I have discussed this with many people, including those who are somewhat involved in the project. No one can really give a good reason for extending I-195 over I-295 and old I-95 post turnpike interchange except for that it will be one less number.
I think what PA and NJ are proposing is flawed, and will lead to unnecessary confusion, and wasted money on new signage.
I have created two new maps based on the one provided from the PA TPK/I-95 interchange website. Instead of forcing I-195 onto existing I-295 (exits 60-67) and I-95 in PA/NJ, the solution should be to just leave everything as is and just change the number of I-95 itself. Keep I-295 going to US Route 1 and at the changeover so many are already used to, instead of I-95 it will then be something like I-695 or I-895. Both numbers are as yet unused in PA and NJ.
There would be no need to renumber the exits on I-195 existing, or I-295 between exits 60-67. The awkward movement of mainline I-195 navigating Exit 60 through ramps would also be avoided.
The exit numbers on I-95 in NJ between Route 1 and Route 29 could actually be kept in place. They would change over in PA and start new or keep I-95's exit numbers much like I-395 does in Connecticut. The only necessary change would be to slap a new interstate shield over all of the present I-95 shields. Low cost and easier to follow solution.
It would also eliminate the strange situation of I-195 going east-west, then north-south, then east-west, then south-north to go around Trenton.
Does anyone else concur?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8317%2F7979604446_3e58f3d1ac_b.jpg&hash=fcce21289d7858797951cebed6a8ab3756552917) --- I-695 proposal
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8451%2F7979604651_87f7148fd9_b.jpg&hash=fc8fd7d94a662a3a1839af3a32ce44a72c1e5446) --- I-895 Proposal
Unable to see these without having an account on Flickr.
I couldn't view them either. Site demanded a login.
How do I attach the images I have to my actual post? I can't figure out how.
Doing this with the links doesn't work.
[ img ] [ /img ]
Has a stretch of Interstate ever been downgraded to a US route? If there's precedent, I'd do the following...
South of future 95/PA Tpk intersection, 95 remains 95.
North of it, up to US1 intersection, current 95 becomes 395 (a spur.)
North of the US1 intersection, 95 becomes US1, right through to the US1 intersection north of Trenton.
295 stays 295, 195 stays 195, and US1 Trenton becomes...eh, that's where it all falls down.
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 11:47:46 AM
How do I attach the images I have to my actual post? I can't figure out how.
Doing this with the links doesn't work.
[ img ] [ /img ]
You will need to hotlink them or click the share option in Flickr. The "Grab the HTML/BBCode" option on Flickr works well for others on the forum, so try that out.
And for what its worth, I agree with either renumbering the eventual former stretch of Interstate 95 between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-295 to either I-695 or I-895. The extension of I-195 is inane, much like the I-44 northward extension in St. Louis.
Quote from: hubcity on September 12, 2012, 12:02:51 PM
Has a stretch of Interstate ever been downgraded to a US route? If there's precedent, I'd do the following...
South of future 95/PA Tpk intersection, 95 remains 95.
North of it, up to US1 intersection, current 95 becomes 395 (a spur.)
North of the US1 intersection, 95 becomes US1, right through to the US1 intersection north of Trenton.
295 stays 295, 195 stays 195, and US1 Trenton becomes...eh, that's where it all falls down.
It's an interesting proposal, but They would have to reconfigure the cloverleaf with I-95 and US 1 in PA. It could not handle the volume of drivers "following" US Route 1.
I just think since there is no 695 or 895, it just makes sense to use em :)
Quote from: Alex on September 12, 2012, 12:30:42 PM
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 11:47:46 AM
How do I attach the images I have to my actual post? I can't figure out how.
Doing this with the links doesn't work.
[ img ] [ /img ]
You will need to hotlink them or click the share option in Flickr. The "Grab the HTML/BBCode" option on Flickr works well for others on the forum, so try that out.
And for what its worth, I agree with either renumbering the eventual former stretch of Interstate 95 between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-295 to either I-695 or I-895. The extension of I-195 is inane, much like the I-44 northward extension in St. Louis.
It says I can't share them... the box for that is greyed out, and I can't click on it.
What is hotlinking?
FIXED!!!! :)
Quote from: hubcity on September 12, 2012, 12:02:51 PM
Has a stretch of Interstate ever been downgraded to a US route? If there's precedent, I'd do the following...
When the originally-proposed I-95 leg from Revere (US 1 & MA 60 aka Cutler Circle) to Peabody (MA 128) was dropped in 1975; the Tobin Bridge and related Northeast Expressway (originally designated as I-95) became US 1 and the old US 1 between MA 60 and the Central Artery became just MA 60 (between Cutler & Bell Circles) and an extension of MA 1A (from Bell Circle to the Central Artery (now the O'Neill Tunnel)).
Back to NJ/PA; I agree that the I-195 extension be dropped in favor of I-695. The only change I would make is redesignating I-295 from I-195 and US 1 as part of I-695 as well. Yes, it would still mean a change of exit numbers and mile markers on that stretch (it would do that anyway w/the I-195 proposal); but it would place the Interstate number change at another Interstate highway vs. a US highway.
My listed I-695 suggestion would be to have the PA leg as a north-south route and the NJ leg as an east-west route.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 12, 2012, 12:45:15 PM
Quote from: hubcity on September 12, 2012, 12:02:51 PM
Has a stretch of Interstate ever been downgraded to a US route? If there's precedent, I'd do the following...
When the originally-proposed I-95 leg from Revere (US 1 & MA 60 aka Cutler Circle) to Peabody (MA 128) was dropped in 1975; the Tobin Bridge and related Northeast Expressway (originally designated as I-95) became US 1 and the old US 1 between MA 60 and the Central Artery became just MA 60 (between Cutler & Bell Circles) and an extension of MA 1A (from Bell Circle to the Central Artery (now the O'Neill Tunnel)).
Back to NJ/PA; I agree that the I-195 extension be dropped in favor of I-695. The only change I would make is redesignating I-295 from I-195 and US 1 as part of I-695 as well. Yes, it would still mean a change of exit numbers and mile markers on that stretch (it would do that anyway w/the I-195 proposal); but it would place the Interstate number change at another Interstate highway vs. a US highway.
My listed I-695 suggestion would be to have the PA leg as a north-south route and the NJ leg as an east-west route.
Interesting idea, it would certainly make for a proper fitting with the rules. But we know how strictly they enforce those.
Besides, I-695 would be ending at an interstate (per se). Keeping as much of the status-quo as possible I think would make for the easiest and least confusing conversion to the traveling public.
Plus we'd finally get our 695/895 after all these years :)
I don't like it when interstates end at each other like that. It just looks sloppy.
But the directional stuff isn't strange with I-195 on the beltway. Is every other interstate that's on a beltway considered strange now too? Just call the entire thing east-west even if some segments run north-south. There are many non-beltway roads that do that for long segments that go in another direction; heck, NY 11B is signed north-south* even though the entire road is east-west.
*Actually, there are signs for both, but all the ones of US 11 say north-south.
Why don't they just renumber the whole thing I-295? Then there's no extra numbers in the mix, I-295 ends on I-95 at both ends, and I-295 won't just spontaneously turn into I-(6/8)95.
Quote from: deanej on September 12, 2012, 02:53:33 PM
I don't like it when interstates end at each other like that. It just looks sloppy.
But the directional stuff isn't strange with I-195 on the beltway. Is every other interstate that's on a beltway considered strange now too? Just call the entire thing east-west even if some segments run north-south. There are many non-beltway roads that do that for long segments that go in another direction; heck, NY 11B is signed north-south* even though the entire road is east-west.
*Actually, there are signs for both, but all the ones of US 11 say north-south.
The problem with this is that beltways that are signed N-S and E-W are just that... Beltways! This arrangement would be I-195 coming off as a spur for 30+ miles, then suddenly forming an incomplete C-shaped loop around Trenton.
There are tons of interstates that end at each other all over the country in far more complicated ways than this.
The highway actually changes direction, so it makes sense at least. At lot more than when I-395 in CT changes to I-290.
Quote from: kj3400 on September 12, 2012, 03:04:35 PM
Why don't they just renumber the whole thing I-295? Then there's no extra numbers in the mix, I-295 ends on I-95 at both ends, and I-295 won't just spontaneously turn into I-(6/8)95.
That was the original intention. There are a couple images on the project website that still say I-295. For whatever reason they decided against that... Perhaps because two I-295's would be running simultaneously N-S on either side of the river. Might be a bit confusing. But I'd still rather that then it becoming I-195. That would at least preserve the majority of the exit numbers.
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 03:09:31 PMThe highway actually changes direction, so it makes sense at least. At lot more than when I-395 in CT changes to I-290.
I-395 doesn't turn into I-290 until it reaches I-90 (Mass Pike) in Auburn, MA. Additionally, I-395 was originally MA/CT 52 prior to 1983(?) and didn't extend/connect to I-90/290 until the late 70s. The decision for choosing I-395 vs. extending I-290 southward along the Route 52 corridor was likely based on the fact that while MA and CT have I-95; I-90 does not go into CT. Granted, one could've fudged it like I-287 in NJ (I-87 does not go into
CT NJ).
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 03:11:33 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on September 12, 2012, 03:04:35 PM
Why don't they just renumber the whole thing I-295? Then there's no extra numbers in the mix, I-295 ends on I-95 at both ends, and I-295 won't just spontaneously turn into I-(6/8)95.
That was the original intention. There are a couple images on the project website that still say I-295. For whatever reason they decided against that... Perhaps because two I-295's would be running simultaneously N-S on either side of the river. Might be a bit confusing. But I'd still rather that then it becoming I-195. That would at least preserve the majority of the exit numbers.
