new freeways for NJ

[Beltway]

Then why didn't the Turnpike Authority object to 60 miles of toll-free I-295 and I-195 being built paralleling the Turnpike, with freeway connections at either end?

I was on the PATP/I-95 connection project community advisory committee for over 15 years. While objections by the NJTA probably did play a role, the biggest factor by far was wealthy and politially well-connected NIMBYs along the Somerset corridor.

In the 60s & 70s, the PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) and PennDOT planned and designed a simple double-trumpet connection between the two highways (in the NW quadrant of the point of crossing). In fact, there was even some initial construction of parts of a toll plaza.

With a completed I-95 as origininally planned, the amount of interchanging traffic at I-95 and the PA Turnpike likely would have been feasibly handled on a simple double-trumpet connection.

In 1981 or so (I forget exactly when), then-Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) convinced Congress to delist the planned segment of I-95 between Trenton and New Brunswick. He did this in response to the aforemenioned NIMBYs. The legislation 1) prohibited NJDOT (or anyone else) from constructing I-95 through the Somerset Valley area, and 2) mandated construction of a high-speed connection between the PATP and I-95 in PA somewhere at or near the point of crossing, the exact configuration of which to be decided by the stakeholders, with I-95 being re-routed at the interchange along the PA & NJ Turnpikes.

This forced the PTC and PennDOT to scrap all plans and start over again. (It has taken this long to get all the stakeholders to agree to a design, move the design through the various phases to construction, and simultaneously secure funding.)

I would like to see this federal law cite in the U.S. Code.  Could you please provide the URL and quote?  Thanks!

[qguy]

I would like to see this federal law cite in the U.S. Code.  Could you please provide the URL and quote?  Thanks!

The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act 1982 had a provision written into it that directed I-95 to be re-routed down the NJ Turnpike to Exit 6, across the NJTP PA Spur to the PA Turnpike and along the PATP to the point at which it crosses current I-95. It also mandates a high-speed connection between the two.

My wording of "prohibiting" construction of the Somerset Freeway may be a little misleading. The legislation simply re-routed I-95.  It effectively provided the nail in the coffin for the Somerset Freeway, after then-NJ-Governor Brendan Byrne (working in cooperation with Sen. Bradley) withdrew his support for constructing the freeway in 1980. Sen Bradley always took the lion's share of the credit for killing the project.

Cite the section of CFR? I can't even find the text of the law online and I know the name of the thing. Perhaps you can have better luck. I just don't have the time; maybe you know where to look.

One person who might know is Raymond Martin, webmaster of <www.njfreeways.com>. He's done a lot of primary research on the subject. Or perhaps try the crew at the project office. They can be reached at 215-355-3577. You can also try Christina Hampton, the Community Relations Coordinator for the eastern portion of the PATP. Her number is 610-292-3785. (If you PM me, I'll provide her e-mail address; she's a working aquaintance of mine and I don't want to attract spam to her work e-mail.)

[Alps]

I would like to see this federal law cite in the U.S. Code.  Could you please provide the URL and quote?  Thanks!

Moderator note: Please do not ask other people to do legwork for you.

[Beltway]

I would like to see this federal law cite in the U.S. Code.  Could you please provide the URL and quote?  Thanks!

Moderator note: Please do not ask other people to do legwork for you.

Excuse me, but he made an exceptional claim that I have not heard in 40 years of studying roads issues.  [his claim: federal law mandates I-95 routing on PA and NJ TPK]

It sounds fishy, and I consider it his job to post the URL and quote from the U.S. Code, or to retract the claim.  The entire U.S. Code is on-line.

If it is not in the U.S. Code, then I certainly can't disprove a negative.

Thanks.

[NE2]

Does everything get codified, or only certain laws with broad application?

[qguy]

While I couldn't find the text of the 1982 law, the PATP/I-95 website summarizes it thusly (on its Project History page):

1982: The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act specifies that I-95 be completed through a PA Turnpike/I-95 interchange which would connect to the NJ Turnpike using the Delaware River Bridge.

