I-95 Missing Links

[Grzrd]

What do you think won't be done?
The second Delaware River Bridge?
The rehab of the existing bridge?

Above 2 projects comprise Stage 3 of the overall project.  The website indicates a time frame of "Beyond 2017" for the respective Stage 2 projects, http://www.paturnpikei95.com/sum07openhouse.htm, and the page I looked at does not even set forth a tentative timetable for Stage 3 (I have not diligently looked for a proposed timetable elsewhere).

Stage 1 is projected to be completed by 2017.  I would not be surprised to see delays push it back to 2020.  I also would not be surprised to see delays in Stage 1 lead to delays in beginning Stage 2, which in turn might have you pushing 2025 for completion of Stage 2.  Then, I'm guessing that construction of a new bridge in conjunction with rehab of an existing bridge would optimistically take at least three years to complete.

Completion of everything by end of 2025 seems like a stretch to me.

[PAHighways]

^^^

What do you think won't be done?

The second Delaware River Bridge?

The rehab of the existing bridge?

The new bridge will be built and the other rehabbed, but the widening of I-95 and I-276 and other lesser parts of the project won't be finished.  The reason is that this project, which was talked about almost 20 years ago, has taken this long to even get off the ground, something will happen that will delay the completion.  Then again it may go as smooth as silk and be completed in less time than projected.

[mightyace]

This is one of those projects that I wonder why does it take so <bleep>in long?

Everything in this project could be done in 2 or 3 years, at least of actual construction.

[TheStranger]

This is one of those projects that I wonder why does it take so <bleep>in long?

Everything in this project could be done in 2 or 3 years, at least of actual construction.

If the primary goal is to make I-95 a through route, that really is what, a two-ramp proposition?  Couldn't this have been done on the cheap with a cloverleaf for the SB I-95 movement, until funding came about for a flyover?

[mightyace]

Of course, if the Turnpike had consented to build a connection back when I-95 was first built, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And, the PTC's reluctance to build connections to interstate and other freeways is a horse that this forum has beat to death. 

[Mr_Northside]

I feel like Phase 1 will go according to plan / timetable... but since the other projects are related, but no necessary to phase 1... well... we'll see what happens.

I suppose they can't start work on the actual interchange until they do the listed "Northwest Quadrant Wetland Mitigation Site 2011-2012"?

[Alps]

This is one of those projects that I wonder why does it take so <bleep>in long?

Everything in this project could be done in 2 or 3 years, at least of actual construction.

If the primary goal is to make I-95 a through route, that really is what, a two-ramp proposition?  Couldn't this have been done on the cheap with a cloverleaf for the SB I-95 movement, until funding came about for a flyover?

I doubt the FHWA would let I-95 be signed continuously with a clover ramp.  The demand would far outstrip the capacity, anyway.  Better to do it right.

[agentsteel53]

I doubt the FHWA would let I-95 be signed continuously with a clover ramp.  The demand would far outstrip the capacity, anyway.  Better to do it right.

works in Canton, MA just fine...

okay, maybe not "works just fine", but the situation does exist.

[Alps]

I doubt the FHWA would let I-95 be signed continuously with a clover ramp.  The demand would far outstrip the capacity, anyway.  Better to do it right.

works in Canton, MA just fine...

okay, maybe not "works just fine", but the situation does exist.

I meant it as, if you were to have constructed one more recently.  If the ramp were already there by about 1965 or so, it could have gotten grandfathered in.

[vdeane]

I don't like the way the policy is "if it happened before or during construction, just leave it, but if you're new, you have to be perfect".  They should either relax the standards for new segments or force the older ones to be upgraded, especially since this is the northeast - NONE of our interstates actually meet interstate standards!

[akotchi]

There are some specialized cases, too, where two-digit interstates enter toll roads as single-lane ramps, i.e. 76 in Philly, 76/80 in Ohio.