Prior to the mid 1990s, I-295's exit numbers north of I-195 ran up to what would have been the I-95 North split interchange (roughly 3 miles east of US 1) with the highest exit number being 71 (current Exit 5).
O HAY Y NOT BILD SOMERSET FWY *trollface*
Quote from: Steve on September 12, 2012, 05:19:13 PM
O HAY Y NOT BILD SOMERSET FWY *trollface*
DAT BE A FAHN IDUH! ;-)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 12, 2012, 05:27:52 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 12, 2012, 05:19:13 PM
O HAY Y NOT BILD SOMERSET FWY *trollface*
DAT BE A FAHN IDUH! ;-)
Just try and get that thing around Princeton now... forget about it!
Quote from: kj3400 on September 12, 2012, 03:04:35 PM
Why don't they just renumber the whole thing I-295? Then there's no extra numbers in the mix, I-295 ends on I-95 at both ends, and I-295 won't just spontaneously turn into I-(6/8)95.
This would probably be a bit confusing since drivers travelling across the Delaware River would encounter I-295 twice, once on each side of the river. Also, you'd need to have it change direction from north to south at the current I-95/I-295/US 1 interchange, which would be confusing. People get lost in New Jersey enough as it is.
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 10:40:30 AM
I have created two new maps based on the one provided from the PA TPK/I-95 interchange website. Instead of forcing I-195 onto existing I-295 (exits 60-67) and I-95 in PA/NJ, the solution should be to just leave everything as is and just change the number of I-95 itself. Keep I-295 going to US Route 1 and at the changeover so many are already used to, instead of I-95 it will then be something like I-695 or I-895. Both numbers are as yet unused in PA and NJ.
How about assigning I-695 or I-895 to old I-95/I-295/I-195 from Philadelphia to exit 7A of the New Jersey Turnpike? Then, it could change designation at the turnpike to become I-195. That way, it will follow the interstate numbering convention where I-695 or I-895 with an even first digit is a loop off of I-95 and I-195 with an odd first digit is a spur off of I-95.
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 03:09:31 PM. Granted, one could've fudged it like I-287 in NJ (I-87 does not go into CT).
I know you mean NJ, but not to get off topic, I-87 did enter CT at one time when I-684 was signed as such.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2012, 09:03:53 PM
I-87 did enter CT at one time when I-684 was signed as such.
when was this? what was the complete routing of 87 at that time? was it multiplexed with I-84 to get from the Thruway to the 684 alignment?
I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ so that number is taken. 695 is available.
The decision you are all discussing was only a Conditional Approval. The official application has yet to be submitted and approved by AASHTO which leads me to guess that the DOT higher ups haven't seen this plan and it will never come to fruition.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2012, 09:17:48 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2012, 09:03:53 PM
I-87 did enter CT at one time when I-684 was signed as such.
when was this? what was the complete routing of 87 at that time? was it multiplexed with I-84 to get from the Thruway to the 684 alignment?
Yep. It was originally going to head north along the east side of the Hudson to Beacon, but was moved east to I-684 before going to its current alignment. www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19720871 http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-684_NY/
Per the page title www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19610841 should have I-84 and I-87 shields - is the wrong image being displayed?
Post Merge: September 15, 2012, 01:14:23 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 12, 2012, 09:23:21 PM
I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ
???
Quote from: dgolub on September 12, 2012, 07:38:21 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on September 12, 2012, 03:04:35 PM
Why don't they just renumber the whole thing I-295? Then there's no extra numbers in the mix, I-295 ends on I-95 at both ends, and I-295 won't just spontaneously turn into I-(6/8)95.
This would probably be a bit confusing since drivers travelling across the Delaware River would encounter I-295 twice, once on each side of the river. Also, you'd need to have it change direction from north to south at the current I-95/I-295/US 1 interchange, which would be confusing. People get lost in New Jersey enough as it is.
Doesn't seem to be a problem with any number of interstates intersecting the same interstate twice. See I-71 and I-75 with I-275, or I-75 and I-85 with I-285. Or even I-65 with two different I-265's on either side of the Ohio River, which don't even connect with one another.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 12, 2012, 09:23:21 PM
I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ so that number is taken. 695 is available.
The decision you are all discussing was only a Conditional Approval. The official application has yet to be submitted and approved by AASHTO which leads me to guess that the DOT higher ups haven't seen this plan and it will never come to fruition.
Don't be so sure, on all the videos and graphics featured on the website, I-195 is prominently displayed on the overhead signage or maps.
Quote from: NE2 on September 12, 2012, 09:32:06 PM
Yep. It was originally going to head north along the east side of the Hudson to Beacon, but was moved east to I-684 before going to its current alignment. www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19720871 http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-684_NY/
I hadn't ever thought to notice that NY-22 was
between 87 and 684! therefore, I had thought this was a gantry to the west of 87. I'd never thought to wonder why they wouldn't sign the Thruway with its own shield, instead figuring the gantry was missing only a "TO" sign.
(if I correctly identify where in Brewster, NY this is, then it doesn't need the "TO" because it is so close to the 84 and 684 on-ramps)
QuotePer the page title www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19610841 should have I-84 and I-87 shields - is the wrong image being displayed?
you are correct. about 1% of the shield gallery images are somehow garbled in the database; I just haven't had the time to correct them.
what's even worse? there are ~10000 images on the gallery. I have at least 6000 more ready to go.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 12, 2012, 09:17:48 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2012, 09:03:53 PM
I-87 did enter CT at one time when I-684 was signed as such.
when was this? what was the complete routing of 87 at that time? was it multiplexed with I-84 to get from the Thruway to the 684 alignment?
It followed I-684 north from the Cross Westchester Expressway to an overlap with I-84 west to the NY Thruway. Many early 60s maps show this alignment.
well, today I've learned that one thing rarer than a CONNECTICUT I-684 shield is a CONNECTICUT I-87.
Here are some more visuals to reinforce the concept PA & NJ have for extending I-195 onto old I-95. Two are screengrabs from drive thru videos, the other is a map from the project website that shows the future convoluted route of I-195.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8177%2F7981628204_131cc4b70d_b.jpg&hash=d0d6ce1ced8821cb7b2e7be0b28b312c8b73fd62)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8171%2F7981628354_bfd9d9154a_b.jpg&hash=518cb81ed4e7dee892acdcb35925d54121eb16f6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8301%2F7981627654_3a05f5ffcc_b.jpg&hash=75f9acb03698f70f21a0f7cbcede89586342e11f) --- WTF?!?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8443%2F7981627982_4d04474b1e.jpg&hash=7599ed2e6f70eb6b9c1350e70b777801365ea2d3) --- They even have an available SR # for it.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8030%2F7981625913_2c457520fa_b.jpg&hash=4f975abb8bf6e55385721644f6da35e2d950f446) --- And an end of I-276 for good measure.
complete BS extension. should be re-numbered.
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 12:51:16 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8171%2F7981628354_bfd9d9154a_b.jpg&hash=518cb81ed4e7dee892acdcb35925d54121eb16f6)
This makes it look like I-95 is not a toll road, but leads to one. In reality, all traffic taking that ramp will have to pay.
Quote from: YankeesFan on September 13, 2012, 01:33:41 AM
complete BS extension. should be re-numbered.
I'm with you completely. :)
Quote from: NE2 on September 13, 2012, 01:43:10 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 12:51:16 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8171%2F7981628354_bfd9d9154a_b.jpg&hash=518cb81ed4e7dee892acdcb35925d54121eb16f6)
This makes it look like I-95 is not a toll road, but leads to one. In reality, all traffic taking that ramp will have to pay.
Technically the section of the PA Turnpike that I-95 is annexing will become "free" up until the NJ TPK barrier just past the US Route 130 interchange. But you're right, it is a bit misleading.
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 08:31:30 AM
Technically the section of the PA Turnpike that I-95 is annexing will become "free" up until the NJ TPK barrier just past the US Route 130 interchange. But you're right, it is a bit misleading.
So there will be no toll on the PA Turnpike between I-95 and US 13? Never mind then - the sign is accurate and not misleading.
Quote from: NE2 on September 13, 2012, 08:39:21 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 08:31:30 AM
Technically the section of the PA Turnpike that I-95 is annexing will become "free" up until the NJ TPK barrier just past the US Route 130 interchange. But you're right, it is a bit misleading.
So there will be no toll on the PA Turnpike between I-95 and US 13? Never mind then - the sign is accurate and not misleading.
Correct, the tolls are being removed from the US 13 exit. There will only be a toll going I-95 south over the bridge.
The new PA TPK toll plaza will be moved west of the I-95 interchange.
I like the I-695 idea better. At least it'll keep I-195 from taking that pointless jog around Trenton.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 12, 2012, 09:23:21 PM
I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ so that number is taken.
What is this I-895 you speak of? Are they still trying to build one somewhere? I know there had been plans to connect to I-95 north of downtown Philly, but that has since been cancelled.
Quote from: Henry on September 13, 2012, 11:31:10 AM
I like the I-695 idea better. At least it'll keep I-195 from taking that pointless jog around Trenton.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 12, 2012, 09:23:21 PM
I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ so that number is taken.
What is this I-895 you speak of? Are they still trying to build one somewhere? I know there had been plans to connect to I-95 north of downtown Philly, but that has since been cancelled.
I agree, I-895 may be technically still legislated... but it will NEVER get built between Bristol and Burlington. And if on the off chance they still want to, they can just give it another number then.
Whether it is legislated or not, using that number won't suddenly confuse the public... it would just contradict decades old paperwork that will likely never see the light of day again anyways. Period.
