, but you're lucky if a trooper didn't pull up while you were stopped on the shoulder all those times. They might have ticketed you.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 07, 2018, 10:02:23 PM
BTW famartin, did you know it's illegal to take photos on the NJ Turnpike? LOL No kidding, it's in the Turnpike Authority's regulations. Not sure how strictly it's enforced, but you're lucky if a trooper didn't pull up while you were stopped on the shoulder all those times. They might have ticketed you.
That's not specific to the NJ Turnpike. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to make non-emergency stops on any freeway in the country.
But, IMO, if you're willing to risk it, don't let that stop you. :)
Quote from: SignBridge on December 07, 2018, 10:02:23 PM
Kudos to famartin for a great set of photos! I might have missed some logic here. Do we know why NJTA shows a destination on the southbound pull-thru signs but not on the northbound ones?
BTW famartin, did you know it's illegal to take photos on the NJ Turnpike? LOL No kidding, it's in the Turnpike Authority's regulations. Not sure how strictly it's enforced, but you're lucky if a trooper didn't pull up while you were stopped on the shoulder all those times. They might have ticketed you.
I know. True story though, twice this summer cops pulled up behind me with their lights on when I was pulled over to take pictures. Both times they asked what I was doing and I said, "taking a picture" , and both times they just said "ok, be careful" and drove off. :bigass:
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 07, 2018, 10:41:35 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 07, 2018, 10:02:23 PM
BTW famartin, did you know it's illegal to take photos on the NJ Turnpike? LOL No kidding, it's in the Turnpike Authority's regulations. Not sure how strictly it's enforced, but you're lucky if a trooper didn't pull up while you were stopped on the shoulder all those times. They might have ticketed you.
That's not specific to the NJ Turnpike. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to make non-emergency stops on any freeway in the country.
But, IMO, if you're willing to risk it, don't let that stop you. :)
One time I started a presentation to the NJTA with my own photos. They asked where I got those, then said that I wasn't allowed to have gotten them. *shrug*
Quote from: Alps on December 07, 2018, 11:33:34 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 07, 2018, 10:41:35 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 07, 2018, 10:02:23 PM
BTW famartin, did you know it's illegal to take photos on the NJ Turnpike? LOL No kidding, it's in the Turnpike Authority's regulations. Not sure how strictly it's enforced, but you're lucky if a trooper didn't pull up while you were stopped on the shoulder all those times. They might have ticketed you.
That's not specific to the NJ Turnpike. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to make non-emergency stops on any freeway in the country.
But, IMO, if you're willing to risk it, don't let that stop you. :)
One time I started a presentation to the NJTA with my own photos. They asked where I got those, then said that I wasn't allowed to have gotten them. *shrug*
:-D
For the record (and so that I don't encourage anyone to do anything which could get them into trouble), I was apologetic when asked what I was doing (my response was really more like. "Sorry sir, I was just taking a picture"). Which still could've resulted in a ticket, but fortunately didn't.
Quote from: Alps on December 07, 2018, 11:33:34 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 07, 2018, 10:41:35 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 07, 2018, 10:02:23 PM
BTW famartin, did you know it's illegal to take photos on the NJ Turnpike? LOL No kidding, it's in the Turnpike Authority's regulations. Not sure how strictly it's enforced, but you're lucky if a trooper didn't pull up while you were stopped on the shoulder all those times. They might have ticketed you.
That's not specific to the NJ Turnpike. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to make non-emergency stops on any freeway in the country.
But, IMO, if you're willing to risk it, don't let that stop you. :)
One time I started a presentation to the NJTA with my own photos. They asked where I got those, then said that I wasn't allowed to have gotten them. *shrug*
Is this also the story of the $100 I-84 shield, Steve? :) http://alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-84/
Quote from: SignBridge on December 07, 2018, 10:02:23 PM
Kudos to famartin for a great set of photos! I might have missed some logic here. Do we know why NJTA shows a destination on the southbound pull-thru signs but not on the northbound ones?
BTW famartin, did you know it's illegal to take photos on the NJ Turnpike? LOL No kidding, it's in the Turnpike Authority's regulations. Not sure how strictly it's enforced, but you're lucky if a trooper didn't pull up while you were stopped on the shoulder all those times. They might have ticketed you.
I'm not sure why they don't sign New York thru at least 15E and 15W going NB. Beyond that, it makes more sense to sign the respective crossings since you're going to make a decision about which crossing you want to take to cross into New York beyond those points.
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 08, 2018, 02:05:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 07, 2018, 11:33:34 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 07, 2018, 10:41:35 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 07, 2018, 10:02:23 PM
BTW famartin, did you know it's illegal to take photos on the NJ Turnpike? LOL No kidding, it's in the Turnpike Authority's regulations. Not sure how strictly it's enforced, but you're lucky if a trooper didn't pull up while you were stopped on the shoulder all those times. They might have ticketed you.
That's not specific to the NJ Turnpike. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to make non-emergency stops on any freeway in the country.
But, IMO, if you're willing to risk it, don't let that stop you. :)
One time I started a presentation to the NJTA with my own photos. They asked where I got those, then said that I wasn't allowed to have gotten them. *shrug*
Is this also the story of the $100 I-84 shield, Steve? :) http://alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-84/
Advice: It's cheaper to make two U-turns if you miss a sign photo than to stop and attempt to go back to it.
MNHighwayMan, you might be right about non-emergency stops being illegal on most freeways, but the photo ban is specific to the NJ Turnpike Authority.
famartin, you didn't mention, when you explained to the officer that you were taking photos, was this on the NJ Turnpike or some other highway? 'Cause if it was on the Turnpike, I would be very surprised if he didn't order you to cease taking photos. Again not sure what the current enforcement practice is, but I did read years ago that back in the 1980's there were a couple of scandals where the Turnpike troopers ticketed/arrested several people regarding this activity and there were court fights over it.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 08, 2018, 08:25:49 PM
MNHighwayMan, you might be right about non-emergency stops being illegal on most freeways, but the photo ban is specific to the NJ Turnpike Authority.
I didn't know that, huh. Seems a little ridiculous, but since it is private property, they can request whatever they want. I wonder what they'd say if they knew about all the photos that get taken and posted here. :biggrin:
Quote from: SignBridge on December 08, 2018, 08:25:49 PM
MNHighwayMan, you might be right about non-emergency stops being illegal on most freeways, but the photo ban is specific to the NJ Turnpike Authority.
famartin, you didn't mention, when you explained to the officer that you were taking photos, was this on the NJ Turnpike or some other highway? 'Cause if it was on the Turnpike, I would be very surprised if he didn't order you to cease taking photos. Again not sure what the current enforcement practice is, but I did read years ago that back in the 1980's there were a couple of scandals where the Turnpike troopers ticketed/arrested several people regarding this activity and there were court fights over it.
In Delaware you're explicitly not allowed to walk on expressways, according to the law (section 4126, a11): http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c041/sc03a/index.shtml
According to signage, at least on DE-1 and the Puncheon Run Connector (not sure about the interstates and DE-141), you can only "park" in case of an emergency: https://goo.gl/maps/E3JgXwjUjRQ2
EDIT: "Emergency parking only" on DE-141 (https://goo.gl/maps/qJ36tNUrBtR2). Not sure on the interstates, but if it's the case on 1 and 141, then it must be so on the interstates.
Surely you can have passengers take photos while moving, or have a dashcam running and use stills from it. So you could get legal photos unless taking photos were expressly forbidden. Also is GSV breaking the law on the NJ Turnpike too? Or is it only illegal to stop to take a photo?
I believe all filming and photography by anyone in any form is forbidden by the Turnpike Authority's regulations. There might be a copy to view on their website if you want to take a look. Not sure about dashcams though, since they are a relatively new development.
A little history here: The NJTA has always acted like they were running a secure military installation. That was their mindset well before the post-911 era. Their supposed reason for the photo ban is safety concern, but I think that's only partly true. They seem to feel threatened by anyone's photos that might be detrimental to their image, which I find puzzling. Their roads and facilities are the best maintained, safest highways to found anywhere.
And if I remember right from when I researched this matter years ago, similar bans do not exist on the Penn. Turnpike or New York Thruway.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 08, 2018, 08:25:49 PM
MNHighwayMan, you might be right about non-emergency stops being illegal on most freeways, but the photo ban is specific to the NJ Turnpike Authority.
famartin, you didn't mention, when you explained to the officer that you were taking photos, was this on the NJ Turnpike or some other highway? 'Cause if it was on the Turnpike, I would be very surprised if he didn't order you to cease taking photos. Again not sure what the current enforcement practice is, but I did read years ago that back in the 1980's there were a couple of scandals where the Turnpike troopers ticketed/arrested several people regarding this activity and there were court fights over it.
Usually this depends on the Trooper and the situation. I'm a little surprised they didn't tell him to keep moving, but otherwise cops have their own particular laws they like to enforce. Yes, it's unequal enforcement, but most aren't out there to worry about every little infraction. I've heard if you stop up near the airport and trains in the Newark area they will be behind you in no time and will get you moving real quick there.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 08, 2018, 09:52:37 PM
I believe all filming and photography by anyone in any form is forbidden by the Turnpike Authority's regulations. There might be a copy to view on their website if you want to take a look. Not sure about dashcams though, since they are a relatively new development.
A little history here: The NJTA has always acted like they were running a secure military installation. That was their mindset well before the post-911 era. Their supposed reason for the photo ban is safety concern, but I think that's only partly true. They seem to feel threatened by anyone's photos that might be detrimental to their image, which I find puzzling. Their roads and facilities are the best maintained, safest highways to found anywhere.
And if I remember right from when I researched this matter years ago, similar bans do not exist on the Penn. Turnpike or New York Thruway.
That's weird. I feel like documenting the old Turnpike arrow is very important! http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/s5.jpg
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 09, 2018, 08:32:45 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 08, 2018, 09:52:37 PM
I believe all filming and photography by anyone in any form is forbidden by the Turnpike Authority's regulations. There might be a copy to view on their website if you want to take a look. Not sure about dashcams though, since they are a relatively new development.
A little history here: The NJTA has always acted like they were running a secure military installation. That was their mindset well before the post-911 era. Their supposed reason for the photo ban is safety concern, but I think that's only partly true. They seem to feel threatened by anyone's photos that might be detrimental to their image, which I find puzzling. Their roads and facilities are the best maintained, safest highways to found anywhere.
And if I remember right from when I researched this matter years ago, similar bans do not exist on the Penn. Turnpike or New York Thruway.
That's weird. I feel like documenting the old Turnpike arrow is very important! http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/s5.jpg
As long as you get permission from the NJTA you can photograph it.
Quote from: ipeters61 on December 09, 2018, 08:32:45 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 08, 2018, 09:52:37 PM
I believe all filming and photography by anyone in any form is forbidden by the Turnpike Authority's regulations. There might be a copy to view on their website if you want to take a look. Not sure about dashcams though, since they are a relatively new development.
A little history here: The NJTA has always acted like they were running a secure military installation. That was their mindset well before the post-911 era. Their supposed reason for the photo ban is safety concern, but I think that's only partly true. They seem to feel threatened by anyone's photos that might be detrimental to their image, which I find puzzling. Their roads and facilities are the best maintained, safest highways to found anywhere.
And if I remember right from when I researched this matter years ago, similar bans do not exist on the Penn. Turnpike or New York Thruway.
That's weird. I feel like documenting the old Turnpike arrow is very important! http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/s5.jpg
That arrow was still there in May when I photographed that exit, but they are certainly becoming rarer and rarer. The old pull through there is gone, though.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/2018-05-21_17_33_24_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_at_Exit_5_%28Burlington%2C_Mount_Holly%29_in_Westampton_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/2018-05-21_18_14_23_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_at_Exit_5_%28Burlington%2C_Mount_Holly%29_in_Westampton_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
None of the new NJTP pull throughs say the distance to the next exit, do they?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on December 10, 2018, 05:54:14 AM
None of the new NJTP pull throughs say the distance to the next exit, do they?
ixnay
I believe the NJ Turnpike now only signs mileage distances when they're greater than 10 miles. The only areas that qualify are around Interchanges 1, 2 & 3. There's signage approaching Exit 2 Northbound, and approaching Exit 3 and 2 Southbound. It's about 9 miles between Exits 8A and 9, which isn't signed for mileage to the next exit.
Quote from: famartin on December 10, 2018, 02:34:18 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/2018-05-21_17_33_24_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_at_Exit_5_%28Burlington%2C_Mount_Holly%29_in_Westampton_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
If one looks very closely (or via a slightly older GSV) that
Camden mask is covering what originally was
Wilmington.
GSV may have permission as if the NJTA really wanted them not to publish the views, they could have been anal like the MTA in NY with not allowing the Verezzano or the Brooklyn- Battery to be shown.
Quote from: Alps on December 07, 2018, 11:33:34 PM
One time I started a presentation to the NJTA with my own photos. They asked where I got those, then said that I wasn't allowed to have gotten them. *shrug*
Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (https://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551) described the case of someone who was ticketed for taking pictures on the Turnpike (had to have been before 1992, when the book was published). The authors described how he lost in a trial court, but on appeal, the New Jersey Turnpike's rule against photography was vacated.
The incident described above IIRC involved taking photos at an accident scene in 1986. In a second incident in the same book, a woman was ordered by state troopers to stop taking photos OF the Turnpike from on top of the S.R. 18 overpass which is not on Turnpike property. After later becoming a lawyer, she discovered that the NJTA had no authority over photography of the Turnpike from locations off Turnpike property. Only that you can't take pictures ON the Turnpike.
I still find it surprising and puzzling that such an otherwise responsible, conscientious agency such as the NJTA would act so arrogant and heavy-handed about this. Yes it's a private road of sorts, but as I mentioned in earlier post, the Authority has or had the mentality of guarding a secret military installation.
Maybe jeffandnicole could shed some light on this? I'd be curious to know if that same mentality exists nowadays at the NJTA.
I wouldn't have any idea what their mentality is now. But I think if anyone was ticketed for taking pictures, the issue is uncommon and stupid enough that it would be newsworthy.
Picture taking is so persuasive now that in a lot of buildings and areas where it used to be prohibited it's now tolerated to an extent. Casinos are one example - you're not supposed to take any pics on the casino floor, but people commonly will take and post pictures of winning bets.
So if you're on the Turnpike and simply taking pics just to take pics while rolling along at highway speeds, you're fine (if anything, the handheld cell phone law comes into play). If you are stopping at an accident scene to take pics, or you stop to take a pic of the inside of a toll booth, you're not. Simple as that.
You make a good point J&N re: photo taking today by everyone with smart phones is so common everywhere that any prohibition would be difficult to enforce. As the other poster mentioned, those incidents in the book happened in the 1980's when you still needed an actual camera to take photos so it was more noticeable.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2018, 08:08:03 AM
Picture taking is so persuasive now that in a lot of buildings and areas where it used to be prohibited it's now tolerated to an extent. Casinos are one example - you're not supposed to take any pics on the casino floor, but people commonly will take and post pictures of winning bets.
I was almost thrown out of Mohegan Sun At Pocono Downs in Plains, PA (on PA Route 315 near Wilkes-Barre). That was back in July 2011, the day Derek Jeter got his 3000th hit. I had taken a pic with a digital camera of him on a monitor above one of their bars. Looking at the picture, I didn't think it would be a problem. :-/
(https://i.imgur.com/oIH1mWv.jpg)
Anyways...back to the interchange in Bucks County! :)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2018, 08:08:03 AM
So if you're on the Turnpike and simply taking pics just to take pics while rolling along at highway speeds, you're fine (if anything, the handheld cell phone law comes into play). If you are stopping at an accident scene to take pics, or you stop to take a pic of the inside of a toll booth, you're not. Simple as that.
I have seen more than one person taking pictures at New Jersey Turnpike service plazas, both in the parking lot and inside the plaza building. Nobody seems to care. Maryland does not care either (but we only have two commercial service plazas), nor does New York.
I stopped at the Plattekill plaza on I-87 northbound some years ago, and the NYSP and the NYSTA were having a sort of traffic safety day event there. I snapped several pictures of a nice 1980's NYSP Ford Mustang GT trooper car (I had only seen Mustang GT police cars in Florida and especially California), which did not seem to bother anyone, including the troopers who were staffing the event.
Some years ago when this issue came up I checked the NY Thruway, Penn. Turnpike and Massachusetts Turnpike and found no similar rules on those roads re: photography. It seems to be unique to the NJTA.
Railroads too hate photography as well. In Illinois I once was taking pictures of a rail yard near old Route 66 and got hassled about it. I even tried to get permission before hand but the lady in the tower saw me wearing the camera on my body and came out yelling to get out! I tried to even plead but her loud voice dominated the conversation and threatened me with the local cops. When I had asked her why I could not photograph, she was a wise lady and said because "We don't want you to!
Anyway with rail yards and stuff I can see the liability issue as if one trips and falls the rail company is liable and open to be sued. Believe me once a burglar who robbed a person's house got injured do to neglegence of owner, sued, and actually won his case despite him being in state of trespassing which is illegal and punishable by jail time and class E Felony record for him.
The Turnpike though if you are on the road anyway, which you cannot be liable to be hurt, I do not see why they are so anal though.
As far as rail photos, most of Trains Magazine and Railfan Mag then feature illegally obtained photos as most are even trackside which is trespassing while there to photograph. Heck the FEC Railway in Florida will indeed prosecute to the fullest if you are caught anywhere on their ROW taking photos or even a homeless person cutting across the tracks in between roads as shortcut. The FEC wants no part in paying out liability and even private grade crossings must be signalized as other railways like CSX will allow unsignalized crossings, but not the FEC for the same reason despite property owners must pay hefty insurance premiums to have the signals and gates.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 15, 2018, 10:10:58 PM
I was almost thrown out of Mohegan Sun At Pocono Downs in Plains, PA (on PA Route 315 near Wilkes-Barre). That was back in July 2011, the day Derek Jeter got his 3000th hit. I had taken a pic with a digital camera of him on a monitor above one of their bars. Looking at the picture, I didn't think it would be a problem. :-/
Do you have a theory as to why it turned out to be a problem? I see nothing wrong with it. Could it have been the corporate logos?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on December 18, 2018, 05:41:03 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 15, 2018, 10:10:58 PM
I was almost thrown out of Mohegan Sun At Pocono Downs in Plains, PA (on PA Route 315 near Wilkes-Barre). That was back in July 2011, the day Derek Jeter got his 3000th hit. I had taken a pic with a digital camera of him on a monitor above one of their bars. Looking at the picture, I didn't think it would be a problem. :-/
Do you have a theory as to why it turned out to be a problem? I see nothing wrong with it. Could it have been the corporate logos?
Cameras are seen as a security problem, especially when you're dealing with loads of money in the way a casino does. A zero-tolerance policy/blanket ban is an easy way to deal with that problem.
More like that, yes. I put the camera away immediately and nothing happened after that. Plus, I was roughly 3 hours away from home (central CT). Couldn't leave the complex until the friend I was riding with was done. Didn't leave until nearly sunset that day.
As for photos and the new interchange in Bucks County? I haven't been through it yet.
Something nagging in me that just clicked: The new signage for the interchange doesn't leave room for the future additional movements. If the remaining movements get added, these signs will need to be replaced to include mention of I-295 east along I-95 southbound (where I-276 west is currently the only road mentioned), and to mention of I-276 west along I-95 northbound (where I-295 east is currently the only road mentioned).
This is unlike many signs along the NJTP between Exit 6 and 9, which left room for the future placement of I-95 shields (even if they seem to have forgotten to do it now that its time). Not to mention how the Exit 6 signage had the I-95 signs created, but covered up with green panels for 4 or 5 years.
Which, I suppose, further increases speculation that the rest of the movements may not be coming for a LONG time.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/2018-09-23_15_39_08_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28Delaware_Expressway%29_at_Exit_40_%28Interstate_295_EAST%2C_Trenton%29_in_Bristol_Township%2C_Bucks_County%2C_Pennsylvania.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/2018-09-23_15_31_58_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28Pennsylvania_Turnpike_Delaware_River_Extension%29_at_Exit_40_%28Interstate_276_WEST-Pennsylvania_Turnpike%2C_Harrisburg%29_in_Bristol_Township%2C_Bucks_County%2C_Pennsylvania.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
They'll just replace the signage and/or supports. Completely normal and not really a big cost item. Because the next phase isn't event in design yet, it wouldn't make sense to try to build something now at extra cost that may need to be replaced anyway.
The NJ Turnpike signage is a different animal because all that's needed is a 95 shield.
Nowadays signs are disposable it seems. In the past they used to just add to the signs even if it was difficult they managed. The signs lasted for decades.
Now new signs and not only that but changed very often.
The same PTC in 1989 and 1990 at New Stanton had add on directional banners as the sign for US 119 was pre freeway as in before the current 119 expressway was built as originally US 119 used the connector arterial and had a very brief overlap with I-70 under the Turnpike bridge. What PTC done was add a TO and a SOUTH place card to the prexisting US 119 NORTH even using a black on white TO and SOUTH to make it look like it was addlibbed as the US 119 NORTH was in standard white and no box for the NORTH.
They have replaced it since that other toll road opened, but had US 119 been built now, PTC would replace the entire sign instead of tacking on off color placecards.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2018, 05:55:33 AM
They'll just replace the signage and/or supports. Completely normal and not really a big cost item. Because the next phase isn't event in design yet, it wouldn't make sense to try to build something now at extra cost that may need to be replaced anyway.
The NJ Turnpike signage is a different animal because all that's needed is a 95 shield.
The NJ Turnpike widening project was also (partially) linked to the new interchange, and originally had the same completion date (2014).
I had a look at a road atlas today, and it showed the turnpike beyond the interchange as I-95, but US 13 was Exit 358.
The reflective vinyl they use on these big green signs these days has a pretty limited life span. The Type III prismatic sheeting used on the green backgrounds may last 10 years at the most, but more likely 5-7 years before it starts getting weathered, oxidized and generally losing a lot of its reflective capabilities. The lettering on legends may last less time. Depending on the state/agency, plain "engineer's grade" reflective vinyl may be used on the letters. That stuff can start to crack and/or peel loose in as little as 2 years. Yet I've seen it used on highway signs here in Oklahoma.
The metal sign panels are not so cheap to replace. Those things can be huge; we're talking square footage sizes near that of billboards in some cases. The materials are even more expensive now with all the tariffs in place. They're often made of extruded aluminum beams 12" wide (most aluminum has to be imported). The beams are joined together to make a larger, solid panel. On the bright side, the modular construction makes it possible to alter the size or aspect ratio of a sign panel to fit a different highway sign layout.
The reflective sheeting stays effective for a lot longer than you say. We have BGS's here on Long Island that are twenty-plus years old and still working well.
The service life of retroreflective sheeting is decently long in areas and mounting positions with little UV. I tend to worry more about dye stability in certain process inks because I occasionally encounter signs I can see after dark (reflectivity still works) but can't read (process ink has faded so badly that legend is almost the same color as the background on which it appears).
The aluminum extrusions used for extruded panel signs are recyclable and some sign shops, notably the one operated by Illinois DOT, have equipment to remove old sheeting using water under high pressure.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 26, 2018, 08:22:11 PM
The reflective sheeting stays effective for a lot longer than you say. We have BGS's here on Long Island that are twenty-plus years old and still working well.
Yeah, but the ones in PA peel after 1 season.
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2018, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 26, 2018, 08:22:11 PM
The reflective sheeting stays effective for a lot longer than you say. We have BGS's here on Long Island that are twenty-plus years old and still working well.
Yeah, but the ones in PA peel after 1 season.
Same quality as the rest of the roadway.
Quote from: famartin on December 26, 2018, 10:50:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 26, 2018, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 26, 2018, 08:22:11 PM
The reflective sheeting stays effective for a lot longer than you say. We have BGS's here on Long Island that are twenty-plus years old and still working well.
Yeah, but the ones in PA peel after 1 season.
Same quality as the rest of the roadway.
I remember these ones as a kid: https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/pa/i-84/wend.jpg
Well ipeters61, that's about par for a state that uses the wrong arrows or mounts the arrows upside down. From all these posts I'm seeing, I'll have to guess that New York DOT uses better quality sheeting than PennDOT or Oklahoma DOT
as of today, NJTA has yet to add the I-95 shields to the entrance from US 130 in Florence (6A) as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1029034,-74.787641,3a,75y,133.61h,103.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPsRtL_wagQ0U9H5NtHlioeJ2vGzqIPRW2Wid9Y!2e10!3e11!7i2508!8i1254).
Quote from: odditude on December 27, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
as of today, NJTA has yet to add the I-95 shields to the entrance from US 130 in Florence (6A) as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1029034,-74.787641,3a,75y,133.61h,103.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPsRtL_wagQ0U9H5NtHlioeJ2vGzqIPRW2Wid9Y!2e10!3e11!7i2508!8i1254).
At this point I'm going to guess the NJTA just forgot about all the places where the 95 shields are needed... or don't feel like spending the money for it.
Interestingly, when I went to get on the NJTP at Exit 3 to head back to Mass last evening, there were some detour signs on the Black Horse Pike near the Turnpike entrance. These signs had both I-95 and NJTP signs on them.
Quote from: famartin on December 27, 2018, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 27, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
as of today, NJTA has yet to add the I-95 shields to the entrance from US 130 in Florence (6A) as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1029034,-74.787641,3a,75y,133.61h,103.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPsRtL_wagQ0U9H5NtHlioeJ2vGzqIPRW2Wid9Y!2e10!3e11!7i2508!8i1254).
At this point I'm going to guess the NJTA just forgot about all the places where the 95 shields are needed... or don't feel like spending the money for it.
Plus the panel on the left now has a misaligned NJ Turnpike shield as well as the misaligned I-276 shield on the right.
Hey at least NJ is acknowledging the PA interstate which was not done in the past except for a ground mount on the Turnpike mainline before the 6 to 9 widening.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 29, 2018, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 27, 2018, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 27, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
as of today, NJTA has yet to add the I-95 shields to the entrance from US 130 in Florence (6A) as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1029034,-74.787641,3a,75y,133.61h,103.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPsRtL_wagQ0U9H5NtHlioeJ2vGzqIPRW2Wid9Y!2e10!3e11!7i2508!8i1254).
At this point I'm going to guess the NJTA just forgot about all the places where the 95 shields are needed... or don't feel like spending the money for it.
Plus the panel on the left now has a misaligned NJ Turnpike shield as well as the misaligned I-276 shield on the right.
Hey at least NJ is acknowledging the PA interstate which was not done in the past except for a ground mount on the Turnpike mainline before the 6 to 9 widening.
Though they should have left the "To" for I-276 out from the blank overlay to not cause confusion about the PA Extension being I-276. I've been content just saying that the extension was "signed as I-276" even though I don't think that's what the NJTA was going for. Google agreed for a while, though the I-276 shields disappeared about a month or two before the flyovers opened.
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 29, 2018, 10:54:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 29, 2018, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 27, 2018, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 27, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
as of today, NJTA has yet to add the I-95 shields to the entrance from US 130 in Florence (6A) as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1029034,-74.787641,3a,75y,133.61h,103.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPsRtL_wagQ0U9H5NtHlioeJ2vGzqIPRW2Wid9Y!2e10!3e11!7i2508!8i1254).
At this point I'm going to guess the NJTA just forgot about all the places where the 95 shields are needed... or don't feel like spending the money for it.
Plus the panel on the left now has a misaligned NJ Turnpike shield as well as the misaligned I-276 shield on the right.
Hey at least NJ is acknowledging the PA interstate which was not done in the past except for a ground mount on the Turnpike mainline before the 6 to 9 widening.
Though they should have left the "To" for I-276 out from the blank overlay to not cause confusion about the PA Extension being I-276. I've been content just saying that the extension was "signed as I-276" even though I don't think that's what the NJTA was going for. Google agreed for a while, though the I-276 shields disappeared about a month or two before the flyovers opened.
Google isn't an official source of anything. Basically, anyone can change whatever they want to what they feel is right.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2018, 11:17:37 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 29, 2018, 10:54:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 29, 2018, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 27, 2018, 08:50:32 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 27, 2018, 08:33:59 PM
as of today, NJTA has yet to add the I-95 shields to the entrance from US 130 in Florence (6A) as shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1029034,-74.787641,3a,75y,133.61h,103.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPsRtL_wagQ0U9H5NtHlioeJ2vGzqIPRW2Wid9Y!2e10!3e11!7i2508!8i1254).
At this point I'm going to guess the NJTA just forgot about all the places where the 95 shields are needed... or don't feel like spending the money for it.
Plus the panel on the left now has a misaligned NJ Turnpike shield as well as the misaligned I-276 shield on the right.
Hey at least NJ is acknowledging the PA interstate which was not done in the past except for a ground mount on the Turnpike mainline before the 6 to 9 widening.
Though they should have left the "To" for I-276 out from the blank overlay to not cause confusion about the PA Extension being I-276. I've been content just saying that the extension was "signed as I-276" even though I don't think that's what the NJTA was going for. Google agreed for a while, though the I-276 shields disappeared about a month or two before the flyovers opened.
Google isn't an official source of anything. Basically, anyone can change whatever they want to what they feel is right.
Trust me, Roadsguy knows that.
Sorry if this has been answered before, but is this entrance sign a NJDOT installation or a NJTA installation?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024638,-74.7927429,3a,75y,54.86h,80.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBNzfxkFYw8EZuEppJisiZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on December 30, 2018, 08:21:55 PM
Sorry if this has been answered before, but is this entrance sign a NJDOT installation or a NJTA installation?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024638,-74.7927429,3a,75y,54.86h,80.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBNzfxkFYw8EZuEppJisiZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
99% sure that that is NJDOT.
Quote from: famartin on December 30, 2018, 08:32:10 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on December 30, 2018, 08:21:55 PM
Sorry if this has been answered before, but is this entrance sign a NJDOT installation or a NJTA installation?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024638,-74.7927429,3a,75y,54.86h,80.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBNzfxkFYw8EZuEppJisiZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
99% sure that that is NJDOT.
It is 100% NJDOT :). It was installed under the same contract that changed the signs along former I-95 around Trenton.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on October 15, 2018, 01:16:12 PMCurious as to whether the first reassurance marker WB/SB in Pennsylvania (just past the AET gantry) has since been corrected. Last I saw, the incorrect "North" beneath the marker was taped over. Too expensive to keep checking . . .
So that's what was taped over. As of last night (Oct. 14), it's still there.
Update: when I last drove that stretch this past Dec. 27, a correct
SOUTH banner replaced the taped-over/erroneous
NORTH banner.
Other than that, I noticed no other sign-changes/updates along the NJTP south of Exit 9 during my post-Christmas trip.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 03:53:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on October 15, 2018, 01:16:12 PMCurious as to whether the first reassurance marker WB/SB in Pennsylvania (just past the AET gantry) has since been corrected. Last I saw, the incorrect "North" beneath the marker was taped over. Too expensive to keep checking . . .
So that's what was taped over. As of last night (Oct. 14), it's still there.
Update: when I last drove that stretch this past Dec. 27, a correct SOUTH banner replaced the taped-over/erroneous NORTH banner.
Other than that, I noticed no other sign-changes/updates along the NJTP south of Exit 9 during my post-Christmas trip.
Is the new banner still below the shield or did they shift the shield down and put the banner on top?
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 10, 2019, 04:33:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 03:53:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on October 15, 2018, 01:16:12 PMCurious as to whether the first reassurance marker WB/SB in Pennsylvania (just past the AET gantry) has since been corrected. Last I saw, the incorrect "North" beneath the marker was taped over. Too expensive to keep checking . . .
So that's what was taped over. As of last night (Oct. 14), it's still there.
Update: when I last drove that stretch this past Dec. 27, a correct SOUTH banner replaced the taped-over/erroneous NORTH banner.
Other than that, I noticed no other sign-changes/updates along the NJTP south of Exit 9 during my post-Christmas trip.
Is the new banner still below the shield or did they shift the shield down and put the banner on top?
Part of me
wants to say that the new banner is still below the shield but I'm not 100% certain on that. I just noticed the
SOUTH letters instead of the tape-over.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 04:37:51 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 10, 2019, 04:33:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 03:53:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on October 15, 2018, 01:16:12 PMCurious as to whether the first reassurance marker WB/SB in Pennsylvania (just past the AET gantry) has since been corrected. Last I saw, the incorrect "North" beneath the marker was taped over. Too expensive to keep checking . . .
So that's what was taped over. As of last night (Oct. 14), it's still there.
Update: when I last drove that stretch this past Dec. 27, a correct SOUTH banner replaced the taped-over/erroneous NORTH banner.
Other than that, I noticed no other sign-changes/updates along the NJTP south of Exit 9 during my post-Christmas trip.
Is the new banner still below the shield or did they shift the shield down and put the banner on top?
Part of me wants to say that the new banner is still below the shield but I'm not 100% certain on that. I just noticed the SOUTH letters instead of the tape-over.
I passed it going the other way recently on the way to a meeting -- the cardinal direction is above the shield.
Quote from: akotchi on January 10, 2019, 10:37:21 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 04:37:51 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 10, 2019, 04:33:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 10, 2019, 03:53:53 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 01:42:10 PM
Quote from: akotchi on October 15, 2018, 01:16:12 PMCurious as to whether the first reassurance marker WB/SB in Pennsylvania (just past the AET gantry) has since been corrected. Last I saw, the incorrect "North" beneath the marker was taped over. Too expensive to keep checking . . .
So that's what was taped over. As of last night (Oct. 14), it's still there.
Update: when I last drove that stretch this past Dec. 27, a correct SOUTH banner replaced the taped-over/erroneous NORTH banner.
Other than that, I noticed no other sign-changes/updates along the NJTP south of Exit 9 during my post-Christmas trip.
Is the new banner still below the shield or did they shift the shield down and put the banner on top?
Part of me wants to say that the new banner is still below the shield but I'm not 100% certain on that. I just noticed the SOUTH letters instead of the tape-over.
I passed it going the other way recently on the way to a meeting -- the cardinal direction is above the shield.
Good to know.
At least one more I-95 shield is up on the NJ Turnpike. This on the EB (NB) Pearl Harbor Extension, just before Exit 6A. At 8:06 of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMbO9G_bz3c
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 03, 2019, 01:22:18 PM
At least one more I-95 shield is up on the NJ Turnpike. This on the EB (NB) Pearl Harbor Extension, just before Exit 6A. At 8:06 of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMbO9G_bz3c
My memory is getting foggier now but I'd swear that was there for a while (ie since near the time of completion)
The westbound one at Exit 6A has been up for awhile, but this one has been changed relatively recently. Are there any on the U.S. 130 ramps yet?
Quote from: famartin on February 03, 2019, 01:49:56 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 03, 2019, 01:22:18 PM
At least one more I-95 shield is up on the NJ Turnpike. This on the EB (NB) Pearl Harbor Extension, just before Exit 6A. At 8:06 of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMbO9G_bz3c
My memory is getting foggier now but I’d swear that was there for a while (ie since near the time of completion)
GSV dated June 2018: It's not there yet. https://goo.gl/maps/4gqteAqgZ9B2
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2019, 10:06:14 AM
Quote from: famartin on February 03, 2019, 01:49:56 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 03, 2019, 01:22:18 PM
At least one more I-95 shield is up on the NJ Turnpike. This on the EB (NB) Pearl Harbor Extension, just before Exit 6A. At 8:06 of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMbO9G_bz3c
My memory is getting foggier now but I'd swear that was there for a while (ie since near the time of completion)
GSV dated June 2018: It's not there yet. https://goo.gl/maps/4gqteAqgZ9B2
Needless to say but that GSV predated the opening of the ramps. When I drove through there last December; the I-95 shield was still not on that pull-through.
Personally I would've arranged that BGS a tad differently and sized/spaced it to allow for a
NORTH cardinal to be placed above the I-95 shield. Something like:
NORTH
95 NJTP
Camden
New York
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 04, 2019, 10:24:05 AM
Personally I would've arranged that BGS a tad differently and sized/spaced it to allow for a NORTH cardinal to be placed above the I-95 shield. Something like:
NORTH
95 NJTP
Camden
New York
It's a bit muddled. It seems to be functioning as a pull-thru, not advance exit signage (Turnpike South seems to be treated as an exit now). It doesn't help that the PA extension doesn't have its own identity, and gets signed as "NJTP" on entrances just like the mainline. Had that not been the case, "NORTH 95 TO NJTP" (similar to the Westbound/Southbound sign minus the NJTP shield) would be the most appropriate here. As it is, it would have to be "NORTH I-95/NJTP TO SOUTH NJTP" or "SOUTH NJTP Camden 5 miles", though a five mile advance sign may be too early.
The sign was changed in the last couple of weeks, I think. This one is a pull-through to get to the plaza, after which the split to north-south Tpk. is signed (and configured) more like a typical mainline exit/pull-through, not like a trumpet entrance.
I think similar signing to the new pull-through panels in PA at approaching the new flyovers would have been appropriate for this sign, just adding Camden. The ones in PA say
NORTH
95 TO NJTP
New York
While the Extension is part of the Turnpike, in terms of jurisdiction, the location in question is outside the mainline ticket plaza, so motorists may not think they are on the Turnpike yet, despite the welcome sign coming off the bridge, until they pass through the ticket plaza. Adding Camden at this location recognizes the southbound option, especially to those who came east on the PaTP.
From what I can tell, NJTA just needs to add/uncover I-95 shields on the mainline at Exits 7, 7A, 8, and 8A, and entrance ramps at 6A, 7, and 7A.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 05, 2019, 08:00:29 AM
From what I can tell, NJTA just needs to add/uncover I-95 shields on the mainline at Exits 7, 7A, 8, and 8A, and entrance ramps at 6A, 7, and 7A.
Add is the key here; none of those signs have temporary green masks on them. If uncovering was all that was needed; such would've likely been done by now.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2019, 08:37:43 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 05, 2019, 08:00:29 AM
From what I can tell, NJTA just needs to add/uncover I-95 shields on the mainline at Exits 7, 7A, 8, and 8A, and entrance ramps at 6A, 7, and 7A.
Add is the key here; none of those signs have temporary green masks on them. If uncovering was all that was needed; such would've likely been done by now.
One would think both could be done quickly: One involves removing rivets to remove the greenout; the other involves adding rivets to secure the shield to the sign!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 05, 2019, 08:52:26 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2019, 08:37:43 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on February 05, 2019, 08:00:29 AM
From what I can tell, NJTA just needs to add/uncover I-95 shields on the mainline at Exits 7, 7A, 8, and 8A, and entrance ramps at 6A, 7, and 7A.
Add is the key here; none of those signs have temporary green masks on them. If uncovering was all that was needed; such would've likely been done by now.
One would think both could be done quickly: One involves removing rivets to remove the greenout; the other involves adding rivets to secure the shield to the sign!
I
guess NJTA didn't have any spare I-95 shields in stock. :hmm:
I contacted i95link.com regarding the status of NJTP signage for I-95. This was the answer I got:
Thank you for your continued interest in the PA Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project.
Previous (October 2018) response:
<<Officials from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration began meetings years ago to determine the best redesignation option and coordinate execution of the signing changes.
During a previous construction contract, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority installed select signs in the area of interchanges 6 through 9 with the I-95 shield (covered with an overlay) in anticipation of the redesignation. NJTA maintenance crews removed these overlays and also installed reassurance shield signs during the same weekend that the PA Turnpike/I-95 interchange opened.
NJTA has noted throughout our regular inter-agency coordination meetings that the installation of additional overhead signs and pull through signage is scheduled to take place prior to the end of the calendar year to supplement the initial opening weekend changes. February 2019 Update: NJTA has indicated that the installation of this signage should be executed this Spring.
Should you have any specific questions, we suggest you submit a Customer Inquiry directly to NJTA via the following link: https://www.njta.com/contact-us.>>
I will believe it when we see it.
Quote from: artmalk on February 05, 2019, 01:54:30 PMI will believe it when we see it.
Between now & Easter, I plan to make at least two trips to Massachusetts from Greater Philly. Unless someone else sees such beforehand; l'll post a status update similar to what I did following my Thanksgiving & Christmastime trips.
I was out on the Bridge-to-Exit 9 portion of the Turnpike and Extension today en route to meetings. I can confirm that the EB pull-through on the Extension (that Roadwarriors79 noted upthread) is the only additional sign showing the I-95 marker.
I did also see, but could not photograph because it actually startled me, a ground-mounted confirmation along the SB truck lanes south of Interchange 8 -- at MP 65. Just like the northbound one north of Interchange 6, it has the blue cardinal direction South, I-95 shield and Turnpike trailblazer. It was the only one like that I saw, and I was on most of the length of the I-95 portion of the Turnpike today.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 04, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 04, 2019, 10:24:05 AM
Personally I would've arranged that BGS a tad differently and sized/spaced it to allow for a NORTH cardinal to be placed above the I-95 shield. Something like:
NORTH
95 NJTP
Camden
New York
It's a bit muddled. It seems to be functioning as a pull-thru, not advance exit signage (Turnpike South seems to be treated as an exit now). It doesn't help that the PA extension doesn't have its own identity, and gets signed as "NJTP" on entrances just like the mainline. Had that not been the case, "NORTH 95 TO NJTP" (similar to the Westbound/Southbound sign minus the NJTP shield) would be the most appropriate here. As it is, it would have to be "NORTH I-95/NJTP TO SOUTH NJTP" or "SOUTH NJTP Camden 5 miles", though a five mile advance sign may be too early.
The point I was trying to convey here is that the absence of the
NORTH cardinal on this particular sign at this particular location
could mislead someone into thinking that the entire N-S NJTP is I-95. Until late last September, many in the general public mistakenly thought such (some probably
still do).
Granted, those approaching this gantry already pass
at least one pull-through sign listing such as I-95 northbound on the PA side; but still, there should be some consistency.
Quote from: akotchi on February 04, 2019, 12:09:28 PMI think similar signing to the new pull-through panels in PA at approaching the new flyovers would have been appropriate for this sign, just adding Camden. The ones in PA say
NORTH
95 TO NJTP
New York
While the Extension is part of the Turnpike, in terms of jurisdiction, the location in question is outside the mainline ticket plaza, so motorists may not think they are on the Turnpike yet, despite the welcome sign coming off the bridge, until they pass through the ticket plaza. Adding Camden at this location recognizes the southbound option, especially to those who came east on the PaTP.
