I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[famartin]

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.

I would be mildly surprised if they admitted the reason was because NJDOT forced their hand, whether they did or not. (I suspect they did, though)

[theroadwayone]

I was thinking of what I said several posts back in the thread of the PA Turnpike guide signs when motorists enter the turnpike; the ones that show exits from the next exit to the end of the turnpike ("Exits X-359" EB; "Exits X-2" WB.) They didn't change them to "Exits X-32 (the milepost for the Warrendale toll plaza)" WB when they made Gateway one-way and removed the tolls on those exits; I see no reason why they'd do anything different here.

[SignBridge]

What's ironic about this whole matter is that on the German Autobahns they don't even use cardinal directions. They list multiple city names and route numbers and let you figure out for yourself which way you're going. I don't necessarily agree with that system, but if we did that in the U.S. it would eliminate this problem. LOL

[briantroutman]

^ I see what you're saying, but I don't think that it would necessarily result in a particularly elegant or intuitive solution in this instance. From the perspective of someone heading NB on I-95 out of Philadelphia and approaching this interchange, they'd see, what: "I-295 - Trenton - Cherry Hill - Wilmington" ? It seems a little problematic to me because the most logical route to two out of three of those destinations would be to either make a U-turn or continue on I-95 North–essentially the opposite of what the control cities on the sign are suggesting that the motorist do.

[SignBridge]

You're right Brian, but those kinds of issues re: misleading control cities sometimes happen even with the use of cardinal directions.

[Alps]

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

Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).

I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)

[artmalk]

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

Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).

I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)

NJ 208 is diagonal.  It is signed as North- South but should be East-West.  If you are coming North on 287 it is weird that you go on 208 South, especially since if you take it all the way you get to NJ 4 East and the GW Bridge.

SM-G960U

[akotchi]

I was thinking of what I said several posts back in the thread of the PA Turnpike guide signs when motorists enter the turnpike; the ones that show exits from the next exit to the end of the turnpike ("Exits X-359" EB; "Exits X-2" WB.) They didn't change them to "Exits X-32 (the milepost for the Warrendale toll plaza)" WB when they made Gateway one-way and removed the tolls on those exits; I see no reason why they'd do anything different here.

In this case, Exits 358 and 359 are being "removed" -- the former renamed I-95 Exit 42.  So the east end should be changed, even if the west end is not.

[Alps]

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

Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).

I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)

NJ 208 is diagonal.  It is signed as North- South but should be East-West.  If you are coming North on 287 it is weird that you go on 208 South, especially since if you take it all the way you get to NJ 4 East and the GW Bridge.

208 has always been signed north-south, so it is not in my list. NJ has a lot of diagonal routes, particularly in the north. That's getting off topic - my point was related to why I think I-295 wasn't signed with a change.

[RoadWarrior56]

One question/observation that I have had that is not necessarily related to the long-overdue completion of the new I-95 interchange.  I am a bit surprised that I-95 is only a four-lane freeway as it is still close to Philadelphia.  I would think it would be at least 6 lanes.  Does the traffic not warrant a wider freeway in this area, or is the roadway just under-built for the traffic demand?  I wonder if there will be a noticeable increase in traffic on I-95 when the connection to the turnpike finally opens this fall.  BTW, living in the Atlanta area, I don't claim to know much about Philadelphia, only that I avoided it the only time I drove through that area.

[jeffandnicole]

One question/observation that I have had that is not necessarily related to the long-overdue completion of the new I-95 interchange.  I am a bit surprised that I-95 is only a four-lane freeway as it is still close to Philadelphia.  I would think it would be at least 6 lanes.  Does the traffic not warrant a wider freeway in this area, or is the roadway just under-built for the traffic demand?  I wonder if there will be a noticeable increase in traffic on I-95 when the connection to the turnpike finally opens this fall.  BTW, living in the Atlanta area, I don't claim to know much about Philadelphia, only that I avoided it the only time I drove through that area.