The only way that I could go along with this ridiculous idea of extending I-195, is if they build a connection from the NJ TPK through Hamilton (NW) to the I-295/Route 1 interchange. But that too will NEVER happen.
Perhaps NJ never officially cancelled it, but PennDOT axed it and won't build it in their state. Or perhaps they secretly have a plan for a new 895, or it's a secret designation for something.
The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2012, 12:05:11 PM
Perhaps NJ never officially cancelled it, but PennDOT axed it and won't build it in their state. Or perhaps they secretly have a plan for a new 895, or it's a secret designation for something.
The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.
Actually, I checked... and there is a PA 895: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_895
There is however, no PA 695... so I think we found ourselves a winner. :)
Probably also why they didn't chose I-295 as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_295
As far as naming the southern part of the turnpike I-695 or I-895, I like that also. Much like the Kansas Turnpike. But I-895 would probably be best. I-695 works better for the old I-95 near Trenton.
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2012, 12:05:11 PM
The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.
Agreed. The N.J. Turnpike mainline between Exits 1 and 6 ought to be signed as I-895.
And the Turnpike and NJDOT ought to remediate the breezewood (missing interchange) between the Turnpike and I-76/N.J. 42.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2012, 12:05:11 PM
The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.
Agreed. The N.J. Turnpike mainline between Exits 1 and 6 ought to be signed as I-895.
And the Turnpike and NJDOT ought to remediate the breezewood (missing interchange) between the Turnpike and I-76/N.J. 42.
I remember once seeing plans that alluded to this. Direct connection ramps to 42 or 55.
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 12, 2012, 02:53:33 PM
I don't like it when interstates end at each other like that. It just looks sloppy.
But the directional stuff isn't strange with I-195 on the beltway. Is every other interstate that's on a beltway considered strange now too? Just call the entire thing east-west even if some segments run north-south. There are many non-beltway roads that do that for long segments that go in another direction; heck, NY 11B is signed north-south* even though the entire road is east-west.
*Actually, there are signs for both, but all the ones of US 11 say north-south.
The problem with this is that beltways that are signed N-S and E-W are just that... Beltways! This arrangement would be I-195 coming off as a spur for 30+ miles, then suddenly forming an incomplete C-shaped loop around Trenton.
There are tons of interstates that end at each other all over the country in far more complicated ways than this.
The highway actually changes direction, so it makes sense at least. At lot more than when I-395 in CT changes to I-290.
There are other roads that travel on beltways that fit the situation you described here. Have you never heard of I-95 around DC or I-40 through Memphis, TN? How about I-590 in Rochester, NY? HALF of it is east-west! I-278 in NYC is a north-south road everywhere except Staten Island and the Bronx, yet it's signed east-west. I-180 in PA is similar too. This extension is quite logical given that an east-west freeway through Trenton along the river is unlikely to happen ever. The road is still east-west overall, so what's the problem?
Yes, there are other interstates that end at each other, and I don't like them either. Just because some of these aberrations exist doesn't mean we should have more of them.
Lots of highways change direction for parts of their alignment. I-95 is east-west from Baltimore to Philadelpha (you're location, if your profile is accurate) and again from NYC to Providence. Should it be renumbered on these portions? By your logic, the answer is yes.
Quote from: deanej on September 13, 2012, 02:53:04 PM
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
Quote from: deanej on September 12, 2012, 02:53:33 PM
I don't like it when interstates end at each other like that. It just looks sloppy.
But the directional stuff isn't strange with I-195 on the beltway. Is every other interstate that's on a beltway considered strange now too? Just call the entire thing east-west even if some segments run north-south. There are many non-beltway roads that do that for long segments that go in another direction; heck, NY 11B is signed north-south* even though the entire road is east-west.
*Actually, there are signs for both, but all the ones of US 11 say north-south.
The problem with this is that beltways that are signed N-S and E-W are just that... Beltways! This arrangement would be I-195 coming off as a spur for 30+ miles, then suddenly forming an incomplete C-shaped loop around Trenton.
There are tons of interstates that end at each other all over the country in far more complicated ways than this.
The highway actually changes direction, so it makes sense at least. At lot more than when I-395 in CT changes to I-290.
There are other roads that travel on beltways that fit the situation you described here. Have you never heard of I-95 around DC or I-40 through Memphis, TN? How about I-590 in Rochester, NY? HALF of it is east-west! I-278 in NYC is a north-south road everywhere except Staten Island and the Bronx, yet it's signed east-west. I-180 in PA is similar too. This extension is quite logical given that an east-west freeway through Trenton along the river is unlikely to happen ever. The road is still east-west overall, so what's the problem?
Yes, there are other interstates that end at each other, and I don't like them either. Just because some of these aberrations exist doesn't mean we should have more of them.
Lots of highways change direction for parts of their alignment. I-95 is east-west from Baltimore to Philadelpha (you're location, if your profile is accurate) and again from NYC to Providence. Should it be renumbered on these portions? By your logic, the answer is yes.
I had a feeling I would be countered with that. However, I-95 does not go north-south, east-west, and then south-north. There isn't a point on I-95 where you are actually "traveling" south when in fact you're heading north. So no, the situation here is not the same.
I agree ... many beltways loop around cities. I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange. The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2012, 05:49:59 PM
I agree ... many beltways loop around cities. I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange. The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.
But with there being a PA 295 already, I doubt they'd want to go along with it. There is no PA 695 :)
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 13, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 13, 2012, 12:05:11 PM
The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.
Agreed. The N.J. Turnpike mainline between Exits 1 and 6 ought to be signed as I-895.
And the Turnpike and NJDOT ought to remediate the breezewood (missing interchange) between the Turnpike and I-76/N.J. 42.
I remember once seeing plans that alluded to this. Direct connection ramps to 42 or 55.
I once developed plans to connect NJTP to 42 via an improved Interchange 3 through an upgraded Benigno Boulevard. In my earliest concept, which was rejected for a few reasons (valid, but can't go into it here), instead of curving up toward Creek Road as it does now, the upgraded road would have continued due west across 42 with an interchange there. My personal solution would be the following:
* Upgrade Interchange 3 bridge over NJ 168 to four lanes from two.
* Reconstruct ramp from 168 SB to Turnpike to be a far-side loop.
* Extend roadway west and north to Benigno Blvd.
* Merge with existing Benigno to form a five-lane boulevard with center turn lane.
* 42 NB-EB and WB-42 SB movements would be direct ramps without stopping regardless of interchange design.
* Benigno/Wildwood Aves. would be upgraded as a direct connector from Creek Rd. to the new Benigno opposite the 42 NB ramps.
* 42 would be five lanes from 295/42 interchange south to this new Exit 14.
* 42 would be six lanes from this interchange south to NJ 55, with both lanes dropped/added by 55.
This would solve every issue except "IT'S NOT FREEWAY TO FREEWAY!" But given the constraints of the area, especially environmentally, I can live with that.
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 06:55:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2012, 05:49:59 PM
I agree ... many beltways loop around cities. I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange. The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.
But with there being a PA 295 already, I doubt they'd want to go along with it. There is no PA 695 :)
York County, Pennsylvania, is about 100 miles from Bucks County. Having I-295 in Bucks County should not be an issue.
It's not the proximity... They already have an SR 0295. So what would they give I-295 in their system?
They'd probably do something similar to the I-283/PA 283 legislative routing, where one is officially a different number. In this case, what is signed PA 283 is legislatively SR 0300 and I-283 is SR 0283.
Quote from: Takumi on September 13, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
They'd probably do something similar to the I-283/PA 283 legislative routing, where one is officially a different number. In this case, what is signed PA 283 is legislatively SR 0300 and I-283 is SR 0283.
Now see, THAT doesn't make any sense... having I-283 and PA 283 *intersect* one another is ridiculous! There is no PA Route 300, so why not just renumber it to that?? Why have PA 283?? I just don't get it. It serves no purpose, it's not meant to be a continuation of the highway.
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 11:57:27 PM
It serves no purpose, it's not meant to be a continuation of the highway.
Buh? The two routes form a continuously-signed highway from I-83 near Harrisburg to US 30 near Lancaster. The technical continuations of the freeways beyond the cloverleaf where they join are only signed for I-76 and PA 230.
Sure sure... :rolleyes:
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 10:56:46 PM
It's not the proximity... They already have an SR 0295. So what would they give I-295 in their system?
Most states would allow having a state primary route and an Interstate route with the same number, if they were in different parts of the state. In this case it would be very logical to use I-295 in Bucks County. Has PennDOT considered this?
Quote from: Beltway on September 14, 2012, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 10:56:46 PM
It's not the proximity... They already have an SR 0295. So what would they give I-295 in their system?
Most states would allow having a state primary route and an Interstate route with the same number, if they were in different parts of the state. In this case it would be very logical to use I-295 in Bucks County. Has PennDOT considered this?
Yes they have, which is why it used to be labeled I-295. Some representations still show it in fact. But then they just oddly decided to change their minds.
As Seen Here: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8449%2F7985514209_8eb8ef657e_b.jpg&hash=3e7574518c27de44cf7c41ff18d98eee9d3dc1b9)
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/pdf/ROD_figA.pdf
And I would be for I-195 looping around Trenton, IF we already had an I-895 or I-695 elsewhere in the state... but we don't. They are both unused numbers and would make for a much better choice (and less confusing)
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
I had a feeling I would be countered with that. However, I-95 does not go north-south, east-west, and then south-north. There isn't a point on I-95 where you are actually "traveling" south when in fact you're heading north. So no, the situation here is not the same.
