I-95 Missing Links

[Alps]

Speaking of turnpike/interstate interchanges. I might be wrong, but I thought the reason for there being no historic interstate/patp interchanges was that the original interstate rules forbid having interstates interchange directly with toll roads, but that rule was lifted eventually. I figured sooner or later they'd build them as demand increased, since most of where they'd be are fairly ancient anyway (and there's almost always an existing interchange with a state or us highway).

I don't think it was a rule. What it was is that in order to build an interchange to a toll road, the toll road agency would have had to fund it. Their ramps, their tollbooths, their money. The toll roads came first, so the interchanges were in place by the time the Interstates came around. And in most cases, you had an interchange already a few miles away (or few thousand feet) and could make enough of a connection work to not have to spend money (as the powerful, profitable toll agency).

[Compulov]

Speaking of turnpike/interstate interchanges. I might be wrong, but I thought the reason for there being no historic interstate/patp interchanges was that the original interstate rules forbid having interstates interchange directly with toll roads, but that rule was lifted eventually. I figured sooner or later they'd build them as demand increased, since most of where they'd be are fairly ancient anyway (and there's almost always an existing interchange with a state or us highway).

I don't think it was a rule. What it was is that in order to build an interchange to a toll road, the toll road agency would have had to fund it. Their ramps, their tollbooths, their money. The toll roads came first, so the interchanges were in place by the time the Interstates came around. And in most cases, you had an interchange already a few miles away (or few thousand feet) and could make enough of a connection work to not have to spend money (as the powerful, profitable toll agency).

That makes a lot more sense. I always wondered why they would have no problem posting Interstate shields on toll highways, but not allow for interchanges with other Interstates. I almost wonder if the *only* reason the PTC is going ahead with the 95 Interchange is the projected $$ they'll see from additional traffic. Otherwise, what's it to them if 95 is complete or not?

[Alps]

Speaking of turnpike/interstate interchanges. I might be wrong, but I thought the reason for there being no historic interstate/patp interchanges was that the original interstate rules forbid having interstates interchange directly with toll roads, but that rule was lifted eventually. I figured sooner or later they'd build them as demand increased, since most of where they'd be are fairly ancient anyway (and there's almost always an existing interchange with a state or us highway).

I don't think it was a rule. What it was is that in order to build an interchange to a toll road, the toll road agency would have had to fund it. Their ramps, their tollbooths, their money. The toll roads came first, so the interchanges were in place by the time the Interstates came around. And in most cases, you had an interchange already a few miles away (or few thousand feet) and could make enough of a connection work to not have to spend money (as the powerful, profitable toll agency).

That makes a lot more sense. I always wondered why they would have no problem posting Interstate shields on toll highways, but not allow for interchanges with other Interstates. I almost wonder if the *only* reason the PTC is going ahead with the 95 Interchange is the projected $$ they'll see from additional traffic. Otherwise, what's it to them if 95 is complete or not?

I'm sure there has been pressure from the FHWA to do it, and I'm sure the NJ Tpk Authority really didn't want them to do it. But it will bring some more traffic on (people currently using the Turnpike or 295-195), and probably will have a higher than usual toll given that it becomes the through route (so people are more likely to stay and pay more).

[Grzrd]

With 2011 coming to an end, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that the first two baby steps of the Pennsylvania Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project were completed this year: the Bristol-Oxford Valley Road and Galloway Road bridges are finished.  No ongoing construction at this time, but new projects are anticipated to begin in 2012:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/pdf/Bristol-OxfordValleyandGallowayRoadBridgesOpenToTraffic(Nov.4).pdf

[Beltway]

With 2011 coming to an end, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that the first two baby steps of the Pennsylvania Turnpike/I-95 Interchange Project were completed this year: the Bristol-Oxford Valley Road and Galloway Road bridges are finished.  No ongoing construction at this time, but new projects are anticipated to begin in 2012:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/pdf/Bristol-OxfordValleyandGallowayRoadBridgesOpenToTraffic(Nov.4).pdf

When are all the contracts for the I-95 direct connection going to be underway?

[Grzrd]

When are all the contracts for the I-95 direct connection going to be underway?

This Stage 1 Time Frame indicates that the Section D direct connection will be worked on during the 2012-2017 time period:
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07openhouse.htm

[PHLBOS]

You know what I would do with I-95 in the Philly area ? I would put I-95E on the NJ Turnpike and I-95W on the current I-95 through Philly , finally build the interchange on I-276, then use the remainder of I-276 east to rejoin 95 E & W. It's too bad noone thought of that before.

