I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[Beltway]

Not direct -freeway- access to I-95 north in New Jersey.  Other options involve 6 to 15 miles of extra routings on already busy freeways, and Roosevelt Blvd. is not a freeway.

I'm just pointing out that yes, there's direct access to Northeast Philly. If you want to locate individual properties in specific sections of the city and say they don't have freeway access, then you're welcome to do so.  But the fact is you can take I-95 to Exit 6 of the NJ Turnpike, cross over to the PA Turnpike, and exit at US 1.  Go one mile, and you're in Northeast Philly.

No direct *FREEWAY* access to I-95.  Freeway networks exist for a reason, and they have far more capacity than a surface road.

If you're at Northeast Philly airport, it will still be more direct to take US 1 to the PA Turnpike.  If you're at Torresdale Hospital, then 95 will be more direct once the interchange is open.  The two are only a mile or two apart in Northeast Philly; it all depends where your destination is located.

Nevertheless, the PA I-95 corridor CC/Northeast has by far the greatest concentration of businesses and industries.

And yes, because people like to volley back and forth, if anyone continues to say direct access thru the Northeast to Center City, yes, it will be more direct.  Will it be faster?  That's subject to debate, depending on traffic.  Will it be cheaper?  Absolutely not.  It will cost you about $2 more in tolls to go the new direct all-highway route than today's shortest all-direct highway route.

How do you figure that?  If you are referring to Roosevelt Blvd., I would not call that a 'highway', and you have to use a longer section of PA Turnpike to get to it than with the new I-95 connection.

[Jim]

If anyone's interested in seeing some pictures of signs and construction from a ride from New Jersey 31 onto (now) I-295 into Pennsylvania and down through the construction site for the new interchange, you can check out the first several pictures on the page below.  They're from August 14.

http://www.teresco.org/pics/florida-20180814-22/14/roads.html

[odditude]

it will never not strike me as odd to see "295 NORTH / Philadelphia" and "295 SOUTH / Princeton" in the same place.

[ixnay]

Yes, thanks to the PTC, PA finally has a Interstate x95 that is not only in the Keystone State but of the Commonwealth.  (As has been noted elsewhere on these boards, SB I-495 takes leave of SB I-95 just before entering DE, rendering that roadway in PA but not of it).

ixnay

[Roadsguy]

Is Trenton now signed as US 1's NB control city all the way from Street Road, or just from I-295?

[akotchi]

Is Trenton now signed as US 1's NB control city all the way from Street Road, or just from I-295?

To my knowledge, nothing south of I-295 has changed (except for the I-295 BGS).  Pull-throughs at Street Road and Bus. U.S. 1 still say Morrisville, as do U.S. 1 BGS on Street Road.  Can't speak for smaller destination signs at the other interchanges, like Route 213.

[J N Winkler]

Yea I understand what the keystone is and what the design is. I just think that not centering the text on the bottom portion makes the text look un-centered.

Centering the digits on the whole shield, rather than just the lower portion, expands the room that is available for them, and in practice allows more space padding to improve readability.  Most states that don't center digits vertically on their state route shields, like Minnesota, Maryland, Tennessee, and Colorado, have a "rectangle" somewhere in the design that serves as a well-defined message space for them, while others like Virginia and California would have to accept smaller message spaces if they tried to center digits vertically.

[Beltway]

Yes, thanks to the PTC, PA finally has a Interstate x95 that is not only in the Keystone State but of the Commonwealth.  (As has been noted elsewhere on these boards, SB I-495 takes leave of SB I-95 just before entering DE, rendering that roadway in PA but not of it).

There have been arguments either way on I-495, but I-295 most definitely now has a major presence in PA.

[Roadsguy]

Yes, thanks to the PTC, PA finally has a Interstate x95 that is not only in the Keystone State but of the Commonwealth.  (As has been noted elsewhere on these boards, SB I-495 takes leave of SB I-95 just before entering DE, rendering that roadway in PA but not of it).

There have been arguments either way on I-495, but I-295 most definitely now has a major presence in PA.

I don't know how AASHTO or the FHWA define I-495, but PennDOT considers it a ramp.

