I-195, does it *REALLY* need to be extended???

[NE2]

I-87 did enter CT at one time when I-684 was signed as such.

when was this?  what was the complete routing of 87 at that time?  was it multiplexed with I-84 to get from the Thruway to the 684 alignment?

Yep. It was originally going to head north along the east side of the Hudson to Beacon, but was moved east to I-684 before going to its current alignment. www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19720871 http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-684_NY/

Per the page title www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19610841 should have I-84 and I-87 shields - is the wrong image being displayed?
Post Merge: September 15, 2012, 01:14:23 PM

I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ

???

[hbelkins]

Why don't they just renumber the whole thing I-295? Then there's no extra numbers in the mix, I-295 ends on I-95 at both ends, and I-295 won't just spontaneously turn into I-(6/8)95.

This would probably be a bit confusing since drivers travelling across the Delaware River would encounter I-295 twice, once on each side of the river.  Also, you'd need to have it change direction from north to south at the current I-95/I-295/US 1 interchange, which would be confusing.  People get lost in New Jersey enough as it is.

Doesn't seem to be a problem with any number of interstates intersecting the same interstate twice. See I-71 and I-75 with I-275, or I-75 and I-85 with I-285. Or even I-65 with two different I-265's on either side of the Ohio River, which don't even connect with one another.

[route_82]

I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ so that number is taken. 695 is available.

The decision you are all discussing was only a Conditional Approval.  The official application has yet to be submitted and approved by AASHTO which leads me to guess that the DOT higher ups haven't seen this plan and it will never come to fruition.

Don't be so sure, on all the videos and graphics featured on the website, I-195 is prominently displayed on the overhead signage or maps.

[agentsteel53]

Yep. It was originally going to head north along the east side of the Hudson to Beacon, but was moved east to I-684 before going to its current alignment. www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19720871 http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-684_NY/

I hadn't ever thought to notice that NY-22 was between 87 and 684!  therefore, I had thought this was a gantry to the west of 87.  I'd never thought to wonder why they wouldn't sign the Thruway with its own shield, instead figuring the gantry was missing only a "TO" sign.

(if I correctly identify where in Brewster, NY this is, then it doesn't need the "TO" because it is so close to the 84 and 684 on-ramps)

Per the page title www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NY19610841 should have I-84 and I-87 shields - is the wrong image being displayed?

you are correct.  about 1% of the shield gallery images are somehow garbled in the database; I just haven't had the time to correct them. 

what's even worse?  there are ~10000 images on the gallery.  I have at least 6000 more ready to go.

[Alex]

I-87 did enter CT at one time when I-684 was signed as such.

when was this?  what was the complete routing of 87 at that time?  was it multiplexed with I-84 to get from the Thruway to the 684 alignment?

It followed I-684 north from the Cross Westchester Expressway to an overlap with I-84 west to the NY Thruway. Many early 60s maps show this alignment.

[agentsteel53]

well, today I've learned that one thing rarer than a CONNECTICUT I-684 shield is a CONNECTICUT I-87.

[route_82]

Here are some more visuals to reinforce the concept PA & NJ have for extending I-195 onto old I-95.  Two are screengrabs from drive thru videos, the other is a map from the project website that shows the future convoluted route of I-195.





  --- WTF?!?

  --- They even have an available SR # for it.

  --- And an end of I-276 for good measure.

[YankeesFan]

complete BS extension. should be re-numbered.

[NE2]

This makes it look like I-95 is not a toll road, but leads to one. In reality, all traffic taking that ramp will have to pay.

[route_82]

complete BS extension. should be re-numbered.

I'm with you completely.

[route_82]

This makes it look like I-95 is not a toll road, but leads to one. In reality, all traffic taking that ramp will have to pay.

Technically the section of the PA Turnpike that I-95 is annexing will become "free" up until the NJ TPK barrier just past the US Route 130 interchange.  But you're right, it is a bit misleading.

[NE2]

Technically the section of the PA Turnpike that I-95 is annexing will become "free" up until the NJ TPK barrier just past the US Route 130 interchange.  But you're right, it is a bit misleading.

So there will be no toll on the PA Turnpike between I-95 and US 13? Never mind then - the sign is accurate and not misleading.

[route_82]

Technically the section of the PA Turnpike that I-95 is annexing will become "free" up until the NJ TPK barrier just past the US Route 130 interchange.  But you're right, it is a bit misleading.