[Beltway]

While I couldn't find the text of the 1982 law, the PATP/I-95 website summarizes it thusly (on its Project History page):

1982: The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act specifies that I-95 be completed through a PA Turnpike/I-95 interchange which would connect to the NJ Turnpike using the Delaware River Bridge.

With all due respect, the PTC has a poor track record of interpreting federal highway law (see I-80 tolling pilot proposal TEA-21).

[J N Winkler]

Does everything get codified, or only certain laws with broad application?

I think it is the latter.  I tried the US Code search engine here:

http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

Search term {"Interstate 95"} turned up just one road-related hit, pertaining to the Cumberland Parkway.  Search term {"Somerset Freeway"} returned no hits.  Search term {Wichita AND 54} turned up no road-related hits although I know Kellogg Avenue has been mentioned in one of the recent transportation reauthorization bills.

The US Code is just a codification.  The comprehensive compendium of all Congressional statutes (both public and private) is the Statutes At Large, which the GPO publishes and which NARA claims is not available in electronic format.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/publications/statutes.html

I don't think NARA is completely accurate anymore, however--there is apparently a digitization project in progress which has reached back to 1951.  I am downloading the 1982 volume (430 MB!) and if I find any mention of I-95, I will report back.

Edit:  Now found.  The relevant provision is at § 162 of the STAA of 1982 (PL 97-424), vol. 96 page 2136 of the Statutes at Large (PDF page 2254 of 2948 in the copy available for download from the GPO website).  In full, it is as follows:

SEC. 162. (a) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation shall, upon application of the State of New Jersey, withdraw under such section 103(e)(4) his approval of the designation on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the portion of Interstate Route 95 and Interstate Route 695 from the intersection with Interstate Route 295 in Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, to the proposed intersection with Interstate Route 287 in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed, pursuant to section 103 of such title, to designate as part of the Interstate Highway System the New Jersey Turnpike from exit 10 to the interchange with the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

(c) The Secretary of Transportation is further authorized and directed to designate the highways described in subsection (b) as Interstate Route 95 and assure through proper sign designations the orderly connection of Interstate Route 95 pursuant to this section.

[Mr_Northside]

With all due respect, the PTC has a poor track record of interpreting federal highway law (see I-80 tolling pilot proposal TEA-21).

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's our lawmakers in Harrisburg that have a poor track record of interpreting federal highway law with their I-80 tolling schemes.  The PTC were just doing what they were told [legislated to].  Though I'm sure they would have been glad to expand their "territory".

[Beltway]

The relevant provision is at § 162 of the STAA of 1982 (PL 97-424), vol. 96 page 2136 of the Statutes at Large (PDF page 2254 of 2948 in the copy available for download from the GPO website).  In full, it is as follows:

SEC. 162. (a) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation shall, upon application of the State of New Jersey, withdraw under such section 103(e)(4) his approval of the designation on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the portion of Interstate Route 95 and Interstate Route 695 from the intersection with Interstate Route 295 in Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, to the proposed intersection with Interstate Route 287 in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed, pursuant to section 103 of such title, to designate as part of the Interstate Highway System the New Jersey Turnpike from exit 10 to the interchange with the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

(c) The Secretary of Transportation is further authorized and directed to designate the highways described in subsection (b) as Interstate Route 95 and assure through proper sign designations the orderly connection of Interstate Route 95 pursuant to this section.

Thank you for finding this!!  I wouldn't have thought that if this was authorized in 1982, that 30 years later we would still not see it even being yet under construction.

Especially since it is a gap in I-95.

I guess they are waiting for HTFO.

[qguy]

Thanks for the lookup, JNW. I've always wondered about the actual verbage myself. Looks like it really did prohibit (i.e.–"withdraw") any interstate designation for the Somerset section. And no interstate designation meant no (or very few) federal dollars. No federal dollars meant death by starvation, especially since Gov Byrne had already caved to the area NIMBYs.