The "policy" is not so black and white.  There are many factors that go into the decision to leave a substandard facility as is, usually involving a design exception analysis.  Traffic demand, crash history and cost for upgrades to current standard are a few that come to mind.  Some are upgraded based on this examination, some are not.

Isn't there a project on the horizon to reconfigure the 95/93 interchange in Mass.?

[SidS1045]

Isn't there a project on the horizon to reconfigure the 95/93 interchange in Mass.?

Yes, there is.  I live less than a mile from it, and the PTB are still quibbling over how to configure it and how to pay for it.  The existing cloverleaf is built into portions of three heavily populated suburbs (Reading, Stoneham and Woburn), has the highest accident rate of any place on any limited-access road in Massachusetts and I-95 has other interchanges on either side of it (MA-28 to the east and Washington St to the west*), less than half a mile in either direction.  To redesign it as it should be, with flyovers and single-ramp exits, homes will have to be taken, and condemnation costs alone will likely run up toward a billion dollars really fast, given the home values in the area.

*:  Yes, I know, I-95 is north/south, but geographically at this intersection the road is running east/west.

[agentsteel53]

(MA-28 to the east and Washington St to the west*)

had me a little confused there... "wait, Washington St is one exit to the east of 95/93, and 28 is a bit further to the east than a half-mile."  Nope, that's the south 95/93 junction (93's terminus)

creativity in street naming, thy name is eastern Mass.  there is another, completely different, Washington St immediately to the west of the 93 terminus, but that does not have an interchange with 95.

anyone want to explain why they shunted US-1 onto the freeway in 1990, other than to cause further route-number confusion?  can anyone instinctively follow 93, 95, or 1 in the Boston area?  with south 93 miraculously morphing into north 95 all of a sudden?  Why not extend the 93 designation down to the Cape along MA-3 (which really should be US-3, which is neither here nor there - MA-3A can be renumbered to US-3)...

maybe just route 95/93 through Boston as a multiplex, vaguely as originally intended?  and have the nine-mile ring road stay 128, or be I-895 or whatnot.

I'm not even asking them to build the missing 95 segment.  I'm just asking for a little sanity in numbering.  At least 1 is still signed quite frequently on the old road!  

and get rid of all the damn Washington Streets.  Samuel Adams demands equal time.

[shadyjay]

The madness surrounding Boston-area route numbering really gets to me sometimes, just like that "Exit 25 is Route 128" nonsense.  I still think I-95 should head into Boston (along present 93) then leave via US 1 and fill in the "missing link" between Revere and Peabody.  And place US 1 back on surface streets south of Boston, then on MA 1A and MA 60. 

The Result:  Most of what is referred to by locals can be Route 128 only (except of course the SE portion).  (Heck, I-128 may be kind of fun to see - makes more sense than I-238).

But that's just me. 

[agentsteel53]

alas, the US-1 corridor northeast of Boston is nowhere near up to Interstate standards.  It is a lovely 1930s-40s expressway but it should not be signed I-95 under any circumstance.

south of Boston, US-1 should definitely be on a surface street alignment, and so should US-3.  What's the point of having a discrete US route system, again, if they are just multiplexed with the interstates instead of providing a parallel network?

[sammack]

alas, the US-1 corridor northeast of Boston is nowhere near up to Interstate standards.  It is a lovely 1930s-40s expressway but it should not be signed I-95 under any circumstance.

you lost me on this one  Where is it signed as I-95?

south of Boston, US-1 should definitely be on a surface street alignment, and so should US-3.  What's the point of having a discrete US route system, again, if they are just multiplexed with the interstates instead of providing a parallel network?

umm, do you really want a major US hwy going thru some of the worst sections of Boston?

And furthermore, if you look at Boston maps from the 50's and 60's, US 1 DID go thru various routings thru Boston and it was a nightmare to try to follow it.

It is MUCH better now.  If you  desire to go thru the city follow MASS 28, your choice

imho US 1 is fine just the way it is overlapping the SE Expwy


Fixed the quote. --rmf67

[SidS1045]

you lost me on this one  Where is it signed as I-95?