Given that this particular sign is located
not too far from the mainline toll gantry (just after the US 130 interchange); the placement of a
TO next to the NJTP shield would not be appropriate let alone inaccurate.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2019, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 04, 2019, 10:47:51 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 04, 2019, 10:24:05 AM
Personally I would've arranged that BGS a tad differently and sized/spaced it to allow for a NORTH cardinal to be placed above the I-95 shield. Something like:
NORTH
95 NJTP
Camden
New York
It's a bit muddled. It seems to be functioning as a pull-thru, not advance exit signage (Turnpike South seems to be treated as an exit now). It doesn't help that the PA extension doesn't have its own identity, and gets signed as "NJTP" on entrances just like the mainline. Had that not been the case, "NORTH 95 TO NJTP" (similar to the Westbound/Southbound sign minus the NJTP shield) would be the most appropriate here. As it is, it would have to be "NORTH I-95/NJTP TO SOUTH NJTP" or "SOUTH NJTP Camden 5 miles", though a five mile advance sign may be too early.
The point I was trying to convey here is that the absence of the NORTH cardinal on this particular sign at this particular location could mislead someone into thinking that the entire N-S NJTP is I-95. Until late last September, many in the general public mistakenly thought such (some probably still do).
Granted, those approaching this gantry already pass at least one pull-through sign listing such as I-95 northbound on the PA side; but still, there should be some consistency.
The absolute correct version of this pull-thru sign would simply be:
North
95 NJTPK
New York City
Signs approaching Interchange 6 with the mainline will show the NJ Tpk South/Camden as an exit.
Because of this being an unusual case of the Turnpike intersecting with the Turnpike, it appears a little creativity had to be exercised here, and that was eliminating the cardinal direction.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 09:56:31 AM
Because of this being an unusual case of the Turnpike intersecting with the Turnpike, it appears a little creativity had to be exercised here, and that was eliminating the cardinal direction.
If only the southern Turnpike were numbered, it could do what PA does, not using trailblazers within the system and posting route numbers only. I wonder what was done before the Northeast Extension got a numeric designation.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2019, 12:43:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 09:56:31 AM
Because of this being an unusual case of the Turnpike intersecting with the Turnpike, it appears a little creativity had to be exercised here, and that was eliminating the cardinal direction.
If only the southern Turnpike were numbered, it could do what PA does, not using trailblazers within the system and posting route numbers only. I wonder what was done before the Northeast Extension got a numeric designation.
Was there a time when it wasn't PA 9?
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2019, 12:43:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 09:56:31 AM
Because of this being an unusual case of the Turnpike intersecting with the Turnpike, it appears a little creativity had to be exercised here, and that was eliminating the cardinal direction.
If only the southern Turnpike were numbered, it could do what PA does, not using trailblazers within the system and posting route numbers only. I wonder what was done before the Northeast Extension got a numeric designation.
But it is numbered! They just elect not to use the number.
The PA Turnpike Northeast Extension was formerly PA Route 9, and that was used on signage - at least some signage - prior to it being designated as I-476.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 01:00:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2019, 12:43:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 09:56:31 AM
Because of this being an unusual case of the Turnpike intersecting with the Turnpike, it appears a little creativity had to be exercised here, and that was eliminating the cardinal direction.
If only the southern Turnpike were numbered, it could do what PA does, not using trailblazers within the system and posting route numbers only. I wonder what was done before the Northeast Extension got a numeric designation.
But it is numbered! They just elect not to use the number.
The PA Turnpike Northeast Extension was formerly PA Route 9, and that was used on signage - at least some signage - prior to it being designated as I-476.
According to Wikipedia, PA 9 was designated in 1980, while the first section opened in 1955, and I-76 was designated such in 1964, so a partially unnumbered Turnpike system exist for at least 16 years. Of course, signing standards may have been significantly different in the 60s and 70s.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 09:56:31 AMThe absolute correct version of this pull-thru sign would simply be:
North
95 NJTPK
New York City
Signs approaching Interchange 6 with the mainline will show the NJ Tpk South/Camden as an exit.
For the split at Exit 6 and northward, yes;
at the US 130 interchange (once known as Exit 6A) itself, no. The reason being that one has two directional choices for the Turnpike further down from this location; so using your listed legend, the pull-through BGS arrangement
should read:
NORTH
95 NJTPK
New York CityQuote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 09:56:31 AM
Because of this being an unusual case of the Turnpike intersecting with the Turnpike, it appears a little creativity had to be exercised here, and that was eliminating the cardinal direction.
That's for sure.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2019, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 01:00:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2019, 12:43:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2019, 09:56:31 AM
Because of this being an unusual case of the Turnpike intersecting with the Turnpike, it appears a little creativity had to be exercised here, and that was eliminating the cardinal direction.
If only the southern Turnpike were numbered, it could do what PA does, not using trailblazers within the system and posting route numbers only. I wonder what was done before the Northeast Extension got a numeric designation.
But it is numbered! They just elect not to use the number.
The PA Turnpike Northeast Extension was formerly PA Route 9, and that was used on signage - at least some signage - prior to it being designated as I-476.
According to Wikipedia, PA 9 was designated in 1980, while the first section opened in 1955, and I-76 was designated such in 1964, so a partially unnumbered Turnpike system exist for at least 16 years. Of course, signing standards may have been significantly different in the 60s and 70s.
Correct regarding when the Northeast Extension of the PA Turnpike becoming PA 9. Many of the older, button-copy signs along that stretch that predated the PA 9 designation either did not have PA 9 shields placed on the panels
at all or had such placed on very late (one ramp old ramp sign at the Norristown interchange got a PA 9 shield in the early 90s). Heck, this newer BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6000263,-75.559747,3a,75y,237.04h,78.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsnIxY_lx-hqhDeptdZltg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) basically was a
match-in-kind to an ancient pre-PA 9 era button-copy.
That said, while the NE Extension originally no visual route number; PTC may have very well had an internal designation for that stretch much like the NJTP south of Exit 6 is internally known as NJ 700.
Ok, but my point is trying to find an analogue to the situation where multiple directions of the same Turnpike system meet and one of them has no (signed) route number. I am asserting that the PA Turnpike had such a situation at one point, and wondering how the Northeast Extension was signed from I-276 when this situation existed.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2019, 04:05:58 PMI am asserting that the PA Turnpike had such a situation at one point, and wondering how the Northeast Extension was signed from I-276 when this situation existed.
In this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7448.0) there's the fore-mentioned 60s or 70s vintage signs at the Norristown interchange circa 1993-1994. At the time, the PA 9 shield was recently added.
As far as how the PA Turnpike was originally signed at that interchange and the neighboring NE Extension interchange is concerned; my
guess is that the PTC listed control cities with either
TURNPIKE NORTH/EAST/WEST or
POINTS NORTH/EAST/WEST wording either above or below the applicable control cities. The PA Turnpike Keystone shield was
not on these particular signs.
BTW, this site has a July 28, 2000 photo (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/us-022b_pa.html) of the fore-mentioned older button-copy PA Turnpike signage along US 22 that only featured a PA Turnpike shield.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2019, 04:35:00 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2019, 04:05:58 PMI am asserting that the PA Turnpike had such a situation at one point, and wondering how the Northeast Extension was signed from I-276 when this situation existed.
In this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7448.0) there's the fore-mentioned 60s or 70s vintage signs at the Norristown interchange circa 1993-1994. At the time, the PA 9 shield was recently added.
As far as how the PA Turnpike was originally signed at that interchange and the neighboring NE Extension interchange is concerned; my guess is that the PTC listed control cities with either TURNPIKE NORTH/EAST/WEST or POINTS NORTH/EAST/WEST wording either above or below the applicable control cities. The PA Turnpike Keystone shield was not on these particular signs.
BTW, this site has a July 28, 2000 photo (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/us-022b_pa.html) of the fore-mentioned older button-copy PA Turnpike signage along US 22 that only featured a PA Turnpike shield.
Northeastern Extension, huh? And looking at what's currently there, it still says "Northeast Extension" in addition to the I-476 shield. I haven't noticed that before. NJTP doesn't have "PA Extension" or Pearl Harbor or whatever on any of the exit signs. Though I think it used to. Must have been before 2008 when the oldest GSV has the old all text "PA Turnpike" sign and a newer "I-276 / US 130" sign.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2019, 05:49:56 PMNJTP doesn't have "PA Extension" or Pearl Harbor or whatever on any of the exit signs. Though I think it used to. Must have been before 2008 when the oldest GSV has the old all text "PA Turnpike" sign and a newer "I-276 / US 130" sign.
Actually, NJTP used the term
Penn. Extension for past entrance ramp signage as a control point along nearby interchanges on the N-S mainline NJTP. Such terminology never appeared on signs along the actual Turnpike corridors themselves. Old ramp signage at Exit 7A (I-195) (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-195/)
To tell you the truth, I completely forgot about that
Northeastern Extension notation on that old PA turnpike sign. Not sure whether such was a typo/boo-boo or the accepted nomenclature for when that sign was originally erected.
For those of you who use Apple Maps, you'll be happy to know that they finally got around to making the changes for the new interchange.
Thread Bump & Update
During a recent weekend trip to/from Massachusetts, I noticed the following sign changes/additions:
1. All of the remaining I-276 mileage markers along the PA-side of the Delaware River Bridge, including MM 359.0, have been removed. and replaced w/I-95-based ones with the highest MM being 43.4. Observation: MM 43.0 and MM 41.0 (recent replacement(?)) feature Clearview for the MM numerals instead of Series C. All the decimal/fraction markers use Series D numerals. IA reinstatement or no IA reinstatement; the use of Clearview numerals was never part of the IA.
2. The US 13 shield on this BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1075982,-74.801316,3a,75y,298.53h,85.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgh-9fU1UMC4o4uGJ_rT1ZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is already peeling at the top. A sliver of the upper-right portion is now missing.
3. Along the I-95/NJ Turnpike mainline; a new, stacked SOUTH 95 NJTP reassurance marker assembly has been erected to the right of the outer/truck lanes around MM 65... north of Exit 7A (I-195) & roughly 6 miles north of the Richard Stockton Service Area.
No other I-95 shields have been added to NJTP BGS' since.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2019, 09:13:20 AM
2. The US 13 shield on this BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1075982,-74.801316,3a,75y,298.53h,85.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgh-9fU1UMC4o4uGJ_rT1ZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is already peeling at the top. A sliver of the upper-right portion is now missing.
I've noticed that in the past few years, PA has started putting advance signage out beyond 2 miles.
Here's an example on 202 in the Malvern area. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0513786,-75.5440684,3a,75y,248.47h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3T8-eQSTrQUuCDStSir47w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: ipeters61 on April 01, 2019, 10:14:13 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2019, 09:13:20 AM
2. The US 13 shield on this BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1075982,-74.801316,3a,75y,298.53h,85.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgh-9fU1UMC4o4uGJ_rT1ZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is already peeling at the top. A sliver of the upper-right portion is now missing.
I've noticed that in the past few years, PA has started putting advance signage out beyond 2 miles.
Here's an example on 202 in the Malvern area. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0513786,-75.5440684,3a,75y,248.47h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3T8-eQSTrQUuCDStSir47w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This one's (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8686023,-75.3084421,3a,75y,76h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSNow_SSaLn5GQKUuYkWSvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) been around since late 2000. It (unnecessarily IMHO) replaced a 3-down arrow
95 NORTH Philadelphia pull-through BGS.
Quote from: ipeters61 on April 01, 2019, 10:14:13 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2019, 09:13:20 AM
2. The US 13 shield on this BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1075982,-74.801316,3a,75y,298.53h,85.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgh-9fU1UMC4o4uGJ_rT1ZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is already peeling at the top. A sliver of the upper-right portion is now missing.
I've noticed that in the past few years, PA has started putting advance signage out beyond 2 miles.
This one is necessary due to the bridge. The bridge doesn't touch down until about 1/4 mile before the interchange, and the only other BGS for this exit is at that point.
Google finally has Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/4APf4fPXhCJ2) on the flyovers from last October, just after opening. I notice they also now rightly show the flyovers as freeway mainline on the map.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 11, 2019, 02:45:02 PM
Google finally has Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/4APf4fPXhCJ2) on the flyovers from last October, just after opening. I notice they also now rightly show the flyovers as freeway mainline on the map.
The street views around the I-95/NJTP interchange (Exit 6) in NJ have also been updated.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 11, 2019, 02:45:02 PM
Google finally has Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/4APf4fPXhCJ2) on the flyovers from last October, just after opening. I notice they also now rightly show the flyovers as freeway mainline on the map.
And in typical Google 2018 fashion, the approach to the ramp is incorrectly showing the Southbound lanes. And this will never be fixed, it seems.
Not only that, but they haven't updated the street view on the US 13 connection; that, and US 130 in NJ, along with the satellite images haven't changed.
I see NJDOT copied PennDOT along I-295 and uses Princeton as control city for EB/SB I-295.
https://goo.gl/maps/XAMk6VifScy
Quote from: roadman65 on April 12, 2019, 11:55:11 PM
I see NJDOT copied PennDOT along I-295 and uses Princeton as control city for EB/SB I-295.
https://goo.gl/maps/XAMk6VifScy
I would say it's more like the reverse since I-295 North has been signed for Princeton at the 195/29 interchange for over 20 years.
But PennDOT changed Trenton for Princeton when I-295 got the number for replacing I-95. Yes, at the junction of 29 and 195 it was for years, but the other roads like Route 33, Arena Drive, and Olden Avenue etc. do it typical with no destinations I believe.
I know Route 206 now has no more Pennsylvania, Camden, and New York at the new I-295 since the road was renumbered. When I lived there very rarely did you see control cities at freeway ramps, although in the 90's they did add some to some ramps, but my views on GSV seem to pull up tons of freeways with no control cities still.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2019, 10:27:06 PM
But PennDOT changed Trenton for Princeton when I-295 got the number for replacing I-95. Yes, at the junction of 29 and 195 it was for years, but the other roads like Route 33, Arena Drive, and Olden Avenue etc. do it typical with no destinations I believe.
I know Route 206 now has no more Pennsylvania, Camden, and New York at the new I-295 since the road was renumbered. When I lived there very rarely did you see control cities at freeway ramps, although in the 90's they did add some to some ramps, but my views on GSV seem to pull up tons of freeways with no control cities still.
Yes, PennDOT did change that, which even then made far more sense than the way it actually used to be. And yes, most had/have no control cities at 295 in NJ. I do remember 579 said "To US 1" for the ramps to I-95 north, but not sure if they still say that now that its 295.
Quote from: famartin on April 14, 2019, 11:40:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2019, 10:27:06 PM
But PennDOT changed Trenton for Princeton when I-295 got the number for replacing I-95. Yes, at the junction of 29 and 195 it was for years, but the other roads like Route 33, Arena Drive, and Olden Avenue etc. do it typical with no destinations I believe.
I know Route 206 now has no more Pennsylvania, Camden, and New York at the new I-295 since the road was renumbered. When I lived there very rarely did you see control cities at freeway ramps, although in the 90's they did add some to some ramps, but my views on GSV seem to pull up tons of freeways with no control cities still.
Yes, PennDOT did change that, which even then made far more sense than the way it actually used to be. And yes, most had/have no control cities at 295 in NJ. I do remember 579 said "To US 1" for the ramps to I-95 north, but not sure if they still say that now that its 295.
I wonder if I-95 being signed for Trenton all the way to NJ 29 was a holdover from before the US 1 expressway was completed between Oxford Valley Road and US 13. With that missing link, I-95 and NJ 29 could have been quicker to get to Trenton.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 15, 2019, 12:02:41 AM
Quote from: famartin on April 14, 2019, 11:40:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2019, 10:27:06 PM
But PennDOT changed Trenton for Princeton when I-295 got the number for replacing I-95. Yes, at the junction of 29 and 195 it was for years, but the other roads like Route 33, Arena Drive, and Olden Avenue etc. do it typical with no destinations I believe.
I know Route 206 now has no more Pennsylvania, Camden, and New York at the new I-295 since the road was renumbered. When I lived there very rarely did you see control cities at freeway ramps, although in the 90's they did add some to some ramps, but my views on GSV seem to pull up tons of freeways with no control cities still.
Yes, PennDOT did change that, which even then made far more sense than the way it actually used to be. And yes, most had/have no control cities at 295 in NJ. I do remember 579 said "To US 1" for the ramps to I-95 north, but not sure if they still say that now that its 295.
I wonder if I-95 being signed for Trenton all the way to NJ 29 was a holdover from before the US 1 expressway was completed between Oxford Valley Road and US 13. With that missing link, I-95 and NJ 29 could have been quicker to get to Trenton.
Hadn't thought of that. Certainly possible. I had assumed it was due to the next official control city options being Trenton and NYC, with the latter making even less sense than Trenton (not that it stopped NJDOT from trying it out), but your theory is also very possible.
Quote from: famartin on April 15, 2019, 12:48:12 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 15, 2019, 12:02:41 AM
Quote from: famartin on April 14, 2019, 11:40:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2019, 10:27:06 PM
But PennDOT changed Trenton for Princeton when I-295 got the number for replacing I-95. Yes, at the junction of 29 and 195 it was for years, but the other roads like Route 33, Arena Drive, and Olden Avenue etc. do it typical with no destinations I believe.
I know Route 206 now has no more Pennsylvania, Camden, and New York at the new I-295 since the road was renumbered. When I lived there very rarely did you see control cities at freeway ramps, although in the 90's they did add some to some ramps, but my views on GSV seem to pull up tons of freeways with no control cities still.
Yes, PennDOT did change that, which even then made far more sense than the way it actually used to be. And yes, most had/have no control cities at 295 in NJ. I do remember 579 said "To US 1" for the ramps to I-95 north, but not sure if they still say that now that its 295.
I wonder if I-95 being signed for Trenton all the way to NJ 29 was a holdover from before the US 1 expressway was completed between Oxford Valley Road and US 13. With that missing link, I-95 and NJ 29 could have been quicker to get to Trenton.
Hadn't thought of that. Certainly possible. I had assumed it was due to the next official control city options being Trenton and NYC, with the latter making even less sense than Trenton (not that it stopped NJDOT from trying it out), but your theory is also very possible.
That's the likely reasoning behind that rationale. It's also worth noting, and such may have mentioned many posts back, that PennDOT's been signing the northbound Delaware Expressway with
Princeton as a control city on ramp signage from the US 1 interchange northward for roughly a decade... maybe longer
June 2011 GSV of US 1 southbound approaching the then-I-95 interchange. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.193342,-74.8732421,3a,75y,257.62h,75.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5r_wQWhjMvP8KjNsxIBftw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Drove the mainline NJ Turnpike NB from Exit 1 to 11, and SB from Exit 7A to 2, yesterday. Only difference I noticed that hasn't already been mentioned is that the "To I-95" signs south of Exit 6 seem to have been removed. These were located on the median barrier in the past, but I didn't see a single one (and I did look for them, but its possible I missed one).
Also stopped to grab a close up of this assembly, which I think remains unique:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/2019-05-15_12_02_55_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_between_Exit_6_and_Exit_7_in_Mansfield_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2019-05-15_12_02_55_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_between_Exit_6_and_Exit_7_in_Mansfield_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2019, 09:13:52 AM
Hadn't thought of that. Certainly possible. I had assumed it was due to the next official control city options being Trenton and NYC, with the latter making even less sense than Trenton (not that it stopped NJDOT from trying it out), but your theory is also very possible.
That's the likely reasoning behind that rationale. It's also worth noting, and such may have mentioned many posts back, that PennDOT's been signing the northbound Delaware Expressway with
Princeton as a control city on ramp signage from the US 1 interchange northward for roughly a decade... maybe longer
June 2011 GSV of US 1 southbound approaching the then-I-95 interchange. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.193342,-74.8732421,3a,75y,257.62h,75.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5r_wQWhjMvP8KjNsxIBftw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
[/quote]
I guess it's time to save that GSV now then it's a historic photo. ;)
Now we can say: Hey look at these classic photos from before the interchange opened!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4774/40791406931_8fe185156c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/259AC8v)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 16, 2019, 06:06:36 PM
Now we can say: Hey look at these classic photos from before the interchange opened!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4774/40791406931_8fe185156c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/259AC8v)
Funny enough, these partially-covered signs put up with the widening could be interpreted as I-276 finally being signed on the Pennsylvania Spur, albeit unofficially and only in one direction (though it's short enough for that not to really matter). I'm surprised they didn't leave the "To" uncovered from the start, just covering the I-95 shields.
Quote from: famartin on May 16, 2019, 08:15:09 AM
Drove the mainline NJ Turnpike NB from Exit 1 to 11, and SB from Exit 7A to 2, yesterday. Only difference I noticed that hasn't already been mentioned is that the "To I-95" signs south of Exit 6 seem to have been removed. These were located on the median barrier in the past, but I didn't see a single one (and I did look for them, but its possible I missed one).
Also stopped to grab a close up of this assembly, which I think remains unique:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/2019-05-15_12_02_55_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_between_Exit_6_and_Exit_7_in_Mansfield_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2019-05-15_12_02_55_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_between_Exit_6_and_Exit_7_in_Mansfield_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Several posts back, I mentioned that there is a similar sign assembly in the southbound direction at roughly MM 65.
During my recent Easter trip to/from New England; I saw no other additional I-95 signage along the NJ Turnpike.
Ah, that would be north of 7A so that would be why I missed it. Truck lanes I assume? I'll have to try to find it next time I'm up that way.
Yes, that's by the truck lanes. They start at exit 6 in Mansfield (the I-95/NJT junction).
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 17, 2019, 09:48:32 PM
Yes, that's by the truck lanes. They start at exit 6 in Mansfield (the I-95/NJT junction).
I'm just not even sure how to respond to this comment 🤣
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2019, 10:29:55 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 17, 2019, 09:48:32 PM
Yes, that's by the truck lanes. They start at exit 6 in Mansfield (the I-95/NJT junction).
I'm just not even sure how to respond to this comment 🤣
Not only that, they start below Interchange 6!
Hey taking pictures on the Turnpike is strictly forbidden. :biggrin:
Don't worry I won tell. :bigass:
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 16, 2019, 04:07:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2019, 09:13:52 AM
Hadn't thought of that. Certainly possible. I had assumed it was due to the next official control city options being Trenton and NYC, with the latter making even less sense than Trenton (not that it stopped NJDOT from trying it out), but your theory is also very possible.
That's the likely reasoning behind that rationale. It's also worth noting, and such may have mentioned many posts back, that PennDOT's been signing the northbound Delaware Expressway with Princeton as a control city on ramp signage from the US 1 interchange northward for roughly a decade... maybe longer
June 2011 GSV of US 1 southbound approaching the then-I-95 interchange. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.193342,-74.8732421,3a,75y,257.62h,75.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5r_wQWhjMvP8KjNsxIBftw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
I guess it's time to save that GSV now then it's a historic photo. ;)
[/quote]
The signs with Trenton north of Oxford Valley on 95 were added after the final link of US 1 was opened. US 1 opened there in 1987 while signs there on 95 were added from 1990 to 1991. Previously Yardley was used from US 1 Business and all ramps north of it.
A lot of people have wondered about the lack of the NJ Turnpike signing 95 on the new signs.
I haven't looked at the NJTA Meeting minutes for a while, and finally got a chance to do so. Back in February, apparently there's a contract that was approved that will finish this work, along with other various improvements. As shown in the https://www.njta.com/media/4335/minutes_bm_2-26-2019.pdf meeting minutes on PDF Page 16:
QuoteThis contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway. This contract will also construct a new Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 58.4 to improve emergency vehicle response at Turnpike Maintenance District No. 3, and the relocation of an existing Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 120.6 to facilitate improved access between the SN95L and SN95X roadways. This contract will also install guide rail at select locations along the Turnpike. All work is expected to be completed by August 2019.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2019, 01:38:46 PM
A lot of people have wondered about the lack of the NJ Turnpike signing 95 on the new signs.
I haven't looked at the NJTA Meeting minutes for a while, and finally got a chance to do so. Back in February, apparently there's a contract that was approved that will finish this work, along with other various improvements. As shown in the https://www.njta.com/media/4335/minutes_bm_2-26-2019.pdf meeting minutes on PDF Page 16:
QuoteThis contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway. This contract will also construct a new Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 58.4 to improve emergency vehicle response at Turnpike Maintenance District No. 3, and the relocation of an existing Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 120.6 to facilitate improved access between the SN95L and SN95X roadways. This contract will also install guide rail at select locations along the Turnpike. All work is expected to be completed by August 2019.
Will redesignating the Exits with I-95 mileage based numbers be the next part of final step in the process?
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2019, 01:38:46 PM
A lot of people have wondered about the lack of the NJ Turnpike signing 95 on the new signs.
I haven't looked at the NJTA Meeting minutes for a while, and finally got a chance to do so. Back in February, apparently there's a contract that was approved that will finish this work, along with other various improvements. As shown in the https://www.njta.com/media/4335/minutes_bm_2-26-2019.pdf meeting minutes on PDF Page 16:
QuoteThis contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway. This contract will also construct a new Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 58.4 to improve emergency vehicle response at Turnpike Maintenance District No. 3, and the relocation of an existing Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 120.6 to facilitate improved access between the SN95L and SN95X roadways. This contract will also install guide rail at select locations along the Turnpike. All work is expected to be completed by August 2019.
At face value, the wording gives the impression that the panels themselves will be replaced as opposed to
retrofitting the existing panels with the I-95 shields (which were spaced for such in mind); which is all that's really needed for the majority of existing signs.
I guess the wording's a
catch-all since the ramp signs from the Exit 7 toll plaza weren't spaced for additional I-95 shields.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2019, 01:38:46 PM
A lot of people have wondered about the lack of the NJ Turnpike signing 95 on the new signs.
I haven't looked at the NJTA Meeting minutes for a while, and finally got a chance to do so. Back in February, apparently there's a contract that was approved that will finish this work, along with other various improvements. As shown in the https://www.njta.com/media/4335/minutes_bm_2-26-2019.pdf meeting minutes on PDF Page 16:
QuoteThis contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway. This contract will also construct a new Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 58.4 to improve emergency vehicle response at Turnpike Maintenance District No. 3, and the relocation of an existing Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 120.6 to facilitate improved access between the SN95L and SN95X roadways. This contract will also install guide rail at select locations along the Turnpike. All work is expected to be completed by August 2019.
Nice! Something to check back on later this summer.
Hopefully it includes signs that have exotic destinations like "Philadelphia" on them, particularly at GSP exit 129.
Yeah right! Did not the NJTA remove Philadelphia from the ACE guides in Egg Harbor? They opted for Camden.
I think the only Philly used destinations are only along US 30 from Atlantic City. Oh yes, US 130 has it on a mileage sign in North Brunswick. NJ don't like Philadelphia I get the impression, but also Maryland is another one with New York on I-95 ramp signs from Baltimore northward.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 21, 2019, 10:46:04 PM
Yeah right! Did not the NJTA remove Philadelphia from the ACE guides in Egg Harbor? They opted for Camden.
The ACE is run by the SJTA, a separate agency not related to the NJTA. And it list Philadelphia as a destination in many locations. Besides, what other changes on the GSP could they be talking about? The current exit signs already say "NJTP - I-95 - Trenton"
Quote
I think the only Philly used destinations are only along US 30 from Atlantic City. Oh yes, US 130 has it on a mileage sign in North Brunswick. NJ don't like Philadelphia I get the impression, but also Maryland is another one with New York on I-95 ramp signs from Baltimore northward.
I-295 North is signed for "Philadelphia" past US 1: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2877121,-74.6910473,3a,75y,216.58h,78.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scJSUF_Za5E1MoStS7_87xA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I-76 is signed for Philadelphia: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722231,-75.0878431,3a,75y,258.98h,81.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfwCQsnxhmNtrixbID3uxkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Other crossings name the bridge instead
Quote from: bzakharin on May 21, 2019, 11:23:19 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 21, 2019, 10:46:04 PM
Yeah right! Did not the NJTA remove Philadelphia from the ACE guides in Egg Harbor? They opted for Camden.
The ACE is run by the SJTA, a separate agency not related to the NJTA. And it list Philadelphia as a destination in many locations. Besides, what other changes on the GSP could they be talking about? The current exit signs already say "NJTP - I-95 - Trenton"
He means these signs on the parkway:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/2018-09-11_14_34_56_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_38B_%28Atlantic_City_Expressway_WEST%2C_Camden%29_in_Egg_Harbor_Township%2C_Atlantic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: bzakharin on May 21, 2019, 11:23:19 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 21, 2019, 10:46:04 PM
I think the only Philly used destinations are only along US 30 from Atlantic City. Oh yes, US 130 has it on a mileage sign in North Brunswick. NJ don't like Philadelphia I get the impression, but also Maryland is another one with New York on I-95 ramp signs from Baltimore northward.
I-295 North is signed for "Philadelphia" past US 1: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2877121,-74.6910473,3a,75y,216.58h,78.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scJSUF_Za5E1MoStS7_87xA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I-76 is signed for Philadelphia: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722231,-75.0878431,3a,75y,258.98h,81.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfwCQsnxhmNtrixbID3uxkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Other crossings name the bridge instead
Yes there is definitely an NJDOT tendency to sign "in state" destinations. That said, its not the only one like that. MdSHA signs Frederick, Hagerstown and Hancock on I-70, then finally "Breezewood" after that (litterally just before heading into PA), when you might expect "Pittsburgh" to show up at some point. Most of the "New York" signs are on the segment of I-95 maintained by MdTA.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 21, 2019, 02:23:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2019, 01:38:46 PM
A lot of people have wondered about the lack of the NJ Turnpike signing 95 on the new signs.
I haven't looked at the NJTA Meeting minutes for a while, and finally got a chance to do so. Back in February, apparently there's a contract that was approved that will finish this work, along with other various improvements. As shown in the https://www.njta.com/media/4335/minutes_bm_2-26-2019.pdf meeting minutes on PDF Page 16:
QuoteThis contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway. This contract will also construct a new Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 58.4 to improve emergency vehicle response at Turnpike Maintenance District No. 3, and the relocation of an existing Z-turn at Turnpike Milepost 120.6 to facilitate improved access between the SN95L and SN95X roadways. This contract will also install guide rail at select locations along the Turnpike. All work is expected to be completed by August 2019.
Will redesignating the Exits with I-95 mileage based numbers be the next part of final step in the process?
No. Something like this is planned and communicated well in advance, as it affects motorists, businesses with directions, etc. It wouldn't be hidden in a signing contract.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 21, 2019, 03:52:30 PM
At face value, the wording gives the impression that the panels themselves will be replaced as opposed to retrofitting the existing panels with the I-95 shields (which were spaced for such in mind); which is all that's really needed for the majority of existing signs.
I guess the wording's a catch-all since the ramp signs from the Exit 7 toll plaza weren't spaced for additional I-95 shields.
In my mind it's kind of a weird contract, because modifying or replacing signage and adding/modifying Z Turns 60 miles apart from each other are vastly different types of work. The whole contract is seemingly a catch-all for little bucket-list items.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 21, 2019, 10:16:18 PM
Hopefully it includes signs that have exotic destinations like "Philadelphia" on them, particularly at GSP exit 129.
I believe that the sign replacement/modifications in the NJTA meeting minutes that J&N posted are strictly between Exits 8A and 7 along with, if such wasn't already done the ramp signs beyond the US 130 toll plaza to the Turnpike Connector (I-95).
A recap, from past observations, regarding impacted signs (not including trailblazers or reassurance markers):
Exit 8A: Turnpike mainline pull-through signage need I-95 shields added
Exit 8: Turnpike mainline pull-through signage need I-95 shields added
Exit 7A: Turnpike mainline pull-through signage & ramp signage beyond toll booths need I-95 shields added
Exit 7: Turnpike mainline pull-through signage need I-95 shields added. Ramps signage beyond toll booths need to be replaced (no additional space was provided for then-future shields). Approach & Turnpike ramp signage along US 206 & Connector Road will need to be replaced as well if such wasn't already done (GSVs for this area are dated July 2018).
US 130 interchange (aka Exit 6A) w/Connector (I-95): If not already done, ramp signage beyond toll plaza need I-95 shields & related direction cardinals added.
Regarding Exit 7 . . . Two signs were replaced by the NJDOT on U.S. 206 NB, south of the Turnpike overpass. Nothing was done southbound, even though overheads at the U.S. 130/U.S. 206 SB split (that directed traffic to the Turnpike onto U.S. 206) were replaced to include I-95. Nothing on Connector Road or Old York Road.
Exit 8A still has no I-95 signing along Route 32 WB approaching the ramp -- this area was not part of the NJDOT contract.
Rather strange to me . . .
Took 'em long enough but the interchange has finally appeared on aerial imagery in Google Earth (turn off 3D buildings/terrain to see):
(https://i.imgur.com/8XrslQ0.jpg)
Finally! Interesting how they updated the non-3D imagery without the 3D imagery. It seemed like the most recent times they'd update the 3D, the non-3D would become just a flattened version of the 3D imagery.
This update also applies to the small section of outdated 3D imagery covering half of the I-95/Girard Avenue interchange. The southern half of the non-3D is now updated to show I-95 traffic on the new NB viaduct and the new NB ramps open, but the northern half is still the older flattened 3D from when I-95 traffic was still on the original viaduct.
When you look at that picture above, you can also see the nearby properties; many that they'll need to take in order to complete that interchange. No doubt they stalled the remainder of the project in part due to that process.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 21, 2019, 10:16:18 PM
Hopefully it includes signs that have exotic destinations like "Philadelphia" on them, particularly at GSP exit 129.
I believe that the sign replacement/modifications in the NJTA meeting minutes that J&N posted are strictly between Exits 8A and 7 along with, if such wasn't already done the ramp signs beyond the US 130 toll plaza to the Turnpike Connector (I-95).
Then why are they mentioning the Garden State Parkway?
Quote
This contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway
Quote from: bzakharin on May 24, 2019, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 21, 2019, 10:16:18 PM
Hopefully it includes signs that have exotic destinations like "Philadelphia" on them, particularly at GSP exit 129.
I believe that the sign replacement/modifications in the NJTA meeting minutes that J&N posted are strictly between Exits 8A and 7 along with, if such wasn't already done the ramp signs beyond the US 130 toll plaza to the Turnpike Connector (I-95).
Then why are they mentioning the Garden State Parkway?
Quote
This contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway
No idea since the signs at that interchange (Exit 11/129)
already have I-95 shields on them.
The Turnpike interchange signs (current & prior generations) along & from the Parkway to the Turnpike have had I-95 shields on them for decades; mainly because the Parkway interchanges with the Turnpike north of Exit 10 (where I-95 was originally planned to exit the Turnpike via the current I-287).
The new (roughly 2-year-old) pull-through signs along the Turnpike mainline at Exit 11 have I-95 shields on them as well; so I don't know what NJTA is referring to when it references the Parkway in the listed minutes. Mileage/distance signs to Exit 6 (I-95 South) perhaps?
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 24, 2019, 04:40:54 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 24, 2019, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 21, 2019, 10:16:18 PM
Hopefully it includes signs that have exotic destinations like "Philadelphia" on them, particularly at GSP exit 129.
I believe that the sign replacement/modifications in the NJTA meeting minutes that J&N posted are strictly between Exits 8A and 7 along with, if such wasn't already done the ramp signs beyond the US 130 toll plaza to the Turnpike Connector (I-95).
Then why are they mentioning the Garden State Parkway?
Quote
This contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway
No idea since the signs at that interchange (Exit 11/129) already have I-95 shields on them.
The Turnpike interchange signs (current & prior generations) along & from the Parkway to the Turnpike have had I-95 shields on them for decades; mainly because the Parkway interchanges with the Turnpike north of Exit 10 (where I-95 was originally planned to exit the Turnpike via the current I-287).
The new (roughly 2-year-old) pull-through signs along the Turnpike mainline at Exit 11 have I-95 shields on them as well; so I don't know what NJTA is referring to when it references the Parkway in the listed minutes. Mileage/distance signs to Exit 6 (I-95 South) perhaps?
That's why the question wondered if they might swap out Trenton for Philadelphia on those signs.
Quote from: famartin on May 24, 2019, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 24, 2019, 04:40:54 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 24, 2019, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 21, 2019, 10:16:18 PM
Hopefully it includes signs that have exotic destinations like "Philadelphia" on them, particularly at GSP exit 129.
I believe that the sign replacement/modifications in the NJTA meeting minutes that J&N posted are strictly between Exits 8A and 7 along with, if such wasn't already done the ramp signs beyond the US 130 toll plaza to the Turnpike Connector (I-95).
Then why are they mentioning the Garden State Parkway?
Quote
This contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway
No idea since the signs at that interchange (Exit 11/129) already have I-95 shields on them.
The Turnpike interchange signs (current & prior generations) along & from the Parkway to the Turnpike have had I-95 shields on them for decades; mainly because the Parkway interchanges with the Turnpike north of Exit 10 (where I-95 was originally planned to exit the Turnpike via the current I-287).
The new (roughly 2-year-old) pull-through signs along the Turnpike mainline at Exit 11 have I-95 shields on them as well; so I don't know what NJTA is referring to when it references the Parkway in the listed minutes. Mileage/distance signs to Exit 6 (I-95 South) perhaps?
That’s why the question wondered if they might swap out Trenton for Philadelphia on those signs.
They should it would be more prominent.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 24, 2019, 11:29:36 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 24, 2019, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 24, 2019, 04:40:54 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 24, 2019, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 22, 2019, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 21, 2019, 10:16:18 PM
Hopefully it includes signs that have exotic destinations like "Philadelphia" on them, particularly at GSP exit 129.
I believe that the sign replacement/modifications in the NJTA meeting minutes that J&N posted are strictly between Exits 8A and 7 along with, if such wasn't already done the ramp signs beyond the US 130 toll plaza to the Turnpike Connector (I-95).
Then why are they mentioning the Garden State Parkway?
Quote
This contract will provide for the installation of sign panels as part of the final step in redesignating Interstate 95 through New Jersey including new signs at key locations on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway
No idea since the signs at that interchange (Exit 11/129) already have I-95 shields on them.
The Turnpike interchange signs (current & prior generations) along & from the Parkway to the Turnpike have had I-95 shields on them for decades; mainly because the Parkway interchanges with the Turnpike north of Exit 10 (where I-95 was originally planned to exit the Turnpike via the current I-287).
The new (roughly 2-year-old) pull-through signs along the Turnpike mainline at Exit 11 have I-95 shields on them as well; so I don't know what NJTA is referring to when it references the Parkway in the listed minutes. Mileage/distance signs to Exit 6 (I-95 South) perhaps?
That's why the question wondered if they might swap out Trenton for Philadelphia on those signs.
They should it would be more prominent.
We've had this debate before, perhaps it was even in this thread, but yes, I concur.
Yes Philbos always brought up the fact Philadelphia is ignored a lot.
I think it has to do with Philadelphia being off the beaten path as even though I-95 always directly served it, the NJ Turnpike was the straight and most traveled route. Just like we also had the debate before of numbering the whole turnpike as I-95 and giving the Delaware Expressway another number.
Philly is in the top ten US cities population wise and is treated like St. Petersburg in Florida tucked away in the corner (and it is being on a peninsula) and most through roads head through Tampa to steal the spotlight away. Only US 19 has St. Pete as a control city from as far away as Monticello near the GA Border only cause US 19 is the only US route bound for Tampa Bay that does not go to Tampa. Though FDOT recently has been adding St. Petersburg to I-75 guides in recent signing projects to show both Tampa Bay Cities on the freeway ramps and pull throughs.
As far as on US 1 in Lawrence, I totally forgot that one as for years the state of PA was the control city for I-95 especially NB. I do not know much about the ACE ramps as I never went too much to South Jersey living in Union and Middlesex Counties. I actually traveled to Wildwood first time in 1994 four years after I left New Jersey and still yet need to clinch the ACE from the Airport to its west end, US 30 from Pomona to US 130, US 322 from NJ 50 to NJ 45, all of NJ 42 and parts of US 9 in Cape May County. Oh yes and US 206 from its southern terminus to NJ 68 plus parts of NJ 47, NJ 45, all of NJ 77 and NJ 72 (and never been on Long Beach Island either).
Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 10:00:48 AM
Yes Philbos always brought up the fact Philadelphia is ignored a lot.
I think it has to do with Philadelphia being off the beaten path as even though I-95 always directly served it, the NJ Turnpike was the straight and most traveled route. Just like we also had the debate before of numbering the whole turnpike as I-95 and giving the Delaware Expressway another number.
Not only that but in conjunction with the Delaware Memorial Bridge the NJ Turnpike bypasses Pennsylvania entirely.
Yes Pennsylvania wanted to be in it, and really it should being Philly is a major city in the Northeast.
It was a shame that the Somerset Freeway got cancelled that through all of it off.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 10:00:48 AMYes Philbos always brought up the fact Philadelphia is ignored a lot.
To my knowledge, while such has been brought up may times before;
I wasn't the one who's repeatedly mentioned it. And its
PHLBOS BTW no
I; as in the air-route.
As far as the I-95/Turnpike signage at/along the Parkway is concerned: the fairly-new/current stand-alone signs for I-95/NJ Turnpike southbound that list
Trenton aren't wide enough to have
Philadelphia panel placed on them. If such a retrofit was indeed the plan; why weren't
those panels designed to accommodate the wider
Philadelphia control city legend from the get-go?
Trenton, while smaller in size than Philadelphia, is NJ's capital city and its general region is approached (from the north)
prior to approaching Philadelphia. Signing I-95/NJ Turnpike southbound for Trenton, even though the actual highway(s) doesn't enter it, down to Exit 8 makes logical sense. However, one option would be to list
both Trenton & Philadelphia together on the same southbound sign panels (Camden & Philadelphia for Exit 7A & 7 signage). It's not like such hasn't been done before; see southbound NJ Turnpike signage at Exit 6 for a recent example. Such IMHO would be the best way to address Philly being ignored on Turnpike signage... if such is indeed an issue.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2019, 09:51:05 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 10:00:48 AMYes Philbos always brought up the fact Philadelphia is ignored a lot.
To my knowledge, while such has been brought up may times before; I wasn't the one who's repeatedly mentioned it. And its PHLBOS BTW no I; as in the air-route.
As far as the I-95/Turnpike signage at/along the Parkway is concerned: the fairly-new/current stand-alone signs for I-95/NJ Turnpike southbound that list Trenton aren't wide enough to have Philadelphia panel placed on them. If such a retrofit was indeed the plan; why weren't those panels designed to accommodate the wider Philadelphia control city legend from the get-go?
