I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[jeffandnicole]

Well I do not check these out that often.  Being without internet and having to use the library or McDonalds these days I only come on here a couple of minutes a day, I will admit that I kind of knew it would be elsewhere but risked this.

Anyway, the source that gave me the info is not convinced totally that its in stone, and the two people who are my sources are well respected individuals on this forum and in the community.

Not to be sarcastic or anything, but thank your for sharing that.  It would make sense to do that by changing it to East and West as at that point the route is a beltway and like others (ie Indy's I-435) it would not be out of place.   

Edit:  This link is NJDOT which is not totally telling you everything.  That is in other matters as I have found NJDOT in the past to leave out projects or provide poor links to some projects being worked on.  However, I must confess that NJDOT is got this right.

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs17137.pdf

That's the link to the project bid award. 

Not only is it set in stone, but it's signed, sealed and delivered.

[J N Winkler]

It would be nice if the construction plans were out there where we could actually download them at no cost instead of paying BidX's $135/month fee.

[jeffandnicole]

It would be nice if the construction plans were out there where we could actually download them at no cost instead of paying BidX's $135/month fee.

Some plans are available, as NJ generally posts revisions and supplements without needing to go pay.  In this case, use this: https://www.bidx.com/nj/proposal?contid=17137&lettingid=17091401 , then look at the links on the right.  I can see there's as-built plans available.  I don't recall seeing any future designs posted in this one though, which are usually found in the Addenda.

[Alps]

I heard from a reliable source, that NJDOT will soon be signing I-295 to the portion of I-95 in NJ.  If so it should be interesting to see how they match up the two N-S Segments opposing each other either at US 1 in Lawrence, NJ or at the Scudders Falls Crossing. 
I doubt PennDOT will sign present I-95 SB as I-295 NB nor I-95 NB as I-295 SB.  If it were Virginia it would have no direction like both I-64 in Chesapeake I-295 near Richmond between I-95 and I-64.  However, once in a while NJDOT does have a few surprises.

project site for the renumbering - as has been discussed many times, I-295 will be E-W in PA and N-S in NJ.

Will there be any more unusual 3 digit route, in that whereas it was a long bypass that general paralleled I-95, beginning next year it will be a long parallel route with a partial beltway loop at the northern end?

Granted that with the I-195 connection it has been and will continue to be a bypass of I-95.

The only other part-beltway part-spur routes that come to mind are I-495 MA and I-476 PA, both of which don't do anything near the "candy cane" of I-295.

[Beltway]

Will there be any more unusual 3 digit route, in that whereas it was a long bypass that general paralleled I-95, beginning next year it will be a long parallel route with a partial beltway loop at the northern end?
Granted that with the I-195 connection it has been and will continue to be a bypass of I-95.

The only other part-beltway part-spur routes that come to mind are I-495 MA and I-476 PA, both of which don't do anything near the "candy cane" of I-295.

Perhaps they could have routed I-295 onto the I-195 connection and ended I-295 at the NJTP/I-95, and used I-695 for the rest of the loop around Trenton and to Bensalem.

[cpzilliacus]

The only other part-beltway part-spur routes that come to mind are I-495 MA and I-476 PA, both of which don't do anything near the "candy cane" of I-295.

I-294, with short sections of I-80 and I-94 (as the Tri-State Tollway) is a similar one around Chicago.

[J N Winkler]

Some plans are available, as NJ generally posts revisions and supplements without needing to go pay.  In this case, use this: https://www.bidx.com/nj/proposal?contid=17137&lettingid=17091401 , then look at the links on the right.  I can see there's as-built plans available.  I don't recall seeing any future designs posted in this one though, which are usually found in the Addenda.

Yup.  I visited the letting page before I posted, and actually I now have a script that pulls in all of the free documentation for NJDOT's BidX projects, so the same material was also sitting on an archive HD.