US-1 multiplexes with I-95 and MA-128 between the US-1/MA-1A interchange in Dedham and the I-95/I-93 interchange in Canton (in which stretch of road you end up with the contradictory reassurance markers "North/US-1//South/I-95//South/MA-128" or vice versa).  It then continues as a multiplex with I-93 on the remaining southerly portion of the Circumferential Highway and onto the Southeast Expressway (becoming a multiplex with MA-3), though the O'Neill Tunnel and across the Zakim Bridge, where it splits off from I-93 to continue northerly on its own.  Not only is that portion beyond the split from I-93 not up to Interstate standards, but considering all the homes and businesses abutting it, it will never be...the cost would be extremely prohibitive.

As clear as mud, right?

You can thank the late Governor Frank Sargent for killing the Southwest Corridor project, which would have had I-95 continuing north from its current end at I-93/MA-128 in Canton, cutting a wide swath through some of Boston's worst neighborhoods and probably destroying what little was left that was worth saving.  Screwing up the exit numbers is a minor detail.

[SidS1045]

had me a little confused there... "wait, Washington St is one exit to the east of 95/93, and 28 is a bit further to the east than a half-mile."  Nope, that's the south 95/93 junction (93's terminus)

creativity in street naming, thy name is eastern Mass.  there is another, completely different, Washington St immediately to the west of the 93 terminus, but that does not have an interchange with 95.

akotchi was referring to a project to rebuild the "95/93 interchange."  The one on the North Shore is the only one I'm aware of which is due to be rebuilt.

can anyone instinctively follow 93, 95, or 1 in the Boston area?

It's really not that difficult (but then, I've lived in that area almost all my life), except for...

with south 93 miraculously morphing into north 95 all of a sudden?

They really could have left the 128 designation on the portion of the Circumferential Highway between the I-95/I-93 junction in Canton and the "Braintree Split."  All the locals still call it 128 anyhow.  Having it officially end at the 95-93 junction is just plain stupid.

Why not extend the 93 designation down to the Cape along MA-3 (which really should be US-3, which is neither here nor there - MA-3A can be renumbered to US-3)...

Unless I'm mistaken, not all of the Pilgrims Highway is up to Interstate standards, mostly because the travel lanes are too narrow.  Otherwise, makes sense to me.  It would be nice to extend I-495 the extra few more miles to meet up with it at the northern end of the Sagamore Bridge too.

[sammack]

you lost me on this one  Where is it signed as I-95?

alas, the US-1 corridor northeast of Boston is nowhere near up to Interstate standards.  It is a lovely 1930s-40s expressway but it should not be signed I-95 under any circumstance.

here is what I was referring to

I am very familiar with this:

US-1 multiplexes with I-95 and MA-128 between the US-1/MA-1A interchange in Dedham and the I-95/I-93 interchange in Canton (in which stretch of road you end up with the contradictory reassurance markers "North/US-1//South/I-95//South/MA-128" or vice versa).  It then continues as a multiplex with I-93 on the remaining southerly portion of the Circumferential Highway and onto the Southeast Expressway (becoming a multiplex with MA-3),

and as I said elsewhere it well should be.  the alternative was to route US 1 thru the worst sections of Boston

though the O'Neill Tunnel and across the Zakim Bridge, where it splits off from I-93 to continue northerly on its own.  Not only is that portion beyond the split from I-93 not up to Interstate standards, but considering all the homes and businesses abutting it, it will never be...the cost would be extremely prohibitive.

As clear as mud, right?

You can thank the late Governor Frank Sargent for killing the Southwest Corridor project, which would have had I-95 continuing north from its current end at I-93/MA-128 in Canton, cutting a wide swath through some of Boston's worst neighborhoods and probably destroying what little was left that was worth saving.  Screwing up the exit numbers is a minor detail.

it would have taken thousands of homes and businesses and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in 1960's dollars

Quoting nightmares...

