1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.TRANSPORT.ROAD

  • More I-76 and Atlantic City Expressway

    From Christopher Lankenau@21:1/5 to Gregory Pietsch on Wed Feb 10 18:22:32 2021
    On Monday, June 10, 2002 at 10:57:13 PM UTC-4, Gregory Pietsch wrote:
    "stéphane dumas" <steph...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:xJaN8.19732$mp4.7...@weber.videotron.net...
    I agree that the interchange is needed. It's all part of the master
    plan.
    ;-)

    I think that the cost of the shields would be miniscule compared to the
    cost
    of the NJTP/I-76 interchange. (One idea I have is to designate the NJTP between exits 1 and 6 as I-695 [bypass around Philadelphia] since the
    other
    I-695 in New Jersey was cancelled circa 1978.) The interchange would be
    at
    the NSF section of the highway.

    someone posted his proposal of a connection between NJ42,NJ55 and the ACE http://mahn0.tripod.com/njtpknew.htm

    there was also a cancelled I-695 once in south Philly, the Cobbs creek expressway
    http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/cobbs-creek/

    Gregory Pietsch

    Stéphane Dumas
    Well, it would be a north-south interstate bypass of I-95, and since I-295 and I-495 are already in the Delaware Valley (I-495 in Delaware), that
    leaves I-695 and I-895. I-695 is the canceled Cobbs Creek Expressway; I-895 is the canceled Burlington-Bristol Bypass. I used I-695 since it is the lowest available number. ;-)
    Gregory Pietsch

    It looks like I'm 20 years late, but I agree that the I-76 designation should be extended to AC. I feel like it's MORE confusing to leave it as-is with three different designations than to mark as a single route number. Wouldn't that make it less
    confusing? Then AC would get an interstate, which I'm sure the CVB and Chamber would favor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alexander Micharski@21:1/5 to Christopher Lankenau on Wed Feb 24 12:29:08 2021
    On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 9:22:33 PM UTC-5, Christopher Lankenau wrote:
    On Monday, June 10, 2002 at 10:57:13 PM UTC-4, Gregory Pietsch wrote:
    "stéphane dumas" <steph...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:xJaN8.19732$mp4.7...@weber.videotron.net...
    I agree that the interchange is needed. It's all part of the master
    plan.
    ;-)

    I think that the cost of the shields would be miniscule compared to the
    cost
    of the NJTP/I-76 interchange. (One idea I have is to designate the NJTP
    between exits 1 and 6 as I-695 [bypass around Philadelphia] since the
    other
    I-695 in New Jersey was cancelled circa 1978.) The interchange would be
    at
    the NSF section of the highway.

    someone posted his proposal of a connection between NJ42,NJ55 and the ACE
    http://mahn0.tripod.com/njtpknew.htm

    there was also a cancelled I-695 once in south Philly, the Cobbs creek expressway
    http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/cobbs-creek/

    Gregory Pietsch

    Stéphane Dumas
    Well, it would be a north-south interstate bypass of I-95, and since I-295 and I-495 are already in the Delaware Valley (I-495 in Delaware), that leaves I-695 and I-895. I-695 is the canceled Cobbs Creek Expressway; I-895
    is the canceled Burlington-Bristol Bypass. I used I-695 since it is the lowest available number. ;-)
    Gregory Pietsch
    It looks like I'm 20 years late, but I agree that the I-76 designation should be extended to AC. I feel like it's MORE confusing to leave it as-is with three different designations than to mark as a single route number. Wouldn't that make it less
    confusing? Then AC would get an interstate, which I'm sure the CVB and Chamber would favor.
    Do you believe that NJ-55 should be designated as I-176 as well?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christopher Lankenau@21:1/5 to Alexander Micharski on Wed Mar 15 22:08:52 2023
    On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, Alexander Micharski wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 9:22:33 PM UTC-5, Christopher Lankenau wrote:
    On Monday, June 10, 2002 at 10:57:13 PM UTC-4, Gregory Pietsch wrote:
    "stéphane dumas" <steph...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:xJaN8.19732$mp4.7...@weber.videotron.net...
    I agree that the interchange is needed. It's all part of the master
    plan.
    ;-)

    I think that the cost of the shields would be miniscule compared to the
    cost
    of the NJTP/I-76 interchange. (One idea I have is to designate the NJTP
    between exits 1 and 6 as I-695 [bypass around Philadelphia] since the
    other
    I-695 in New Jersey was cancelled circa 1978.) The interchange would be
    at
    the NSF section of the highway.

    someone posted his proposal of a connection between NJ42,NJ55 and the ACE
    http://mahn0.tripod.com/njtpknew.htm

    there was also a cancelled I-695 once in south Philly, the Cobbs creek expressway
    http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/cobbs-creek/

    Gregory Pietsch

    Stéphane Dumas
    Well, it would be a north-south interstate bypass of I-95, and since I-295
    and I-495 are already in the Delaware Valley (I-495 in Delaware), that leaves I-695 and I-895. I-695 is the canceled Cobbs Creek Expressway; I-895
    is the canceled Burlington-Bristol Bypass. I used I-695 since it is the lowest available number. ;-)
    Gregory Pietsch
    It looks like I'm 20 years late, but I agree that the I-76 designation should be extended to AC. I feel like it's MORE confusing to leave it as-is with three different designations than to mark as a single route number. Wouldn't that make it less
    confusing? Then AC would get an interstate, which I'm sure the CVB and Chamber would favor.
    Do you believe that NJ-55 should be designated as I-176 as well?
    I'm thinking I-576 to at least keep a "5" in the new number, but I definitely think Route 55 should become a spur of 76 if the designation occurs. If this were in a state like North Carolina, this would have occurred years ago. Many of their four-lane
    highways are being upgraded to interstate designations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Christopher Lankenau@21:1/5 to Alexander Micharski on Wed Mar 15 22:09:46 2023
    On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, Alexander Micharski wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 9:22:33 PM UTC-5, Christopher Lankenau wrote:
    On Monday, June 10, 2002 at 10:57:13 PM UTC-4, Gregory Pietsch wrote:
    "stéphane dumas" <steph...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:xJaN8.19732$mp4.7...@weber.videotron.net...
    I agree that the interchange is needed. It's all part of the master
    plan.
    ;-)

    I think that the cost of the shields would be miniscule compared to the
    cost
    of the NJTP/I-76 interchange. (One idea I have is to designate the NJTP
    between exits 1 and 6 as I-695 [bypass around Philadelphia] since the
    other
    I-695 in New Jersey was cancelled circa 1978.) The interchange would be
    at
    the NSF section of the highway.

    someone posted his proposal of a connection between NJ42,NJ55 and the ACE
    http://mahn0.tripod.com/njtpknew.htm

    there was also a cancelled I-695 once in south Philly, the Cobbs creek expressway
    http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/cobbs-creek/

    Gregory Pietsch

    Stéphane Dumas
    Well, it would be a north-south interstate bypass of I-95, and since I-295
    and I-495 are already in the Delaware Valley (I-495 in Delaware), that leaves I-695 and I-895. I-695 is the canceled Cobbs Creek Expressway; I-895
    is the canceled Burlington-Bristol Bypass. I used I-695 since it is the lowest available number. ;-)
    Gregory Pietsch
    It looks like I'm 20 years late, but I agree that the I-76 designation should be extended to AC. I feel like it's MORE confusing to leave it as-is with three different designations than to mark as a single route number. Wouldn't that make it less
    confusing? Then AC would get an interstate, which I'm sure the CVB and Chamber would favor.
    Do you believe that NJ-55 should be designated as I-176 as well?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)