[qguy]

I wouldn't have thought that if this was authorized in 1982, that 30 years later we would still not see it even being yet under construction. Especially since it is a gap in I-95. I guess they are waiting for HTFO.

I agree that the lead time to construction has been outrageously long. Among the contributing factors have been legislative delay, the usual design time, stakeholder involvement, and funding. Let me explain each (and apologize ahead-of-time for the long post).

Legislative delay: After the 1982 Somerset dump, the PA legislature didn't authorize the PTC and PennDOT to work on a new interchange design until 1985 (with PA Act 61).

Design time/funding: It took from 1985 to around 1992 for the design team to secure design funding, design a complete set of screened alternative configuration, and recruit a Community Advisory Committee (CAC). (I was on the CAC from 1992 to 2005.)

Stakeholder involvement: When the 1982 federal legislation rerouted I-95, it necessitated a high-speed interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95 (because I-95 would be need a continuous routing through the new interchange). This forced the PTC and PennDOT to scrap all plans (the aforementioned double trumpet configuration, which had seen some initial construction) and start over again. Drawing board, square one, scratch, clean sheet (and other clichés as appropriate).

Since the new configuration was now being designed in the era of increased environmental regulations, all that had to start from scratch as well. Because building a direct connection between the two highways would radically change driving patterns throughout the surrounding area, there turned out to be a huge number of stakeholders to consider and involve.

Since the local arterial system currently supports and filters the traffic which moves from one highway to the other, the direct connection would redistribute noise and emissions. Not to mention residential and business takes in whatever location was built upon. You had environmental considerations, housing considerations, neighborhood considerations, traffic pattern considerations, this, that, and the other considerations. You name it. All represented by multiple stakeholders, all of which needed to be satisfied in one way or another.

Having been on the CAC and having had an inside view of the process for this particular project, I think the design team actually did an admirable job of working with the locals to hammer out a configuration which satisfied the most number of stakeholders in the greatest possible way. They devised a configuation which nearly everyone agrees will be OK to live with (from a local liveability standpoint) for a long, long time.

But getting all those stakeholders in line through iteration after iteration of design (responding to this input and that input) is what took so long. It was like herding cats. Or what in the military we used to call a "goat rope."

Construction funding: It has been quite thechllenge securing funding for construction. That job still isn't done.

If I had to identify the single biggest factor in the long lead time, I would say the stakeholder involvement, with funding a close second. Other perspectives may be just as valid, though.

[cpzilliacus]

I agree that the lead time to construction has been outrageously long. Among the contributing factors have been legislative delay, the usual design time, stakeholder involvement, and funding. Let me explain each (and apologize ahead-of-time for the long post).

I appreciate your posting - this is what makes AAROADS interesting and useful.

Legislative delay: After the 1982 Somerset dump, the PA legislature didn't authorize the PTC and PennDOT to work on a new interchange design until 1985 (with PA Act 61).

Design time/funding: It took from 1985 to around 1992 for the design team to secure design funding, design a complete set of screened alternative configuration, and recruit a Community Advisory Committee (CAC). (I was on the CAC from 1992 to 2005.)

All of this is sadly familiar.

Stakeholder involvement: When the 1982 federal legislation rerouted I-95, it necessitated a high-speed interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95 (because I-95 would be need a continuous routing through the new interchange). This forced the PTC and PennDOT to scrap all plans (the aforementioned double trumpet configuration, which had seen some initial construction) and start over again. Drawing board, square one, scratch, clean sheet (and other clichés as appropriate).

Since the new configuration was now being designed in the era of increased environmental regulations, all that had to start from scratch as well. Because building a direct connection between the two highways would radically change driving patterns throughout the surrounding area, there turned out to be a huge number of stakeholders to consider and involve.

Presumably this meant a new Environmental Impact Statement (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), complete with the analysis required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 and the Clean Water Act.  And then whatever requirements are imposed by Pennsylvania state law.