Trenton, while smaller in size than Philadelphia, is NJ's capital city and its general region is approached (from the north) prior to approaching Philadelphia. Signing I-95/NJ Turnpike southbound for Trenton, even though the actual highway(s) doesn't enter it, down to Exit 8 makes logical sense. However, one option would be to list both Trenton & Philadelphia together on the same southbound sign panels (Camden & Philadelphia for Exit 7A & 7 signage). It's not like such hasn't been done before; see southbound NJ Turnpike signage at Exit 6 for a recent example. Such IMHO would be the best way to address Philly being ignored on Turnpike signage... if such is indeed an issue.
I would totally agree with that signage, and its not like NJTA is afraid of using larger signs... they have 3 line signs on northbound I-95 which say George Washington Bridge. If they are willing to splurge on that much signage just for the bridge, then I think they can do ones with "Trenton/Philadelphia" and "Camden/Philadelphia" as appropriate.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/2018-07-16_10_40_30_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_just_south_of_Exit_14-14C_%28Interstate_78%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_U.S._Route_9%2C_Newark_Airport%2C_Holland_Tunnel%29_in_Newark%2C_Essex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: famartin on May 28, 2019, 11:53:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 28, 2019, 09:51:05 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 10:00:48 AMYes Philbos always brought up the fact Philadelphia is ignored a lot.
To my knowledge, while such has been brought up may times before; I wasn't the one who's repeatedly mentioned it. And its PHLBOS BTW no I; as in the air-route.
As far as the I-95/Turnpike signage at/along the Parkway is concerned: the fairly-new/current stand-alone signs for I-95/NJ Turnpike southbound that list Trenton aren't wide enough to have Philadelphia panel placed on them. If such a retrofit was indeed the plan; why weren't those panels designed to accommodate the wider Philadelphia control city legend from the get-go?
Trenton, while smaller in size than Philadelphia, is NJ's capital city and its general region is approached (from the north) prior to approaching Philadelphia. Signing I-95/NJ Turnpike southbound for Trenton, even though the actual highway(s) doesn't enter it, down to Exit 8 makes logical sense. However, one option would be to list both Trenton & Philadelphia together on the same southbound sign panels (Camden & Philadelphia for Exit 7A & 7 signage). It's not like such hasn't been done before; see southbound NJ Turnpike signage at Exit 6 for a recent example. Such IMHO would be the best way to address Philly being ignored on Turnpike signage... if such is indeed an issue.
I would totally agree with that signage, and its not like NJTA is afraid of using larger signs... they have 3 line signs on northbound I-95 which say George Washington Bridge. If they are willing to splurge on that much signage just for the bridge, then I think they can do ones with "Trenton/Philadelphia" and "Camden/Philadelphia" as appropriate.
It's not really a cost thing. After all, we should just name cities with 3 or 4 letters if that was the case. Use NYC instead of New York City. Or as in the picture above, Newark Airport could've been cheaper just white on green and no one would think anything of it. It's what the agency feels is the best control city/destination for that particular location. And in some cases, the Turnpike may have thought that its existing Control City destinations would be fine, but after further reflection may have decided to amend the signage. Yeah, it'll cost a few million to do that, but that also shows it's truly not solely a decision made based upon cost. The Turnpike would save a lot of money if they quit using 25 foot lines, or stopped sending patrols out on a daily basis to pick up trash. Signage costs are quit minimal in the long run.
Trenton and Baltimore would be the most proper control cities to be used at the GSP interchange. Trenton is the state capital and the next large city heading southwards. Baltimore would be eventually accessed whether one chooses to take the Turnpike or I-95 so it is appropriate to both roads.
Philadelphia needs only to be listed, as it is, at Exit 6. I-95 is the route to follow there.
Wilmington should only be listed at Exit 2. The Turnpike does not go to Wilmington and most intercity travelers are heading to Baltimore and further south and not to Wilmington. Wilmington should not be used as a control city on the Turnpike.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2019, 12:59:29 PMThe Turnpike does not go to Wilmington and most intercity travelers are heading to Baltimore and further south and not to Wilmington. Wilmington should not be used as a control city on the Turnpike.
the same arguments could be made against Trenton (and i would not support those arguments in that case, either).
Quote from: odditude on May 28, 2019, 01:46:24 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2019, 12:59:29 PMThe Turnpike does not go to Wilmington and most intercity travelers are heading to Baltimore and further south and not to Wilmington. Wilmington should not be used as a control city on the Turnpike.
the same arguments could be made against Trenton (and i would not support those arguments in that case, either).
One could further make the argument that the control cities of I-76 West (from Philadelphia) and I-476 North (from Chester) should not be Valley Forge and Plymouth Meeting, respectively. Wilmington, while not "officially" on the Turnpike, is a meaningful reference point for the next possible destination along the route.
If I'm heading from NYC down the Turnpike towards the Delaware Memorial Bridge, where could I be headed? I could be going to Baltimore/Washington (via I-95), to the Delaware Beaches/Ocean City MD (via DE-1), Lancaster (via DE-141 and DE-41), or towards Virginia Beach (via DE-1/US-13). I specifically would like to point out that the Delaware Beaches are actually a growing area with people coming from New York and New Jersey.
All of these areas are accessible from "Wilmington" (again not technically Wilmington, but close enough to it) to justify it, in my opinion, as a destination.
I remember having this discussion before. The only thing that drives me crazy is using Philadelphia as a control city northbound at Exit 6. You're already past the city at that point, and would have taken Exit 2 for the airport/southern suburbs, Exit 3 for Center City, or Exit 4 for Northeast Philly. SB Exit 6 should read: I-95 SOUTH TO I-276 WEST [PATP Logo] Philadelphia/Harrisburg, while NB controls should be Bristol or Valley Forge, and Harrisburg. Listing Philly NB is almost as ridiculous as MassDOT using NYC as a control at Exit 9 Eastbound on the Mass Pike.
On the Turnpike itself, I would use Trenton/Philadelphia from Exit 14 south to Exit 7A, Philadelphia/Wilmington from 7A to 7, Camden/Wilmington from Exit 7-3, and Wilmington/Baltimore down to the bridge. From Exit 3 south, I would use the logo for the Delaware Memorial Bridge, so signage would say: NJTP SOUTH TO [DEL MEM BRIDGE symbol]/Wilmington/Baltimore. Most Lancaster bound traffic would have exited at Exit 6 and taken the PATP either to Valley Forge (and US 202 to US 30), or to Denver and headed south on US 222. Northbound from Exit 14, I would use Fort Lee as a control with I-95 TO GWB.
An aside as far as Virginia Beach: I would support DelDOT using Dover/Norfolk as controls for DE 1 South on I-95 Southbound only.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2019, 12:59:29 PM
Trenton and Baltimore would be the most proper control cities to be used at the GSP interchange. Trenton is the state capital and the next large city heading southwards. Baltimore would be eventually accessed whether one chooses to take the Turnpike or I-95 so it is appropriate to both roads.
Philadelphia needs only to be listed, as it is, at Exit 6. I-95 is the route to follow there.
Wilmington should only be listed at Exit 2. The Turnpike does not go to Wilmington and most intercity travelers are heading to Baltimore and further south and not to Wilmington. Wilmington should not be used as a control city on the Turnpike.
Most traffic on the middle Turnpike is heading from one metro (NYC) to the other (Philly) or vice versa. Only the fairly small amount of traffic below exit 3 is actually bypassing Philly, and undoubtedly some traffic NB isn't going to NYC, but you get the point. The turnpike does not actually reach any of its control cities except for the GWB approach. Yet, NYC is the sole NB control city (GWB is not a city), while Newark, Trenton, Camden and Wilmington are all used SB. Philly is snubbed, but of course it is... the NJTA is in NYC's back yard and they don't care about Philly any more than any other North Jerseyan does.
Allentown is also not mentioned going WB on I-78 from Newark as well. Clinton is used at some places cause that was an original US 22 control city as it was along that route (and still is) Somerville, Clinton, Phillipsburg, and Easton. Somerville is bypassed by I-78 and that is why the next town of Clinton is used, then Phillipsburg and Easton are used alternatively from I-287 westward.
Allentown and Harrisburg should only be used from Newark westward. Allentown is PA's 3rd largest city and much bigger than Easton and out of all three Lehigh Valley cities it is the largest and should be included and Easton omitted as US 22 places really are not that prominent anymore for the freeway travelers. Plus I-78 only has one exit for the city as well. However, copying over is what takes place even in Arizona where Los Angeles is control city on I-40 though the road ends in Barstow and two other interstates are needed to get there from the end all because US 66 (the road it replaced in AZ) went there. Ditto in Vegas as I-15 is signed for LA too instead of San Diego, cause of US 91, the road it replaced went there.
The signs at Exit 129 on the GSP use Trenton in the northbound direction and Camden in the southbound direction. Changing Camden to Philadelphia would make more sense there as I-287 and the GSP are commonly used as a route for New England traffic heading south vs. taking I-287 the whole way.
Quote from: famartin on May 28, 2019, 04:12:28 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2019, 12:59:29 PM
Trenton and Baltimore would be the most proper control cities to be used at the GSP interchange. Trenton is the state capital and the next large city heading southwards. Baltimore would be eventually accessed whether one chooses to take the Turnpike or I-95 so it is appropriate to both roads.
Philadelphia needs only to be listed, as it is, at Exit 6. I-95 is the route to follow there.
Wilmington should only be listed at Exit 2. The Turnpike does not go to Wilmington and most intercity travelers are heading to Baltimore and further south and not to Wilmington. Wilmington should not be used as a control city on the Turnpike.
Most traffic on the middle Turnpike is heading from one metro (NYC) to the other (Philly) or vice versa. Only the fairly small amount of traffic below exit 3 is actually bypassing Philly, and undoubtedly some traffic NB isn't going to NYC, but you get the point. The turnpike does not actually reach any of its control cities except for the GWB approach. Yet, NYC is the sole NB control city (GWB is not a city), while Newark, Trenton, Camden and Wilmington are all used SB. Philly is snubbed, but of course it is... the NJTA is in NYC's back yard and they don't care about Philly any more than any other North Jerseyan does.
Just realized this statement is false, as the turnpike does go to Newark. Woops. So, by the definition of cities the turnpike actually reaches, Newark is the only valid control city currently used, aside from GWB.
One other comment regarding the control cities... out of all the ones currently used, Trenton actually makes least sense since the Turnpike bypasses it the MOST of any control city currently used.
NB -
NYC (NJTA roadway gets to about a mile from the city line)
GWB (reaches the approach)
SB -
Newark (passes right through)
Trenton (closest pass is about 4.7 miles from the city line)
Camden (closest pass is about 2 miles from the city line)
Wilmington (closest pass is about 1 mile from the city line)
And Philly, the ignored destination? The Philly city limits reach to about 3 miles from the turnpike at closest. Almost 2 miles closer than Trenton.
Philly not being used as a control city in the past was the *correct* decision to make. I frequently encountered confused southbound motorists at Interchange 1 thinking they were still on I-95, and expected to go thru Philly. Adding Philly as a control city would have compounded that confusion.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 29, 2019, 08:53:51 AM
Philly not being used as a control city in the past was the *correct* decision to make. I frequently encountered confused southbound motorists at Interchange 1 thinking they were still on I-95, and expected to go thru Philly. Adding Philly as a control city would have compounded that confusion.
The original mainline of I-95 was not competed thru Pennsylvania until 1985, so using Philadelphia as a control city would have been problematic before then.
Then the connection to the Turnpike was only completed in 2018, so with the cancellation of the Somerset Freeway, a completed I-95 thru Philadelphia did not exist until then.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2019, 12:59:29 PMTrenton and Baltimore would be the most proper control cities to be used at the GSP interchange. Trenton is the state capital and the next large city heading southwards. Baltimore would be eventually accessed whether one chooses to take the Turnpike or I-95 so it is appropriate to both roads.
Agree with using Trenton. Disagree with using Baltimore. OTOH, a mileage sign listing Baltimore (w/Philadelphia and Wilmington) along the southbound mainline I-95/Turnpike just south of the GSP might be useful.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2019, 12:59:29 PMPhiladelphia needs only to be listed, as it is, at Exit 6. I-95 is the route to follow there.
Agree to a point. As previously mentioned, occasional mileage signs listing Philadelphia along the southbound mainline would be helpful.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2019, 12:59:29 PMWilmington should only be listed at Exit 2.
Since
both Exits 4 and 3 list
Camden on their signs; the use of Wilmington at those two interchanges are both justified. It's worth noting, and probably mentioned several pages back, that the southbound pull-through sign at Exit 5 was changed from Wilmington to Camden shortly after those new signs were erected. The two-line Camden/Wilmington pull-through at Exit 6 is fine.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 28, 2019, 12:59:29 PMThe Turnpike does not go to Wilmington and most intercity travelers are heading to Baltimore and further south and not to Wilmington. Wilmington should not be used as a control city on the Turnpike.
The same exact argument can be made regarding NYC; the Turnpike itself does not enter it and I-95 only skims across the upper-end of Manhattan and the Bronx. I'm sure a sizeable portion of northbound I-95 traffic is going
beyond NYC; note that the northern portion of the GSP has a truck prohibition so such can't be used as a bypass for them.
The bottom line here is that (& like it or not) Wilmington, while smaller than Baltimore, is Delaware's largest city and the road beyond the NJ Turnpike indeed enters the southern end of that region. Using it for southbound NJ Turnpike signage south of Exit 5 is justified. Personally, I would've been fine with using the old-school Delaware Memorial Bridge listings for those signs but, for some reason, the NJTA decided
not to deviate from MUTCD policy of listing only actual cities for control legends despite such being done at the northern end for the GWB listings. Talk about inconsistency.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 28, 2019, 03:23:27 PM
I remember having this discussion before. The only thing that drives me crazy is using Philadelphia as a control city northbound at Exit 6. You're already past the city at that point, and would have taken Exit 2 for the airport/southern suburbs, Exit 3 for Center City, or Exit 4 for Northeast Philly. SB Exit 6 should read: I-95 SOUTH TO I-276 WEST [PATP Logo] Philadelphia/Harrisburg, while NB controls should be Bristol or Valley Forge, and Harrisburg. Listing Philly NB is almost as ridiculous as MassDOT using NYC as a control at Exit 9 Eastbound on the Mass Pike.
I hear you on that MassDOT sign.
That one should've been prevented; either the prior Sturbridge/Hartford, CT legend or just a Hartford, CT legend would've sufficed. However, in the case of Exit 6; Philadelphia is used for the northbound signs because such is the next immediate destination along I-95 southbound. The only time I saw Bristol (PA) used as an I-95 control city was on older ramp signage for I-95 northbound coming from the Betsy Ross Bridge. Like the listing of Hartford on that eastbound I-90 Exit 9 signage in MA (most coming from western MA would use I-91 south to get to Hartford); the use of Philadelphia for the northbound Exit 6 signage is somewhat unavoidable.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 28, 2019, 06:00:52 PM
The signs at Exit 129 on the GSP use Trenton in the northbound direction and Camden in the southbound direction. Changing Camden to Philadelphia would make more sense there as I-287 and the GSP are commonly used as a route for New England traffic heading south vs. taking I-287 the whole way.
IMHO, and I stated such several pages back, the only reason for the Camden listing on those southbound signs was because the prior exit for US 1 South (Exit 130B, originally Exit 130) already lists Trenton and has done so (along w/New Brunswick on older signs) well before the completion of NJ 29 and the western piece of I-195. IMHO, Exit 130B should've been signed for New Brunswick and the southbound Exit 129 BGS' should listed Trenton instead of Camden. Note: the southbound entrance ramp sign beyond the toll plaza only lists Trenton.
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 09:34:43 AMThe original mainline of I-95 was not competed thru Pennsylvania until 1985, so using Philadelphia as a control city would have been problematic before then.
Coming from the north, that missing piece of I-95 by the airport wouldn't have mattered since such is well south of Center City.
I tried diving a little deeper into the NJ Turnpike website regarding the new signing project, but it doesn't appear their search function is working. I did locate though that some of the signage being added/replaced will be on NJDOT right of way, including but not limited to Routes 130, 206 and 32. I also tried to figure out if Philadelphia would be a control city in the future, but no luck.
As for the past...remember: The NJ Turnpike is kinda in new territory here. Formerly it was basically one highway (north to south): NYC to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. It never entered Philly, and Philly was signed for both Interchanges 3 and 4. What applied prior to 2018 really doesn't apply in full anymore, as we see with many of the changes that have already been undertaken.
Now, it can be considered a path that goes two ways: The NJ Turnpike, from NYC to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and I-95, which goes from NYC to Exit 6. Hopefully, this contract will address deficiencies in the signage, especially related to control cities, reflecting how motorists may be looking at and referring to the highway.
For a similar comparsion - look at I-70 thru PA, where it overlaps the PA Turnpike for a while (keep your personal opinions to yourself in regards to the interchange that shall not be named).
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2019, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 09:34:43 AMThe original mainline of I-95 was not competed thru Pennsylvania until 1985, so using Philadelphia as a control city would have been problematic before then.
Coming from the north, that missing piece of I-95 by the airport wouldn't have mattered since such is well south of Center City.
But the airport is still in Philadelphia. Coming from the north, PA I-95 didn't have an inter-state linkup in any case.
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 03:37:06 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 29, 2019, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 29, 2019, 09:34:43 AMThe original mainline of I-95 was not competed thru Pennsylvania until 1985, so using Philadelphia as a control city would have been problematic before then.
Coming from the north, that missing piece of I-95 by the airport wouldn't have mattered since such is well south of Center City.
But the airport is still in Philadelphia. Coming from the north, PA I-95 didn't have an inter-state linkup in any case.
Actually, half of PHL is situated in the neighboring Tinicum Township, Delaware County. While such may not matter to the lay person; it does matter where an improvement project takes place on airport/adjacent property (i.e. different cast of characters for the permit applications and submittals).
Prior to the completion of the 1985 leg at the airport interchange; one coming from the south was forced off onto PA 291 (at current Exit 10). From there, one would follow PA 291 eastbound to Island Ave.. From there, one would turn right and follow Island Ave. southbound to Enterprise Ave. From there, one would turn left (via a now-gone jughandle) onto Enterprise Ave. and follow it to I-95 northbound (current Exit 15) just prior to the double-decker Girard Point Bridge. For one heading south from Center City, they would do the reverse.
That said, unless one's destination was PHL, Chester, a neighboring Delaware County suburb, or even northern Delaware (example: Claymont); the then-missing link at PHL was irrelevant for one coming from NYC or central NJ.
Prior to the linking of I-195 to the northern piece of I-295 in the very early 1990s; if one wanted to connect to the
old I-95 in Mercer County NJ; the best way to do such would be to take Exit 8 off the NJ Turnpike and follow NJ 33 westbound (including the US 130 concurrency) to I-295 northbound and follow to the I-95 southbound at where the would-be Somerset Freeway (I-95) interchange was located (the 95/295 handoff location shifted east to the US 1 interchange circa 1994). Another option would be to continue along NJ 33 to US 1 south and take that into PA and take US 13 south (Bristol Pike) and follow to PA 413 and pick up I-95 there (current Exit 39).
While the above routing wasn't the most convenient nor expedient; it did provide a way to link with I-95 in Mercer County & PA.
A more typical pre-interchange (& one I've used many times over the years) routing between I-95 in Bucks County, PA and the NJ Turnpike was, of course, using Exit 6 and crossing into PA and taking the very first exit (Delaware Valley, old Exit 29/358, current Exit 42) and follow US 13 south to PA 413 north to I-95. As we all now know, the new interchange-connection eliminates using US 13/PA 413 anymore.
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.
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
MdTA:
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.
So it is not a conspiracy after all! Seems pretty logical to me.
I wrote a follow up email requesting inclusion of Philadelphia on mileage signs. MdTA did not bother to reply. Now, that does raise suspicion of "conspiracy" if any.
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:49:07 AM
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.
Well, clearly North Carolina doesn't follow this rule.
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 10:54:44 AM
I wrote a follow up email requesting inclusion of Philadelphia on mileage signs. MdTA did not bother to reply. Now, that does raise suspicion of "conspiracy" if any.
Well, they don't include the other intervening major cities such as Wilmington, Camden, Trenton and Newark either. :D
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.
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2019, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
MdTA:
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.
So it is not a conspiracy after all! Seems pretty logical to me.
Actually sounds like bureaucratic BS to me... the list of control cities are selected by the states, but clearly Maryland has thumbed its nose at both Delaware and Pennsylvania in that regard, since they only sign "New York" when "Wilmington" is the next proper I-95 control city and "Philadelphia" the next major city.
Philadelphia is inconsequential and there is no reason for it to be listed.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 01, 2019, 02:34:04 PM
Philadelphia is inconsequential and there is no reason for it to be listed.
:-D
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:49:07 AM
....
We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time" .
The highlighted word is clearly incorrect. They're perfectly "able" to change the signs to use some other city, they're simply
unwilling to do so. (With that said, having "New York" on the signs has never bothered me, but that could easily be because I've seen it for essentially my whole life so I've never seen anything else used on that road.)
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2019, 12:07:32 PM
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.
THANK YOU!! I totally agree with this whenever I see "New York" used as a control city. There is one sign near the Hynes Convention Center that says "90 West/New York" when in reality (and on every other control sign" it is "90 West/
Albany NY" (and I-90 doesn't even get within 140 miles of NYC), At least at Exit 9 on the Pike MassDOT uses New York City. CTDOT has a habit of using N.Y. City; however, the spelled out words can fit on a single line of a BGS (and I'm not sure if N.Y. City is MUTCD compliant).
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 01, 2019, 04:14:04 PM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:49:07 AM
....
We appreciate your concern of the signing message; however, we are unable to accommodate your request at this time" .
The highlighted word is clearly incorrect. They're perfectly "able" to change the signs to use some other city, they're simply unwilling to do so. (With that said, having "New York" on the signs has never bothered me, but that could easily be because I've seen it for essentially my whole life so I've never seen anything else used on that road.)
Yep, typical bureaucratic response. MD seems to have some grudge against DE and PA.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 01, 2019, 02:34:04 PM
Philadelphia is inconsequential and there is no reason for it to be listed.
:-D as inconsequential as any other city in US outside of NYC, LA, and Chicago.
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 01, 2019, 02:34:04 PM
Philadelphia is inconsequential and there is no reason for it to be listed.
:-D 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.
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2019, 12:07:32 PM
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".
*ducks*
Quote from: Alps on June 01, 2019, 07:49:53 PM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 01, 2019, 02:34:04 PM
Philadelphia is inconsequential and there is no reason for it to be listed.
:-D 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.
:bigass:
What about Massachusetts? Theirs is along I-93, on the way to New Hampshire. :-D
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 01, 2019, 08:24:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 01, 2019, 07:49:53 PM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on June 01, 2019, 02:34:04 PM
Philadelphia is inconsequential and there is no reason for it to be listed.
:-D 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.
:bigass:
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...
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
Quote from: Duke87 on June 01, 2019, 08:20:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 01, 2019, 12:07:32 PM
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.
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
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.
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 04:58:00 PM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
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?
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2019, 08:04:10 PM
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 04:58:00 PM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
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
Quote from: mrsman on June 03, 2019, 07:34:11 AM
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
Follow on question: if most of the road is now tax supported, why doesn't SHA take it over instead?
Quote from: ixnay on June 03, 2019, 08:05:24 AM
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
Quote from: mrsman on June 02, 2019, 04:58:00 PM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
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.
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 03, 2019, 09:20:54 AM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 09:28:50 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 03, 2019, 09:20:54 AM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 09:28:50 AMEven 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.
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.
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!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 01:44:33 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 03, 2019, 03:08:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 02:26:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 01:44:33 PM
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.
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 04:02:42 PM
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".
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 04:02:42 PM...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.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
The above sums up rather nicely the MD issue with their I-95 northbound ramp/pull-through signs.
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 04:02:42 PMAnother 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.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 03, 2019, 05:21:53 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 04:02:42 PMAnother 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).
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 05:34:32 PMI 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.
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 04:02:42 PM
Delaware is actually respectful to MD by signing "Baltimore"... they could easily get away with signing "Washington" and thumb their nose at Maryland.
Given the large size of Baltimore city as well as metro, almost that of Washington, and the fact that I-95 goes right thru the city and with a modern design and 8 lanes, it has been the preferred thru route since it was completed in 1985, so it would be hard for them to ignore "Baltimore" as a I-95 control city.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 02:26:50 PM
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.
True, but when it comes to capacity and high-speed design and minimal interchange friction, the DMB and NJTP (which has I-295 as a local access and relief route) beats it hands down as a preferred route. The parallel bridge project will increase the capacity and competitiveness.
Back to Baltimore, it doesn't have a competitive freeway bypass of I-95. The Beltway provides local relief but is longer, 15 miles to the west and 12 miles to the east.
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 07:19:58 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 04:02:42 PM
Delaware is actually respectful to MD by signing "Baltimore"... they could easily get away with signing "Washington" and thumb their nose at Maryland.
Given the large size of Baltimore city as well as metro, almost that of Washington, and the fact that I-95 goes right thru the city and with a modern design and 8 lanes, it has been the preferred thru route since it was completed in 1985, so it would be hard for them to ignore "Baltimore" as a I-95 control city.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 04:17:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 02:26:50 PM
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.
True, but when it comes to capacity and high-speed design and minimal interchange friction, the DMB and NJTP (which has I-295 as a local access and relief route) beats it hands down as a preferred route. The parallel bridge project will increase the capacity and competitiveness.
Back to Baltimore, it doesn't have a competitive freeway bypass of I-95. The Beltway provides local relief but is longer, 15 miles to the west and 12 miles to the east.
Per Wikipedia, the Baltimore metro is 2.8 million, while DC metro is 6.2 million. Not exactly close. Philly is a larger metro, too, though DC is slightly ahead of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 07:32:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 07:19:58 PM
Given the large size of Baltimore city as well as metro, almost that of Washington, and the fact that I-95 goes right thru the city and with a modern design and 8 lanes, it has been the preferred thru route since it was completed in 1985, so it would be hard for them to ignore "Baltimore" as a I-95 control city.
Per Wikipedia, the Baltimore metro is 2.8 million, while DC metro is 6.2 million. Not exactly close. Philly is a larger metro, too, though DC is slightly ahead of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
Point acknowledged, but 2.8 million puts it in the category of a "large metro area". Baltimore has more of an industrial base, plus a major port that handles ocean-going cargo ships.
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 07:19:58 PM
Back to Baltimore, it doesn't have a competitive freeway bypass of I-95. The Beltway provides local relief but is longer, 15 miles to the west and 12 miles to the east.
One could say I-895 is another option. Google says it's 1 minute faster with no traffic and 1 mile shorter and avoids Downtown. Granted, it's not as well designed as I-95 though, less lanes, narrower, etc.
Or I-695 to I-97 to US-50 to I-495. A few minutes longer, though avoids a good portion of I-95.
Quote from: Flyer78 on June 03, 2019, 08:26:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on June 03, 2019, 08:05:24 AM
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.
Including signage, or is that, as mrsman hints, the SHA's responsibility?
ixnay
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2019, 08:21:58 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 07:19:58 PM
Back to Baltimore, it doesn't have a competitive freeway bypass of I-95. The Beltway provides local relief but is longer, 15 miles to the west and 12 miles to the east.
One could say I-895 is another option. Google says it's 1 minute faster with no traffic and 1 mile shorter and avoids Downtown. Granted, it's not as well designed as I-95 though, less lanes, narrower, etc.
The analysis was about control cities on I-95. I tend to see the function of I-895 as an Alt. I-95.
Google says it is 4 minutes faster to use the B-W Parkway and DC-201 and I-295 to I-95/I-495. That might not work too well in rush hours.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 03, 2019, 08:21:58 PM
Or I-695 to I-97 to US-50 to I-495. A few minutes longer, though avoids a good portion of I-95.
Google said 9 miles and 10 minutes longer. I see a route like that as an emergency alternate to I-95.
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 07:32:18 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 07:19:58 PM
Given the large size of Baltimore city as well as metro, almost that of Washington, and the fact that I-95 goes right thru the city and with a modern design and 8 lanes, it has been the preferred thru route since it was completed in 1985, so it would be hard for them to ignore "Baltimore" as a I-95 control city.
Per Wikipedia, the Baltimore metro is 2.8 million, while DC metro is 6.2 million. Not exactly close. Philly is a larger metro, too, though DC is slightly ahead of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas
Point acknowledged, but 2.8 million puts it in the category of a "large metro area". Baltimore has more of an industrial base, plus a major port that handles ocean-going cargo ships.
Wow NY-Newark is the biggest Metro in the U.S. I thought LA woulda took the cake.
iPhone
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 02:26:50 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 04:17:26 PM
It's adequate in normal day to day travel...and experiences less congestion than many 6 and 8 lane highways, especially during rush hour.
True, but when it comes to capacity and high-speed design and minimal interchange friction, the DMB and NJTP (which has I-295 as a local access and relief route) beats it hands down as a preferred route. The parallel bridge project will increase the capacity and competitiveness.
Not really. You're basing your entire qualification on that it's a 4 lane bridge, ignoring the more important issue of traffic volumes and capacity along the entire corridor.
The NJ Turnpike to the Del. Mem. Bridge is preferable because it's a shorter distance and overall faster. That's not going to change regardless if the NJ-PA Turnpike connector bridge is 4 lanes or 40 lanes.
The NJ Turnpike has capacity issues during peak travel times due to only having 4 lanes total South of Exit 4 on the Turnpike and a small section of 295 in Delaware.
95 in PA has capacity issues approaching Philly where is 6 and 8 lanes wide, South of Philly approaching 476 where it's only 2 lanes wide in each direction thru the interchange, and thru Chester where it's 6 lanes wide and 322 briefly multiplexes with 95.
95 needs so much work to be competitive for thru traffic that it will never actually be competitive, unless it manages to find a way to shave 5 miles off its route and have a speed limit 10mph higher than the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 02:26:50 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 04:17:26 PM
It's adequate in normal day to day travel...and experiences less congestion than many 6 and 8 lane highways, especially during rush hour.
True, but when it comes to capacity and high-speed design and minimal interchange friction, the DMB and NJTP (which has I-295 as a local access and relief route) beats it hands down as a preferred route. The parallel bridge project will increase the capacity and competitiveness.
Not really. You're basing your entire qualification on that it's a 4 lane bridge, ignoring the more important issue of traffic volumes and capacity along the entire corridor.
The NJ Turnpike to the Del. Mem. Bridge is preferable because it's a shorter distance and overall faster. That's not going to change regardless if the NJ-PA Turnpike connector bridge is 4 lanes or 40 lanes.
The NJ Turnpike has capacity issues during peak travel times due to only having 4 lanes total South of Exit 4 on the Turnpike and a small section of 295 in Delaware.
95 in PA has capacity issues approaching Philly where is 6 and 8 lanes wide, South of Philly approaching 476 where it's only 2 lanes wide in each direction thru the interchange, and thru Chester where it's 6 lanes wide and 322 briefly multiplexes with 95.
95 needs so much work to be competitive for thru traffic that it will never actually be competitive, unless it manages to find a way to shave 5 miles off its route and have a speed limit 10mph higher than the NJ Turnpike.
Will it be financially possible for I-95 to be redone from Delaware state line to Girard Ave?
Also even with the new 295 Construction finally completed in Delaware the backup still occurs. Interesting
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on June 03, 2019, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 03, 2019, 02:26:50 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2019, 04:17:26 PM
It's adequate in normal day to day travel...and experiences less congestion than many 6 and 8 lane highways, especially during rush hour.
True, but when it comes to capacity and high-speed design and minimal interchange friction, the DMB and NJTP (which has I-295 as a local access and relief route) beats it hands down as a preferred route. The parallel bridge project will increase the capacity and competitiveness.
Not really. You're basing your entire qualification on that it's a 4 lane bridge, ignoring the more important issue of traffic volumes and capacity along the entire corridor.
The NJ Turnpike to the Del. Mem. Bridge is preferable because it's a shorter distance and overall faster. That's not going to change regardless if the NJ-PA Turnpike connector bridge is 4 lanes or 40 lanes.
The NJ Turnpike has capacity issues during peak travel times due to only having 4 lanes total South of Exit 4 on the Turnpike and a small section of 295 in Delaware.
95 in PA has capacity issues approaching Philly where is 6 and 8 lanes wide, South of Philly approaching 476 where it's only 2 lanes wide in each direction thru the interchange, and thru Chester where it's 6 lanes wide and 322 briefly multiplexes with 95.
95 needs so much work to be competitive for thru traffic that it will never actually be competitive, unless it manages to find a way to shave 5 miles off its route and have a speed limit 10mph higher than the NJ Turnpike.
Will it be financially possible for I-95 to be redone from Delaware state line to Girard Ave?
Also even with the new 295 Construction finally completed in Delaware the backup still occurs. Interesting
iPhone
It still squeezes all traffic to/from 95 into two lanes. Not enough at peak long distance travel times. It's fine on average week days.
Quote from: Tonytone on June 03, 2019, 10:16:20 PM
Will it be financially possible for I-95 to be redone from Delaware state line to Girard Ave?
It is financially possible. Just over time...meaning a few decades.
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 10:36:13 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 03, 2019, 10:16:20 PM
Also even with the new 295 Construction finally completed in Delaware the backup still occurs. Interesting
iPhone
It still squeezes all traffic to/from 95 into two lanes. Not enough at peak long distance travel times. It's fine on average week days.
Basically, what we have here are pinch points.
On a micro-level, we have the NJ Turnpike and I-295 from NJ, both 2 lanes wide, merging into 4 lanes across the Delaware. Everything is fine. Once in Delaware, the majority of traffic is heading towards I-95 South. Since 295 was widened to 3 lanes at the 13/40 interchange, it continues to move fairly well. However, once you get to the curve into 95 South, it merges down to 2 lanes. Even though this 2 lane stretch is less than 1/2 mile in length now, it's a pinch point that will back traffic up. To confound the issue, the traffic used to keep to the left two lanes. Now the left lane is an Exit Only lane for 141 North, which will be inviting confusion and merging, and the associated slowdowns that come with that.
I'm not sure why, at the 13/40 split, they didn't use the right-center lane as an option lane, rather than forcing all 13/40 traffic to use the right lane. It does seem to flow well there though the few times I've been thru there since the construction was completed.
On a Macro-level, review the I-95 Corridor from NYC to Baltimore from North to South. Because of the highway options closer to NYC, I'll start at Exit 10 (287/440) of the NJ Turnpike heading south. You have 12 lanes of traffic there. Once you get to Exit 7A of the NJ Turnpike, the corridor actually widens - 12 lanes of the Turnpike and 6 lanes of I-295. At Exit 6 of the NJ Turnpike, now it really widens...you have 12 lanes of the NJ Turnpike (briefly), generally 6 lanes of I-295, and generally 6 lanes of I-95 with a few 4 and 8 lane sections thrown in. In a fairly narrow area, you basically have 24 lanes of limited access, North-South freeway. If there's an issue on one roadway, the other 2 roadways can help absorb rerouted traffic. Shortly after that the Turnpike narrows to 6 lanes, but still, there's 18 lanes of traffic available in the corridor, often enough to handle much of the traffic.
However, once you get below Routes 73 in PA & NJ, now it thickens up a bit. You have 4 lanes on the NJ Turnpike. 6 lanes continue on 295, and 6 - 8 lanes generally on I-95. It's still about 16 - 18 lanes, but it's a crowded area of the corridor. As you move south of Philly, especially below 322 , now you eventually have 4 lanes on the NJ Turnpike, 4 lanes on 295 and 6 lanes on I-95. It's a bit more narrow with 14 lanes, but less city traffic so traffic moves ok generally.
Further south, around the Delaware State line and across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, it widens up again: 4 lanes on the NJ Turnpike, 4 lanes on 295, generally only 4 lanes on I-95, but 6 lanes on I-495. We're back up to 18 lanes in total to move traffic.
But now as we approach the Churchman's Marsh area in Delaware, we've now reached a severe pinch point: Those 18 lanes quickly funnel into 10 lanes on I-95. There's no other options or bypasses in the immediate corridor. In order to facilitate that, traffic on 95, 495 and 295 all need to merge down...and that's why you have the congestion in the area. It's worse even further south...8 lanes on 95, then in Maryland, 6 lanes on 95 before widening back to 8, then wider when you consider 695 and 895 near Baltimore.
And none of this includes other North-South options in the immediate corridor areas, which include US 1, 13, 40 and 130.
Now, you may not think of all these roads as one network, and you may immediately think of 95 in Philly as a completely separate corridor from the NJ Turnpike, especially because of the river and that we're talking 2 different states. But if I were to draw a map on paper of just roads - removing land features and borders, you would see how extensive the corridor is on a macro level in this region.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 03, 2019, 10:16:20 PM
Will it be financially possible for I-95 to be redone from Delaware state line to Girard Ave?
It is financially possible. Just over time...meaning a few decades.
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 10:36:13 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 03, 2019, 10:16:20 PM
Also even with the new 295 Construction finally completed in Delaware the backup still occurs. Interesting
iPhone
It still squeezes all traffic to/from 95 into two lanes. Not enough at peak long distance travel times. It's fine on average week days.
Basically, what we have here are pinch points.
On a micro-level, we have the NJ Turnpike and I-295 from NJ, both 2 lanes wide, merging into 4 lanes across the Delaware. Everything is fine. Once in Delaware, the majority of traffic is heading towards I-95 South. Since 295 was widened to 3 lanes at the 13/40 interchange, it continues to move fairly well. However, once you get to the curve into 95 South, it merges down to 2 lanes. Even though this 2 lane stretch is less than 1/2 mile in length now, it's a pinch point that will back traffic up. To confound the issue, the traffic used to keep to the left two lanes. Now the left lane is an Exit Only lane for 141 North, which will be inviting confusion and merging, and the associated slowdowns that come with that.
I'm not sure why, at the 13/40 split, they didn't use the right-center lane as an option lane, rather than forcing all 13/40 traffic to use the right lane. It does seem to flow well there though the few times I've been thru there since the construction was completed.
Yes I understand it will take decades to rebuild 95 from Girard Ave to the Delaware State line, but thats unfeasible, you're telling me when Im 60 years old I will finally see a free flowing 95? In that case point me in the direction of DOT because ill work hard to get our area highways up to speed.
The problem I've noticed & someone has said before is the fact that 295 merges on the left side of 95. Then the fact of 141 merging on the right side of 95 does not help. So now we have 3 lanes of traffic trying to merge to 5. They fixed the 495 Merge but that doesn't help anything unless they fix the 141 merge which is causing all the problems. What they need to do/ should have did was combine the 3 ramps & put 295 on the right with the 141 side & that would have stopped 50% of the problems.
Looking at it now the only way to fix the 141 Merge issue is to give it, its own lane or increase the merge pass the salt house in order to increase the distance between all that traffic trying to merge in the same area.
I assume Delaware is working on these plans already & we will be presented with a workshop soon.
iPhone
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
On a micro-level, we have the NJ Turnpike and I-295 from NJ, both 2 lanes wide, merging into 4 lanes across the Delaware. Everything is fine. Once in Delaware, the majority of traffic is heading towards I-95 South. Since 295 was widened to 3 lanes at the 13/40 interchange, it continues to move fairly well. However, once you get to the curve into 95 South, it merges down to 2 lanes. Even though this 2 lane stretch is less than 1/2 mile in length now, it's a pinch point that will back traffic up. To confound the issue, the traffic used to keep to the left two lanes. Now the left lane is an Exit Only lane for 141 North, which will be inviting confusion and merging, and the associated slowdowns that come with that.
I would partly disagree. True that I-295 NB and SB is 2 lanes each way where it merges into I-95 South. But the I-95/I-295/I-495 interchange distributes traffic to and from I-95 North and I-495 as well.
I-295 SB splits into 2 lanes to I-95 South, one lane to I-95 North, and one lane to I-495. Based on that, I would not call that part of I-295 SB to be a "pinch point".
Quote from: Tonytone on June 04, 2019, 10:33:24 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 03, 2019, 10:16:20 PM
Will it be financially possible for I-95 to be redone from Delaware state line to Girard Ave?
It is financially possible. Just over time...meaning a few decades.
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2019, 10:36:13 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on June 03, 2019, 10:16:20 PM
Also even with the new 295 Construction finally completed in Delaware the backup still occurs. Interesting
iPhone
It still squeezes all traffic to/from 95 into two lanes. Not enough at peak long distance travel times. It's fine on average week days.
Basically, what we have here are pinch points.
On a micro-level, we have the NJ Turnpike and I-295 from NJ, both 2 lanes wide, merging into 4 lanes across the Delaware. Everything is fine. Once in Delaware, the majority of traffic is heading towards I-95 South. Since 295 was widened to 3 lanes at the 13/40 interchange, it continues to move fairly well. However, once you get to the curve into 95 South, it merges down to 2 lanes. Even though this 2 lane stretch is less than 1/2 mile in length now, it's a pinch point that will back traffic up. To confound the issue, the traffic used to keep to the left two lanes. Now the left lane is an Exit Only lane for 141 North, which will be inviting confusion and merging, and the associated slowdowns that come with that.
I'm not sure why, at the 13/40 split, they didn't use the right-center lane as an option lane, rather than forcing all 13/40 traffic to use the right lane. It does seem to flow well there though the few times I've been thru there since the construction was completed.
Yes I understand it will take decades to rebuild 95 from Girard Ave to the Delaware State line, but thats unfeasible, you're telling me when Im 60 years old I will finally see a free flowing 95? In that case point me in the direction of DOT because ill work hard to get our area highways up to speed.
Oh, no...I'm not saying it'll ever truly be free-flowing in certain areas! However, once they get the 322 East onto 95 North merge moved over from the left to the right, that will significantly help Northbound traffic in that area. Unfortunately that's many years away.
If they gave Southbound traffic a 4th lane where 95/322 co-exist, it would assist with traffic there. Without even a shoulder being available for a short distance, they can't get that 4th lane in.
Quote from: Tonytone on June 04, 2019, 10:33:24 AM
The problem I've noticed & someone has said before is the fact that 295 merges on the left side of 95. Then the fact of 141 merging on the right side of 95 does not help. So now we have 3 lanes of traffic trying to merge to 5. They fixed the 495 Merge but that doesn't help anything unless they fix the 141 merge which is causing all the problems. What they need to do/ should have did was combine the 3 ramps & put 295 on the right with the 141 side & that would have stopped 50% of the problems.
