AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange  (Read 405518 times)

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12002
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 08:03:14 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2014, 10:28:45 PM »

Bingo.

The connections thru NJ were there also to make 95 continuous, but Philly didn't want to lose the 95 designation. So while PA wasn't responsible for the cancelled project, they definitely had a hand in wanting to keep 95 running thru PA, and the result is the interchange project with 95 and the PA Turnpike.  DC wasn't as concerned about 95, and MD & VA placed it on the Beltway.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14033
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:19 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2014, 11:55:48 PM »

Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Enough to make you wonder why they're building the new one with six lanes. Even now there's not really enough traffic for that. Much of the traffic coming to the interchange is going to be pulled from the Turnpike, right now using exit 3 or 4 to Philly, or exit 1 or 2 to Delaware. The rest is going to be pulled from either US 130 to I-295, or US 1 to I-295, or US 1 to I-95, which is Scudders Falls. Given the commercial traffic on 1, it's no longer all that popular as a shunpike, but it definitely sees shunpike use nonetheless. If only PA had stayed on schedule, we would already be finding out how the interchange affects traffic before committing to new Delaware River bridge projects.

SteveG1988

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2609
  • Age: 32
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: April 15, 2021, 10:48:35 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2014, 02:12:44 AM »

Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Enough to make you wonder why they're building the new one with six lanes. Even now there's not really enough traffic for that. Much of the traffic coming to the interchange is going to be pulled from the Turnpike, right now using exit 3 or 4 to Philly, or exit 1 or 2 to Delaware. The rest is going to be pulled from either US 130 to I-295, or US 1 to I-295, or US 1 to I-95, which is Scudders Falls. Given the commercial traffic on 1, it's no longer all that popular as a shunpike, but it definitely sees shunpike use nonetheless. If only PA had stayed on schedule, we would already be finding out how the interchange affects traffic before committing to new Delaware River bridge projects.

The bridge is somewhat needed, but i wouldn't be surprised if it is built as planned, but with less lanes with the extra ones painted as shoulders, a reverse of what they did with the betsy ross bridge when it turned out that 8 lanes there was overkill due to the canned PA90 freeway.

The entry/exit roads that lead onto the bridge are the main reason why they need a 6 lane bridge at minimum. If NJ Transit reopens the West Trenton to Newark Line (track is there, stations need repair) then i could see the bridge just being left as is, as that would reduce traffic demands.
Logged

qguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Lebanon, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:39:05 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #53 on: December 09, 2014, 06:40:38 AM »

…it would have been far too simple to route I-95 across the Del Mem Br and up the Turnpike all the way to the G Washington Br.

The connections thru NJ were there also to make 95 continuous, but Philly didn't want to lose the 95 designation. So while PA wasn't responsible for the cancelled project, they definitely had a hand in wanting to keep 95 running thru PA, and the result is the interchange project with 95 and the PA Turnpike.  DC wasn't as concerned about 95, and MD & VA placed it on the Beltway.

All true, but even if I-95 were re-routed up the NJTP from Delaware, an interchange would still need to be built. It just wouldn't need to be a high-speed flyover type, however. A low-speed double trumpet—like what was originally proposed 40 years ago—would be sufficient.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12002
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 08:03:14 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #54 on: December 09, 2014, 06:46:57 AM »

Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Enough to make you wonder why they're building the new one with six lanes. Even now there's not really enough traffic for that. Much of the traffic coming to the interchange is going to be pulled from the Turnpike, right now using exit 3 or 4 to Philly, or exit 1 or 2 to Delaware. The rest is going to be pulled from either US 130 to I-295, or US 1 to I-295, or US 1 to I-95, which is Scudders Falls. Given the commercial traffic on 1, it's no longer all that popular as a shunpike, but it definitely sees shunpike use nonetheless. If only PA had stayed on schedule, we would already be finding out how the interchange affects traffic before committing to new Delaware River bridge projects.
Actually, the new bridge has been proposed to be 9 lanes (3 lanes each direction, plus auxiliary lanes). The bridge gets congested during rush hours, mostly to PA residents that work in NJ, plus that there are no merge areas from the ramps on either side of the bridge. The shunpiking factor is minimal, IMO, because most people using the bridge are local to the area anyway.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11839
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: April 18, 2021, 09:59:51 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #55 on: December 09, 2014, 01:33:53 PM »

Since the stretch of I-95 north of the future interchange is clearly a north-south route (and most people know it as such) and I-276 is an east-west route; such a change wouldn't likely fly.
??? What does I-276 have to so with it, other than being the example I used of a case where this occurred?  Are there different rules for north-south and east-west roads?