You could certainly argue that the ramp is signed as mainline I-495, but this is in the same way that the PA Turnpike Extension of the NJ Turnpike is kinda sorta signed as I-276 right now (signs that will say "South I-95, To West I-276" now say "West I-276").

[Beltway]

I don't know how AASHTO or the FHWA define I-495, but PennDOT considers it a ramp.
You could certainly argue that the ramp is signed as mainline I-495, but this is in the same way that the PA Turnpike Extension of the NJ Turnpike is kinda sorta signed as I-276 right now (signs that will say "South I-95, To West I-276" now say "West I-276").

The 2-lane southbound roadway does fully separate from I-95 in PA -- https://tinyurl.com/y8j85w2y

https://tinyurl.com/y7w6jdak

[theroadwayone]

Two more weeks, but who's counting?

[famartin]

Took these yesterday. Click on the little green button on the right for a slide show view. Sorry they aren't labelled yet.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pennsylvania_Turnpike/Interstate_95_Interchange_Project_on_September_9,_2018

[theroadwayone]

Took these yesterday. Click on the little green button on the right for a slide show view. Sorry they aren't labelled yet.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pennsylvania_Turnpike/Interstate_95_Interchange_Project_on_September_9,_2018

Hard to believe we're just about there after having to wait almost forever.

[billpa]

Took these yesterday. Click on the little green button on the right for a slide show view. Sorry they aren't labelled yet.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pennsylvania_Turnpike/Interstate_95_Interchange_Project_on_September_9,_2018

Should the yellow TOLL banner stretch over both the 276 and Pa Tpk Shields?

Pixel 2

[motorway]

Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.

Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!

[briantroutman]

^ I don't think you're alone there. Several people who submitted questions for this Thursday's road meet and Q&A session with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission registered the same objection. I hope that the project engineers provide some background on the process that led to the final arrangement.

Should the yellow TOLL banner stretch over both the 276 and Pa Tpk Shields?

For the sake of consistency with the recently unveiled assembly at the Harrisburg East Interchange, I'd say the answer is yes. But at the same time, I can see a counterargument: The Pennsylvania Turnpike is a road that almost everyone already knows is a toll road even without being told. An Interstate shield, on the other hand, implies that the road is free of tolls unless otherwise signified. That said, I think I'd prefer the TOLL banner centered over both shields as was done at Harrisburg East.

[famartin]

Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.

Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!

You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west

[jeffandnicole]

Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey.

This was by far the most controversial part of the project for many here. If you do a search on these forums, you'll find a nearly unanimous dislike for how the cardinal directions were chosen.

[Roadsguy]

^ I don't think you're alone there. Several people who submitted questions for this Thursday's road meet and Q&A session with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission registered the same objection. I hope that the project engineers provide some background on the process that led to the final arrangement.

Should the yellow TOLL banner stretch over both the 276 and Pa Tpk Shields?

For the sake of consistency with the recently unveiled assembly at the Harrisburg East Interchange, I'd say the answer is yes. But at the same time, I can see a counterargument: The Pennsylvania Turnpike is a road that almost everyone already knows is a toll road even without being told. An Interstate shield, on the other hand, implies that the road is free of tolls unless otherwise signified. That said, I think I'd prefer the TOLL banner centered over both shields as was done at Harrisburg East.

The one at Harrisburg East was put up by PennDOT, whereas the pull through/soon-to-be-exit sign at the new interchange is by the PTC. I haven't seen any other PTC signs with a yellow toll banner to compare it to. Even the I-376 extension was done early enough that PennDOT and the PTC don't seem to have quite figured out how to use those newfangled 2009 MUTCD features yet.

[DrSmith]

295 is a little tough because of the hook it forms in a relatively tight radius around Trenton.

In general I don't see a need to worry about having the signed direction match the current direction of the roadway. There are plenty of roads signed into the overall direction of travel, or best approximate for travel direction.

In Conn, there are Route 1 and I-95 that are all east-west signed as north-south. Route 15 is signed north-south even though it is east-west for a long distance.

Mass has Route 128, 495, and 28 as ones that are signed north-south despite east-west segments because it is in reference of the entire route going north-south. There's also I-290 that is signed east-west which goes both east-west and north-south.

So like 287 in NJ makes sense as north-south as it at least in NJ it starts south of NYC and goes to the north in an arc.