Since the local arterial system currently supports and filters the traffic which moves from one highway to the other, the direct connection would redistribute noise and emissions. Not to mention residential and business takes in whatever location was built upon. You had environmental considerations, housing considerations, neighborhood considerations, traffic pattern considerations, this, that, and the other considerations. You name it. All represented by multiple stakeholders, all of which needed to be satisfied in one way or another.

Yep. 

Having been on the CAC and having had an inside view of the process for this particular project, I think the design team actually did an admirable job of working with the locals to hammer out a configuration which satisfied the most number of stakeholders in the greatest possible way. They devised a configuation which nearly everyone agrees will be OK to live with (from a local liveability standpoint) for a long, long time.

From the renderings I have seen on the PTC Web site for this project, I agree with  you.

But getting all those stakeholders in line through iteration after iteration of design (responding to this input and that input) is what took so long. It was like herding cats. Or what in the military we used to call a "goat rope."

Did you have to deal with persons and groups that were absolutely opposed to any alternative except the "no-build" alternative?  That has been the theme with  projects in and near D.C., including the Wilson Bridge, (especially) the ICC, the 11th Street Bridge and others.

Construction funding: It has been quite thechllenge securing funding for construction. That job still isn't done.

If I had to identify the single biggest factor in the long lead time, I would say the stakeholder involvement, with funding a close second. Other perspectives may be just as valid, though.

Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?

[Beltway]

If I had to identify the single biggest factor in the long lead time, I would say the stakeholder involvement, with funding a close second. Other perspectives may be just as valid, though.

Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?

If those were the reasons (funding and stakeholder involvement) how would we have ever gotten even part of the Interstate system built?

Look no further than the Philadelphia area for sensitive (post-NEPA) entire Interstate highways that were developed FAST in comparison to this I-95/TPK connection --- I-476 and I-676.  The PTC was also onboard with the high-speed I-476/TPK connection.

If the original double trumpet was built when that segment of I-95 was opened in 1972, at least we would have the connection albeit underpowered.  Plus, that could have been upgraded later with two semi-directional ramps.

[qguy]

Presumably this meant a new Environmental Impact Statement (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), complete with the analysis required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 and the Clean Water Act.  And then whatever requirements are imposed by Pennsylvania state law.

Yes. And there are regulations that prohibit taking park land and even playgrounds and such unless you can prove every which way from Sunday that there is absotively posilutely no other alternative. These factors actually nixed two major configurations and all their sub-variations. (These involved routing the connection along the corridor of the PA 413 exit, continuing to a directional (or semidirectional) Y interchange with the Turnpike mainline in two different locations to the east of the point of crossing with current I-95.)

Did you have to deal with persons and groups that were absolutely opposed to any alternative except the "no-build" alternative?  That has been the theme with  projects in and near D.C., including the Wilson Bridge, (especially) the ICC, the 11th Street Bridge and others.

There was only one gentleman who came close. He lives near the point of crossing and served on the CAC. His attitude was actually, in fact, that the high-speed connection should be built elsewhere altogether. As in, "How dare NJ fob this off on us! The interchange and its attendant emissions should be somewhere over there." He really did (and still does) have a point. (I actually agree with him.) But once that 1982 legislation became law, it became awfully hard, nigh impossible, to change. So his involvement became one of "If it's a foregone conclusion, then dammit I'm going to hold everyone's feet to the fire and fight to make the configuration the best possible outcome." He was actually a great guy to work with.

There was some skepticism from some participants early on, but the reason I think that there wasn't more opposition is that the barking lunacy of having two major interstates crossing with no connection at all, not even nearby, is readily apparent to all. The skepticism really represented more of an initial distrust that the design team would come up with a configuration that wouldn't take too many homes and businesses, or affect park land. When the stakeholders saw that the design team was "on their side," so to speak and was working hard to come up with something everyone could live with, it became more a matter of stakeholder input, design iteration, stakeholder input, design iteration, etc.

Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?

Yes. Securing funding has been quite the challenge. The total cost is/will be immense ($553 million in 1999 dollars; not sure if that includes the twinning of the Delaware River bridge). And they always try to stage these things so that costs are spread out realatively evenly each year and don't spike too much in any particular year.

