I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[NJRoadfan]

The brown GSP gantries are to maintain the "park" in parkway .

[Alps]

Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.

Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate.  Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses.   The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes,  unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.

Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.

[Mr. Matté]

... They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses.   The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes,  unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.

Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.

If the longer lines are only related to truck traffic, why are such longer lines not part of the statewide / national MUTCD or at least researched or tested further by the FHWA?

[PHLBOS]

Bold emphasis added to below:

Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate.  Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses.   The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes,  unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.

To add, even with the recent sign replacement contracts along both roadways; the gantry style used for overhead-mounted sign panels along the GSP are still a different style than the ones used for the NJ Turnpike.

The brown GSP gantries are to maintain the "park" in parkway .

The newer gantries along the NJTP are also painted brown as well. 
I was referring to the style/design of the gantries.

Example of a fairly new NJTP style overhead gantry

Example of a fairly new GSP style overhead gantry

[jeffandnicole]

Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.

Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate.  Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses.   The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes,  unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.

Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.

To be honest, I've never heard of this reasoning either. The Turnpike has always had them, and their reason is that they're easier to see. Nothing about truck traffic. Nor do any other heavy traveled truck route have them.

[bluecountry]

Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?

[vdeane]

Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.

Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate.  Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses.   The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes,  unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.

Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.

To be honest, I've never heard of this reasoning either. The Turnpike has always had them, and their reason is that they're easier to see. Nothing about truck traffic. Nor do any other heavy traveled truck route have them.

It sounds like something that was created to allow for both roads to follow the same standards while still maintaining their distinctive features.

[famartin]

Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?

It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike. It does present an interesting comparison, though. In northern NJ, where the turnpike remains the main thru route with no real competition, it interchanges with all major roads. In southern NJ, where it is parallel to competing I-295, the turnpike interchanges with NO freeways... not I-295 and not NJ 42, even though they are obvious missing junctions.  When all these roads were built, interchanges were possible... nowadays, the cost, environmental impact and development make them (particularly Turnpike/42) highly unlikely.

[PHLBOS]

Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?

...It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.

Exits 7 & 7A says Hello.

That said, the likely reason why there was never a direct connection between the Turnpike Connector (present I-95) and I-295 was due to the latter corridor being situated too close to the Exit 6 interchange to place ramps for an I-295 interchange far enough away from said-Exit 6 interchange ramps an not take out nearly an entire development in the process.  Google Earth view of the area.   See the NW quadrant of Connector/I-295 crossing.

[famartin]

Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?

...It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.

Exits 7 & 7A says Hello.

That said, the likely reason why there was never a direct connection between the Turnpike Connector (present I-95) and I-295 was due to the latter corridor being situated too close to the Exit 6 interchange to place ramps for an I-295 interchange far enough away from said-Exit 6 interchange ramps an not take out nearly an entire development in the process.  Google Earth view of the area.   See the NW quadrant of Connector/I-295 crossing.

A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.  As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor.  In any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.

[famartin]

Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?

...It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.

Exits 7 & 7A says Hello.

That said, the likely reason why there was never a direct connection between the Turnpike Connector (present I-95) and I-295 was due to the latter corridor being situated too close to the Exit 6 interchange to place ramps for an I-295 interchange far enough away from said-Exit 6 interchange ramps an not take out nearly an entire development in the process.  Google Earth view of the area.   See the NW quadrant of Connector/I-295 crossing.

A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.  As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor.  In any case, zooming out a little, and comparing the size of US 206's interchange to the I-295/I-95 intersection, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.

[jeffandnicole]

Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?

It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.

How do you explain going North where there's a humongous sign where the priority is I-295, and the Turnpike is the 'Exit Only' option?

How do you explain going South the VMS timed sign which provides the time to Delaware via both the Turnpike and I-295?

How do you explain the signage after every toll plaza which directs motorists to I-295?

Back before Interchange 1 was widened, the Turnpike encouraged people to use 295 when there was heavy congestion, and often shut the Turnpike down at Interchange 4 to mandate people use 295.  Even now when there's road closures or heavy congestion due to accidents, the Turnpike still suggests using I-295 as an alternative.

The Turnpike has mentioned in the past the real reasons are what Phlbos said - There's a huge issue with interchange spacing.  Many people would love the Turnpike to Intersect with Rt. 42, but the cost and the wetlands are a huge burden to overcome.  And there's also many people against such an interchange as well!

A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.  As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor.  In any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.

Yay...a few minutes.  Woohoo. 

Farmland is still owned land.  This isn't much of a forested area - a grove of trees is more like it (and that's often owned land as well).  And there's less than 2 miles between the Interchange 6 ramp and the Interchange 6 toll plaza.  That is obscenely small to try to fit in an interchange - especially an interchange between 2 highways.