[bzakharin]

Thanks so much for sharing these photos! I don't get down there very often but have eagerly been awaiting the completion.

Also, I am probably alone here, but I think that the I-295 cardinal directions are misnamed. I think that I-295 should be east-west between the state line and US 1. Then it would be signed as north-south in Pennsylvania in the opposite register as south of Exit 67 in New Jersey. It would be similar in this way to beltways around other cities that change cardinal directions along their orbit. I understand that it's been done this way to decrease confusion, but it strikes me as off that the nearly due north-south stretch of I-295 in Pennsylvania is being labeled as east-west, while the pure east-west stretch of I-295 in New Jersey is being signed as north-south. What can I say, I'm a purist!

You're welcome! I totally agree about the cardinal directions, but NJDOT is notorious for not changing directions... 287 should have an east west section in NJ, and so should 440, but they don't.the only road I know of that does is 36, but even that is logged north south even tho part is signed east west

Wasn't the southern part of NJ 440 east-west not too long ago?

[famartin]

295 is a little tough because of the hook it forms in a relatively tight radius around Trenton.

In general I don't see a need to worry about having the signed direction match the current direction of the roadway. There are plenty of roads signed into the overall direction of travel, or best approximate for travel direction.

In Conn, there are Route 1 and I-95 that are all east-west signed as north-south. Route 15 is signed north-south even though it is east-west for a long distance.

Mass has Route 128, 495, and 28 as ones that are signed north-south despite east-west segments because it is in reference of the entire route going north-south. There's also I-290 that is signed east-west which goes both east-west and north-south.

So like 287 in NJ makes sense as north-south as it at least in NJ it starts south of NYC and goes to the north in an arc.

While I agree that there are many instances where it doesn't really matter, it does here since we now have a segment in one state which is signed completely differently from its direction...

[vdeane]

295 is a little tough because of the hook it forms in a relatively tight radius around Trenton.

In general I don't see a need to worry about having the signed direction match the current direction of the roadway. There are plenty of roads signed into the overall direction of travel, or best approximate for travel direction.

In Conn, there are Route 1 and I-95 that are all east-west signed as north-south. Route 15 is signed north-south even though it is east-west for a long distance.

Mass has Route 128, 495, and 28 as ones that are signed north-south despite east-west segments because it is in reference of the entire route going north-south. There's also I-290 that is signed east-west which goes both east-west and north-south.

So like 287 in NJ makes sense as north-south as it at least in NJ it starts south of NYC and goes to the north in an arc.

Except the PA portion of I-295 is in no way, shape, or form east-west.  In fact, it would be pretty hard to find a more perfect north-south orientation.  I could see the argument for NJ having I-295 north-south the whole way based on the orientation of the entire route if such didn't cause problems for PA.  Given that PA can't sign their section properly unless NJ compromises or the directions flip at the border, the logical solution would be for NJ to compromise on this.

[briantroutman]

The only possible explanation I can come up with is that NJDOT simply wouldn't entertain any solution that involved the road changing cardinal directions within their jurisdiction. Instead, they insisted that they simply extend existing I-295's "North"  designation right up around Trenton and down to the state line (even though the road is bound SW at that point), forcing PennDOT to sign its section of I-295 as E-W to avoid a direct North to South conflict at the state border.

I have no idea why NJDOT would force this (if they did...this is pure speculation on my part).

Regardless, this question is on the roster for Thursday's road meet, and I'm very much looking forward to the engineers' explanation of the circumstances that lead to this outcome.

[motorway]

The only possible explanation I can come up with is that NJDOT simply wouldn't entertain any solution that involved the road changing cardinal directions within their jurisdiction. Instead, they insisted that they simply extend existing I-295's "North"  designation right up around Trenton and down to the state line (even though the road is bound SW at that point), forcing PennDOT to sign its section of I-295 as E-W to avoid a direct North to South conflict at the state border.

I have no idea why NJDOT would force this (if they did...this is pure speculation on my part).

Regardless, this question is on the roster for Thursday's road meet, and I'm very much looking forward to the engineers' explanation of the circumstances that lead to this outcome.

Would love if you could post what information you can find out here so those of us who can't be there can have some insight into their decision-making process!