[qguy]

If I had to identify the single biggest factor in the long lead time, I would say the stakeholder involvement, with funding a close second. Other perspectives may be just as valid, though.

Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?

If those were the reasons (funding and stakeholder involvement) how would we have ever gotten even part of the Interstate system built?

Look no further than the Philadelphia area for sensitive (post-NEPA) entire Interstate highways that were developed FAST in comparison to this I-95/TPK connection --- I-476 and I-676.  The PTC was also onboard with the high-speed I-476/TPK connection.

I-476 and I-676? No, seriously.

I-676 first. The western third (connecting to I-76) was completed in 1957. The remaining two thirds of the freeway (including the connection to I-95 and the Ben Franklin Bridge) weren't completed until 1991. That's 34 years.

Stakeholder involvement for I-476 (the Blue Route, as the locals call it) began in 1958. Some portions were constructed in fits and starts in the '60s and '70s, all pre-NEPA, and they didn't connect to anything (save a short piece at I-95). Post-NEPA construction didn't begin again until 1985. It was completed in 1992. Again, 34 years.

The I-476/276 connection (the Mid-County interchange) was completed at the tail end of the Blue Route construction. It didn't have nearly the number of stakeholders that either the other portions of the Boue Route had or the PATP/I-95 connection has. And most of the ROW (I believe) was already acquired long before that portion got to construction.

(Full disclosure: I referred to Steve Anderson's Phillyroads site <www.phillyroads.com> and Jeff Kitsko's PA Highways site <www.pahighways.com> to refresh my memory on dates.)

If the original double trumpet was built when that segment of I-95 was opened in 1972, at least we would have the connection albeit underpowered.  Plus, that could have been upgraded later with two semi-directional ramps.

I agree completely. Too true.

[Beltway]

I-476 and I-676? No, seriously.

I-676 first. The western third (connecting to I-76) was completed in 1957. The remaining two thirds of the freeway (including the connection to I-95 and the Ben Franklin Bridge) weren't completed until 1991. That's 34 years.

Stakeholder involvement for I-476 (the Blue Route, as the locals call it) began in 1958. Some portions were constructed in fits and starts in the '60s and '70s, all pre-NEPA, and they didn't connect to anything (save a short piece at I-95). Post-NEPA construction didn't begin again until 1985. It was completed in 1992. Again, 34 years.

The I-476/276 connection (the Mid-County interchange) was completed at the tail end of the Blue Route construction. It didn't have nearly the number of stakeholders that either the other portions of the Boue Route had or the PATP/I-95 connection has. And most of the ROW (I believe) was already acquired long before that portion got to construction.

PA I-95 --- 1956 to 2012 -- 56 years and the gap still not even under construction.

An interchange was planned from the beginning.

[qguy]

PA I-95 --- 1956 to 2012 -- 56 years...

So you're saying there's slow, and there's slo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ow? 

...and the gap still not even under construction.

Note quite true. Two bridges have been lengthened and a third is under construction. The PTC claims the mainline toll plaza is still planned to go to construction this year. (We'll see. My attitude with the Turnpike is that they never start anything when they say they will. One of the bridges that is currently being lengthened, for example, was supposed to be started last year but was pushed back to this year.) These are necessary before the actual interchange ramps can be constructed. But you're correct about the actual interchange ramps–none have been begun yet.

An interchange was planned from the beginning.

Perhaps, but the the clock was restarted in 1982 by forces over which neither the PTC nor PennDOT had any control. So everything that happened prior to that doesn't count since it all had to be chucked. So 30 years and counting, not 56. (Bad enough, though, IMNTBHO.)

[agentsteel53]

upon application of the State of New Jersey

did NJ promptly apply for this withdrawal of the unbuilt I-95 in 1982, or was there another delay associated with that?

[Beltway]

An interchange was planned from the beginning.