Wait, are you talking about I-195 or I-295? I agree with respect to I-295, which is why I'm glad they're extending I-195 instead. At least there you can say it's east-west, perhaps with the direction signage changing at the state line, while extending I-295 would just be... strange.
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2012, 05:49:59 PM
I agree ... many beltways loop around cities. I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange. The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.
See above. Extending I-195 is more logical than extending I-295 given the PA portion.
Quote from: deanej on September 14, 2012, 11:18:55 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
I had a feeling I would be countered with that. However, I-95 does not go north-south, east-west, and then south-north. There isn't a point on I-95 where you are actually "traveling" south when in fact you're heading north. So no, the situation here is not the same.
Wait, are you talking about I-195 or I-295? I agree with respect to I-295, which is why I'm glad they're extending I-195 instead. At least there you can say it's east-west, perhaps with the direction signage changing at the state line, while extending I-295 would just be... strange.
Quote from: Beltway on September 13, 2012, 05:49:59 PM
I agree ... many beltways loop around cities. I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange. The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.
See above. Extending I-195 is more logical than extending I-295 given the PA portion.
If given those two choices maybe... But can't you concede that just assigning a whole new number like I-695 to the old I-95 section and leaving I-295 & I-195 alone would be better?
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
I had a feeling I would be countered with that. However, I-95 does not go north-south, east-west, and then south-north. There isn't a point on I-95 where you are actually "traveling" south when in fact you're heading north.
Take a look at a map for northern New Jersey, specifically the Teaneck/Fort Lee area, and then get back with us.
Actually just thought of a more bizarre idea: Why not have 276 and I-95 flip flop like I-76 and I-80 do at the Ohio Turnpike? Extend 276 up to Scudders Falls, and have I-295 take over from there?
Quote from: deanej on September 14, 2012, 11:18:55 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
I agree ... many beltways loop around cities. I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange. The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.
See above. Extending I-195 is more logical than extending I-295 given the PA portion.
I disagree. I-295 would be a logical extension of a beltway route. I-195 is very logical today, as a spur from I-295 (a spur from a 3di is a legitimate designation). The current I-195 plan would change that into a very convoluted routing for I-195.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 14, 2012, 01:13:39 PM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
I had a feeling I would be countered with that. However, I-95 does not go north-south, east-west, and then south-north. There isn't a point on I-95 where you are actually "traveling" south when in fact you're heading north.
Take a look at a map for northern New Jersey, specifically the Teaneck/Fort Lee area, and then get back with us.
Really? A distance of 1.5 miles. :-D
NJ and PA 229? :)
No need for more interstates. NJ needs a new state route anyway. ;)
Are there plans for an interchange between I-295 and Current I-276/Future I-95? If not, why not have I-295 extend eastward along current I-195 to the NJTP? This way, I-195 becomes a true spur heading east, and I-295 is now a "complete" "bypass" routing down to Wilmington. Renumber the extraneous portion in Trenton as I-695, and there is no need to sign it from I-95/NJTP since it only serves Trenton locally.
Quote from: florida on September 14, 2012, 03:14:02 PM
Are there plans for an interchange between I-295 and Current I-276/Future I-95? If not, why not have I-295 extend eastward along current I-195 to the NJTP? This way, I-195 becomes a true spur heading east, and I-295 is now a "complete" "bypass" routing down to Wilmington. Renumber the extraneous portion in Trenton as I-695, and there is no need to sign it from I-95/NJTP since it only serves Trenton locally.
Hey! That's the most logical proposal of all! Since both states had an original I-695 proposal that was canceled, that designation would be available.
Quote from: route_82 on September 14, 2012, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 14, 2012, 01:13:39 PM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 03:45:54 PM
I had a feeling I would be countered with that. However, I-95 does not go north-south, east-west, and then south-north. There isn't a point on I-95 where you are actually "traveling" south when in fact you're heading north.
Take a look at a map for northern New Jersey, specifically the Teaneck/Fort Lee area, and then get back with us.
Really? A distance of 1.5 miles. :-D
By that measure, I'm sure there's a few curves on I-95 N between New Haven and North Stonington, CT where it curves to the south, and the same in the opposite direction. Same with east and west on I-84 in CT near Exit 30.
Lack of interchange between NJ I-295 and I-95 (NJTP Penna. Ext.) --
The highest volume pair of movements would be the northerly pair, and they already exist via I-195.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 14, 2012, 01:20:50 PM
Actually just thought of a more bizarre idea: Why not have 276 and I-95 flip flop like I-76 and I-80 do at the Ohio Turnpike? Extend 276 up to Scudders Falls, and have I-295 take over from there?
Hey, not bad. I guess NJ wants to get rid of having one route turn into another, or else I'm sure 695 or 895 would have been selected instead of trying to extend an existing number. If I worked there and you suggested this, I'd advocate for it. Anyway, while I'm on that subject - how about I-695 being a beltway from the current interchange all the way around to I-195? Then you have 29, 195, 295, and 695 all ending at each other!
Quote from: Takumi on September 13, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
They'd probably do something similar to the I-283/PA 283 legislative routing, where one is officially a different number. In this case, what is signed PA 283 is legislatively SR 0300 and I-283 is SR 0283.
They do the same thing here in PA with PA-380/I-380. I-380 gets the "SR-380" designation, while PA-380 here in Pgh gets the hidden "SR-400" designation.
There has been precedent for odd-numbered 3di's intersecting their parent twice. I-520 in the Augusta area is a prime example of this, although it somehow gets away with it due to the fact that it exists in two states. Still, I don't like the prospect of I-195 extending to I-95 when the parent route finally gets rerouted onto the PA Turnpike extension, even though it will end in another state, like the I-520 example (which, to me, should've been renumbered to I-620 or something more appropriate). An odd-numbered 3di (spur) can only intersect its parent once and end somewhere, and an even-numbered 3di (loop) may or may not intersect its parent more than once and connect to at least two other Interstates in the process.
I think the part everyone keeps missing is the effects of extending I-195 will have on thousands of businesses. Think of all the modified directions that will be brought about by changing the exit numbers on I-295 (exit 60-67) and I-195 (Exit 1-34). All of those numbers will have to be adjusted. The cost to these businesses of having to order new stationary may be small on an individual basis, but multiply that by how many thousands will be affected... that's alot of unnecessary change. I-195 will also become littered with "Old Exit" signs.
It's just more confusion than it's worth. Renumbering of old I-95 to I-695 will require exit number changes in only PA, and even then there's precedent that they may not even need to change those (I-395 CT).
The simplest, cheapest, and logical solution is to renumber old I-95 to I-695 and bring back the number that would have related to the Somerset Fwy long long ago.
Quote from: route_82 on September 15, 2012, 09:31:10 AM
I think the part everyone keeps missing is the effects of extending I-195 will have on thousands of businesses.
Don't worry - half of those are carny barkers at Six Flags.
Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2012, 10:15:10 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 15, 2012, 09:31:10 AM
I think the part everyone keeps missing is the effects of extending I-195 will have on thousands of businesses.
Don't worry - half of those are carny barkers at Six Flags.
I was going to say - how many people are going to get lost looking for Exit 16?
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2012, 02:51:16 AM
I was going to say - how many people are going to get lost looking for Exit 16?
Well, lemme think...
Exit 16 businesses already advertise that they're near or on the way to Six Flags, so that's probably not an issue...
Route 9 businesses say they're on Route 9...
Route 130 businesses say they're on Route 130...
Shore businesses show up after 195 ends...
The only people I could see being affected are the car dealership at Exit 31B and maybe Glory's at Exit 21. There's really not a lot of business primarily accessible from 195. Anything else?
Quote from: hubcity on September 16, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2012, 02:51:16 AM
I was going to say - how many people are going to get lost looking for Exit 16?
Well, lemme think...
Exit 16 businesses already advertise that they're near or on the way to Six Flags, so that's probably not an issue...
Route 9 businesses say they're on Route 9...
Route 130 businesses say they're on Route 130...
Shore businesses show up after 195 ends...
The only people I could see being affected are the car dealership at Exit 31B and maybe Glory's at Exit 21. There's really not a lot of business primarily accessible from 195. Anything else?
I-195 (Exits 1-5) and (21-22)
Not to mention I-295 (exits 60-67)
i think we need a petition or something to send to NJDOT and PADOT to stop this ridiculous extension. haha
Quote from: YankeesFan on September 16, 2012, 04:03:48 PM
i think we need a petition or something to send to NJDOT and PADOT to stop this ridiculous extension. haha
I'm with you on that one.
Quote from: YankeesFan on September 16, 2012, 04:03:48 PM
i think we need a petition or something to send to NJDOT and PADOT to stop this ridiculous extension. haha
a) Overkill. Petitions to stop or support a highway from being built are one thing. No one's going to take a petition seriously to change a route or exit number, outside of a select few on this forum only.
b) They debated numbering and picked 195 over 295. I'd be surprised if they didn't consider 695 as part of it.
Your best bet would be to call NJDOT and keep asking around until you get someone who can explain why they chose 195, and then voice your concerns.
Two years ago I spoke with a project manager about it... I think he was with Urban Engineers. He said it was PennDOT's choice. NJ just went along with it. I mentioned the other numbers and he told me they considered it, but went with I-195 for some reason. He didn't say why.
I hope AASHTO rejects it.
Quote from: route_82 on September 17, 2012, 08:18:48 PM
Two years ago I spoke with a project manager about it... I think he was with Urban Engineers. He said it was PennDOT's choice. NJ just went along with it. I mentioned the other numbers and he told me they considered it, but went with I-195 for some reason. He didn't say why.
I hope AASHTO rejects it.