In this particular case, the as-built ZIPs contain sheet extracts (not complete plans sets) for past projects.  (Unlike NYSDOT, which usually posts the complete plans sets for as-builts, NJDOT is more parsimonious, though the multi-phase Wittpenn Bridge and Pulaski Skyway projects have been uploaded with complete plans sets for past projects and earlier phases of the current projects.)  Unlike the case with some other states (e.g., Connecticut), the proposal does not include sign panel detail sheets, and the addenda do not include plan sheets.

The actual plans set for DP 17137 itself, with details of new signs and message revisions to existing signs (if any), is a payable document through BidX, so I know of no other way to get hold of it short of making an OPRA request.

NJDOT put the actual contract plans online (not just old as-builts or for-information plans) in 2004-2005.  They never should have stopped doing so.

[Mergingtraffic]

I'm still waiting for the panels to fall off of here:

[theroadwayone]

Saw this via AARoads:
https://planetprinceton.com/2017/12/21/i-95-in-mercer-county-to-be-renamed-i-295-in-early-2018-several-exit-numbers-to-change/

[jp the roadgeek]

I'm still waiting for the panels to fall off of here:

Looked at you Flickr description, and I notice this is a northbound pic.  Using Philly as a control city NB on the NJTP at exit 6 is almost as bad as MassDOT's use of NYC as a control city on I-84 west on the Mass Pike eastbound.  I would say somewhere on the PA Turnpike would be better; either Valley Forge, Harrisburg, or both.  My future signage ideas would look something like this:

NORTHBOUND                                                         SOUTHBOUND

SOUTH     WEST     PA TPKE                                      SOUTH        WEST    PA TPKE
   95    TO  276       SHIELD                                          95    TO    276       SHIELD
     VALLEY FORGE                                                         PHILADELPHIA
     HARRISBURG                                                            HARRISBURG


Looking at the article.  Surprised the US 130 exit (unsigned exit 6A) doesn't get an I-95 exit number (3).  And will the connections from I-295 West to I-276 West and I-95 North have I-295 exit numbers (either 1 B-A or 0 B-A)?  I'll assume the exits to 95 South and 295 East from 276 East will be 356 or 356 A-B.  The US 13 exit between the interchange and the river also gets a new number (43).  Also could see the NJTP south ramp from 95 North getting an exit number (incidentally, Exit 6), when the NJTP goes AET.   

[jeffandnicole]

Surprised the US 130 exit (unsigned exit 6A) doesn't get an I-95 exit number (3).

This article mostly deals with NJDOT's contract issuance to replace their signs.  It goes a little further to explain what PennDOT will be changing their exit numbers to (eventually).   Since the NJ Tpk isn't either of those agencies, that wasn't part of the discussion.  Since it's currently exit 6A, it should simply be signed Exit 6A. 

Also, once in NJ, I-95 will continue to use the NJ Tpk's sequential numbering.  Thus, it wouldn't make sense, and could be awfully confusing, if US 130 was Exit 3, conflicting with the existing NJ Turnpike's Exit 3 with Rt. 168.

[J N Winkler]

I'm still waiting for the panels to fall off of here:

From the original construction plan sheets for NJTA project T869.120.101:

(Patch 1)  SOUTH

(Patch 2)  (I-95 shield) TO

(Patch 3)  Philadelphia

The patch on far right with the NJTA Type D arrow covers up an arrow design borrowed from the standard reverse-curve warning sign.  The sign is shown in the plans with the reverse-curve arrow instead of the Type D arrow but a note on the plans marks the reverse-curve arrow as "Type D arrow."  The sign was later fabricated with the reverse-curve arrow instead of the true Type D arrow, matching the illustration rather than the note.  This was queried in a thread on this forum dealing with the 8-9 widening and we were told there were reasons the actual Type D arrow was not used on this sign but that, owing to commercial confidentiality, they could not be disclosed in a venue as public as this forum.  I suspect the real story was reluctance to admit a goof somewhere along the chain from design to construction.

[bzakharin]

I'm still waiting for the panels to fall off of here:

It's happened several times before

[SignBridge]

Re: the destination for I-95 South at NJT Exit-6 Northbound. They have to show a control-city for I-95 South and though it's illogical in this direction,  Philadelphia is technically correct. Harrisburg or Valley Forge can't be used because they are for I-276 West and the destination for that route is already shown as Penn Turnpike. Harrisburg would be technically correct for I-276 West, but the engineers apparently felt that Penn Turnpike would be more useful to the public and there isn't enough space to post both on that sign. Two routes and two destinations are about as much as you can reasonably put on one sign.