Looking at it now the only way to fix the 141 Merge issue is to give it, its own lane or increase the merge pass the salt house in order to increase the distance between all that traffic trying to merge in the same area.
I assume Delaware is working on these plans already & we will be presented with a workshop soon.
It certainly doesn't help matters that the 141 interchange is there. It's monumentally better than when 95 was only 4 lanes beyond the salt house though. That said, I'm unaware of any plans for DelDOT to rearrange the ramp locations or change the merging points, especially as they just did a 95/141 project to replace and widen the overpasses.
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:49:16 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 08:22:55 AM
On a micro-level, we have the NJ Turnpike and I-295 from NJ, both 2 lanes wide, merging into 4 lanes across the Delaware. Everything is fine. Once in Delaware, the majority of traffic is heading towards I-95 South. Since 295 was widened to 3 lanes at the 13/40 interchange, it continues to move fairly well. However, once you get to the curve into 95 South, it merges down to 2 lanes. Even though this 2 lane stretch is less than 1/2 mile in length now, it's a pinch point that will back traffic up. To confound the issue, the traffic used to keep to the left two lanes. Now the left lane is an Exit Only lane for 141 North, which will be inviting confusion and merging, and the associated slowdowns that come with that.
I would partly disagree. True that I-295 NB and SB is 2 lanes each way where it merges into I-95 South. But the I-95/I-295/I-495 interchange distributes traffic to and from I-95 North and I-495 as well.
I-295 SB splits into 2 lanes to I-95 South, one lane to I-95 North, and one lane to I-495. Based on that, I would not call that part of I-295 SB to be a "pinch point".
That would be true if 50% of the traffic went to 95 South, 25% went to 95 North and 25% went to 495 North. And during the weekday morning rush, that isn't too far from the truth. Evening, weekend and holiday traffic however is heavily flowing from 295 South to 95 South...probably greater than 80% of the traffic on 295 South is headed that way. So when maybe 20% of the traffic flow is only going to 95 North and 495 North, it overloads the 95 South access. And when 95 South itself is already backed up, the back up just flows back onto 295.
And this doesn't even consider 141 traffic, which now has its own lane thru the area!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:49:16 AM
True that I-295 NB and SB is 2 lanes each way where it merges into I-95 South. But the I-95/I-295/I-495 interchange distributes traffic to and from I-95 North and I-495 as well.
I-295 SB splits into 2 lanes to I-95 South, one lane to I-95 North, and one lane to I-495. Based on that, I would not call that part of I-295 SB to be a "pinch point".
That would be true if 50% of the traffic went to 95 South, 25% went to 95 North and 25% went to 495 North. And during the weekday morning rush, that isn't too far from the truth. Evening, weekend and holiday traffic however is heavily flowing from 295 South to 95 South...probably greater than 80% of the traffic on 295 South is headed that way. So when maybe 20% of the traffic flow is only going to 95 North and 495 North, it overloads the 95 South access. And when 95 South itself is already backed up, the back up just flows back onto 295.
Are you sure about those patterns? Lots of evening, weekend and holiday traffic utilizes I-95 and I-495 to the north as well, and southbound you have 2 lanes from I-95, one lane from I-495, and 2 lanes from I-295, merging into 5 lanes on I-95 South. A third lane on the I-295 ramp wouldn't fit into the overall design of that complex.
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 12:36:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:49:16 AM
True that I-295 NB and SB is 2 lanes each way where it merges into I-95 South. But the I-95/I-295/I-495 interchange distributes traffic to and from I-95 North and I-495 as well.
I-295 SB splits into 2 lanes to I-95 South, one lane to I-95 North, and one lane to I-495. Based on that, I would not call that part of I-295 SB to be a "pinch point".
That would be true if 50% of the traffic went to 95 South, 25% went to 95 North and 25% went to 495 North. And during the weekday morning rush, that isn't too far from the truth. Evening, weekend and holiday traffic however is heavily flowing from 295 South to 95 South...probably greater than 80% of the traffic on 295 South is headed that way. So when maybe 20% of the traffic flow is only going to 95 North and 495 North, it overloads the 95 South access. And when 95 South itself is already backed up, the back up just flows back onto 295.
Are you sure about those patterns? Lots of evening, weekend and holiday traffic utilizes I-95 and I-495 to the north as well, and southbound you have 2 lanes from I-95, one lane from I-495, and 2 lanes from I-295, merging into 5 lanes on I-95 South. A third lane on the I-295 ramp wouldn't fit into the overall design of that complex.
Coming from NJ, traffic is heading south - especially vacationing traffic. That traffic generally has no reason to head back north.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 01:05:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 12:36:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:49:16 AM
True that I-295 NB and SB is 2 lanes each way where it merges into I-95 South. But the I-95/I-295/I-495 interchange distributes traffic to and from I-95 North and I-495 as well.
I-295 SB splits into 2 lanes to I-95 South, one lane to I-95 North, and one lane to I-495. Based on that, I would not call that part of I-295 SB to be a "pinch point".
That would be true if 50% of the traffic went to 95 South, 25% went to 95 North and 25% went to 495 North. And during the weekday morning rush, that isn't too far from the truth. Evening, weekend and holiday traffic however is heavily flowing from 295 South to 95 South...probably greater than 80% of the traffic on 295 South is headed that way. So when maybe 20% of the traffic flow is only going to 95 North and 495 North, it overloads the 95 South access. And when 95 South itself is already backed up, the back up just flows back onto 295.
Are you sure about those patterns? Lots of evening, weekend and holiday traffic utilizes I-95 and I-495 to the north as well, and southbound you have 2 lanes from I-95, one lane from I-495, and 2 lanes from I-295, merging into 5 lanes on I-95 South. A third lane on the I-295 ramp wouldn't fit into the overall design of that complex.
Coming from NJ, traffic is heading south - especially vacationing traffic. That traffic generally has no reason to head back north.
personal experience shows that, post completion of construction, traffic slows significantly at I-295 S to I-95 S transition during weekends/holidays.
What is really the issue with this area? Is it because they're too many merging highways & little improvement to the roads? The traffic flows nice on these roads after rush hour times & Regular days, but for the roads to literally fail when its rush hour or holidays is pretty shitty.
For the amount of people in the area( Living & Traveling) from the Delaware 1 alll the way too lets say Girard Ave like Ive mentioned above this whole area in my holy opinion in order for jt to move smoothly would need the 3-3-3-3 configuration like NJ. Our area is too traveled & big for it not to be like that, at this point.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on June 04, 2019, 03:38:16 PM
What is really the issue with this area? Is it because they're too many merging highways & little improvement to the roads? The traffic flows nice on these roads after rush hour times & Regular days, but for the roads to literally fail when its rush hour or holidays is pretty shitty.
For the amount of people in the area( Living & Traveling) from the Delaware 1 alll the way too lets say Girard Ave like Ive mentioned above this whole area in my holy opinion in order for jt to move smoothly would need the 3-3-3-3 configuration like NJ. Our area is too traveled & big for it not to be like that, at this point.
iPhone
Yes, that's exactly what I have been thinking. At least between I-295/I-495 and DE 1.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 03, 2019, 09:20:54 AM
Quote from: jaip on June 01, 2019, 08:45:04 AM
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.
In my initial email I asked Philly, but in follow up email I asked both. Anyway, looks like it's not going to happen. Thanks.
Went to EWR today. No new i95 signs on NJTP.
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 12:36:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 11:49:16 AM
True that I-295 NB and SB is 2 lanes each way where it merges into I-95 South. But the I-95/I-295/I-495 interchange distributes traffic to and from I-95 North and I-495 as well.
I-295 SB splits into 2 lanes to I-95 South, one lane to I-95 North, and one lane to I-495. Based on that, I would not call that part of I-295 SB to be a "pinch point".
That would be true if 50% of the traffic went to 95 South, 25% went to 95 North and 25% went to 495 North. And during the weekday morning rush, that isn't too far from the truth. Evening, weekend and holiday traffic however is heavily flowing from 295 South to 95 South...probably greater than 80% of the traffic on 295 South is headed that way. So when maybe 20% of the traffic flow is only going to 95 North and 495 North, it overloads the 95 South access. And when 95 South itself is already backed up, the back up just flows back onto 295.
Are you sure about those patterns? Lots of evening, weekend and holiday traffic utilizes I-95 and I-495 to the north as well, and southbound you have 2 lanes from I-95, one lane from I-495, and 2 lanes from I-295, merging into 5 lanes on I-95 South. A third lane on the I-295 ramp wouldn't fit into the overall design of that complex.
You're not even from the area, and you're questioning someone who is. I think you raised that argument at me before.
Quote from: Alps on June 07, 2019, 12:13:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 12:36:23 PM
Are you sure about those patterns? Lots of evening, weekend and holiday traffic utilizes I-95 and I-495 to the north as well, and southbound you have 2 lanes from I-95, one lane from I-495, and 2 lanes from I-295, merging into 5 lanes on I-95 South. A third lane on the I-295 ramp wouldn't fit into the overall design of that complex.
You're not even from the area, and you're questioning someone who is. I think you raised that argument at me before.
I have lived in the area, and I travel there. Look at a satellite view if you need to see the interchange layout.
Quote from: Beltway on June 07, 2019, 12:51:49 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 07, 2019, 12:13:28 AM
Quote from: Beltway on June 04, 2019, 12:36:23 PM
Are you sure about those patterns? Lots of evening, weekend and holiday traffic utilizes I-95 and I-495 to the north as well, and southbound you have 2 lanes from I-95, one lane from I-495, and 2 lanes from I-295, merging into 5 lanes on I-95 South. A third lane on the I-295 ramp wouldn't fit into the overall design of that complex.
You're not even from the area, and you're questioning someone who is. I think you raised that argument at me before.
I have lived in the area, and I travel there. Look at a satellite view if you need to see the interchange layout.
What does the interchange layout have to do with traffic flow on the weekend?
Also, it *is* 3 lanes wide now on 295 South after the ramp for I-95 North. The left-most lane is an exit-only lane for 141 North. They could easily extend that lane onto I-95 South, but would need to reconstruct and widen the Rt. 141 overpass, then have either the left lane from 295 or the right lane from 95 merge down. DelDOT, in their reconstruction of 141 over 95 North, did reconstruct the overpass in a way to allow for a 3rd Northbound lane onto 295 North, so the idea of 3 lanes to/from 295 isn't completely foreign.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 07, 2019, 07:53:16 AM
What does the interchange layout have to do with traffic flow on the weekend?
Also, it *is* 3 lanes wide now on 295 South after the ramp for I-95 North. The left-most lane is an exit-only lane for 141 North. They could easily extend that lane onto I-95 South, but would need to reconstruct and widen the Rt. 141 overpass, then have either the left lane from 295 or the right lane from 95 merge down. DelDOT, in their reconstruction of 141 over 95 North, did reconstruct the overpass in a way to allow for a 3rd Northbound lane onto 295 North, so the idea of 3 lanes to/from 295 isn't completely foreign.
Another poster mentioned widening the Turnpike to 12 lanes on a 3-3-3-3 configuration, something that DelDOT studied back in the 1970s.
That is what would be needed IMHO to handle a continuous 3-lane each way connection to I-295. The left hand ramp to DE-141 could be relocated to a right hand exit.
Quote from: Beltway on June 07, 2019, 08:27:01 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 07, 2019, 07:53:16 AM
What does the interchange layout have to do with traffic flow on the weekend?
Also, it *is* 3 lanes wide now on 295 South after the ramp for I-95 North. The left-most lane is an exit-only lane for 141 North. They could easily extend that lane onto I-95 South, but would need to reconstruct and widen the Rt. 141 overpass, then have either the left lane from 295 or the right lane from 95 merge down. DelDOT, in their reconstruction of 141 over 95 North, did reconstruct the overpass in a way to allow for a 3rd Northbound lane onto 295 North, so the idea of 3 lanes to/from 295 isn't completely foreign.
Another poster mentioned widening the Turnpike to 12 lanes on a 3-3-3-3 configuration, something that DelDOT studied back in the 1970s.
That is what would be needed IMHO to handle a continuous 3-lane each way connection to I-295. The left hand ramp to DE-141 could be relocated to a right hand exit.
Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago 95 was 4 lanes wide, and the left lane from the 2 lanes of 295 ended shortly after the 95/295 merge.
For the most part, DelDOT squeezed in the 5th lane of I-95 by converting the sloped embankment to a mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall. Doing so didn't readily impact the marsh area. Any additional widening will do so. Adding 1 lane in each direction will take about 24 feet in total. Adding a 3-3-3-3 layout will effective add up to 76 feet, because of the need to add in 2 additional shoulders along with the additional lane (6 lanes in total, 72 feet wide), and another 2 feet for a barrier between same-direction roadways.
The 3-3-3-3 design is not and will not be under any active consideration by DelDOT.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 07, 2019, 08:50:47 AM
Don't forget that it wasn't that long ago 95 was 4 lanes wide, and the left lane from the 2 lanes of 295 ended shortly after the 95/295 merge.
For the most part, DelDOT squeezed in the 5th lane of I-95 by converting the sloped embankment to a mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall. Doing so didn't readily impact the marsh area. Any additional widening will do so. Adding 1 lane in each direction will take about 24 feet in total. Adding a 3-3-3-3 layout will effective add up to 76 feet, because of the need to add in 2 additional shoulders along with the additional lane (6 lanes in total, 72 feet wide), and another 2 feet for a barrier between same-direction roadways.
The 3-3-3-3 design is not and will not be under any active consideration by DelDOT.
The wetlands impacts is a major obstacle for the whole area with regard to expansion in the I-95/I-295/I-495 interchange area.
The problem is that when accounting for all the peak flows at various times and days, it could be argued that would need 3 lanes on I-95 entering the interchange area for I-95 South, 2 lanes on I-495 entering the interchange area for I-95 South, and 3 lanes on I-295 entering the interchange area for I-95 South.
Basically 8 lanes after all that merges in the southern part of the interchange to I-95 South! :hmmm:
Back to the topic/region at hand:
There have been two minor sign updates... on the PA side of the interchange I noticed as of this past Thursday (June 13):
1. All exit tabs for US 13 (Exit 42) that once had the oddball/Helvetica font 42 now feature such in standard Series E font. I believe the tabs were completely replaced as opposed to the just the number being replaced. Note: the 3-mile advance BGS on the NJ did not receive this treatment; the 42 on that sign is still in Clearview.
2. This change is an odd, premature one. This particular BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0962055,-74.9163052,3a,75y,38.32h,84.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shj1d4HBAZ1umWmhhPyx89A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) along I-95 northbound now has blank-green sheeting placed over the I-276 & PA Turnpike shields. Premature because, the ramp that would link I-95 northbound to I-276 westbound has yet to be built. Not sure why this change was made.
If the reasoning behind the change is because US 13 no longer directly connects to I-276 (due to it now being I-95); a TO or TO WEST legend should've been added instead. Note: no supplemental TO 276 PATP (shield) signs have been placed along I-95 northbound directing motorists to use Exit 35/PA 63 to US 1 North as a means of reaching I-276.
Not sure, either. The temporary signing at the U.S. 13 entrance does say "To/Toll/West/276" and still has the large Turnpike signs. Not sure what will replace it once the at-grade intersection geometry is complete/in use.
The I-295 WB approach (old I-95 SB) to the Pa. 413 interchange has reference to the Pa. Turnpike, but not I-276 (since reference to I-95 North and NJ Tpk are also there), and this was a new sign installed with the designation change.
Quote from: akotchi on June 18, 2019, 01:56:30 PM
The I-295 WB approach (old I-95 SB) to the Pa. 413 interchange has reference to the Pa. Turnpike, but not I-276 (since reference to I-95 North and NJ Tpk are also there), and this was a new sign installed with the designation change.
For that direction, one already accesses I-276 via US 1 South (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2182238,-74.8793441,3a,75y,152.55h,80.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIClLxNrDSHx2QI-Pofrsdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a few miles beforehand; so deleting references to I-276/PA Turnpike on the BGS for PA 413 you described makes sense.
However, coming from the south (Philly); it would be pointless to route I-95 northbounders to I-276 westbound via I-295 (old I-95 northbound) to US 1 South when one already has either PA 63 (to US 1 North) or PA 413 (what the prior BGS listed, pre-mod) for such. I'm still convinced that somebody
jumped the gun regarding that BGS mod along I-95 northbound.
Quote from: akotchi on June 18, 2019, 01:56:30 PM
The temporary signing at the U.S. 13 entrance does say "To/Toll/West/276"
As does the permanent signage at the trumpet for the westbound on-ramp loop. It's not obvious because there aren't many examples, but the PTC has stopped direct signage of the Turnpike shield at the new interchange with the end of I-276. My best guess as to why is because "North I-95/East PA Turnpike, to NJTP - New York" would probably be a bit confusing to the public, though so would going all the way and outright stating that the PA Turnpike "designation" ends with I-276 at I-95 and exclusively referring to the road east of the interchange as I-95.
I saw another new sign at I276 PA TPK entrance from US1 (Bensalem/Neshaminy). The sign read
I276 "shield" East to I95 "shield" North
New Jersey
New York
I believe this is going to appear on additional interchanges on 276 east such as Willow Grove if not already.
I will try to take picture next time I am in the area.
Quote from: jaip on June 18, 2019, 06:41:09 PM
I saw another new sign at I276 PA TPK entrance from US1 (Bensalem/Neshaminy). The sign read
I276 "shield" East to I95 "shield" North
New Jersey
New York
I believe this is going to appear on additional interchanges on 276 east such as Willow Grove if not already.
I will try to take picture next time I am in the area.
That makes sense. Exits 31 (Lansdale), 44 (Quakertown), 56 (Lehigh Valley) off I-476 all have "To I-276" for southbound entrances. Interestingly, the one at Lehigh Valley (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5922912,-75.5682142,3a,75y,108.88h,83.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQrYykV3PIIvaapHC0pcyLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) also has "TOLL" banners after you've passed through the ticket booth/E-ZPass.
Quote from: jaip on June 18, 2019, 06:41:09 PM
I saw another new sign at I276 PA TPK entrance from US1 (Bensalem/Neshaminy). The sign read
I276 "shield" East to I95 "shield" North
New Jersey
New York
I believe this is going to appear on additional interchanges on 276 east such as Willow Grove if not already.
Most if not all of the signs along I-276 west of US 1 have since been replaced within the last three(?) years with no provisional space for a future
TO 95 NORTH or equivalent legend.
Never say never, mind you but given the fact that all eastbound ramp signs still listing exit number ranges were never updated (the highest number, for the ticketed system is now 353 but all the signs
still read 359); I highly doubt that the Willow Grove & Fort Washington ramp signs for I-276 eastbound will be revised anytime soon.
Quote from: ipeters61 on June 19, 2019, 07:52:24 AM
That makes sense. Exits 31 (Lansdale), 44 (Quakertown), 56 (Lehigh Valley) off I-476 all have "To I-276" for southbound entrances. Interestingly, the one at Lehigh Valley (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5922912,-75.5682142,3a,75y,108.88h,83.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQrYykV3PIIvaapHC0pcyLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) also has "TOLL" banners after you've passed through the ticket booth/E-ZPass.
The PTC has been adding yellow "TOLL" plates in lots of places where they wouldn't seem to be necessary. For example, there's this reassurance marker eastbound after the on-ramp from the Sideling Hill Service Plaza: https://goo.gl/maps/z3NUi5RgGbuGGZ1P8 (https://goo.gl/maps/z3NUi5RgGbuGGZ1P8)
In the eastbound direction that point, motorists have already been on the closed-ticket portion of the system for at least a dozen miles (if not 100+).
The 2009 edition of the MUTCD more clearly spells out procedures for signing approaches to toll facilities, but from a cursory inspection, anyway, the regulations don't seem to require signing "TOLL" once motorists are already within the toll system. But as parts of the PTC's closed ticket network get chipped away (I-95 interchange area, I-79 to the Ohio line), unstaffed and non-trumpet interchanges are added (Virginia Drive, PA 903), and the word "turnpike" becomes a little less synonymous with "toll" as it once was, it's of some benefit to add the plates–and probably of little harm (other than a little unnecessary expense) to add them where they're not absolutely needed.
^^The PTC must have a surplus of those TOLL banners laying around lol. So why not use them? :-D
I saw a Philadelphia-bound Peter Pan bus on I-95 in Northeast Philadelphia this morning.
Perhaps, the intercity carriers are starting to use the Interchange.
I hope so! Whenever I was on one, we nearly always exited at Turnpike Exit 4 in Mount Laurel (NJ Route 73). Afterwards, it was a choice of NJ Route 38 (Kaighn Avenue?) or 90 through Cinnaminson/Pennsauken towards the Betsy Ross Bridge.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 14, 2019, 07:11:12 PM
I saw a Philadelphia-bound Peter Pan bus on I-95 in Northeast Philadelphia this morning.
Perhaps, the intercity carriers are starting to use the Interchange.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I seem to recall that this question was asked and answered during the I-95 Interchange meet last September. And the PTC official said that, yes, they have been in communication with intercity bus lines and that those companies intended to incorporate the direct connection into their routes.
If time permits, I'll take pictures of going on the first phase of the interchange (northbound I-95) sometime.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 14, 2019, 07:11:12 PM
I saw a Philadelphia-bound Peter Pan bus on I-95 in Northeast Philadelphia this morning.
Perhaps, the intercity carriers are starting to use the Interchange.
I have seen it several times since interchange opening day.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 14, 2019, 07:11:12 PM
I saw a Philadelphia-bound Peter Pan bus on I-95 in Northeast Philadelphia this morning.
Perhaps, the intercity carriers are starting to use the Interchange.
This makes sense, at least at certain times of the day - if the bus between New York City and Washington, D.C. (or Silver Spring, Maryland) is not full, to make a quick stop in Philadelphia. Peter Pan and Greyhound formerly had a joint operating agreement, but that was discontinued.
I wonder if Greyhound might send their some of their Bolt buses through Philadelphia too?
I guess now this photo is now historic.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8706573431/in/album-72157632833956641/
Somewhat of a cross-post from the 2020 Rand McNally Road Atlas thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24906.0)
While thumbing through the 2020 edition while at Barnes & Noble this past Saturday: in addition to I-95 & I-295 shields being added where appropriate, the stretch of PA Turnpike that is now I-95 is now shown as a free highway between the I-276/295 (Exit 40) and US 13 (Exit 42) interchanges. Toll barrier lines are shown along the tolled stretches just east of US 13 and west of I-95/295.
Oddly, the connector road between I-95 & US 13 (where the Delaware Valley toll plaza once stood) is now shown as a free highway. Prior editions showed this connector as conventional road (grey line).
Additionally & something I noticed last week while at a AAA Travel Store, the latest AAA maps for this area now show the new/current I-95 routing as well as the old I-95 as I-295... though AAA still shows the new I-95 between I-276/295 & US 13 as a toll road. Such is not technically correct. On AAA's New Jersey/Pennsylvania map, one of the new I-295 shields on the main map page north of Trenton appears to be a 2-d shield with 295 numerals squeezed in; must've been an 11th hour change.
Yeah I noticed that too! The PA Turnpike east of the said interchange is now shown purple with the bridge only being green into the NJ Turnpike. Plus the freeway connector to US 13 that was once a grey line.
That is most likely because the toll booths are gone on the former 29 ramp and its divided that its shown now that way.
I like now that US 209 between PA 33 and I-80 is shown only a part freeway (have to look at my 2019 and 2018 to see if it was changed then too) as its orange closer to PA 33, as that was always an error even on Exxon maps which had it all full freeway between the two other freeways.
One thing about Exxon (General Drafting in Florham Park, NJ) they show the FDR drive as an arterial and NY 9A where not freeway as an undivided roadway. Then the Belt Parkway is shown as arterial between both interchanges with I-278 in Bay Ridge, and east of JFK also as an arterial. The Grand Central Parkway is shown only full freeway too from I-278 to I-678 in Jamaica and from I-678 eastward its divided arterial despite it all being freeway as with the Belt Parkway. Then New England maps by General Drafting have the Hutch, the Merritt Parkway, and even the Wilbur Cross Parkway as divided arterials even when both were toll roads prior to the early 80's when CT abolished the tolls on both the Parkways and I-95 Turnpike.
Back on topic, yeah its like the PA Turnpike now ends at I-95/295.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 08:53:29 PMPlus the freeway connector to US 13 that was once a grey line.
That is most likely because the toll booths are gone on the former 29 ramp and its divided that its shown now that way.
While one could argue that it's shown that way because such operates as a Super 2; I still think that showing such that way is pushing the envelope a bit. Using that logic, such in the past could've been technically still shown as a divided tollway prior to the toll booths being removed.
In contrast & just south of that location, the short connector between I-95 & PA 413 (at Exit 39/formerly 40) shown as a divided highway makes some level of sense because such is divided & multi-lane between the two roads.
It was probably mentioned several posts/pages back on this thread but said-connector was originally planned to be extended to the PA Turnpike (then-I-276) at the US 13 interchange. The current PA 413 intersection would've likely been built/reconfigured as an interchange.
Such was the pre-1982 plan for directly linking I-95 to the PA Turnpike (I-276). The Delaware Valley interchange would've been modified so that the mainline trumpet would've been the northern end of the connector. The toll plaza and connector piece & trumpet w/US 13 would've likely been eliminated in favor of a southern link between US 13 to probably a diamond-style interchange with the I-95/PA Turnpike connector. A relocated/replacement toll plaza would've been located between the relocated US 13 interchange/link and the mainline Turnpike trumpet. As we all know & since E-ZPass was well over a decade away from becoming reality; the above-described plan was scrapped in favor of what's finally there today. Had E-ZPass or even AET existed circa 1982; this particular gap along I-95 may have been closed some 30 years earlier.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 30, 2019, 01:33:10 PM
Additionally & something I noticed last week while at a AAA Travel Store, the latest AAA maps for this area now show the new/current I-95 routing as well as the old I-95 as I-295... though AAA still shows the new I-95 between I-276/295 & US 13 as a toll road. Such is not technically correct. On AAA's New Jersey/Pennsylvania map, one of the new I-295 shields on the main map page north of Trenton appears to be a 2-d shield with 295 numerals squeezed in; must've been an 11th hour change.
This is the kind of error that does not especially bother me. Even though it is clearly possible to drive between the new I-95 ramps and the former Exit 358 at U.S. 13 and not pay a toll, this is still on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
At the other end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike East-West mainline, there is a similar (but longer) section of PTC-maintained road which is similarly "free," though it seems that there is not much warning that drivers are entering a toll road (at for example) Cranberry when entering at headed east nor westbound at Exit 13 (PA-18) where the next and last interchange at Exit 10 in Pennsylvania is I-376, a barrier toll road - and beyond that is the Ohio Turnpike, definitely a toll road. Observations from the western part of the Turnpike from about a year ago, but I think they are still valid.
I know it's August but I've only now picked up the official Penndot map at a rest stop.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190814/7eb17ed87ff26544a7edfe9aa738b518.jpg)
Pixel 2
^ I picked up that map a few weeks ago, and I completely forgot to look at its depiction of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange. (I was more concerned with the new map's depictions of the CSVT, US 219 freeway, and Pittsburgh Southern Beltway.)
But this is an interesting, nuanced, and surprisingly accurate depiction–especially compared with Rand McNally, which simply put an square interchange symbol over the point at which the two freeways cross (and kept the entirety of the former Turnpike mainline as "toll" ).
- I-95 is shown as the through route, not an exit to/from the Turnpike
- The previous through movement to I-276 is shown as an exit southbound/westbound only, which is correct
- The Turnpike's Delaware ever bridge is shown as being free northbound/eastbound and toll in the reverse direction, which is correct
I've never before seen two-color color coding for tolls in one direction. PennDOT should apply this to the other limited access toll crossings on the map.
Overall, good job!
It's too bad there isn't a closer look of the 95/Pike junction on the Philly metro map but it's a bit too far to the north and east of the area covered.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190815/40bef238824a689ad916d778d5fb11a4.jpg)
Pixel 2
Quote from: briantroutman on August 14, 2019, 06:25:25 PM
^ I picked up that map a few weeks ago, and I completely forgot to look at its depiction of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange. (I was more concerned with the new map's depictions of the CSVT, US 219 freeway, and Pittsburgh Southern Beltway.)
But this is an interesting, nuanced, and surprisingly accurate depiction –especially compared with Rand McNally, which simply put an square interchange symbol over the point at which the two freeways cross (and kept the entirety of the former Turnpike mainline as "toll" ).
Actually, it was the AAA maps & atlases that still show the I-95 portion of the PA Turnpike as a tolled facility. The 2020 Rand McNally maps/atlases show such as a free highway between the I-276/295 (Exit 40) & US 13 (Exit 42) interchanges.
With regards to PA's/PennDOT's latest road maps (I picked some up at the Welcome Center along I-81 northbound (beyond the MD State Line); such are the only maps that show
all of the newer interchanges along the PA Turnpike (I-76/276/476) as well as Exit 329 off I-76/Schuylkill Expressway (ramps are shown but such isn't numbered on the vicinity map).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 08:57:17 AM
The 2020 Rand McNally maps/atlases show such as a free highway between the I-276/295 (Exit 40) & US 13 (Exit 42) interchanges.
If the 2020 edition has been updated/corrected, that's good to hear. I was referring to the most recent version that I have (2019), which does show the new I-95 interchange but kept the green color on the free portion of the Turnpike in that area. Also note the misleading positioning of the toll barrier on the PA side of the river crossing.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48576098287_6c35be56f1_z.jpg)
Quote from: briantroutman on August 19, 2019, 10:49:24 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 08:57:17 AM
The 2020 Rand McNally maps/atlases show such as a free highway between the I-276/295 (Exit 40) & US 13 (Exit 42) interchanges.
If the 2020 edition has been updated/corrected, that’s good to hear. I was referring to the most recent version that I have (2019), which does show the new I-95 interchange but kept the green color on the free portion of the Turnpike in that area. Also note the misleading positioning of the toll barrier on the PA side of the river crossing.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48576098287_6c35be56f1_z.jpg)
There is a toll there...just for SB/WB traffic though.
Note...You see the Betsy Ross & US 1 bridges shown in the pic. Note they're shown as toll roads, even though they're one way tolls...and NO ONE HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING.
That's why I've maintained people are being overly anal about how the new 95 routing is being portrayed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 19, 2019, 11:22:30 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on August 19, 2019, 10:49:24 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 08:57:17 AM
The 2020 Rand McNally maps/atlases show such as a free highway between the I-276/295 (Exit 40) & US 13 (Exit 42) interchanges.
If the 2020 edition has been updated/corrected, that's good to hear. I was referring to the most recent version that I have (2019), which does show the new I-95 interchange but kept the green color on the free portion of the Turnpike in that area. Also note the misleading positioning of the toll barrier on the PA side of the river crossing.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48576098287_6c35be56f1_z.jpg)
There is a toll there...just for SB/WB traffic though.
The barrier/AET gantry should be located to the
right of the US 13 interchange; that's what Brian is referring to. The 2020 edition corrected such by moving the interchange square along I-95 away (to the left) from US 13 and adding a free highway line (discussed earlier) linking the 2 roads (I-95 & US 13).
In defense of the 2019 edition still showing the entire Turnpike stretch in that vicinity as tolled; such came out months prior to the actual opening of the new connector ramps, so it
was still correct
when published... incorrect location of the bridge AET gantry notwithstanding. The added I-95 shield IMHO was prematurely added.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 19, 2019, 11:22:30 AM
Note...You see the Betsy Ross & US 1 bridges shown in the pic. Note they're shown as toll roads, even though they're one way tolls...and NO ONE HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING.
With all due respect, you know darn well that
nobody in this thread nor in the 2020 Rand McNally thread was referring to any one-way toll barriers and/or crossings when commenting about what stretches should be shown as tolled.
On many (at least Rand McNally) maps that show said-tolled crossings as two lines rather than one thick (highway) line; only the direction that is tolled is indeed shown as such.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 19, 2019, 11:22:30 AMThat's why I've maintained people are being overly anal about how the new 95 routing is being portrayed.
IIRC, such has been mentioned before upthread; the comments regarding such are in reference to
consistency as towards how other tolled sections of I-95, mainly in DE & MD, are shown.
Sign Update:
Some of the pull-through signs along the I-95 portion of the NJ Turnpike between Exits 9 (not a typo, I will elaborate below) through 7 have recently been replaced with signs showing I-95 shields.
Observations as of this past Labor Day weekend (Aug. 30 & Sept. 2):
Northbound outer corridor: Despite prior signs leaving a space for future I-95 shields to be added, the NTPA replaced the entire panels (regardless of whether such read THRU TRAFFIC or New York) with ones that read in a 2-line layout
95 NJTP NORTH
New York City
Replacements were done at Exit 8, 8A & 9; even though the pull-through at Exit 9 already had an I-95 shield on it (sign layout was in a vertical/stacked format that had space for a control city although none was listed). I guess the NJTA is standardizing/rationalizing its pull-through sign format because such along that stretch varied based on when/which project such were erected.
Southbound inner corridor: as with the northbound panels, the entire panels were replaced rather retrofitted (the wider outline of the NJTP shield on the newer signs being the dead give-away). Replacements were done at Exit 8A, 8 & 7A. As expected, Trenton is used as a control city for the signs at 8A & 8 while the pull-through at Exit 7A (I-195) uses Camden. Exit 7A is now the northernmost location for where Camden is used on a southbound pull-through sign.
No changes for any of the Exit 7 pull-through signs as of yet & I have no info. regarding any revisions/retrofits to the ramp signs on the Turnpike side of the toll plazas.
I guess the City of Brotherly Love gets no love from its neighbors. Philadelphia got snubbed as a control city again.
They should use Philly on pull thrus at exit 7a and 7 and Camden at exit 6.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2019, 05:42:03 PM
I guess the City of Brotherly Love gets no love from its neighbors. Philadelphia got snubbed as a control city again.
Someone elsewhere claimed this was because PennDOT snubs other states. I have no idea if this is true, but it was used as a rational for why MD doesn't use Philly on I-95 (oddly, Philly IS used on US 1 in MD around the Bel Air Bypass, lol)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2019, 05:42:03 PM
I guess the City of Brotherly Love gets no love from its neighbors. Philadelphia got snubbed as a control city again.
The Turnpike doesn't go to Philadelphia. That's why. Philly is signed from the appropriate exits.
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2019, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2019, 05:42:03 PM
I guess the City of Brotherly Love gets no love from its neighbors. Philadelphia got snubbed as a control city again.
The Turnpike doesn't go to Philadelphia. That's why. Philly is signed from the appropriate exits.
95 does though. We can circle this argument forever I suppose... but most turnpike traffic isn't long haul (ie bypassing Philly). Its either traffic moving between the NYC and Philly metros and/or traffic moving between individual exits on the turnpike itself (regional and local).
Quote from: famartin on September 03, 2019, 10:55:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2019, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2019, 05:42:03 PM
I guess the City of Brotherly Love gets no love from its neighbors. Philadelphia got snubbed as a control city again.
The Turnpike doesn't go to Philadelphia. That's why. Philly is signed from the appropriate exits.
95 does though. We can circle this argument forever I suppose... but most turnpike traffic isn't long haul (ie bypassing Philly). Its either traffic moving between the NYC and Philly metros and/or traffic moving between individual exits on the turnpike itself (regional and local).
Source?
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2019, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2019, 05:42:03 PM
I guess the City of Brotherly Love gets no love from its neighbors. Philadelphia got snubbed as a control city again.
The Turnpike doesn't go to Philadelphia. That's why. Philly is signed from the appropriate exits.
The Turnpike doesn't go to Camden, and certainly not to Trenton. It could be argued that Philadelphia should have been on there all along. After all, it was signed at Exit 4.
Nor does it enter Wilmington, DE either.
Speaking of, because I research all my statements (hahahahaha), I pulled up Wilmington on Google Maps. Couldn't help notice the red lines on the NJ side, representing Delaware's ownership of the river in the area. But then take a close look just to the left of 'Carney's Point' on the NJ side here: https://goo.gl/maps/TGe66KXdH6fgFqrs8 . There's a small box on the NJ side that would show there's a slight bit of Wilmington over there, or rather, a strip of land and what appears to be a lagoon... https://goo.gl/maps/NtYnqdpbWmHsJ95C8
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2019, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 03, 2019, 10:55:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2019, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2019, 05:42:03 PM
I guess the City of Brotherly Love gets no love from its neighbors. Philadelphia got snubbed as a control city again.
The Turnpike doesn't go to Philadelphia. That's why. Philly is signed from the appropriate exits.
95 does though. We can circle this argument forever I suppose... but most turnpike traffic isn't long haul (ie bypassing Philly). Its either traffic moving between the NYC and Philly metros and/or traffic moving between individual exits on the turnpike itself (regional and local).
Source?
Simple deduction based on AADT counts in each section.
Quote from: famartin on September 04, 2019, 06:22:46 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2019, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 03, 2019, 10:55:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2019, 10:35:48 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2019, 05:42:03 PM
I guess the City of Brotherly Love gets no love from its neighbors. Philadelphia got snubbed as a control city again.
The Turnpike doesn't go to Philadelphia. That's why. Philly is signed from the appropriate exits.
95 does though. We can circle this argument forever I suppose... but most turnpike traffic isn't long haul (ie bypassing Philly). Its either traffic moving between the NYC and Philly metros and/or traffic moving between individual exits on the turnpike itself (regional and local).
Source?
Simple deduction based on AADT counts in each section.
Got links?
ixnay
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 06:11:29 AM
Nor does it enter Wilmington, DE either.
One could say similar New York/New York City as well.
Speaking of New York/New York City; personally, for the northbound control city & this may be picky but I would use
New York rather than
New York City for two reasons:
1. Such is consistent with what's listed on signs in Delaware & Maryland. Yes, I'm aware of the one northbound I-95 pull-through in Virginia that lists
New York City as well as a couple of Delaware mileage signs listing such as well.
2. Unlike the situation for those coming from either New England or elsewhere in New York State; the City of New York is not only the first major city in the state one encounters when coming from the I-80 corridor/GW Bridge and southward, it's the first municipality one enters upon entering the state.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 06:11:29 AMI pulled up Wilmington on Google Maps. Couldn't help notice the red lines on the NJ side, representing Delaware's ownership of the river in the area. But then take a close look just to the left of 'Carney's Point' on the NJ side here: https://goo.gl/maps/TGe66KXdH6fgFqrs8 . There's a small box on the NJ side that would show there's a slight bit of Wilmington over there, or rather, a strip of land and what appears to be a lagoon... https://goo.gl/maps/NtYnqdpbWmHsJ95C8
Looking a little further south, near Fort Mott State Park, the state line appears to cut through (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wilmington,+DE/@39.6207276,-75.5698138,14.17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!8m2!3d39.744655!4d-75.5483909) in such a manner that the listed Delaware River Nature Reserve is in Delaware even though it's east of the river.
Very interesting/odd. IMHO, such would be enough for its own thread topic.
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 04, 2019, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 06:11:29 AM
Nor does it enter Wilmington, DE either.
One could say similar New York/New York City as well.
Speaking of New York/New York City; personally, for the northbound control city & this may be picky but I would use New York rather than New York City for two reasons:
1. Such is consistent with what's listed on signs in Delaware & Maryland. Yes, I'm aware of the one northbound I-95 pull-through in Virginia that lists New York City as well as a couple of Delaware mileage signs listing such as well.
Connecticut tends to use "NY City" (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7475157,-72.6602813,3a,75y,198.54h,101.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srcOGTZAfj3LLUuyYtcinSQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as a control city from what I remember, but I guess that's the exception instead of the rule, as is New Jersey. Though interestingly those are the practices of the states that actually border New York State. Another example in a bordering state is I-90/Mass Pike at I-84 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1316588,-72.0538815,3a,75y,253.45h,86.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL_CnF5CzBTcDvBWBQnMK5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
No offense but you ignored/omitted the second reason/portion of my post (reposted below w/
bold emphasis added) which covers the scenario for one coming from New England as well as elsewhere in NY State that you're describing:
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2019, 08:34:43 AM2. Unlike the situation for those coming from either New England or elsewhere in New York State; the City of New York is not only the first major city in the state one encounters when coming from the I-80 corridor/GW Bridge and southward, it's the first municipality one enters upon entering the state.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 06:11:29 AM
Nor does it enter Wilmington, DE either.
One could say similar New York/New York City as well.
However, I-95 *DOES* enter New York City, which means from Exit 6 and north the signs are correct. Going south, NJ 700 never enters Wilmington.
Of course, that's part of the whole Control City debate for the NJ Turnpike...should it be treated as I-95, in which case Philly would be an appropriate destination city going Southbound, or should it be treated as the NJ Turnpike, in which case the Control Cities will ultimately fall outside of the Turnpike.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 11:36:18 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 06:11:29 AM
Nor does it enter Wilmington, DE either.
One could say similar New York/New York City as well.
However, I-95 *DOES* enter New York City, which means from Exit 6 and north the signs are correct.
I-95
also goes through Wilmington as well, but only after going through Philly & Chester first. And while I-95 indeed enters NYC proper, those coming from the south (mainly along the NJ Turnpike) heading towards Manhattan will likely exit off earlier depending on their destination.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 11:36:18 AM
Of course, that's part of the whole Control City debate for the NJ Turnpike...should it be treated as I-95, in which case Philly would be an appropriate destination city going Southbound, or should it be treated as the NJ Turnpike, in which case the Control Cities will ultimately fall outside of the Turnpike.
With the exception of Newark (displayed on southbound signage north of there); the majority of control city/point/destination listings on NJ Turnpike signage (be it I-95 or NJ 700) are ones where either the Turnpike itself does not fully reach (NYC/NY & Wilmington) or it completely bypasses (Trenton & Camden). If one views/treats the free stretch of NJTA-maintained I-95 between I-80 and the GW Bridge separate from the tolled NJ Turnpike; one could include the GW Bridge & Fort Lee listings as well to the above.
As far as listing Philly on southbound I-95/NJ Turnpike signage is concerned (aside from Exit 6 & the PA Turnpike Connector); I would recommend that Philly be
at least listed on mileage signs and/or added to the current pull-through/ramp signs
in addition to the listed cities of Newark, Trenton & Camden depending on location.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2019, 12:19:05 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 11:36:18 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2019, 08:34:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2019, 06:11:29 AM
Nor does it enter Wilmington, DE either.
One could say similar New York/New York City as well.
However, I-95 *DOES* enter New York City, which means from Exit 6 and north the signs are correct.