I would go a bit further (yes, this post would more, fall in the fictional highways category):

Have the NJ Turnpike south of Exit 6, The Delaware Memorial Bridge and the Delaware stretch of I-295 be designated as I-95E (E could stand for either 'East' or 'Express').

Leave I-95 through PA and NJ in its ultimate/final layout (post-PA Turnpike Connection) but move the Wilmington, DE stretch of I-95 onto the current I-495.

Have the Wilmington stretch of I-95 designated as I-95W (W could stand for either 'West' or 'Wilmington').

One could argue that the above could be allowed because BOTH offset routes (E & W) begin and end with the parent route.  IIRC, every former suffixed interstate, except the two I-35s in MN & TX, did not start and end w/the same route.

[agentsteel53]

IIRC, every former suffixed interstate, except the two I-35s in MN & TX, did not start and end w/the same route.

I-5W ended began and ended with I-5, and I believe I-15E did the same with I-15, but I do not know if I-15 was fully signed or if there was still a surface level alignment that was called CA-31 or CA-71 as opposed to TEMP I-15.  (I'm pretty sure that 15E, despite not being a full freeway, was TEMP I-15E on its entire length.)

[PHLBOS]

I-5W ended began and ended with I-5, and I believe I-15E did the same with I-15, but I do not know if I-15 was fully signed or if there was still a surface level alignment that was called CA-31 or CA-71 as opposed to TEMP I-15.  (I'm pretty sure that 15E, despite not being a full freeway, was TEMP I-15E on its entire length.)

What's the old I-5W and I-15E called now? 

I know I-15W (from I-80N (now 84) to I-15) became the western I-86 (MA & CT had already redesignated a stretch of I-84 to I-86 at the time; the road was later redesignated as I-84 when plans to build 84 into RI was stopped).

[agentsteel53]

I-5W ended began and ended with I-5, and I believe I-15E did the same with I-15, but I do not know if I-15 was fully signed or if there was still a surface level alignment that was called CA-31 or CA-71 as opposed to TEMP I-15.  (I'm pretty sure that 15E, despite not being a full freeway, was TEMP I-15E on its entire length.)

What's the old I-5W and I-15E called now? 

I-5W is now I-505, I-80, and I-580.  I-15E is I-215.

[Henry]

The problem really is that I-95 travels through the entirety of the most densely populated part of the country. New York got it built through with the Cross Bronx Expressway. Similar plans in Washington and Boston were nixed by the whole freeway revolt thing, forcing the route to be sloppily rerouted around the city instead in both cases. And thus there really is no good way around or through DC, and long distance traffic is better off bypassing Boston (and Providence and New London) via 91, 84, 90, and 495 - rejoining I-95 nearly 200 miles from where you last saw it.

In the same fashion, some of the more affluent towns in central Jersey didn't want I-95 cutting right through them - forcing the Somerset Freeway to be canceled and leaving a gap in the highway since there was no good way to reroute it that wouldn't remove it from Philadelphia entirely.
The public complains, and the government has to listen to the voters. It happens. What there's no excuse for is that nearly 30 years after the freeway was canceled, there's still no interchange in Bristol to very simply allow a non-gapped route. It's proposed by the feds, PTC takes a decade to get around to doing anything about it, and another decade to do an impact study. Ridiculous.

While Washington and Boston do have some crazy reroutes that differ significantly from the originally-proposed routings, at least they're not as big an eyesore as in Baltimore, where a bunch of ramp stubs exist as a result of the failure to complete a myriad of once-planned extensions of I-70, I-83 and the lesser-known Windlass Freeway. Not to mention that I-95 saw a few reroutings itself, but with the opening of the Fort McHenry Tunnel, at least it got built through there.

As for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?

[PHLBOS]

As for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?

One could make a similar argument regarding I-295 further south.

The reasoning behind the Somerset Expressway was just not a freeway alternative to the NJ Turnpike but also to give motorists & truckers in the Trenton area direct highway access to the central part of NJ.  Additionally, the original I-695 short-segment (5-10 miles) that would've linked I-287 to the original I-95 to the west would've given those out of Philly or Trenton going north to either upstate NY or New England a more direct route and would be further away from the NYC area traffic.

Had 95 and the original 695 link been built; the only tolls I would encounter on my trips to Massachusetts (to visit family) would be the Tappan Zee Bridge (one-way) and the Mass Pike (I-90).  Over a period of 21 years (I moved from MA to PA in July 1990), that could added up to some serious toll money saved.

[jwolfer]

As for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?

One could make a similar argument regarding I-295 further south.