Below the PA Turnpike I-95 was mostly 3 lanes wide in each direction already.  There was a very small stretch of 2 lane highway (between 413 and the Turnpike) which is being widened to 3 lanes.  Otherwise, the 2 lane sections you see are all north of the PA Turnpike/95 connection and aren't affected by the current project.

Traffic does not warrant it to be 3 lanes north of the Turnpike.  For the most part, traffic free-flows in this area.  As you get closer to NJ, the former I-95 which is now I-295 will be widened for a few miles near the PA/NJ border, but that's due to traffic demands of traffic heading north into NJ, not south towards Philly!

Do I think traffic will increase after the connection is open?  Yes, for those that exclusively are following the I-95 signage.  There's already projects going on to repair the roadway and provide some slight widening in a few areas, but for the most part if it's 3 lanes wide now, it'll be 3 lanes wide for several decades in the future.  The traffic that isn't going towards Philly will still be able to remain on the NJ Turnpike, bypassing Philly.

[Flyer78]

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

For argument sake: One could consider the Toll banner is centered over the cardinal direction, Interstate shield, and Turnpike shield...

[motorway]

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

Whatever the case, it brings me a probably irrational level of joy to see the new signs in Highway Gothic rather than Clearview, particularly as Pennsylvania was at the vanguard of that unfortunate trend. I'm a scientist and so should be attracted to the rational design of Clearview, but just found it so aesthetically unappealing. Plus, I don't know why, but somehow the signs always looked sloppier/less polished generally with Clearview -- more often issues with misalignment of the text, the copy often seemed disproportionately large relative to the shields, and just overall had kind of a slapped-together appearance. Anyway, I know I'm going off topic here, sorry...

[PHLBOS]

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 this thread, you'll find a nearly unanimous dislike for how the cardinal directions were chosen.

FTFY.  Not only that, one would find an alternative solution of redesignating the stretch between the PA Turnpike & US 1/Exit 67 as a separate route (I-695).  Such would've kept the PA stretch marked as north-south, had the NJ stretch to I-295/US 1 marked as east-west and would've kept the interchange/mile marker numbers (1-8) as they were.  Most locals were already used to the highway changing numbers at the US 1 interchange so the change from I-95 South to I-695 West would no be as traumatic as one would think. 

I actually submitted such a suggestion earlier this year to the contact on the interchange project (where I basically received a "too late" reply) but I don't know whether such was ever shared/contemplated w/the PTC.  My guess would be either "No." or very little due to the redesignations aren't in PTC's network.

Whatever the case, it brings me a probably irrational level of joy to see the new signs in Highway Gothic rather than Clearview, particularly as Pennsylvania was at the vanguard of that unfortunate trend. I'm a scientist and so should be attracted to the rational design of Clearview, but just found it so aesthetically unappealing. Plus, I don't know why, but somehow the signs always looked sloppier/less polished generally with Clearview -- more often issues with misalignment of the text, the copy often seemed disproportionately large relative to the shields, and just overall had kind of a slapped-together appearance. Anyway, I know I'm going off topic here, sorry...

While Clearview certainly contributed to the miss-mash of text heights on many signs (and not just in PA); some states that since went back to Highway Gothic still carried over the overtly-large text heights (see the new post-Clearview BGS' along I-95 in northern Delaware for examples of such).

[ekt8750]

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 this thread, you'll find a nearly unanimous dislike for how the cardinal directions were chosen.

FTFY.  Not only that, one would find an alternative solution of redesignating the stretch between the PA Turnpike & US 1/Exit 67 as a separate route (I-695).  Such would've kept the PA stretch marked as north-south, had the NJ stretch to I-295/US 1 marked as east-west and would've kept the interchange/mile marker numbers (1-8) as they were.  Most locals were already used to the highway changing numbers at the US 1 interchange so the change from I-95 South to I-695 West would no be as traumatic as one would think. 

I actually submitted such a suggestion earlier this year to the contact on the interchange project (where I basically received a "too late" reply) but I don't know whether such was ever shared/contemplated w/the PTC.  My guess would be either "No." or very little due to the redesignations aren't in PTC's network.