So it was PA who wanted the number all along, and NJ had no choice but to agree on an extension to make it possible? As for AASHTO, the number should be rejected in favor of I-695, but you never know. A good example would be NC's original plans to number the Fayetteville Outer Loop as I-195 (sound familiar?), but that number got rejected in favor of I-295.
I recall getting all lathered up about both ideas (I-295 or I-195 extensions) at the time I first saw them, for many of the same reasons expressed throughout this thread. I also came up with many of the same suggestions expressed in this thread, even writing to the Project Office to recommend I-895 over I-95, all else remaining the same. Their response was a polite "Thank you for your interest in the project."
I suppose it all boils down to what would confuse the motorist the least. Of the two published choices, I-195 appears to do that. Would the average motorist (or anyone aside from a few roadgeeks) care about the numbering rules of Interstate highways?
Besides, considering how messed up this area has been for so long (route-numbering, I mean), it would be poetic justice if current I-95 Exit 46 would be a junction of an east-west U.S. 1 (signed north-south) and a north-south I-195 (signed east-west) . . .
Quote from: hubcity on September 16, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2012, 02:51:16 AM
I was going to say - how many people are going to get lost looking for Exit 16?
The only people I could see being affected are the car dealership at Exit 31B and maybe Glory's at Exit 21. There's really not a lot of business primarily accessible from 195. Anything else?
Do a google search for 195, new jersey, directions, and other related search options, and you'll see that plenty of businesses and people use those exit numbers.
Maybe you forgot about the large shopping center and office park off of Exit 5 - Rt. 130.
Maybe you forgot about the NJ Turnpike off Exit 6.
Maybe you forgot about the shore route many people take off Exit 7.
Mabye you forgot about the farms and houses people access from other exits.
Or maybe you simply think everyone goes to two destinations and to hell with everyone else.
If that's your mentality, then there should only be two interchanges along every highway. The one you're getting on, and the one you're getting off. The others are a waste and serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Quote from: route_82 on September 17, 2012, 08:18:48 PM
Two years ago I spoke with a project manager about it... I think he was with Urban Engineers. He said it was PennDOT's choice. NJ just went along with it. I mentioned the other numbers and he told me they considered it, but went with I-195 for some reason. He didn't say why.
I hope AASHTO rejects it.
They'd be more likely to reject I-695 I suspect. Just look at how I-26 assimilated I-181.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2012, 12:53:35 PM
If that's your mentality, then there should only be two interchanges along every highway. The one you're getting on, and the one you're getting off. The others are a waste and serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
I believe most people operate that way for short trips, which is probably what most of the traffic there is.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2012, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: hubcity on September 16, 2012, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2012, 02:51:16 AM
I was going to say - how many people are going to get lost looking for Exit 16?
The only people I could see being affected are the car dealership at Exit 31B and maybe Glory's at Exit 21. There's really not a lot of business primarily accessible from 195. Anything else?
Do a google search for 195, new jersey, directions, and other related search options, and you'll see that plenty of businesses and people use those exit numbers.
Maybe you forgot about the large shopping center and office park off of Exit 5 - Rt. 130.
Maybe you forgot about the NJ Turnpike off Exit 6.
Maybe you forgot about the shore route many people take off Exit 7.
Mabye you forgot about the farms and houses people access from other exits.
Or maybe you simply think everyone goes to two destinations and to hell with everyone else.
If that's your mentality, then there should only be two interchanges along every highway. The one you're getting on, and the one you're getting off. The others are a waste and serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
I stand corrected.
i just find it funny...no one coming from PA (headed to jersey shore) is gonna take I-195 (the extended one) ALL the way around north of Trenton then back south to go to the current 195. they just use NJ 29.
It should be a different number (I-695) with *enter control city/destination here*
One way to look at it, I suppose, would be to preserve the current notion that the highways on either side of the Delaware are north/south roads, whose northern terminus is at their junction with US 1. Viewing it that way, the only exits that would have to change would be those on the PA side, north of the 95/PA Tpk intersection.
If you were to view it that way, anyway.
Quote from: YankeesFan on September 18, 2012, 06:05:02 PM
i just find it funny...no one coming from PA (headed to jersey shore) is gonna take I-195 (the extended one) ALL the way around north of Trenton then back south to go to the current 195. they just use NJ 29.
It should be a different number (I-695) with *enter control city/destination here*
NJ 29 can get backed up during rush hour or Thunder games, not to mention numerous lights and a lower speed limit, not to mention truck limitations.
Quote from: hubcity on September 18, 2012, 07:58:51 PM
One way to look at it, I suppose, would be to preserve the current notion that the highways on either side of the Delaware are north/south roads, whose northern terminus is at their junction with US 1. Viewing it that way, the only exits that would have to change would be those on the PA side, north of the 95/PA Tpk intersection.
If you were to view it that way, anyway.
That's what I've been saying actually... only the exits in PA really have to change. The least fuss. I mean really, I-95 is changing... so change existing I-95. Why drag I-295 and I-195 into it? Leave them be.
Commuters and regular drivers knowing I-95 is moving to the TPK expect old I-95 to change to a new number... but commuters of I-295 (exit 60-67) to Route 1 don't expect their route number to change, nor do the commuters and regular drivers expect the exit numbers on I-195 (1-34) to suddenly change for no real reason. It's arbitrary and pointless.
By the way, if this goes through, I expect I-195 at Route 34 will go from Exit 35 to Exit 49 or 50. That's a big adjustment.
Quote from: Steve on September 18, 2012, 08:44:53 PM
Quote from: YankeesFan on September 18, 2012, 06:05:02 PM
i just find it funny...no one coming from PA (headed to jersey shore) is gonna take I-195 (the extended one) ALL the way around north of Trenton then back south to go to the current 195. they just use NJ 29.
It should be a different number (I-695) with *enter control city/destination here*
NJ 29 can get backed up during rush hour or Thunder games, not to mention numerous lights and a lower speed limit, not to mention truck limitations.
yeah it can get backed up (i live in the area). the lights are not that numerous though, and no one adheres the speed limit. and until you get to the thunder stadium there usually isnt much traffic. def the faster route.
Quote from: route_82 link=topic=7640.msg174531#msg174531
By the way, if this goes through, I expect I-195 at Route 34 will go from Exit 35 to Exit 49 or 50. That's a big adjustment.
Maybe they'll just add 100 to the existing exit numbers to make it easy for people to adjust. :-D
Quote from: route_82 on September 17, 2012, 08:18:48 PM
Two years ago I spoke with a project manager about it... I think he was with Urban Engineers. He said it was PennDOT's choice. NJ just went along with it. I mentioned the other numbers and he told me they considered it, but went with I-195 for some reason. He didn't say why.
I hope AASHTO rejects it.
They approved the truncation of US 113 south from Dover to Milford, they won't reject it...
Quote from: route_82 on September 18, 2012, 11:20:56 PM
Quote from: hubcity on September 18, 2012, 07:58:51 PM
One way to look at it, I suppose, would be to preserve the current notion that the highways on either side of the Delaware are north/south roads, whose northern terminus is at their junction with US 1. Viewing it that way, the only exits that would have to change would be those on the PA side, north of the 95/PA Tpk intersection.
If you were to view it that way, anyway.
That's what I've been saying actually... only the exits in PA really have to change. The least fuss. I mean really, I-95 is changing... so change existing I-95. Why drag I-295 and I-195 into it? Leave them be.
Commuters and regular drivers knowing I-95 is moving to the TPK expect old I-95 to change to a new number... but commuters of I-295 (exit 60-67) to Route 1 don't expect their route number to change, nor do the commuters and regular drivers expect the exit numbers on I-195 (1-34) to suddenly change for no real reason. It's arbitrary and pointless.
By the way, if this goes through, I expect I-195 at Route 34 will go from Exit 35 to Exit 49 or 50. That's a big adjustment.
Is US 1 that major an exit that all the commute patters are predominantly to one side or the other rather than through? I'm guessing not, and as such, it makes sense for it to be one highway.
Quote from: deanej on September 19, 2012, 11:41:05 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 18, 2012, 11:20:56 PM
Quote from: hubcity on September 18, 2012, 07:58:51 PM
One way to look at it, I suppose, would be to preserve the current notion that the highways on either side of the Delaware are north/south roads, whose northern terminus is at their junction with US 1. Viewing it that way, the only exits that would have to change would be those on the PA side, north of the 95/PA Tpk intersection.
If you were to view it that way, anyway.
That's what I've been saying actually... only the exits in PA really have to change. The least fuss. I mean really, I-95 is changing... so change existing I-95. Why drag I-295 and I-195 into it? Leave them be.
Commuters and regular drivers knowing I-95 is moving to the TPK expect old I-95 to change to a new number... but commuters of I-295 (exit 60-67) to Route 1 don't expect their route number to change, nor do the commuters and regular drivers expect the exit numbers on I-195 (1-34) to suddenly change for no real reason. It's arbitrary and pointless.
By the way, if this goes through, I expect I-195 at Route 34 will go from Exit 35 to Exit 49 or 50. That's a big adjustment.
Is US 1 that major an exit that all the commute patters are predominantly to one side or the other rather than through? I'm guessing not, and as such, it makes sense for it to be one highway.
Actually yes. I used to commute up I-295 to US 1 and a large portion of traffic does exit at US 1. Drive by there sometime at Morning Peak and you'll witness cars lining the shoulder or right lane waiting to exit. There are tons of business parks off US 1 north of Trenton. Also, alot of people take US 1 instead of the Turnpike.
US 1 is DEF a major exit.
Does Page 1 of this document clarify how major of an exit it is, and the issues that are currently under review?
