50 years of I-95 in Massachusetts
John F. Carr
A writer reflects on the 50th anniversary of the start of
construction on I-95 through Attleboro and North Attleborough,
Massachusetts.
<http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/11/29/columns/6500994.txt>
"Instead of self-sustaining industrial towns, we became suburbs of
Boston and Providence, bedroom communities instead of factory towns."
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Paul D. DeRocco
Attleboro got off easy. Remember the furor over the intention to build I-95
through Roxbury? And how about the north side of Boston? The aborted effort
to bring I-95 through the city left one of the best examples of a road
construction scar I've seen:
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
Jeffrey Kaplan
> Attleboro got off easy. Remember the furor over the intention to build I-95
> through Roxbury? And how about the north side of Boston? The aborted effort
Part of the line cleared for that has since been used by the MBTA for
the Orange Line.
> to bring I-95 through the city left one of the best examples of a road
> construction scar I've seen:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yksz7oq
The URL is broken. Reconstructing it:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&ll=42.431122,-71.004853&spn=0.017675,0.023389&t=h&z=15
What am I looking at? I see the Rt 1/Rt 60 interchange and marshland.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the
state of facts and evidence." John Adams, 1770
Julian
northeast, ending up parallel to route 107. It's what would have been
I-95, but it was never built and there is no road there.
Julian
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:19:50 +0000, Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org>
wrote:
Michael G. Koerner
> Previously on ne.transportation, Paul D. DeRocco said:
>
>> Attleboro got off easy. Remember the furor over the intention to build I-95
>> through Roxbury? And how about the north side of Boston? The aborted effort
>
> Part of the line cleared for that has since been used by the MBTA for
> the Orange Line.
>
>> to bring I-95 through the city left one of the best examples of a road
>> construction scar I've seen:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yksz7oq
>
> The URL is broken. Reconstructing it:
> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&ll=42.431122,-71.004853&spn=0.017675,0.023389&t=h&z=15
>
> What am I looking at? I see the Rt 1/Rt 60 interchange and marshland.
See that grade going off to the northeast? That was to be I-95. It was then
to follow US 1 from there across the Tobin Bridge onto the Central Artery (now
the Big Dig corridor).
Boston is one of three places where I-95 was never completed as originally
planned, the others being through central New Jersey and through Washington, DC.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
David Chesler
> And how about the north side of Boston? The aborted effort
> to bring I-95 through the city left one of the best examples of a road
> construction scar I've seen:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yksz7oq
It's obvious it was supposed to be a road never became something else,
but I-95 as the Cross-Bronx Expressway is certainly a worse (more
damaging) scar, and the Southwest Expressway, even if it now holds mass
transit, destroyed more than the coastline of a marsh. The ramps to
nowhere on the upper and lower deck of I-93 are fairly obvious scars too.
The massive stack west of Hartford is a dramatic example from the
driver's eyes of a road that was never quite built.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
New York's home, but it ain't mine no more
Kenny McCormack
Michael G. Koerner <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
>Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
>> Previously on ne.transportation, Paul D. DeRocco said:
>>
>>> Attleboro got off easy. Remember the furor over the intention to build I-95
>>> through Roxbury? And how about the north side of Boston? The aborted effort
>>
>> Part of the line cleared for that has since been used by the MBTA for
>> the Orange Line.
>>
>>> to bring I-95 through the city left one of the best examples of a road
>>> construction scar I've seen:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yksz7oq
>>
>> The URL is broken. Reconstructing it:
>>
>http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&ll=42.431122,-71.004853&spn=0.017675,0.023389&t=h&z=15
>>
>> What am I looking at? I see the Rt 1/Rt 60 interchange and marshland.
>
>See that grade going off to the northeast? That was to be I-95. It
>was then to follow US 1 from there across the Tobin Bridge onto the
>Central Artery (now the Big Dig corridor).
>
>Boston is one of three places where I-95 was never completed as
>originally planned, the others being through central New Jersey and
>through Washington, DC.
Which begs two comments/questions:
1) Note that NJ is the only one where it is actually "missing". You
simply can't get from one piece of 95 to the other piece without
going on other roads (i.e., roads not signed as I-95).
2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
same number).
Michael Moroney
>Which begs two comments/questions:
> 1) Note that NJ is the only one where it is actually "missing". You
> simply can't get from one piece of 95 to the other piece without
> going on other roads (i.e., roads not signed as I-95).
Which is being fixed. The NJ Turnpike gets signed as I-95 south to Exit 6,
the NJ Turnpike Extension and a bit of the PA Turnpike (currently I-276)
get signed as I-95 as well, and a new exit built at I-95 & the PA Turnpike,
sign current I-95 north of that exit as something else (I forget what), and
voila, I-95 is in one piece!
> 2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
> interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
> are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
> same number).
There's always Breezewood PA where you have to follow a bit of US 30 to
get from I-70 to I-70. Technically I-78, where you have to follow Jersey
City streets to get from most of it to the Holland Tunnel (considered
part of I-78 but probably not signed as such)
Kenny McCormack
Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
>>Which begs two comments/questions:
>> 1) Note that NJ is the only one where it is actually "missing". You
>> simply can't get from one piece of 95 to the other piece without
>> going on other roads (i.e., roads not signed as I-95).
>
>Which is being fixed. The NJ Turnpike gets signed as I-95 south to Exit 6,
>the NJ Turnpike Extension and a bit of the PA Turnpike (currently I-276)
>get signed as I-95 as well, and a new exit built at I-95 & the PA Turnpike,
>sign current I-95 north of that exit as something else (I forget what), and
>voila, I-95 is in one piece!
Yeah, that's what I've heard. But I don't like it.
Why don't they just sign the NJTP all the way down to Delaware,
then make the current Philly loop of I-95 and the current I-295 (in NJ)
be, say, I-876?
>> 2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
>> interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
>> are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
>> same number).
>
>There's always Breezewood PA where you have to follow a bit of US 30 to
>get from I-70 to I-70. Technically I-78, where you have to follow Jersey
>City streets to get from most of it to the Holland Tunnel (considered
>part of I-78 but probably not signed as such)
Yes. Two good examples.
Jimmy
> It's obvious it was supposed to be a road never became something else,
> but I-95 as the Cross-Bronx Expressway is certainly a worse (more
> damaging) scar, and the Southwest Expressway, even if it now holds mass
> transit, destroyed more than the coastline of a marsh.
It would be interesting to compare the neighborhoods immediately
adjacent to the Cross Bronx Expressway and the Southwest Corridor.
While I haven't explored the areas in detail, the latter seems to have
many more vacant lots, while the former has apartment buildings lining
the service roads.
Jimmy
Jeffrey Kaplan
> > The URL is broken. Reconstructing it:
> > http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&ll=42.431122,-71.004853&spn=0.017675,0.023389&t=h&z=15
> >
> > What am I looking at? I see the Rt 1/Rt 60 interchange and marshland.
>
> See that grade going off to the northeast? That was to be I-95. It was then
To the northeast, I see marshland.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"Find what you need and let's get out of here. We're running out of
time." "Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are
finite. Zathras is finite. This... is wrong tool. No, no, not good
no... no never use this." (Cmdr. Ivanova and Zathras, B5 "War Without
End Pt. 2")
Nathan Perry
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> > 2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
> > interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
> > are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
> > same number).
>
> There's always Breezewood PA where you have to follow a bit of US 30 to
> get from I-70 to I-70. Technically I-78, where you have to follow Jersey
> City streets to get from most of it to the Holland Tunnel (considered
> part of I-78 but probably not signed as such)
That reminds me, do you suppose Breezewood, PA holds a record for most
restaurants per capita in the US? Also, where the heck does everybody
live who works there? Surely not in Breezewood!
(Oh, and I'd count I-78 as a freeway gap but not a missing Interstate
piece, since as you note you never leave I-78 as you follow those city
streets. Breezewood, on the other hand, is a gap.)
Julian
was to be built over an existing railroad right of way. Did the
new Orange Line, which uses that right of way next to the existing
railroad, used by Amtrak for its route to Providence and New York,
need any taking of land or changes to the street configuration?
I didn't think that there was much effect. The railroad always had
at least signalized crossings because it was a high-speed link.
I know that there's a linear park, but isn't that because they sunk
or built over the tracks?
Julian
Marc Fannin
> gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
> > 2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
> > interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
> > are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
> > same number).
>
> There's always Breezewood PA where you have to follow a bit of US 30 to
> get from I-70 to I-70.
