This Interstate has had more realignments than almost any major Interstate. Have the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey gotten anywhere on an interchange from I-95 to the Penn TPK extension north of Philly that crosses the Delaware River and hooks into the NJ TPK? This would become the "new" I-95 to NYC and the portion north of Philly is reduced to 3-di status.
Tangible work is coming. 2014 may be the opening year now instead of 2012.
absolutely the worst excuse for an interstate in the system. 95 to 195 to 295 to 695 to 1595 to 238 to the f'n Oregon Trail and the after a long drive through a cow-infested swamp, you're back on 95.
at least Breezewood is signed.
Quote from: Fcexpress80 on June 02, 2009, 10:29:31 PM
This Interstate has had more realignments than almost any major Interstate. Have the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey gotten anywhere on an interchange from I-95 to the Penn TPK extension north of Philly that crosses the Delaware River and hooks into the NJ TPK? This would become the "new" I-95 to NYC and the portion north of Philly is reduced to 3-di status.
The plan for an I-95 interchange has been in the works for years now. http://www.paturnpikei95.com/ (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/) is the official site of the project.
The plan is to decommission I-295 north of I-195, and the latter will take over the route of 295 and 95 down to the Turnpike.
And a terrible idea at that, Interstate 195 will be to the west, north, and east of Trenton, and will also connect Trenton with the N.J. Turnpike and coastline.
Quote from: AARoads on June 03, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
And a terrible idea at that, Interstate 195 will be to the west, north, and east of Trenton, and will also connect Trenton with the N.J. Turnpike and coastline.
And like I-376 near Pittsburgh, it will touch its parent twice. Once, of course, at the new interchange with the PA Turnpike and it will cross I-95 at exit 7A.
I liked the other idea where I-295 would take over I-95 from the PA Turnpike to Trenton.
Quote from: mightyace on June 03, 2009, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: AARoads on June 03, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
And a terrible idea at that, Interstate 195 will be to the west, north, and east of Trenton, and will also connect Trenton with the N.J. Turnpike and coastline.
And like I-376 near Pittsburgh, it will touch its parent twice. Once, of course, at the new interchange with the PA Turnpike and it will cross I-95 at exit 7A.
I liked the other idea where I-295 would take over I-95 from the PA Turnpike to Trenton.
I-295 would still have intersected I-95 twice with a bridge over it for a third crossing
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 03, 2009, 03:30:23 PM
Quote from: mightyace on June 03, 2009, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: AARoads on June 03, 2009, 11:20:02 AM
And a terrible idea at that, Interstate 195 will be to the west, north, and east of Trenton, and will also connect Trenton with the N.J. Turnpike and coastline.
And like I-376 near Pittsburgh, it will touch its parent twice. Once, of course, at the new interchange with the PA Turnpike and it will cross I-95 at exit 7A.
I liked the other idea where I-295 would take over I-95 from the PA Turnpike to Trenton.
I-295 would still have intersected I-95 twice with a bridge over it for a third crossing
Open mouth, insert foot. :banghead: :banghead:
I mentioned this in another thread, but . . .
My preference would be to have a new number assigned to the orphaned piece of I-95, such as I-695 or I-895. It makes more sense directionally, and requires little change to the existing signing except for swapping shields. Also avoids the awkward issues regarding posting cardinal directions like on I-295 and I-64 in Virginia.
Quote from: akotchi on June 03, 2009, 05:01:11 PM
I mentioned this in another thread, but . . .
My preference would be to have a new number assigned to the orphaned piece of I-95, such as I-695 or I-895. It makes more sense directionally, and requires little change to the existing signing except for swapping shields. Also avoids the awkward issues regarding posting cardinal directions like on I-295 and I-64 in Virginia.
I think I'd be OK with that. But, you know it will never happen because that actually makes sense. :D
So true . . . I can dream, can't I? :)
The problem really is that I-95 travels through the entirety of the most densely populated part of the country. New York got it built through with the Cross Bronx Expressway. Similar plans in Washington and Boston were nixed by the whole freeway revolt thing, forcing the route to be sloppily rerouted around the city instead in both cases. And thus there really is no good way around or through DC, and long distance traffic is better off bypassing Boston (and Providence and New London) via 91, 84, 90, and 495 - rejoining I-95 nearly 200 miles from where you last saw it.
In the same fashion, some of the more affluent towns in central Jersey didn't want I-95 cutting right through them - forcing the Somerset Freeway to be canceled and leaving a gap in the highway since there was no good way to reroute it that wouldn't remove it from Philadelphia entirely.
The public complains, and the government has to listen to the voters. It happens. What there's no excuse for is that nearly 30 years after the freeway was canceled, there's still no interchange in Bristol to very simply allow a non-gapped route. It's proposed by the feds, PTC takes a decade to get around to doing anything about it, and another decade to do an impact study. Ridiculous.
Why couldn't New Jersey just slap some I-95 shields on I-195 between I-295 and the NJ Turnpike and be done with it.
I've never understood how people can blame PennDOT for NJDOT's inability to sign/build highways.
The fact that the interchange wasn't built in the first place (regardless of the I-95 situation) doesn't make sense to me. Two major interstates cross and you can't even move between them.
Quote from: deanej on June 24, 2009, 03:43:47 PM
The fact that the interchange wasn't built in the first place (regardless of the I-95 situation) doesn't make sense to me. Two major interstates cross and you can't even move between them.
Well, that's been the case all across Pennsylvania along the Turnpike for years.
IIRC It stems from the fact that there must be cooperation between the PTC and PennDOT to manage such interchanges and PTC doesn't want to give up control.
So you have, from west to east...
Exit 28 Cranberry - A direct link to I-79 has only existed for a couple of years.
Exit 48 - There still is no direct connection between the PA 28 freeway and the Turnpike. The current route is a confusing run over surface roads. I know this from personal experience.
east of Exit 110 Somerset - the US 219 freeway has existed for 20-30 years with no connction to the turnpike and the closest exits on 219 3-5 miles away.
exit 146 Bedford - US 220 and I-99 - long before the designation of the infamous I-99, there has never been a direct connection between the freeway and the Turnpike.
exit 161 Breezewood - I-70 - I think we all know about this one.
exit 226 Carlisle - To get to/from I-81 one must still take the original turnpike terminus at US 11 and trudge a mile or so to I-81.
exits 236 (US15), 242 (I-83), 247 (I-283) - all have direct connections to the freeways in question. It just so happens that these are the Harrisburg interchanges. And if you believe that one...
east of exit 247 - PA 283 crosses the Turnpike several miles east of exit 247, since PA 283 ends at I-283 just north of exit 247, it's debatable if this is a problem or not.
exit 286 - For years, the exit still went to PA 272 instead of the new US 222 alignment.
exit 299 Morgantown - the freeway that is now I-176 has existed since the 1960s but it wasn't until the late 90's early 00's that a direct connection was finally built.
exit 326 Valley Forge - one of the few exits with freeway connections from the beginning, while there is no direct US 422 connection it's close proximity to the Schuylkill Expressway makes this a non-issue.
exit 333/20 Mid-county - the connection to the free section of I-476 was the last part of I-476 to be finished.
I'm not familiar with the situations at Exit 339 (PA 309) or Exit 351 (US 1) that are freeway connections today.
So, I-95 is just the last in a long line of non-connections.
Quoteexit 286 - For years, the exit still went to PA 272 instead of the new US 222 alignment.
Although it isn't a direct freeway-to-freeway interchange, this one isn't too bad since there's nothing between the US 222 interchange and the Turnpike interchange except for the toll booth...
Indeed there are many examples, though it is one of the worse ones as the nearest exit on I-276 is three miles away. I'll add the ones on I-476 too:
-Mid-county interchange explained above (listed here for the sake of being complete)
-Direct connection to US 22, but not I-78
-Interchange with I-80 is not freeway-to-freeway
-Exit 115 with I-81 involves surface streets
-The ending connection with I-81 is freeway-to-freeway, but it involves sharp turns and at least one stop
Of these, exit 115 on I-476 is the least likely to ever be fixed (it would simply encourage even more people to bypass the turnpike). The ideal solution would be to end the turnpike here with a direct connection to I-81 with the remaining section north of I-81 (around I-81's exit 180) to be an I-x81 with direct connections at each end and more interchanges. This would significantly improve transportation in the Scranton area.
