AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: New Jersey Turnpike  (Read 1073776 times)

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13985
  • Age: 48
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 10:01:47 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4425 on: March 31, 2022, 09:30:00 AM »

Okay. Iíve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesnít have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?

Yep.


Logged

dzheng35

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 40
  • Location: Ithaca, NY
  • Last Login: March 18, 2023, 11:48:37 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4426 on: March 31, 2022, 09:48:18 AM »

Okay. Iíve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesnít have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?

Yep.
Why donít they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?
Logged

BlueOutback7

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1962
  • Pennsylvania has bad control cities.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: Today at 10:40:04 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4427 on: March 31, 2022, 10:06:56 AM »

Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?

Yep.
Why don’t they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?

Because the general public is used to how it is already. Sure it could be I-695 or I-895 if it had to, but everyone knows it as the Turnpike. It could get confusing for people. Let’s be honest, even the I-95 section isn’t even referred to as I-95.
Logged
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 48

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3814
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 10:04:10 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4428 on: March 31, 2022, 01:17:57 PM »

I would choose the Interstate 695 designation for Exits 1-6 on the New Jersey Turnpike. Of course, I would also renumber the turnpike's exits to mileage-based, and I know hell will freeze over before either of those things happen.
Logged

storm2k

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1297
  • Age: 41
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: March 22, 2023, 11:36:12 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4429 on: March 31, 2022, 04:46:54 PM »

Okay. Iíve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesnít have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?

Yep.
Why donít they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?

Because it's unnecessary. the Turnpike is the signed route. Adding another 3di through this stretch isn't going to make matters of navigation all that much easier for people.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 04:47:19 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4430 on: March 31, 2022, 05:14:36 PM »

Okay. Iíve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesnít have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?

Yep.
Why donít they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?

Because it's unnecessary. the Turnpike is the signed route. Adding another 3di through this stretch isn't going to make matters of navigation all that much easier for people.

I can see it even confusing peopleÖ going from 95 to 295 to 895 back to 95. Certainly the NJTA would absolutely like it to stay as-is for that reason.
Logged

fwydriver405

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 486
  • UMaine - Civil Engineering & MBB Student Asst.

  • Location: Maine - NH - MA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:36:12 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4431 on: March 31, 2022, 05:22:35 PM »

Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?

Yep.
Why don’t they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?

Because it's unnecessary. the Turnpike is the signed route. Adding another 3di through this stretch isn't going to make matters of navigation all that much easier for people.

Technically, isn't the NJ Tpke from I-295 in Pennsville to Exit 6 in Mansfield (unsigned) NJ Route 700, similar to how the Garden State Parkway is unsigned NJ Route 444?
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15356
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 40
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 06:03:41 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4432 on: March 31, 2022, 06:05:17 PM »

Okay. Iíve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesnít have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?

Yep.
Why donít they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?

Because it's unnecessary. the Turnpike is the signed route. Adding another 3di through this stretch isn't going to make matters of navigation all that much easier for people.

Technically, isn't the NJ Tpke from I-295 in Pennsville to Exit 6 in Mansfield (unsigned) NJ Route 700, similar to how the Garden State Parkway is unsigned NJ Route 444?
Yes.
Regarding Interstates, the northern portion is I-95 because the parallel highway was never built. The NJTA presumably isn't interested in designating more Interstates - it won't really affect how their roadway is used and just adds another shield.

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 04:47:19 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4433 on: March 31, 2022, 06:28:31 PM »

IF they ever did think to add a designation, it should start at I-95 in Delaware and end at I-95 at Exit 6. In fact, you could argue that it should be I-295, and the existing I-295 should be 4, 6 or 895. But history will likely prevent that from ever happening.
Logged

BlueOutback7

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1962
  • Pennsylvania has bad control cities.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: Today at 10:40:04 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4434 on: March 31, 2022, 06:31:11 PM »

IF they ever did think to add a designation, it should start at I-95 in Delaware and end at I-95 at Exit 6. In fact, you could argue that it should be I-295, and the existing I-295 should be 4, 6 or 895. But history will likely prevent that from ever happening.

495 is already taken as the designation for the Lincoln Tunnel and there’s an existing one in Delaware.
Logged
Decommission 128 south of Peabody!

Lowest untraveled number: 48

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 04:47:19 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4435 on: March 31, 2022, 06:35:48 PM »

IF they ever did think to add a designation, it should start at I-95 in Delaware and end at I-95 at Exit 6. In fact, you could argue that it should be I-295, and the existing I-295 should be 4, 6 or 895. But history will likely prevent that from ever happening.

495 is already taken as the designation for the Lincoln Tunnel and thereís an existing one in Delaware.

True, so if we went back in time to the start of the system, knowing that I-95 would end up where it is now, and wanted to make an interstate along NJ 700, we'd assign 295 the current 295 in DE and the southern Turnpike in NJ (current 700), and assign 695 to the current 295 from its junction with the turnpike north to the Trenton area.