Is there really a gap in I-70 here? I guess that it's up to
interpretation. IIRC all PENNDOT data has always identified that
stretch only as SR 0030, but I have seen nothing about I-70 being
officially discontinuous. There are no confirming markers for I-70
along the stretch, according to the PENNDOT video log
( http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/VideoLog/Navigation/Disclaimer.aspx ,
0030, segment 0662, Bedford County) or Google Maps Street View, but
there aren't for US-30, either, since you have three intersections in
quick succession.
The FHWA route log ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table1.cfm
) is inconclusive, since it doesn't list *any* gaps, including those
for I-76/84/86/88, unless one measures the mileage along a small-scale
map then compares it to the figure for PA I-70 mileage in that table
(167.92 miles), though that would also have to depend on the accuracy
of the map being measured.
Aside: IMO great, if a bit inaccurate, descriptor for Breezewood in
the title of a photo linked from Street View at that location: "the
Disneyland of rest areas".
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/18369658 ("capnblutus")
_________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musxf579 @hotmail.com|http://roadfan.com/ (m.t.r FAQ, etc.)
Paul Anderson
gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
> Why don't they just sign the NJTP all the way down to Delaware, then
> make the current Philly loop of I-95 and the current I-295 (in NJ)
> be, say, I-876?
I think Philadelphia would feel dissed if they didn't have a two-digit
Interstate highway going through. There might be other reasons too.
Paul
Kenny McCormack
Well, first, they have 76.
But, yeah, I always assumed that that was the main reason for the
unnatural (to my eyes) routing of I95 (including the gap problem).
Larry Sheldon
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>>
>>> 2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
>>> interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
>>> are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
>>> same number).
>> There's always Breezewood PA where you have to follow a bit of US 30 to
>> get from I-70 to I-70.
>
> Is there really a gap in I-70 here?
There is really a gap there. Interpretation not needed. I 70 should be
called the Monument to Highway Design Stupidity, Annoyance, and Absurd
Irritations.
The archives here are full of it.
I'll look it up again for you in a minute, but I recall from memory
turning right at a stop light, fighting traffic at several truck stops,
fast food joints and such, and other right turn and a left turn to get
on the other I 70.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=39.997474,-78.237376&spn=0.006427,0.013937&t=h&z=17
I might not have the stoplight count right.
Larry Sheldon
> I might not have the stoplight count right.
Or in the right place, maybe.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
rsh...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <hf3gbm$r0...@pcls6.std.com>,
>
> Michael Moroney <moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
> >>Which begs two comments/questions:
> >> 1) Note that NJ is the only one where it is actually "missing". You
> >> simply can't get from one piece of 95 to the other piece without
> >> going on other roads (i.e., roads not signed as I-95).
>
> >Which is being fixed. The NJ Turnpike gets signed as I-95 south to Exit 6,
> >the NJ Turnpike Extension and a bit of the PA Turnpike (currently I-276)
> >get signed as I-95 as well, and a new exit built at I-95 & the PA Turnpike,
> >sign current I-95 north of that exit as something else (I forget what), and
> >voila, I-95 is in one piece!
>
> Yeah, that's what I've heard. But I don't like it.
>
> Why don't they just sign the NJTP all the way down to Delaware,
> then make the current Philly loop of I-95 and the current I-295 (in NJ)
> be, say, I-876?
>
because the Commonwealth of PA and the City of Philadelphia would (a)
scream bloody murder
and (b) never in a million years allow it
their firm belief, and I have spoken to officialdom about this, is
that they fought to build I-95 from DE to Scudders Falls, thru urban
and environmental obstacles
I-95 is theirs and they will never give it up
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Paul Anderson <paulra...@charter.net> wrote:
>> gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't they just sign the NJTP all the way down to Delaware, then
>>> make the current Philly loop of I-95 and the current I-295 (in NJ)
>>> be, say, I-876?
>>
>> I think Philadelphia would feel dissed if they didn't have a two-digit
>> Interstate highway going through. There might be other reasons too.
>
> Well, first, they have 76.
>
> But, yeah, I always assumed that that was the main reason for the
> unnatural (to my eyes) routing of I95 (including the gap problem).
New Jersey was the one who created the gap in the originally approved
routing for I-95.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
David Chesler
> But the Southwest Expressway (I assume you mean in Boston)
> was to be built over an existing railroad right of way. Did the
> new Orange Line, which uses that right of way next to the existing
> railroad, used by Amtrak for its route to Providence and New York,
> need any taking of land or changes to the street configuration?
That's not my part of town, but I understood there were some takings
for building the Southwest Expressway before it was canceled, starting
in Roxbury. They never got around to takings Cambridge.
zzyzxroad
> gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
> > Paul Anderson <paulrander...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
> >>> Why don't they just sign the NJTP all the way down to Delaware, then
> >>> make the current Philly loop of I-95 and the current I-295 (in NJ)
> >>> be, say, I-876?
>
> >> I think Philadelphia would feel dissed if they didn't have a two-digit
> >> Interstate highway going through. There might be other reasons too.
>
> > Well, first, they have 76.
>
> > But, yeah, I always assumed that that was the main reason for the
> > unnatural (to my eyes) routing of I95 (including the gap problem).
>
> New Jersey was the one who created the gap in the originally approved
> routing for I-95.
nope, not NJ, rather two towns, Princeton Twp, and Hopewell.
NJ wanted it, but those two towns fought it, and they had the
resources to win
zzyzxroad
here is chapter and verse
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-95_NJ/
In 1979, the NJDOT issued a final environmental impact statement for
the missing links of I-95 and I-695, recommending their construction
to relieve congestion on local roads and to provide Interstate
service. That year, both the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission recommended
construction of the two routes, but found that they would be most
effective for local and medium-distance traffic. Long-distance
Interstate traffic along the Northeast corridor would continue to be
served by the New Jersey Turnpike.
THE END OF THE ROAD (1979-1982): By the late 1970's, the battle for
I-95 was increasingly becoming a lost cause. Opposition came initially
from the affected towns of Hopewell, Montgomery, and Princeton. The
Middlesex-Somerset-Mercer Regional Study Council followed by issuing a
statement against construction of I-95 through the area. Next, a
bipartisan group of state legislators, led by state senators Anne
Martindell of Princeton and William Schluter of Pennington, backed a
measure to cut off funding for future studies, after a 1979 study
found that congestion would increase on US 206 and NJ 31 from new
office and housing complexes along the new I-95 corridor. The mounting
opposition forced Governor Brendan Byrne, who initially sided with
Federal and state highway officials to build I-95, to switch sides on
the issue.
The fatal blow came in May 1980 when the NJDOT reversed its 1979
opinion, pulling its support for I-95 and submitting the de-
designation for the route. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
approved both the 29-mile-long I-95 through central New Jersey, and
the three-mile-long I-695 spur, for de-designation in January 1981.
Finally, in December 1982, a bipartisan effort by U.S. Senators
Nicholas Brady and Bill Bradley killed the missing link. The $375
million in funds for the Interstate trade-in were disbursed through
the FHWA and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UTMA).
Kenny McCormack
zzyzxroad <sam...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
...
>> > But, yeah, I always assumed that that was the main reason for the
>> > unnatural (to my eyes) routing of I95 (including the gap problem).
>>
>> New Jersey was the one who created the gap in the originally approved
>> routing for I-95.
Just to be clear, my point didn't have anything to do with
finger-pointing or blame-fixing. I'm just saying that they should have
routed 95 down the NJTP in the first place. Note that the NJTP predates
the Interstate system, so there isn't a problem there.
But, at the same time, I'm sure that a lot of people just believed in
their hearts that the function of I-95 was to connect the major cities
of the east coast and that, for historical reasons if nothing else,
Philadelphia qualifies to be in that group.
>nope, not NJ, rather two towns, Princeton Twp, and Hopewell.
>
>NJ wanted it, but those two towns fought it, and they had the
>resources to win
Yeah, but as the next post makes clear, it all comes out together in the
wash.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> But the Southwest Expressway (I assume you mean in Boston)
> was to be built over an existing railroad right of way. Did the
> new Orange Line, which uses that right of way next to the existing
> railroad, used by Amtrak for its route to Providence and New York,
> need any taking of land or changes to the street configuration?
The SW Corridor used by the new Orange Line was not taken/cleared FOR
the Orange Line, it was taken/cleared decades earlier, I believe for
the SW Expressway (I95).
This map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=forest+hills+ma&sll=42.358431,-71.059773&sspn=0.450564,1.054001&g=boston+ma&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Forest+Hills+%2F+Woodbourne,+Suffolk,+Massachusetts&ll=42.252028,-71.127033&spn=0.112832,0.2635&t=h&z=13
shows that it's pretty much a straight line gap continuing between the
Orange Line terminating at Forest Hills and the never-completed 95/93
interchange in Neponset/Canton/Norwood (I'm never sure where the city
line is there...).