[Alps]

US 1 was fine through Boston.  I've followed the old VFW Highway alignment many times from the south vs. navigating the Central Artery.  It's a clear route that's easy to follow right up through the Fenway - there are still 1 signs around to help you - and then it gets on Storrow Drive and would follow the new Leverett Circle Connector to continue as 1.

[ATLRedSoxFan]

A signing project was undertaken in 2004 to consistently direct drivers eastward via Interstate 195 to the Turnpike for the continuation of Interstate 95. The results are guide signs and trailblazers posted to direct motorists to Interstate 95/NJ Turnpike north via Interstate 195.





Corresponding signs were replaced for Interstate 195 on Interstate 295 to show the connection to Interstate 95:

Drove that stretch (actually Washington to Newark) and that stretch really does exist. The kicker (to me) is you'll see a I-95 North sign and about a half mile later it becomes I-295 south with no noticable change of direction.

[froggie]

It's noticeable to me.  East to south.

[Alps]

It's noticeable to me.  East to south.

There are two large sweeping curves: from NE to SE where 95 was intended to leave (the wide median east of NJ 31) and from E to S where it now actually ends at US 1. I guess you wouldn't notice the curve if you were expecting the roadway quality to dip, but it stays at a 70+ mph design speed.

[ATLRedSoxFan]

It's noticeable to me.  East to south.

There are two large sweeping curves: from NE to SE where 95 was intended to leave (the wide median east of NJ 31) and from E to S where it now actually ends at US 1. I guess you wouldn't notice the curve if you were expecting the roadway quality to dip, but it stays at a 70+ mph design speed.

That's where you got me....long sweeping curve. Of course, I had just driven through both Philly and Wilmington, so I was kinda oblivious, but was looking for the change.

[Compulov]

Just some perspective from a new AARoads member and a relatively new resident of Bristol (just moved there in September 2009). It looks like the PTC is making some progress on this project as a whole. They're in the process of replacing/widening overpasses for the eventual mainline widening between the bridge and US1. PennDOT's also been using, I believe, ARRA funds to add ITS sensors and VMS to I-95, with new message boards before the general area of the future interchange already in place. Heck, I was a little surprised to see that they actually *worked* when they were on for a Winter Weather advisory a month or two ago.

I'm wondering if the reason for the prolonged construction period is so that they can get the turnpike widened to handle the expected additional traffic that the interchange will more than likely produce once it's complete. Of course what happens once that traffic is funneled onto the existing bridge is another story given the bridge isn't slated for twinning until later. I also wonder if the reason for taking so long to actually start was due to the wetlands issue mentioned above and the environment impact study. I also wonder how much of a role local politics played into this, given that this affects Bristol Borough, Bristol Township, and, I think, Bensalem as well. There might be some other towns affected by this who had their say, too.

On the other side of the river, it's amazing how fast the NJTA seems to be moving with the project starting at interchange 6. I only go out that way maybe once a month or so, but things always look a lot different each time I do. I think the NJTA does have the advantage of working within a rather large row to begin with, and generally working in flat relatively unpopulated land. The work on the PATP goes through a number of dense suburban areas, so that has to play a part in construction timelines as well.

One thing I *really* hope they eventually do is build an interchange between the TP extension and 295. Especially once the extension is "officially" 95, it seems insane not to have a child interchange with its parent. It would also allow for a full freeway crossing of the river connecting 95 and 295. It never happened with the cancelled I-895, but it'd still be nice to have. Taking the B-B Bridge and then 130 -> CR541 -> 295 sucks. I just hope the NJTA isn't the stick in the mud here because they assume they'll lose revenue when people can more easily take 295 instead of the turnpike. To me, the turnpike and 295 serve two very different needs. The turnpike is the road for long-distance travel while 295 is better for local travel -- especially until they fix that mess down at 42/76/295.

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