^^^^ deanej,
I thought about the Northeast Extension, but I didn't write about it for two reasons.
1) That post was long enough already.
2) IMHO, the issues on the extension aren't as egregious as on the mainline.
Quote
-Direct connection to US 22, but not I-78
I used this exit a little over a month ago. Given the proximity of I-78 "cutting the corner" between US 22 and PA 309 to the existing exit, IMHO it's not a big deal not having a direct connection. If you go west on US 22, you shortly join I-78 and to get to I-78 east, US 22 East to PA 309 South. Getting around would be harder if you could only get to I-78.
Also, when this was built, I-78 was supposed to take the current US 22 routing, it was later rerouted to its current alignment as I suppose it was cheaper and/or easier to build the new I-78 south of town than to upgrade US 22 to interstate standards, especially in Phillipsburg, NJ where US 22 follows surface streets.
Quote-Interchange with I-80 is not freeway-to-freeway
That would be ideal, but as traffic on PA 940 is minimal, there is usually very little wait at the traffic light. Since you have to stop to at the toll booth unless you have EZPass this is a minor delay.
Quote-Exit 115 with I-81 involves surface streets
I can't argue with that. But, I don't think I'd worry about diverting traffic off the turnpike north of that exit. That stretch from 115 to the terminus has never had much traffic even with moving to an open tolling system. To get enough exits to make it useful, it would either need to be all electronic tolling or a free highway section.
Quote-The ending connection with I-81 is freeway-to-freeway, but it involves sharp turns and at least one stop
I'm familiar with the sharp turns both on the main-line and the double trumpet to get to I-81, but what stop is there other than the toll booth?
QuoteQuote-Exit 115 with I-81 involves surface streets
I can't argue with that. But, I don't think I'd worry about diverting traffic off the turnpike north of that exit. That stretch from 115 to the terminus has never had much traffic even with moving to an open tolling system. To get enough exits to make it useful, it would either need to be all electronic tolling or a free highway section.
Two points: though the connection to I-81 at Exit 115 involves surface streets, there are only traffic signals if you are going to/from I-81 South. One could argue that the connection to/from I-81 North is semi-direct, given ramps and the auxiliary lanes along PA 315.
Second point: although a direct connection to/from I-81 North at the northern terminus would be nice, I actually like this northern leg of the extension for several reasons:
- It's 3 miles shorter than taking I-81.
- Aside from the toll plazas and the bridge over the valley at Clarks Summit, it's signed 65 MPH, whereas I-81 is 55 MPH.
- There's very little traffic, which makes it much easier to maintain a decent speed, unlike the "platoon hell" along I-81.
So, even with the toll, it became my route of choice through Scranton when I was making my Norfolk-Syracuse runs years ago. I figure it saved me anywhere from 3-5 minutes over taking I-81.
QuoteQuote-The ending connection with I-81 is freeway-to-freeway, but it involves sharp turns and at least one stop
I'm familiar with the sharp turns both on the main-line and the double trumpet to get to I-81, but what stop is there other than the toll booth?
The off-ramp from southbound I-81 has a stop sign where it meets the loop ramp coming from northbound I-81.
at the time that the interstate system was planned, interchanges between freeways and toll roads was not a priority. The I-79 junction was only built somewhat recently, and I believe there wasn't originally a connection where the free road crosses the Ohio Turnpike and I-76 and I-80 swap numbers. Even now it is very clumsy, with the only example in the interstate system of not only having to exit one's self to stay on the road with the same number, but even having to go through a stop-and-go toll plaza!
As you can see, the older turnpikes were just not 100% compatible with the new Interstate system. There are also some quirks around Albany regarding I-87, I-90, and the New York Thruway.
Quote from: mightyace on June 24, 2009, 04:16:58 PM
I'm not familiar with the situations at Exit 339 (PA 309) or Exit 351 (US 1) that are freeway connections today.
So, I-95 is just the last in a long line of non-connections.
Exit 339 has direct ramp connections to/from Route 309, though the entire interchange was just rebuilt.
Exit 351 has direct ramps to and from U.S. 1, but it is a very tight trumpet with other exits north and south dangerously close. Signing along U.s. 1 is also horrible. I am hearing that there is a project in the near future (?) to reconstruct/widen the roadway and interchanges, not related to the Turnpike work, but compatible with it.
Quote from: osu-lsu on June 24, 2009, 03:15:36 AM
Why couldn't New Jersey just slap some I-95 shields on I-195 between I-295 and the NJ Turnpike and be done with it.
I've never understood how people can blame PennDOT for NJDOT's inability to sign/build highways.
As I like to say, "Don't blame us, we built our portion of I-95." It took until the 1980s to complete it through Philadelphia County, but it got done.
You know what I would do with I-95 in the Philly area ? I would put I-95E on the NJ Turnpike and I-95W on the current I-95 through Philly , finally build the interchange on I-276, then use the remainder of I-276 east to rejoin 95 E & W. It's too bad noone thought of that before.
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 12, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
You know what I would do with I-95 in the Philly area ? I would put I-95E on the NJ Turnpike and I-95W on the current I-95 through Philly , finally build the interchange on I-276, then use the remainder of I-276 east to rejoin 95 E & W. It's too bad noone thought of that before.
Not happening. Also I think the plan with 195 was dumped a few months ago, and 295 would've been extended, but I can't claim perfectly.
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 12, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
You know what I would do with I-95 in the Philly area ? I would put I-95E on the NJ Turnpike and I-95W on the current I-95 through Philly , finally build the interchange on I-276, then use the remainder of I-276 east to rejoin 95 E & W. It's too bad noone thought of that before.
Probably the reason is that we aren't supposed to have suffixed interstates anymore. The only reason I-35 does it is because the cities couldn't agree on who would get I-35 when they were removed.
If I-295's extended, what does that mean for its direction? Does one suddenly go from heading north to heading south?
Quote from: deanej on October 13, 2009, 04:26:44 PM
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 12, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
You know what I would do with I-95 in the Philly area ? I would put I-95E on the NJ Turnpike and I-95W on the current I-95 through Philly , finally build the interchange on I-276, then use the remainder of I-276 east to rejoin 95 E & W. It's too bad noone thought of that before.
Probably the reason is that we aren't supposed to have suffixed interstates anymore. The only reason I-35 does it is because the cities couldn't agree on who would get I-35 when they were removed.
If I-295's extended, what does that mean for its direction? Does one suddenly go from heading north to heading south?
Probably, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. (See I-270 Columbus, I-275 Cincinnati, I-265 Louisville, I-285 Atlanta, I-695 Baltimore, etc. for examples)
Or, the part on the north side of Trenton might be signed East-West.
I'm thinking that current I-95 becomes east-west I-295, and then reverts to N-S on the PA side.
(EDIT: Likely going to become I-195, in which case the point is moot. And it's dumb because 195 becomes a loop.)
I was under the impression that I-195 would begin at the 95/476 interchange, loop around the north/east sides of Trenton, then continue east along its existing Jersey route. Which would still make it a spur...albeit one that meets its parent twice.
Earlier this decade, the plan was to sign 295 around Trenton then south to meet 95/276 in Bristol. A few years back it was changed to 195 beginning there and replacing 95 and 295 to its current western terminus.
Is there any update as to when the 95/276 interchange will actually begin? I was just through there late last month and saw no visible progress.
Quote from: PAHighways on October 14, 2009, 03:07:36 PM
Earlier this decade, the plan was to sign 295 around Trenton then south to meet 95/276 in Bristol. A few years back it was changed to 195 beginning there and replacing 95 and 295 to its current western terminus.
Wasn't there a plan at one point to sign it I-395?
Quote from: flaroadgeek on October 14, 2009, 10:33:09 PM
Is there any update as to when the 95/276 interchange will actually begin? I was just through there late last month and saw no visible progress.
I live practically within sight of the future interchange. Every time I look at the web site, they claim that local bridge work would start either that fall or spring. I am anxious to see construction start because I use many of the local roads affected by the project. Site currently says Fall 2009, but the beginning of construction has been threatened for about 3 years now. . .
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 15, 2009, 12:41:16 AMWasn't there a plan at one point to sign it I-395?