Looks like it would have paralleled the commuter rail and Hyde Park Ave
through Dorchester, Jamaica Plain and Roxbury. I have no evidence to
this other than the Google Map in front of me, but I'd guess that it
would have "terminated" in the South End at a triple interchange of 90,
93 and 95. And if what Michael said is correct, it'd share pavement
with 93 through downtown Boston, then US-1 across the Mystic River and
then split off at a triple interchange of US-1/MA-60/I-95.
> I didn't think that there was much effect. The railroad always had
> at least signalized crossings because it was a high-speed link.
> I know that there's a linear park, but isn't that because they sunk
> or built over the tracks?
The Orange Line is built into a trench. So far as I know, only the
stations are roofed over, and with the station structures. At least
part of that is noise and visual pollution abatement after the noise
and visual scar that used to be the old elevated Orange Line.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"Well, if the DHD could have prevented the problem, maybe the DHD can
also fix it. Is there any chance that you could get the Russians to
give us their DHD?" "Not without giving back Alaska." - Samantha
Carter and Daniel Jackson, SG1
David Z Maze
> Looks like [I-95] would have paralleled the commuter rail and Hyde Park Ave
> through Dorchester, Jamaica Plain and Roxbury. I have no evidence to
> this other than the Google Map in front of me, but I'd guess that it
> would have "terminated" in the South End at a triple interchange of 90,
> 93 and 95. And if what Michael said is correct, it'd share pavement
> with 93 through downtown Boston, then US-1 across the Mystic River and
> then split off at a triple interchange of US-1/MA-60/I-95.
There are several good write-ups of this history to be found; see
e.g. http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/inner-belt/ (I-695 through
Somerville, Cambridge, and Boston, present-day Melnea Cass Boulevard)
and especially http://www.bostonroads.com/roads/southwest/ (the road
under question).
I-95 would have *replaced* the NYNH&H line that's now the Amtrak
Northeast Corridor line up to Readville. I-93 would have ended at the
junction with I-695 (present-day Leverett Connector ramp). I believe in
this plan US-1 was to be routed across present-day MA-1A and MA-60
through Revere; using the Riverway...VFW Parkway routing, it wouldn't
have been multiplexed with I-95 anywhere.
> The Orange Line is built into a trench. So far as I know, only the
> stations are roofed over, and with the station structures.
There's definitely more underground bits than just that. For instance,
the line between Back Bay and Mass. Ave. stations is totally covered,
along with a reasonably long stretch at Forest Hills. There's a signed
through bike route in the area (not high on my recommendations for
long-distance rides though) that runs either atop or alongside the route.
Local readers of this thread should also consider visiting the mural on
the back side of the Micro Center building in Cambridge, near the
proposed I-695/I-90 junction, commemorating Cambridge's successful
protest of the highway construction.
--dzm
Michael Moroney
>Looks like it would have paralleled the commuter rail and Hyde Park Ave
>through Dorchester, Jamaica Plain and Roxbury. I have no evidence to
>this other than the Google Map in front of me, but I'd guess that it
>would have "terminated" in the South End at a triple interchange of 90,
>93 and 95. And if what Michael said is correct, it'd share pavement
>with 93 through downtown Boston, then US-1 across the Mystic River and
>then split off at a triple interchange of US-1/MA-60/I-95.
I-93 was originally supposed to terminate at I-695 (never built Inner Belt)
at the ghost ramps where the Leverett Connector now ties in. I-695 would
have ended at what was supposed to be I-95, where the Central Artery and
Tobin Bridge connector met. Maybe I-93 would have continued to I-95/Tobin
Bridge connector (and I-695 terminated at I-93) but I don't think so. I-93
through Boston was part of the answer to the problem "how do we number
things now that all those projects got cancelled?".
I believe I-95/Southwest Corridor would have met I-695 where Melnea Cass
Blvd is now (it was built in the swath cleared for the Inner Belt) and
followed it east to an interchange with the Southeast Expressway/current
I-93, then I-95 would have followed the Central Artery to the Tobin Bridge.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It would be interesting to compare the neighborhoods immediately
> adjacent to the Cross Bronx Expressway and the Southwest Corridor.
> While I haven't explored the areas in detail, the latter seems to have
> many more vacant lots, while the former has apartment buildings lining
> the service roads.
The area where the Cross Bronx Expy cut through was for many years
extremely decayed; many of those apt bldgs seen from the road were
abandoned. The city were so desperate that they put decals of fake
curtains and flowers in the windows to try to make it look a little
better. New York City has made a great comeback from the dark days of
the 1970s and that area is starting to come back.
Many former residents of that area blame the construction of the Cross
Bronx Expy for the decline. The Expy certainly didn't help matters,
however, I'm not sure if it is totally to blame for the decay.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> 2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
> interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
> are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
> same number).
Not technically missing "Interstates", but motorists on the NJ Tpk
changing to/from the Palisades Interstate Pkwy must travel on local
streets within Fort Lee. It is well signed and not terribly
congested, but they are local streets with traffic lights. Motorists
must be careful to make the proper exit otherwise they will end up
over the toll GW Bridge into NYC.
I think motorists on I-676, Philadelphia Vine St Expy, have to stop at
traffic lights before going over the Benj Franklin Br to New Jersey,
where I-676 joins up to I-76.
I-76 ends near Camden. I never understood why I-76 doesn't continue
along the AC Expy to Atlantic City. Just seems sort of logical for an
Interstate to end at the coast rather than in the middle of nowhere.
D. Kirkpatrick
Julian <nos...@nospan.spam> wrote:
> But the Southwest Expressway (I assume you mean in Boston)
> was to be built over an existing railroad right of way. Did the
> new Orange Line, which uses that right of way next to the existing
> railroad, used by Amtrak for its route to Providence and New York,
> need any taking of land or changes to the street configuration?
>
Yes. I lived in an area wrere substantial land was taken by eminent
domain for the highway that never was.
The highway followed the railroad right of way in general but in a
number of places there were many variants, substantial in some areas,
to the east or west of the railroad.
Additional land was also taken for proposed exit ramps even though the
final plans were not committed as yet to paper.
The route went from a point near downtown Boston, near where I-90 and
I-93 now meet, to a point near were I-95 and I-93 now meet in Westwood
by the Rt 128 station.
> I didn't think that there was much effect. The railroad always had
> at least signalized crossings because it was a high-speed link.
> I know that there's a linear park, but isn't that because they sunk
> or built over the tracks?
>
> Julian
The original railroad right of way was on a raised dirt berm that
travelled from Back Bay, through Roxbury and Jamaica Plain, then
became somewhat "at grade" (relatively speaking) south (west in RR
terms) of Forest Hills station.
The berm was removed, it was about 1-2 stories high above grade in
some areas, and then the existing trench was created.
The trench was made wide to accommodate both the railroad right of way
that was being replaced, but also to add the Orange Line which at the
time was on an elevated steel structure that travelled the length of
Washington Street from Forest Hills to the Mass Pike, after which it
went underground. The old portal is still there but capped.
D. Kirkpatrick
David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> That's not my part of town, but I understood there were some takings
> for building the Southwest Expressway before it was canceled, starting
> in Roxbury. They never got around to takings Cambridge.
>
Substantial land was taken by eminent domain. I posted another
response in this thread on this.
Many families were uprooted and neighborhoods broken up wholesale. It
was ratrher traumatic for a lot of people at the time.
The process of land seizures started at Back Bay Station and proceeded
southward in increments.
When it reached a point about 1 mile south (west) of Forest Hills
Station citizen efforts, law suits, and all that went with it, finally
stopped the seizures and brought th ehighway project to a halt.
The land has remained under a development moratorium for the last 30
years so no developers could profit on the losses of those who were
displaced. Only recently are some of the lots coming up for
development.
Some will never be able to be developed due to their location or
proximity to the railroad right of way.
Had the process continued, land along parts of Dale Street (now
housing), Providence Street (mostly industrial) and more through Hyde
Park would have been taken.
It stopped at about Canterbury Street with a school house taken and
slated for demolition (it's now elderly housing) which is about the
upper 600 block of Hyde Park Ave.
D. Kirkpatrick
Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
>
> Looks like it would have paralleled the commuter rail and Hyde Park Ave
> through Dorchester, Jamaica Plain and Roxbury. I have no evidence to
> this other than the Google Map in front of me, but I'd guess that it
> would have "terminated" in the South End at a triple interchange of 90,
> 93 and 95. And if what Michael said is correct, it'd share pavement
> with 93 through downtown Boston, then US-1 across the Mystic River and
> then split off at a triple interchange of US-1/MA-60/I-95.