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp13/sec3/route/rt295.pdf
Quote from: deanej on September 19, 2012, 11:41:05 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 18, 2012, 11:20:56 PM
Quote from: hubcity on September 18, 2012, 07:58:51 PM
One way to look at it, I suppose, would be to preserve the current notion that the highways on either side of the Delaware are north/south roads, whose northern terminus is at their junction with US 1. Viewing it that way, the only exits that would have to change would be those on the PA side, north of the 95/PA Tpk intersection.
If you were to view it that way, anyway.
That's what I've been saying actually... only the exits in PA really have to change. The least fuss. I mean really, I-95 is changing... so change existing I-95. Why drag I-295 and I-195 into it? Leave them be.
Commuters and regular drivers knowing I-95 is moving to the TPK expect old I-95 to change to a new number... but commuters of I-295 (exit 60-67) to Route 1 don't expect their route number to change, nor do the commuters and regular drivers expect the exit numbers on I-195 (1-34) to suddenly change for no real reason. It's arbitrary and pointless.
By the way, if this goes through, I expect I-195 at Route 34 will go from Exit 35 to Exit 49 or 50. That's a big adjustment.
Is US 1 that major an exit that all the commute patters are predominantly to one side or the other rather than through? I'm guessing not, and as such, it makes sense for it to be one highway.
Does Page 1 of this document clarify how major of an exit it is, and the issues that are currently under review?
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp13/sec3/route/rt295.pdf
But does the majority of traffic exit there?
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2012, 09:03:53 PM
Quote from: route_82 on September 12, 2012, 03:09:31 PM. Granted, one could've fudged it like I-287 in NJ (I-87 does not go into CT).
I know you mean NJ, but not to get off topic, I-87 did enter CT at one time when I-684 was signed as such.
:-o Oh snap, you're right; my bad. I did mean NJ. I've since fixed my earlier post.
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 10:56:46 PM
It's not the proximity... They already have an SR 0295. So what would they give I-295 in their system?
That didn't stop Maryland from designating much of US 40 as I-68 circa late-80s/early-90s even though there already is an unrelated MD 68 (which still holds that designation today).
Quote from: route_82 on September 17, 2012, 08:18:48 PM
Two years ago I spoke with a project manager about it... I think he was with Urban Engineers. He said it was PennDOT's choice. NJ just went along with it. I mentioned the other numbers and he told me they considered it, but went with I-195 for some reason. He didn't say why.
I have to wonder if PennDOT was looking at an old NJ map that predated the full I-295/195/NJ 29 interchange when they made their decision; the full interchange opened sometime in the mid-90s.
Prior to that time, I-295 made a sharp easterly turn and
became I-195.
Had that condition still existed (no full I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange), than redesignating I-95/295 in that area as I-195 would've made more sense.
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 13, 2012, 11:06:59 PM
They'd probably do something similar to the I-283/PA 283 legislative routing, where one is officially a different number. In this case, what is signed PA 283 is legislatively SR 0300 and I-283 is SR 0283.
Now see, THAT doesn't make any sense... having I-283 and PA 283 *intersect* one another is ridiculous! There is no PA Route 300, so why not just renumber it to that?? Why have PA 283?? I just don't get it. It serves no purpose, it's not meant to be a continuation of the highway.
My guess is that the PA 283 highway was there before the I-283 leg. And the likely reason why PennDOT did not redesignate PA 283 as I-283 was due to the fact that PA 283 would have needed to be upgraded to Interstate standards where needed and such would've required additional funding.
Until recently, the major difference between a US or state highway vs. an Interstate was percentage of federal funding. Interstates used to have an automatic 90-10 Federal-State funding ratio.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 20, 2012, 02:31:08 PM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 10:56:46 PM
It's not the proximity... They already have an SR 0295. So what would they give I-295 in their system?
That didn't stop Maryland from designating much of US 40 as I-68 circa late-80s/early-90s even though there already is an unrelated MD 68 (which still holds that designation today).
Different states have different policies about repeating numbers which depend on how they refer to routes internally. The way Maryland does things allows them to differentiate between I-68 and MD 68. But many states simply refer to all routes as route XX and thus cannot have two routes with the same number, even if they are different classes. Connecticut renumbered CT 84 and CT 95 to CT 184 and CT 195 when I-84 and I-95 were introduced to the state in the 1950s, because having two routes with the same number is not possible with the way ConnDOT does their bookkeeping.
Pennsylvania has gotten around this issue before by having an alternate internal designation for their two interstates which duplicate state route numbers, but they still consider this unideal and would like to avoid having another instance of it.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2012, 06:40:18 PM
Pennsylvania has gotten around this issue before by having an alternate internal designation for their two interstates which duplicate state route numbers, but they still consider this unideal and would like to avoid having another instance of it.
I-99 is another instance of it (PA 99 is now SR 0399 (?)).
Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2012, 06:40:18 PM
Pennsylvania has gotten around this issue before by having an alternate internal designation for their two interstates which duplicate state route numbers, but they still consider this unideal and would like to avoid having another instance of it.
This is an instance where the physical road network benefit would far exceed any internal 'issue' that might exist.
Quote from: NE2 on September 21, 2012, 01:41:26 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2012, 06:40:18 PM
Pennsylvania has gotten around this issue before by having an alternate internal designation for their two interstates which duplicate state route numbers, but they still consider this unideal and would like to avoid having another instance of it.
I-99 is another instance of it (PA 99 is now SR 0399 (?)).
I wonder why they didn't follow the 283-380 trend and number it secretly SR 0200 or 0500.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2012, 06:40:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 20, 2012, 02:31:08 PM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 10:56:46 PM
It's not the proximity... They already have an SR 0295. So what would they give I-295 in their system?
That didn't stop Maryland from designating much of US 40 as I-68 circa late-80s/early-90s even though there already is an unrelated MD 68 (which still holds that designation today).
Different states have different policies about repeating numbers which depend on how they refer to routes internally. The way Maryland does things allows them to differentiate between I-68 and MD 68. But many states simply refer to all routes as route XX and thus cannot have two routes with the same number, even if they are different classes. Connecticut renumbered CT 84 and CT 95 to CT 184 and CT 195 when I-84 and I-95 were introduced to the state in the 1950s, because having two routes with the same number is not possible with the way ConnDOT does their bookkeeping.
Delaware has DE 9 & US 9; annoying in that this region of the country, most roads are simply "Route X". Rarely do you hear "US 9".
While not quite similiar, I wished Delaware didn't use DE 1, especially as it's become their main North-South Route thru the state. Just too confusing considering US 1 isn't too far away in neighboring NJ, DE & MD.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 21, 2012, 03:32:44 PM
While not quite similar, I wished Delaware didn't use DE 1, especially as it's become their main North-South Route thru the state. Just too confusing considering US 1 isn't too far away in neighboring NJ, DE & MD.
I think you mean PA here. DE isn't a neighbor of DE
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 21, 2012, 03:32:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 20, 2012, 06:40:18 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 20, 2012, 02:31:08 PM
Quote from: route_82 on September 13, 2012, 10:56:46 PM
It's not the proximity... They already have an SR 0295. So what would they give I-295 in their system?
That didn't stop Maryland from designating much of US 40 as I-68 circa late-80s/early-90s even though there already is an unrelated MD 68 (which still holds that designation today).
Different states have different policies about repeating numbers which depend on how they refer to routes internally. The way Maryland does things allows them to differentiate between I-68 and MD 68. But many states simply refer to all routes as route XX and thus cannot have two routes with the same number, even if they are different classes. Connecticut renumbered CT 84 and CT 95 to CT 184 and CT 195 when I-84 and I-95 were introduced to the state in the 1950s, because having two routes with the same number is not possible with the way ConnDOT does their bookkeeping.
Delaware has DE 9 & US 9; annoying in that this region of the country, most roads are simply "Route X". Rarely do you hear "US 9".
While not quite similiar, I wished Delaware didn't use DE 1, especially as it's become their main North-South Route thru the state. Just too confusing considering US 1 isn't too far away in neighboring NJ, PA & MD.
It doesn't bother me too much that "Route XX" is used in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic; after all, I grew up in a part of the Midwest that also uses that terminology, as opposed to "Highway XX" that is used predominantly in the South.
Since US 1 goes nowhere through DE (instead skipping from MD directly to PA), I don't think it's a problem at all that there's a DE 1. But I believe that US 13 is the actual main North-South route through the state, since its limited-access companion ends shortly after passing by Dover.
[quote author=Henry link=topic=7640.msg175121#msg175121 date=1348347029
Since US 1 goes nowhere through DE (instead skipping from MD directly to PA), I don't think it's a problem at all that there's a DE 1. But I believe that US 13 is the actual main North-South route through the state, since its limited-access companion ends shortly after passing by Dover.
[/quote]
I'd agree that US 13 is indeed a major North-South route south of exit 97 from DE 1. US 13 north of there serves mostly local interests and doesn't see much through traffic except from shunpikers.
I thought more people would be welcoming of the idea of having a new x95 spur in NJ, such as I-695. :hmmm:
I would hope one day we get to see a state that has a spur off 95 for every number 1-9. Maryland is so far the closest. :)
All they need to do is sign I-595, and convert I-97 to I-995 and they're there. :)
Quote from: signalman on September 21, 2012, 04:28:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 21, 2012, 03:32:44 PM
While not quite similar, I wished Delaware didn't use DE 1, especially as it's become their main North-South Route thru the state. Just too confusing considering US 1 isn't too far away in neighboring NJ, DE & MD.
I think you mean PA here. DE isn't a neighbor of DE
Someday I'll learn to proofread what I write!