I only remember 295 being discussed for replacing 95.
Are there any photos out there anywhere that show how I-95 disappears and reappears? Photos of how it transitions from I-95 north to I-295 south and vice versa?
I haven't ever managed to wrap my head around the shenanigans that I-95 accomplishes around NJ and PA, so I prefer to pretend it just follows the NJTP.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2009, 10:00:08 AM
Are there any photos out there anywhere that show how I-95 disappears and reappears? Photos of how it transitions from I-95 north to I-295 south and vice versa?
For I-95 North becoming I-295 South, I have some old pictures up. I'm not even sure the transition takes place in this same location anymore. See the August 12, 2002 entries at http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/).
My experience on the NJTP is that I-95 magically appears northbound and disappears southbound, with no indication from signage in the area that it's happening, at the I-276/PA Tpke exit. North of there, there are I-95 reassurance shields in the middle of the road, south of there, there aren't (at least none I can remember).
Quote from: Jim on October 21, 2009, 03:01:03 PM
For I-95 North becoming I-295 South, I have some old pictures up. I'm not even sure the transition takes place in this same location anymore. See the August 12, 2002 entries at http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/).
My experience on the NJTP is that I-95 magically appears northbound and disappears southbound, with no indication from signage in the area that it's happening, at the I-276/PA Tpke exit. North of there, there are I-95 reassurance shields in the middle of the road, south of there, there aren't (at least none I can remember).
DeLorme Street Atlas 2009 and MS Streets & Trips 2009 both indicate the transition takes place at US 1.
On the NJTP, there are intermittent signs south of I-276 for "To I-95" as you travel south. I just drove the NJTP south from the Garden State to the Delaware Memorial Bridge and took lots of photos. Hope to have them online by the end of this week.
Quote from: Jim on October 21, 2009, 03:01:03 PM
For I-95 North becoming I-295 South, I have some old pictures up. I'm not even sure the transition takes place in this same location anymore. See the August 12, 2002 entries at http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/).
That date actually points to photos in my neck of the woods!
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2009, 10:00:08 AM
Are there any photos out there anywhere that show how I-95 disappears and reappears? Photos of how it transitions from I-95 north to I-295 south and vice versa?
https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/i-295c_nj.html (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/i-295c_nj.html)
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-295_denj.html (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-295_denj.html)
- Lyle
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2009, 03:26:15 PM
Quote from: Jim on October 21, 2009, 03:01:03 PM
For I-95 North becoming I-295 South, I have some old pictures up. I'm not even sure the transition takes place in this same location anymore. See the August 12, 2002 entries at http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/).
That date actually points to photos in my neck of the woods!
Typo - August 18, 2002.
When I flew up to Philadelphia last month I rented a car to do some roading. Part of my journey took me up Interstate 295 to finish clinching it so I took perspectives in each directive at the transition point at Exit 67AB (Exit 67 if traveling north on Interstate 95):
Perspective along Interstate 295 North at Exit 67AB:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-295nb_at_exit67ab.jpg)
Guide sign just prior to the transition from Interstate 295 North to Interstate 95 South. Photo taken 09/26/09.
Perspective along Interstate 95 North at Exit 67:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/i-095nb_at_exit67.jpg)
Guide sign warning motorists of the upcoming transition to Interstate 295 (South). Photo taken 09/26/09.
Another sign along northbound Interstate 295 showing the upcoming transition of the two interstates as posted on the shield gallery:
www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NJ19792953t102950.jpg (//www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NJ19792953t102950.jpg)
So then is I-95 signed to get over to the NJTP via I-195?
It is signed via trailblazer along I-295 south and I-195 east. No signing is present in the reverse direction, presumably because the NJ Turnpike is more direct (and they don't want to lose revenue).
A signing project was undertaken in 2004 to consistently direct drivers eastward via Interstate 195 to the Turnpike for the continuation of Interstate 95. The results are guide signs and trailblazers posted to direct motorists to Interstate 95/NJ Turnpike north via Interstate 195.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey100/i-195_eb_exit_001b_01.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey100/i-195_eb_exit_003a_01.jpg)
Corresponding signs were replaced for Interstate 195 on Interstate 295 to show the connection to Interstate 95:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey200/i-295_sb_exit_062_04.jpg)
why not sign 95 to 76 (Schuylkill Expwy) to 295 as 95? As far as I can tell, those are all freeway-to-freeway connections.
Probably because I-95 officially and physically exists up to the north side of Trenton.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 21, 2009, 11:13:19 PM
why not sign 95 to 76 (Schuylkill Expwy) to 295 as 95? As far as I can tell, those are all freeway-to-freeway connections.
But nowhere close to a continuous route. Right now, the solution is inelegant, but at least more or less continuous with the planned direct ramps.
what do you mean by "continuous"?
At least two lanes in either direction, maintaining freeway speeds of more than 50 mph.
yes, but when will they ever build that Penna Turnpike to 95 connector?
they could've signed the Schuylkill-to-276 as early as the 1970s or whenever those were finished, and we'd have at least 30 years of continuous 95.
The catch there is that the I-95 Somerset Freeway wasn't finally killed until 1982. And it was around or shortly after that same timeframe when Congress approved the current plan to build the I-95/I-276 interchange and reroute I-95 across the Delaware and onto the Jersey Turnpike.
Quote from: froggie on October 23, 2009, 10:00:53 AM
The catch there is that the I-95 Somerset Freeway wasn't finally killed until 1982. And it was around or shortly after that same timeframe when Congress approved the current plan to build the I-95/I-276 interchange and reroute I-95 across the Delaware and onto the Jersey Turnpike.
and, I am presuming, in 1982, they did not figure that the I-95/Turnpike interchange would still be unbuilt 29 years later!
the way it is signed right now is absurdly confusing. I remember as early as 1990 or so driving with my parents and we were trying to figure why there were seemingly two 95 branches labeled on the Rand McNally map - one coming north from Philadelphia, and the other south along the Turnpike, and the two were diverging horribly...
(that's about the last time we took 95 anywhere - I-84 to I-81 to I-83 is a much faster way to get to Washington, DC!)
Quote from: froggie on October 23, 2009, 10:00:53 AM
The catch there is that the I-95 Somerset Freeway wasn't finally killed until 1982. And it was around or shortly after that same timeframe when Congress approved the current plan to build the I-95/I-276 interchange and reroute I-95 across the Delaware and onto the Jersey Turnpike.
And because of that Interstates 95 and 295 came together at the U.S. 206 interchange until 1993.
Quote from: AARoads on October 23, 2009, 10:36:42 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 23, 2009, 10:00:53 AM
The catch there is that the I-95 Somerset Freeway wasn't finally killed until 1982. And it was around or shortly after that same timeframe when Congress approved the current plan to build the I-95/I-276 interchange and reroute I-95 across the Delaware and onto the Jersey Turnpike.
And because of that Interstates 95 and 295 came together at the U.S. 206 interchange until 1993.
Not quite. They ran into each other east of NJ 31 where the open land for the planned interchange is. It's where the two carriageways get far enough apart that you can't see the other side of the highway.
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/home.htm
Page on I-95 intersection recently updated and it looks like initial stages of project will start soon.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 13, 2009, 08:40:02 PM
I'm thinking that current I-95 becomes east-west I-295, and then reverts to N-S on the PA side.
(EDIT: Likely going to become I-195, in which case the point is moot. And it's dumb because 195 becomes a loop.)
Yeah, I think this is dumb. How about having I-295 take over I-195 their junction to the Turnpike? Then 295 would be a loop from 95 in DE to 95 east of Trenton. The rest of 295 and the current free 95 around Trenton could be 695, as it is a loop around Trenton.
The Somerset Freeway would have made my commute this summer much easier (Princeton to Berkeley Heights), but the advantages of living in Princeton might be gone if that was the case.
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07openhouse.htm
Projected completion of Turnpike/I-95 is "beyond 2017".
Stage 1 construction on the interchange itself to begin in 2012.
I believe the reason for extending I-195 is because I-295 would change from north-south to south-north at the border.
I can't see why it tacks the PTC so long to build a simple interchange. I can't believe they are honestly assigning virtually no resources to a project that would increase the number of people on the road, and hence toll income would go up.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 20, 2010, 11:59:52 AM
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07openhouse.htm
Projected completion of Turnpike/I-95 is "beyond 2017".