Dorchester would be further to the east.
Hyde Park, Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, and Roxbury were effected.
> The Orange Line is built into a trench. So far as I know, only the
> stations are roofed over, and with the station structures. At least
> part of that is noise and visual pollution abatement after the noise
> and visual scar that used to be the old elevated Orange Line.
Not all stations are completely roofed.
Mass Ave for example is somewhat exposed like Savin Hill Station on
the Red Line.
There are also segments of the trench that are covered and areas above
are a part of the pedestrian park and walkways.
There were entire streets removed as a part of the land taking.
DMK
D. Kirkpatrick
David Z Maze <dm...@mit.edu> wrote:
> I-95 would have *replaced* the NYNH&H line that's now the Amtrak
> Northeast Corridor line up to Readville. I-93 would have ended at the
> junction with I-695 (present-day Leverett Connector ramp). I believe in
> this plan US-1 was to be routed across present-day MA-1A and MA-60
> through Revere; using the Riverway...VFW Parkway routing, it wouldn't
> have been multiplexed with I-95 anywhere.
I disagree here.
I grew up in the area that had land taken.
The plan was for an elevated highway in most areas between Westwood
and Boston that would be above th erailroad.
The plans we saw showed our home with a highway in an elevated
structure within 50 ft or less of our back door, much like one sees
homes through Dorchester when looking down from the Southeast
Expressway (I-93) especially between the area of JFK/Umass Station and
Savin Hill.
> There's definitely more underground bits than just that. For instance,
> the line between Back Bay and Mass. Ave. stations is totally covered,
> along with a reasonably long stretch at Forest Hills.
Its worth also noting that the grade at Forest hills is man-made.
If one compares the level of Washington Street and Hyde Park Ave in
that area, you will see where th eland level used to be.
It was raised to create the connections with other roads in that area
and to accommodate the trench roof.
The Casey Overpass was much higher up in those days!
Nathan Perry
<6db1989b-e141-46b2...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Marc Fannin <musx...@kent.edu> wrote:
> Is there really a gap in I-70 here? I guess that it's up to
> interpretation. IIRC all PENNDOT data has always identified that
> stretch only as SR 0030, but I have seen nothing about I-70 being
> officially discontinuous. There are no confirming markers for I-70
> along the stretch, according to the PENNDOT video log
> ( http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/VideoLog/Navigation/Disclaimer.aspx ,
> 0030, segment 0662, Bedford County) or Google Maps Street View, but
> there aren't for US-30, either, since you have three intersections in
> quick succession.
Are there any of the little white segment markers there? If this is
I-70, they would say "SR 70" on the top line. I can't tell from the Type
10 map what the number is, as the gap is too short to fit anything in
print there.
> Aside: IMO great, if a bit inaccurate, descriptor for Breezewood in
> the title of a photo linked from Street View at that location: "the
> Disneyland of rest areas".
> http://www.panoramio.com/photo/18369658 ("capnblutus")
I'd be more apt to call it the "Vegas of rest areas" myself.
Nathan Perry
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is really a gap there. Interpretation not needed. I 70 should be
> called the Monument to Highway Design Stupidity, Annoyance, and Absurd
> Irritations.
It would be stupid if it were built today. Was it stupid when it was
first built? That is, when the Turnpike was constructed, I-70 didn't
connect to it any more than it does now.
I don't find it an irritation myself; it can be a welcome break, and I
always appreciate "forced" breaks in my roadtrips. The NY 17 Parksville
traffic light is another example. It's going away, but I'll always
remember stopping there on trips to New York. It was a logical place for
a break.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> junction with I-695 (present-day Leverett Connector ramp). I believe in
> this plan US-1 was to be routed across present-day MA-1A and MA-60
> through Revere; using the Riverway...VFW Parkway routing, it wouldn't
> have been multiplexed with I-95 anywhere.
I distinctly remember US-1 through Boston southwards towards Dedham as
coming in on the Tobin Bridge, interchanging through the tip of the
Central Artery onto Storrow, exiting that for the Fenway, Riverway,
Jamaicaway, Pond St, Center St, VFW Parkway, Providence Hwy. And then
at some point, it was moved to follow 93 from the Tobin Bridge all the
way around south of Boston and up into 95 in Dedham before resuming its
original route south.
> > The Orange Line is built into a trench. So far as I know, only the
> > stations are roofed over, and with the station structures.
>
> There's definitely more underground bits than just that. For instance,
> the line between Back Bay and Mass. Ave. stations is totally covered,
> along with a reasonably long stretch at Forest Hills. There's a signed
> through bike route in the area (not high on my recommendations for
> long-distance rides though) that runs either atop or alongside the route.
"So far as I know". :) I've only taken the Orange Line sporatically
even when I relied on the T for transportation. And I've been out of
the Boston area for 6 years, and out of that section of Boston for over
a decade.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"He's hiding something!" "Of course he is. And so are half the
people on this station. But you can't go around arresting them for
it." (Capt. Sheridan and Mr. Garibaldi, B5 "In The Shadow Of
Z'Ha'Dum")
Jeffrey Kaplan
> I-93 was originally supposed to terminate at I-695 (never built Inner Belt)
> at the ghost ramps where the Leverett Connector now ties in. I-695 would
> have ended at what was supposed to be I-95, where the Central Artery and
> Tobin Bridge connector met. Maybe I-93 would have continued to I-95/Tobin
> Bridge connector (and I-695 terminated at I-93) but I don't think so. I-93
> through Boston was part of the answer to the problem "how do we number
> things now that all those projects got cancelled?".
Then would it have just ended there completely, or would there have
been a disconnect with I93 north into NH? Or would that have been a
continuation of I89 and if so, where would that have terminated at the
southern end?
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"First you have one, and that...nyeeh nyeeh. And then there's two.
And then by the time you get to five it's <heavy breathing>." (Vir
Coto, B5 "Sic Transit Vir")
David Z Maze
> Previously on ne.transportation, Michael Moroney said:
>
>> I-93 was originally supposed to terminate at I-695 (never built Inner Belt)
>
> Then would it have just ended there completely, or would there have
> been a disconnect with I93 north into NH? Or would that have been a
> continuation of I89 and if so, where would that have terminated at the
> southern end?
My understanding is that, on the road you now drive as I-93 south from
the New Hampshire border to the southern junction with I-95 in Canton,
you "should have" been on:
I-93 from the New Hampshire state line to Somerville
I-695 for a mile in Somerville/Charlestown to the Tobin merge
I-95 through the Central Artery
MA-3 from the Mass. Ave. interchange to the Braintree split
MA-128 (north) from Braintree to Canton
To follow what "should have" been I-95 from New Hampshire to Rhode
Island, you'd follow present-day:
I-95 from New Hampshire to Peabody
Unbuilt I-95 from Peabody to the MA-60/US-1 interchange in Revere
US-1 across the Tobin Bridge
I-93 south through the Central Artery
Melnea Cass Boulevard
MBTA Orange Line/Amtrak to Readville
Unbuilt I-95 through Fowl Meadow Reservation
I-95 from Canton to Attleborough
Add to the list US-3 freeway into Arlington and MA-2 freeway into
Somerville, along with the I-695 inner ring in Somerville and Cambridge;
getting across the city probably becomes much easier, but actually
moving around in it much less pleasant.
--dzm
Elmer
They never got around to takings Cambridge.
>
On the back of a store in the Trader Joe's shopping center in
Cambridge, there's a mural honoring the struggle to stop the
expressway, but probably not many people know what it represents. On
this video, my friend, Harry, tells the story of how the citizens of
Cambridge threw themselves in front of the bulldozers to stop the
Inner Belt freeway through their community:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVRGKqYGHLk
Elmer
Michael Moroney
>Previously on ne.transportation, Michael Moroney said:
>> I-93 was originally supposed to terminate at I-695 (never built Inner Belt)
>> at the ghost ramps where the Leverett Connector now ties in. I-695 would
>> have ended at what was supposed to be I-95, where the Central Artery and
>> Tobin Bridge connector met. Maybe I-93 would have continued to I-95/Tobin
>> Bridge connector (and I-695 terminated at I-93) but I don't think so. I-93
>> through Boston was part of the answer to the problem "how do we number
>> things now that all those projects got cancelled?".
>Then would it have just ended there completely, or would there have
>been a disconnect with I93 north into NH? Or would that have been a
>continuation of I89 and if so, where would that have terminated at the
>southern end?
What I was talking about was the _southern_ end of I-93. South of the
Leverett Connector to the Central Artery would have been part of I-695,
the Central Artery was to be part of I-95, etc. I-93 north of the
Leverett Connector was always planned to be I-93.