[PHLBOS]

A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.

No argument there, but using I-195 saves on tolls vs. using Exit 7 or 6... for southbound traffic.   

As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor.

The same can be said for Exit 6 as well.  Additionally, Exit 7 was overhauled during the early 90s so it could better handle the higher volume traffic that was using such, in addition to the truck services, restaurants & gas stations, as a means of getting to/from I-295.

In any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.

Nice graphic, but it looks like the distance between the two trumpet interchanges looks a little too short to handle the projected traffic.  The ramp to I-295 southbound looks a bit tight and the ramp to the PA-bound Connector appears to have a very tight merge with the road itself.  While such may be okay for a conventional road; it wouldn't fly for a high-speed highway.  A more gradual merge would indeed impact some of that development.

[jeffandnicole]

A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.

No argument there, but using I-195 saves on tolls vs. using Exit 7 or 6... for southbound traffic.   

On the other hand, the Turnpike in theory is losing money by not having an interchange for I-295 Northbound traffic to enter onto the NJ Turnpike northbound at this point as well.

[famartin]

Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?

It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.

How do you explain going North where there's a humongous sign where the priority is I-295, and the Turnpike is the 'Exit Only' option?

Huh?  Its the mainline/thru lanes.  It says "exit only" because technically its exiting I-295, so I'm sure there are MUTCD rules about how it has to be signed.

How do you explain going South the VMS timed sign which provides the time to Delaware via both the Turnpike and I-295?

Does it ever show it taking less time via I-295?  Maybe occasionally, but I have yet to see it. Most of the time, that sign serves to encourage people to stay on the turnpike.

How do you explain the signage after every toll plaza which directs motorists to I-295?

Key word: after the toll plaza. You don't see any signs ON the mainline telling people they can get to I-295 from each exit. Unlike, of course, on I-295, where every exit that gets you to the turnpike is signed as such.

Back before Interchange 1 was widened, the Turnpike encouraged people to use 295 when there was heavy congestion, and often shut the Turnpike down at Interchange 4 to mandate people use 295.  Even now when there's road closures or heavy congestion due to accidents, the Turnpike still suggests using I-295 as an alternative.

The Turnpike has mentioned in the past the real reasons are what Phlbos said - There's a huge issue with interchange spacing.  Many people would love the Turnpike to Intersect with Rt. 42, but the cost and the wetlands are a huge burden to overcome.  And there's also many people against such an interchange as well!

This applies ONLY to NJ 42's intersection. Not I-295's.

A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.  As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor.  In any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.

Yay...a few minutes.  Woohoo. 

Farmland is still owned land.  This isn't much of a forested area - a grove of trees is more like it (and that's often owned land as well).  And there's less than 2 miles between the Interchange 6 ramp and the Interchange 6 toll plaza.  That is obscenely small to try to fit in an interchange - especially an interchange between 2 highways.

No its not.  But whatever, you obviously have your heartfelt beliefs and I'm not going to change them (do you still work for the turnpike, btw?)

[famartin]

A direct I-295/I-95 connection would definitely save a few minutes from the I-195 link.

No argument there, but using I-195 saves on tolls vs. using Exit 7 or 6... for southbound traffic.   

As for US 206, that was an interchange built BEFORE I-295, so it wasn't a factor.

The same can be said for Exit 6 as well.  Additionally, Exit 7 was overhauled during the early 90s so it could better handle the higher volume traffic that was using such, in addition to the truck services, restaurants & gas stations, as a means of getting to/from I-295.

Exit 6 was a long range highway heading to the PA Turnpike. The US 130 interchange that was built at the time was more of an afterthought (in fact, I seem to recall it wasn't even fully-directional? Or am I misremembering?).  So also, Exit 6 doesn't apply here.

In any case, zooming out a little, you can see there's plenty of farmland and forest to place an interchange, there would be no need to take out the development.

Nice graphic, but it looks like the distance between the two trumpet interchanges looks a little too short to handle the projected traffic.  The ramp to I-295 southbound looks a bit tight and the ramp to the PA-bound Connector appears to have a very tight merge with the road itself.  While such may be okay for a conventional road; it wouldn't fly for a high-speed highway.  A more gradual merge would indeed impact some of that development.

A high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike...  As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mansfield,+NJ/@40.0944497,-74.7634005,864m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c144b75eed5b37:0x893151554b174153!8m2!3d40.0799767!4d-74.7183641  Yes they might have to put up sound barriers or something, but the buffer between the houses and the highway presently seems quite wide, more than enough for an extended merge lane.