The reasoning behind the Somerset Expressway was just not a freeway alternative to the NJ Turnpike but also to give motorists & truckers in the Trenton area direct highway access to the central part of NJ.  Additionally, the original I-695 short-segment (5-10 miles) that would've linked I-287 to the original I-95 to the west would've given those out of Philly or Trenton going north to either upstate NY or New England a more direct route and would be further away from the NYC area traffic.

Had 95 and the original 695 link been built; the only tolls I would encounter on my trips to Massachusetts (to visit family) would be the Tappan Zee Bridge (one-way) and the Mass Pike (I-90).  Over a period of 21 years (I moved from MA to PA in July 1990), that could added up to some serious toll money saved.

The problem really is that I-95 travels through the entirety of the most densely populated part of the country. New York got it built through with the Cross Bronx Expressway. Similar plans in Washington and Boston were nixed by the whole freeway revolt thing, forcing the route to be sloppily rerouted around the city instead in both cases. And thus there really is no good way around or through DC, and long distance traffic is better off bypassing Boston (and Providence and New London) via 91, 84, 90, and 495 - rejoining I-95 nearly 200 miles from where you last saw it.

In the same fashion, some of the more affluent towns in central Jersey didn't want I-95 cutting right through them - forcing the Somerset Freeway to be canceled and leaving a gap in the highway since there was no good way to reroute it that wouldn't remove it from Philadelphia entirely.
The public complains, and the government has to listen to the voters. It happens. What there's no excuse for is that nearly 30 years after the freeway was canceled, there's still no interchange in Bristol to very simply allow a non-gapped route. It's proposed by the feds, PTC takes a decade to get around to doing anything about it, and another decade to do an impact study. Ridiculous.

While Washington and Boston do have some crazy reroutes that differ significantly from the originally-proposed routings, at least they're not as big an eyesore as in Baltimore, where a bunch of ramp stubs exist as a result of the failure to complete a myriad of once-planned extensions of I-70, I-83 and the lesser-known Windlass Freeway. Not to mention that I-95 saw a few reroutings itself, but with the opening of the Fort McHenry Tunnel, at least it got built through there.

As for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?

The Somerset Freeway was canceled due to politically connected people not wanting a Freeway through their then rural townships. And it also helped the the NJ Turnpike Authority did not want a "free" alternative.  The traffic counts I think would support both I-95 and the NJTP just as in S Florida with the Turnpike and I-95 being with in a few miles of each other for nearly 100 miles.   The turnpike would be a good thru route... and people would pay for a quicker trip.  Just like now going to the Keys... its much quicker to go on the( FL)  turnpike because there is less local traffic, well worth the toll.

The former rural areas of Mercer and Somerset counties are thoroughly suburbanized and the same NIMBY types bitch and moan about all the traffic on the 2 lane roads like 206 and 31.  A freeway like I-95 between Baltimore and Washington would have taken care of the truck traffic on NJ 31 and US 206

[YankeesFan]

upgrading NJ 31 to a freeway (or tollway even) connecting I-80 to I-95 would be a great relief...too bad it'll never happen.

[froggie]

As I understand it, a NJ 31 freeway was proposed as well.

[Alps]

As I understand it, a NJ 31 freeway was proposed as well.

31, 206, and 95 have all been proposed as freeway corridors as various times. I don't think more than one of them would ever have been built. For all the use 31 gets as a truck corridor, I think it's because of the congestion and Princeton development on US 206 and the four-laning of parts of 31. A freeway would do the most good along the 206 corridor to connect to 287.

[YankeesFan]

As I understand it, a NJ 31 freeway was proposed as well.

31, 206, and 95 have all been proposed as freeway corridors as various times. I don't think more than one of them would ever have been built. For all the use 31 gets as a truck corridor, I think it's because of the congestion and Princeton development on US 206 and the four-laning of parts of 31. A freeway would do the most good along the 206 corridor to connect to 287.

amen...but 31 would def be easier as it isn't as built up as 206

[Compulov]

As for the Somerset Freeway, I can see why it got cancelled in the first place. After all, why build another limited-access highway in that part of Jersey when the Turnpike is already serving the exact same area?

If you sat on US 1 in traffic every day (like I do) you might not feel that way
Joking aside, I really have no data on just how much traffic the Somerset Freeway would have potentially taken off of Route 1. Does anyone have links to studies as to what % of the traffic on 1 is through (from 95/295 to 287, where the SF would have terminated) vs local? It's also possible that the problem isn't the amount of traffic but rather the volume of shopping plazas off of 1. Even a new freeway probably wouldn't have helped with that.