Stage 1 construction on the interchange itself to begin in 2012.
And here I was thinking that they'd have that open by 2012. I know that's what the NJ Turnpike was aiming for when it began the widening program (now very much underway).
I guess those overlay panels on the new Interchange 6 guide signs will end up hanging around for quite awhile. The panels were designed including I-95 shields with the thought that the interchange would be completed in 2014 sometime.
Quote from: PAHighways on June 24, 2009, 10:58:40 PM
Quote from: osu-lsu on June 24, 2009, 03:15:36 AM
Why couldn't New Jersey just slap some I-95 shields on I-195 between I-295 and the NJ Turnpike and be done with it.
I've never understood how people can blame PennDOT for NJDOT's inability to sign/build highways.
As I like to say, "Don't blame us, we built our portion of I-95." It took until the 1980s to complete it through Philadelphia County, but it got done.
Tiny correction: it was finished through Philadelphia by November of 1979. I remember it well because I happened to use it to go to an Eagles game (from central New Jersey) and on the way home we heard the news of the taking of hostages at the US embassy in Teheran.
Quote from: Jim on October 21, 2009, 03:01:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2009, 10:00:08 AM
Are there any photos out there anywhere that show how I-95 disappears and reappears? Photos of how it transitions from I-95 north to I-295 south and vice versa?
For I-95 North becoming I-295 South, I have some old pictures up. I'm not even sure the transition takes place in this same location anymore. See the August 12, 2002 entries at http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/).
Back in the late 80s, the number changed at the point where the Somerset Freeway would have branched off. What is now (I believe) interchange 5 on I-95 was interchange 71 on 295. Then the next interchange to the west was, and still is, interchange 4 on 95. There were even ghost ramps between the two interchanges which are now gone, or at least hidden. At some point, the state of New Jersey seems to have accepted that the Somerset Freeway wasn't happening and shifted the changeover point to the US 1 interchange (so the piece of 295 between the ghost Somerset Freeway and US 1 was redesignated I-95, and exit numbers were changed accordingly).
Hagstrom street maps of Middlesex County, N.J., from the 70s show the 95 designation (and only the 95 designation) on what is now 287 from the Turnpike to the north end of the ghost Somerset Freeway. And well into the 90s, the starting point for exit numbering on 287 was the Somerset Freeway junction rather than the Turnpike - exit numbers weren't posted down there, but the exits farther north were calculated from there. In the 90s (probably) all those exit numbers where adjusted (and the exit numbers all the way to the Turnpike were posted), so that the numbering now starts at the Turnpike.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 22, 2010, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on June 24, 2009, 10:58:40 PM
Quote from: osu-lsu on June 24, 2009, 03:15:36 AM
Why couldn't New Jersey just slap some I-95 shields on I-195 between I-295 and the NJ Turnpike and be done with it.
I've never understood how people can blame PennDOT for NJDOT's inability to sign/build highways.
As I like to say, "Don't blame us, we built our portion of I-95." It took until the 1980s to complete it through Philadelphia County, but it got done.
Tiny correction: it was finished through Philadelphia by November of 1979. I remember it well because I happened to use it to go to an Eagles game (from central New Jersey) and on the way home we heard the news of the taking of hostages at the US embassy in Teheran.
Except for that part around the Philly Airport, which didn't occur till 1986.
Quote from: Adam Smith on August 22, 2010, 01:38:03 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 22, 2010, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on June 24, 2009, 10:58:40 PM
Quote from: osu-lsu on June 24, 2009, 03:15:36 AM
Why couldn't New Jersey just slap some I-95 shields on I-195 between I-295 and the NJ Turnpike and be done with it.
I've never understood how people can blame PennDOT for NJDOT's inability to sign/build highways.
As I like to say, "Don't blame us, we built our portion of I-95." It took until the 1980s to complete it through Philadelphia County, but it got done.
Tiny correction: it was finished through Philadelphia by November of 1979. I remember it well because I happened to use it to go to an Eagles game (from central New Jersey) and on the way home we heard the news of the taking of hostages at the US embassy in Teheran.
Except for that part around the Philly Airport, which didn't occur till 1986.
You sure? I know that my 1980 Rand McNally shows the section through the Center City waterfront as incomplete, and I know that's incorrect because was on it in November '79 (at least incorrect for 1980, who knows when the atlas went to press). My memory is that that was the last incompleted section in the city limits, but there I could be mistaken. I'd check Wikipedia if I weren't about to go out for a drive, because it's finally stopped raining and baseball's better on the radio. :-)
I remember discussing this with my uncle. He said that when he moved down to the Philly area in the early 80's that 95 by the airport still wasn't built yet.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 21, 2009, 10:00:08 AM
Are there any photos out there anywhere that show how I-95 disappears and reappears? Photos of how it transitions from I-95 north to I-295 south and vice versa?
Ray Martin did a series of photos back in 2002 documenting the various alternate routes of I-95.
http://www.njfreeways.com/Interstate_95_Gap.html
Looking at the projected future signage for I-95, 195 & 295, there will not be an intersection at the northern, New Jersey Turnpike Extension "crossing" of 95 and 295:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07oh_graphics/FutureI95/I-95%20-%20Redesignation%20FUTURE.jpg
Are there any current instances elsewhere in the country where a completed even-digit 3di "loop" does not intersect with its parent 2di at one of the two ends of the loop?
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 22, 2010, 12:45:00 PM
Back in the late 80s, the number changed at the point where the Somerset Freeway would have branched off. What is now (I believe) interchange 5 on I-95 was interchange 71 on 295. Then the next interchange to the west was, and still is, interchange 4 on 95. There were even ghost ramps between the two interchanges which are now gone, or at least hidden. At some point, the state of New Jersey seems to have accepted that the Somerset Freeway wasn't happening and shifted the changeover point to the US 1 interchange (so the piece of 295 between the ghost Somerset Freeway and US 1 was redesignated I-95, and exit numbers were changed accordingly).
Hagstrom street maps of Middlesex County, N.J., from the 70s show the 95 designation (and only the 95 designation) on what is now 287 from the Turnpike to the north end of the ghost Somerset Freeway. And well into the 90s, the starting point for exit numbering on 287 was the Somerset Freeway junction rather than the Turnpike - exit numbers weren't posted down there, but the exits farther north were calculated from there. In the 90s (probably) all those exit numbers where adjusted (and the exit numbers all the way to the Turnpike were posted), so that the numbering now starts at the Turnpike.
Interstate 295's exit numbers went as far as west as U.S. 206 until 1993. I have video from then showing the black/yellow "Formerly Exit XX" signs.
Regarding Interstate 95 in Philadelphia, indeed the last stretch to open was the freeway around Philadelphia International Airport. I remember all traffic being dumped onto Pennsylvania 291 at what is now Exit 10 (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-095_nb_exit_010_02.jpg). The drive along PA-291 was extremely congested through there until the 1985 completion.
Quote from: AARoads on August 23, 2010, 06:07:16 PM
Interstate 295's exit numbers went as far as west as U.S. 206 until 1993. I have video from then showing the black/yellow "Formerly Exit XX" signs.
Right. The area affected by the change from I-295 to I-95 ran from US 1, past Princeton Pike, 206 and I think Federal City Road* to a point east of NJ 31. I know all this geography because my parents live far enough west in north-central New Jersey that the most reasonable route from here to there is to take 95 up to one of those exits - which one depends on my mood - then head north and eventually end up on US 22.
*Federal City Road must be a remnant of the days when Trenton was in the running to be U.S. capital. The mind boggles at the highway-numbering implications!
Quote from: AARoads on August 23, 2010, 06:07:16 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 22, 2010, 12:45:00 PM
Back in the late 80s, the number changed at the point where the Somerset Freeway would have branched off. What is now (I believe) interchange 5 on I-95 was interchange 71 on 295. Then the next interchange to the west was, and still is, interchange 4 on 95. There were even ghost ramps between the two interchanges which are now gone, or at least hidden. At some point, the state of New Jersey seems to have accepted that the Somerset Freeway wasn't happening and shifted the changeover point to the US 1 interchange (so the piece of 295 between the ghost Somerset Freeway and US 1 was redesignated I-95, and exit numbers were changed accordingly).