[Beltway]

Re: the destination for I-95 South at NJT Exit-6 Northbound. They have to show a control-city for I-95 South and though it's illogical in this direction,  Philadelphia is technically correct. Harrisburg or Valley Forge can't be used because they are for I-276 West and the destination for that route is already shown as Penn Turnpike. Harrisburg would be technically correct for I-276 West, but the engineers apparently felt that Penn Turnpike would be more useful to the public and there isn't enough space to post both on that sign. Two routes and two destinations are about as much as you can reasonably put on one sign.

But is it actually I-276 on the NJTP PA Extension as that sign would indicate?  I thought that it did not have a route number; that I-276 only existed in PA, that it ends at the state border.

[jeffandnicole]

Technically, the NJ portion is I-95 unsigned.

[Beltway]

Technically, the NJ portion is I-95 unsigned.

So then it is informational only to have I-276 on that sign, and it also says "Penn Turnpike" which also is informational only as technically those routes don't start until the state border.

Conceptually to the motorist it make sense to treat it as the same road.

[SignBridge]

That minor issue can be solved by adding the word "TO" between the 95 and 276 shields. Makes it technically correct. 

[jp the roadgeek]

That minor issue can be solved by adding the word "TO" between the 95 and 276 shields. Makes it technically correct. 

1.  I-276 right now officially ends at the PA/NJ border.  After the interchange is completed, it will end at the I-95/I-295 junction

2.  I'm assuming there is a "TO" underneath the panel.  My idea was for future signage to include the PA Turnpike symbol instead of using it on the control city line.  That way you can free it up for 2 control cities.  I made a crude representation of what each could look like (NB on left, SB on right)



Next interesting thing is when PennDOT adds NYC as a control city on 95 North north of Center City

[bzakharin]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Florence as the destination for I-95 going Northbound? Either that or Levittown.

[storm2k]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Florence as the destination for I-95 going Northbound? Either that or Levittown.

Florence already exists on secondary signs that direct drivers to use Exit 6 to reach 130.

[bzakharin]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Florence as the destination for I-95 going Northbound? Either that or Levittown.

Florence already exists on secondary signs that direct drivers to use Exit 6 to reach 130.

I know, but it's a good candidate for the primary control city for 95 if we're going to change them

Moto G (5) Plus

[storm2k]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Florence as the destination for I-95 going Northbound? Either that or Levittown.

Florence already exists on secondary signs that direct drivers to use Exit 6 to reach 130.

I know, but it's a good candidate for the primary control city for 95 if we're going to change them

Moto G (5) Plus

I disagree. With a road like the Turnpike and I-95, you need to really only sign the "big" control cities, as this is what is most beneficial with the vast majority of drivers on these roads. For that reason, Philadelphia makes the most sense since that's where 95 SB goes directly, even if there was indirect access to Philadelphia from Exits 3 and 4.

[jp the roadgeek]

You always use the big control cities on major thoroughfares; which is why NYC is used on 95 in MD and RI despite there being other cities in between.  The major problem here is that the signage is not MUTCD compliant because it is using a highway as a control "city", so you only have one control city spot available.  Philadelphia is a no-brainer SB, but it may have to do northbound until the next signage replacement project allows for two control cities when the PATP is noted as a symbol instead. Then Harrisburg becomes a 2nd control city in both directions and Valley Forge can replace Philly northbound as the first.

[SignBridge]

jp is correct about using major cities for the destinations. In fact, the MUTCD specifies that on Interstates the legend should normally be route shield, compass direction, and next control city on the route. This is based on the idea that most drivers on the road are not familiar with the local area and the signing (on Interstates) should be geared to those drivers. Of course as we all know, signing problems are more complex than that simple philosophy and some exceptions are reasonable. Like using Penn Turnpike as a destination because it is well known.