I-95 also goes through Wilmington as well, but only after going through Philly & Chester first. And while I-95 indeed enters NYC proper, those coming from the south (mainly along the NJ Turnpike) heading towards Manhattan will likely exit off earlier depending on their destination.
But Wilmington isn't signed on the I-95 of the Turnpike; just the NJ 700 portion.
My head spins every time I see this control city debate reignite . . .
Frankly, IMHO, there is no "correct" answer in this debate because it is trying to put a square peg (requirements for control cities) in a round hole (roads that go near but not to or through such control cities).
My take, just to throw gas on the brush fire (and give me a reason for my head to spin), is below. I will never claim to be an authority on the subject, but opinion is my admission to this debate. Some will be consistent with what others have said (perhaps a few times), some will be different.
Trenton was an approved control city for I-95 for as long as AASHTO kept a list of them. With the rerouting of I-95, Trenton is not on the beaten path any longer, but is accessible from routes that I-95 accesses. It does not necessarily have to be retained as a control city. Pennsylvania, however, addressed this from the south by showing both Trenton and New York on northbound guide signs, where space allowed, whether new or retrofitted existing panels, with New York being the default where space did not allow. Trenton accompanies I-295 at Exit 40. For consistency, the same should be done from the north on the Turnpike. Between Exit 13 and Exit 8, Trenton and Philadelphia should be shown on southbound pull throughs, with Trenton disappearing at Exit 7A and Philadelphia accompanying I-95 off at Exit 6. If space is an issue, show Philadelphia only.
South of Exit 6 on the Turnpike, control cities are derived from a different approach. I borrow from N.J.'s westerly neighbor to state that the Pa. Turnpike does not go to Philadelphia, Harrisburg or Pittsburgh, the three control cities most often shown on pull-throughs, but passes near them and has exits that go there. There are numerous examples on the free highways where a specific route number does not go into a city (I-80 to New York, I-70 to Washington, for examples) -- control cities are neither an exact nor absolute science, but pull-through and exit control cities are the bread crumb trail that can be followed from a long way out even if the route numbers are covered. Given this philosophy, Camden is fine south of Exit 6 to Exit 3. Wilmington is the nearest city to the end of the Turnpike, so it would be used from Exit 3 down through I-295 across the DMB.
Northbound approaching New York City is a different animal that I may address another time. I do wonder, though, why Newark is not included as a northbound control city.
Thing are the way they are because there are many different state and toll agencies (in many states) at work that consider this issue differently enough (including whether changes are worth it) that there are inconsistencies or snubs. The MUTCD may be there to encourage consistency, but it is a toothless document with standards and guidelines (after all, it was created in 1935) that is viewed differently by the various agencies. It it perfect . . . hell no, and it never will be. Do we, as roadgeeks (or even practitioners) like it . . . not really. The motoring public seems to get around, though, at least for the most part.
Now I feel better. Perhaps it was the Motrin. Thanks for reading.
A couple of I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike pull-through signs list WORCESTER and/or SPRINGFIELD when leaving Boston or getting on from I-95. The Pike passes south of Worcester (closest is at Exit 10A) and north of Springfield (accessed via Exits 4 or 6).
Anyways, getting back to PA again...how is work progressing on the Scudders Falls bridge at the NJ line?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 04, 2019, 02:05:10 PM
Anyways, getting back to PA again...how is work progressing on the Scudders Falls bridge at the NJ line?
What will ultimately be the westbound span is finished and all traffic has been routed to it. The old span is being demolished now.
Ah memories! This is from the last time I remember crossing it. We were entering PA in June of 2014 (ultimately went to baseball in Wilmington, DE but stayed overnight in Elkton, MD).
(https://i.imgur.com/wjVnpyG.jpg)
Quote from: akotchi on September 04, 2019, 01:17:37 PMTrenton was an approved control city for I-95 for as long as AASHTO kept a list of them. With the rerouting of I-95, Trenton is not on the beaten path any longer, but is accessible from routes that I-95 accesses. It does not necessarily have to be retained as a control city. Pennsylvania, however, addressed this from the south by showing both Trenton and New York on northbound guide signs, where space allowed, whether new or retrofitted existing panels, with New York being the default where space did not allow.
Actually, the only signs that presently list
both Trenton & New York for I-95 northbound in PA are the ones at the PA 413 (Exit 39/Former Exit 40) interchange. Such was done because this interchange is located just south of the I-95/276/295 interchange. Such also include a
TO EAST 295 reference to reinforce the use of Trenton on those signs. Most if not all the northbound ramps signs from I-676/US 30 and northward were changed from Trenton to New York.
Quote from: akotchi on September 04, 2019, 01:17:37 PMTrenton accompanies I-295 at Exit 40.
Assuming that you're referring to the new interchange/connection. Signing I-295 for Trenton there makes complete logical sense. The issue I had was signing then-I-95 for Trenton north of the US 1 interchange near Langhorne; newer signs using Princeton from that interchange northward started appearing over a decade ago.
Quote from: akotchi on September 04, 2019, 01:17:37 PMI do wonder, though, why Newark is not included as a northbound control city.
Older ramp signs for the northbound NJ Turnpike used to use a
Newark/New York combination.
Quote from: akotchi on September 04, 2019, 01:17:37 PMThing are the way they are because there are many different state and toll agencies (in many states) at work that consider this issue differently enough (including whether changes are worth it) that there are inconsistencies or snubs. The MUTCD may be there to encourage consistency, but it is a toothless document with standards and guidelines (after all, it was created in 1935) that is viewed differently by the various agencies.
With regards to MUTCD; the recent change I've seen lately is that many agencies, the NJTA being no exception, are discarding the listing of state names (although I've seen some exceptions), crossings (with some exceptions) and/or regions in favor of actual cities/municipalities. I.e. taking the term control city literally. IMHO, it would've been better/more useful to simply revise the MUTCD verbage from
control city to
control point or
destination. Problem/issue solved.
That said & I mentioned such way up-thread, the signing of the current I-95 & NJ Turnpike corridors IMHO would've been better served by the listing of states.
PA - DE or the old-school
Penna. - Delaware could've been placed underneath the Newark/Trenton/Camden listings on the southbound I-95/NJ Turnpike signs through Exit 7. To this day, DelDOT still uses a
NJ - NY listing for many of its I-295 northbound signs so a precedent to do similar along southbound I-95/NJ Turnpike
does exist.
Side bar: older/now gone through-signage for the southbound NJ Turnpike at Exit 6 used to have a
Camden/Delaware listing.
A three-line listing of cities (
Newark/Trenton/Camden - Philadelphia - Wilmington) listing could work too; but such would require taller sign boards.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 04, 2019, 02:05:10 PM
Anyways, getting back to PA again...how is work progressing on the Scudders Falls bridge at the NJ line?
I had to laugh at this a little...as it's still off-topic! :-D
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2146.0
almost 10 year ago to boot! Damn!
I've long agreed with PHLBOS that the MUTCD's requirement for use of only control cities is unreasonably narrow and unrealistic, especially in the New York City metro area. There are many locations where a regional name or bridge/tunnel, etc. may be more useful than a city name.
One such sign from yester-year that I especially miss was on the approach to the NJ Turnpike from the Lincoln Tunnel, which said: NJ Turnpike South, Pa-Del-Md.
Quote from: akotchi on September 04, 2019, 01:17:37 PM
My head spins every time I see this control city debate reignite . . .
Frankly, IMHO, there is no "correct" answer in this debate because it is trying to put a square peg (requirements for control cities) in a round hole (roads that go near but not to or through such control cities).
My take, just to throw gas on the brush fire (and give me a reason for my head to spin), is below. I will never claim to be an authority on the subject, but opinion is my admission to this debate. Some will be consistent with what others have said (perhaps a few times), some will be different.
Trenton was an approved control city for I-95 for as long as AASHTO kept a list of them. With the rerouting of I-95, Trenton is not on the beaten path any longer, but is accessible from routes that I-95 accesses. It does not necessarily have to be retained as a control city. Pennsylvania, however, addressed this from the south by showing both Trenton and New York on northbound guide signs, where space allowed, whether new or retrofitted existing panels, with New York being the default where space did not allow. Trenton accompanies I-295 at Exit 40. For consistency, the same should be done from the north on the Turnpike. Between Exit 13 and Exit 8, Trenton and Philadelphia should be shown on southbound pull throughs, with Trenton disappearing at Exit 7A and Philadelphia accompanying I-95 off at Exit 6. If space is an issue, show Philadelphia only.
South of Exit 6 on the Turnpike, control cities are derived from a different approach. I borrow from N.J.'s westerly neighbor to state that the Pa. Turnpike does not go to Philadelphia, Harrisburg or Pittsburgh, the three control cities most often shown on pull-throughs, but passes near them and has exits that go there. There are numerous examples on the free highways where a specific route number does not go into a city (I-80 to New York, I-70 to Washington, for examples) -- control cities are neither an exact nor absolute science, but pull-through and exit control cities are the bread crumb trail that can be followed from a long way out even if the route numbers are covered. Given this philosophy, Camden is fine south of Exit 6 to Exit 3. Wilmington is the nearest city to the end of the Turnpike, so it would be used from Exit 3 down through I-295 across the DMB.
Northbound approaching New York City is a different animal that I may address another time. I do wonder, though, why Newark is not included as a northbound control city.
Thing are the way they are because there are many different state and toll agencies (in many states) at work that consider this issue differently enough (including whether changes are worth it) that there are inconsistencies or snubs. The MUTCD may be there to encourage consistency, but it is a toothless document with standards and guidelines (after all, it was created in 1935) that is viewed differently by the various agencies. It it perfect . . . hell no, and it never will be. Do we, as roadgeeks (or even practitioners) like it . . . not really. The motoring public seems to get around, though, at least for the most part.
Now I feel better. Perhaps it was the Motrin. Thanks for reading.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder... have the turnpike control cities EVER really changed, other than changing Delaware to Wilmington? I know New York, Trenton and Camden have been used forever, it seems. I guess I'd have to review old sign photos, but for the turnpike (as with the MDTA), "why change it if it works" might be their mantra.
As far as why northbound uses "New York" continuously while southbound changes multiple times... that's part of my theory as to the NJTA being North Jersey/NYC centric. Which also partly explains why they care nothing for putting Philly as a control city too... I mean, for the majority of New Jerseyans (i.e., the northerners), there is, after all, only one "City"...
Quote from: famartin on September 04, 2019, 08:52:05 PMAs far as why northbound uses "New York" continuously while southbound changes multiple times... that's part of my theory as to the NJTA being North Jersey/NYC centric.
Another thing to consider is that for one entering NJ from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, I-295 is signed for both Camden & Trenton; US 130 was likely signed for such (at least for Camden anyway) prior to I-295's existence. Such is one reason why northbound NJ Turnpike ramp signage either listed
just New York or a Newark/New York combination.
Aug. 2009 GSV shot of the original NJ Turnpike ramp signage at Exit 7A (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1932574,-74.6053326,3a,75y,98.57h,77.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siM7u8HdqJJrVOPUS4wXk3w!2e0!7i3328!8i1664). Note the use of
Penn Extension in reference to the connector (current I-95) on the southbound panel.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 05, 2019, 08:30:40 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 04, 2019, 08:52:05 PMAs far as why northbound uses "New York" continuously while southbound changes multiple times... that's part of my theory as to the NJTA being North Jersey/NYC centric.
Another thing to consider is that for one entering NJ from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, I-295 is signed for both Camden & Trenton; US 130 was likely signed for such (at least for Camden anyway) prior to I-295's existence. Such is one reason why northbound NJ Turnpike ramp signage either listed just New York or a Newark/New York combination.
Aug. 2009 GSV shot of the original NJ Turnpike ramp signage at Exit 7A (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1932574,-74.6053326,3a,75y,98.57h,77.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siM7u8HdqJJrVOPUS4wXk3w!2e0!7i3328!8i1664). Note the use of Penn Extension in reference to the connector (current I-95) on the southbound panel.
I do remember that, at least the Penn Extension part. I had forgotten that Newark was also signed. I wonder if it was ever signed elsewhere in that stretch, as I seem to recall most of the entrances south of Newark generally read "New York and NORTH" (older signage) or simply "95 North/Turnpike North" (newer signage).
Quote from: famartin on September 05, 2019, 03:57:05 PMI do remember that, at least the Penn Extension part. I had forgotten that Newark was also signed. I wonder if it was ever signed elsewhere in that stretch, as I seem to recall most of the entrances south of Newark generally read "New York and NORTH" (older signage) or simply "95 North/Turnpike North" (newer signage).
When the Exit 7 interchange was redone during the early 90s; the northbound ramp sign was essentially a newer version (reflectorized non-button-copy) of the fore-mentioned original Exit 7A sign. Prior southbound ramp signage included the
Penn. Extension/Camden message as well. I'm guessing that the prior (before 1990s) signs listed similar messages. To my knowledge, those locations were the only ones that featured dual-control point listings for both directions.
Quote from: famartin on September 04, 2019, 08:52:05 PM
As far as why northbound uses "New York" continuously while southbound changes multiple times... that's part of my theory as to the NJTA being North Jersey/NYC centric. Which also partly explains why they care nothing for putting Philly as a control city too... I mean, for the majority of New Jerseyans (i.e., the northerners), there is, after all, only one "City"...
In that case, I would expect the opposite to be true. If I were North Jersey centric, I'd put Woodbridge, Elizabeth, and Newark up there, while sticking Philadelphia southbound since South Jersey doesn't exist.
I live and work in the region. North Jerseyeans heavily prefer NYC, over their own cities. Some outright consider themselves New Yorkers and don't care about Philadelphia/South Jersey. I think they would rather include cities in South Jersey over Philly on southbound TPK even though they don’t care about South Jersey.
Sign Update:
Observations as of this past weekend (Oct. 25-27) while driving to/from the Newburyport meet:
Exit 7: All but one pull-through sign has been replaced with ones having I-95 shields. The inner-northbound BGS still has the older panel (containing THRU TRAFFIC wording) sans the I-95 shield. One the way home, yesterday; I was able to see (at a glance) that the ramps signs beyond the toll plaza were also replaced.
Exits 7A & 8 : All pull-through signs have since been replaced with ones having I-95 shields on them.
Exit 8A: As mentioned several posts/pages back, only one BGS in northbound outer lanes was changed. All others are still ones having blank spaces reserved for an I-95 shield.
_______________________________________
On the PA side, along I-95 southbound (PA Turnpike westbound); a new ground-mounted BGS reading 95 SOUTH RIGHT LANE was erected at roughly this location (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1247145,-74.8608111,3a,75y,276.37h,67.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRbf_5X3sjMsAnY-ohVIA-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), just inside the temporary Jersey barrier. To some degree, this new sign seems to contradict the main overhead signs indicating that I-95 southbound is served by both mainline lanes. IMHO, STAY or KEEP RIGHT would've been more applicable/appropriate message.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 28, 2019, 09:31:24 AM
On the PA side, along I-95 southbound (PA Turnpike westbound); a new ground-mounted BGS reading 95 SOUTH RIGHT LANE was erected at roughly this location (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1247145,-74.8608111,3a,75y,276.37h,67.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRbf_5X3sjMsAnY-ohVIA-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), just inside the temporary Jersey barrier. To some degree, this new sign seems to contradict the main overhead signs indicating that I-95 southbound is served by both mainline lanes. IMHO, STAY or KEEP RIGHT would've been more applicable/appropriate message.
I think that a sign reading "I-276 / PATP WEST, LEFT LANE" would be more appropriate with the PA Turnpike being the exit and being the one you need to get over for.
The overhead diagrammatic signs aren't perfect either, as the exit-only lane that becomes I-276's left lane forms on the left, with both lanes prior to the interchange becoming the right two lanes approaching the split. However, the signs before the third lane forms still have three lanes on the diagram, as diagrammatic signs generally do, so there's no indication of which side the lane forms on, only a vague sense of keep left/keep right for either option.
It doesn't help that the two-lane I-95 northbound approaching the I-295 split is the opposite, with the left lane of I-95 becoming the exit-only lane for I-295, and what becomes the right lane on the flyover forming on the right. I'm not sure why they designed it this way. Even if you must keep the lane drop at Exit 39 (which is weird in its own right), it seems like it would make more sense to have I-295's exit-only lane form on the left and both lanes of I-95 feed directly onto the flyover.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 28, 2019, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 28, 2019, 09:31:24 AM
On the PA side, along I-95 southbound (PA Turnpike westbound); a new ground-mounted BGS reading 95 SOUTH RIGHT LANE was erected at roughly this location (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1247145,-74.8608111,3a,75y,276.37h,67.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRbf_5X3sjMsAnY-ohVIA-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), just inside the temporary Jersey barrier. To some degree, this new sign seems to contradict the main overhead signs indicating that I-95 southbound is served by both mainline lanes. IMHO, STAY or KEEP RIGHT would've been more applicable/appropriate message.
I think that a sign reading "I-276 / PATP WEST, LEFT LANE" would be more appropriate with the PA Turnpike being the exit and being the one you need to get over for.
I'm guessing that if that sign was installed, the Turnpike was having issues with people not understanding the really big overhead signs, and that staying in the left lane wouldn't do drivers any good if they wanted to stay on 95. I guess the 95 right lane sign is to encourage motorists to move over earlier.
Maybe this is also an indication of the number of motorists that insist on keeping left for no reason, and not realizing they need to keep right, causing them to switch lanes at the last moment.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2019, 10:42:30 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 28, 2019, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 28, 2019, 09:31:24 AM
On the PA side, along I-95 southbound (PA Turnpike westbound); a new ground-mounted BGS reading 95 SOUTH RIGHT LANE was erected at roughly this location (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1247145,-74.8608111,3a,75y,276.37h,67.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRbf_5X3sjMsAnY-ohVIA-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), just inside the temporary Jersey barrier. To some degree, this new sign seems to contradict the main overhead signs indicating that I-95 southbound is served by both mainline lanes. IMHO, STAY or KEEP RIGHT would've been more applicable/appropriate message.
I think that a sign reading "I-276 / PATP WEST, LEFT LANE" would be more appropriate with the PA Turnpike being the exit and being the one you need to get over for.
I'm guessing that if that sign was installed, the Turnpike was having issues with people not understanding the really big overhead signs, and that staying in the left lane wouldn't do drivers any good if they wanted to stay on 95. I guess the 95 right lane sign is to encourage motorists to move over earlier.
Maybe this is also an indication of the number of motorists that insist on keeping left for no reason, and not realizing they need to keep right, causing them to switch lanes at the last moment.
The left lane of the two-lane section does feed onto the flyover, though, becoming an option lane that also feeds into the right lane of I-276.
I really wish the third lane started sooner, as signing the entire thing with APLs from the very beginning would make it much simpler. I suppose they could now if they really wanted to (having a straight/right arrow and a right arrow, though this might result in a weird sign layout), but I don't think PennDOT or the PTC like to use APLs if the lane configuration changes over the course of the advance signage. DelDOT is planning something like this on I-95 southbound approaching the DE 141 exit when they do a reconfiguration there, with a straight-straight-straight/right arrow setup before the ramp from I-495 merges in and creates an exit-only lane.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 28, 2019, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 28, 2019, 09:31:24 AM
On the PA side, along I-95 southbound (PA Turnpike westbound); a new ground-mounted BGS reading 95 SOUTH RIGHT LANE was erected at roughly this location (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1247145,-74.8608111,3a,75y,276.37h,67.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRbf_5X3sjMsAnY-ohVIA-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), just inside the temporary Jersey barrier. To some degree, this new sign seems to contradict the main overhead signs indicating that I-95 southbound is served by both mainline lanes. IMHO, STAY or KEEP RIGHT would've been more applicable/appropriate message.
I think that a sign reading "I-276 / PATP WEST, LEFT LANE" would be more appropriate with the PA Turnpike being the exit and being the one you need to get over for.
The overhead diagrammatic signs aren't perfect either, as the exit-only lane that becomes I-276's left lane forms on the left, with both lanes prior to the interchange becoming the right two lanes approaching the split. However, the signs before the third lane forms still have three lanes on the diagram, as diagrammatic signs generally do, so there's no indication of which side the lane forms on, only a vague sense of keep left/keep right for either option.
It doesn't help that the two-lane I-95 northbound approaching the I-295 split is the opposite, with the left lane of I-95 becoming the exit-only lane for I-295, and what becomes the right lane on the flyover forming on the right. I'm not sure why they designed it this way. Even if you must keep the lane drop at Exit 39 (which is weird in its own right), it seems like it would make more sense to have I-295's exit-only lane form on the left and both lanes of I-95 feed directly onto the flyover.
I'm really not sure why they designed I-95 NB with a lane drop to 2 lanes just before the split between two 2-lane freeways, and delineated by guiderail such that they can't widen to 3 lanes without tearing it out.
Quote from: Alps on October 28, 2019, 11:38:33 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 28, 2019, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 28, 2019, 09:31:24 AM
On the PA side, along I-95 southbound (PA Turnpike westbound); a new ground-mounted BGS reading 95 SOUTH RIGHT LANE was erected at roughly this location (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1247145,-74.8608111,3a,75y,276.37h,67.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRbf_5X3sjMsAnY-ohVIA-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), just inside the temporary Jersey barrier. To some degree, this new sign seems to contradict the main overhead signs indicating that I-95 southbound is served by both mainline lanes. IMHO, STAY or KEEP RIGHT would've been more applicable/appropriate message.
I think that a sign reading "I-276 / PATP WEST, LEFT LANE" would be more appropriate with the PA Turnpike being the exit and being the one you need to get over for.
The overhead diagrammatic signs aren't perfect either, as the exit-only lane that becomes I-276's left lane forms on the left, with both lanes prior to the interchange becoming the right two lanes approaching the split. However, the signs before the third lane forms still have three lanes on the diagram, as diagrammatic signs generally do, so there's no indication of which side the lane forms on, only a vague sense of keep left/keep right for either option.
It doesn't help that the two-lane I-95 northbound approaching the I-295 split is the opposite, with the left lane of I-95 becoming the exit-only lane for I-295, and what becomes the right lane on the flyover forming on the right. I'm not sure why they designed it this way. Even if you must keep the lane drop at Exit 39 (which is weird in its own right), it seems like it would make more sense to have I-295's exit-only lane form on the left and both lanes of I-95 feed directly onto the flyover.
I'm really not sure why they designed I-95 NB with a lane drop to 2 lanes just before the split between two 2-lane freeways, and delineated by guiderail such that they can't widen to 3 lanes without tearing it out.
Having driven the interchange a lot now, and getting some time to think about it, my impression is that they designed it the way they did to keep people who've driven through there for years from accidentally going the wrong way. That's the only explanation I can think of for why I-95 exits right but merges from the left in both directions, when they probably could've done it cheaper by having it exit right and then merge back right. They may eventually regret their decision, but I'm sure its prevented a lot of long-time highway users from accidentally going the wrong way.
What sounds like it could be been a catastrophic event shortly before Thanksgiving is barely getting any news. A tanker truck caught fire on an I-95 overpass over Bristol Pike between Philly and the PA Turnpike. Yet, 12 hours later, 95 appears to be fully open and flowing at normal speed! (I was first alerted to this issue around midnight via a VMS on 295 in NJ near Exit 22.)
https://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/20191115/i-95-closed-due-to-tanker-fire-in-bensalem
https://6abc.com/automotive/tanker-car-involved-in-fiery-crash-on-i-95-in-bucks-county/5700678/
Sign Update:
Observations as of this past Thanksgiving weekend (Nov. 27 - Dec. 2):
Exit 7: All pull-through signs now have I-95 shields on them.
Exits 7A: Ramp signs for the Turnpike beyond the toll plaza do not yet have I-95 shields on them
Exit 8A: Both northbound pull-through signs have I-95 shields on them but both southbound signs still do not.
Along the PA Connector itself, a mileage sign is posted along the westbound (I-95 southbound) side prior to the mainline toll plaza. Such lists the distances to I-276, I-676/Philadelphia (25 miles), & Harrisburg.
Also off the Pike: This somewhat new old-school sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2689434,-74.5012839,3a,35y,133.64h,88.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0DZdbr8hYuPpc5j8TFclKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was recently replaced with a boring green sign with I-95 / NJTP logo and "N J Turnpike" + arrow
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 02, 2019, 04:11:41 PM
Also off the Pike: This somewhat new old-school sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2689434,-74.5012839,3a,35y,133.64h,88.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0DZdbr8hYuPpc5j8TFclKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was recently replaced with a boring green sign with I-95 / NJTP logo and "N J Turnpike" + arrow
NJTA has been retiring the last of the green on whites, I believe. This guy (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5924553,-74.2315983,3a,66.8y,89.64h,104.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD9VROwx8uSfiIKR0Z7o-DA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at the Exit 12 entrance ramp that was installed in 2009 when Exit 12 was redone just got replaced in the last month or so as well. Same deal. 95 shield, Turnpike shield, boring NJDOT-esque "NJ Turnpike" legend.
Quote from: storm2k on December 04, 2019, 03:10:00 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 02, 2019, 04:11:41 PM
Also off the Pike: This somewhat new old-school sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2689434,-74.5012839,3a,35y,133.64h,88.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0DZdbr8hYuPpc5j8TFclKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was recently replaced with a boring green sign with I-95 / NJTP logo and "N J Turnpike" + arrow
NJTA has been retiring the last of the green on whites, I believe. This guy (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5924553,-74.2315983,3a,66.8y,89.64h,104.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD9VROwx8uSfiIKR0Z7o-DA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at the Exit 12 entrance ramp that was installed in 2009 when Exit 12 was redone just got replaced in the last month or so as well. Same deal. 95 shield, Turnpike shield, boring NJDOT-esque "NJ Turnpike" legend.
At least most of the NJTA's MUTCD signage I've seen is designed flawlessly and without using Clearview, which is more than can be said for many other places.
Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 04, 2019, 04:57:03 PMAt least most of the NJTA's MUTCD signage I've seen is designed flawlessly and without using Clearview, which is more than can be said for many other places.
To my knowledge, the NJTA never adopted the use of Clearview; so one wouldn't expect to see such on their signs.
Signs for the Delaware River Bridge AET info. as well as the 3 miles advance BGS for PA's Exit 42/US 13 along the westbound Connector (I-95 southbound) being the sole Clearview installs within the NJ Turnpike system. Whether those were PTC designed/spec'd or just rouge installs in terms of format is any outsider's guess. Someone who works within or alongside either the NJTA and/or PTC would likely know the design history behind those two signs.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 04, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.
Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate. Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AMEven though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate. Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
To add, even with the recent sign replacement contracts along both roadways; the gantry style used for overhead-mounted sign panels along the GSP are still a different style than the ones used for the NJ Turnpike.
The brown GSP gantries are to maintain the "park" in parkway ;).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 04, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.
Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate. Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2019, 11:24:31 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AM
... They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.
If the longer lines are only related to truck traffic, why are such longer lines not part of the statewide / national MUTCD or at least researched or tested further by the FHWA?
Bold emphasis added to below:
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 05, 2019, 09:15:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AMEven though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate. Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
To add, even with the recent sign replacement contracts along both roadways; the gantry style used for overhead-mounted sign panels along the GSP are still a different style than the ones used for the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 05, 2019, 06:54:25 PMThe brown GSP gantries are to maintain the "park" in parkway ;).
The newer gantries along the NJTP are also painted brown as well. :)
I was referring to the
style/design of the gantries.
Example of a fairly new NJTP style overhead gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5304665,-74.3345116,3a,75y,230h,93.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shAn6c1casM5PGyQkbDePtQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Example of a fairly new GSP style overhead gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9505154,-74.0662734,3a,75y,187.29h,81.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn_nxslrCBpp3hhqDu_O7bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2019, 11:24:31 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 04, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.
Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate. Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.
To be honest, I've never heard of this reasoning either. The Turnpike has always had them, and their reason is that they're easier to see. Nothing about truck traffic. Nor do any other heavy traveled truck route have them.
Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 09:04:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2019, 11:24:31 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 04, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.
Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate. Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.
To be honest, I've never heard of this reasoning either. The Turnpike has always had them, and their reason is that they're easier to see. Nothing about truck traffic. Nor do any other heavy traveled truck route have them.
It sounds like something that was created to allow for both roads to follow the same standards while still maintaining their distinctive features.
Quote from: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?
It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike. It does present an interesting comparison, though. In northern NJ, where the turnpike remains the main thru route with no real competition, it interchanges with all major roads. In southern NJ, where it is parallel to competing I-295, the turnpike interchanges with NO freeways... not I-295 and not NJ 42, even though they are obvious missing junctions. When all these roads were built, interchanges were possible... nowadays, the cost, environmental impact and development make them (particularly Turnpike/42) highly unlikely.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:08:47 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?
...It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.
Exits 7 & 7A says
Hello.That said, the likely reason why there was never a direct connection between the Turnpike Connector (present I-95) and I-295 was due to the latter corridor being situated too close to the Exit 6 interchange to place ramps for an I-295 interchange far enough away from said-Exit 6 interchange ramps an not take out nearly an entire development in the process. Google Earth view of the area. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bordentown,+NJ+08505/@40.0951453,-74.7575766,6403m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c15b980ece3c79:0x70a615008bde7c63!8m2!3d40.1462213!4d-74.7118264) See the NW quadrant of Connector/I-295 crossing.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 01:31:02 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:08:47 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?
...It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.
Exits 7 & 7A says Hello.
That said, the likely reason why there was never a direct connection between the Turnpike Connector (present I-95) and I-295 was due to the latter corridor being situated too close to the Exit 6 interchange to place ramps for an I-295 interchange far enough away from said-Exit 6 interchange ramps an not take out nearly an entire development in the process. Google Earth view of the area. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bordentown,+NJ+08505/@40.0951453,-74.7575766,6403m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c15b980ece3c79:0x70a615008bde7c63!8m2!3d40.1462213!4d-74.7118264) See the NW quadrant of Connector/I-295 crossing.
A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link. As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor. In any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 01:31:02 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:08:47 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?
...It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.
Exits 7 & 7A says Hello.
That said, the likely reason why there was never a direct connection between the Turnpike Connector (present I-95) and I-295 was due to the latter corridor being situated too close to the Exit 6 interchange to place ramps for an I-295 interchange far enough away from said-Exit 6 interchange ramps an not take out nearly an entire development in the process. Google Earth view of the area. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bordentown,+NJ+08505/@40.0951453,-74.7575766,6403m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c15b980ece3c79:0x70a615008bde7c63!8m2!3d40.1462213!4d-74.7118264) See the NW quadrant of Connector/I-295 crossing.
A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link. As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor. In any case, zooming out a little, and comparing the size of US 206's interchange to the I-295/I-95 intersection, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2FUntitled.png&hash=77215a431e81a53d203d025046e4d0592c674088)
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:08:47 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?
It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.
How do you explain going North where there's a humongous sign where the priority is I-295, and the Turnpike is the 'Exit Only' option?
How do you explain going South the VMS timed sign which provides the time to Delaware via both the Turnpike and I-295?
How do you explain the signage after every toll plaza which directs motorists to I-295?
Back before Interchange 1 was widened, the Turnpike encouraged people to use 295 when there was heavy congestion, and often shut the Turnpike down at Interchange 4 to mandate people use 295. Even now when there's road closures or heavy congestion due to accidents, the Turnpike still suggests using I-295 as an alternative.
The Turnpike has mentioned in the past the real reasons are what Phlbos said - There's a huge issue with interchange spacing. Many people would love the Turnpike to Intersect with Rt. 42, but the cost and the wetlands are a huge burden to overcome. And there's also many people against such an interchange as well!
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PM
A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link. As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor. In any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.
Yay...a few minutes. Woohoo. :rolleyes:
Farmland is still owned land. This isn't much of a forested area - a grove of trees is more like it (and that's often owned land as well). And there's less than 2 miles between the Interchange 6 ramp and the Interchange 6 toll plaza. That is obscenely small to try to fit in an interchange - especially an interchange between 2 highways.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PMA direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.
No argument there, but using I-195 saves on tolls vs. using Exit 7 or 6... for southbound traffic.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PMAs for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor.
The same can be said for Exit 6 as well. Additionally, Exit 7 was overhauled during the early 90s so it could better handle the higher volume traffic that was using such, in addition to the truck services, restaurants & gas stations, as a means of getting to/from I-295.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PMIn any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:35:37 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2FUntitled.png&hash=77215a431e81a53d203d025046e4d0592c674088)
Nice graphic, but it looks like the distance between the two trumpet interchanges looks a little too short to handle the projected traffic. The ramp to I-295 southbound looks a bit tight and the ramp to the PA-bound Connector appears to have a very tight merge with the road itself. While such may be okay for a conventional road; it wouldn't fly for a high-speed highway. A more gradual merge would indeed impact some of that development.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 01:54:48 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PMA direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.
No argument there, but using I-195 saves on tolls vs. using Exit 7 or 6... for southbound traffic.
On the other hand, the Turnpike in theory is losing money by not having an interchange for I-295 Northbound traffic to enter onto the NJ Turnpike northbound at this point as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 01:52:12 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:08:47 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?
It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.
How do you explain going North where there's a humongous sign where the priority is I-295, and the Turnpike is the 'Exit Only' option?
Huh? Its the mainline/thru lanes. It says "exit only" because technically its exiting I-295, so I'm sure there are MUTCD rules about how it has to be signed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 01:52:12 PM
How do you explain going South the VMS timed sign which provides the time to Delaware via both the Turnpike and I-295?
Does it ever show it taking less time via I-295? Maybe occasionally, but I have yet to see it. Most of the time, that sign serves to encourage people to stay on the turnpike.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 01:52:12 PM
How do you explain the signage after every toll plaza which directs motorists to I-295?
Key word: after the toll plaza. You don't see any signs ON the mainline telling people they can get to I-295 from each exit. Unlike, of course, on I-295, where every exit that gets you to the turnpike is signed as such.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 01:52:12 PM
Back before Interchange 1 was widened, the Turnpike encouraged people to use 295 when there was heavy congestion, and often shut the Turnpike down at Interchange 4 to mandate people use 295. Even now when there's road closures or heavy congestion due to accidents, the Turnpike still suggests using I-295 as an alternative.
The Turnpike has mentioned in the past the real reasons are what Phlbos said - There's a huge issue with interchange spacing. Many people would love the Turnpike to Intersect with Rt. 42, but the cost and the wetlands are a huge burden to overcome. And there's also many people against such an interchange as well!
This applies ONLY to NJ 42's intersection. Not I-295's.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 01:52:12 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PM
A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link. As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor. In any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.
Yay...a few minutes. Woohoo. :rolleyes:
Farmland is still owned land. This isn't much of a forested area - a grove of trees is more like it (and that's often owned land as well). And there's less than 2 miles between the Interchange 6 ramp and the Interchange 6 toll plaza. That is obscenely small to try to fit in an interchange - especially an interchange between 2 highways.
No its not. But whatever, you obviously have your heartfelt beliefs and I'm not going to change them (do you still work for the turnpike, btw?)
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 01:54:48 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PMA direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.
No argument there, but using I-195 saves on tolls vs. using Exit 7 or 6... for southbound traffic.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PMAs for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor.
The same can be said for Exit 6 as well. Additionally, Exit 7 was overhauled during the early 90s so it could better handle the higher volume traffic that was using such, in addition to the truck services, restaurants & gas stations, as a means of getting to/from I-295.
Exit 6 was a long range highway heading to the PA Turnpike. The US 130 interchange that was built at the time was more of an afterthought (in fact, I seem to recall it wasn't even fully-directional? Or am I misremembering?). So also, Exit 6 doesn't apply here.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 01:54:48 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:34:50 PMIn any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:35:37 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2FUntitled.png&hash=77215a431e81a53d203d025046e4d0592c674088)
Nice graphic, but it looks like the distance between the two trumpet interchanges looks a little too short to handle the projected traffic. The ramp to I-295 southbound looks a bit tight and the ramp to the PA-bound Connector appears to have a very tight merge with the road itself. While such may be okay for a conventional road; it wouldn't fly for a high-speed highway. A more gradual merge would indeed impact some of that development.
A high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike... As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mansfield,+NJ/@40.0944497,-74.7634005,864m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c144b75eed5b37:0x893151554b174153!8m2!3d40.0799767!4d-74.7183641 Yes they might have to put up sound barriers or something, but the buffer between the houses and the highway presently seems quite wide, more than enough for an extended merge lane.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 09:00:06 AM
Bold emphasis added to below:
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 05, 2019, 09:15:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AMEven though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate. Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
To add, even with the recent sign replacement contracts along both roadways; the gantry style used for overhead-mounted sign panels along the GSP are still a different style than the ones used for the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 05, 2019, 06:54:25 PMThe brown GSP gantries are to maintain the "park" in parkway ;).
The newer gantries along the NJTP are also painted brown as well. :)
I was referring to the style/design of the gantries.
Example of a fairly new NJTP style overhead gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5304665,-74.3345116,3a,75y,230h,93.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shAn6c1casM5PGyQkbDePtQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Example of a fairly new GSP style overhead gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9505154,-74.0662734,3a,75y,187.29h,81.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn_nxslrCBpp3hhqDu_O7bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Actually, that GSP gantry is more than 25 years old, just got a new sign. But it proves the point of why the newer ones were designed this way. They've been using that oversized pre-rusted box gantry design since the mid 70s. The only parts that didn't have it were the original Rt 4 Parkway section that used to be maintained by NJDOT, since NJDOT installed the standard triangular gantries with the NRBC signs in 1980.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 02:06:36 PMThe US 130 interchange that was built at the time was more of an afterthought (in fact, I seem to recall it wasn't even fully-directional? Or am I misremembering?). So also, Exit 6 doesn't apply here.
The US 130 interchange w/the Connector became a full-directional interchange during the late 90s. Prior to that, it was a partial interchange; east/NJ-bound exit, west/PA-bound entrance. IIRC, the original mainline toll plaza was located just west of the old interchange. Such was relocated to its current location when the interchange was reconfigured & expanded. Why such wasn't built like it is today in the first place is not fully known.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 02:06:36 PMA high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike... As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...
Apples & oranges comparison because Exit 10 not only connects with I-287/NJ 440, it also connects w/CR 514/Woodbridge Ave. Also note that the ramps from the toll plaza to I-287 & NJ 400 are a lot longer in length than your earlier Connector/I-295 graphic; as well as the merges with the mainline being more gradual.
Another thing to consider is there is a small creek (listed as Crafts Creek on Google Maps). Your interchange plan is literally sits on top of it. Such would require that be relocated. While it may not seem like much; it's an additional matter for the environmental permitting.
Quote from: storm2k on December 06, 2019, 02:47:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 09:00:06 AM
Example of a fairly new GSP style overhead gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9505154,-74.0662734,3a,75y,187.29h,81.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn_nxslrCBpp3hhqDu_O7bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Actually, that GSP gantry is more than 25 years old, just got a new sign. But it proves the point of why the newer ones were designed this way. They've been using that oversized pre-rusted box gantry design since the mid 70s.
The earlier point that triggered the above-comparison is that despite the two highways being under the same agency control for over 15 years; certain specifications, like sign gantries, haven't changed. If anything the NJTP gantries have since adopted painting their newer gantries brown.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 02:06:36 PM
A high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike... As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mansfield,+NJ/@40.0944497,-74.7634005,864m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c144b75eed5b37:0x893151554b174153!8m2!3d40.0799767!4d-74.7183641 Yes they might have to put up sound barriers or something, but the buffer between the houses and the highway presently seems quite wide, more than enough for an extended merge lane.
Comparing the 287 interchange is also comparing different eras. No different than trying to claim a 14' overpass clearance can be built today because they exist from 50 years ago. No doubt the 287 interchange built today would be vastly different than what was built decades ago.
Also I would think the Turnpike will start getting out of the trumpet-style interchange designs when they eventually go cashless (no timeline of that though, and no recent discussions as far as I'm aware).
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 02:06:36 PMThe US 130 interchange that was built at the time was more of an afterthought (in fact, I seem to recall it wasn't even fully-directional? Or am I misremembering?). So also, Exit 6 doesn't apply here.
The US 130 interchange w/the Connector became a full-directional interchange during the late 90s. Prior to that, it was a partial interchange; east/NJ-bound exit, west/PA-bound entrance. IIRC, the original mainline toll plaza was located just west of the old interchange. Such was relocated to its current location when the interchange was reconfigured & expanded. Why such wasn't built like it is today in the first place is not fully known.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 02:06:36 PMA high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike... As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...
Apples & oranges comparison because Exit 10 not only connects with I-287/NJ 440, it also connects w/CR 514/Woodbridge Ave. Also note that the ramps from the toll plaza to I-287 & NJ 400 are a lot longer in length than your earlier Connector/I-295 graphic; as well as the merges with the mainline being more gradual.
Another thing to consider is there is a small creek (listed as Crafts Creek on Google Maps). Your interchange plan is literally sits on top of it. Such would require that be relocated. While it may not seem like much; it's an additional matter for the environmental permitting.
Apples to apples then: I-195.
Yes, that creek could be an environmental issue potentially, though they could do mitigation. I'm only saying, if there was a real need and desire, they could easily do it. Neither exists.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 02:06:36 PMThe US 130 interchange that was built at the time was more of an afterthought (in fact, I seem to recall it wasn't even fully-directional? Or am I misremembering?). So also, Exit 6 doesn't apply here.
The US 130 interchange w/the Connector became a full-directional interchange during the late 90s. Prior to that, it was a partial interchange; east/NJ-bound exit, west/PA-bound entrance. IIRC, the original mainline toll plaza was located just west of the old interchange. Such was relocated to its current location when the interchange was reconfigured & expanded. Why such wasn't built like it is today in the first place is not fully known.
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 02:06:36 PMA high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike... As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...
Apples & oranges comparison because Exit 10 not only connects with I-287/NJ 440, it also connects w/CR 514/Woodbridge Ave. Also note that the ramps from the toll plaza to I-287 & NJ 400 are a lot longer in length than your earlier Connector/I-295 graphic; as well as the merges with the mainline being more gradual.
Another thing to consider is there is a small creek (listed as Crafts Creek on Google Maps). Your interchange plan is literally sits on top of it. Such would require that be relocated. While it may not seem like much; it's an additional matter for the environmental permitting.
Quote from: storm2k on December 06, 2019, 02:47:58 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 09:00:06 AM
Example of a fairly new GSP style overhead gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9505154,-74.0662734,3a,75y,187.29h,81.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn_nxslrCBpp3hhqDu_O7bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Actually, that GSP gantry is more than 25 years old, just got a new sign. But it proves the point of why the newer ones were designed this way. They've been using that oversized pre-rusted box gantry design since the mid 70s.