[storm2k]

Bold emphasis added to below:

Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate.  Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses.   The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes,  unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.

To add, even with the recent sign replacement contracts along both roadways; the gantry style used for overhead-mounted sign panels along the GSP are still a different style than the ones used for the NJ Turnpike.

The brown GSP gantries are to maintain the "park" in parkway .

The newer gantries along the NJTP are also painted brown as well. 
I was referring to the style/design of the gantries.

Example of a fairly new NJTP style overhead gantry

Example of a fairly new GSP style overhead gantry

Actually, that GSP gantry is more than 25 years old, just got a new sign. But it proves the point of why the newer ones were designed this way. They've been using that oversized pre-rusted box gantry design since the mid 70s. The only parts that didn't have it were the original Rt 4 Parkway section that used to be maintained by NJDOT, since NJDOT installed the standard triangular gantries with the NRBC signs in 1980.

[PHLBOS]

The US 130 interchange that was built at the time was more of an afterthought (in fact, I seem to recall it wasn't even fully-directional? Or am I misremembering?).  So also, Exit 6 doesn't apply here.

The US 130 interchange w/the Connector became a full-directional interchange during the late 90s.  Prior to that, it was a partial interchange; east/NJ-bound exit, west/PA-bound entrance.  IIRC, the original mainline toll plaza was located just west of the old interchange.  Such was relocated to its current location when the interchange was reconfigured & expanded.  Why such wasn't built like it is today in the first place is not fully known.

A high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike...  As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...

Apples & oranges comparison because Exit 10 not only connects with I-287/NJ 440, it also connects w/CR 514/Woodbridge Ave.  Also note that the ramps from the toll plaza to I-287 & NJ 400 are a lot longer in length than your earlier Connector/I-295 graphic; as well as the merges with the mainline being more gradual.

Another thing to consider is there is a small creek (listed as Crafts Creek on Google Maps).  Your interchange plan is literally sits on top of it.  Such would require that be relocated.  While it may not seem like much; it's an additional matter for the environmental permitting.

Example of a fairly new GSP style overhead gantry

Actually, that GSP gantry is more than 25 years old, just got a new sign. But it proves the point of why the newer ones were designed this way. They've been using that oversized pre-rusted box gantry design since the mid 70s.

The earlier point that triggered the above-comparison is that despite the two highways being under the same agency control for over 15 years; certain specifications, like sign gantries, haven't changed.  If anything the NJTP gantries have since adopted painting their newer gantries brown.

[jeffandnicole]

A high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike...  As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mansfield,+NJ/@40.0944497,-74.7634005,864m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c144b75eed5b37:0x893151554b174153!8m2!3d40.0799767!4d-74.7183641  Yes they might have to put up sound barriers or something, but the buffer between the houses and the highway presently seems quite wide, more than enough for an extended merge lane.

Comparing the 287 interchange is also comparing different eras.  No different than trying to claim a 14' overpass clearance can be built today because they exist from 50 years ago.  No doubt the 287 interchange built today would be vastly different than what was built decades ago.

Also I would think the Turnpike will start getting out of the trumpet-style interchange designs when they eventually go cashless (no timeline of that though, and no recent discussions as far as I'm aware).

[famartin]

The US 130 interchange that was built at the time was more of an afterthought (in fact, I seem to recall it wasn't even fully-directional? Or am I misremembering?).  So also, Exit 6 doesn't apply here.

The US 130 interchange w/the Connector became a full-directional interchange during the late 90s.  Prior to that, it was a partial interchange; east/NJ-bound exit, west/PA-bound entrance.  IIRC, the original mainline toll plaza was located just west of the old interchange.  Such was relocated to its current location when the interchange was reconfigured & expanded.  Why such wasn't built like it is today in the first place is not fully known.

A high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike...  As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...

Apples & oranges comparison because Exit 10 not only connects with I-287/NJ 440, it also connects w/CR 514/Woodbridge Ave.  Also note that the ramps from the toll plaza to I-287 & NJ 400 are a lot longer in length than your earlier Connector/I-295 graphic; as well as the merges with the mainline being more gradual.

Another thing to consider is there is a small creek (listed as Crafts Creek on Google Maps).  Your interchange plan is literally sits on top of it.  Such would require that be relocated.  While it may not seem like much; it's an additional matter for the environmental permitting.

Apples to apples then: I-195.

Yes, that creek could be an environmental issue potentially, though they could do mitigation. I'm only saying, if there was a real need and desire, they could easily do it. Neither exists.