Quote
Since US 1 goes nowhere through DE (instead skipping from MD directly to PA), I don't think it's a problem at all that there's a DE 1. But I believe that US 13 is the actual main North-South route through the state, since its limited-access companion ends shortly after passing by Dover.
From looking at a map, that's correct about US 1. However, when actually giving directions, you don't want to confuse someone saying take Route 1. Because the Route 1 one person is thinking about may be different than the Route 1 that needs to be taken. Very easy to do, especially when the trip involves both Route 1s!
As for as US 13 goes, while it does appear it's the main route thru the state on paper, it really isn't anymore in terms of traffic flow. The majority of traffic doesn't go south below Dover, so that makes Route 1 the main route.
I spoke with an engineer today at work who is familiar with the Turnpike/I-95 project.
In our conversation, he explained to me that NJ & PA decided on I-195 because this new 'segment' runs more "east-west".
I checked, it runs north-south for 17 total miles and east-west for about 9 miles. Last I checked, 17 was bigger than 9.
But he seemed to emphasize that it was a done deal.
FHWA & AASHTO have apparently approved it.
So looks like we'll just have to get used to it... and the new exit numbers.
Meh, I never get to go up there anyway, and I'll be moving away from the area soon, so the better to ignore it with. :)
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 26, 2012, 08:16:10 AM
Meh, I never get to go up there anyway, and I'll be moving away from the area soon, so the better to ignore it with. :)
Just file it with the extension of I-44 over former I-70 at St. Louis, the replacement of I-181 with I-26 at Johnson City and the replacement of old I-85 through Greensboro as an extension of BL I-85. Better numberings were possible, but this is what we get.
Quote from: route_82 on September 25, 2012, 08:51:15 PM
I spoke with an engineer today at work who is familiar with the Turnpike/I-95 project.
In our conversation, he explained to me that NJ & PA decided on I-195 because this new 'segment' runs more "east-west".
I checked, it runs north-south for 17 total miles and east-west for about 9 miles. Last I checked, 17 was bigger than 9.
But he seemed to emphasize that it was a done deal.
FHWA & AASHTO have apparently approved it.
So looks like we'll just have to get used to it... and the new exit numbers.
I see what you're saying, but the overall movement of this half-beltway is East-West.
Here's the problem if you sign it North-South: The most northern part of this portion of I-95 is around Exit 4 in NJ. So if you use I-295, do you keep saying you're on 295 North when the roadway is going south into PA, all the way down to the PA Turnpike? Likewise, driving East on the PA Turnpike, do you have the option to take I-95 South towards Philly (truly traveling south), or I-295 South towards Langhorne (even though you are traveling North). Or do you split the direction of the roadway, like it is now - I-295 North suddenly becomes I-295 South, and vice-versa.
I-195 at least mostly runs East-West (although it does veer the opposing way for a little bit).
Maybe the best option is just to renumber it something totally different. 895 would work. Even a x76 would work, as the PA Turnpike is 276 at that point...and an x76 rarely if ever has been brought up as a valid option! I believe 576, 776, 876 and 976 are all available...as ugly sounding as they are!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2012, 08:48:05 AM
576
Not if the PTC has anything to say about it.
http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.457136,-80.287914&spn=0.075888,0.169086&t=m&z=13 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.457136,-80.287914&spn=0.075888,0.169086&t=m&z=13)
It's already signed PA Turnpike 576, and eventually will be an Interstate.
x76 wouldn't work because the initial interchange will have only the two ramps carrying I-95.
I see no problem with I-295. PennDOT can change the state route number of PA 295, and only exit numbers on current I-95 need to change. Directions can change to east-west between the Delaware and US 1 and stay north-south in Pennsylvania. Any confusion can be minimized by putting the name "Trenton Beltway" on approach signs (including the current I-295 north of I-195).
I'd be ok with I-295 as well, just have it go from N-S to S-N when it hits the PA border. Anything is better than I-195. :banghead:
Quote from: route_82 on September 25, 2012, 08:51:15 PM
I spoke with an engineer today at work who is familiar with the Turnpike/I-95 project.
In our conversation, he explained to me that NJ & PA decided on I-195 because this new 'segment' runs more "east-west".
I checked, it runs north-south for 17 total miles and east-west for about 9 miles. Last I checked, 17 was bigger than 9.
But he seemed to emphasize that it was a done deal.
FHWA & AASHTO have apparently approved it.
So looks like we'll just have to get used to it... and the new exit numbers.
I have no problem with it being signed east-west, only with it being signed as I-195.
Quote from: Steve on September 27, 2012, 12:12:25 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 25, 2012, 08:51:15 PM
I spoke with an engineer today at work who is familiar with the Turnpike/I-95 project.
In our conversation, he explained to me that NJ & PA decided on I-195 because this new 'segment' runs more "east-west".
I checked, it runs north-south for 17 total miles and east-west for about 9 miles. Last I checked, 17 was bigger than 9.
But he seemed to emphasize that it was a done deal.
FHWA & AASHTO have apparently approved it.
So looks like we'll just have to get used to it... and the new exit numbers.
I have no problem with it being signed east-west, only with it being signed as I-195.
Same here. I still stand by my earlier alternative: designate I-95/295 between I-276 & I-195 as I-695. PA section would be north-south and the NJ section would be east-west; problem solved.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 27, 2012, 07:48:26 AM
Quote from: Steve on September 27, 2012, 12:12:25 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 25, 2012, 08:51:15 PM
I spoke with an engineer today at work who is familiar with the Turnpike/I-95 project.
In our conversation, he explained to me that NJ & PA decided on I-195 because this new 'segment' runs more "east-west".
I checked, it runs north-south for 17 total miles and east-west for about 9 miles. Last I checked, 17 was bigger than 9.
But he seemed to emphasize that it was a done deal.
FHWA & AASHTO have apparently approved it.
So looks like we'll just have to get used to it... and the new exit numbers.
I have no problem with it being signed east-west, only with it being signed as I-195.
Same here. I still stand by my earlier alternative: designate I-95/295 between I-276 & I-195 as I-695. PA section would be north-south and the NJ section would be east-west; problem solved.
So I-295 would end at Exit 60? And I-195, I-295, and I-695 would all end at the same interchange?
And NJ 29/129. :bigass:
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 27, 2012, 07:34:18 PM
And NJ 29/129. :bigass:
Oy! It's just safe to say that Princeton really screwed the state of NJ as far as infrastructure goes. The Somerset Freeway would have been so helpful.
Quote from: route_82 on September 27, 2012, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 27, 2012, 07:34:18 PM
And NJ 29/129. :bigass:
Oy! It's just safe to say that Princeton really screwed the state of NJ as far as infrastructure goes. The Somerset Freeway would have been so helpful.
It wasn't Princeton's fault, it was the even richer people to the northeast.
Quote from: route_82 on September 27, 2012, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 27, 2012, 07:34:18 PM
And NJ 29/129. :bigass:
Oy! It's just safe to say that Princeton really screwed the state of NJ as far as infrastructure goes. The Somerset Freeway would have been so helpful.
Actually, it may have even further consequences. We all know how bad driving I-95 thru the Philly region is now. Imagine if traffic used I-95 thru NJ as originally planned. Could you imagine all that traffic that now uses the NJ Turnpike (and to a lesser extent, I-295) using 3 lanes of I-95 thru Philly? Or 2 lanes of I-95 where it meets I-476, or 3 lanes of I-95 where US 322 multiplexes with 95 for a 1/2 mile or so?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Actually, it may have even further consequences. We all know how bad driving I-95 thru the Philly region is now. Imagine if traffic used I-95 thru NJ as originally planned. Could you imagine all that traffic that now uses the NJ Turnpike (and to a lesser extent, I-295) using 3 lanes of I-95 thru Philly? Or 2 lanes of I-95 where it meets I-476, or 3 lanes of I-95 where US 322 multiplexes with 95 for a 1/2 mile or so?
I-295 and the NJTP was planned to be the bypass of Wilmington, SE PA, and Trenton. I doubt that the I-95 Somerset Freeway segment would have affected traffic in Philadelphia, other than providing Philadelphia a direct route to and from the rest of I-95 to the north.
I just thought of this yesterday: in a way, the somerset freeway is being built... in the form of the Turnpike widening.
Quote from: route_82 on September 26, 2012, 04:22:28 PM
I'd be ok with I-295 as well, just have it go from N-S to S-N when it hits the PA border. Anything is better than I-195. :banghead:
Or it could be E-W when it hits PA! Combining the best of both worlds, the E-W orientation of the route they want to extend, and the same number we roadgeeks would want instead.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 27, 2012, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 27, 2012, 07:34:18 PM
And NJ 29/129. :bigass:
Oy! It's just safe to say that Princeton really screwed the state of NJ as far as infrastructure goes. The Somerset Freeway would have been so helpful.
Actually, it may have even further consequences. We all know how bad driving I-95 thru the Philly region is now. Imagine if traffic used I-95 thru NJ as originally planned. Could you imagine all that traffic that now uses the NJ Turnpike (and to a lesser extent, I-295) using 3 lanes of I-95 thru Philly? Or 2 lanes of I-95 where it meets I-476, or 3 lanes of I-95 where US 322 multiplexes with 95 for a 1/2 mile or so?
The bottleneck would be where the Somerset Freeway would merge into what today is I-287, along with the Turnpike Exit 10 interchange. I-287 would have needed to be widened considerably and a new high speed interchange with the Turnpike built. South of the proposed Somerset Freeway, you have I-295 as already noted. I-295 would have actually been somewhat busy from I-195 down to the Philly suburbs.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 28, 2012, 02:31:12 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Quote from: route_82 on September 27, 2012, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on September 27, 2012, 07:34:18 PM
And NJ 29/129. :bigass:
Oy! It's just safe to say that Princeton really screwed the state of NJ as far as infrastructure goes. The Somerset Freeway would have been so helpful.