Brent Jonas
> In article <7nlktoF3m3cg...@mid.individual.net>,
I agree, it's really not *that* big of a deal.
-Brent
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Just to be clear, my point didn't have anything to do with
> finger-pointing or blame-fixing. I'm just saying that they should have
> routed 95 down the NJTP in the first place. Note that the NJTP predates
> the Interstate system, so there isn't a problem there.
The NJTP has a 25-foot-wide median, which is below rural Interstate
standards, as even in the 1950s 40 feet was considered to be the minimum
in non-mountainous terrain. Just because the PA Turnpike was posted as
an Interstate doesn't mean that anyone else should have done likewise.
New Jersey could possibly have posted I-295 on the southern half of the
NJTP, but IMO they made a much better decision to build a separate I-295
with close interchange spacing.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't find it an irritation myself; it can be a welcome break, and I
>> always appreciate "forced" breaks in my roadtrips. The NY 17 Parksville
>> traffic light is another example. It's going away, but I'll always
>> remember stopping there on trips to New York. It was a logical place for
>> a break.
>
> I agree, it's really not *that* big of a deal.
It would be a big deal if it was commonplace instead of being rare.
Elmer
> Local readers of this thread should also consider visiting the mural on
> the back side of the Micro Center building in Cambridge, near the
> proposed I-695/I-90 junction, commemorating Cambridge's successful
> protest of the highway construction.
>
> --dzm
If you can't visit the mural, watch the video about it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVRGKqYGHLk
Elmer
Nathan Perry
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> > 2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
> > interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
> > are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
> > same number).
>
> There's always Breezewood PA where you have to follow a bit of US 30 to
> get from I-70 to I-70. Technically I-78, where you have to follow Jersey
> City streets to get from most of it to the Holland Tunnel (considered
> part of I-78 but probably not signed as such)
That reminds me, do you suppose Breezewood, PA holds a record for most
restaurants per capita in the US? Also, where the heck does everybody
live who works there? Surely not in Breezewood!
(Oh, and I'd count I-78 as a freeway gap but not a missing Interstate
piece, since as you note you never leave I-78 as you follow those city
streets. Breezewood, on the other hand, is a gap.)
Nathan Perry
Nathan Perry
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is really a gap there. Interpretation not needed. I 70 should be
> called the Monument to Highway Design Stupidity, Annoyance, and Absurd
> Irritations.
It would be stupid if it were built today. Was it stupid when it was
first built? That is, when the Turnpike was constructed, I-70 didn't
connect to it any more than it does now.
I don't find it an irritation myself; it can be a welcome break, and I
Nathan Perry
Nathan Perry
Nathan Perry
Jeffrey Kaplan
> > Then would it have just ended there completely, or would there have
> > been a disconnect with I93 north into NH? Or would that have been a
> > continuation of I89 and if so, where would that have terminated at the
> > southern end?
>
> My understanding is that, on the road you now drive as I-93 south from
> the New Hampshire border to the southern junction with I-95 in Canton,
> you "should have" been on:
>
> I-93 from the New Hampshire state line to Somerville
> I-695 for a mile in Somerville/Charlestown to the Tobin merge
> I-95 through the Central Artery
> MA-3 from the Mass. Ave. interchange to the Braintree split
> MA-128 (north) from Braintree to Canton
So there would have been a disconnect of I93 through downtown Boston.
Why not multiplex it?
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"The future will be better tomorrow." - George W. Bush
Jeffrey Kaplan
Referencing I93 northbound through Boston, you said "I-93 was
originally supposed to terminate at I-695 (never built Inner Belt) at
the ghost ramps where the Leverett Connector now ties in."
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"If I am ever the Hero top 100 list: #46. After killing a few dozen
faceless, anonymous grunts in the Legion of Doom without a second
thought, I will not suddenly take a merciful attitude with the Evil
Overlord, his family, his lieutenants, or anyone else with a speaking
part.
Brent Jonas
> Brent Jonas <brentrjo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't find it an irritation myself; it can be a welcome break, and I
> >> always appreciate "forced" breaks in my roadtrips. The NY 17 Parksville
> >> traffic light is another example. It's going away, but I'll always
> >> remember stopping there on trips to New York. It was a logical place for
> >> a break.
>
> > I agree, it's really not *that* big of a deal.
>
> It would be a big deal if it was commonplace instead of being rare.
>
> --
> Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
> Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Exactly, I'm glad someone got the point. I'm sure someone who's going
from coast to coast isn't going to care about the 2 or 3 extra
minutes, driving through Breezewood (I drove thru there in May of
2008, and thought it was pretty cool, actually).
-Brent
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> It would be a big deal if it was commonplace instead of being rare.
>
> from coast to coast isn't going to care about the 2 or 3 extra
> minutes, driving through Breezewood (I drove thru there in May of
> 2008, and thought it was pretty cool, actually).
I would care, and I'm sure that some other people would care as well, as
Interstate-to-Interstate connections should have a direct limited access
connection; I think it is a bad design feature, and if the direct
connection existed you could still get off and drive through Breezewood
if you wanted to.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Michael Moroney
>Previously on ne.transportation, Michael Moroney said:
>> >Then would it have just ended there completely, or would there have
>> >been a disconnect with I93 north into NH? Or would that have been a
>> >continuation of I89 and if so, where would that have terminated at the
>> >southern end?
>>
>> What I was talking about was the _southern_ end of I-93. South of the
>> Leverett Connector to the Central Artery would have been part of I-695,
>> the Central Artery was to be part of I-95, etc. I-93 north of the
>> Leverett Connector was always planned to be I-93.
>Referencing I93 northbound through Boston, you said "I-93 was
>originally supposed to terminate at I-695 (never built Inner Belt) at
>the ghost ramps where the Leverett Connector now ties in."
I never wrote "I93 northbound through Boston". The plans for I-93 in
Massachusetts was for it to run from the NH State Line south to I-695,
where the Leverett Connector now starts. That's its _south_ end.
What we now know as I-93 south of there was to be (as you head south),
I-695, I-95 (Central Artery), US 3 (SE Expressway), MA 128 to I-95 in
Canton.
Larry Sheldon
> Brent Jonas <brent...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be a big deal if it was commonplace instead of being rare.
>>
>> Exactly, I'm glad someone got the point. I'm sure someone who's going
>> from coast to coast isn't going to care about the 2 or 3 extra
>> minutes, driving through Breezewood (I drove thru there in May of
>> 2008, and thought it was pretty cool, actually).
>
> I would care, and I'm sure that some other people would care as well, as
> Interstate-to-Interstate connections should have a direct limited access
> connection; I think it is a bad design feature, and if the direct
> connection existed you could still get off and drive through Breezewood
> if you wanted to.
Indeed.
And I would care if I was dragging a 70-foot, 80,000 pound truck, trip
after trip, on a tight schedule.
It's a real, thrill maneuvering through a lot of 4-wheelers, many of
them somewhat disoriented, tired, hungry, half asleep, making surprise
turns and U-turns, inexplicable stops, and on and on and on.
All this prattle about "Interstate standards" and then to say "no big
deal". And at toll-road prices to boot.
Other states can build transitions between toll and not toll, toll and
toll and not build a horror like Breezewood. Too bad Pennsylvania
hasn't got an engineer.
Of course, that is the state that has the signs announcing "guide rail
damaged" when there is a ding in a guard rail.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Garrett Wollman
Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
>Previously on ne.transportation, David Z Maze said:
>> My understanding is that, on the road you now drive as I-93 south from
>> the New Hampshire border to the southern junction with I-95 in Canton,
>> you "should have" been on:
>>
>> I-93 from the New Hampshire state line to Somerville
>> I-695 for a mile in Somerville/Charlestown to the Tobin merge
>> I-95 through the Central Artery
>> MA-3 from the Mass. Ave. interchange to the Braintree split
>> MA-128 (north) from Braintree to Canton
>
>So there would have been a disconnect of I93 through downtown Boston.
>Why not multiplex it?
Please reread what David wrote. I-93 would not have existed anywhere
south of Somerville. No "disconnect".
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Nathan Perry
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Brent Jonas <brent...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It would be a big deal if it was commonplace instead of being rare.
> >
> > Exactly, I'm glad someone got the point. I'm sure someone who's going
> > from coast to coast isn't going to care about the 2 or 3 extra
> > minutes, driving through Breezewood (I drove thru there in May of
> > 2008, and thought it was pretty cool, actually).