The earlier point that triggered the above-comparison is that despite the two highways being under the same agency control for over 15 years; certain specifications, like sign gantries, haven't changed. If anything the NJTP gantries have since adopted painting their newer gantries brown.
The Turnpike was starting to use pre-rusted gantries starting in the mid to late 1990s. For example, when they replaced the signage on northern stretch past 18E/W around 1999 or 2000, those were all pre-rusted gantries. The bigger indicator of uniformity is honestly that the Turnpike Authority did away with the "MUTCD-lite" Parkway signage that it was known for for so many years and replaced it with the mostly MUTCD compliant signage that more or less matches the specs for the signage used on the northern Turnpike replacements. I'm not entirely sure why they didn't adopt one gantry standard for sign replacements on the Parkway, but here we are.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 01:31:02 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 06, 2019, 01:08:47 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?
...It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.
Exits 7 & 7A says Hello.
That said, the likely reason why there was never a direct connection between the Turnpike Connector (present I-95) and I-295 was due to the latter corridor being situated too close to the Exit 6 interchange to place ramps for an I-295 interchange far enough away from said-Exit 6 interchange ramps an not take out nearly an entire development in the process. Google Earth view of the area. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bordentown,+NJ+08505/@40.0951453,-74.7575766,6403m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c15b980ece3c79:0x70a615008bde7c63!8m2!3d40.1462213!4d-74.7118264) See the NW quadrant of Connector/I-295 crossing.
Exactly. It makes NO sense to not have a spur route intersect the route it spurs from.
This would help traffic patterns from getting people off exit 7 and 7A (and in this way actually increase toll revenue).
Further, it definitely could be done, there is plently of space, we are talking farmland, not an urban center.
Quote from: bluecountry on December 09, 2019, 04:54:37 PM
Further, it definitely could be done, there is plently of space, we are talking farmland, not an urban center.
er, it's still someone's livelihood.
Quote from: odditude on December 09, 2019, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 09, 2019, 04:54:37 PM
Further, it definitely could be done, there is plently of space, we are talking farmland, not an urban center.
er, it's still someone's livelihood.
That's rarely stopped any highway department in the past... emminent domain, market value, etc.
What is much more likely to be stopping it is an evaluation of the cost versus benefits.
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2019, 01:07:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 09:04:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 05, 2019, 11:24:31 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 09:07:42 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 04, 2019, 05:07:10 PM
Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.
Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate. Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses. The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes, unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.
Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.
To be honest, I've never heard of this reasoning either. The Turnpike has always had them, and their reason is that they're easier to see. Nothing about truck traffic. Nor do any other heavy traveled truck route have them.
It sounds like something that was created to allow for both roads to follow the same standards while still maintaining their distinctive features.
No, it was the reasoning before the agencies ever merged. The visibility reason was specifically because of trucks.
Well, that's very interesting then, because as mentioned, nowhere else uses extra-long skip lines no matter what their truck percentage is. Even the World Trade bridge (which doesn't even allow cars) uses regular lines.
While unique, those extra-long lines are also a big part of the reason why driving at anything less than 80 feels very slow on the Turnpike.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2019, 01:26:41 PM
Well, that's very interesting then, because as mentioned, nowhere else uses extra-long skip lines no matter what their truck percentage is. Even the World Trade bridge (which doesn't even allow cars) uses regular lines.
While unique, those extra-long lines are also a big part of the reason why driving at anything less than 80 feels very slow on the Turnpike.
Are you referring to the long Lane Stripes on the NJTP?
ISTHA uses the same or very similar ones. So does the Indiana Toll Road
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2019, 01:26:41 PM
Well, that's very interesting then, because as mentioned, nowhere else uses extra-long skip lines no matter what their truck percentage is. Even the World Trade bridge (which doesn't even allow cars) uses regular lines.
While unique, those extra-long lines are also a big part of the reason why driving at anything less than 80 feels very slow on the Turnpike.
That's because the agency came up with it themselves. Many agencies used different spacings, and then most of them went to the MUTCD when that standardized at 10-30. (Some use 15-25 or similar still.) But NJTA never changed.
Quote from: ilpt4u on December 10, 2019, 06:07:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2019, 01:26:41 PM
Well, that's very interesting then, because as mentioned, nowhere else uses extra-long skip lines no matter what their truck percentage is. Even the World Trade bridge (which doesn't even allow cars) uses regular lines.
While unique, those extra-long lines are also a big part of the reason why driving at anything less than 80 feels very slow on the Turnpike.
Are you referring to the long Lane Stripes on the NJTP?
ISTHA uses the same or very similar ones. So does the Indiana Toll Road
I'm also noticing the longer lines on the PA Turnpike
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 11, 2019, 09:06:07 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on December 10, 2019, 06:07:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2019, 01:26:41 PM
Well, that's very interesting then, because as mentioned, nowhere else uses extra-long skip lines no matter what their truck percentage is. Even the World Trade bridge (which doesn't even allow cars) uses regular lines.
While unique, those extra-long lines are also a big part of the reason why driving at anything less than 80 feels very slow on the Turnpike.
Are you referring to the long Lane Stripes on the NJTP?
ISTHA uses the same or very similar ones. So does the Indiana Toll Road
I'm also noticing the longer lines on the PA Turnpike
The PA Turnpike's line dashes are about half again as long as the normal ones, but not as long as the NJTP's, which are about half again longer as the PA Turnpike's. This can clearly be seen on the Delaware River Turnpike bridge (https://goo.gl/maps/F7SF9NkN4vSDUdVx7), each half of which is maintained by the respective state's turnpike agency.
ISTHA's and the Indiana Toll Road's dashes are as long as the NJTP's.
On that note, there's been a lot of discussion specifically about the NJTP in this thread, even starting out only indirectly related to the 95/Turnpike interchange project (specifically, the I-95 signage on the NJTP). Can we get all these posts moved to the New Jersey Turnpike thread?
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 11, 2019, 09:13:39 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 11, 2019, 09:06:07 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on December 10, 2019, 06:07:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2019, 01:26:41 PM
Well, that's very interesting then, because as mentioned, nowhere else uses extra-long skip lines no matter what their truck percentage is. Even the World Trade bridge (which doesn't even allow cars) uses regular lines.
While unique, those extra-long lines are also a big part of the reason why driving at anything less than 80 feels very slow on the Turnpike.
Are you referring to the long Lane Stripes on the NJTP?
ISTHA uses the same or very similar ones. So does the Indiana Toll Road
I'm also noticing the longer lines on the PA Turnpike
The PA Turnpike's line dashes are about half again as long as the normal ones, but not as long as the NJTP's, which are about half again longer as the PA Turnpike's. This can clearly be seen on the Delaware River Turnpike bridge (https://goo.gl/maps/F7SF9NkN4vSDUdVx7), each half of which is maintained by the respective state's turnpike agency.
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge? I don't recall any other instances where the maintenance differences were so visible... at one time, I recall both the bridge deck surface type and quality changed right at the state line (don't recall if it does this presently, though).
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge? I don't recall any other instances where the maintenance differences were so visible... at one time, I recall both the bridge deck surface type and quality changed right at the state line (don't recall if it does this presently, though).
This made me think of the Glienicke Bridge in Germany. It used to be maintained half by East and West Germany. And you could see the difference, mainly by the slight difference in paint color..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glienicke_Bridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GlienickerBruecke_ty_20060908r0012648.jpg
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
[quote author=Roadsguy link=topic=11707.msg2462594#msg2462594
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge?
The I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (WWB), the new bridges that opened in 2006 and 2008.
Maryland and Virginia jointly own and share responsibility for the Bridge. The Initial Ownership Agreement was signed June 15th, 2001.
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
[quote author=Roadsguy link=topic=11707.msg2462594#msg2462594
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge?
The I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (WWB), the new bridges that opened in 2006 and 2008.
Maryland and Virginia jointly own and share responsibility for the Bridge. The Initial Ownership Agreement was signed June 15th, 2001.
But do they maintain the bridge separately as PA and NJ do?
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 11, 2019, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
[quote author=Roadsguy link=topic=11707.msg2462594#msg2462594
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge?
The I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (WWB), the new bridges that opened in 2006 and 2008.
Maryland and Virginia jointly own and share responsibility for the Bridge. The Initial Ownership Agreement was signed June 15th, 2001.
But do they maintain the bridge separately as PA and NJ do?
No, jointly. Some changes --
- VDOT is currently developing the Second Supplement with Maryland for
the proposed Woodrow Wilson Bridge Bundled Interstate Maintenance
Services Contract to define Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance
- Second Supplement is needed due to a change in performance method
and expiration of the First Supplement [ran from 2009 to 2020]
- Second Supplement defines how contractor payment is administered
between the two jurisdictions for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge
Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services Contract.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/7_wwb.pdf
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 11, 2019, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
[quote author=Roadsguy link=topic=11707.msg2462594#msg2462594
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge?
The I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (WWB), the new bridges that opened in 2006 and 2008.
Maryland and Virginia jointly own and share responsibility for the Bridge. The Initial Ownership Agreement was signed June 15th, 2001.
But do they maintain the bridge separately as PA and NJ do?
No, jointly. Some changes --
- VDOT is currently developing the Second Supplement with Maryland for
the proposed Woodrow Wilson Bridge Bundled Interstate Maintenance
Services Contract to define Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance
- Second Supplement is needed due to a change in performance method
and expiration of the First Supplement [ran from 2009 to 2020]
- Second Supplement defines how contractor payment is administered
between the two jurisdictions for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge
Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services Contract.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/7_wwb.pdf
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Yes, and the difference has been more noticeable, at least in the past. I remember that years ago, the bridge deck went from cement exposed to asphalt overlay mid-span. Presently, though, per GSW, the only change I can see is that the median barrier changes mid-span.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1170158,-74.8304987,3a,75y,8.9h,58.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVV7GnhKQdlUkpVNE1Ou27A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 11, 2019, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
[quote author=Roadsguy link=topic=11707.msg2462594#msg2462594
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge?
The I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (WWB), the new bridges that opened in 2006 and 2008.
Maryland and Virginia jointly own and share responsibility for the Bridge. The Initial Ownership Agreement was signed June 15th, 2001.
But do they maintain the bridge separately as PA and NJ do?
No, jointly. Some changes --
• VDOT is currently developing the Second Supplement with Maryland for
the proposed Woodrow Wilson Bridge Bundled Interstate Maintenance
Services Contract to define Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance
• Second Supplement is needed due to a change in performance method
and expiration of the First Supplement [ran from 2009 to 2020]
• Second Supplement defines how contractor payment is administered
between the two jurisdictions for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge
Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services Contract.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/7_wwb.pdf
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Yes, and the difference has been more noticeable, at least in the past. I remember that years ago, the bridge deck went from cement exposed to asphalt overlay mid-span. Presently, though, per GSW, the only change I can see is that the median barrier changes mid-span.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1170158,-74.8304987,3a,75y,8.9h,58.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVV7GnhKQdlUkpVNE1Ou27A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Not shown due to construction in that GSV, are the skip lines. Going from a 4" wide, 12' long PTC line to a 6" wide, 25' line is extremely noticeable!
Also, it's been mentioned in many documents/minutes on the NJ Turnpike website that each agency will do regular maintenance work on their side of the bridge. If it's a larger construction project or issue, such as the bridge painting shown in that GSV or the beam crack that occurred a few years ago, the NJ Turnpike will be the lead agency and the PTC will refund 50% of the expenses incurred.
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 11, 2019, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
[quote author=Roadsguy link=topic=11707.msg2462594#msg2462594
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge?
The I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (WWB), the new bridges that opened in 2006 and 2008.
Maryland and Virginia jointly own and share responsibility for the Bridge. The Initial Ownership Agreement was signed June 15th, 2001.
But do they maintain the bridge separately as PA and NJ do?
No, jointly. Some changes --
• VDOT is currently developing the Second Supplement with Maryland for
the proposed Woodrow Wilson Bridge Bundled Interstate Maintenance
Services Contract to define Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance
• Second Supplement is needed due to a change in performance method
and expiration of the First Supplement [ran from 2009 to 2020]
• Second Supplement defines how contractor payment is administered
between the two jurisdictions for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge
Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services Contract.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/7_wwb.pdf
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Yes, and the difference has been more noticeable, at least in the past. I remember that years ago, the bridge deck went from cement exposed to asphalt overlay mid-span. Presently, though, per GSW, the only change I can see is that the median barrier changes mid-span.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1170158,-74.8304987,3a,75y,8.9h,58.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVV7GnhKQdlUkpVNE1Ou27A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Is that I-276 mile marker still there? It's odd because all the other mile markers in GSV are for I-95. Did both agencies think the other one would replace it?
Quote from: bzakharin on December 11, 2019, 05:18:39 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 11, 2019, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 09:17:56 AM
[quote author=Roadsguy link=topic=11707.msg2462594#msg2462594
Which brings an interesting question to the fore: Are there any other bridges where they are maintained jointly but separately in the manner the NJTA and PTC use with the Delaware River Bridge?
The I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (WWB), the new bridges that opened in 2006 and 2008.
Maryland and Virginia jointly own and share responsibility for the Bridge. The Initial Ownership Agreement was signed June 15th, 2001.
But do they maintain the bridge separately as PA and NJ do?
No, jointly. Some changes --
- VDOT is currently developing the Second Supplement with Maryland for
the proposed Woodrow Wilson Bridge Bundled Interstate Maintenance
Services Contract to define Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance
- Second Supplement is needed due to a change in performance method
and expiration of the First Supplement [ran from 2009 to 2020]
- Second Supplement defines how contractor payment is administered
between the two jurisdictions for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge
Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services Contract.
http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2019/dec/pres/7_wwb.pdf
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Yes, and the difference has been more noticeable, at least in the past. I remember that years ago, the bridge deck went from cement exposed to asphalt overlay mid-span. Presently, though, per GSW, the only change I can see is that the median barrier changes mid-span.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1170158,-74.8304987,3a,75y,8.9h,58.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVV7GnhKQdlUkpVNE1Ou27A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Is that I-276 mile marker still there? It's odd because all the other mile markers in GSV are for I-95. Did both agencies think the other one would replace it?
The bridge still had all of I-276's tenth-mile markers, including 359.0 at the state line, for a while after the rest east of the new interchange were switched to I-95's. This was probably due to the work that they were doing at the time, visible in the Street View imagery.
Can anyone confirm that they've all been changed over to I-95's mileage by now?
They have. The last marker is, I believe, 43.4 very close to the state line.
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Yes, and the difference has been more noticeable, at least in the past. I remember that years ago, the bridge deck went from cement exposed to asphalt overlay mid-span. Presently, though, per GSW, the only change I can see is that the median barrier changes mid-span.
So they each maintain between their end of the bridge and about mid-span?
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 08:56:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Yes, and the difference has been more noticeable, at least in the past. I remember that years ago, the bridge deck went from cement exposed to asphalt overlay mid-span. Presently, though, per GSW, the only change I can see is that the median barrier changes mid-span.
So they each maintain between their end of the bridge and about mid-span?
Yep.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2019, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 08:56:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Yes, and the difference has been more noticeable, at least in the past. I remember that years ago, the bridge deck went from cement exposed to asphalt overlay mid-span. Presently, though, per GSW, the only change I can see is that the median barrier changes mid-span.
So they each maintain between their end of the bridge and about mid-span?
Yep.
What about ownership?
Joint ownership of the whole bridge?
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:15:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2019, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 08:56:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 11, 2019, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 01:37:19 PM
Does PTC and NJTPA each maintain different parts of the Delaware River Bridge?
Yes, and the difference has been more noticeable, at least in the past. I remember that years ago, the bridge deck went from cement exposed to asphalt overlay mid-span. Presently, though, per GSW, the only change I can see is that the median barrier changes mid-span.
So they each maintain between their end of the bridge and about mid-span?
Yep.
What about ownership?
Joint ownership of the whole bridge?
Correct
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 12, 2019, 02:10:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:15:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2019, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 08:56:26 PM
So they each maintain between their end of the bridge and about mid-span?
Yep.
What about ownership? Joint ownership of the whole bridge?
Correct
So each maintains their half of the length of the bridge.
That is different from the WWB, but it should work fine if they coordinate plans.
Quote from: Beltway on December 12, 2019, 02:21:17 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 12, 2019, 02:10:28 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 10:15:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2019, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 11, 2019, 08:56:26 PM
So they each maintain between their end of the bridge and about mid-span?
Yep.
What about ownership? Joint ownership of the whole bridge?
Correct
So each maintains their half of the length of the bridge.
That is different from the WWB, but it should work fine if they coordinate plans.
Been good for 60 years.
When the problem with the beam was found, NJTA was the "lead" agency coordinating the repair despite it being on the PA side of the bridge.
When the PTC was upgrading their half of the span with LED lighting, it was weird having it switch to the old Sodium style lights mid-span. The bridge is fully converted now, and...is honestly in the best shape it has been in years, nice dark green paint, brand new suspender ropes. Just needs a full redecking but that is probably going to wait for the twin span.
Sign Update:
Observations as of Dec. 22 (northbound) and Dec. 28(southbound):
On the PA side, the diagrammatic approach signs for the I-95 South/I-276 West split and the related lane striping has been modified. RIGHT LANE legends have been added underneath the 95 SOUTH Philadelphia listings and the lower part of the diagrammatic arrow has been 'snipped' to only show two lanes (where it originally showed three lanes in its entirety).
The striping approaching the I-95/276 gore has been modified the through-I-95 southbound movement utilizes only the right lane. I guess these mods were done in reaction to PA Turnpike-bound traffic accidentally following I-95 southbound (to the Delaware Expressway) when such wanted to remain along the Turnpike (I-276).
Both southbound pull-through signs at Exit 8A still do not have I-95 shields placed on them.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2020, 12:00:31 PM
On the PA side, the diagrammatic approach signs for the I-95 South/I-276 West split and the related lane striping has been modified. RIGHT LANE legends have been added underneath the 95 SOUTH Philadelphia listings and the lower part of the diagrammatic arrow has been 'snipped' to only show two lanes (where it originally showed three lanes in its entirety).
The striping approaching the I-95/276 gore has been modified the through-I-95 southbound movement utilizes only the right lane. I guess these mods were done in reaction to PA Turnpike-bound traffic accidentally following I-95 southbound (to the Delaware Expressway) when such wanted to remain along the Turnpike (I-276).
"Snipping" the diagrammatic to show where the lane actually starts was something I've thought they should have done, too, so it's good to see them actually do it, though I'd have preferred that to be done without changing the lanes at the same time. Still, if people I know from the area are any indication, changing the designations was confusing enough without physically changing where the lanes point.
I do think that ultimately having two lanes of continuity for I-95 should be the goal, though. Hopefully the eventual westbound widening between the US 13 interchange and the I-95 flyover will allow for this to be done with less confusing signage and lane configurations.
Was any other signage changed beyond adding "RIGHT LANE" to the diagrammatics?
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 02, 2020, 02:56:27 PMI do think that ultimately having two lanes of continuity for I-95 should be the goal, though. Hopefully the eventual westbound widening between the US 13 interchange and the I-95 flyover will allow for this to be done with less confusing signage and lane configurations.
One could hope for such.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 02, 2020, 02:56:27 PMWas any other signage changed beyond adding "RIGHT LANE" to the diagrammatics?
Not that I'm aware of; but the alteration to those diagrammatics now makes those signs consistent with the earlier-installed/mentioned, ground-mounted
95 SOUTH RIGHT LANE sign.
Worth noting as well is the recent change of control at the U.S. 13 interchange (on the U.S. 13 side) from a grade separation to a signalized intersection. This occurred in the last month, with a combination of permanent and temporary signal head mountings in use for the control.
The ramp bridge and connector ramps east of U.S. 13 are now closed and assumed to be demolished in the near future.
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Worth noting as well is the recent change of control at the U.S. 13 interchange (on the U.S. 13 side) from a grade separation to a signalized intersection. This occurred in the last month, with a combination of permanent and temporary signal head mountings in use for the control.
The ramp bridge and connector ramps east of U.S. 13 are now closed and assumed to be demolished in the near future.
While such is, sadly, inevitable, I still don't believe that converting that trumpet into a signalized intersection is a good idea; especially given its close proximity to the Green Lane intersection signal just north of there & the Wawa store/gas station.
Well ... like it or not, it is consistent with the reconstruction of the surrounding sections of U.S. 13 into more of a boulevard, with left turns replacing jug handle movements.
Also of note is that the mast arm sign for the connector says "Pa Turnpike," not I-95.
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 10:25:00 PM
Well ... like it or not, it is consistent with the reconstruction of the surrounding sections of U.S. 13 into more of a boulevard, with left turns replacing jug handle movements.
Also of note is that the mast arm sign for the connector says "Pa Turnpike," not I-95.
The name sign on the signal mast arm? Are any other permanent signs up?
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2020, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Worth noting as well is the recent change of control at the U.S. 13 interchange (on the U.S. 13 side) from a grade separation to a signalized intersection. This occurred in the last month, with a combination of permanent and temporary signal head mountings in use for the control.
The ramp bridge and connector ramps east of U.S. 13 are now closed and assumed to be demolished in the near future.
While such is, sadly, inevitable, I still don't believe that converting that trumpet into a signalized intersection is a good idea; especially given its close proximity to the Green Lane intersection signal just north of there & the Wawa store/gas station.
They would have had to rebuild it anyway, at its age. So this is a more cost-effective solution given traffic volumes.
Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2020, 12:42:37 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2020, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Worth noting as well is the recent change of control at the U.S. 13 interchange (on the U.S. 13 side) from a grade separation to a signalized intersection. This occurred in the last month, with a combination of permanent and temporary signal head mountings in use for the control.
The ramp bridge and connector ramps east of U.S. 13 are now closed and assumed to be demolished in the near future.
While such is, sadly, inevitable, I still don't believe that converting that trumpet into a signalized intersection is a good idea; especially given its close proximity to the Green Lane intersection signal just north of there & the Wawa store/gas station.
They would have had to rebuild it anyway, at its age. So this is a more cost-effective solution given traffic volumes.
Yes, such was going to need to be rebuilt/replaced. As far as traffic volumes are concerned: the latest counts (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Bucks_tv.pdf), which predate the opening of the I-95/PA Turnpike Connector ramps by about a year (2017), for that stretch of US 13/Bristol Pike range from 23,000 to 31,000 AADT with the higher total being for the stretch just below the interchange (I-95-PA Turnpike/US 13). I'd be very curious to know if said-totals have indeed dropped since the ramps opened over a year ago. Given that US 13 south of the interchange was undergoing a massive reconstruction project for a few years beforehand; the (most likely through-traffic) volumes might have temporarily dropped during that time period as well.
Another thing to consider: with the Act 44-related annual PA Turnpike toll increases including the AET-Delaware River Bridge;
could US 13
north of the Turnpike interchange see an uptick in traffic volume? I mentioned such several posts/pages back that one lower-cost alternate into PA would be to use US 1 south in Trenton to US 13 south as a means to reach I-95 and/or the PA Turnpike. The Expressway portion of US 13 ends just over 2 miles north its I-95/PA Turnpike interchange. While long-distance through-traffic will not likely utilize such a routing; it's possible that more localized through-traffic could opt for such routing. The Wawa store/gas station, a known attraction for local traffic, adjacent to the interchange has been there since the late 90s.
Long story short: any anticipated drop in traffic volumes along that stretch of US 13 as a result of the I-95/276/295/PA Turnpike interchange opening that would justify a downgrade of the US 13 interchange/connector may be either short-lived and/or greatly exaggerated.
Mid-December, I drove the PA Tpk/95 towards NJ and there was a large billboard on the left sign, just before the connector bridge, saying "DON'T FOLLOW YOUR GPS", with instructions to follow the signage for EZ Pass or Cash/Full Service. Apparently many GPS systems are set up to have motorists go thru the EZ Pass lane at Exit 6, and doesn't reflect that if you're going to pay cash, ignore your GPS.
The billboard was a nearly perfect rendition of a GPS-style sign. It was done so well, I almost want to believe the NJTA paid for that billboard. The billboard's location was visible here: https://goo.gl/maps/p3LWXSDtZyp8XiHr7
It was a rainy night when I first saw it. I went the route again about 2 weeks later to get a picture, but it had since been replaced.
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 10:25:00 PM
Also of note is that the mast arm sign for the connector says “Pa Turnpike,” not I-95.
I could only imagine that, being these things are in engineering/design phases for so long, that "PA Turnpike" was chosen as it was before I-95 was completed, and the design never updated to reflect 95.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 02, 2020, 11:07:33 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 10:25:00 PM
Well ... like it or not, it is consistent with the reconstruction of the surrounding sections of U.S. 13 into more of a boulevard, with left turns replacing jug handle movements.
Also of note is that the mast arm sign for the connector says "Pa Turnpike," not I-95.
The name sign on the signal mast arm? Are any other permanent signs up?
No. The barricade-mounted junction/trailblazer assemblies were just moved to the new locations. I would expect permanent signs when demolition of the bridge and ramps is complete.
Edited to correct quote structure.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2020, 09:31:09 AM...there was a large billboard on the left sign, just before the connector bridge, saying "DON'T FOLLOW YOUR GPS", with instructions to follow the signage for EZ Pass or Cash/Full Service.
As of the last week of December, similar billboards were in place on I-476 southbound approaching Mid County and I-476 northbound approaching the E-ZPass-only interchange at PA 903. I wouldn't be surprised if similar billboards have been posted approaching the Gateway and Warrendale barrier tolls and near other E-ZPass only exits like PA 29.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2020, 09:31:09 AMApparently many GPS systems are set up to have motorists go thru the EZ Pass lane...
As far as I know, most navigation software is set to seek the fastest route and is completely oblivious to any restrictions regarding the need to have an electronic toll pass to use segment of a roadway. I've routinely been advised to use tagholder-only toll plaza bypass lanes, ETC express lanes, and so on–regardless of whether I have the corresponding toll pass or not. If going through the express lane will shave ten seconds off the travel time, the nav software will tell you to do it.
Some visiting in-laws called me in a panic because they had picked up a toll ticket on the NE Extension in NEPA but had driven through the E-ZPass-only express lanes at Mid County. Their defense was that the navigation app kept commanding them "KEEP LEFT. KEEP LEFT." and that they didn't want to get lost (in the big, mean city). Though that doesn't excuse them for ignoring the very clear signage, I can imagine that is a terribly common occurrence and an endless source of calls to the PTC's E-ZPass call center.
Yes, people should be smarter, but navigation software makers should also implement some mechanism to either assume that the user doesn't have a toll pass, ask them whether they do, or provide conditional instructions for both scenarios ("If you are paying cash, keep right..." ).
My car's navigation system always directs me into the toll plaza (cash) lanes at an express/cash split. I have not paid much attention to the settings, but I guess it does not assume E-ZPass (or similar transponder).
Mine routinely directs me to "stay left" at the Ft McHenry tunnel (towards the EZPASS only lane, though you do have both options in that tube) and to "stay left" at the Delaware Turnpike toll plaza (into the EZ Pass express lanes). Which works for me, but I'm sure would be a problem for others.
Quote from: akotchi on January 03, 2020, 12:21:54 PM
My car's navigation system always directs me into the toll plaza (cash) lanes at an express/cash split. I have not paid much attention to the settings, but I guess it does not assume E-ZPass (or similar transponder).
You can set a toll transponder in the settings so it directs you to cashless lanes/roads when you have the appropriate transponder.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 03, 2020, 11:58:02 AM
Yes, people should be smarter, but navigation software makers should also implement some mechanism to either assume that the user doesn't have a toll pass, ask them whether they do, or provide conditional instructions for both scenarios ("If you are paying cash, keep right..." ).
IMO, it shouldn't really direct you to either. If silence really isn't an option, perhaps "Toll plaza ahead. Please read signs."
Quote from: famartin on January 03, 2020, 01:47:59 PM
Mine routinely directs me to "stay left" at the Ft McHenry tunnel (towards the EZPASS only lane, though you do have both options in that tube) and to "stay left" at the Delaware Turnpike toll plaza (into the EZ Pass express lanes). Which works for me, but I'm sure would be a problem for others.
My JPS tells me to get off Exit 2B southbound or Exit 109B Northbound :)
I'm in Connecticut and even I got that one! :D
I believe a portion of CT Route 3 in Cromwell is even known as Shunpike Road...right by CT Route 9 and 372.
Anyways...back to Pennsylvania now! :)
You shouldn't have gotten it...being that Delaware doesn't have an interchange 2! 😁
(It's Exit 1B for those that are unfamiliar with the reference.)
But I know they were supposed to! I saw the warning signs on the local roads when a friend and I stayed at a motel in Elkton, MD in June of 2014. I don't think we were even a mile from the state line.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2020, 01:52:38 AM
You shouldn't have gotten it...being that Delaware doesn't have an interchange 2! 😁
(It's Exit 1B for those that are unfamiliar with the reference.)
I was thinking ahead to mileage based exits. My bad.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2020, 08:59:12 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2020, 12:42:37 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2020, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Worth noting as well is the recent change of control at the U.S. 13 interchange (on the U.S. 13 side) from a grade separation to a signalized intersection. This occurred in the last month, with a combination of permanent and temporary signal head mountings in use for the control.
The ramp bridge and connector ramps east of U.S. 13 are now closed and assumed to be demolished in the near future.
While such is, sadly, inevitable, I still don't believe that converting that trumpet into a signalized intersection is a good idea; especially given its close proximity to the Green Lane intersection signal just north of there & the Wawa store/gas station.
They would have had to rebuild it anyway, at its age. So this is a more cost-effective solution given traffic volumes.
Yes, such was going to need to be rebuilt/replaced. As far as traffic volumes are concerned: the latest counts (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Bucks_tv.pdf), which predate the opening of the I-95/PA Turnpike Connector ramps by about a year (2017), for that stretch of US 13/Bristol Pike range from 23,000 to 31,000 AADT with the higher total being for the stretch just below the interchange (I-95-PA Turnpike/US 13). I'd be very curious to know if said-totals have indeed dropped since the ramps opened over a year ago. Given that US 13 south of the interchange was undergoing a massive reconstruction project for a few years beforehand; the (most likely through-traffic) volumes might have temporarily dropped during that time period as well.
Another thing to consider: with the Act 44-related annual PA Turnpike toll increases including the AET-Delaware River Bridge; could US 13 north of the Turnpike interchange see an uptick in traffic volume? I mentioned such several posts/pages back that one lower-cost alternate into PA would be to use US 1 south in Trenton to US 13 south as a means to reach I-95 and/or the PA Turnpike. The Expressway portion of US 13 ends just over 2 miles north its I-95/PA Turnpike interchange. While long-distance through-traffic will not likely utilize such a routing; it's possible that more localized through-traffic could opt for such routing. The Wawa store/gas station, a known attraction for local traffic, adjacent to the interchange has been there since the late 90s.
Long story short: any anticipated drop in traffic volumes along that stretch of US 13 as a result of the I-95/276/295/PA Turnpike interchange opening that would justify a downgrade of the US 13 interchange/connector may be either short-lived and/or greatly exaggerated.
31,000 is acceptable for a four-lane arterial with a traffic signal. Not tremendously great, but not terrible. It could be a bit sluggish in the peak direction, but then again, a lot of that traffic may be turning off at the PA Tpk.
Quote from: Alps on January 05, 2020, 10:22:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 03, 2020, 08:59:12 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 03, 2020, 12:42:37 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2020, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Worth noting as well is the recent change of control at the U.S. 13 interchange (on the U.S. 13 side) from a grade separation to a signalized intersection. This occurred in the last month, with a combination of permanent and temporary signal head mountings in use for the control.
The ramp bridge and connector ramps east of U.S. 13 are now closed and assumed to be demolished in the near future.
While such is, sadly, inevitable, I still don't believe that converting that trumpet into a signalized intersection is a good idea; especially given its close proximity to the Green Lane intersection signal just north of there & the Wawa store/gas station.
They would have had to rebuild it anyway, at its age. So this is a more cost-effective solution given traffic volumes.
Yes, such was going to need to be rebuilt/replaced. As far as traffic volumes are concerned: the latest counts (http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/BPR_PDF_FILES/MAPS/Traffic/Traffic_Volume/County_Maps/Bucks_tv.pdf), which predate the opening of the I-95/PA Turnpike Connector ramps by about a year (2017), for that stretch of US 13/Bristol Pike range from 23,000 to 31,000 AADT with the higher total being for the stretch just below the interchange (I-95-PA Turnpike/US 13). I'd be very curious to know if said-totals have indeed dropped since the ramps opened over a year ago. Given that US 13 south of the interchange was undergoing a massive reconstruction project for a few years beforehand; the (most likely through-traffic) volumes might have temporarily dropped during that time period as well.
Another thing to consider: with the Act 44-related annual PA Turnpike toll increases including the AET-Delaware River Bridge; could US 13 north of the Turnpike interchange see an uptick in traffic volume? I mentioned such several posts/pages back that one lower-cost alternate into PA would be to use US 1 south in Trenton to US 13 south as a means to reach I-95 and/or the PA Turnpike. The Expressway portion of US 13 ends just over 2 miles north its I-95/PA Turnpike interchange. While long-distance through-traffic will not likely utilize such a routing; it's possible that more localized through-traffic could opt for such routing. The Wawa store/gas station, a known attraction for local traffic, adjacent to the interchange has been there since the late 90s.
Long story short: any anticipated drop in traffic volumes along that stretch of US 13 as a result of the I-95/276/295/PA Turnpike interchange opening that would justify a downgrade of the US 13 interchange/connector may be either short-lived and/or greatly exaggerated.
31,000 is acceptable for a four-lane arterial with a traffic signal. Not tremendously great, but not terrible. It could be a bit sluggish in the peak direction, but then again, a lot of that traffic may be turning off at the PA Tpk.
Here's the thing; as we all know, the current I-95/PA Turnpike interchange does not yet have all its remaining interchange ramps built yet.
The absence of those ramps means that:
1. Traffic coming from either the Delaware River Bridge or in the immediate Bristol area seeking to access I-295 in PA will
still utilize US 13/Bristol Pike south of the Turnpike to PA 413 as a means of reaching I-295.
2. Traffic heading northbound along I-95 from Philly seeking to access I-276, despite PennDOT's premature covering of the top portion of this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0961395,-74.9163545,3a,75y,43.58h,76.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXjnopdiSarsf1A0i1uFPYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), will
still use PA 413 to US 13 as a means to access the westbound PA Turnpike (to I-276).
Once those remaining ramps are built, then the majority of US 13/Bristol Pike traffic will indeed be O&D.
One has to wonder if the decision to convert the US 13/Turnpike trumpet into an intersection was based on the presumption that the I-95/276/295 interchange will be
fully-built movement-wise.
Speculating that the intersection conversion was a portion of the overall project that could be completed with the available funding, so it was included in Phase 1. Not sure whether missing ramps were considered in phasing the overall project, but perhaps not in order to mix and match with the funding.
Speculating also that the intersection design is also consistent with the reconstruction of U.S. 13 to a lower-speed boulevard, as this eliminates the grade separation, which can be perceived as higher-speed. This, by the way, does not imply comment of any kind on whether the mainline reconstruction had the desired impact . . .
If I remember right, the other 6 movements of that interchange were considered Phase 2 and twinning the bridge is Phase 3. Which (if either) actually gets built first is anyone's guess.
Quote
1. Traffic coming from either the Delaware River Bridge or in the immediate Bristol area seeking to access I-295 in PA will still utilize US 13/Bristol Pike south of the Turnpike to PA 413 as a means of reaching I-295.
Actually you can access PA 413 directly from the I-95 SB flyover (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1182411,-74.888652,3a,75y,230.59h,94.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siX9K_S17RJakNnOW4yEDPA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Quote2. Traffic heading northbound along I-95 from Philly seeking to access I-276, despite PennDOT's premature covering of the top portion of this sign, will still use PA 413 to US 13 as a means to access the westbound PA Turnpike (to I-276).
I would think that most I-95 NB traffic to I-276 WB would either take PA 63 WB or PA 132 WB to US 1 NB to get there at Exit 351.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 07, 2020, 09:05:09 AM
Quote
1. Traffic coming from either the Delaware River Bridge or in the immediate Bristol area seeking to access I-295 in PA will still utilize US 13/Bristol Pike south of the Turnpike to PA 413 as a means of reaching I-295.
Actually you can access PA 413 directly from the I-95 SB flyover (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1182411,-74.888652,3a,75y,230.59h,94.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siX9K_S17RJakNnOW4yEDPA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
I think he meant traffic heading for eastbound I-295, not PA 413 itself. You could take the flyover and get off at Exit 39 and U-turn at the light, though, which may actually be quicker than using US 13 to PA 413.
Unless you're getting off at Business US 1, though, you're probably better off just taking the Turnpike all the way over to US 1 and taking that up to I-295. US 1 to the north and US 1/Woodhaven Road to the south make using the PA 413/US 13 connection unnecessary for most trips.
Street Road (PA 132) is a disaster most of the time, so not a good way to access the Turnpike. As noted, until recently PA 413 was the officially-signed way to get to the Turnpike, but Woodhaven Rd. to the Boulevard (PA 63 to U.S. 1) would likely work better. It is also the reverse route of how the Turnpike signs for eastbound traffic to get to I-95 SB.
I am a bit surprised that no signing is provided on the Turnpike section of I-95 SB to get to I-295 EB.
Quote from: akotchi on January 07, 2020, 09:33:59 AM
I am a bit surprised that no signing is provided on the Turnpike section of I-95 SB to get to I-295 EB.
There should probably be one on I-95 before the interchange, but there's a supplemental sign on I-276 westbound approaching US 1 for I-295 toward Princeton, right? There's definitely one eastbound, since the main BGSes only reference I-95 southbound.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 07, 2020, 09:20:57 AMUnless you're getting off at Business US 1, though, you're probably better off just taking the Turnpike all the way over to US 1 and taking that up to I-295. US 1 to the north and US 1/Woodhaven Road to the south make using the PA 413/US 13 connection unnecessary for most trips.
The one issue with using the Turnpike to US 1 from the I-95/276 split is that such a routing is tolled beyond the split.
Quote from: akotchi on January 07, 2020, 09:33:59 AM
Street Road (PA 132) is a disaster most of the time, so not a good way to access the Turnpike. As noted, until recently PA 413 was the officially-signed way to get to the Turnpike, but Woodhaven Rd. to the Boulevard (PA 63 to U.S. 1) would likely work better. It is also the reverse route of how the Turnpike signs for eastbound traffic to get to I-95 SB.
I mentioned similar several pages back regarding PennDOT's covering that upper portion of that supplemental I-276 BGS for now-Exit 39. If a supplemental sign directing I-95 northbounders to use the PA 63 interchange (Exit 35) as a means of reaching I-276 instead of Exit 39/PA 413 (there isn't); than partially covering that fore-mention BGS south of Exit 39 would've made some sense.
Quote from: akotchi on January 07, 2020, 09:33:59 AMI am a bit surprised that no signing is provided on the Turnpike section of I-95 SB to get to I-295 EB.
Given the close proximity of the US 13 interchange (Exit 42) with respect to the AET gantry, Delaware River/NJ border, there probably wasn't sufficient room on the PA side to place such signage (directing those seeking I-295 in PA to use US 13). While one could use Exit 39 off I-95 southbound and conceivably make a U-turn to access I-95 northbound to I-295 as Roadsguy mentioned; but I don't believe either the PTC or PennDOT want to actively sign or encourage such a movement.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 07, 2020, 09:52:36 AMThere should probably be one on I-95 before the interchange, but there's a supplemental sign on I-276 westbound approaching US 1 for I-295 toward Princeton, right?
Such is not known nor verified; but, again, such a routing is tolled between the I-95/276 split and US 1.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 07, 2020, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 07, 2020, 09:05:09 AM
Quote
1. Traffic coming from either the Delaware River Bridge or in the immediate Bristol area seeking to access I-295 in PA will still utilize US 13/Bristol Pike south of the Turnpike to PA 413 as a means of reaching I-295.
Actually you can access PA 413 directly from the I-95 SB flyover (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1182411,-74.888652,3a,75y,230.59h,94.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siX9K_S17RJakNnOW4yEDPA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
I think he meant traffic heading for eastbound I-295, not PA 413 itself. You could take the flyover and get off at Exit 39 and U-turn at the light, though, which may actually be quicker than using US 13 to PA 413.
Unless you're getting off at Business US 1, though, you're probably better off just taking the Turnpike all the way over to US 1 and taking that up to I-295. US 1 to the north and US 1/Woodhaven Road to the south make using the PA 413/US 13 connection unnecessary for most trips.
I was imagining taking PA 413 NB to access I-295 from the US 1 BUS/PA 413 Concurrency. Though one if not both of your suggestions are potentially quicker.
Quote from: akotchi on January 02, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Worth noting as well is the recent change of control at the U.S. 13 interchange (on the U.S. 13 side) from a grade separation to a signalized intersection. ... The ramp bridge and connector ramps east of U.S. 13 are now closed and assumed to be demolished in the near future.
Four reasons for doing so:
- As someone else posted here before, it was for pedestrian safety. The far side of US-13 would be out of harm's way, apart from that new jughandle (for "official use only"?)
- On-ramps leading to non-freeways tend to be way more trouble than they're worth, unless there is a lane added and/or a very long merge area. Otherwise, there needs to be a STOP sign, and it's easier to look at a right angle than twist your neck 135 degrees.
- On some of the tighter trumpet ramps, tractor-trailers are prone to tipping. Not to mention the tendency for any vehicle to spin in icy weather. A left-turn lane might not be as "elegant", but in that sense it's generally safer.
- It's been my observation that, in the heyday of turnpike/toll road construction in the 50's, a trumpet ramp to the local road would be built at most exits even if it wasn't really needed. Look at interchange 8 on the NJTP; it was originally built with a trumpet leading to a 2-lane road. But with the widening and connection to Route 133, it's a 4-lane section of Route 33 that gets a traffic signal.
Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf):
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
This seems much more ambitious than the simple construction of a new three-lane bridge that was originally part of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this newer plan yet on the interchange project website.
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 18, 2020, 02:54:08 PM
Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf):
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
This seems much more ambitious than the simple construction of a new three-lane bridge that was originally part of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this newer plan yet on the interchange project website.
Probably due to the failure on the existing bridge a few years ago.