Hagstrom street maps of Middlesex County, N.J., from the 70s show the 95 designation (and only the 95 designation) on what is now 287 from the Turnpike to the north end of the ghost Somerset Freeway. And well into the 90s, the starting point for exit numbering on 287 was the Somerset Freeway junction rather than the Turnpike - exit numbers weren't posted down there, but the exits farther north were calculated from there. In the 90s (probably) all those exit numbers where adjusted (and the exit numbers all the way to the Turnpike were posted), so that the numbering now starts at the Turnpike.
Interstate 295's exit numbers went as far as west as U.S. 206 until 1993. I have video from then showing the black/yellow "Formerly Exit XX" signs.
Regarding Interstate 95 in Philadelphia, indeed the last stretch to open was the freeway around Philadelphia International Airport. I remember all traffic being dumped onto Pennsylvania 291 at what is now Exit 10 (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-095_nb_exit_010_02.jpg). The drive along PA-291 was extremely congested through there until the 1985 completion.
And I went by there too on either end of Christmas 1984, and again in the summer of '85 (Flew into Philly from Columbus instead of driving with the parents there in the mid 80s).
Plus my 1984 Rand McNally didn't show I-95 complete around the airport either.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 22, 2010, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on June 24, 2009, 10:58:40 PM
As I like to say, "Don't blame us, we built our portion of I-95." It took until the 1980s to complete it through Philadelphia County, but it got done.
Tiny correction: it was finished through Philadelphia by November of 1979. I remember it well because I happened to use it to go to an Eagles game (from central New Jersey) and on the way home we heard the news of the taking of hostages at the US embassy in Teheran.
Exit 13 to Exit 23 opened at that time, but the portion from Exit 10 to Exit 13 wasn't opened to traffic until December 15, 1985 for reasons I go into on my I-95 page (http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I95.html).
The I-95 Interchange Project officially began on Monday with the closing of the Bristol-Oxford Valley Road Bridge: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/pdf/GallowayBOVBridgesReplaceNewsRelease.pdf
Does anyone think project will be completed within 15 years?
Quote from: Grzrd on October 28, 2010, 02:32:20 PM
Does anyone think project will be completed within 15 years?
Let's cross our fingers and knock on wood. I guess they might go by phase 1, phase 2, etc....
Quote from: Grzrd on October 28, 2010, 02:32:20 PMDoes anyone think project will be completed within 15 years?
The interchange and re-routing of I-95 will be completed long before then, but I don't think the entire project will be completed in that time frame.
^^^
What do you think won't be done?
The second Delaware River Bridge?
The rehab of the existing bridge?
Quote from: mightyace on October 28, 2010, 07:38:57 PM
What do you think won't be done?
The second Delaware River Bridge?
The rehab of the existing bridge?
Above 2 projects comprise Stage 3 of the overall project. The website indicates a time frame of "Beyond 2017" for the respective Stage 2 projects, http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07openhouse.htm, and the page I looked at does not even set forth a tentative timetable for Stage 3 (I have not diligently looked for a proposed timetable elsewhere).
Stage 1 is projected to be completed by 2017. I would not be surprised to see delays push it back to 2020. I also would not be surprised to see delays in Stage 1 lead to delays in beginning Stage 2, which in turn might have you pushing 2025 for completion of Stage 2. Then, I'm guessing that construction of a new bridge in conjunction with rehab of an existing bridge would optimistically take at least three years to complete.
Completion of everything by end of 2025 seems like a stretch to me.
Quote from: mightyace on October 28, 2010, 07:38:57 PM
^^^
What do you think won't be done?
The second Delaware River Bridge?
The rehab of the existing bridge?
The new bridge will be built and the other rehabbed, but the widening of I-95 and I-276 and other lesser parts of the project won't be finished. The reason is that this project, which was talked about almost 20 years ago, has taken this long to even get off the ground, something will happen that will delay the completion. Then again it may go as smooth as silk and be completed in less time than projected.
This is one of those projects that I wonder why does it take so <bleep>in long?
Everything in this project could be done in 2 or 3 years, at least of actual construction.
Quote from: mightyace on October 29, 2010, 11:34:52 AM
This is one of those projects that I wonder why does it take so <bleep>in long?
Everything in this project could be done in 2 or 3 years, at least of actual construction.
If the primary goal is to make I-95 a through route, that really is what, a two-ramp proposition? Couldn't this have been done on the cheap with a cloverleaf for the SB I-95 movement, until funding came about for a flyover?
Of course, if the Turnpike had consented to build a connection back when I-95 was first built, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
And, the PTC's reluctance to build connections to interstate and other freeways is a horse that this forum has beat to death. :pan:
I feel like Phase 1 will go according to plan / timetable... but since the other projects are related, but no necessary to phase 1... well... we'll see what happens.
I suppose they can't start work on the actual interchange until they do the listed "Northwest Quadrant Wetland Mitigation Site 2011-2012"?
Quote from: TheStranger on October 29, 2010, 12:08:52 PM
Quote from: mightyace on October 29, 2010, 11:34:52 AM
This is one of those projects that I wonder why does it take so <bleep>in long?
Everything in this project could be done in 2 or 3 years, at least of actual construction.
If the primary goal is to make I-95 a through route, that really is what, a two-ramp proposition? Couldn't this have been done on the cheap with a cloverleaf for the SB I-95 movement, until funding came about for a flyover?
I doubt the FHWA would let I-95 be signed continuously with a clover ramp. The demand would far outstrip the capacity, anyway. Better to do it right.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 29, 2010, 07:01:11 PM
I doubt the FHWA would let I-95 be signed continuously with a clover ramp. The demand would far outstrip the capacity, anyway. Better to do it right.
works in Canton, MA just fine...
okay, maybe not "works just fine", but the situation does
exist.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 29, 2010, 07:03:38 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on October 29, 2010, 07:01:11 PM
I doubt the FHWA would let I-95 be signed continuously with a clover ramp. The demand would far outstrip the capacity, anyway. Better to do it right.
works in Canton, MA just fine...
okay, maybe not "works just fine", but the situation does exist.
I meant it as, if you were to have constructed one more recently. If the ramp were already there by about 1965 or so, it could have gotten grandfathered in.
I don't like the way the policy is "if it happened before or during construction, just leave it, but if you're new, you have to be perfect". They should either relax the standards for new segments or force the older ones to be upgraded, especially since this is the northeast - NONE of our interstates actually meet interstate standards!
There are some specialized cases, too, where two-digit interstates enter toll roads as single-lane ramps, i.e. 76 in Philly, 76/80 in Ohio.
The "policy" is not so black and white. There are many factors that go into the decision to leave a substandard facility as is, usually involving a design exception analysis. Traffic demand, crash history and cost for upgrades to current standard are a few that come to mind. Some are upgraded based on this examination, some are not.
Isn't there a project on the horizon to reconfigure the 95/93 interchange in Mass.?
Quote from: akotchi on November 01, 2010, 12:17:33 PMIsn't there a project on the horizon to reconfigure the 95/93 interchange in Mass.?
Yes, there is. I live less than a mile from it, and the PTB are still quibbling over how to configure it and how to pay for it. The existing cloverleaf is built into portions of three heavily populated suburbs (Reading, Stoneham and Woburn), has the highest accident rate of any place on any limited-access road in Massachusetts and I-95 has other interchanges on either side of it (MA-28 to the east and Washington St to the west*), less than half a mile in either direction. To redesign it as it should be, with flyovers and single-ramp exits, homes will have to be taken, and condemnation costs alone will likely run up toward a billion dollars really fast, given the home values in the area.
*: Yes, I know, I-95 is north/south, but geographically at this intersection the road is running east/west.
Quote from: SidS1045 on November 02, 2010, 04:20:29 PM
(MA-28 to the east and Washington St to the west*)
had me a little confused there... "wait, Washington St is one exit to the
east of 95/93, and 28 is a bit further to the east than a half-mile." Nope, that's the south 95/93 junction (93's terminus)
creativity in street naming, thy name is eastern Mass. there is another, completely different, Washington St immediately to the west of the 93 terminus, but that does not have an interchange with 95.
anyone want to explain why they shunted US-1 onto the freeway in 1990, other than to cause further route-number confusion? can anyone instinctively follow 93, 95, or 1 in the Boston area? with south 93 miraculously morphing into north 95 all of a sudden? Why not extend the 93 designation down to the Cape along MA-3 (which really should be US-3, which is neither here nor there - MA-3A can be renumbered to US-3)...
maybe just route 95/93 through Boston as a multiplex, vaguely as originally intended? and have the nine-mile ring road stay 128, or be I-895 or whatnot.