Perhaps, but the the clock was restarted in 1982 by forces over which neither the PTC nor PennDOT had any control. So everything that happened prior to that doesn't count since it all had to be chucked. So 30 years and counting, not 56. (Bad enough, though, IMNTBHO.)

Well, yeah, from 1956 -does- count, as the normal procedure would have contained an interchange when that segment was opened in 1972.

If that was the case then it would have been an upgrade and not a completely new interchange, and the public's conception of the impact of the upgrade project would have been more acceptable on a pre-existing connection.

So, 56 years.

Also, concerning funding, is the NJTPA going to fund half of the cost of the river bridge project (parallel bridge and complete rehab of the existing bridge), as that would be the fair way to fund it?

[Beltway]

upon application of the State of New Jersey

did NJ promptly apply for this withdrawal of the unbuilt I-95 in 1982, or was there another delay associated with that?

Good question, as they might not necessarily see that as a high priority.

If they wanted to use the Interstate substitution program to transfer the federal Interstate highway funds to other highways or to mass transit, then they might have seen it as a high priority.

Where were the funds transferred?  That would have been about $500 million in 1982 dollars.

[qguy]

Well, yeah, from 1956 -does- count, as the normal procedure would have contained an interchange when that segment was opened in 1972.

If that was the case then it would have been an upgrade and not a completely new interchange, and the public's conception of the impact of the upgrade project would have been more acceptable on a pre-existing connection.

So, 56 years.

OK, whatever. I think even 30 and counting is ridiculously, outrageously long, so [insert shrug here].

Also, concerning funding, is the NJTPA going to fund half of the cost of the river bridge project (parallel bridge and complete rehab of the existing bridge), as that would be the fair way to fund it?

Good question. Don't really know.

Anyone?

[cpzilliacus]

Presumably this meant a new Environmental Impact Statement (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), complete with the analysis required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 and the Clean Water Act.  And then whatever requirements are imposed by Pennsylvania state law.

Yes. And there are regulations that prohibit taking park land and even playgrounds and such unless you can prove every which way from Sunday that there is absotively posilutely no other alternative. These factors actually nixed two major configurations and all their sub-variations.

That would be Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (and maybe other provisions, though Section 4(f) is the "famous" one).

After the effective date of this Act, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use.

(These involved routing the connection along the corridor of the PA 413 exit, continuing to a directional (or semidirectional) Y interchange with the Turnpike mainline in two different locations to the east of the point of crossing with current I-95.)

Yeah, I can see with Google Maps a lot of what (appears to be) parkland to the east of Pa. 413.  Was that "Y" interchange built like that in anticipation of a connection to the Turnpike?  (I  infer from previous comments in this thread that it was.)

Did you have to deal with persons and groups that were absolutely opposed to any alternative except the "no-build" alternative?  That has been the theme with  projects in and near D.C., including the Wilson Bridge, (especially) the ICC, the 11th Street Bridge and others.

There was only one gentleman who came close. He lives near the point of crossing and served on the CAC. His attitude was actually, in fact, that the high-speed connection should be built elsewhere altogether. As in, "How dare NJ fob this off on us! The interchange and its attendant emissions should be somewhere over there." He really did (and still does) have a point. (I actually agree with him.) But once that 1982 legislation became law, it became awfully hard, nigh impossible, to change. So his involvement became one of "If it's a foregone conclusion, then dammit I'm going to hold everyone's feet to the fire and fight to make the configuration the best possible outcome." He was actually a great guy to work with.

The gentleman did indeed have a very valid point.   

The actions by New Jersey anti-highway activists and elected officials were outrageous (and it is possible that Pennsylvania and other states could have sued New Jersey in the U.S. Supreme Court over the Garden State's actions, though I have no clue as to their chances of success). 

Though this is not the first time that anti-freeway actions in one  state have impacted other states.  The cancellation of the D.C. part of I-95 north  of New York Avenue, N.W. (followed by Maryland's decision to cancel its section between the D.C./Md. border and the Capital Beltway) has had long-lasting impacts on the jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia through which the Capital Beltway runs.  The Springfield Interchange in Fairfax County, Virginia had to be so big and so complex in part because of the D.C. actions - and the reconstruction of same took a fair number of homes near the interchange. And the Wilson Bridge had to be so wide (partly) as a consequence of those actions.