So there will be no toll on the PA Turnpike between I-95 and US 13? Never mind then - the sign is accurate and not misleading.

Correct, the tolls are being removed from the US 13 exit.  There will only be a toll going I-95 south over the bridge.
The new PA TPK toll plaza will be moved west of the I-95 interchange.

[Henry]

I like the I-695 idea better. At least it'll keep I-195 from taking that pointless jog around Trenton.

I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ so that number is taken.

What is this I-895 you speak of? Are they still trying to build one somewhere? I know there had been plans to connect to I-95 north of downtown Philly, but that has since been cancelled.

[route_82]

I like the I-695 idea better. At least it'll keep I-195 from taking that pointless jog around Trenton.

I-895 is currently still legislated in NJ so that number is taken.

What is this I-895 you speak of? Are they still trying to build one somewhere? I know there had been plans to connect to I-95 north of downtown Philly, but that has since been cancelled.

I agree, I-895 may be technically still legislated... but it will NEVER get built between Bristol and Burlington.  And if on the off chance they still want to, they can just give it another number then.

Whether it is legislated or not, using that number won't suddenly confuse the public... it would just contradict decades old paperwork that will likely never see the light of day again anyways. Period.

The only way that I could go along with this ridiculous idea of extending I-195, is if they build a connection from the NJ TPK through Hamilton (NW) to the I-295/Route 1 interchange.  But that too will NEVER happen.

[Roadsguy]

Perhaps NJ never officially cancelled it, but PennDOT axed it and won't build it in their state. Or perhaps they secretly have a plan for a new 895, or it's a secret designation for something.

The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.

[route_82]

Perhaps NJ never officially cancelled it, but PennDOT axed it and won't build it in their state. Or perhaps they secretly have a plan for a new 895, or it's a secret designation for something.

The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.

Actually, I checked... and there is a PA 895: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_895

There is however, no PA 695... so I think we found ourselves a winner.

Probably also why they didn't chose I-295 as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_295

As far as naming the southern part of the turnpike I-695 or I-895, I like that also.  Much like the Kansas Turnpike.  But I-895 would probably be best.  I-695 works better for the old I-95 near Trenton.

[cpzilliacus]

The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.

Agreed.  The N.J. Turnpike mainline between Exits 1 and 6 ought to be signed as I-895. 

And the Turnpike and NJDOT ought to remediate the breezewood (missing interchange) between the Turnpike and I-76/N.J. 42.

[route_82]

The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.

Agreed.  The N.J. Turnpike mainline between Exits 1 and 6 ought to be signed as I-895. 

And the Turnpike and NJDOT ought to remediate the breezewood (missing interchange) between the Turnpike and I-76/N.J. 42.

I remember once seeing plans that alluded to this.  Direct connection ramps to 42 or 55.

[vdeane]

I don't like it when interstates end at each other like that.  It just looks sloppy.

But the directional stuff isn't strange with I-195 on the beltway.  Is every other interstate that's on a beltway considered strange now too?  Just call the entire thing east-west even if some segments run north-south.  There are many non-beltway roads that do that for long segments that go in another direction; heck, NY 11B is signed north-south* even though the entire road is east-west.

*Actually, there are signs for both, but all the ones of US 11 say north-south.

The problem with this is that beltways that are signed N-S and E-W are just that... Beltways! This arrangement would be I-195 coming off as a spur for 30+ miles, then suddenly forming an incomplete C-shaped loop around Trenton.

There are tons of interstates that end at each other all over the country in far more complicated ways than this.

The highway actually changes direction, so it makes sense at least.  At lot more than when I-395 in CT changes to I-290.

There are other roads that travel on beltways that fit the situation you described here.  Have you never heard of I-95 around DC or I-40 through Memphis, TN?  How about I-590 in Rochester, NY?  HALF of it is east-west!  I-278 in NYC is a north-south road everywhere except Staten Island and the Bronx, yet it's signed east-west.  I-180 in PA is similar too.  This extension is quite logical given that an east-west freeway through Trenton along the river is unlikely to happen ever.  The road is still east-west overall, so what's the problem?

Yes, there are other interstates that end at each other, and I don't like them either.  Just because some of these aberrations exist doesn't mean we should have more of them.