But the cost of changing signs, mile markers, and the added confusion that such a change would cause in the present day will probably never let that happen, so it is what it is.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13985
  • Age: 48
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 10:01:47 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4436 on: March 31, 2022, 06:40:24 PM »

Most people that want this stretch of Turnpike given an Interstate number do so because they have the belief that all freeway-type highways should have an interstate number to attract more motorists. Also under that theory, a 2 digit interstate number is more important than a 3 digit interstate number, and that would attract more motorists.

In some areas of the country, that may be true. In this area of the country, it generally isnt.

Notably absent is very few people think of giving the Garden State Parkway an Interstate number South of 195, even though it's basically Interstate quality from I-195 down to Cape May.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2022, 12:28:42 AM by jeffandnicole »
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13638
  • Age: 32
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: Today at 09:18:53 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4437 on: March 31, 2022, 09:03:33 PM »

Most people that want this stretch of Turnpike given an Interstate number do so because they have the belief that all freeway-type highways should have an interstate number to attract more motorists. Also under that theory, a 2 digit interstate number is more important than a 3 digit interstate number, and that would attract more motorists.

In some areas of the country, that may be true. In this area of the country, it generally isnt.

Notably absent is very few people think of giving the Garden State Parkway an Interstate number South of 195, even though it's basically Interstatefan990 quality from I-195 down to Cape May.
There are also those of us who see the interstate system as the backbone of America, and this is a fairly major gap in the system (albeit a less visible one for those of us who grew up with Turnpikes being seemingly considered more important than interstates).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15356
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 40
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 06:03:41 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4438 on: March 31, 2022, 09:58:56 PM »

Please stop taking this into Fictional territory. The Turnpike is not receiving an Interstate designation. It's a toll road and so would get 0% Federal funding, so there is NO reason to designate it. People already know it bypasses Philly, it's signed as such, so it serves its purpose and the shield would bring no benefit. End of discussion, move on.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8132
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:08:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4439 on: March 31, 2022, 10:09:32 PM »

Please stop taking this into Fictional territory. The Turnpike is not receiving an Interstate designation. It's a toll road and so would get 0% Federal funding, so there is NO reason to designate it. People already know it bypasses Philly, it's signed as such, so it serves its purpose and the shield would bring no benefit. End of discussion, move on.
Point taken, and I donít plan to discuss it any - but simply because itís a toll road and receives no federal funding does not disqualify it from receiving an interstate designation.
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15356
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 40
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 06:03:41 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4440 on: March 31, 2022, 11:27:58 PM »

Please stop taking this into Fictional territory. The Turnpike is not receiving an Interstate designation. It's a toll road and so would get 0% Federal funding, so there is NO reason to designate it. People already know it bypasses Philly, it's signed as such, so it serves its purpose and the shield would bring no benefit. End of discussion, move on.
Point taken, and I donít plan to discuss it any - but simply because itís a toll road and receives no federal funding does not disqualify it from receiving an interstate designation.
Disqualify, technically, no, but I promise it's not considered.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14285
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:32 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4441 on: April 01, 2022, 11:19:25 PM »

NJ seems fine about their freeways. I lived in NJ for the first 25 years of my life, and people generally referred to the NJ Turnpike as simply ďthe Turnpike.Ē In addition the Garden State Parkway was always referred to as ďThe Parkway.Ē  Nothing will change that including the addition of a red, white, and blue shield to the non I-95 part of the roadway.


Just because North Carolina is going hog wild with renumbering existing freeways, doesnít mean that NJ will. In fact they donít want to go through the time and effort to hold meetings, apply to AASHTO, and spend money on shields. Heck they still wonít apply to AASHTO to first get approval for realigning US 322 in Mullica Hill and they still havenít applied to get US 9 realigned to The Parkway now that Beesleys Point Bridge is gone for good and will never be replaced.  Plus, I donít think AASHTO knows that US 206 Bypass exists in Hillsborough Township.  The last application sent in was for the US 206 alignment change at Netcong in the early seventies. Since then (unless the aforementioned bypass was submitted, that I highly doubt) no new applications were submitted to the feds.

If they wonít submit the paperwork on those why would they here.  NJ is very fuddy duddy when it comes to roads. IMO opinion I think Route 24 should be an x78, but that wonít happen either even though it connects two interstate routes on both ends.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

lstone19

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 186
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: March 23, 2023, 09:01:53 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4442 on: April 01, 2022, 11:29:55 PM »

NJ seems fine about their freeways. I lived in NJ for the first 25 years of my life, and people generally referred to the NJ Turnpike as simply ďthe Turnpike.Ē In addition the Garden State Parkway was always referred to as ďThe Parkway.Ē  Nothing will change that including the addition of a red, white, and blue shield to the non I-95 part of the roadway.

The names are known and they don't get forgotten.