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 03:35:35 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 18, 2020, 02:54:08 PM
Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf):
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
This seems much more ambitious than the simple construction of a new three-lane bridge that was originally part of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this newer plan yet on the interchange project website.
Probably due to the failure on the existing bridge a few years ago.
I would imagine so. They stabilized P0.0 when that beam failure happened, but I would have to imagine it made it obvious that keeping the existing bridge wasn't feasible and it needed to be replaced. If you're going to change the plan and go for a complete replacement, why not make it four lanes each way. I'd be curious if they'd keep that fourth lane only between 130 on the NJ side and 13 on the PA side.
Quote from: storm2k on March 18, 2020, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 03:35:35 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 18, 2020, 02:54:08 PM
Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf):
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
This seems much more ambitious than the simple construction of a new three-lane bridge that was originally part of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this newer plan yet on the interchange project website.
Probably due to the failure on the existing bridge a few years ago.
I would imagine so. They stabilized P0.0 when that beam failure happened, but I would have to imagine it made it obvious that keeping the existing bridge wasn't feasible and it needed to be replaced. If you're going to change the plan and go for a complete replacement, why not make it four lanes each way. I'd be curious if they'd keep that fourth lane only between 130 on the NJ side and 13 on the PA side.
I suspect they'd build for 8 but stripe as 6, leaving the extra lane in reserve.
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$500 Million (NJTA portion only)
So PTC would also need to be in agreement, and their half of the bridge may cost another $500 million.
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 06:47:05 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 18, 2020, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 03:35:35 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 18, 2020, 02:54:08 PM
Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf):
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
This seems much more ambitious than the simple construction of a new three-lane bridge that was originally part of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this newer plan yet on the interchange project website.
Probably due to the failure on the existing bridge a few years ago.
I would imagine so. They stabilized P0.0 when that beam failure happened, but I would have to imagine it made it obvious that keeping the existing bridge wasn't feasible and it needed to be replaced. If you're going to change the plan and go for a complete replacement, why not make it four lanes each way. I'd be curious if they'd keep that fourth lane only between 130 on the NJ side and 13 on the PA side.
I suspect they'd build for 8 but stripe as 6, leaving the extra lane in reserve.
Probably. It doesn't really need to be eight lanes yet, and the widened portions on the PA side aren't designed for four through lanes each way. The SB 95/WB Turnpike side could be adapted as IIRC it's still in final design, but NB 95/EB Turnpike would need at minimum to have the bridge over Mill Creek widened with an extra lane on that side for a deceleration lane for the US 13 exit. Ideally it would simply be ultimately five lanes between the I-95/Turnpike merge and the US 13 exit, but that would require replacing the Bristol Oxford Valley Road bridge again or narrowing the shoulders under the bridge.
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 18, 2020, 10:43:06 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 06:47:05 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 18, 2020, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 03:35:35 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 18, 2020, 02:54:08 PM
Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf):
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
This seems much more ambitious than the simple construction of a new three-lane bridge that was originally part of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this newer plan yet on the interchange project website.
Probably due to the failure on the existing bridge a few years ago.
I would imagine so. They stabilized P0.0 when that beam failure happened, but I would have to imagine it made it obvious that keeping the existing bridge wasn't feasible and it needed to be replaced. If you're going to change the plan and go for a complete replacement, why not make it four lanes each way. I'd be curious if they'd keep that fourth lane only between 130 on the NJ side and 13 on the PA side.
I suspect they'd build for 8 but stripe as 6, leaving the extra lane in reserve.
Probably. It doesn't really need to be eight lanes yet, and the widened portions on the PA side aren't designed for four through lanes each way. The SB 95/WB Turnpike side could be adapted as IIRC it's still in final design, but NB 95/EB Turnpike would need at minimum to have the bridge over Mill Creek widened with an extra lane on that side for a deceleration lane for the US 13 exit. Ideally it would simply be ultimately five lanes between the I-95/Turnpike merge and the US 13 exit, but that would require replacing the Bristol Oxford Valley Road bridge again or narrowing the shoulders under the bridge.
You all know the new bridge isn't opening tomorrow, right? Let's let time take its course, and when it does open in 10 years or whatever we'll see how many lanes are needed then.
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 06:47:05 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 18, 2020, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 03:35:35 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 18, 2020, 02:54:08 PM
Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf):
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
This seems much more ambitious than the simple construction of a new three-lane bridge that was originally part of the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project. There doesn't seem to be any mention of this newer plan yet on the interchange project website.
Probably due to the failure on the existing bridge a few years ago.
I would imagine so. They stabilized P0.0 when that beam failure happened, but I would have to imagine it made it obvious that keeping the existing bridge wasn't feasible and it needed to be replaced. If you're going to change the plan and go for a complete replacement, why not make it four lanes each way. I'd be curious if they'd keep that fourth lane only between 130 on the NJ side and 13 on the PA side.
I suspect they'd build for 8 but stripe as 6, leaving the extra lane in reserve.
It's going to be up to the actual design process, but based on recent projects (Great Egg Harbor on the Parkway), they may be making each bridge wide enough to carry 2 lanes of traffic each way, which would be useful for construction and maintenance purposes. It also could change totally once the design process starts. They may be putting the most costly alternative in so that they're prepared for it, and then if they end up at a less costly alternative, great, more money for something else to get done.
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2020, 12:49:00 AM
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 06:47:05 PM
I suspect they'd build for 8 but stripe as 6, leaving the extra lane in reserve.
It's going to be up to the actual design process, but based on recent projects (Great Egg Harbor on the Parkway), they may be making each bridge wide enough to carry 2 lanes of traffic each way, which would be useful for construction and maintenance purposes. It also could change totally once the design process starts. They may be putting the most costly alternative in so that they're prepared for it, and then if they end up at a less costly alternative, great, more money for something else to get done.
Depends on shoulder design as well. The PROPOSED 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM didn't specify.
An ultimate 4 lanes with minimal right and left shoulders would be 52 feet wide. An initial 3 lanes would have a 10 foot right shoulder and a 6 foot left shoulder, on a 52 foot wide deck.
An ultimate 4 lanes with full right and left shoulders would be 68 feet wide.
Quote from: Beltway on March 19, 2020, 07:26:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2020, 12:49:00 AM
Quote from: famartin on March 18, 2020, 06:47:05 PM
I suspect they'd build for 8 but stripe as 6, leaving the extra lane in reserve.
It's going to be up to the actual design process, but based on recent projects (Great Egg Harbor on the Parkway), they may be making each bridge wide enough to carry 2 lanes of traffic each way, which would be useful for construction and maintenance purposes. It also could change totally once the design process starts. They may be putting the most costly alternative in so that they're prepared for it, and then if they end up at a less costly alternative, great, more money for something else to get done.
Depends on shoulder design as well. The PROPOSED 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM didn't specify.
An ultimate 4 lanes with minimal right and left shoulders would be 52 feet wide. An initial 3 lanes would have a 10 foot right shoulder and a 6 foot left shoulder, on a 52 foot wide deck.
An ultimate 4 lanes with full right and left shoulders would be 68 feet wide.
NJTA is pretty religious with shoulders, so I'd bet that at minimum, there'd be full right shoulder even with 4 lanes. They may do full shoulders both inside and out; it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
When is the new bridge going to be built?
Quote from: bluecountry on March 19, 2020, 05:34:13 PM
When is the new bridge going to be built?
Given all the projects lined up ahead of it, I'd guess 15 years at least. I could imagine them rushing that if the existing span shows more signs of deterioration.
Quote from: famartin on March 19, 2020, 06:29:00 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on March 19, 2020, 05:34:13 PM
When is the new bridge going to be built?
Given all the projects lined up ahead of it, I'd guess 15 years at least. I could imagine them rushing that if the existing span shows more signs of deterioration.
You know something? Even I have no idea what may come first or last out of that project list. Even if I have my own ideas as to what I'd prioritize, it's not my call. And I'm pretty sure they're not listening to our priorities here on the forum. ;)
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2020, 08:28:50 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 19, 2020, 06:29:00 PM
Given all the projects lined up ahead of it, I'd guess 15 years at least. I could imagine them rushing that if the existing span shows more signs of deterioration.
You know something? Even I have no idea what may come first or last out of that project list. Even if I have my own ideas as to what I'd prioritize, it's not my call. And I'm pretty sure they're not listening to our priorities here on the forum. ;)
None of those projects have yet been programmed for Construction in the 2020 CIP.
That being the 3 widening projects between exits 1 and 4, and the river bridges.
All of them have 60 months programmed for Planning & Design, and it appears that those activities have not yet begun.
Quote from: Beltway on March 19, 2020, 09:46:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2020, 08:28:50 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 19, 2020, 06:29:00 PM
Given all the projects lined up ahead of it, I'd guess 15 years at least. I could imagine them rushing that if the existing span shows more signs of deterioration.
You know something? Even I have no idea what may come first or last out of that project list. Even if I have my own ideas as to what I'd prioritize, it's not my call. And I'm pretty sure they're not listening to our priorities here on the forum. ;)
None of those projects have yet been programmed for Construction in the 2020 CIP.
That being the 3 widening projects between exits 1 and 4, and the river bridges.
All of them have 60 months programmed for Planning & Design, and it appears that those activities have not yet begun.
The PTC has updated their Delaware River Bridge page. They will indeed be doing a full replacement, and they have begun the initial planning stages, starting with re-evaluating environmental impacts. Construction is many years away...
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/delaware-river-bridge.aspx
I would suspect it is going to be 6 lanes period. Everything leading up to the construction of the second bridge was designed for a 6 lane crossing, not an 8. It is going to be sad to see the bridge go. Wasn't the original plan to build a similar arched truss bridge parallel to it? If so, i wonder if the new one will retain that design commonality or just be an entirely new design? I know traditionally replacements use the same pier spacing on the main river span to allow for easier navigation unless there is a navigational issue, and that would mean building a similar span would be the best option if they have to do that. I would not mind a big beautiful cable stay span there though.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 07:30:58 AM
I would suspect it is going to be 6 lanes period. Everything leading up to the construction of the second bridge was designed for a 6 lane crossing, not an 8. It is going to be sad to see the bridge go. Wasn't the original plan to build a similar arched truss bridge parallel to it? If so, i wonder if the new one will retain that design commonality or just be an entirely new design? I know traditionally replacements use the same pier spacing on the main river span to allow for easier navigation unless there is a navigational issue, and that would mean building a similar span would be the best option if they have to do that. I would not mind a big beautiful cable stay span there though.
Section E (the reconstruction of the remainder of the Delaware Valley Interchange ramps and the
westbound southbound mainline widening) is still in final design, I believe, so it shouldn't be unfeasible at this point to modify the design to support four through lanes from the I-95/Turnpike interchange to the bridge. Like I said before, ideally there would be five lanes
eastbound northbound passing under Bristol Oxford Valley Road, but that would require replacing the bridge again or sacrificing full shoulder widths, neither of which the PTC is likely willing to do, not to mention widening the Mill Creek bridge.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 07:30:58 AM
I would suspect it is going to be 6 lanes period. Everything leading up to the construction of the second bridge was designed for a 6 lane crossing, not an 8. It is going to be sad to see the bridge go. Wasn't the original plan to build a similar arched truss bridge parallel to it? If so, i wonder if the new one will retain that design commonality or just be an entirely new design? I know traditionally replacements use the same pier spacing on the main river span to allow for easier navigation unless there is a navigational issue, and that would mean building a similar span would be the best option if they have to do that. I would not mind a big beautiful cable stay span there though.
Basically, pretend nothing previously happened. Per the linked story, the original design was based on a 2003 report. Studies look at traffic 25 years into the future. So we're already thru 60% or so of that study period.
So, every study they will conduct and every design they'll put together will be completely. They may lightly reference the old study, but they won't utilize much from it.
Even if they started today, they'll be looking at traffic forecasts for 2045. They will determine everything that relates to a 6 lane or 8 lane bridge. Or whatever traffic demands. Since the NJ Turnpike is involved, who knows...maybe they'll consider a 4 roadway system for cars and trucks. They will look at bridge designs and navigation widths and heights. Nothing is off the table.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2020, 01:18:49 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 07:30:58 AM
I would suspect it is going to be 6 lanes period. Everything leading up to the construction of the second bridge was designed for a 6 lane crossing, not an 8. It is going to be sad to see the bridge go. Wasn't the original plan to build a similar arched truss bridge parallel to it? If so, i wonder if the new one will retain that design commonality or just be an entirely new design? I know traditionally replacements use the same pier spacing on the main river span to allow for easier navigation unless there is a navigational issue, and that would mean building a similar span would be the best option if they have to do that. I would not mind a big beautiful cable stay span there though.
Basically, pretend nothing previously happened. Per the linked story, the original design was based on a 2003 report. Studies look at traffic 25 years into the future. So we're already thru 60% or so of that study period.
So, every study they will conduct and every design they'll put together will be completely. They may lightly reference the old study, but they won't utilize much from it.
Even if they started today, they'll be looking at traffic forecasts for 2045. They will determine everything that relates to a 6 lane or 8 lane bridge. Or whatever traffic demands. Since the NJ Turnpike is involved, who knows...maybe they'll consider a 4 roadway system for cars and trucks. They will look at bridge designs and navigation widths and heights. Nothing is off the table.
I agree it would be nice to see a cable-stayed bridge here. I wonder what, ultimately, would be the cost of that option, versus others, ie. a suspension bridge or truss bridge. I have a feeling that whatever is the cheapest option will win out here with the PTC's financial difficulties, despite the NJTA paying half the cost.
Also, would they be able to secure federal funding for a new bridge? That could go a long way toward getting this built before the 2030's...
Quote from: Crown Victoria on April 04, 2020, 01:44:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2020, 01:18:49 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 07:30:58 AM
I would suspect it is going to be 6 lanes period. Everything leading up to the construction of the second bridge was designed for a 6 lane crossing, not an 8. It is going to be sad to see the bridge go. Wasn't the original plan to build a similar arched truss bridge parallel to it? If so, i wonder if the new one will retain that design commonality or just be an entirely new design? I know traditionally replacements use the same pier spacing on the main river span to allow for easier navigation unless there is a navigational issue, and that would mean building a similar span would be the best option if they have to do that. I would not mind a big beautiful cable stay span there though.
Basically, pretend nothing previously happened. Per the linked story, the original design was based on a 2003 report. Studies look at traffic 25 years into the future. So we're already thru 60% or so of that study period.
So, every study they will conduct and every design they'll put together will be completely. They may lightly reference the old study, but they won't utilize much from it.
Even if they started today, they'll be looking at traffic forecasts for 2045. They will determine everything that relates to a 6 lane or 8 lane bridge. Or whatever traffic demands. Since the NJ Turnpike is involved, who knows...maybe they'll consider a 4 roadway system for cars and trucks. They will look at bridge designs and navigation widths and heights. Nothing is off the table.
I agree it would be nice to see a cable-stayed bridge here. I wonder what, ultimately, would be the cost of that option, versus others, ie. a suspension bridge or truss bridge. I have a feeling that whatever is the cheapest option will win out here with the PTC's financial difficulties, despite the NJTA paying half the cost.
Also, would they be able to secure federal funding for a new bridge? That could go a long way toward getting this built before the 2030's...
Since as J&N said everything done before is off the table, let's look at this from a new perspective
I see it being either a Tied Network Arch bridge, Regular Tied Arch, or a Cable Stay. Concrete girders for the approaches,simple spans. Giant main span.
Cost being the main factor, and these three are probably the cheapest. It would also allow them to use a similar design for the Newark Bay twinning. if it has a similar main span length
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 01:54:44 PM
Cost being the main factor, and these three are probably the cheapest. It would also allow them to use a similar design for the Newark Bay twinning. if it has a similar main span length
These would be totally different projects, and can easily have different bridges. Height, width, right of way, clearance, approach roadways, and scores of other criteria etc all factor in. A cabled stayed bridge may have a higher total height and be cheapest and could be used at both locations, but if there's height restrictions due to air traffic at one of the locations, it will need to be nixed.
Realize that even a typical overpass design is researched at every...single...crossing, of which the Turnpike has hundreds. A large bridge will get the same treatment.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 01:54:44 PM
Since as J&N said everything done before is off the table, let's look at this from a new perspective
I see it being either a Tied Network Arch bridge, Regular Tied Arch, or a Cable Stay. Concrete girders for the approaches,simple spans. Giant main span.
Cost being the main factor, and these three are probably the cheapest. It would also allow them to use a similar design for the Newark Bay twinning. if it has a similar main span length
It might look also like the new Champlain bridge in Montreal. Will they also add a path for pedestrians and cyclists as well like the new Champlain bridge and the Goethals bridge between Elizabeth and Staten Island?
Quote from: famartin on March 19, 2020, 06:29:00 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on March 19, 2020, 05:34:13 PM
When is the new bridge going to be built?
Given all the projects lined up ahead of it, I'd guess 15 years at least. I could imagine them rushing that if the existing span shows more signs of deterioration.
Is there a list of all projects planned?
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 06, 2020, 08:50:07 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 01:54:44 PM
Since as J&N said everything done before is off the table, let's look at this from a new perspective
I see it being either a Tied Network Arch bridge, Regular Tied Arch, or a Cable Stay. Concrete girders for the approaches,simple spans. Giant main span.
Cost being the main factor, and these three are probably the cheapest. It would also allow them to use a similar design for the Newark Bay twinning. if it has a similar main span length
It might look also like the new Champlain bridge in Montreal. Will they also add a path for pedestrians and cyclists as well like the new Champlain bridge and the Goethals bridge between Elizabeth and Staten Island?
Or a "Breadbasket" ARch
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 06, 2020, 08:50:07 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 01:54:44 PM
Since as J&N said everything done before is off the table, let's look at this from a new perspective
I see it being either a Tied Network Arch bridge, Regular Tied Arch, or a Cable Stay. Concrete girders for the approaches,simple spans. Giant main span.
Cost being the main factor, and these three are probably the cheapest. It would also allow them to use a similar design for the Newark Bay twinning. if it has a similar main span length
It might look also like the new Champlain bridge in Montreal. Will they also add a path for pedestrians and cyclists as well like the new Champlain bridge and the Goethals bridge between Elizabeth and Staten Island?
Where would these pedestrians and cyclists be going? The Turnpikes don't exactly have facilities for them.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 06, 2020, 02:41:29 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 06, 2020, 08:50:07 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 01:54:44 PM
Since as J&N said everything done before is off the table, let's look at this from a new perspective
I see it being either a Tied Network Arch bridge, Regular Tied Arch, or a Cable Stay. Concrete girders for the approaches,simple spans. Giant main span.
Cost being the main factor, and these three are probably the cheapest. It would also allow them to use a similar design for the Newark Bay twinning. if it has a similar main span length
It might look also like the new Champlain bridge in Montreal. Will they also add a path for pedestrians and cyclists as well like the new Champlain bridge and the Goethals bridge between Elizabeth and Staten Island?
Where would these pedestrians and cyclists be going? The Turnpikes don't exactly have facilities for them.
It would be like most other bridges with ped/bike crossings. The pedestrian or bicyclist would access the walkway via ramp or stairs, cross the bridge, then go down the ramp or stairway on the other side. Where are they coming from or going to? It would be like everyone else walking, driving or riding a bike - from somewhere to somewhere, or just for a leisure trip.
Quote from: bluecountry on April 06, 2020, 10:15:45 AM
Is there a list of all projects planned?
Quote from: Roadsguy on March 18, 2020, 02:54:08 PM
Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf):
Quote
DELAWARE RIVER TURNPIKE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
This project will widen from two lanes in each direction to four lanes in each direction. The project is planned to demolish the existing truss arch spans and approach viaducts and construct new twin crossings with four lanes on each crossing.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 30, 2018, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 08:17:26 PM
Remember, some will not want to deal with the Philly traffic, then others will listen to that damned GPS and do whatever it tells them to do...
The "damned GPS" will probably tell them to stay on the NJ Turnpike since it's a slightly shorter through route with generally lower travel time. GPSes don't care about route numbers–people do.
If anything, it will be people blindly following I-95 shields who will take the new route through Philadelphia. These are the same people who follow I-95 through Wilmington even though it's marked LOCAL TRAFFIC.
Yes the GPS still suggests the NJTP with no respect to the completed route (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/d3f0a31d507deaa8e53af41d9ef7a6cc.jpg)
iPhone
Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2018, 12:25:18 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 30, 2018, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 08:17:26 PM
Remember, some will not want to deal with the Philly traffic, then others will listen to that damned GPS and do whatever it tells them to do...
The "damned GPS" will probably tell them to stay on the NJ Turnpike since it's a slightly shorter through route with generally lower travel time. GPSes don't care about route numbers–people do.
If anything, it will be people blindly following I-95 shields who will take the new route through Philadelphia. These are the same people who follow I-95 through Wilmington even though it's marked LOCAL TRAFFIC.
I like following I-95 through Wilmington during off hours. It's about the same time and nicer scenery than 495.
Are you in my head?
People think 495 is faster (which it is when 95 isnt backed up)
But both routes will get you to the PA state line at the same time.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on July 06, 2020, 11:03:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 31, 2018, 12:25:18 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on January 30, 2018, 10:27:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 08:17:26 PM
Remember, some will not want to deal with the Philly traffic, then others will listen to that damned GPS and do whatever it tells them to do...
The "damned GPS" will probably tell them to stay on the NJ Turnpike since it's a slightly shorter through route with generally lower travel time. GPSes don't care about route numbers–people do.
If anything, it will be people blindly following I-95 shields who will take the new route through Philadelphia. These are the same people who follow I-95 through Wilmington even though it's marked LOCAL TRAFFIC.
I like following I-95 through Wilmington during off hours. It's about the same time and nicer scenery than 495.
Are you in my head?
People think 495 is faster (which it is when 95 isnt backed up)
But both routes will get you to the PA state line at the same time.
iPhone
That's all true, but I guess the question is what is better for Wilmington. If they want to limit the traffic on 95 to just those heading to Downtown Wilmington and have the thru traffic take 495, the best way of achieving that would be by redesignating 495 as 95, since many people just simply follow the number.
Is there any movement among the alt-transport crowd to remove 95 thru Wilmington? I know there is a movement to remove other central highways in other cities (like 81 thru Syracuse) and have thru traffic take the bypass, and remove aerial structures in the downtowns to reconnect downtown to surrounding neighborhoods. [In fictional an idea to do this in Topeka, KS was also discussed. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27161.0 ] It would seem that Wilmington would have it pretty easy to do this since the bypass is not too far from the central freeway and doesn't really add time.
Yes and no - the viaduct was redone relatively recently, so there's not much movement there, and Wilmington isn't a popular city for anti-road activism. I've heard it mentioned but not gaining traction.
Quote from: Alps on July 27, 2020, 04:47:11 PM
Yes and no - the viaduct was redone relatively recently, so there's not much movement there, and Wilmington isn't a popular city for anti-road activism. I've heard it mentioned but not gaining traction.
[mention]mrsman [/mention]Helll no. Renaming 95 as 495 & 495 as 95 would be terrible. 95 doesnt really back up anymore because they fixed the issue with the 495/95 merge.
Also like Alps said construction on 95 will cause detours to 495 anyway so that wont even be thought of.
Plus 495 really doesnt serve Wilmington like that. Only the North Section of Wilmington & the Southern portion.
Also Alps is correct Wilmington doesnt really object projects because in Wilmington's case anything new built is needed.
They want a cap over Wilmington bad as well. I also believe it needs it but thats for the Delaware thread.
iPhone
I suppose the new bridge for I-95 to PA will be under the NJTP authority?
Quote from: bluecountry on July 27, 2020, 05:11:50 PM
I suppose the new bridge for I-95 to PA will be under the NJTP authority?
NJTA and PTC share ownership and costs. Any heavy duty work, such as a new bridge, will be administered by the NJTA. The PTC will pay 50% towards the cost of the new bridge.
After the bridge is built, general maintenance such as lighting, line repainting, etc is the responsibility of the toll road whose side of the state line it's on.
Thread Bump
Sign Update:
For the first time in several months; I've had a chance to utilize these ramps and follow I-95 on my recent Labor Day weekend trip to Massachusetts.
Observations as of Sept. 4 (northbound) and Sept. 7 (southbound):
PA Side: Just prior to the Delaware River Bridge, there is now a NJTA-style VMS gantry. Such likely is a replacement for the that now-long gone old neon VMS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1208349,-74.844225,3a,75y,148.72h,74.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipOhZDONG7agB1nubjLCzqNcQ-qd64AcBzgVKAt_!2e10!3e11!7i2508!8i1254)
NJ Side: Along the Connector (I-95), there is now one reassurance marker for each direction. The northbound one, just after the toll plaza & US 130 interchange, has a supplemental blue CALL #95 tab below the I-95 shield.
Just after the mainline NJ Turnpike split, there is now a 2-mile advance BGS for Exit 7 along the northbound I-95 ramp. The BGS is ground-mounted on telephone poles (current GSP-style) and is of the MUTCD format. The only oddity (with respect to MUTCD) of the BGS is that the word EXIT is mentioned twice: once for the EXIT tab and again for the 2-mile listing.
On the PA-bound (I-95 south) side of the connector; due to the revised lane drop location, this pull-through sign along with its LANE ENDS 1500 FT. sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.097926,-74.7814368,3a,75y,298.89h,81.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cUNI5SBvFZg42XaDwpomw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) have since been replaced with a new pull-through sign that now features 3 down-arrows. The route messaging is now a horizontally-oriented 95 SOUTH TO 276 WEST above the carry-over Philadelphia-Penn Turnpike message. The numerals on the I-276 shield are now Series D (the prior one was Series C).
Both southbound pull-through signs at Exit 8A still do not have I-95 shields placed on them. COVID or no COVID, this particular mod should've been done a long time ago.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2020, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 27, 2020, 05:11:50 PM
I suppose the new bridge for I-95 to PA will be under the NJTP authority?
NJTA and PTC share ownership and costs. Any heavy duty work, such as a new bridge, will be administered by the NJTA. The PTC will pay 50% towards the cost of the new bridge.
After the bridge is built, general maintenance such as lighting, line repainting, etc is the responsibility of the toll road whose side of the state line it's on.
Why is NJTP doing all heavy work?
Quote from: bluecountry on September 18, 2020, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2020, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 27, 2020, 05:11:50 PM
I suppose the new bridge for I-95 to PA will be under the NJTP authority?
NJTA and PTC share ownership and costs. Any heavy duty work, such as a new bridge, will be administered by the NJTA. The PTC will pay 50% towards the cost of the new bridge.
After the bridge is built, general maintenance such as lighting, line repainting, etc is the responsibility of the toll road whose side of the state line it's on.
Why is NJTP doing all heavy work?
Because they actually know how to get big projects done in a reasonable amount of time? ;)
Quote from: bluecountry on September 18, 2020, 02:59:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2020, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on July 27, 2020, 05:11:50 PM
I suppose the new bridge for I-95 to PA will be under the NJTP authority?
NJTA and PTC share ownership and costs. Any heavy duty work, such as a new bridge, will be administered by the NJTA. The PTC will pay 50% towards the cost of the new bridge.
After the bridge is built, general maintenance such as lighting, line repainting, etc is the responsibility of the toll road whose side of the state line it's on.
Why is NJTP doing all heavy work?
It's the long-standing agreement the two turnpike agencies have with each other.
I agree with famartin's answer. If you want a project done efficiently, get the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to do it. LOL
The I-95/PA Turnpike interchange project has been featured in Roads and Bridges Magazine. (https://www.roadsbridges.com/no-2-pa-turnpikei-95-interchange-stage-1) (I am unsure if the link exactly works, but I accessed it while looking at other information on RK&K's website.)
Quote from: SignBridge on September 18, 2020, 09:23:14 PM
I agree with famartin's answer. If you want a project done efficiently, get the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to do it. LOL
Heck they get things done in the same amount of time (if not sooner) than contractors here in Florida do despite the all year round warm weather here and cold winters with snow to halt work during the winter season's up there.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 09:14:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 18, 2020, 09:23:14 PM
I agree with famartin's answer. If you want a project done efficiently, get the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to do it. LOL
Heck they get things done in the same amount of time (if not sooner) than contractors here in Florida do despite the all year round warm weather here and cold winters with snow to halt work during the winter season's up there.
That's not really a thing anymore though. Concrete can be laid at colder temps. Snow gets scooped out of the way by bucket trucks. There's quite a bit of work going on in the winter.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2021, 02:06:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 09:14:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 18, 2020, 09:23:14 PM
I agree with famartin's answer. If you want a project done efficiently, get the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to do it. LOL
Heck they get things done in the same amount of time (if not sooner) than contractors here in Florida do despite the all year round warm weather here and cold winters with snow to halt work during the winter season's up there.
That's not really a thing anymore though. Concrete can be laid at colder temps. Snow gets scooped out of the way by bucket trucks. There's quite a bit of work going on in the winter.
I would say it is. Every April through October is still considered as construction season by PennDOT.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 28, 2021, 11:37:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2021, 02:06:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 09:14:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 18, 2020, 09:23:14 PM
I agree with famartin's answer. If you want a project done efficiently, get the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to do it. LOL
Heck they get things done in the same amount of time (if not sooner) than contractors here in Florida do despite the all year round warm weather here and cold winters with snow to halt work during the winter season's up there.
That's not really a thing anymore though. Concrete can be laid at colder temps. Snow gets scooped out of the way by bucket trucks. There's quite a bit of work going on in the winter.
I would say it is. Every April through October is still considered as construction season by PennDOT.
Many PennDOT projects seem to be creeping into Nov and early Dec. But definitely not Jan-March.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 28, 2021, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 28, 2021, 11:37:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2021, 02:06:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 09:14:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 18, 2020, 09:23:14 PM
I agree with famartin's answer. If you want a project done efficiently, get the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to do it. LOL
Heck they get things done in the same amount of time (if not sooner) than contractors here in Florida do despite the all year round warm weather here and cold winters with snow to halt work during the winter season's up there.
That's not really a thing anymore though. Concrete can be laid at colder temps. Snow gets scooped out of the way by bucket trucks. There's quite a bit of work going on in the winter.
I would say it is. Every April through October is still considered as construction season by PennDOT.
Many PennDOT projects seem to be creeping into Nov and early Dec. But definitely not Jan-March.
I can't speak much about PennDOT, since they also shut down most projects this year in the spring as a result of COVID whereas other states didn't. But in NJ, I have a project 2 miles from me they've been working on steadily all winter, including pouring concrete for bridge supports. Many of NJDOT's projects near the shore *must* be worked on throughout the winter due to summertime restrictions.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 28, 2021, 02:51:38 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 28, 2021, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 28, 2021, 11:37:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2021, 02:06:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 09:14:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 18, 2020, 09:23:14 PM
I agree with famartin's answer. If you want a project done efficiently, get the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to do it. LOL
Heck they get things done in the same amount of time (if not sooner) than contractors here in Florida do despite the all year round warm weather here and cold winters with snow to halt work during the winter season's up there.
That's not really a thing anymore though. Concrete can be laid at colder temps. Snow gets scooped out of the way by bucket trucks. There's quite a bit of work going on in the winter.
I would say it is. Every April through October is still considered as construction season by PennDOT.
Many PennDOT projects seem to be creeping into Nov and early Dec. But definitely not Jan-March.
I can't speak much about PennDOT, since they also shut down most projects this year in the spring as a result of COVID whereas other states didn't. But in NJ, I have a project 2 miles from me they've been working on steadily all winter, including pouring concrete for bridge supports. Many of NJDOT's projects near the shore *must* be worked on throughout the winter due to summertime restrictions.
It could be a regional thing. Its probably a lot harder to work on a road in, say, Bradford PA all winter, versus one in Philly (I believe they are continuing active construction along I-95 in Philly all winter).
Quote from: famartin on January 28, 2021, 03:01:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 28, 2021, 02:51:38 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 28, 2021, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 28, 2021, 11:37:13 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2021, 02:06:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 09:14:05 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 18, 2020, 09:23:14 PM
I agree with famartin's answer. If you want a project done efficiently, get the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to do it. LOL
Heck they get things done in the same amount of time (if not sooner) than contractors here in Florida do despite the all year round warm weather here and cold winters with snow to halt work during the winter season's up there.
That's not really a thing anymore though. Concrete can be laid at colder temps. Snow gets scooped out of the way by bucket trucks. There's quite a bit of work going on in the winter.
I would say it is. Every April through October is still considered as construction season by PennDOT.
Many PennDOT projects seem to be creeping into Nov and early Dec. But definitely not Jan-March.
I can't speak much about PennDOT, since they also shut down most projects this year in the spring as a result of COVID whereas other states didn't. But in NJ, I have a project 2 miles from me they've been working on steadily all winter, including pouring concrete for bridge supports. Many of NJDOT's projects near the shore *must* be worked on throughout the winter due to summertime restrictions.
It could be a regional thing. Its probably a lot harder to work on a road in, say, Bradford PA all winter, versus one in Philly (I believe they are continuing active construction along I-95 in Philly all winter).
Right. And there's a huge difference between PennDOT shutting down all activity for the winter, versus specific regions of PennDOT shutting down.
QuoteMany PennDOT projects seem to be creeping into Nov and early Dec. But definitely not Jan-March.
Publication 408, Section 413.3(b) (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/Pub_408/408_2020/408_2020.pdf), includes provisions for paving outside of April to October. That definitely plays a part in more projects being done in November and December.
However, PennDOT is obviously being much more strict about it than when paving during April to October.
Thread Bump:
Only because nobody has commented on such yet; but on a recent weekend trip, I noticed that the NJTA finally got around to placing I-95 shields on its southbound overhead pull-through signs at Exit 8A. Such must've happened within this year because such were not done when I last drove there just after last Christmas. I believe such completes the through-sign updates in relation to the connection opening over 2 years ago.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 24, 2021, 03:53:19 PM
Thread Bump:
Only because nobody has commented on such yet; but on a recent weekend trip, I noticed that the NJTA finally got around to placing I-95 shields on its southbound overhead pull-through signs at Exit 8A. Such must've happened within this year because such were not done when I last drove there just after last Christmas. I believe such completes the through-sign updates in relation to the connection opening over 2 years ago.
Wow lol... yeah they weren't there through November last year (last time I drove SB at 8A). About time...
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 30, 2018, 11:44:10 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2018, 10:57:27 PM
I think the idea is that most northbound travelers are heading to NYC or beyond, whereas people are getting out at various points southbound.
That would explain why you see signs for NYC as far south as at least Salisbury MD when coming up US-13. Also interesting is that this seems to be one of the rare points where MDOT recognizes that Philadelphia exists.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGntdA7.png)
Living in Dover, though, I never have seen any sign pointing traffic to Philadelphia or NYC around here. Furthest north these signs go is Wilmington and the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
(https://cdn.pbrd.co/images/HGnuprI.png)
Sorry for the old quote, but does anyone know what signs he is referencing here?
They finally updated the signage coming on from 130
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg/800px-2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Quote from: famartin on May 23, 2021, 08:37:28 PM
They finally updated the signage coming on from 130
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg/800px-2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Is Penn Turnpike an allowed signage?
Theoretically a road name shouldn't be used as a destination. As per the MUTCD it's supposed to be the next control city on an Interstate highway. In this case Harrisburg probably should be shown. But here in the Northeast the powers that be sometimes use Penn Turnpike or NJ Turnpike figuring that those well known Turnpikes are almost destinations in themselves. Not technically correct but it sort of works.
Definitely should say Philadelphia - Wilmington. However Maryland and NJ seem to have an issue with signing Wilmington or even Philadelphia.
Quote from: Tonytone on May 23, 2021, 10:31:36 PM
Definitely should say Philadelphia - Wilmington. However Maryland and NJ seem to have an issue with signing Wilmington or even Philadelphia.
I would do Philadelphia-Harrisburg.
Quote from: famartin on May 23, 2021, 08:37:28 PM
They finally updated the signage coming on from 130
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg/800px-2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
These were updated at least a year ago. I never got around to posting my photos from April 2020.
I could also nitpick and say that the left sign should have North only above the I-95 shield, since both directions of the mainline Turnpike are accessible from this ramp.
Quote from: akotchi on May 24, 2021, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 23, 2021, 08:37:28 PM
They finally updated the signage coming on from 130
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg/800px-2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
These were updated at least a year ago. I never got around to posting my photos from April 2020.
I could also nitpick and say that the left sign should have North only above the I-95 shield, since both directions of the mainline Turnpike are accessible from this ramp.
If you
really want to nitpick, you could say that it should be signed "95 North/NJTP East" and "95 South/NJTP West" just like the Newark Bay Extension. :bigass:
Quote from: SignBridge on May 23, 2021, 10:28:09 PM
Theoretically a road name shouldn't be used as a destination. As per the MUTCD it's supposed to be the next control city on an Interstate highway. In this case Harrisburg probably should be shown. But here in the Northeast the powers that be sometimes use Penn Turnpike or NJ Turnpike figuring that those well known Turnpikes are almost destinations in themselves. Not technically correct but it sort of works.
I don't mind the NJTA's non-standard practices like this, but since they've started strictly following the MUTCD now, I do hope future signs replace the "Penn Turnpike" legend with a PA Turnpike shield next to the I-276 shield, and "WEST" centered over them both. Then add Harrisburg as a second control city. It'd be pretty cool to see Harrisburg signed from New Jersey, though personally I've always thought Valley Forge would be a better westbound control city the I-276 portion of the Turnpike, just like it is on the Schuylkill Expressway.
I mean if you really want to nitpick, 276's endpoint is Valley Forge so a Philadelphia/Valley Forge control would work here but like others I'm fine with Philadelphia/Harrisburg.
For legacy roads, like the NJTP, PATP, Mass Pike, I am good with them being control city destinations in these circumstances.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 23, 2021, 09:39:51 PM
Is Penn Turnpike an allowed signage?
Depends on how many or few people have heard of William Penn. :colorful:
ixnay
Quote from: Tonytone on May 23, 2021, 10:31:36 PM
Definitely should say Philadelphia - Wilmington. However Maryland and NJ seem to have an issue with signing Wilmington or even Philadelphia.
I would not use Wilmington here as you can go either way, or better yet, neither (I-295) to get to Wilmington from this area.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 26, 2021, 06:05:39 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 23, 2021, 10:31:36 PM
Definitely should say Philadelphia - Wilmington. However Maryland and NJ seem to have an issue with signing Wilmington or even Philadelphia.
I would not use Wilmington here as you can go either way, or better yet, neither (I-295) to get to Wilmington from this area.
Wilmington isn't needed, as you would have to pass through Philly to get there.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 26, 2021, 06:05:39 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 23, 2021, 10:31:36 PM
Definitely should say Philadelphia - Wilmington. However Maryland and NJ seem to have an issue with signing Wilmington or even Philadelphia.
I would not use Wilmington here as you can go either way, or better yet, neither (I-295) to get to Wilmington from this area.
That is true. people heading down south would have taken 295 like you said.
Where about is this exit.
Quote from: akotchi on May 24, 2021, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 23, 2021, 08:37:28 PM
They finally updated the signage coming on from 130
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg/800px-2021-05-23_11_47_18_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
These were updated at least a year ago. I never got around to posting my photos from April 2020.
Ok this is where I must've deleted 2020 from my memory, since I saw GSV had a late 2019 date and thought "oh, this got fixed in the last few months" :ded: :-D
Quote from: Tonytone on May 26, 2021, 09:19:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 26, 2021, 06:05:39 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 23, 2021, 10:31:36 PM
Definitely should say Philadelphia - Wilmington. However Maryland and NJ seem to have an issue with signing Wilmington or even Philadelphia.
I would not use Wilmington here as you can go either way, or better yet, neither (I-295) to get to Wilmington from this area.
That is true. people heading down south would have taken 295 like you said.
Where about is this exit.
US 130 in Florence at the only interchange on the Pennsylvania Extension (which is now I-95). There is no direct access from 130 (or the Turnpike) to 295 here, but getting there from said interchange involves exactly two traffic lights.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 27, 2021, 02:56:05 PM
US 130 in Florence at the only interchange on the Pennsylvania Extension (which is now I-95). There is no direct access from 130 (or the Turnpike) to 295 here, but getting there from said interchange involves exactly two traffic lights.
Presumably the NJTA does not want an interchange between the New Jersey Turnpike's Pennsylvania Extension (I-95) and I-295, for it would likely increase shunpiking of the NJ-700 section of the Turnpike south of Exit 6. It would also put an interchange rather close to the large Exit 6 interchange (though the land appears to be available for such an interchange).
Quote from: ekt8750 on May 24, 2021, 12:02:21 PM
I mean if you really want to nitpick, 276's endpoint is Valley Forge so a Philadelphia/Valley Forge control would work here but like others I'm fine with Philadelphia/Harrisburg.
On the Pennsylvania side, where the Turnpike continues as I-276 at Exit 40 (left exit) and I-95 stays to the right for Philadelphia, the control city to go with I-276 is indeed Harrisburg.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 29, 2021, 12:47:43 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on May 24, 2021, 12:02:21 PM
I mean if you really want to nitpick, 276's endpoint is Valley Forge so a Philadelphia/Valley Forge control would work here but like others I'm fine with Philadelphia/Harrisburg.
On the Pennsylvania side, where the Turnpike continues as I-276 at Exit 40 (left exit) and I-95 stays to the right for Philadelphia, the control city to go with I-276 is indeed Harrisburg.
I agree, the ideal signage for Exit 6 on the mainline and at 130 should closely parallel what is signed in PA at Exit 40.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 29, 2021, 12:45:35 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 27, 2021, 02:56:05 PM
US 130 in Florence at the only interchange on the Pennsylvania Extension (which is now I-95). There is no direct access from 130 (or the Turnpike) to 295 here, but getting there from said interchange involves exactly two traffic lights.
Presumably the NJTA does not want an interchange between the New Jersey Turnpike's Pennsylvania Extension (I-95) and I-295, for it would likely increase shunpiking of the NJ-700 section of the Turnpike south of Exit 6. It would also put an interchange rather close to the large Exit 6 interchange (though the land appears to be available for such an interchange).
The land around 295/Tpk Ext is pretty much spoken for. SW has some sort of lake, NW has a transmission power easement, and NE & SE is farmed land. The entire area is less than a mile from the split to the Turnpike mainline, and just over mile from the Interchange 6 toll plaza. In terms of engineering and distance separation, it can be done (everything can be done...at a price), but not as easy as it would seem.
It definitely should be done and shouldn't be that hard.
95 North signage is fine. My 95 south signage would have utilized the PATP logo next to the 276 shield and added Harrisburg as the 2nd control.