Lots of highways change direction for parts of their alignment.  I-95 is east-west from Baltimore to Philadelpha (you're location, if your profile is accurate) and again from NYC to Providence.  Should it be renumbered on these portions?  By your logic, the answer is yes.

[route_82]

I don't like it when interstates end at each other like that.  It just looks sloppy.

But the directional stuff isn't strange with I-195 on the beltway.  Is every other interstate that's on a beltway considered strange now too?  Just call the entire thing east-west even if some segments run north-south.  There are many non-beltway roads that do that for long segments that go in another direction; heck, NY 11B is signed north-south* even though the entire road is east-west.

*Actually, there are signs for both, but all the ones of US 11 say north-south.

The problem with this is that beltways that are signed N-S and E-W are just that... Beltways! This arrangement would be I-195 coming off as a spur for 30+ miles, then suddenly forming an incomplete C-shaped loop around Trenton.

There are tons of interstates that end at each other all over the country in far more complicated ways than this.

The highway actually changes direction, so it makes sense at least.  At lot more than when I-395 in CT changes to I-290.

There are other roads that travel on beltways that fit the situation you described here.  Have you never heard of I-95 around DC or I-40 through Memphis, TN?  How about I-590 in Rochester, NY?  HALF of it is east-west!  I-278 in NYC is a north-south road everywhere except Staten Island and the Bronx, yet it's signed east-west.  I-180 in PA is similar too.  This extension is quite logical given that an east-west freeway through Trenton along the river is unlikely to happen ever.  The road is still east-west overall, so what's the problem?

Yes, there are other interstates that end at each other, and I don't like them either.  Just because some of these aberrations exist doesn't mean we should have more of them.

Lots of highways change direction for parts of their alignment.  I-95 is east-west from Baltimore to Philadelpha (you're location, if your profile is accurate) and again from NYC to Providence.  Should it be renumbered on these portions?  By your logic, the answer is yes.

I had a feeling I would be countered with that.  However, I-95 does not go north-south, east-west, and then south-north.  There isn't a point on I-95 where you are actually "traveling" south when in fact you're heading north.  So no, the situation here is not the same.

[Beltway]

I agree ... many beltways loop around cities.  I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange.  The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.

[route_82]

I agree ... many beltways loop around cities.  I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange.  The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.

But with there being a PA 295 already, I doubt they'd want to go along with it.  There is no PA 695

[Alps]

The NJ Turnpike south of the end of secret 95 should be either 695 or 895 though, IMO.

Agreed.  The N.J. Turnpike mainline between Exits 1 and 6 ought to be signed as I-895. 

And the Turnpike and NJDOT ought to remediate the breezewood (missing interchange) between the Turnpike and I-76/N.J. 42.

I remember once seeing plans that alluded to this.  Direct connection ramps to 42 or 55.

I once developed plans to connect NJTP to 42 via an improved Interchange 3 through an upgraded Benigno Boulevard. In my earliest concept, which was rejected for a few reasons (valid, but can't go into it here), instead of curving up toward Creek Road as it does now, the upgraded road would have continued due west across 42 with an interchange there. My personal solution would be the following:

* Upgrade Interchange 3 bridge over NJ 168 to four lanes from two.
* Reconstruct ramp from 168 SB to Turnpike to be a far-side loop.
* Extend roadway west and north to Benigno Blvd.
* Merge with existing Benigno to form a five-lane boulevard with center turn lane.
* 42 NB-EB and WB-42 SB movements would be direct ramps without stopping regardless of interchange design.
* Benigno/Wildwood Aves. would be upgraded as a direct connector from Creek Rd. to the new Benigno opposite the 42 NB ramps.
* 42 would be five lanes from 295/42 interchange south to this new Exit 14.
* 42 would be six lanes from this interchange south to NJ 55, with both lanes dropped/added by 55.

This would solve every issue except "IT'S NOT FREEWAY TO FREEWAY!" But given the constraints of the area, especially environmentally, I can live with that.

[Beltway]

I agree ... many beltways loop around cities.  I-295 would work fine if the designation replaced I-95 between north of Trenton, around the west of Trenton, into PA, and to the planned I-95/I-276 interchange.  The current I-195 plan is convoluted, IMHO.

But with there being a PA 295 already, I doubt they'd want to go along with it.  There is no PA 695

York County, Pennsylvania, is about 100 miles from Bucks County.  Having I-295 in Bucks County should not be an issue.