I-195, does it *REALLY* need to be extended???

[route_82]

It's not the proximity... They already have an SR 0295.  So what would they give I-295 in their system?

[Takumi]

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.

[route_82]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[route_82]

Sure sure... 

[Beltway]

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?

[route_82]

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:
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)

[vdeane]

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.

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.

[route_82]

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.

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?

[hbelkins]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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?

[Beltway]

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.

[route_82]

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. 

[Roadgeek Adam]

NJ and PA 229?

No need for more interstates. NJ needs a new state route anyway.

[florida]

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[jp the roadgeek]

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. 

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.

[Beltway]

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.

[Alps]

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!

[rickmastfan67]

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.

[Henry]

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.

[route_82]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[Alps]

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?

[hubcity]

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?