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2021, 12:01:06 AM
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Guess on my part, and Alps can verify/confirm; NJTA (or at least their specs) doesn't allow the displaying of toll-road shields for other independent toll facilities on their main/primary signage. It certainly would explain why there's no PA Turnpike keystone shield on any NJTA-spec signage.
To further prove the above-point; this NJDOT-spec'd sign along US 130 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024372,-74.7928035,3a,75y,62.64h,66.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAzTIeqJ_CnFBliib10sHjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) approaching the I-95 interchange features a PA Turnpike shield on it. Obviously, NJDOT (as well as the PTC & PennDOT) has no such prohibition.
Such would also explain why the recent GSP's interchange with the ACX features no ACX shields on the signs whereas the prior-generation signage did; when the GSP was an NJHA facility. The NJHA merged into the NJTA circa 2003.
Conversely, prior I-95/NJTP signage for Exit 11 featured no GSP shield but the new ones do. The former predated the GSP becoming an NJTA run-facility.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2021, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2021, 12:01:06 AM
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Guess on my part, and Alps can verify/confirm; NJTA (or at least their specs) doesn't allow the displaying of toll-road shields for other independent toll facilities on their main/primary signage. It certainly would explain why there's no PA Turnpike keystone shield on any NJTA-spec signage.
To further prove the above-point; this NJDOT-spec'd sign along US 130 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024372,-74.7928035,3a,75y,62.64h,66.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAzTIeqJ_CnFBliib10sHjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) approaching the I-95 interchange features a PA Turnpike shield on it. Obviously, NJDOT (as well as the PTC & PennDOT) has no such prohibition.
Such would also explain why the recent GSP's interchange with the ACX features no ACX shields on the signs whereas the prior-generation signage did; when the GSP was an NJHA facility. The NJHA merged into the NJTA circa 2003.
Conversely, prior I-95/NJTP signage for Exit 11 featured no GSP shield but the new ones do. The former predated the GSP becoming an NJTA run-facility.
Your guess is the same as mine, but its only that. Confirmation would be nice, but yes, all the evidence seems to suggest the NJTA just simply won't use other authority blazers. I wonder if its a copyright thing or something.
Is there a planned construction date for building the remaining ramps for the Interstate 95/Interstate 295/Interstate 276 interchange?
Possibly in our lifetime. But considering how long it took the State of Pa. to build the existing interchange, I wouldn't count on it happening very soon.
Quote from: famartin on July 17, 2021, 11:37:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2021, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2021, 12:01:06 AM
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Guess on my part, and Alps can verify/confirm; NJTA (or at least their specs) doesn't allow the displaying of toll-road shields for other independent toll facilities on their main/primary signage. It certainly would explain why there's no PA Turnpike keystone shield on any NJTA-spec signage.
To further prove the above-point; this NJDOT-spec'd sign along US 130 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024372,-74.7928035,3a,75y,62.64h,66.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAzTIeqJ_CnFBliib10sHjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) approaching the I-95 interchange features a PA Turnpike shield on it. Obviously, NJDOT (as well as the PTC & PennDOT) has no such prohibition.
Such would also explain why the recent GSP's interchange with the ACX features no ACX shields on the signs whereas the prior-generation signage did; when the GSP was an NJHA facility. The NJHA merged into the NJTA circa 2003.
Conversely, prior I-95/NJTP signage for Exit 11 featured no GSP shield but the new ones do. The former predated the GSP becoming an NJTA run-facility.
Your guess is the same as mine, but its only that. Confirmation would be nice, but yes, all the evidence seems to suggest the NJTA just simply won't use other authority blazers. I wonder if its a copyright thing or something.
Strange if it were. I remember seeing an NJTP trailblazer on MD 295 in Baltimore City just before the exit to I-95 North. NYTA does use Mass Pike shields at Exit 24, plus there used to be a TO with a Mass Pike shield just before the 95/395 split in CT.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 17, 2021, 08:49:19 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 17, 2021, 11:37:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2021, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2021, 12:01:06 AM
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Guess on my part, and Alps can verify/confirm; NJTA (or at least their specs) doesn't allow the displaying of toll-road shields for other independent toll facilities on their main/primary signage. It certainly would explain why there's no PA Turnpike keystone shield on any NJTA-spec signage.
To further prove the above-point; this NJDOT-spec'd sign along US 130 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024372,-74.7928035,3a,75y,62.64h,66.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAzTIeqJ_CnFBliib10sHjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) approaching the I-95 interchange features a PA Turnpike shield on it. Obviously, NJDOT (as well as the PTC & PennDOT) has no such prohibition.
Such would also explain why the recent GSP's interchange with the ACX features no ACX shields on the signs whereas the prior-generation signage did; when the GSP was an NJHA facility. The NJHA merged into the NJTA circa 2003.
Conversely, prior I-95/NJTP signage for Exit 11 featured no GSP shield but the new ones do. The former predated the GSP becoming an NJTA run-facility.
Your guess is the same as mine, but its only that. Confirmation would be nice, but yes, all the evidence seems to suggest the NJTA just simply won't use other authority blazers. I wonder if its a copyright thing or something.
Strange if it were. I remember seeing an NJTP trailblazer on MD 295 in Baltimore City just before the exit to I-95 North. NYTA does use Mass Pike shields at Exit 24, plus there used to be a TO with a Mass Pike shield just before the 95/395 split in CT.
Yes, other agencies use the NJTP trailblazer, including (as shown) the PTC, and DelDOT/DRBA. But NJTA doesn't use others.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2021, 12:12:19 PM
Is there a planned construction date for building the remaining ramps for the Interstate 95/Interstate 295/Interstate 276 interchange?
We talked about this at the post-meet ballgame. My basic thoughts are that PA 43 and PA 576 are higher priority for the PTC plus reconstruction of the existing PA Turnpike.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 17, 2021, 10:12:06 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2021, 12:12:19 PM
Is there a planned construction date for building the remaining ramps for the Interstate 95/Interstate 295/Interstate 276 interchange?
We talked about this at the post-meet ballgame. My basic thoughts are that PA 43 and PA 576 are higher priority for the PTC plus reconstruction of the existing PA Turnpike.
The other moves are not nearly as important, since they don't connect any thru routes. Plus, relatively low numbers of traffic are trying to go from I-95 SB to I-295 EB or from I-276 EB to I-95 SB, and it will probably always be faster to use US 1 if your goal is I-276 EB to I-295 EB, or I-295 WB to I-276 WB.
I suspect PTC knew that in advance and planned accordingly to just "sit" on the rest of this for as long as they can. Only reason it was even planned was because it was legislated.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2021, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2021, 12:01:06 AM
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Guess on my part, and Alps can verify/confirm; NJTA (or at least their specs) doesn't allow the displaying of toll-road shields for other independent toll facilities on their main/primary signage. It certainly would explain why there's no PA Turnpike keystone shield on any NJTA-spec signage.
To further prove the above-point; this NJDOT-spec'd sign along US 130 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024372,-74.7928035,3a,75y,62.64h,66.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAzTIeqJ_CnFBliib10sHjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) approaching the I-95 interchange features a PA Turnpike shield on it. Obviously, NJDOT (as well as the PTC & PennDOT) has no such prohibition.
Such would also explain why the recent GSP's interchange with the ACX features no ACX shields on the signs whereas the prior-generation signage did; when the GSP was an NJHA facility. The NJHA merged into the NJTA circa 2003.
Conversely, prior I-95/NJTP signage for Exit 11 featured no GSP shield but the new ones do. The former predated the GSP becoming an NJTA run-facility.
I can't. I haven't designed signs for them, so I have never run into a situation where I would learn the answer.
Here are some I designed in my collection. These use NJTP mileage for the mileage based exits (the NJTP thru route would be numbered using I-95 mileage). The one from the Thruway uses I-87 mileage.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51321080985_141b5aa19f.jpg)
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 18, 2021, 04:59:52 PM
Here are some I designed in my collection. These use NJTP mileage for the mileage based exits (the NJTP thru route would be numbered using I-95 mileage). The one from the Thruway uses I-87 mileage.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51321080985_141b5aa19f.jpg)
Shouldn't there be a northbound control city on exit 91? Those are both south. Right now the parkway uses Paterson and Newark, I believe.
Also, since the PIP exit is actually beyond NJTA jurisdiction (its PANYNJ there), good luck getting them to use NJTA mileage.
I also have a set with I-95 mileage. For continuity's sake, I would just assume keep a consistent system of exit numbers on I-95 up to the GWB rather than jump down from 112 to 72 between Route 3 and US 46 if you went with NJTP mileage. Yes, there would be a jump down from 51 to 7 Northbound between current Exits 6 and 7 on the mainline if you used I-95 mileage for exits north of there, but at least SB would have the mainline be Exit 6 (happens to work out nicely) so you're "warned" that you're no longer on I-95 before the jump to 44 for current Exit 5.
Most traffic uses that exit to go southbound on the parkway when exiting from the NJTP southbound, hence my two longer distance destinations. For northbound signage, I use Woodbridge and Perth Amboy. I use a similar convention for current Exit 10 (287/440): Morristown and Staten Island NB, Piscataway and Perth Amboy SB
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 18, 2021, 06:05:53 PM
I also have a set with I-95 mileage. For continuity's sake, I would just assume keep a consistent system of exit numbers on I-95 up to the GWB rather than jump down from 112 to 72 between Route 3 and US 46 if you went with NJTP mileage. Yes, there would be a jump down from 51 to 7 Northbound between current Exits 6 and 7 on the mainline if you used I-95 mileage for exits north of there, but at least SB would have the mainline be Exit 6 (happens to work out nicely) so you're "warned" that you're no longer on I-95 before the jump to 44 for current Exit 5.
Most traffic uses that exit to go southbound on the parkway when exiting from the NJTP southbound, hence my two longer distance destinations. For northbound signage, I use Woodbridge and Perth Amboy. I use a similar convention for current Exit 10 (287/440): Morristown and Staten Island NB, Piscataway and Perth Amboy SB
It depends, and maybe there's been a change in patterns, but when I was a kid, we'd routinely take the Turnpike north to the Parkway north to the Thruway north. So, not sure avoiding the northbound parkway control cities that are further along would be relevant. NJTA doesn't like altering signage depending on direction (otherwise, they'd not use Trenton on Exit 7 SB or Exit 7A NB).
Quote from: famartin on July 18, 2021, 05:32:30 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 18, 2021, 04:59:52 PM
Here are some I designed in my collection. These use NJTP mileage for the mileage based exits (the NJTP thru route would be numbered using I-95 mileage). The one from the Thruway uses I-87 mileage.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51321080985_141b5aa19f.jpg)
Shouldn't there be a northbound control city on exit 91? Those are both south. Right now the parkway uses Paterson and Newark, I believe.
Also, since the PIP exit is actually beyond NJTA jurisdiction (its PANYNJ there), good luck getting them to use NJTA mileage.
Nice, but I would quarrel with the New City NY control city for the PIP. The obvious choice is Bear Mountain. Nanuet is marginally acceptable, but still unBEARable.
Quote from: famartin on July 17, 2021, 11:37:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2021, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2021, 12:01:06 AM
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Guess on my part, and Alps can verify/confirm; NJTA (or at least their specs) doesn't allow the displaying of toll-road shields for other independent toll facilities on their main/primary signage. It certainly would explain why there's no PA Turnpike keystone shield on any NJTA-spec signage.
To further prove the above-point; this NJDOT-spec'd sign along US 130 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024372,-74.7928035,3a,75y,62.64h,66.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAzTIeqJ_CnFBliib10sHjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) approaching the I-95 interchange features a PA Turnpike shield on it. Obviously, NJDOT (as well as the PTC & PennDOT) has no such prohibition.
Such would also explain why the recent GSP's interchange with the ACX features no ACX shields on the signs whereas the prior-generation signage did; when the GSP was an NJHA facility. The NJHA merged into the NJTA circa 2003.
Conversely, prior I-95/NJTP signage for Exit 11 featured no GSP shield but the new ones do. The former predated the GSP becoming an NJTA run-facility.
Your guess is the same as mine, but its only that. Confirmation would be nice, but yes, all the evidence seems to suggest the NJTA just simply won't use other authority blazers. I wonder if its a copyright thing or something.
Another
guess on my part, and such might be an old regulation standard that nobody since reviewed, displaying another agency's shield on their (NJTA's) signs would give the
perception of advertising.
True story: when I worked on the National Park Service (NPS) plans that redeveloped 2 of the blocks north of Independence Hall in Philadelphia many years ago; the direction the consulting firms received was to
not include the listing of their firm(s) on the plan title blocks, which would show on every sheet the firm(s) were responsible for, but only list it on the second or third plan sheet from the top. I was told by the lead architect firm involved with the project; that the NPS viewed the practice of placing firm(s) names on multiple plan sheets was, in NPS' eyes, a form of advertising.
Again, speculation; maybe the NJTA had a similar sentiment that the NPS did.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 21, 2021, 09:37:22 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 17, 2021, 11:37:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2021, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2021, 12:01:06 AM
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Guess on my part, and Alps can verify/confirm; NJTA (or at least their specs) doesn't allow the displaying of toll-road shields for other independent toll facilities on their main/primary signage. It certainly would explain why there's no PA Turnpike keystone shield on any NJTA-spec signage.
To further prove the above-point; this NJDOT-spec'd sign along US 130 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024372,-74.7928035,3a,75y,62.64h,66.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAzTIeqJ_CnFBliib10sHjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) approaching the I-95 interchange features a PA Turnpike shield on it. Obviously, NJDOT (as well as the PTC & PennDOT) has no such prohibition.
Such would also explain why the recent GSP's interchange with the ACX features no ACX shields on the signs whereas the prior-generation signage did; when the GSP was an NJHA facility. The NJHA merged into the NJTA circa 2003.
Conversely, prior I-95/NJTP signage for Exit 11 featured no GSP shield but the new ones do. The former predated the GSP becoming an NJTA run-facility.
Your guess is the same as mine, but its only that. Confirmation would be nice, but yes, all the evidence seems to suggest the NJTA just simply won't use other authority blazers. I wonder if its a copyright thing or something.
Another guess on my part, and such might be an old regulation standard that nobody since reviewed, displaying another agency's shield on their (NJTA's) signs would give the perception of advertising.
True story: when I worked on the National Park Service (NPS) plans that redeveloped 2 of the blocks north of Independence Hall in Philadelphia many years ago; the direction the consulting firms received was to not include the listing of their firm(s) on the plan title blocks, which would show on every sheet the firm(s) were responsible for, but only list it on the second or third plan sheet from the top. I was told by the lead architect firm involved with the project; that the NPS viewed the practice of placing firm(s) names on multiple plan sheets was, in NPS' eyes, a form of advertising.
Again, speculation; maybe the NJTA had a similar sentiment that the NPS did.
Possible. Just surprising given they are essentially partner agencies (since they share the bridge).
Quote from: famartin on July 21, 2021, 10:29:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 21, 2021, 09:37:22 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 17, 2021, 11:37:01 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2021, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2021, 12:01:06 AM
There are few things PTC does better than NJTA, but this is one of those few things. I wish NJTA would've done it this way. Oh well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2F2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg%2F640px-2021-07-15_15_19_23_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_55.jpg&hash=8110911efdf55451aeeb8dadb77fe89ecdcc7e3d)
Guess on my part, and Alps can verify/confirm; NJTA (or at least their specs) doesn't allow the displaying of toll-road shields for other independent toll facilities on their main/primary signage. It certainly would explain why there's no PA Turnpike keystone shield on any NJTA-spec signage.
To further prove the above-point; this NJDOT-spec'd sign along US 130 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1024372,-74.7928035,3a,75y,62.64h,66.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAzTIeqJ_CnFBliib10sHjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) approaching the I-95 interchange features a PA Turnpike shield on it. Obviously, NJDOT (as well as the PTC & PennDOT) has no such prohibition.
Such would also explain why the recent GSP's interchange with the ACX features no ACX shields on the signs whereas the prior-generation signage did; when the GSP was an NJHA facility. The NJHA merged into the NJTA circa 2003.
Conversely, prior I-95/NJTP signage for Exit 11 featured no GSP shield but the new ones do. The former predated the GSP becoming an NJTA run-facility.
Your guess is the same as mine, but its only that. Confirmation would be nice, but yes, all the evidence seems to suggest the NJTA just simply won't use other authority blazers. I wonder if its a copyright thing or something.
Another guess on my part, and such might be an old regulation standard that nobody since reviewed, displaying another agency's shield on their (NJTA's) signs would give the perception of advertising.
True story: when I worked on the National Park Service (NPS) plans that redeveloped 2 of the blocks north of Independence Hall in Philadelphia many years ago; the direction the consulting firms received was to not include the listing of their firm(s) on the plan title blocks, which would show on every sheet the firm(s) were responsible for, but only list it on the second or third plan sheet from the top. I was told by the lead architect firm involved with the project; that the NPS viewed the practice of placing firm(s) names on multiple plan sheets was, in NPS' eyes, a form of advertising.
Again, speculation; maybe the NJTA had a similar sentiment that the NPS did.
Possible. Just surprising given they are essentially partner agencies (since they share the bridge).
Considering it advertising may be a little far fetched, being that the NJ Turnpike lists "Penn Turnpike" as a control city on their signage.
Remember: The NJ Turnpike shield is THE route "number" for about half the Turnpike. The PA Turnpike mainline has regular Interstate route numbers across its entire length.
The NJ Turnpike is also a much more recognized highway shield than most other toll road shields.
Most people probably aren't familiar with the Penna Turnpike keystone shield. If we were to look at Delaware, they have all but retired the Delaware Turnpike shield and just solely use the I-95 shield.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2021, 11:14:09 PM
Remember: The NJ Turnpike shield is THE route "number" for about half the Turnpike. The PA Turnpike mainline has regular Interstate route numbers across its entire length.
The NJ Turnpike is also a much more recognized highway shield than most other toll road shields.
Most people probably aren't familiar with the Penna Turnpike keystone shield. If we were to look at Delaware, they have all but retired the Delaware Turnpike shield and just solely use the I-95 shield.
While true, it's worth noting that both the NJTP & PATP shields long predate the Interstate shield & related route numbers. Additionally, the PA Turnpike is at least a decade older than the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2021, 11:14:09 PM
Considering it advertising may be a little far fetched, being that the NJ Turnpike lists "Penn Turnpike" as a control city on their signage.
Remember: The NJ Turnpike shield is THE route "number" for about half the Turnpike. The PA Turnpike mainline has regular Interstate route numbers across its entire length.
The NJ Turnpike is also a much more recognized highway shield than most other toll road shields.
Most people probably aren't familiar with the Penna Turnpike keystone shield. If we were to look at Delaware, they have all but retired the Delaware Turnpike shield and just solely use the I-95 shield.
We've debated this before I'm sure, but if you aren't from the area, neither is familiar. You can't read either easily from a BGS at highway speed. However, Pennsylvanians are very familiar with the PT blazer, just as New Jerseyans are familiar with the NJT one. The only difference is that one carries a lot more traffic.
Doesn't matter if you are from out of the area... all you'll recognize in that case is the interstate shield, or the written words.
Quote from: famartin on July 21, 2021, 11:33:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2021, 11:14:09 PM
Considering it advertising may be a little far fetched, being that the NJ Turnpike lists "Penn Turnpike" as a control city on their signage.
Remember: The NJ Turnpike shield is THE route "number" for about half the Turnpike. The PA Turnpike mainline has regular Interstate route numbers across its entire length.
The NJ Turnpike is also a much more recognized highway shield than most other toll road shields.
Most people probably aren't familiar with the Penna Turnpike keystone shield. If we were to look at Delaware, they have all but retired the Delaware Turnpike shield and just solely use the I-95 shield.
We've debated this before I'm sure, but if you aren't from the area, neither is familiar. You can't read either easily from a BGS at highway speed. However, Pennsylvanians are very familiar with the PT blazer, just as New Jerseyans are familiar with the NJT one. The only difference is that one carries a lot more traffic.
Doesn't matter if you are from out of the area... all you'll recognize in that case is the interstate shield, or the written words.
The issue of agency shields has never even come up in my presence, so don't go creating too many conspiracy theories about what they want or don't want to do...
I have some before https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/23655597209/in/album-72157660132702828/ and after https://goo.gl/maps/oEcep9pwieBiM17bA pics of I-295 at US 1 near Oxford Valley, PA from when signage changed after the connection opened.
I feel like the odds the rest of this interchange gets completed in my lifetime are relatively low...
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d40.aspx
"Construction planned when funding is identified"... translation: "we really don't care about the rest of this."
Quote from: famartin on November 24, 2021, 10:19:05 AM
I feel like the odds the rest of this interchange gets completed in my lifetime are relatively low...
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d40.aspx
"Construction planned when funding is identified"... translation: "we really don't care about the rest of this."
Not surprising at all. The other movements are possible just not as directly. And they're not nearly as important.
The only question is which is lower on their list: this or Breezewood? :-D
I'd rank the ramp pair importance from most to least in this way (only including the incomplete ones):
I-95 SB->I-295 EB and I-295 WB->I-95 NB
I-276 EB->I-95 SB and I-95 NB->I-276 WB
I-295 WB->I-276 WB and I-276 EB->I-295 EB
This is just based on how easy it is to make those movements presently without said ramps.
Quote from: BrianP on November 24, 2021, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 24, 2021, 10:19:05 AM
I feel like the odds the rest of this interchange gets completed in my lifetime are relatively low...
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d40.aspx
"Construction planned when funding is identified"... translation: "we really don't care about the rest of this."
Not surprising at all. The other movements are possible just not as directly. And they're not nearly as important.
The only question is which is lower on their list: this or Breezewood? :-D
Breezewood isn't even on a list.
And technically, it's not a PTC problem. The PTC has an interchange. PennDOT has the traffic lights. PennDOT would need to work with the PTC to develop a revised interchange. Neither agency really cares.
Quote from: BrianP on November 24, 2021, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 24, 2021, 10:19:05 AM
I feel like the odds the rest of this interchange gets completed in my lifetime are relatively low...
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d40.aspx
"Construction planned when funding is identified"... translation: "we really don't care about the rest of this."
Not surprising at all. The other movements are possible just not as directly. And they're not nearly as important.
The only question is which is lower on their list: this or Breezewood? :-D
That's crazy.
It really needs to have it where:
95 SB connects to 295 EB
295 WB connects to 95 NB
295 WB connects to 276
276 EB connects to 295 WB
Promptly
Quote from: bluecountry on December 19, 2021, 11:28:06 PM
Quote from: BrianP on November 24, 2021, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 24, 2021, 10:19:05 AM
I feel like the odds the rest of this interchange gets completed in my lifetime are relatively low...
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d40.aspx
"Construction planned when funding is identified"... translation: "we really don't care about the rest of this."
Not surprising at all. The other movements are possible just not as directly. And they're not nearly as important.
The only question is which is lower on their list: this or Breezewood? :-D
That's crazy.
It really needs to have it where:
95 SB connects to 295 EB
295 WB connects to 95 NB
295 WB connects to 276
276 EB connects to 295 WB
Promptly
Your opinions belong in Fictional Highways. You have already been warned for the NJ Turnpike - don't add to it here.
Quote from: Alps on December 20, 2021, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 19, 2021, 11:28:06 PM
Quote from: BrianP on November 24, 2021, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 24, 2021, 10:19:05 AM
I feel like the odds the rest of this interchange gets completed in my lifetime are relatively low...
https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/section-d40.aspx
"Construction planned when funding is identified"... translation: "we really don't care about the rest of this."
Not surprising at all. The other movements are possible just not as directly. And they're not nearly as important.
The only question is which is lower on their list: this or Breezewood? :-D
That's crazy.
It really needs to have it where:
95 SB connects to 295 EB
295 WB connects to 95 NB
295 WB connects to 276
276 EB connects to 295 WB
Promptly
Your opinions belong in Fictional Highways. You have already been warned for the NJ Turnpike - don't add to it here.
He's a bit of a pest, sure, and his opinion isn't really valid here either, for sure... but fictional highways? These ARE planned connections... just not any time soon, apparently.
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
LOL The words promptly and Pennsylvania Turnpike don't normally occur in the same sentence. LOL
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being
really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
[/quote]
You don't really know the interstate system of the U.S. of A, do you.
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
Well, it did only became its parent a few years ago.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 25, 2021, 11:07:35 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
You don't really know the interstate system of the U.S. of A, do you.
I wasn't talking about the USA, I was talking about Pennsylvania. In a state (PENNSYLVANIA) where its STILL perfectly acceptable for a mainline Interstate to follow a surface road to connect two separate portions of itself, then a partial interstate-interstate interchange is hardly shocking or outrageous.
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Maybe not, but couldn't they at least have official routes (TO North 95 or whatever) posted? At least Breezewood makes the I-70 routing clear.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 26, 2021, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Maybe not, but couldn't they at least have official routes (TO North 95 or whatever) posted? At least Breezewood makes the I-70 routing clear.
Well... there are a few signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1502809,-74.8984529,3a,75y,164.68h,80.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdngVZANgwN-lKnColiKQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1331268,-74.9773168,3a,75y,107.31h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf-Oyj56bF0lIboEqPl1r7g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I guess they figure that if you are heading for I-295 east, you are already going to take Exit 351 anyway. But this is on the exit ramps
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1326101,-74.967696,3a,75y,96.93h,87.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTV0Vgn-nXLt4byzV704Bqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: bzakharin on December 26, 2021, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Maybe not, but couldn't they at least have official routes (TO North 95 or whatever) posted? At least Breezewood makes the I-70 routing clear.
Most people on 295 that go over the NJ Turnpike Extension don't realize they are doing so. But for those that do, and want to access it, the next exit Northbound is signed for I-95. Going SB, 2 exits south is signed to get to the NJ Tpk, which connects into it. Depending on their ultimate destination, there's probably numerous better options than to reverse course at that point.
Quote from: famartin on December 26, 2021, 09:46:25 AM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 25, 2021, 11:07:35 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
You don't really know the interstate system of the U.S. of A, do you.
I wasn't talking about the USA, I was talking about Pennsylvania. In a state (PENNSYLVANIA) where its STILL perfectly acceptable for a mainline Interstate to follow a surface road to connect two separate portions of itself, then a partial interstate-interstate interchange is hardly shocking or outrageous.
My quote attribution got mangled. I meant my sarcasm towards BlueCountry, not you Famartin.
Look at the bright side. I-95 is now seam less all its way from Miami to Canada. So it takes another life time to get the other movements done. Be happy with what we have.
The PTC and PennDOT will always move like molasses, nothing new.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2021, 06:17:39 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 26, 2021, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Maybe not, but couldn't they at least have official routes (TO North 95 or whatever) posted? At least Breezewood makes the I-70 routing clear.
Most people on 295 that go over the NJ Turnpike Extension don't realize they are doing so. But for those that do, and want to access it, the next exit Northbound is signed for I-95. Going SB, 2 exits south is signed to get to the NJ Tpk, which connects into it. Depending on their ultimate destination, there's probably numerous better options than to reverse course at that point.
That is absurd since unlike Breezewood, 95/295 basically 'should' function as a beltway for METRO Philly.
Quote from: bluecountry on December 27, 2021, 11:17:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2021, 06:17:39 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 26, 2021, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Quote from: famartin on December 25, 2021, 08:22:01 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:19:54 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2021, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2021, 07:50:49 PM
Seems to me those ramps are valid for a discussion of this interchange that they are planned to be a part of. Why wouldn't they be?
The actual ramps are. Opinions such as "promptly" are not useful and this poster's history is expressing opinions instead of facts. I'd like to avoid a meta-discussion...
Now you are splitting hairs and being really tickey tackey.
It is bad enough I-295 does not connect with I-95 in NJ in Burlington County.
To have no connection from I-295 to its parent highway I-95 in PA aside from NB 95 to WB 295 is outrageous.
In a state where Breezewood is accepted, the I-95/I-295/I-276 situation is not outrageous.
Maybe not, but couldn't they at least have official routes (TO North 95 or whatever) posted? At least Breezewood makes the I-70 routing clear.
Most people on 295 that go over the NJ Turnpike Extension don't realize they are doing so. But for those that do, and want to access it, the next exit Northbound is signed for I-95. Going SB, 2 exits south is signed to get to the NJ Tpk, which connects into it. Depending on their ultimate destination, there's probably numerous better options than to reverse course at that point.
That is absurd since unlike Breezewood, 95/295 basically 'should' function as a beltway for METRO Philly.
If you want a route that should be a beltway of metro Philly, I-295/I-276/I-476/I-95 will work much better.
Quote from: DeaconG on February 03, 2022, 02:48:07 PM
If you want a route that should be a beltway of metro Philly, I-295/I-276/I-476/I-95 will work much better.
This is the closest you'll get today, or probably ever.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.0592996,-75.3264718/40.0858012,-74.7417523/39.7154172,-75.5739491/40.0592318,-75.3267487/@39.9167714,-75.2757079,10.87z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
Quote from: famartin on February 03, 2022, 03:28:49 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on February 03, 2022, 02:48:07 PM
If you want a route that should be a beltway of metro Philly, I-295/I-276/I-476/I-95 will work much better.
This is the closest you'll get today, or probably ever.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.0592996,-75.3264718/40.0858012,-74.7417523/39.7154172,-75.5739491/40.0592318,-75.3267487/@39.9167714,-75.2757079,10.87z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
That's about as long as the M25/A282 circling London, maybe longer. About the length of two Washington Beltways.
Well, this thread has gone to pot.
Anyone know the status of the remainder of this project? It seems like with the primary movements completed, namely the ones required to maintain I-95 continuity, the project has been put on the back burner indefinitely.
Since the two movements were completed, all that has been worked on (and completed) since then are:
- The Bensalem Interchange reconstruction
- New Falls Road bridge replacement (to make space for the new ramps)
- US-13 connector - mostly to replace an aging trumpet ramp with a signalized at-grade intersection.
The project's remaining tasks include: adding the other 6 movements, widening stretches of the turnpike, and twinning/replacing the bridge over the Delaware River. The latter was supposed to be prioritized due to a crack found a few years ago.
Quote from: lepidopteran on November 01, 2022, 05:36:43 PM...and twinning/replacing the bridge over the Delaware River. The latter was supposed to be prioritized due to a crack found a few years ago.
The NJ Turnpike Authority is in charge of leading large projects with the bridge, and has included that in their current multi-year Capital Project plan.
Looking at the latest Capital Plan, the Total Reconstruction map, and the various pages for the I-95/Turnpike interchange, it looks like Sections A, C, and D30 are due for construction as soon as next year. This would involve widening of the Turnpike from the Bensalem interchange to I-95.
As far as the missing movements at the interchange itself, we may still wait a while...
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/i-95-interchange-project/design-construction-details/section-a
https://files.paturnpike.com/production/docs/default-source/resources/traveling-resources/total-recon-map-march-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=d9cf9a14_11
https://files.paturnpike.com/production/docs/default-source/resources/investor-relations/capital-plan/fy23-capital-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=fe252d1a_4 (look for I-95 Stage 2 under Interchanges)
Quote from: famartin on November 24, 2021, 11:50:31 AM
I'd rank the ramp pair importance from most to least in this way (only including the incomplete ones):
I-95 SB->I-295 EB and I-295 WB->I-95 NB
I-276 EB->I-95 SB and I-95 NB->I-276 WB
I-295 WB->I-276 WB and I-276 EB->I-295 EB
This is just based on how easy it is to make those movements presently without said ramps.
And these are not happening anytime soon?
I kinda wish they'd do the ramps from 95 SB to 295 EB/295 WB to 95 NB first... I think its the next most needed missing move (and it would give me a better alternate route to/from work than the Burlington-Bristol Bridge currently provides :-D).
Quote from: famartin on November 07, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
I kinda wish they'd do the ramps from 95 SB to 295 EB/295 WB to 95 NB first... I think its the next most needed missing move (and it would give me a better alternate route to/from work than the Burlington-Bristol Bridge currently provides :-D).
I think 295 WB to 276 WB and 276 EB to 295 EB would be the next most needed.
Quote from: Alps on November 07, 2022, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 07, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
I kinda wish they'd do the ramps from 95 SB to 295 EB/295 WB to 95 NB first... I think its the next most needed missing move (and it would give me a better alternate route to/from work than the Burlington-Bristol Bridge currently provides :-D).
I think 295 WB to 276 WB and 276 EB to 295 EB would be the next most needed.
Still, those two movements are handled by US 1, which is a freeway, so the urgency really isn't there. The only real slowdown is the Bensalem interchange, but that has gotten better now that the interchange construction on US 1 is done.
Quote from: MASTERNC on November 08, 2022, 08:11:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 07, 2022, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 07, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
I kinda wish they'd do the ramps from 95 SB to 295 EB/295 WB to 95 NB first... I think its the next most needed missing move (and it would give me a better alternate route to/from work than the Burlington-Bristol Bridge currently provides :-D).
I think 295 WB to 276 WB and 276 EB to 295 EB would be the next most needed.
Still, those two movements are handled by US 1, which is a freeway, so the urgency really isn't there. The only real slowdown is the Bensalem interchange, but that has gotten better now that the interchange construction on US 1 is done.
Exactly, US 1 provides those, and after the big construction project near Neshaminy Mall is finished, it should function much better, further decreasing the need for 295 WB->276 WB/276 EB->295EB
Quote from: famartin on November 08, 2022, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on November 08, 2022, 08:11:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 07, 2022, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 07, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
I kinda wish they'd do the ramps from 95 SB to 295 EB/295 WB to 95 NB first... I think its the next most needed missing move (and it would give me a better alternate route to/from work than the Burlington-Bristol Bridge currently provides :-D).
I think 295 WB to 276 WB and 276 EB to 295 EB would be the next most needed.
Still, those two movements are handled by US 1, which is a freeway, so the urgency really isn't there. The only real slowdown is the Bensalem interchange, but that has gotten better now that the interchange construction on US 1 is done.
Exactly, US 1 provides those, and after the big construction project near Neshaminy Mall is finished, it should function much better, further decreasing the need for 295 WB->276 WB/276 EB->295EB
The 1 ramps always seem to feature chronic backups and 1 is a slog for that bit. So let's see if you're right.
Quote from: Alps on November 08, 2022, 08:08:02 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 08, 2022, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: MASTERNC on November 08, 2022, 08:11:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 07, 2022, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 07, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
I kinda wish they'd do the ramps from 95 SB to 295 EB/295 WB to 95 NB first... I think its the next most needed missing move (and it would give me a better alternate route to/from work than the Burlington-Bristol Bridge currently provides :-D).
I think 295 WB to 276 WB and 276 EB to 295 EB would be the next most needed.
Still, those two movements are handled by US 1, which is a freeway, so the urgency really isn't there. The only real slowdown is the Bensalem interchange, but that has gotten better now that the interchange construction on US 1 is done.
Exactly, US 1 provides those, and after the big construction project near Neshaminy Mall is finished, it should function much better, further decreasing the need for 295 WB->276 WB/276 EB->295EB
The 1 ramps always seem to feature chronic backups and 1 is a slog for that bit. So let's see if you're right.
They've widened the interchange and 1 south of the interchange... now they're widening north of the interchange. I think that will help a lot.
In a very clear indication that the 95/PA Turnpike Interchange is committed to be completed, the DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) has on their 4/27/23 Board Meeting Agenda a request to add a $153 Million design and construction phase to design and fully connect I-95, I-295 and I-276 in Pennsylvania and widen to 6 lanes I-276 in the immediate vicinity of this area, collectively known as Stage 2 of the overall interchange project. (Note: This money won't pay for the entire interchange and widening; this is just a small part of the overall funding needed.)
Stage 2 includes the following distinct design/construction sections:
> D30 (mainline Turnpike widening and reconstruction between the Bensalem Boulevard and I-95 overpasses);
> Section A (mainline Turnpike widening and reconstruction near the Bensalem Interchange to the Neshaminy Falls toll plaza);
> Section C (mainline Turnpike widening and reconstruction from the Neshaminy Falls Toll Plaza to the Bensalem Boulevard overpass);
> Section E (Turnpike/US 13 mainline interchange reconstruction and mainline widening to the west); and
> Section D40 (the remaining six ramps of the I-276/I-95/I-295 Interchange and related mainline improvements).
Sections D30, A, and C are progressing through final design. Sections E and D40 completed preliminary design and await identified funding sources for the respective design/construction phases to enable them to proceed. Only Sections D30 and A are anticipated to proceed to the construction phase during the FY2023 TIP.
For more information, and the opportunity to comment publicly if you wish, visit https://www.dvrpc.org/committees/board/11948 and https://www.dvrpc.org/asp/boardcomment/detail.asp?id=3792
Stage 1 was the direct connection of the I-95 ramps which opened several years ago. There is also a Stage 3 to the project, which is to replace the Delaware River Bridge with a new parallel bridge over the Delaware River, which by this indication is going to be many years away.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2023, 10:38:06 PM
In a very clear indication that the 95/PA Turnpike Interchange is committed to be completed, the DVRPC (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) has on their 4/27/23 Board Meeting Agenda a request to add a $153 Million design and construction phase to design and fully connect I-95, I-295 and I-276 in Pennsylvania and widen to 6 lanes I-276 in the immediate vicinity of this area, collectively known as Stage 2 of the overall interchange project. (Note: This money won't pay for the entire interchange and widening; this is just a small part of the overall funding needed.)
Stage 2 includes the following distinct design/construction sections:
> D30 (mainline Turnpike widening and reconstruction between the Bensalem Boulevard and I-95 overpasses);
> Section A (mainline Turnpike widening and reconstruction near the Bensalem Interchange to the Neshaminy Falls toll plaza);
> Section C (mainline Turnpike widening and reconstruction from the Neshaminy Falls Toll Plaza to the Bensalem Boulevard overpass);
> Section E (Turnpike/US 13 mainline interchange reconstruction and mainline widening to the west); and
> Section D40 (the remaining six ramps of the I-276/I-95/I-295 Interchange and related mainline improvements).
Sections D30, A, and C are progressing through final design. Sections E and D40 completed preliminary design and await identified funding sources for the respective design/construction phases to enable them to proceed. Only Sections D30 and A are anticipated to proceed to the construction phase during the FY2023 TIP.
For more information, and the opportunity to comment publicly if you wish, visit https://www.dvrpc.org/committees/board/11948 and https://www.dvrpc.org/asp/boardcomment/detail.asp?id=3792
Stage 1 was the direct connection of the I-95 ramps which opened several years ago. There is also a Stage 3 to the project, which is to replace the Delaware River Bridge with a new parallel bridge over the Delaware River, which by this indication is going to be many years away.
public comment: please choose my company for all remaining design work
signed, anonymous
Doesn't the rather new toll plaza need to be widened since there are only two express lanes and the cash lanes are closed off? Not sure if the room is there (and they just need relocated gantries).
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 18, 2023, 05:49:49 PM
Doesn't the rather new toll plaza need to be widened since there are only two express lanes and the cash lanes are closed off? Not sure if the room is there (and they just need relocated gantries).
They're likely just going to demolish the toll plaza altogether and replace it with all-electronic-tolling gantries.
Quote from: https://www.dvrpc.org/asp/boardcomment/detail.asp?id=3792
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) has requested that DVRPC amend the FY2023 TIP for Pennsylvania by adding a new I-95, PA Turnpike Interchange Stage 2 project into the TIP, in the amount of $153,000,000 Turnpike (TPK) funding...
the significant part is not just that there's an amendment request, but that the PTC is saying "here's the funding, do the thing"
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 18, 2023, 06:08:28 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on April 18, 2023, 05:49:49 PM
Doesn't the rather new toll plaza need to be widened since there are only two express lanes and the cash lanes are closed off? Not sure if the room is there (and they just need relocated gantries).
They're likely just going to demolish the toll plaza altogether and replace it with all-electronic-tolling gantries.
It's too bad that they didn't have the foresight to make the gantries wide enough for a wider turnpike. Then they could have just left them as-is, demolish the cash booths, and put some barrier down, with no new toll equipment needed.
The D30 contract is now advertised for bidding by late July
Did they get the I-295 re-designation right? I've read through a good amount of this thread and I know it has been debated. But, after a few years what do we think about I-295 from Bristol, PA up through US-1 in NJ?
Was the choice to go E-W in PA and then N-S in NJ at the old I-95 correct? I can't help but think extending I-195 west made the most sense which was originally planned back in 2012. While it would be confusing to hop on I-195 west to go from Hamilton to US-1, is that any less confusing from going on I-295 north from US-1 to the Scudder Falls Bridge? Also, I-295 in PA from the I-95 interchange to the Delaware River runs N-S.
Ultimately, I think starting I-195 east after the I-95 interchange and running all the way to the Monmouth County shore points made sense. It would give a direct route to Bucks County drivers to the shore. And you wouldn't need the direction change once you crossed over into PA. I wonder why they ditched this idea.
Do you like how they handled it?
While some people never liked the use of E-W in PA, good luck finding a single person who has gotten lost because of it.
This may have already been addressed, but do they have a timeline of when the remaining ramps of the Interstate 95/Interstate 276/Interstate 295 interchange might be constructed?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2024, 11:10:46 AM
This may have already been addressed, but do they have a timeline of when the remaining ramps of the Interstate 95/Interstate 276/Interstate 295 interchange might be constructed?
Yeah, in the Year 3000. lol.
But seriously, I haven't heard anything on this subject as of late.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 18, 2024, 10:03:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2024, 11:10:46 AM
This may have already been addressed, but do they have a timeline of when the remaining ramps of the Interstate 95/Interstate 276/Interstate 295 interchange might be constructed?
Yeah, in the Year 3000. lol.
But seriously, I haven't heard anything on this subject as of late.
https://www.paturnpike.com/traveling/construction/site/i-95-interchange-project/design-construction-details/section-d40
https://dvrpc.org/tip/pa/map/notmapped/119730?lat=40.06391944331955&lng=-74.77794233387465&z=9.83517609358057
Basically, "Funds still need to be identified" is why the remaining 6 ramps haven't been built.
We all know funds have been diverted from the Turnpike to mass transit agencies such as SEPTA. I imagine the politicians in the Philly area aren't pushing for the project to be completed knowing they're already the recipient of the funds...they're just diverted to mass transit usage in the area instead.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2024, 11:10:46 AM
This may have already been addressed, but do they have a timeline of when the remaining ramps of the Interstate 95/Interstate 276/Interstate 295 interchange might be constructed?
I've heard that phase 2 (of 3) is getting funded right now, but I don't know how far that funding extends.