Not if PennDOT pulls an I-276 and has the mileage and exit numbering continue from where I-95 splits off.
But I-276 uses the PA Turnpike's exit numbering/mileage, so it's the same road, whereas I-195 (or whatever it ends up being) is not part of a larger entity that includes I-95 (at least conceptually; it may technically be the "through" route), so there is no logical reason not to reset the mileage and exit numbers.
There are plenty of roads that start their exit/mileage numbers at a nonzero number.  It's odd, but not disallowed.  It's certainly cleaner to start at 0, but believe it or not, not mandated.  I wouldn't be surprised if PennDOT decided to be cheapsakes and not redo the mileposts/exit numbers.  There's also always people arguing that any number change hurts businesses (though I'm pretty sure most people navigate by route number rather than exit number, at least around here; it's always "the exit for Manchester" or "get off at Route 31F", not "exit 43" or "get off at exit 25").
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

bzakharin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1574
  • Last Login: April 18, 2021, 05:58:49 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #56 on: December 09, 2014, 02:27:56 PM »

There are plenty of roads that start their exit/mileage numbers at a nonzero number.  It's odd, but not disallowed.  It's certainly cleaner to start at 0, but believe it or not, not mandated. 
That is surprising. Are there examples of this other than where a planned portion of the road was never built?
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14078
  • fuck

  • Age: 12
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:36 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #57 on: December 09, 2014, 02:33:12 PM »

There are plenty of roads that start their exit/mileage numbers at a nonzero number.  It's odd, but not disallowed.  It's certainly cleaner to start at 0, but believe it or not, not mandated. 
That is surprising. Are there examples of this other than where a planned portion of the road was never built?
I-17 and Loop 375 (Arizona and Texas don't usually start mileage at zero, though they do on other Interstates).

swbrotha100

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 405
  • Last Login: October 02, 2016, 10:07:09 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #58 on: December 09, 2014, 02:48:23 PM »

If the I-95/PA Turnpike connection wasn't federally mandated, was there ever a possibility that 95 would have been temporarily (or permanently) signed along current I-295 and I-195 in central NJ?
Logged

odditude

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 595
  • Location: NOVA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:26:17 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #59 on: December 09, 2014, 03:11:29 PM »

Here is a question, how much traffic would be diverted from the Scudders Falls bridge by this?
Enough to make you wonder why they're building the new one with six lanes. Even now there's not really enough traffic for that. Much of the traffic coming to the interchange is going to be pulled from the Turnpike, right now using exit 3 or 4 to Philly, or exit 1 or 2 to Delaware. The rest is going to be pulled from either US 130 to I-295, or US 1 to I-295, or US 1 to I-95, which is Scudders Falls. Given the commercial traffic on 1, it's no longer all that popular as a shunpike, but it definitely sees shunpike use nonetheless. If only PA had stayed on schedule, we would already be finding out how the interchange affects traffic before committing to new Delaware River bridge projects.
the bridge backs up horribly in both directions at rush hour, both because of the lane drop on the NJ side and the late entrance ramps going SB from NJ 29 and NB from the Newtown/Yardley exit. there have been quite a few times it's taken me over 20 minutes just to get from exit 2 to the bridge going SB.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10809
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: April 13, 2021, 11:37:06 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #60 on: December 09, 2014, 04:19:29 PM »

All true, but even if I-95 were re-routed up the NJTP from Delaware, an interchange would still need to be built. It just wouldn't need to be a high-speed flyover type, however. A low-speed double trumpet—like what was originally proposed 40 years ago—would be sufficient.

PTC has (until rather recently, when non-connections at I-176 Morgantown and I-79 Cranberry were remediated) been willing and able to resist new connections to the E-W Mainline and the Northeast Extension. 

I suppose there were still some that wanted no connection at all to I-95 at the Delaware Expressway (for reasons not clear to me).
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7294
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: April 15, 2021, 07:52:10 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #61 on: December 09, 2014, 04:52:01 PM »

Not if PennDOT pulls an I-276 and has the mileage and exit numbering continue from where I-95 splits off.

Since the stretch of I-95 north of the future interchange is clearly a north-south route (and most people know it as such) and I-276 is an east-west route; such a change wouldn't likely fly.
??? What does I-276 have to so with it, other than being the example I used of a case where this occurred?  Are there different rules for north-south and east-west roads?
In re-examining your earlier comment (reposted above); I misinterpreted what you saying regarding I-276.  My bad.