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

That said if they're really hell bent on using 295 throughout the entire freeway then they should simply abandon the cardinal directions after Exit 60. I know this isn't a full beltway but the Inner Loop/Outer Loop designations would work just fine here.

[storm2k]

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

Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).

I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)

This sign still shows it as 440 East. NJDOT replacement in kind done in 2010 (around when they changed out a lot of the signs along the southern stretch of 440). Extra confusing since the NJTA signage that precedes it shows it "correctly" as 440NB.

[PHLBOS]

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

Actually, since the highway is essentially a loop or bypass with respect to Trenton; an even-number prefix is warranted (the even numbered 3di must terminate at its parent at both ends notion is not gospel).  Odd 3dis are typically issued for spur routes.  Since neither NJ nor PA used 695 elsewhere (original plans for separate I-695s in both NJ & PA died decades ago); that number is available & IMHO would've been the most-fitting.

[famartin]

It's the same road, another number is not necessary. Much easier and less confusing to change directions. 295 is a beltway, nothing wrong with having it turn. Having another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.

[PHLBOS]

Having another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.

You are aware that for many decades, the western portion of that highway was designated (& until very recently signed) as I-95? 

Heck, 12 years after the Somerset Freeway portion of I-95 was cancelled; the I-95/295 handoff point was moved roughly 4 miles to the east (from where the Somerset Freeway was to connect to the US 1/Exit 67 interchange) thereby creating a 95 South/295 South interchange ramp scenario at the US 1 interchange.  Although odd, I do not believe that anyone complained about one side of that interchange being I-95 and the other side being I-295.

Long story short, had the I-695 designation been selected for that former-piece of I-95; the location of the I-295/695 handoff point would not have changed at all.  The fore-mentioned 95 South/295 South interchange ramp scenario at US 1 that's been there for 24 years would've become 695 West/295 South instead.  The mile markers & interchange numbers along the former I-95 stretch in NJ wouldn't have needed to be changed.  It would've been the proverbial path of least resistance scenario compared to what was actually done.

[famartin]

Having another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.

You are aware that for many decades, the western portion of that highway was designated (& until very recently signed) as I-95?

No, I had no idea. I also definitely had nothing to do with this webpage which was created many years ago.
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html

[Alps]

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

Roads that have ever changed directions in NJ ("NJSHR" = pre-1953 designations):
* The original NJSHR 3 may have been signed north-south, at least from Paterson up to NY (if signed at all on 511)
* NJSHR 4 was mostly north-south, but the part that remains as NJ 4 today was east-west.
* NJ 7 still does, although the east-west signed portion is now mileposted north-south.
* NJ 18 was originally east-west and later changed to north-south, but I don't believe ever inflected between the two.
* NJSHR 29 may have changed directions - it followed 29, 179, 202, 22 into Newark. It's plausible but unlikely that the part signed with US 22 would have also been north-south - most likely to have been east-west.
* NJ 36 originally was signed east-west on both the top and bottom legs of the "C". More recently, the northern leg was converted to entirely north-south, but the southern leg remains east-west.
* NJ 440's southern segment was signed east-west until the 90s if not early 00s (and NJ 184 still is).

I agree that I-295 and I-287 should both bend, but NJDOT has been steadily eliminating that until only 7 and 36 remain. (And 7 may be disappearing.) So I doubt they're going to introduce a new one, and that may have factored into the decision. (In fact, I believe that was cited - an east-west route must increase from west to east, but I-295 clearly increases from south to north.)

This sign still shows it as 440 East. NJDOT replacement in kind done in 2010 (around when they changed out a lot of the signs along the southern stretch of 440). Extra confusing since the NJTA signage that precedes it shows it "correctly" as 440NB.

*NJTA, not NJDOT, for those ramps I believe.

[bzakharin]

It's the same road, another number is not necessary. Much easier and less confusing to change directions. 295 is a beltway, nothing wrong with having it turn. Having another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.

You mean like how it turns into 440 at the Turnpike?

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.

[famartin]

It's the same road, another number is not necessary. Much easier and less confusing to change directions. 295 is a beltway, nothing wrong with having it turn. Having another number for that section of 295 makes about as much sense as giving the section of 287 south of 78 another number.

