I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[PHLBOS]

The funny thing about it is that there's an easy fix to this: truncate I-295 to Exit 60, truncate I-195 to Exit 6 and you have a continuous I-95 all the way from the Scudder Falls Bridge to the NJ Turnpike. If needed, truncate I-95 as well.

That's how such is currently (but sparcely) signed (with mostly trailblazers) sans the truncations.

The reasoning for not making the above permanent was due to the fact that I-195 & 295 weren't fully completed at the time the decision was made to reroute I-95 (circa 1982) and the current NJ Turnpike interchange with the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) was already an existing high-speed interchange.  NJDOT/NJTA assumed that an interchange with I-95 (Delaware Expressway) and the PA Turnpike was already in the works.

[storm2k]

US 1 should be the changing point, not the Delaware River.  Plus I-295 in PA is not really E-W, but at least if US 1 is the orientation change point at least through Ewing and Lawrence it does run somewhat of an E-W nature to make PA's part work.

287 is signed N-S throughout its whole route in NJ even though it's E-W more or less from the Turnpike to 78. No one seems to have an issue with his. Routes changing cardinal directions arbitrarily is not always a good idea or necessary. 295 is N-S for 60 miles in NJ. It should stay as such for the last 9 or 10 or so.

[bzakharin]

US 1 should be the changing point, not the Delaware River.  Plus I-295 in PA is not really E-W, but at least if US 1 is the orientation change point at least through Ewing and Lawrence it does run somewhat of an E-W nature to make PA's part work.

287 is signed N-S throughout its whole route in NJ even though it's E-W more or less from the Turnpike to 78. No one seems to have an issue with his. Routes changing cardinal directions arbitrarily is not always a good idea or necessary. 295 is N-S for 60 miles in NJ. It should stay as such for the last 9 or 10 or so.

287 has a N-S component throughout the state (with a single brief exception) and N-S is its average general direction. 295 in NJ, even with the proposed extension is like that as well. Future 295 in PA isn't even close to E-W, though

[jeffandnicole]

US 1 should be the changing point, not the Delaware River.  Plus I-295 in PA is not really E-W, but at least if US 1 is the orientation change point at least through Ewing and Lawrence it does run somewhat of an E-W nature to make PA's part work.

287 is signed N-S throughout its whole route in NJ even though it's E-W more or less from the Turnpike to 78. No one seems to have an issue with his. Routes changing cardinal directions arbitrarily is not always a good idea or necessary. 295 is N-S for 60 miles in NJ. It should stay as such for the last 9 or 10 or so.

I'd agree if the route ended "at the last 9 or 10" miles, but it doesn't.  It loops around and heads the other direction.

Compare it to a full beltway around a city...you're going to have to change cardinal directions at some point; otherwise the direction will be wrong for half the loop.

[mrsman]

PHLBOS is right. I looked at that plan on their website and they do have it backwards. I-295 in Pa. should be north/south and in NJ from the Delaware River to U.S.1 should be east/west. What planet are these engineers on? The two states DOT's must be each operating in a vacuum instead of jointly coordinating the designations of the route.

LOL Maybe we in the United States should adopt the German Autobahn practice of not using cardinal directions, and just listing multiple city destinations on the signs for each route. Then we'd only have to argue about the destinations, and not the cardinal directions. (chuckle!)

Come to think of it, I believe that is what was originally envisioned for interstate highways signing back in the 1950's. And some signing of the late 1950's/early 1960's did reflect that practice.

And with all the disagreements we have here about control city use, I'm glad that cardinal directions are generally used.

[Duke87]

Re: cardinal directions

For traffic heading south on US 1, it is quite reasonable for traffic to continue heading south via 95 or via 295. The directions as they are currently signed are logically correct. Confusion is avoided by virtue of it being a different route number each way.

It seems to me that therefore this should remain the case - treat the US 1 interchange as an inversion point that traffic heads north towards and south away from.

Problem is, if it's the same number both ways, drivers will be faced with a choice between 295 south and 295 south, but the two are different.

This leaves us with two workable solutions:
- do what PennDOT is proposing and sign I-295 as east-west in PA, but extend this to the US 1 interchange rather than switching at the state line.
- keep the existing directions and use a new number (695?) for the portion of 95 that needs renumbering.

Both are kludgy but there isn't a non-kludgy solution without building at least part of the Somerset Freeway soooo.... kludge it is.