For those who keep wanting to argue that all freeways should have an interstate number, just look at California, the king of non-interstate designated freeways. US 101 and CA 99 to mention two major ones plus a ton in the L.A. area and a handful in the Bay Area. CA 99 is all freeway from Sacramento its end at I-5 just north of the Grapevine. While US 101 is not all freeway from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it's getting close.
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15356
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 40
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 06:03:41 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4443 on: April 02, 2022, 12:02:26 AM »

NJ seems fine about their freeways. I lived in NJ for the first 25 years of my life, and people generally referred to the NJ Turnpike as simply ďthe Turnpike.Ē In addition the Garden State Parkway was always referred to as ďThe Parkway.Ē  Nothing will change that including the addition of a red, white, and blue shield to the non I-95 part of the roadway.

The names are known and they don't get forgotten.

For those who keep wanting to argue that all freeways should have an interstate number, just look at California, the king of non-interstate designated freeways. US 101 and CA 99 to mention two major ones plus a ton in the L.A. area and a handful in the Bay Area. CA 99 is all freeway from Sacramento its end at I-5 just north of the Grapevine. While US 101 is not all freeway from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it's getting close.
Arizona, where there are zero 3dis despite the wealth of freeways.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14285
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:32 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4444 on: April 02, 2022, 11:34:39 AM »

NJ seems fine about their freeways. I lived in NJ for the first 25 years of my life, and people generally referred to the NJ Turnpike as simply ďthe Turnpike.Ē In addition the Garden State Parkway was always referred to as ďThe Parkway.Ē  Nothing will change that including the addition of a red, white, and blue shield to the non I-95 part of the roadway.

The names are known and they don't get forgotten.

For those who keep wanting to argue that all freeways should have an interstate number, just look at California, the king of non-interstate designated freeways. US 101 and CA 99 to mention two major ones plus a ton in the L.A. area and a handful in the Bay Area. CA 99 is all freeway from Sacramento its end at I-5 just north of the Grapevine. While US 101 is not all freeway from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it's getting close.

Yes by all means US 101 should become I-3 someday, but I donít expect it. I wonít suggest it even on fictional highways either.  IMO I would like to actually see NJTA apply for a designation, but Iím fine as they donít.  People know from years of the split in I-95 that the the non publicly known numbered freeway is a loop of I-95 by now and know itís the de facto bypass of Philly for I-95.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13985
  • Age: 48
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 10:01:47 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4445 on: April 02, 2022, 01:59:40 PM »

If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways.  I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever.  Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.

It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering.  After all, it was given I-95 and I-78. 

Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's?  If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway. 
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15356
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 40
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 06:03:41 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4446 on: April 03, 2022, 02:05:26 AM »

If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways.  I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever.  Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.

It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering.  After all, it was given I-95 and I-78. 

Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's?  If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway. 
Your first statement isn't quite true. Original 95 at some point was conceived as a completely separate roadway.

Ted$8roadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 984
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: Today at 08:33:10 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4447 on: April 03, 2022, 03:09:36 PM »

If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways.  I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever.  Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.

It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering.  After all, it was given I-95 and I-78. 

Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's?  If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway.

Letís not forget it took six decades to plan, design and build I-95 along its present route in Bucks County/OA Turnpike.  .

https://qz.com/1366559/i-95-between-new-jersey-and-pennsylvania-is-finally-finished-61-years-later/

IIRC, a combination of wealthy exurb NIMBYs and NJ Turnpike officials whodunnit want free-Route competitio made sure that the planned Route for 95, which was to parallel the NJ Turnpike, never happened.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1015
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: March 24, 2023, 04:47:19 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4448 on: April 03, 2022, 03:16:45 PM »

If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways.  I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever.  Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.

It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering.  After all, it was given I-95 and I-78. 

Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's?  If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway.

Letís not forget it took six decades to plan, design and build I-95 along its present route in Bucks County/OA Turnpike.  .

https://qz.com/1366559/i-95-between-new-jersey-and-pennsylvania-is-finally-finished-61-years-later/

IIRC, a combination of wealthy exurb NIMBYs and NJ Turnpike officials whodunnit want free-Route competitio made sure that the planned Route for 95, which was to parallel the NJ Turnpike, never happened.

Technically the PA link only took 3 1/2 decades (1982 to 2018). That's the length of time between when it was first legislated to when it finally opened. Before then, it was supposed to be a new alignment in NJ.
Logged

Ted$8roadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 984
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: Today at 08:33:10 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4449 on: April 03, 2022, 03:26:11 PM »

If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways.  I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever.  Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.

It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering.  After all, it was given I-95 and I-78. 

Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's?  If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway.

Letís not forget it took six decades to plan, design and build I-95 along its present route in Bucks County/OA Turnpike.  .

https://qz.com/1366559/i-95-between-new-jersey-and-pennsylvania-is-finally-finished-61-years-later/

IIRC, a combination of wealthy exurb NIMBYs and NJ Turnpike officials whodunnit want free-Route competitio made sure that the planned Route for 95, which was to parallel the NJ Turnpike, never happened.

Technically the PA link only took 3 1/2 decades (1982 to 2018). That's the length of time between when it was first legislated to when it finally opened. Before then, it was supposed to be a new alignment in NJ.

True. But the total time, from start to finish, including the missing link in NJ/PA was much longer.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.