Nonetheless and in other related-threads; a few on this board (not me) have suggested redesignating the entire I-95/295 segment as I-276.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14078
  • fuck

  • Age: 12
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:36 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #62 on: December 09, 2014, 05:01:26 PM »

Nonetheless and in other related-threads; a few on this board (not me) have suggested redesignating the entire I-95/295 segment as I-276.
Not going to work until/unless all the ramps are built. (And these two ramps are rather redundant, with US 1 providing a shorter full freeway connection.)

akotchi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 774
  • Traffic Engineer by Day; Roadgeek by Night

  • Age: 56
  • Location: Fairless Hills, PA
  • Last Login: April 17, 2021, 09:21:01 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #63 on: December 09, 2014, 05:15:47 PM »

Regarding exit numbers, given that both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey sections of eventually-former I-95 are about 8 miles long, give or take, it would not surprise me to see the new route I-x95 given one set of exit numbers (1-16) from the interchange to U.S. 1/I-295, assuming it stops there.  Would reduce the potential for confusion between an Exit 2 (current Exit 44) in Penndel and an Exit 2 on the same route in West Trenton, not even 10 miles away.
Logged
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

qguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 630
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Lebanon, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:39:05 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #64 on: December 09, 2014, 05:50:38 PM »

All true, but even if I-95 were re-routed up the NJTP from Delaware, an interchange would still need to be built. It just wouldn't need to be a high-speed flyover type, however. A low-speed double trumpet—like what was originally proposed 40 years ago—would be sufficient.

PTC has (until rather recently, when non-connections at I-176 Morgantown and I-79 Cranberry were remediated) been willing and able to resist new connections to the E-W Mainline and the Northeast Extension. 

I suppose there were still some that wanted no connection at all to I-95 at the Delaware Expressway (for reasons not clear to me).

True. When I was a member of the project's Community Advisory Committee (CAC) throughout most of the 90s and early 00s, we encountered many members of the public who liked to insist that a connection still shouldn't be built. One gentleman (and I use that term sincerely) with me on the CAC was just irritated to no end that residents of New Jersey had blocked construction of the Somerset Freeway and caused what he saw as a problem that local residents in Pennsylvania would be forced to live with (increased noise, vehicular pollution, and what not). Whatever the merits of his argument, he saw his role on the CAC as two fold: 1) Determine to his satisfaction (and the satisfaction of others who felt like him) that the connection was really necessary. (He did determine that it was and is.) 2) Work with the other members of the CAC and officials from PennDOT and the PTC to ensure that the connection that was designed and built was the most livable connection that could be obtained. (He did eventually decide that PennDOT and PTC officials worked very hard to make the design acceptable to the residents around it. In that regard I wholeheartedly agree with him.)

It's interesting that the PTC did actually begin construction on the initial stages of the toll plaza that would've been positioned between the two trumpets of the first-proposed connection. Construction was halted when the Somerset Freeway was stricken and a high-speed interchange was mandated by Congress, necessitating a return the drawing board. One of the first contracts to go to construction in this project was in fact the removal and mitigation of what eventually became just a few chunks of concrete in the middle of the woods in the northwest quadrant of the I-95/I-276 crossing.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3328
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 07:48:32 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #65 on: December 12, 2014, 04:11:12 PM »

My own thoughts on this is that the portion of I-95 north of the Penn Turnpike (that I refer to as Trenton I-95) should be renumbered to I-695 all the way to US 1. 

By doing this I-295 and its exit numbers remain unchanged.  I-195 and its exit numbers remain unchanged. 

The roadway that replaces Trenton I-95 is still signed north/south.  So we don't have the confusion of going south from US 1 towards Philly or towards Camden, since they are now signed as different roads (as they are currently).

To avoid confusion regarding exit numbers on the Trenton I-95 in Pennsylvania, the new I-695 can take over the exit numbers of Trenton I-95 unchanged.

So in summary, no exit numbers should be changed, no changes to I-295 or I-195, and Trenton I-95 becomes I-695.