[Alps]

Re: cardinal directions

For traffic heading south on US 1, it is quite reasonable for traffic to continue heading south via 95 or via 295. The directions as they are currently signed are logically correct. Confusion is avoided by virtue of it being a different route number each way.

It seems to me that therefore this should remain the case - treat the US 1 interchange as an inversion point that traffic heads north towards and south away from.

Problem is, if it's the same number both ways, drivers will be faced with a choice between 295 south and 295 south, but the two are different.

This leaves us with two workable solutions:
- do what PennDOT is proposing and sign I-295 as east-west in PA, but extend this to the US 1 interchange rather than switching at the state line.
- keep the existing directions and use a new number (695?) for the portion of 95 that needs renumbering.

Both are kludgy but there isn't a non-kludgy solution without building at least part of the Somerset Freeway soooo.... kludge it is.

Prior to cancellation of the Somerset Freeway, I-295 was north-south past US 1 to the meeting point east of NJ 31. (There was even going to be an NJ 31 freeway shoehorned between those two interchanges, but I digress.) So it wouldn't be unprecedented to just continue the signage as N-S to the state line. NJ has never dealt with a midroute change before
OH WAIT NJ 36
So maybe there is actually precedent to change to E/W at US 1. I would support it.

[jeffandnicole]

I think I mentioned before, even a x76 number world work, since 276 is the route connecting at the new 95/PA Tpk interchange. That would make it fairly clear the portion of highway between 1 & the new interchange a bypass route not really associated with 95.

It's always been overlooked, but I-876 is freely open, and would connect 276/95 with 1/295.

[SignBridge]

J&N, the last thing we need is to further confuse drivers by adding another route number to an already confusing mix of routes. I think most of us are in agreement that is it best to use I-295. The only problem is for Pa. and NJ to coordinate the cardinal directions intelligently. Hopefully, there will be a meeting of the minds.

[hbelkins]

Keeping I-295 N-S as it is now in New Jersey, and signing it as E-W in Pennsylvania, works pretty well.

[bzakharin]

I think I mentioned before, even a x76 number world work, since 276 is the route connecting at the new 95/PA Tpk interchange. That would make it fairly clear the portion of highway between 1 & the new interchange a bypass route not really associated with 95.

It's always been overlooked, but I-876 is freely open, and would connect 276/95 with 1/295.

Why not 276 then? Except that it *is* associated with 95 in that it *was* 95 for a long time. Doesn't that count for anything?

[storm2k]

Keeping I-295 N-S as it is now in New Jersey, and signing it as E-W in Pennsylvania, works pretty well.

Agreed. I feel like this is being overthought at this point.

[odditude]

Keeping I-295 N-S as it is now in New Jersey, and signing it as E-W in Pennsylvania, works pretty well.

Agreed. I feel like this is being overthought at this point.

i can hear the confusion now... "Continue northwest for I-295 East..."

it should be signed like it is in Washington and Baltimore - change cardinal directions at the most logical points (in this case, the river and US 1).

[jeffandnicole]

Keeping I-295 N-S as it is now in New Jersey, and signing it as E-W in Pennsylvania, works pretty well.

Agreed. I feel like this is being overthought at this point.

i can hear the confusion now... "Continue northwest for I-295 East..."

it should be signed like it is in Washington and Baltimore - change cardinal directions at the most logical points (in this case, the river and US 1).

295 North in Delaware from 95 to the Delaware Memorial Bridge runs in a southeastern direction, and likewise 295 South mainly runs in a northwestern direction. Not once has anyone mentioned this "issue", and this has been a much more heavily travelled corridor than PA's new 295 will ever be.

[bzakharin]

295 North in Delaware is signed for consistency with NJ. Future 295 in PA will have different cardinal directions than NJ regardless of what they are. Therefore, making it E-W only in PA when it actually runs N-S makes no sense. Also, the existence of 295 in Delaware is often overlooked. Yes, it is signed, but always together with a turnpike shield. It also has no exit numbers. Many people going through there (especially when heading for the Turnpike) don't realize they've ever been on 295 until presented with a choice at the 295/Turnpike split.