[storm2k]

The US 130 interchange that was built at the time was more of an afterthought (in fact, I seem to recall it wasn't even fully-directional? Or am I misremembering?).  So also, Exit 6 doesn't apply here.

The US 130 interchange w/the Connector became a full-directional interchange during the late 90s.  Prior to that, it was a partial interchange; east/NJ-bound exit, west/PA-bound entrance.  IIRC, the original mainline toll plaza was located just west of the old interchange.  Such was relocated to its current location when the interchange was reconfigured & expanded.  Why such wasn't built like it is today in the first place is not fully known.

A high-speed interchange isn't required here, just look at I-287 and the turnpike...  As far as a more gradual merge, there seems to be enough space to me...

Apples & oranges comparison because Exit 10 not only connects with I-287/NJ 440, it also connects w/CR 514/Woodbridge Ave.  Also note that the ramps from the toll plaza to I-287 & NJ 400 are a lot longer in length than your earlier Connector/I-295 graphic; as well as the merges with the mainline being more gradual.

Another thing to consider is there is a small creek (listed as Crafts Creek on Google Maps).  Your interchange plan is literally sits on top of it.  Such would require that be relocated.  While it may not seem like much; it's an additional matter for the environmental permitting.

Example of a fairly new GSP style overhead gantry

Actually, that GSP gantry is more than 25 years old, just got a new sign. But it proves the point of why the newer ones were designed this way. They've been using that oversized pre-rusted box gantry design since the mid 70s.

The earlier point that triggered the above-comparison is that despite the two highways being under the same agency control for over 15 years; certain specifications, like sign gantries, haven't changed.  If anything the NJTP gantries have since adopted painting their newer gantries brown.

The Turnpike was starting to use pre-rusted gantries starting in the mid to late 1990s. For example, when they replaced the signage on northern stretch past 18E/W around 1999 or 2000, those were all pre-rusted gantries. The bigger indicator of uniformity is honestly that the Turnpike Authority did away with the "MUTCD-lite" Parkway signage that it was known for for so many years and replaced it with the mostly MUTCD compliant signage that more or less matches the specs for the signage used on the northern Turnpike replacements. I'm not entirely sure why they didn't adopt one gantry standard for sign replacements on the Parkway, but here we are.

[bluecountry]

Any reason why I-295 won't intersect I-95 when it crosses on the former I-276 line?

...It would encourage too much traffic to jump onto I-295 to shunpike.

Exits 7 & 7A says Hello.

That said, the likely reason why there was never a direct connection between the Turnpike Connector (present I-95) and I-295 was due to the latter corridor being situated too close to the Exit 6 interchange to place ramps for an I-295 interchange far enough away from said-Exit 6 interchange ramps an not take out nearly an entire development in the process.  Google Earth view of the area.   See the NW quadrant of Connector/I-295 crossing.

Exactly.  It makes NO sense to not have a spur route intersect the route it spurs from.
This would help traffic patterns from getting people off exit 7 and 7A (and in this way actually increase toll revenue).

Further, it definitely could be done, there is plently of space, we are talking farmland, not an urban center.

[odditude]

Further, it definitely could be done, there is plently of space, we are talking farmland, not an urban center.

er, it's still someone's livelihood.

[famartin]

Further, it definitely could be done, there is plently of space, we are talking farmland, not an urban center.

er, it's still someone's livelihood.

That's rarely stopped any highway department in the past... emminent domain, market value, etc.

What is much more likely to be stopping it is an evaluation of the cost versus benefits.

[Alps]

Why the heck aren't they putting control cities on these signs already? They started doing it with the GSP onramps, but not the Turnpike.

Even though they've been under one agency for over 15 years , it's amazing how they've managed to keep their identities separate.  Examples include GSP not using VSLSs, although the recently installed VMS gantries were made to use them should they wish. They've kept the standard skip line markings, not the skip-lines-on-steroids that the Turnpike uses.   The NJ Turnpike has only recently started to use dot lines to delineate accel/decal lanes,  unlike the GSP which was the only agency/department in the state to use them for decades prior to anyone else.

Skip lines on the Tpk are for trucks, which the Pkwy doesn't get in any appreciable number. There similarly isn't a perceived need to manage speeds dynamically on the Pkwy, most likely because of the lack of trucks. The agencies are getting closer and closer together.

To be honest, I've never heard of this reasoning either. The Turnpike has always had them, and their reason is that they're easier to see. Nothing about truck traffic. Nor do any other heavy traveled truck route have them.

It sounds like something that was created to allow for both roads to follow the same standards while still maintaining their distinctive features.

No, it was the reasoning before the agencies ever merged. The visibility reason was specifically because of trucks.