Simple and easy.  The fewer changes the better.
Logged

SteveG1988

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2609
  • Age: 32
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: April 15, 2021, 10:48:35 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #66 on: December 13, 2014, 09:28:00 AM »

PA can cope with exit renumbering, they did when the state went from sequential to mileage based. and I-NJ-95 has so few exits that i doubt it would really matter, since even that was renumbered when 295 and 95 were changed to meet at US1.

since as said before, it is a grand total of 8 exits, the changes are not too drastic, just extend 295 around to 276 and that makes it easier to swallow on the NJ side since 195 would require more changes, and the changes to extend 295 over to 276 would be minimal, and signing a new 3di to take over would still create problems. I could see PA doing this (Exit 4: Old Exit 46 Old Old Exit:29A) i am not sure where exit 4 would be, i am just making a point, PA in 2000 renumbered them, so 14 years of knowing the exit number is miniscule to nearly 40+ years of 195 being the way it is
Logged

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7294
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: April 15, 2021, 07:52:10 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2014, 03:27:49 PM »

since as said before, it is a grand total of 8 exits, the changes are not too drastic, just extend 295 around to 276 and that makes it easier to swallow on the NJ side since 195 would require more changes, and the changes to extend 295 over to 276 would be minimal, and signing a new 3di to take over would still create problems. I could see PA doing this (Exit 4: Old Exit 46 Old Old Exit:29A) i am not sure where exit 4 would be, i am just making a point, PA in 2000 renumbered them, so 14 years of knowing the exit number is miniscule to nearly 40+ years of 195 being the way it is
Again, the proposal to redesignate I-95 north of the PA Turnpike interchange and the Mercer County, NJ section as an extension of I-295 was officially dropped from consideration circa 2007.

At present, the plans are/were to either redesignate I-95/295 as an extension of I-195 (such a change indeed involves changing more mile markers & exit numbers on the Jersey side) or as a separate I-x95 (rumored to be I-395, personal preference would be I-695); the latter would only involve NJ changing the mile-markers & exit numbers along the 7-mile stretch of I-295 from I-195 to US 1.
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1621
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: April 18, 2021, 09:00:09 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2014, 07:22:10 PM »

PHLBOS, I haven't followed all of this discussion. What was the reason for NOT extending I-295 west/south of US-1 in N.J. all the way down to I-276? That would seem like the most logical solution without having to introduce additional confusing route numbers.
Logged

MikeSantNY78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 124
  • Location: Depew, NY (suburban Buffalo)
  • Last Login: November 15, 2019, 08:58:12 PM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2014, 07:54:12 PM »

You mean like this?
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&output=classic&dg=oo
There's noting there.  Just the "home page" of classis Google Maps.
Thought I had rendered the map of Norfolk/Tidewater, where I-64 and all the I-x64s ended up at each other...
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14033
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:08:19 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #70 on: December 15, 2014, 12:45:50 AM »

since as said before, it is a grand total of 8 exits, the changes are not too drastic, just extend 295 around to 276 and that makes it easier to swallow on the NJ side since 195 would require more changes, and the changes to extend 295 over to 276 would be minimal, and signing a new 3di to take over would still create problems. I could see PA doing this (Exit 4: Old Exit 46 Old Old Exit:29A) i am not sure where exit 4 would be, i am just making a point, PA in 2000 renumbered them, so 14 years of knowing the exit number is miniscule to nearly 40+ years of 195 being the way it is
Again, the proposal to redesignate I-95 north of the PA Turnpike interchange and the Mercer County, NJ section as an extension of I-295 was officially dropped from consideration circa 2007.

At present, the plans are/were to either redesignate I-95/295 as an extension of I-195 (such a change indeed involves changing more mile markers & exit numbers on the Jersey side) or as a separate I-x95 (rumored to be I-395, personal preference would be I-695); the latter would only involve NJ changing the mile-markers & exit numbers along the 7-mile stretch of I-295 from I-195 to US 1.
More than a rumor, it's 395 on PATP's website. I don't know where the 395/295 switchover would be - at 195 or at 1.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10809
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: April 13, 2021, 11:37:06 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #71 on: December 15, 2014, 12:57:52 AM »

More than a rumor, it's 395 on PATP's website. I don't know where the 395/295 switchover would be - at 195 or at 1.

I recall seeing a map where present-day I-95 north to Trenton, then south on I-295 to I-195 would all become I-195.

Yeah, that map is on the Turnpike Web site here.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2014, 01:02:00 AM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14078
  • fuck

  • Age: 12
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:36 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #72 on: December 15, 2014, 01:21:39 AM »

In April 2013 it was I-195: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAPMAY2013_lg.jpg
By September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I think this is pretty good evidence that Pennsylvania's changed their mind.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12002
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 08:03:14 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #73 on: December 15, 2014, 01:41:35 AM »

Why not 99E?
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 27, 2019, 04:02:44 AM
Re: I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2014, 02:58:43 AM »

By September 2014 it had changed to I-395: http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/STAGEMAP_Sept2014_lg.jpg
I'm guessing this is their withdrawn request to AASHTO
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.