[jeffandnicole]

295 North in Delaware is signed for consistency with NJ. Future 295 in PA will have different cardinal directions than NJ regardless of what they are. Therefore, making it E-W only in PA when it actually runs N-S makes no sense. Also, the existence of 295 in Delaware is often overlooked. Yes, it is signed, but always together with a turnpike shield. It also has no exit numbers. Many people going through there (especially when heading for the Turnpike) don't realize they've ever been on 295 until presented with a choice at the 295/Turnpike split.

While all very true, the point being made is that it doesn't run in the same direction it is signed.

Even 295 in NJ is slightly more E-W than it is N-S, between the Del Mem Bridge about about Exit 57 (Rt 130). And it's a more consistent E-W, as it reverses direction a few times going N-S (and is hell when it does because it causes numerous sun glare issues).

[roadman65]

The I-295 thing across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, is almost like US 90 Business on the Crescent City Connection in NOLA.  There if you are on US 90 Business E Bound, you could actually see the sunset in the evening  or if you are heading W Bound crossing the Mississippi see the sunrise as well.

I-95 itself does a reverse direction in Fort Lee, NJ just before merging with US 1, 9, and 46 where I-95 is in the median of NJ 4.  You are heading true south when heading north on I-95 and true north when heading south on I-95.

That is the issue you sometimes face with many freeways.

[bzakharin]

295 North in Delaware is signed for consistency with NJ. Future 295 in PA will have different cardinal directions than NJ regardless of what they are. Therefore, making it E-W only in PA when it actually runs N-S makes no sense. Also, the existence of 295 in Delaware is often overlooked. Yes, it is signed, but always together with a turnpike shield. It also has no exit numbers. Many people going through there (especially when heading for the Turnpike) don't realize they've ever been on 295 until presented with a choice at the 295/Turnpike split.

While all very true, the point being made is that it doesn't run in the same direction it is signed.

Even 295 in NJ is slightly more E-W than it is N-S, between the Del Mem Bridge about about Exit 57 (Rt 130). And it's a more consistent E-W, as it reverses direction a few times going N-S (and is hell when it does because it causes numerous sun glare issues).

My point is that when the posted direction *doesn't* change with the cardinal direction it is ok for them to be different in spots when the overall direction makes sense. What's *not* ok is when the posted direction *does* change and *never* matches the actual direction of the road.

The I-295 thing across the Delaware Memorial Bridge, is almost like US 90 Business on the Crescent City Connection in NOLA.  There if you are on US 90 Business E Bound, you could actually see the sunset in the evening  or if you are heading W Bound crossing the Mississippi see the sunrise as well.

I-95 itself does a reverse direction in Fort Lee, NJ just before merging with US 1, 9, and 46 where I-95 is in the median of NJ 4.  You are heading true south when heading north on I-95 and true north when heading south on I-95.

That is the issue you sometimes face with many freeways.

Two-digit US routs and Interstates aren't supposed to ever change direction (yes, I know there are exceptions). The portion of I-95 in NJ approaching the GWB is quite short. There is a whole state (CT) where I-95 is more of an E-W route than N-S, but that's ok because on the national scale I-95 is in fact N-S (or really, NE-SW, but since that's not allowed...)

[hbelkins]

Northbound I-25 runs southeast for about 55 miles in New Mexico, and nobody has their panties in a wad over it. so what's the big deal if northbound I-295 is going to run southwest for a brief time in New Jersey?

[odditude]

Northbound I-25 runs southeast for about 55 miles in New Mexico, and nobody has their panties in a wad over it. so what's the big deal if northbound I-295 is going to run southwest for a brief time in New Jersey?

being in the Princeton area and seeing signs for "I-295 North - Philadelphia" would be completely absurd.

[SignBridge]

Yes it would! LOL! That's why it should be east/west between the River and Route-1. Or (chuckle!) maybe like I said in jest earlier, we should go to the German practice of just showing multiple destination cities without cardinal directions.

So for example, 295 (west) from Route-1 could be signed something like "Yardley, Pa./Langhorne, Pa./Philadelphia.   

[roadman65]

I-95 was indeed signed along the CT Turnpike as E-W, Eastbound New Haven & Westbound New York between the NYS Line and New Haven, and then New Haven  And West, and alternatively Providence And East, and Rhode Island And East from New Haven and the RI State Line.  Some ramps even signed it with shields as EAST I-95 and WEST I-95, but most ramps did not have shields but the original blue entry guides.  I think the reassurence shields and the signs at the I-91 interchange did denote I-95 as N-S back in the original CT Tpk signing days.