>
> I would care, and I'm sure that some other people would care as well, as
> Interstate-to-Interstate connections should have a direct limited access
> connection; I think it is a bad design feature, and if the direct
> connection existed you could still get off and drive through Breezewood
> if you wanted to.
If it were on my daily commute, it probably would annoy me (actually, my
daily commute is pretty much one long Breezewood) but on a long-distance
trip, just the one time wouldn't be frustrating. It's really short and
has all the roadside services I need to boot. Something like the
transition from I-81 to the PA Turnpike would be much more irritating.
And in truth, no, I wouldn't drive through it if I didn't have to. I
probably wouldn't even discover it if it weren't forced on me, and
furthermore, its sole interest is the fact that it interrupts the trip.
I wouldn't get off the Interstate just to drive through a large
collection of gas stations and fast food joints. I'd get off because I
needed those things, but it would just be a regular day at the
Interstate exit, not the roadside conversation piece that Breezewood is.
It's the kind of thing that many people might want to see "remedied",
but for me to change it would be to eliminate it. I'm happy to have this
little quirk to add another bend in my road.
Scott M. Kozel
You're welcome to your opinion, but I'll bet that if a poll were
conducted of non-regular users, that most would object to the lack of
direct connection, would find it annoying and inconvenient, and would
not be happy with it.
I agree that the I-81/Turnpike connection is even more inconvenient than
Breezewood, as two of the movement pairs are heavy movements, between
westerly Turnpike and northerly I-81, and between easterly Turnpike and
southerly I-81.
Nathan Perry
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > If it were on my daily commute, it probably would annoy me (actually, my
> > daily commute is pretty much one long Breezewood) but on a long-distance
> > trip, just the one time wouldn't be frustrating. It's really short and
> > has all the roadside services I need to boot. Something like the
> > transition from I-81 to the PA Turnpike would be much more irritating.
> >
> > And in truth, no, I wouldn't drive through it if I didn't have to. I
> > probably wouldn't even discover it if it weren't forced on me, and
> > furthermore, its sole interest is the fact that it interrupts the trip.
> > I wouldn't get off the Interstate just to drive through a large
> > collection of gas stations and fast food joints. I'd get off because I
> > needed those things, but it would just be a regular day at the
> > Interstate exit, not the roadside conversation piece that Breezewood is.
> >
> > It's the kind of thing that many people might want to see "remedied",
> > but for me to change it would be to eliminate it. I'm happy to have this
> > little quirk to add another bend in my road.
>
> You're welcome to your opinion, but I'll bet that if a poll were
> conducted of non-regular users, that most would object to the lack of
> direct connection, would find it annoying and inconvenient, and would
> not be happy with it.
I do tend to wreck curves with my opinions. For example, I'd pay $50,000
*less* for a house that had a view of a golf course!
Seriously, I wonder how that poll would turn out? And what would be the
difference in opinion between those who use it daily, or those who are
truckers, or those who are occasional motorists, and of course those who
have never even been to Breezewood (would they be allowed into the poll)?
At the very least, I'd predict a lower rate of annoyance than you
expect, perhaps excluding commercial drivers. If you know Breezewood is
there, it's actually more convenient for your pit stop needs than having
to exit your route (especially from a toll road) and offers a greater
selection than you'll find at the service plaza.
Guy Olsen
> Nathan Perry <npe...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
The I-81 / PA Tpk movements are heavier than the I-70 thru-movements
at Breezewood??
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
Guy Olsen
> In article <hf7b7c$iv...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
I'd be particularly interested in the opinions of those who have to
deal with Breezewood on Summer weekends. Weekdays probably are not
too bad, except for trucks.
My problem with Breezewood is based mostly on principle: Interstate
highways should be continuous, limited access routes. Period.
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree that the I-81/Turnpike connection is even more inconvenient than
>> Breezewood, as two of the movement pairs are heavy movements, between
>> westerly Turnpike and northerly I-81, and between easterly Turnpike and
>> southerly I-81.
>
> at Breezewood??
No, it is a much longer stretch of urban congestion.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
H.B. Elkins
>Exactly, I'm glad someone got the point. I'm sure someone who's going
>from coast to coast isn't going to care about the 2 or 3 extra
>minutes, driving through Breezewood (I drove thru there in May of
>2008, and thought it was pretty cool, actually).
There really isn't much of a problem if you are traveling west. At that point,
I-70 is basically a due north-south route and westbound traffic makes a right
turn onto US 30 east and then makes another right onto the turnpike entrance.
However, the problem is if you are traveling east on I-70. You cross over US 30
and then loop around to join westbound US 30, then have to cross two lanes of
traffic to get into a left-turn lane at a traffic light to rejoin eastbound I-70
toward Maryland. From my understanding, this can become problematic during
times of high traffic volume.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
H.B. Elkins
>At the very least, I'd predict a lower rate of annoyance than you
>expect, perhaps excluding commercial drivers. If you know Breezewood is
>there, it's actually more convenient for your pit stop needs than having
>to exit your route (especially from a toll road) and offers a greater
>selection than you'll find at the service plaza.
I'd like to see someone list the businesses that are located along that short
stretch where I-70 traffic is routed along US 30. Anyone familiar enough with
the region to list the businesses on both sides of the road?
H.B. Elkins
>No, it is a much longer stretch of urban congestion.
I-283 and I-83 offer a pretty good bypass of that.
Larry Sheldon
The Google Maps thing shows the Petro, TA, Streakin Beacon, most of the
motels. Doesn't show the usual mix of fast-grease places. I have to
fuel there sometimes, but aside from that, I don't like to stop to pee
there.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> You're welcome to your opinion, but I'll bet that if a poll were
> conducted of non-regular users, that most would object to the lack of
> direct connection, would find it annoying and inconvenient, and would
> not be happy with it.
Several posters mentioned "2-3 minutes" of lost time going through
it. That doesn't sound particularly onerous, especially for an
occasional motorist. Now, if this stretch had traffic jams . . . (Of
course, many true interchanges between Interstates jam up and some old
ones have exits or mergers on the left side; and those are no fun.)
The connection between the Palisades Pkwy and NJ Tpk in Fort Lee, NJ,
requires about a mile over local streets with several traffic lights.
Certainly it would be nice if there was a direct ramp, but it's a
short stretch and not bad to drive, even in the rush hour.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I do tend to wreck curves with my opinions. For example, I'd pay $50,000
> *less* for a house that had a view of a golf course!
As an aside, I know someone who lives across from a golf course. From
time to time, errant golf balls hit their living room picture window,
and those are expensive to replace. There are other disadvantages as
well.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> My problem with Breezewood is based mostly on principle: Interstate
> highways should be continuous, limited access routes. Period.
Motorists could care less about "principle". What they want is an
easy drive.
I've gone through far too many freeway interchanges which were
dangerously inadequate--ramps on the left side, which meant merging or
leaving from the fastest traffic lane; inadequate acceleration/merge
ramps, too tight curves on the ramps, etc. I'd rather drive on a
regular street and stop at a traffic light than negotiate an
interchange mess.
I know of a complex 1950s freeway interchange with left hand ramps
that was demolished and replaced with a simple diamond interchange
with traffic lights. I was surprised they did that, but I could see
the benefits of simplicity and elimination of left hand merges.
Further, I presume having a true proper interchange at this point
would be rather costly, otherwise it'd have been built. That cost
would be added to the tolls.
They are building a connection between I-95 and the Pa Tpk in suburban
Phila. It's a complex project that will be extremely costly. (It's
also gonna create a new nasty bottleneck because the project plans
assume a NJ Tpk connection expansion and second bridge; but NJ ain't
building nothing.)
Josh
It's often 2-3 minutes, but for long peak periods, especially on the
weekend, it can be 10-20-30 minutes, even when the freeways are moving
relatively smoothly.
And THAT's the problem -- it may be okay, if not ideal, to have a
surface boulevard in some places as an alternative to a true limited
access road (or conncetion), but it must be designed to handle the
full load of traffic. For Breezewood, if the local voters (residents
and business owners) want to keep traffic funneled through, they need
to accept operational changes to avoid backups. This would mean
changing the light timings to prioritize the I-70 through traffic in
both directions -- at times, this might mean extremely long metering
of other traffic at intersections, local police directing traffic when
necessary, and possibly turning restrictions on the road itself (which
would require dynamic signage to warn motorists not to turn into a
business they might be delayed turning out of).
That would be an acceptable compromise, in my view.
Josh
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >So there would have been a disconnect of I93 through downtown Boston.
> >Why not multiplex it?
>
> Please reread what David wrote. I-93 would not have existed anywhere
> south of Somerville. No "disconnect".
Ah, OK.
Though I do wonder sometimes why I93 isn't extended south to RI via
what is now MA24.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #167.