I'm not even asking them to build the missing 95 segment. I'm just asking for a little sanity in numbering. At least 1 is still signed quite frequently on the old road! :-D
and get rid of all the damn Washington Streets. Samuel Adams demands equal time.
The madness surrounding Boston-area route numbering really gets to me sometimes, just like that "Exit 25 is Route 128" nonsense. I still think I-95 should head into Boston (along present 93) then leave via US 1 and fill in the "missing link" between Revere and Peabody. And place US 1 back on surface streets south of Boston, then on MA 1A and MA 60.
The Result: Most of what is referred to by locals can be Route 128 only (except of course the SE portion). (Heck, I-128 may be kind of fun to see - makes more sense than I-238).
But that's just me.
alas, the US-1 corridor northeast of Boston is nowhere near up to Interstate standards. It is a lovely 1930s-40s expressway but it should not be signed I-95 under any circumstance.
south of Boston, US-1 should definitely be on a surface street alignment, and so should US-3. What's the point of having a discrete US route system, again, if they are just multiplexed with the interstates instead of providing a parallel network?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 03, 2010, 12:36:21 AM
alas, the US-1 corridor northeast of Boston is nowhere near up to Interstate standards. It is a lovely 1930s-40s expressway but it should not be signed I-95 under any circumstance.
you lost me on this one Where is it signed as I-95?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 03, 2010, 12:36:21 AM
south of Boston, US-1 should definitely be on a surface street alignment, and so should US-3. What's the point of having a discrete US route system, again, if they are just multiplexed with the interstates instead of providing a parallel network?
umm, do you really want a major US hwy going thru some of the worst sections of Boston?
And furthermore, if you look at Boston maps from the 50's and 60's, US 1 DID go thru various routings thru Boston and it was a nightmare to try to follow it.
It is MUCH better now. If you desire to go thru the city follow MASS 28, your choice
imho US 1 is fine just the way it is overlapping the SE Expwy
Fixed the quote. --rmf67
Quote from: sammack on November 03, 2010, 03:58:24 AM
you lost me on this one Where is it signed as I-95?
US-1 multiplexes with I-95 and MA-128 between the US-1/MA-1A interchange in Dedham and the I-95/I-93 interchange in Canton (in which stretch of road you end up with the contradictory reassurance markers "North/US-1//South/I-95//South/MA-128" or vice versa). It then continues as a multiplex with I-93 on the remaining southerly portion of the Circumferential Highway and onto the Southeast Expressway (becoming a multiplex with MA-3), though the O'Neill Tunnel and across the Zakim Bridge, where it splits off from I-93 to continue northerly on its own. Not only is that portion beyond the split from I-93 not up to Interstate standards, but considering all the homes and businesses abutting it, it will never be...the cost would be extremely prohibitive.
As clear as mud, right?
You can thank the late Governor Frank Sargent for killing the Southwest Corridor project, which would have had I-95 continuing north from its current end at I-93/MA-128 in Canton, cutting a wide swath through some of Boston's worst neighborhoods and probably destroying what little was left that was worth saving. Screwing up the exit numbers is a minor detail.
Quote from: agentsteel53had me a little confused there... "wait, Washington St is one exit to the east of 95/93, and 28 is a bit further to the east than a half-mile." Nope, that's the south 95/93 junction (93's terminus)
creativity in street naming, thy name is eastern Mass. there is another, completely different, Washington St immediately to the west of the 93 terminus, but that does not have an interchange with 95.
akotchi was referring to a project to rebuild the "95/93 interchange." The one on the North Shore is the only one I'm aware of which is due to be rebuilt.
Quote from: agentsteel53can anyone instinctively follow 93, 95, or 1 in the Boston area?
It's really not that difficult (but then, I've lived in that area almost all my life), except for...
Quote from: agentsteel53with south 93 miraculously morphing into north 95 all of a sudden?
They really could have left the 128 designation on the portion of the Circumferential Highway between the I-95/I-93 junction in Canton and the "Braintree Split." All the locals still call it 128 anyhow. Having it officially end at the 95-93 junction is just plain stupid.
Quote from: agentsteel53Why not extend the 93 designation down to the Cape along MA-3 (which really should be US-3, which is neither here nor there - MA-3A can be renumbered to US-3)...
Unless I'm mistaken, not all of the Pilgrims Highway is up to Interstate standards, mostly because the travel lanes are too narrow. Otherwise, makes sense to me. It would be nice to extend I-495 the extra few more miles to meet up with it at the northern end of the Sagamore Bridge too.
Quote from: SidS1045 on November 03, 2010, 09:00:21 AM
Quote from: sammack on November 03, 2010, 03:58:24 AM
you lost me on this one Where is it signed as I-95?
alas, the US-1 corridor northeast of Boston is nowhere near up to Interstate standards. It is a lovely 1930s-40s expressway but it should not be signed I-95 under any circumstance.
here is what I was referring to
I am very familiar with this:
Quote
US-1 multiplexes with I-95 and MA-128 between the US-1/MA-1A interchange in Dedham and the I-95/I-93 interchange in Canton (in which stretch of road you end up with the contradictory reassurance markers "North/US-1//South/I-95//South/MA-128" or vice versa). It then continues as a multiplex with I-93 on the remaining southerly portion of the Circumferential Highway and onto the Southeast Expressway (becoming a multiplex with MA-3),
and as I said elsewhere it well should be. the alternative was to route US 1 thru the worst sections of Boston
Quote
though the O'Neill Tunnel and across the Zakim Bridge, where it splits off from I-93 to continue northerly on its own. Not only is that portion beyond the split from I-93 not up to Interstate standards, but considering all the homes and businesses abutting it, it will never be...the cost would be extremely prohibitive.
As clear as mud, right?
You can thank the late Governor Frank Sargent for killing the Southwest Corridor project, which would have had I-95 continuing north from its current end at I-93/MA-128 in Canton, cutting a wide swath through some of Boston's worst neighborhoods and probably destroying what little was left that was worth saving. Screwing up the exit numbers is a minor detail.
it would have taken thousands of homes and businesses and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in 1960's dollars
Quoting nightmares...
US 1 was fine through Boston. I've followed the old VFW Highway alignment many times from the south vs. navigating the Central Artery. It's a clear route that's easy to follow right up through the Fenway - there are still 1 signs around to help you - and then it gets on Storrow Drive and would follow the new Leverett Circle Connector to continue as 1.
Quote from: Alex on October 21, 2009, 10:55:00 PM
A signing project was undertaken in 2004 to consistently direct drivers eastward via Interstate 195 to the Turnpike for the continuation of Interstate 95. The results are guide signs and trailblazers posted to direct motorists to Interstate 95/NJ Turnpike north via Interstate 195.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey100/i-195_eb_exit_001b_01.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey100/i-195_eb_exit_003a_01.jpg)
Corresponding signs were replaced for Interstate 195 on Interstate 295 to show the connection to Interstate 95:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey200/i-295_sb_exit_062_04.jpg)
Drove that stretch (actually Washington to Newark) and that stretch really does exist. The kicker (to me) is you'll see a I-95 North sign and about a half mile later it becomes I-295 south with no noticable change of direction.
It's noticeable to me. East to south.
Quote from: froggie on March 27, 2011, 12:27:48 AM
It's noticeable to me. East to south.
There are two large sweeping curves: from NE to SE where 95 was intended to leave (the wide median east of NJ 31) and from E to S where it now actually ends at US 1. I guess you wouldn't notice the curve if you were expecting the roadway quality to dip, but it stays at a 70+ mph design speed.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 27, 2011, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 27, 2011, 12:27:48 AM
It's noticeable to me. East to south.
There are two large sweeping curves: from NE to SE where 95 was intended to leave (the wide median east of NJ 31) and from E to S where it now actually ends at US 1. I guess you wouldn't notice the curve if you were expecting the roadway quality to dip, but it stays at a 70+ mph design speed.