Look at I-94 in IL and WI between Chicago and Milwaukee.  You travel North on Westbound I-94 to get to Milwaukee and travel South on Eastbound I-94 to get to Chicago for almost 80 miles.  They look at it as I-94 going between rural Montana to Port Huron, MI and not the regional heading between Chicago and Milwaukee which is a fraction of the whole routing.  Why does Michigan change I-69 from N-S to E-W  between Lansing and Port Huron for a shorter change in direction then that of I-94's N-S change in IL and WI, is a bigger mystery. 

Same in Florida with US 98 signed E-W in Martin and Palm Beach Counties when for well over 200 miles it is signed N-S in the Florida Peninsula, when in those two counties its near 90 miles.  You think that FDOT could have just kept US 98 signed N-S for that little stretch.  Also to add confusion is between Okeechobee and Sebring, US 98 does run more E-W than N-S, but is signed N-S for almost 55 miles between those two cities.  Then south of Okeechobee part of the E-W signing in Martin and Palm Beach Counties it runs N-S along the Eastern Shore of Lake Okeechobee concurrent with N-S signed US 441 and is signed E-W.

Then you have US 92 that runs N-S for close to 100 miles cosigned with US 17 from Lake Alfred to DeLand, but US 92 is signed E-W and if you pinpoint US 92's endpoints on a map and draw a straight line between them it is more SW to NE than E to W.

Then Texas is  doing dumb with signing US 281 and US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as E-W when a lot more of those two routes runs actual N-S outside the valley.  In fact both US 83 and US 281 are Texas' longest N-S US routes, so those short stretches as E-W is not even worth it to confuse people with different headers.

[Alps]

Northbound I-25 runs southeast for about 55 miles in New Mexico, and nobody has their panties in a wad over it. so what's the big deal if northbound I-295 is going to run southwest for a brief time in New Jersey?

being in the Princeton area and seeing signs for "I-295 North - Philadelphia" would be completely absurd.

This is the best argument. Directions should reasonably approximate reality for this reason.

[DrSmith]

Could also consider dropping the directionality at 195 for more of an inner/outer description. Then it would represent a uniform description around the city.

[jwolfer]

I-95 was indeed signed along the CT Turnpike as E-W, Eastbound New Haven & Westbound New York between the NYS Line and New Haven, and then New Haven  And West, and alternatively Providence And East, and Rhode Island And East from New Haven and the RI State Line.  Some ramps even signed it with shields as EAST I-95 and WEST I-95, but most ramps did not have shields but the original blue entry guides.  I think the reassurence shields and the signs at the I-91 interchange did denote I-95 as N-S back in the original CT Tpk signing days.

Look at I-94 in IL and WI between Chicago and Milwaukee.  You travel North on Westbound I-94 to get to Milwaukee and travel South on Eastbound I-94 to get to Chicago for almost 80 miles.  They look at it as I-94 going between rural Montana to Port Huron, MI and not the regional heading between Chicago and Milwaukee which is a fraction of the whole routing.  Why does Michigan change I-69 from N-S to E-W  between Lansing and Port Huron for a shorter change in direction then that of I-94's N-S change in IL and WI, is a bigger mystery. 

Same in Florida with US 98 signed E-W in Martin and Palm Beach Counties when for well over 200 miles it is signed N-S in the Florida Peninsula, when in those two counties its near 90 miles.  You think that FDOT could have just kept US 98 signed N-S for that little stretch.  Also to add confusion is between Okeechobee and Sebring, US 98 does run more E-W than N-S, but is signed N-S for almost 55 miles between those two cities.  Then south of Okeechobee part of the E-W signing in Martin and Palm Beach Counties it runs N-S along the Eastern Shore of Lake Okeechobee concurrent with N-S signed US 441 and is signed E-W.

Then you have US 92 that runs N-S for close to 100 miles cosigned with US 17 from Lake Alfred to DeLand, but US 92 is signed E-W and if you pinpoint US 92's endpoints on a map and draw a straight line between them it is more SW to NE than E to W.

Then Texas is  doing dumb with signing US 281 and US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as E-W when a lot more of those two routes runs actual N-S outside the valley.  In fact both US 83 and US 281 are Texas' longest N-S US routes, so those short stretches as E-W is not even worth it to confuse people with different headers.

I-4 from downtown Orlando to the St Johns River is north south in reality but signed as east west.. Similar to US 92