If I am recruiting to find someone to run my computer systems, and my
choice is between the brilliant programmer who's head of the world's
largest international technology conglomerate and an obnoxious 15-
year- old dork who's trying to impress his dream girl, I'll take the
brat and let the hero get stuck with the genius.
Larry Sheldon
Except that it misses the whole point--which is to delay, to turn left
into businesses, to slow down, to impeded.
If they wanted top allow what you suggest, there would be no reason not
to make a road to Interstate specifications.
--
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > No, it is a much longer stretch of urban congestion.
>
> I-283 and I-83 offer a pretty good bypass of that.
Those highways get pretty congested at times, and that doesn't help
I-81 traffic accessing east of there, such as accessing the 4-lane
highway US-11/US-15 to the north of there.
It also doesn't address between easterly Turnpike and southerly I-81.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It's often 2-3 minutes, but for long peak periods, especially on the
> weekend, it can be 10-20-30 minutes, even when the freeways are moving
> relatively smoothly.
An occasional driver could live with 10 minutes. But anything more
than that is not good. 30 minutes would suck.
On many roads weekend traffic is worse than weekday traffic. The NJ
Tpk can get pretty messy on Sunday afternoons. The NJ Garden State
Pky, which serves the shore resorts, gets quite bad on summer
weekends.
> And THAT's the problem -- it may be okay, if not ideal, to have a
> surface boulevard in some places as an alternative to a true limited
> access road (or conncetion), but it must be designed to handle the
> full load of traffic. For Breezewood, if the local voters (residents
> and business owners) want to keep traffic funneled through, they need
> to accept operational changes to avoid backups. This would mean
> changing the light timings to prioritize the I-70 through traffic in
> both directions -- at times, this might mean extremely long metering
> of other traffic at intersections, local police directing traffic when
> necessary, and possibly turning restrictions on the road itself (which
> would require dynamic signage to warn motorists not to turn into a
> business they might be delayed turning out of).
The reality is that when Interstate or major expressways were built,
many businesses on the 'old road' suffered badly. To this day many
'old roads' have abandoned old motels, restaurants, gas stations, that
were ruined when the new highway was built. (US 130 is an example).
Of course, many businesses that were in the path of a highway or
interchange were ruined, too (some may have stayed, but the
interchange eliminated easy access to the business.)
If traffic volume is such that there are 30 minute delays, a good
through interchange connection is needed. I'm not sure a broad
boulevard would do the trick to handle the volume. If local
businesses suffer from that, so it goes, that is the historic
sacrifice for highway improvements.
For some unknown reason, the NJ Tpk exit 4 (NJ rt 73) northward was
rebuilt to go through a busy shopping center complex instead of right
onto rt 73. This was stupid. There are several new long traffic
lights. I don't get down there very often, but when I do I have to
remember to take an alternative route.
Dave Filpus
<4bc2ac12-ab99-449b...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> For some unknown reason, the NJ Tpk exit 4 (NJ rt 73) northward was
> rebuilt to go through a busy shopping center complex instead of right
> onto rt 73. This was stupid. There are several new long traffic
> lights. I don't get down there very often, but when I do I have to
> remember to take an alternative route.
Isn't that I-295 exit 36, not the NJ Turnpike?
Larry Sheldon
I was looking at Google Maps to try to see what y'all are talking about.
I got lost looking at the danged thing!
Is it really like that or is google hosed?
Please tell me google is hosed.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> The reality is that when Interstate or major expressways were built,
> many businesses on the 'old road' suffered badly. To this day many
> 'old roads' have abandoned old motels, restaurants, gas stations, that
> were ruined when the new highway was built. (US 130 is an example).
> Of course, many businesses that were in the path of a highway or
> interchange were ruined, too (some may have stayed, but the
> interchange eliminated easy access to the business.)
Moat of those types of businesses pay for themselves within 5 years, and
could feasibly relocate to the interchange areas.
Dave Filpus
Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dave Filpus wrote:
> > In article
> > <4bc2ac12-ab99-449b...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >
> >> For some unknown reason, the NJ Tpk exit 4 (NJ rt 73) northward was
> >> rebuilt to go through a busy shopping center complex instead of right
> >> onto rt 73. This was stupid. There are several new long traffic
> >> lights. I don't get down there very often, but when I do I have to
> >> remember to take an alternative route.
> >
> > Isn't that I-295 exit 36, not the NJ Turnpike?
>
> I was looking at Google Maps to try to see what y'all are talking about.
>
> I got lost looking at the danged thing!
>
> Is it really like that or is google hosed?
>
> Please tell me google is hosed.
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.640503,-75.768614&num=1&t=h&sll=37.0625,-95.6
> 77068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.191988,-74.709778&spn=0.410174
> ,0.891953&z=11
I-95 is screwed up around this area. I-95 in PA and I-95 in NJ do not
meet and are basically parallel around Trenton. When I-95 in PA crosses
from PA into NJ, it becomes I-295 at the US-1 interchange. When I-95 in
NJ crosses into PA, it becomes I-276 at the Delaware River. Eventually,
this will be fixed when PA builds an interchange between I-276 and I-95.
Then I-95 north of I-276 will be renumbered I-295 and I-276 from I-95 to
the river will be renumbered I-95 and I-95 will be one continuous route
from Philadelphia to New York, instead of having the gap at Trenton.
This subthread is about exit 36 of I-295 where the southbound ramps go
through a shopping mall's access roads.
Larry Sheldon
Thanks. I'll go back and see if I can find it.
And people make jokes about California's I238!
Larry Sheldon
That is seriously weird! It isn't a half-mile to the NJ73 exit is it?
The only rational explanation is that the mall developer wanted it for
some reason.
John F. Carr
Jeffrey Kaplan <nom...@gordol.org> wrote:
>Though I do wonder sometimes why I93 isn't extended south to RI via
>what is now MA24.
There was a proposal to upgrade MA 24 to interstate standard.
It hasn't been funded. The governor would rather spend a
couple billion on a railroad line to serve that corridor.
I-24 would logically end at I-195. The road into Rhode Island
is lower quality and doesn't go anywhere in particular. There
is no real chance that it will be extended to anywhere useful.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > For some unknown reason, the NJ Tpk exit 4 (NJ rt 73) northward was
> > rebuilt to go through a busy shopping center complex instead of right
> > onto rt 73. This was stupid. There are several new long traffic
> > lights. I don't get down there very often, but when I do I have to
> > remember to take an alternative route.
>
> Isn't that I-295 exit 36, not the NJ Turnpike?
OOPS! You're right! Sorry about that. Thanks for catching the error.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I-95 is screwed up around this area. I-95 in PA and I-95 in NJ do not
> meet and are basically parallel around Trenton. When I-95 in PA crosses
> from PA into NJ, it becomes I-295 at the US-1 interchange. When I-95 in
> NJ crosses into PA, it becomes I-276 at the Delaware River.
> Eventually,
> this will be fixed when PA builds an interchange between I-276 and I-95.
The project is underway but it is complex (involves other
interchanges, too) and will take some time to finish.
At presents, motorists must get off the Pa Tpk at US 13 (former exit
#30), drive south on US 13 a bit, go west on PA 413 a bit, then turn
onto I-95. Kind of a pain with numerous lights. I avoid that area.
zzyzxroad
wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:20:35 -0500, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >No, it is a much longer stretch of urban congestion.
>
> I-283 and I-83 offer a pretty good bypass of that.
>
brilliant, absolutely brilliant
you get to take a substandard freeway thru downtown Harrisburg
then you get to make a sharp loop around the trumpet to continue on
I-83, then you get to go thru the heavily trafficked suburbs of
Baltimore
and to top it off it true dum dum Elkins fashion
you get to contend with the 695 Baltimore Beltway
all to avoid a couple of lights, and granted heavy summer weekend
traffic
any more brilliant ideas there, dum dum???
zzyzxroad
http://www.paturnpikei95.com/images/projectmaplg.jpg
a new Del R Br is part of the project
unfortunately it is the last part of the project
It will in my estimation happen as part of the 6-8A widening which is
under const currently
btw, the existing br is a shared expense between the PTC and the NJTPA
zzyzxroad
>
> For some unknown reason, the NJ Tpk exit 4 (NJ rt 73) northward was
> rebuilt to go through a busy shopping center complex instead of right
> onto rt 73. This was stupid. There are several new long traffic
> lights. I don't get down there very often, but when I do I have to
> remember to take an alternative route.
