I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[akotchi]

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.

[Roadsguy]

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.

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.

I 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.

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?

Such is not known nor verified; but, again, such a routing is tolled between the I-95/276 split and US 1.

[74/171FAN]

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.

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.

[lepidopteran]

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.

[Roadsguy]

Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program:

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.

[famartin]

Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program:

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.

[storm2k]

Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program:

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.

[famartin]

Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program:

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Roadsguy]

Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program:

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.

[jeffandnicole]

Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program:

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.

[Alps]

Found this in the proposed NJTA 2020 capital improvement program:

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[famartin]

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.

[bluecountry]

When is the new bridge going to be built?

[famartin]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Crown Victoria]

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

[SteveG1988]

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.

[Roadsguy]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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. 

[Crown Victoria]

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...

[SteveG1988]

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