That's where you got me....long sweeping curve. Of course, I had just driven through both Philly and Wilmington, so I was kinda oblivious, but was looking for the change.
Just some perspective from a new AARoads member and a relatively new resident of Bristol (just moved there in September 2009). It looks like the PTC is making some progress on this project as a whole. They're in the process of replacing/widening overpasses for the eventual mainline widening between the bridge and US1. PennDOT's also been using, I believe, ARRA funds to add ITS sensors and VMS to I-95, with new message boards before the general area of the future interchange already in place. Heck, I was a little surprised to see that they actually *worked* when they were on for a Winter Weather advisory a month or two ago.
I'm wondering if the reason for the prolonged construction period is so that they can get the turnpike widened to handle the expected additional traffic that the interchange will more than likely produce once it's complete. Of course what happens once that traffic is funneled onto the existing bridge is another story given the bridge isn't slated for twinning until later. I also wonder if the reason for taking so long to actually start was due to the wetlands issue mentioned above and the environment impact study. I also wonder how much of a role local politics played into this, given that this affects Bristol Borough, Bristol Township, and, I think, Bensalem as well. There might be some other towns affected by this who had their say, too.
On the other side of the river, it's amazing how fast the NJTA seems to be moving with the project starting at interchange 6. I only go out that way maybe once a month or so, but things always look a lot different each time I do. I think the NJTA does have the advantage of working within a rather large row to begin with, and generally working in flat relatively unpopulated land. The work on the PATP goes through a number of dense suburban areas, so that has to play a part in construction timelines as well.
One thing I *really* hope they eventually do is build an interchange between the TP extension and 295. Especially once the extension is "officially" 95, it seems insane not to have a child interchange with its parent. It would also allow for a full freeway crossing of the river connecting 95 and 295. It never happened with the cancelled I-895, but it'd still be nice to have. Taking the B-B Bridge and then 130 -> CR541 -> 295 sucks. I just hope the NJTA isn't the stick in the mud here because they assume they'll lose revenue when people can more easily take 295 instead of the turnpike. To me, the turnpike and 295 serve two very different needs. The turnpike is the road for long-distance travel while 295 is better for local travel -- especially until they fix that mess down at 42/76/295.
Speaking of turnpike/interstate interchanges. I might be wrong, but I thought the reason for there being no historic interstate/patp interchanges was that the original interstate rules forbid having interstates interchange directly with toll roads, but that rule was lifted eventually. I figured sooner or later they'd build them as demand increased, since most of where they'd be are fairly ancient anyway (and there's almost always an existing interchange with a state or us highway).
Quote from: Compulov on March 29, 2011, 02:12:12 PM
Speaking of turnpike/interstate interchanges. I might be wrong, but I thought the reason for there being no historic interstate/patp interchanges was that the original interstate rules forbid having interstates interchange directly with toll roads, but that rule was lifted eventually. I figured sooner or later they'd build them as demand increased, since most of where they'd be are fairly ancient anyway (and there's almost always an existing interchange with a state or us highway).
I don't think it was a rule. What it was is that in order to build an interchange to a toll road, the toll road agency would have had to fund it. Their ramps, their tollbooths, their money. The toll roads came first, so the interchanges were in place by the time the Interstates came around. And in most cases, you had an interchange already a few miles away (or few thousand feet) and could make enough of a connection work to not have to spend money (as the powerful, profitable toll agency).
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 29, 2011, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: Compulov on March 29, 2011, 02:12:12 PM
Speaking of turnpike/interstate interchanges. I might be wrong, but I thought the reason for there being no historic interstate/patp interchanges was that the original interstate rules forbid having interstates interchange directly with toll roads, but that rule was lifted eventually. I figured sooner or later they'd build them as demand increased, since most of where they'd be are fairly ancient anyway (and there's almost always an existing interchange with a state or us highway).
I don't think it was a rule. What it was is that in order to build an interchange to a toll road, the toll road agency would have had to fund it. Their ramps, their tollbooths, their money. The toll roads came first, so the interchanges were in place by the time the Interstates came around. And in most cases, you had an interchange already a few miles away (or few thousand feet) and could make enough of a connection work to not have to spend money (as the powerful, profitable toll agency).
That makes a lot more sense. I always wondered why they would have no problem posting Interstate shields on toll highways, but not allow for interchanges with other Interstates. I almost wonder if the *only* reason the PTC is going ahead with the 95 Interchange is the projected $$ they'll see from additional traffic. Otherwise, what's it to them if 95 is complete or not?
Quote from: Compulov on March 30, 2011, 12:56:39 PM
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 29, 2011, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: Compulov on March 29, 2011, 02:12:12 PM
Speaking of turnpike/interstate interchanges. I might be wrong, but I thought the reason for there being no historic interstate/patp interchanges was that the original interstate rules forbid having interstates interchange directly with toll roads, but that rule was lifted eventually. I figured sooner or later they'd build them as demand increased, since most of where they'd be are fairly ancient anyway (and there's almost always an existing interchange with a state or us highway).
I don't think it was a rule. What it was is that in order to build an interchange to a toll road, the toll road agency would have had to fund it. Their ramps, their tollbooths, their money. The toll roads came first, so the interchanges were in place by the time the Interstates came around. And in most cases, you had an interchange already a few miles away (or few thousand feet) and could make enough of a connection work to not have to spend money (as the powerful, profitable toll agency).
That makes a lot more sense. I always wondered why they would have no problem posting Interstate shields on toll highways, but not allow for interchanges with other Interstates. I almost wonder if the *only* reason the PTC is going ahead with the 95 Interchange is the projected $$ they'll see from additional traffic. Otherwise, what's it to them if 95 is complete or not?
I'm sure there has been pressure from the FHWA to do it, and I'm sure the NJ Tpk Authority really didn't want them to do it. But it will bring some more traffic on (people currently using the Turnpike or 295-195), and probably will have a higher than usual toll given that it becomes the through route (so people are more likely to stay and pay more).
With 2011 coming to an end, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that the first two baby steps of the Pennsylvania Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project were completed this year: the Bristol-Oxford Valley Road and Galloway Road bridges are finished. No ongoing construction at this time, but new projects are anticipated to begin in 2012:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/pdf/Bristol-OxfordValleyandGallowayRoadBridgesOpenToTraffic(Nov.4).pdf
Quote from: Grzrd on December 22, 2011, 04:22:09 PM
With 2011 coming to an end, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that the first two baby steps of the Pennsylvania Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project were completed this year: the Bristol-Oxford Valley Road and Galloway Road bridges are finished. No ongoing construction at this time, but new projects are anticipated to begin in 2012:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/pdf/Bristol-OxfordValleyandGallowayRoadBridgesOpenToTraffic(Nov.4).pdf
When are all the contracts for the I-95 direct connection going to be underway?
Quote from: Beltway on December 22, 2011, 06:34:44 PM
When are all the contracts for the I-95 direct connection going to be underway?
This Stage 1 Time Frame indicates that the Section D direct connection will be worked on during the 2012-2017 time period:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07openhouse.htm
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 12, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
You know what I would do with I-95 in the Philly area ? I would put I-95E on the NJ Turnpike and I-95W on the current I-95 through Philly , finally build the interchange on I-276, then use the remainder of I-276 east to rejoin 95 E & W. It's too bad noone thought of that before.
I would go a bit further (yes, this post would more, fall in the fictional highways category):
Have the NJ Turnpike south of Exit 6, The Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Delaware stretch of I-295 be designated as I-95E (E could stand for either 'East' or 'Express').
Leave I-95 through PA and NJ in its ultimate/final layout (post-PA Turnpike Connection) but move the Wilmington, DE stretch of I-95 onto the current I-495.
Have the Wilmington stretch of I-95 designated as I-95W (W could stand for either 'West' or 'Wilmington').
One could argue that the above could be allowed because BOTH offset routes (E & W) begin and end with the parent route. IIRC, every former suffixed interstate, except the two I-35s in MN & TX, did not start and end w/the same route.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 06, 2012, 02:14:24 PM
IIRC, every former suffixed interstate, except the two I-35s in MN & TX, did not start and end w/the same route.
