January - August 2018:The gap in I-95 in New Jersey will finally be closed, making I-95 continuous from Florida to Maine, when the necessary movements open on the I-95 / PA Turnpike Extension (I-276) interchange in Bristol Twp, Pennsylvania.
PA I-95 will be relocated onto the PA Turnpike Extension, meeting up with existing
NJ I-95 at the state line.
Existing
PA I-95 north of there will be redesignated as I-295, and exits will be renumbered.
NJ I-95Tre will be redesignated as an extension of
NJ I-295, and exits will be renumbered.
Links:
http://news.transportation.org/Pages/StateDotNewsDetail.aspx?MessageId=55519http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I95-295/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I95-295/pdf/ProjectDescriptionSheet.pdfhttp://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I95-295/ppt/I95I295Redesignation.pptxSign replacement work will take place in three phases:
Phase 1: January – March 2018Replacing signs in New Jersey starting at existing I-95 interchange 8/Princeton Pike and moving west toward the Delaware River
Phase 2: March - April 2018Replacing signs on both sides of the Delaware River within the Scudders Fall Bridge project limits (existing
I-95 Exit 1 in New Jersey and Exits 51 and 49 in Pennsylvania).
Phase 3: April – August 2018Replacing signs at the remaining interchanges through the new interchange in Bristol, PA.
What makes sense to me as a way to approach this is, rather than go thru multiple passes involving extending one highway and truncating another, make one big pull request for each state when its respective time comes: NJ once all NJ signage has changed early in phase 2; PA once all PA signage has changed at the end of phase 3.
PA changes:I-95: relocate
I-295: new route
I-276: truncate,
I presume.Anyone who's traveled any segment of I-95 north of Exit 40 (and/or possibly I-276 east of 352) will need to update their .list files.
Label changes for existing routes:US1: I-95 -> I-295
US13: I-276 -> I=95
US1BusPen: I-95 -> I-295
PA332: I-95 -> I-295
PA413: I-95(40) -> I-95; I-95(44) -> I-295
NJ changes:I-295: extend north along existing I-95Tre
I-95Tre: delete, because it's redesignated as I-295. More on the nuts & bolts of this change below...
Label changes for existing routes:I-195: I-295 +-> 1A; 1 -> 1C
US1: I-95/295 -> I-295
US206: I-95_M -> I-295
NJ29: I-95 -> I-295
NJ31: I-95 -> I-295
NJ175: I-95 -> I-295
AltRouteNames:Normally, when one route gets redesignated as an extension of another, the old route's .list name gets added as an
AltRouteName for the route that subsumes it. Disruption to people's list files is kept to a minimum; life goes on.
For example,
NJ I-295Tre was first known as
NJ I-95_M (which I believe comes from an NJDOT internal designation), back before the "3-letter city abbreviation" standard was thought up.
The situation is a little more complex than usual here...
Normally, when a route's point labels change (such as a sequential-to-milepost exit renumbering), old labels that are in use in .list files are kept as hidden alternate labels, to avoid breaking .list files. Sometimes, a label will be needed elsewhere in the file, and cannot be kept as a hidden alternate. For example, in the recent
conversion of RI I-295, "6" and "7" were needed for new mileage-based exits. Anyone who had
RI I-295 6 7 in their .list file prior to the renumbering originally had their travels mapped from the US6 freeway to US44. Now,
RI I-295 6 7 maps travels from RI14 to Scituate Ave, and these users will need to edit their .list files. This happens sometimes.
Put these two facets together, and we get some of the same wacky hijinks -- a few of I-95Tre's point labels already exist near the south end of existing I-295:
7, 4, 1, and finally 0, a hidden AltLabel for PA/NJ on I-95Tre & for DE/NJ on I295.
Right now,
7 .list files contain a line for
NJ I-95_M.
None of these lines use any of the four labels above.
I-95_M can safely be included as an AltRouteName for I-295, and these people's lists will still work.
59 .list files contain a line for
NJ I-95Tre.
• If I don't include
I-95Tre as an AltRouteName for I-295, all 59 of these users will need to edits their .lists to include these segments on the newly-extended I-295. Their travels on the "old" I-295 will be shown correctly.
• If I do include
I-95Tre as an AltRouteName for I-295, 48 .lists don't contain any of the four labels above; their travels will be shown correctly.
Of the remaining 11 .lists:• 4 have clinched existing I-295, and their travels on this "classic" portion will be shown correctly.
baugh17 will have the former I-95Tre bit improperly marked as clinched; the other three (
sercamaro, dnthrox, neilbert) will have it improperly blank.
• 3 will have all of I-295, both the classic and former I-95Tre bits, improperly marked as clinched:
JamesMD, thing342, mikeandkristie• 3 will have most of classic I-295 (north of either exit 1 or 7) improperly marked, and former I-95Tre bits, improperly marked as clinched:
roukan, jackgaynor, mojavenc•
osu_lsu will have all of classic I-295 north of Exit 7 improperly marked, and all of the former I-95Tre improperly blank.
I have the option of making...
• 59 users update their .lists due to missing/incomplete info
(a greater number of users dealing with a lesser evil), or
• 3 users update their .lists due to missing/incomplete info & 8 users update their lists due to bad/mangled info
(a lesser number of users dealing with a greater evil). These 11 .lists have all been updated since August 7th.
I prefer the latter option. That, and having both AltRouteNames just seems, procedurally, like The Right Way Of Doing Things. Leaving that little bit of archaeological evidence in usai.csv that "part of this route used to be known as that route."