However, had I been involved in the discussions (and it's probably best that I wasn't), I would also have told him that it was inexcusable that the Delaware Expressway part of I-95 was built through Lower Bucks County without (at least) a trumpet-to-trumpet connection (perhaps like the one through which I-70 runs in New Stanton, Penna.?).

There was some skepticism from some participants early on, but the reason I think that there wasn't more opposition is that the barking lunacy of having two major interstates crossing with no connection at all, not even nearby, is readily apparent to all.

Sounds like we agree.

This also represents a failure by the federal government to point out (early in the design phase of what became the Delaware Expressway) that this was totally nutty.

The skepticism really represented more of an initial distrust that the design team would come up with a configuration that wouldn't take too many homes and businesses, or affect park land. When the stakeholders saw that the design team was "on their side," so to speak and was working hard to come up with something everyone could live with, it became more a matter of stakeholder input, design iteration, stakeholder input, design iteration, etc.

A lot of people think "Robert Moses" and "Cross Bronx Expressway" (as described in Robert Caro's Power Broker) when anyone mentions highway design and engineering, especially for a large project like this.

Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?

Yes. Securing funding has been quite the challenge. The total cost is/will be immense ($553 million in 1999 dollars; not sure if that includes the twinning of the Delaware River bridge). And they always try to stage these things so that costs are spread out realatively evenly each year and don't spike too much in any particular year.

Though by spreading the project out over so many years (and the twinned bridge is beyond the current funding horizon (at least it was when I read a lot about the I-95 "missing link" some years ago)), it would seem that an agency as large as the PTC could handle this project.  And I recall reading someplace that there are some federal dollars involved as well.

[qguy]

That would be Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (and maybe other provisions, though Section 4(f) is the "famous" one).

After the effective date of this Act, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use.

(These involved routing the connection along the corridor of the PA 413 exit, continuing to a directional (or semidirectional) Y interchange with the Turnpike mainline in two different locations to the east of the point of crossing with current I-95.)

Yeah, I can see with Google Maps a lot of what (appears to be) parkland to the east of Pa. 413.  Was that "Y" interchange built like that in anticipation of a connection to the Turnpike?  (I  infer from previous comments in this thread that it was.)

By "Y interchange," I think you're referring to the actual Exit 40 of I-95, the PA 413 exit. (By Y, I was referring to the interchange at the Turnpike mainline, but no matter.)

Two of the major sets of options early on would've followed the alignment of Exit 40, crossed PA 413 (where there would've been an interchange), and continued northeast to a high-speed Y interchange with the Turnpike mainline somewhere between the point of crossing with current I-95 and the Turnpike's Exit 358 (at US 13). So ironically, instead of the double-trumpet design (in the northwest quadrant of the crossing) originally proposed for the connection, this would've resulted in a double-Y design (in the extended southeast quadrant of the crossing).

One alignment would've connected right at the area of Exit 358. That was dropped almost immediately because there's no way to do it without passing through Silver Lake Park, with devastating adverse effects abounding.

The other alignment would've crossed PA 413 and curved to the north to connect with the Turnpike mainline at a point between PA 413 and Oxford Valley Rd. But there was no way to squeeze it in without decimating a neighborhood there and causing adverse effects to another local park. The takings were much higher compared with any of the interchange variations situated directly at the point of crossing.

Another problem with the alignments along Exit 40 was the proximity of ramps from I-95 and ramps at PA 413. No matter what configuration was examined for a PA 413 interchange, geometry problems were too great to be overcome. Weaving and sight distance became unworkable. And the local access at  PA 413 needs to be maintained.

So §4(f) and operational problems both conspired to kill all of the options using the Exit 40 alignment.

[qguy]

About a half hour after my last post, it occurred to me: "I don't think we're in Jersey anymore, Toto."