You mean like how it turns into 440 at the Turnpike?

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.

Regarding 287/440, its not the worst idea, though then you'd have to sign it east/west from 278 to 78.

That I-195 plan was dumb IMHO... It would act partly as a beltway and not be an even 3DI, not to mention the route was just wacky.

Here's a neat idea... after the 95/276 interchange is complete, extend I-295 westward along the PA Turnpike and then south along the Blue Route.  Then it would be an almost complete beltway.

[PHLBOS]

I also definitely had nothing to do with this webpage which was created many years ago.
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html

Then you, of all people, should know that highways sometimes do change numbers when going through interchanges.  In addition to the fore-mentioned I-287/NJ 440 example there's:
I-76/NJ 42
I-195/NJ 29
I-495/MA 25 (originally, this handoff was to occur at the I-95/495 interchange in Mansfield)
I-195/MD 166
I-264/I-664 in VA
There's probably some others but you get the idea.

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.

Two things:
1.  The above-quote is from ekt8750 (not me).

Edit/modification shown below in blue italics
2.  The I-195 extension would've forced might trigger an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange down the road; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).

Here's a neat idea... after the 95/276 interchange is complete, extend I-295 westward along the PA Turnpike and then south along the Blue Route.  Then it would be an almost complete beltway.

Not a bad idea per say, but such would only work if the remaining additional ramps at the Delaware Expressway/PA Turnpike interchange were actually built.  Something tells me that the ramps to/from I-276 west of the interchange to I-295 will likely be the last ones built because one does have an-all-highway routing for those two movements between I-276 & I-295 via US 1.

[famartin]

I also definitely had nothing to do with this webpage which was created many years ago.
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html

Then you, of all people, should know that highways sometimes do change numbers when going through interchanges.  In addition to the fore-mentioned I-287/NJ 440 example there's:
I-76/NJ 42
I-195/NJ 29
I-495/MA 25 (originally, this handoff was to occur at the I-95/495 interchange in Mansfield)
I-195/MD 166
I-264/I-664 in VA
There's probably some others but you get the idea.

I get the idea, but that doesn't mean most of them make sense. The I-76/42 one particularly makes no sense, they should've just grandfathered 42 into the Interstate system along with the ACE (though I realize the ACE is actually a little younger than that).

NJ 29/I-195 has to happen that way since NJ 29 downgrades.  If they had built it to full freeway standards from I-95 to I-295 as had once been imagined, or at least straight to US 1, then they could've extended I-195 further, but it would still have to end somewhere.

I can't say I know much about two more of those, but the I-264/I-664 one also makes no sense to me currently (I think it made sense once upon a time, but I don't recall the details).

Actually if we're following the numbering rules, the Bristol to Princeton leg as an odd-numbered x95. I believe 395 was one of the original proposals early on before 295 was eventually settled on.

For a while it was going to be an extension of I-195. Presumably it would be signed East-West in NJ and North-South in PA. However, the entirety of the current 195 would have needed to get new exit numbers.

Two things:
1.  The above-quote is from ekt8750 (not me).

2.  The I-195 extension would've forced an unnecessary redesign/modification of the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange; especially to the would-be-through I-195 movements being single-lane ramps (through I-195 East would use the current Exit 60A cloverleaf ramp).

Here's a neat idea... after the 95/276 interchange is complete, extend I-295 westward along the PA Turnpike and then south along the Blue Route.  Then it would be an almost complete beltway.

Not a bad idea per say, but such would only work if the remaining additional ramps at the Delaware Expressway/PA Turnpike interchange were actually built.  Something tells me that the ramps to/from I-276 west of the interchange to I-295 will likely be the last ones built because one does have an-all-highway routing for those two movements between I-276 & I-295 via US 1.

Fair point.  I would hope the 95 S to 295 E/295 W to 95 N ramps get built sooner, but obviously, I'm not sure the PTC really cares one way or the other when the rest gets done.  They definitely didn't care about getting even this much done, considering its taken 36 years.