I-5W ended began and ended with I-5, and I believe I-15E did the same with I-15, but I do not know if I-15 was fully signed or if there was still a surface level alignment that was called CA-31 or CA-71 as opposed to TEMP I-15. (I'm pretty sure that 15E, despite not being a full freeway, was TEMP I-15E on its entire length.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 06, 2012, 02:18:09 PM
I-5W ended began and ended with I-5, and I believe I-15E did the same with I-15, but I do not know if I-15 was fully signed or if there was still a surface level alignment that was called CA-31 or CA-71 as opposed to TEMP I-15. (I'm pretty sure that 15E, despite not being a full freeway, was TEMP I-15E on its entire length.)
What's the old I-5W and I-15E called now?
I know I-15W (from I-80N (now 84) to I-15) became the western I-86 (MA & CT had already redesignated a stretch of I-84 to I-86 at the time; the road was later redesignated as I-84 when plans to build 84 into RI was stopped).
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 06, 2012, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 06, 2012, 02:18:09 PM
I-5W ended began and ended with I-5, and I believe I-15E did the same with I-15, but I do not know if I-15 was fully signed or if there was still a surface level alignment that was called CA-31 or CA-71 as opposed to TEMP I-15. (I'm pretty sure that 15E, despite not being a full freeway, was TEMP I-15E on its entire length.)
What's the old I-5W and I-15E called now?
I-5W is now I-505, I-80, and I-580. I-15E is I-215.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 03, 2009, 11:33:06 PM
The problem really is that I-95 travels through the entirety of the most densely populated part of the country. New York got it built through with the Cross Bronx Expressway. Similar plans in Washington and Boston were nixed by the whole freeway revolt thing, forcing the route to be sloppily rerouted around the city instead in both cases. And thus there really is no good way around or through DC, and long distance traffic is better off bypassing Boston (and Providence and New London) via 91, 84, 90, and 495 - rejoining I-95 nearly 200 miles from where you last saw it.
In the same fashion, some of the more affluent towns in central Jersey didn't want I-95 cutting right through them - forcing the Somerset Freeway to be canceled and leaving a gap in the highway since there was no good way to reroute it that wouldn't remove it from Philadelphia entirely.
The public complains, and the government has to listen to the voters. It happens. What there's no excuse for is that nearly 30 years after the freeway was canceled, there's still no interchange in Bristol to very simply allow a non-gapped route. It's proposed by the feds, PTC takes a decade to get around to doing anything about it, and another decade to do an impact study. Ridiculous.
While Washington and Boston do have some crazy reroutes that differ significantly from the originally-proposed routings, at least they're not as big an eyesore as in Baltimore, where a bunch of ramp stubs exist as a result of the failure to complete a myriad of once-planned extensions of I-70, I-83 and the lesser-known Windlass Freeway. Not to mention that I-95 saw a few reroutings itself, but with the opening of the Fort McHenry Tunnel, at least it got built through there.
As for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?
Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2012, 04:28:44 PMAs for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?
One could make a similar argument regarding I-295 further south.
The reasoning behind the Somerset Expressway was just not a freeway alternative to the NJ Turnpike but also to give motorists & truckers in the Trenton area direct highway access to the central part of NJ. Additionally, the original I-695 short-segment (5-10 miles) that would've linked I-287 to the original I-95 to the west would've given those out of Philly or Trenton going north to either upstate NY or New England a more direct route and would be further away from the NYC area traffic.
Had 95 and the original 695 link been built; the only tolls I would encounter on my trips to Massachusetts (to visit family) would be the Tappan Zee Bridge (one-way) and the Mass Pike (I-90). Over a period of 21 years (I moved from MA to PA in July 1990), that could added up to some serious toll money saved.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2012, 05:48:58 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2012, 04:28:44 PMAs for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?
One could make a similar argument regarding I-295 further south.
The reasoning behind the Somerset Expressway was just not a freeway alternative to the NJ Turnpike but also to give motorists & truckers in the Trenton area direct highway access to the central part of NJ. Additionally, the original I-695 short-segment (5-10 miles) that would've linked I-287 to the original I-95 to the west would've given those out of Philly or Trenton going north to either upstate NY or New England a more direct route and would be further away from the NYC area traffic.
Had 95 and the original 695 link been built; the only tolls I would encounter on my trips to Massachusetts (to visit family) would be the Tappan Zee Bridge (one-way) and the Mass Pike (I-90). Over a period of 21 years (I moved from MA to PA in July 1990), that could added up to some serious toll money saved.
Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2012, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 03, 2009, 11:33:06 PM
The problem really is that I-95 travels through the entirety of the most densely populated part of the country. New York got it built through with the Cross Bronx Expressway. Similar plans in Washington and Boston were nixed by the whole freeway revolt thing, forcing the route to be sloppily rerouted around the city instead in both cases. And thus there really is no good way around or through DC, and long distance traffic is better off bypassing Boston (and Providence and New London) via 91, 84, 90, and 495 - rejoining I-95 nearly 200 miles from where you last saw it.
In the same fashion, some of the more affluent towns in central Jersey didn't want I-95 cutting right through them - forcing the Somerset Freeway to be canceled and leaving a gap in the highway since there was no good way to reroute it that wouldn't remove it from Philadelphia entirely.
The public complains, and the government has to listen to the voters. It happens. What there's no excuse for is that nearly 30 years after the freeway was canceled, there's still no interchange in Bristol to very simply allow a non-gapped route. It's proposed by the feds, PTC takes a decade to get around to doing anything about it, and another decade to do an impact study. Ridiculous.
While Washington and Boston do have some crazy reroutes that differ significantly from the originally-proposed routings, at least they're not as big an eyesore as in Baltimore, where a bunch of ramp stubs exist as a result of the failure to complete a myriad of once-planned extensions of I-70, I-83 and the lesser-known Windlass Freeway. Not to mention that I-95 saw a few reroutings itself, but with the opening of the Fort McHenry Tunnel, at least it got built through there.
As for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?
The Somerset Freeway was canceled due to politically connected people not wanting a Freeway through their then rural townships. And it also helped the the NJ Turnpike Authority did not want a "free" alternative. The traffic counts I think would support both I-95 and the NJTP just as in S Florida with the Turnpike and I-95 being with in a few miles of each other for nearly 100 miles. The turnpike would be a good thru route... and people would pay for a quicker trip. Just like now going to the Keys... its much quicker to go on the( FL) turnpike because there is less local traffic, well worth the toll.
The former rural areas of Mercer and Somerset counties are thoroughly suburbanized and the same NIMBY types bitch and moan about all the traffic on the 2 lane roads like 206 and 31. A freeway like I-95 between Baltimore and Washington would have taken care of the truck traffic on NJ 31 and US 206
upgrading NJ 31 to a freeway (or tollway even) connecting I-80 to I-95 would be a great relief...too bad it'll never happen.
As I understand it, a NJ 31 freeway was proposed as well.
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2012, 07:39:22 AM
As I understand it, a NJ 31 freeway was proposed as well.
31, 206, and 95 have all been proposed as freeway corridors as various times. I don't think more than one of them would ever have been built. For all the use 31 gets as a truck corridor, I think it's because of the congestion and Princeton development on US 206 and the four-laning of parts of 31. A freeway would do the most good along the 206 corridor to connect to 287.
Quote from: Steve on March 01, 2012, 06:43:31 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 01, 2012, 07:39:22 AM
As I understand it, a NJ 31 freeway was proposed as well.
31, 206, and 95 have all been proposed as freeway corridors as various times. I don't think more than one of them would ever have been built. For all the use 31 gets as a truck corridor, I think it's because of the congestion and Princeton development on US 206 and the four-laning of parts of 31. A freeway would do the most good along the 206 corridor to connect to 287.
amen...but 31 would def be easier as it isn't as built up as 206
Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2012, 04:28:44 PM
As for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?
If you sat on US 1 in traffic every day (like I do) you might not feel that way :P
Joking aside, I really have no data on just how much traffic the Somerset Freeway would have potentially taken off of Route 1. Does anyone have links to studies as to what % of the traffic on 1 is through (from 95/295 to 287, where the SF would have terminated) vs local? It's also possible that the problem isn't the amount of traffic but rather the volume of shopping plazas off of 1. Even a new freeway probably wouldn't have helped with that.