73 is busy, but no worse then any other road in NJ
I know NJDOT had done a lot of improvements to NJ 73, but other then
relocating it I don't know that there was much that could be done
Nate Nagel
Well, you *could* bypass 695 and take JFX to the Inner Harbor and B-W
parkway... unfortunately it is not a direct connection, you get to
drive 10 blocks or so on surface streets to make that happen. And the
last time I did it it took about an hour or so, not sure why inner
harbor traffic was so heavy, but it wasn't moving at all.
Almost a year ago exactly, now that I think about it...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Nate Nagel
> H.B. Elkins wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:05:01 -0500, Nathan Perry wrote:
>>
>>> At the very least, I'd predict a lower rate of annoyance than you
>>> expect, perhaps excluding commercial drivers. If you know Breezewood
>>> is there, it's actually more convenient for your pit stop needs than
>>> having to exit your route (especially from a toll road) and offers a
>>> greater selection than you'll find at the service plaza.
>>
>> I'd like to see someone list the businesses that are located along
>> that short
>> stretch where I-70 traffic is routed along US 30. Anyone familiar
>> enough with
>> the region to list the businesses on both sides of the road?
>
> The Google Maps thing shows the Petro, TA, Streakin Beacon, most of the
> motels. Doesn't show the usual mix of fast-grease places. I have to
> fuel there sometimes, but aside from that, I don't like to stop to pee
> there.
>
The buffet at the Gateway Travel Plaza is actually not bad nor
expensive. However I sometimes just get sick of the PA turnpike and
rather than try to get home quickly will take I-68 instead and relax and
enjoy the drive. I remember being able to find decent truck stop food
in Hancock as well. Been a long time since I've been that way although
weather permitting I will likely be doing it over Xmas.
H.B. Elkins
>Well, you *could* bypass 695 and take JFX to the Inner Harbor and B-W
>parkway... unfortunately it is not a direct connection, you get to
>drive 10 blocks or so on surface streets to make that happen. And the
>last time I did it it took about an hour or so, not sure why inner
>harbor traffic was so heavy, but it wasn't moving at all.
>
>Almost a year ago exactly, now that I think about it...
Baltimore has nothing to do with my original comment, not that the idiot to whom
you replied would realize that.
Heading east on the Turnpike, for all-freeway connection to I-81 north, go to
I-283 and take that north to I-83, then follow I-83 to its end at I-81 northeast
of Harrisburg.
For southbound I-81 to the Turnpike westbound, reverse that, I-83 south to I-283
south to the Turnpike.
Why in the world would the idiot even think Baltimore was involved?
rsh...@gmail.com
wrote:
dum dum never specified
as we were talking about Breezewood, not Harrisburg
aside from that dum dum
the gap from the tpk to I-81 is about 1 mile
I-83 from I-283 to I-81 is subject to heavy traffic and frequent
accidents
not to mention a backtracking requirement
i.e. going north then going south
myself, and most people familiar with the area use US 11 to get from
the tpk to I-81
Guy Olsen
>
> > My problem with Breezewood is based mostly on principle: Interstate
> > highways should be continuous, limited access routes. Period.
>
> Motorists could care less about "principle". What they want is an
> easy drive.
And a PROPERLY designed freeway to freeway connection would provide
just that.
>
> I've gone through far too many freeway interchanges which were
> dangerously inadequate--ramps on the left side, which meant merging or
> leaving from the fastest traffic lane; inadequate acceleration/merge
> ramps, too tight curves on the ramps, etc. I'd rather drive on a
> regular street and stop at a traffic light than negotiate an
> interchange mess.
That's why I said a *properly* designed interchange. I am also dead-
set against left-side ramps.
>
> I know of a complex 1950s freeway interchange with left hand ramps
> that was demolished and replaced with a simple diamond interchange
> with traffic lights. I was surprised they did that, but I could see
> the benefits of simplicity and elimination of left hand merges.
Location?
>
> Further, I presume having a true proper interchange at this point
> would be rather costly, otherwise it'd have been built. That cost
> would be added to the tolls.
The ONLY reason a proper interchange has not been provided at
Breezewood is the objections by the business community -- and the suck-
up politicos that allow themselves to be swayed by them.
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
Guy Olsen
> On Dec 3, 11:50 am, Josh <no_need_to_s...@nobody.org> wrote:
>
> > It's often 2-3 minutes, but for long peak periods, especially on the
> > weekend, it can be 10-20-30 minutes, even when the freeways are moving
> > relatively smoothly.
>
> An occasional driver could live with 10 minutes. But anything more
> than that is not good. 30 minutes would suck.
This occasional driver would find 10 minutes to make a trip that
should take 1-2 minutes intolerable.
People place different values on their time. One size does not fit
all.
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
Jon Enslin
> In article <Paidncyq1ZsuNYnWnZ2dnUVZ_hidn...@ntd.net>,
> Michael G. Koerner <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
> >> Previously on ne.transportation, Paul D. DeRocco said:
>
> >>> Attleboro got off easy. Remember the furor over the intention to build I-95
> >>> through Roxbury? And how about the north side of Boston? The aborted effort
>
> >> Part of the line cleared for that has since been used by the MBTA for
> >> the Orange Line.
>
> >>> to bring I-95 through the city left one of the best examples of a road
> >>> construction scar I've seen:
>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/yksz7oq
>
> >> The URL is broken. Reconstructing it:
>
> >http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&ll=...
>
> >> What am I looking at? I see the Rt 1/Rt 60 interchange and marshland.
>
> >See that grade going off to the northeast? That was to be I-95. It
> >was then to follow US 1 from there across the Tobin Bridge onto the
> >Central Artery (now the Big Dig corridor).
>
> >Boston is one of three places where I-95 was never completed as
> >originally planned, the others being through central New Jersey and
> >through Washington, DC.
>
> Which begs two comments/questions:
> 1) Note that NJ is the only one where it is actually "missing". You
> simply can't get from one piece of 95 to the other piece without
> going on other roads (i.e., roads not signed as I-95).
> 2) Are there any other (besides I-95 in NJ) missing pieces of
> interstate? (No, I don't count things like I-88, where there
> are clearly two different roads - widely separated - sharing the
> same number).
Well, there is the ridiculous situation with the Skyway in Chicago
being signed as "To I-90." But no one outside of the city government
believes that this is truly a gap.
Jon
Free Lunch
<jen...@charter.net> wrote in misc.transport.road:
Didn't that gap go away when they leased it out for a one-time payment?
Jon Enslin
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 06:36:45 -0800 (PST), Jon Enslin
Hmmm... I just drove it last month and I didn't recall a change.
Maybe next time through I'll look more closely.
Jon
Jimmy
The problem isn't NJ 73.
It's that there used to be a direct ramp from I-295 south to 73 north
at exit 36. But they removed this ramp, and replaced it with a ramp
to Nixon Drive, an access road for the Moorestown Mall and several
other large shopping centers.
My guess is the mall owner wanted a direct exit, and they couldn't
keep the old exit because it was too close to the new entrance.
Jimmy
Larry Sheldon
I just went to look at that again on Google and I still have two questions:
Why would anybody use the ramps into the mall unless they were a
delivery truck, in from the north, deliver, continue to the south?
Why would most traffic go on a half a mile (or what ever it is) to the
sensible cloverleaf?
Are you saying the clover leaf is not as depicted?
Larry Sheldon
> Jimmy wrote:
>> zzyzxroad <samm...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>> For some unknown reason, the NJ Tpk exit 4 (NJ rt 73) northward was
>>>> rebuilt to go through a busy shopping center complex instead of right
>>>> onto rt 73. This was stupid. There are several new long traffic
>>>> lights. I don't get down there very often, but when I do I have to
>>>> remember to take an alternative route.
>>> 73 is busy, but no worse then any other road in NJ
>>>
>>> I know NJDOT had done a lot of improvements to NJ 73, but other then
>>> relocating it I don't know that there was much that could be done
>>
>> The problem isn't NJ 73.
>>
>> It's that there used to be a direct ramp from I-295 south to 73 north
>> at exit 36. But they removed this ramp, and replaced it with a ramp
>> to Nixon Drive, an access road for the Moorestown Mall and several
>> other large shopping centers.
>>
>> My guess is the mall owner wanted a direct exit, and they couldn't
>> keep the old exit because it was too close to the new entrance.
>
> I just went to look at that again on Google and I still have two questions:
>
> Why would anybody use the ramps into the mall unless they were a
> delivery truck, in from the north, deliver, continue to the south?
>
> Why would most traffic go on a half a mile (or what ever it is) to the
> sensible cloverleaf?
>
> Are you saying the clover leaf is not as depicted?
OK, three questions.
Larry Sheldon
OK I see the problem now, the cloverleaf is in fact broken--missing the
295 south to 73 no0rt link, as stated above.