Actually, it may have even further consequences. We all know how bad driving I-95 thru the Philly region is now. Imagine if traffic used I-95 thru NJ as originally planned. Could you imagine all that traffic that now uses the NJ Turnpike (and to a lesser extent, I-295) using 3 lanes of I-95 thru Philly? Or 2 lanes of I-95 where it meets I-476, or 3 lanes of I-95 where US 322 multiplexes with 95 for a 1/2 mile or so?
The bottleneck would be where the Somerset Freeway would merge into what today is I-287, along with the Turnpike Exit 10 interchange. I-287 would have needed to be widened considerably and a new high speed interchange with the Turnpike built. South of the proposed Somerset Freeway, you have I-295 as already noted. I-295 would have actually been somewhat busy from I-195 down to the Philly suburbs.
I-287 is quite congested now on that stretch, but I bet it wasn't 50 years ago. There has been so much development along the southern fringes of the NY metro area, from Bedminster/Bridgewater on east to Highland Park. Back in the 60s, it may have made sense to have 4 lanes each way and I-95/287 traffic together. Now, you'd need another 3 lanes each way for such a thing.
Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 06:45:11 PM
I-287 is quite congested now on that stretch, but I bet it wasn't 50 years ago. There has been so much development along the southern fringes of the NY metro area, from Bedminster/Bridgewater on east to Highland Park. Back in the 60s, it may have made sense to have 4 lanes each way and I-95/287 traffic together. Now, you'd need another 3 lanes each way for such a thing.
The I-95 Somerset Freeway and the I-695 connector would have provided a much better and shorter connection to use I-287 to bypass New York City, than the current I-95 NJTP connection to I-287. That would have reduced the need to use the northernmost NJTP to bypass NYC.
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2012, 09:46:33 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 06:45:11 PM
I-287 is quite congested now on that stretch, but I bet it wasn't 50 years ago. There has been so much development along the southern fringes of the NY metro area, from Bedminster/Bridgewater on east to Highland Park. Back in the 60s, it may have made sense to have 4 lanes each way and I-95/287 traffic together. Now, you'd need another 3 lanes each way for such a thing.
The I-95 Somerset Freeway and the I-695 connector would have provided a much better and shorter connection to use I-287 to bypass New York City, than the current I-95 NJTP connection to I-287. That would have reduced the need to use the northernmost NJTP to bypass NYC.
That much is true, but then again, I-287 is now more congested than I-95 in that area thanks to development. 50 years ago, definitely not an issue. At this point, it doesn't make sense to construct a freeway like I-95 without serious upgrades = serious $$ to I-287.
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2012, 08:58:19 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2012, 08:44:26 AM
Actually, it may have even further consequences. We all know how bad driving I-95 thru the Philly region is now. Imagine if traffic used I-95 thru NJ as originally planned. Could you imagine all that traffic that now uses the NJ Turnpike (and to a lesser extent, I-295) using 3 lanes of I-95 thru Philly? Or 2 lanes of I-95 where it meets I-476, or 3 lanes of I-95 where US 322 multiplexes with 95 for a 1/2 mile or so?
I-295 and the NJTP was planned to be the bypass of Wilmington, SE PA, and Trenton. I doubt that the I-95 Somerset Freeway segment would have affected traffic in Philadelphia, other than providing Philadelphia a direct route to and from the rest of I-95 to the north.
I think it would have affected it in a big way.
Why would travelers want to take 295, when 95 is the most direct route. Think of the traffic that stays on 95 rather than taking beltways around other cities (Baltimore; DC (the western side thru Tyson's Corner, Richmond, etc).
Additionally (using the assumption the toll situations would be the same today regardless), 95 South would be a free crossing over the Delaware, whereas 295 would require a $4 toll into Delaware.
Heading North in Delaware, the signs for 95 would most likely say 'New York', unlike the way they read today, which directs New York travelers to New Jersey instead.
Obviously, the whole corridor between the Wilmington, DE & Woodbridge, NJ would be drastically different if 95 was completed. The NJ Turnpike below Exit 10 would be the exception, not the rule, if 95 was completed.
Heck, maybe they would have even built an interchange with Rt. 42 to generate traffic on the NJ Turnpike! (HA)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2012, 10:18:32 AM
Heading North in Delaware, the signs for 95 would most likely say 'New York', unlike the way they read today, which directs New York travelers to New Jersey instead.
FWIW there was at least one sign originally posted in Bucks County listing New York for I-95 northbound:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania001/us-001_sb_app_i-095.jpg)
This sign was posted along US 1 southbound (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania001/us-001_sb_app_i-095.jpg). The replacement amended New York to Princeton.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2012, 10:18:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2012, 08:58:19 AM
I-295 and the NJTP was planned to be the bypass of Wilmington, SE PA, and Trenton. I doubt that the I-95 Somerset Freeway segment would have affected traffic in Philadelphia, other than providing Philadelphia a direct route to and from the rest of I-95 to the north.
I think it would have affected it in a big way.
Why would travelers want to take 295, when 95 is the most direct route. Think of the traffic that stays on 95 rather than taking beltways around other cities (Baltimore; DC (the western side thru Tyson's Corner, Richmond, etc).
I-295 would not be a beltway, but a very long I-95 bypass of Wilmington, SE PA, and Trenton, close to the same length as that section of I-95. I-295 would be vastly better than slogging through that segment of I-95, both in traffic and design.
Quote from: Beltway on October 01, 2012, 10:43:17 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2012, 10:18:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on September 28, 2012, 08:58:19 AM
I-295 and the NJTP was planned to be the bypass of Wilmington, SE PA, and Trenton. I doubt that the I-95 Somerset Freeway segment would have affected traffic in Philadelphia, other than providing Philadelphia a direct route to and from the rest of I-95 to the north.
I think it would have affected it in a big way.
Why would travelers want to take 295, when 95 is the most direct route. Think of the traffic that stays on 95 rather than taking beltways around other cities (Baltimore; DC (the western side thru Tyson's Corner, Richmond, etc).
I-295 would not be a beltway, but a very long I-95 bypass of Wilmington, SE PA, and Trenton, close to the same length as that section of I-95. I-295 would be vastly better than slogging through that segment of I-95, both in traffic and design.
And had the Somerset Freeway been built, those travelers would get a nonstop shunpiking option between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and I-287. But thanks to the NJTP and ongoing opposition, that will never be.
People shunpike anyways... it's Route 1. You just have to deal with too many lights. If they at least converted Route 1 to a 'Jersey Freeway' from I-295 to Route 18 that would at least help some. They got the land to do it... and they should do it now while they still can.
There is no convenient way to get from Northern Trenton up to the NY Metro area. Unless you go down to 195 & the TPK. Or endure Route 1's lights.
Somerset Fwy definitely would have opened up more development through the Mercer & Somerset county areas... BUT, the development came anyways. Now they have no infrastructure to improve upon. They got what they wanted... clogged rural roads.
I don't go through there, so what do I care. But it sure would be nice to use the Somerset freeway on those rare occasions I travel to Sayreville.
Quote from: route_82 on October 01, 2012, 04:28:14 PMBut it sure would be nice to use the Somerset freeway on those rare occasions I travel to Sayreville.
Had it been built, I definitely would've used it for my various trips to New England to visit family (have done so for the last 22 years). The only toll roads I would've encountered in that scenario would be just the Tappen Zee Bridge (I-87/287) and the Mass Pike (I-90).
From right after 291 swoops straight down, build a freeway over to NJ 133 and upgrade (again) the interchange with the Turnpike. :happy:
Now to make my statement about ending the fictionality to avoid being banned. :bigass:
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 02, 2012, 08:34:40 AM
From right after 291 swoops straight down, build a freeway over to NJ 133 and upgrade (again) the interchange with the Turnpike. :happy:
Now to make my statement about ending the fictionality to avoid being banned. :bigass:
overly large smiley ban :D
I think the NJTA screwed itself when they fought the Somerset Freeway deal cause if it had been built they would have never had to widen the roadway from New Brunswick to the PA Turnpike Extension like they have to now. Traffic would have shifted between both roads as ME to FL travelers would stay on the Turnpike and bypass the Philly mess and locals between NYC and Philadelphia would use the I-95 taking much of the extra volume off the NJT in Central Jersey and the future need for six laning the Turnpike from 1-4 would not be there either.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2012, 11:24:23 AM
I think the NJTA screwed itself when they fought the Somerset Freeway deal cause if it had been built they would have never had to widen the roadway from New Brunswick to the PA Turnpike Extension like they have to now. Traffic would have shifted between both roads as ME to FL travelers would stay on the Turnpike and bypass the Philly mess and locals between NYC and Philadelphia would use the I-95 taking much of the extra volume off the NJT in Central Jersey and the future need for six laning the Turnpike from 1-4 would not be there either.
I agree. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea. :pan:
Quote from: route_82 on October 06, 2012, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2012, 11:24:23 AM
I think the NJTA screwed itself when they fought the Somerset Freeway deal cause if it had been built they would have never had to widen the roadway from New Brunswick to the PA Turnpike Extension like they have to now. Traffic would have shifted between both roads as ME to FL travelers would stay on the Turnpike and bypass the Philly mess and locals between NYC and Philadelphia would use the I-95 taking much of the extra volume off the NJT in Central Jersey and the future need for six laning the Turnpike from 1-4 would not be there either.
I agree. Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea. :pan:
What goes around comes around as it is always said.