New Jersey

[J Route Z]

So we can just give any idea at all? Well I'm going to clutter their inbox full of ideas.

[jeffandnicole]

So we can just give any idea at all? Well I'm going to clutter their inbox full of ideas.

Go for it. 

I'm awaiting for them to say "Well, Tommy in 3rd grade had a great idea to add more bicycle lanes, so we're going with that".

[roadman65]

I was noticing that on GSV for the NJ 45 & US 322 intersection in Mullica Hill there are no shields for each of the four approaches to the intersection.  If you are on US 322 east or west, only the overhead street sign mention NJ 45's existence as there are no more Junction signs leading into it.

The only good sign is the BGS which lists Woodbury and Mullica Hill as well as the Comm. Barry Bridge- PA going WB and TO NJ 55- Shore Points & Glassboro going EB in addition to the one's on Route 45 which also list the bridge to PA and NJ 55/ Shore Points & Glassboro and the original US 322 to NJ Turnpike Comm. Barry Br. that were present before the bypass and realignment of US 322 was built.  Nothing of a JCT shield or even mentioning US 322 EB.  Again only the street blade on the Orlando, FL type of traffic signal that is present there.

I must say that with the added signs and LGSes added in the late 90's that NJDOT would be this careless in signing a two route state junction this way.

[J Route Z]

I was noticing that on GSV for the NJ 45 & US 322 intersection in Mullica Hill there are no shields for each of the four approaches to the intersection.  If you are on US 322 east or west, only the overhead street sign mention NJ 45's existence as there are no more Junction signs leading into it.

The only good sign is the BGS which lists Woodbury and Mullica Hill as well as the Comm. Barry Bridge- PA going WB and TO NJ 55- Shore Points & Glassboro going EB in addition to the one's on Route 45 which also list the bridge to PA and NJ 55/ Shore Points & Glassboro and the original US 322 to NJ Turnpike Comm. Barry Br. that were present before the bypass and realignment of US 322 was built.  Nothing of a JCT shield or even mentioning US 322 EB.  Again only the street blade on the Orlando, FL type of traffic signal that is present there.

I must say that with the added signs and LGSes added in the late 90's that NJDOT would be this careless in signing a two route state junction this way.

NJ does this frequently, whether it's 2 state roads intersecting, a US and state road, or even a state road and interstate. Sometimes a junction route shield is posted at only one intersection approach which is a pet peeve of mine.

[jeffandnicole]

I was noticing that on GSV for the NJ 45 & US 322 intersection in Mullica Hill there are no shields for each of the four approaches to the intersection.  If you are on US 322 east or west, only the overhead street sign mention NJ 45's existence as there are no more Junction signs leading into it.

The only good sign is the BGS which lists Woodbury and Mullica Hill as well as the Comm. Barry Bridge- PA going WB and TO NJ 55- Shore Points & Glassboro going EB in addition to the one's on Route 45 which also list the bridge to PA and NJ 55/ Shore Points & Glassboro and the original US 322 to NJ Turnpike Comm. Barry Br. that were present before the bypass and realignment of US 322 was built.  Nothing of a JCT shield or even mentioning US 322 EB.  Again only the street blade on the Orlando, FL type of traffic signal that is present there.

I must say that with the added signs and LGSes added in the late 90's that NJDOT would be this careless in signing a two route state junction this way.

NJ does this frequently, whether it's 2 state roads intersecting, a US and state road, or even a state road and interstate. Sometimes a junction route shield is posted at only one intersection approach which is a pet peeve of mine.

In this case, it is all Gloucester County jurisdiction, as they took over maintenance of 322 from Tomlin Station Rd (to the east) and near Rt. 55 (to the West).  The county rebuilt this intersection, the US 322 bypass, and widened 322 approaching Rt. 55.

That all said, usually the county is better in advanced signage.  I don't think advanced signage was ever installed around this intersection.

[roadman65]

The leftover NJDOT signs are the one on NB Rte. 45 that says US 322 West to NJT and the Comm. Barry Br. when that was a guide when US 322 was concurrent with the state route through the town itself.

I kind of figured that NJDOT did not maintain the intersection hence the FL signal set ups.  NJDOT likes their truss arms or monotubes except in some urban areas like Newark with Routes 21 & 27 (and even now they are both getting a signal makeover with monotubes and vertical mount heads) where the horizontal installations are allowed.   

[jeffandnicole]

The leftover NJDOT signs are the one on NB Rte. 45 that says US 322 West to NJT and the Comm. Barry Br. when that was a guide when US 322 was concurrent with the state route through the town itself.

I kind of figured that NJDOT did not maintain the intersection hence the FL signal set ups.  NJDOT likes their truss arms or monotubes except in some urban areas like Newark with Routes 21 & 27 (and even now they are both getting a signal makeover with monotubes and vertical mount heads) where the horizontal installations are allowed.   

Throughout NJ, NJDOT, Counties and Municipalities generally use the standard trombone style mast arms or steel monotube mast arms.  The fact that it was a county install doesn't have anything to do with the specialty mast arm used...these masts was requested by the township and approved by the county and/or state to try to fit in to the historic nature of the area (which isn't exactly doing all that well).  Off the top of my head, I can't think of another similar setup done by Gloucester County.

[jeffandnicole]

Less than 2 months before the summer shore season begins, the bridge connecting Sea Isle & Avalon is closed (again) due to a crack found in a supporting pier 30 feet below the water's surface.  http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/cape_may/townsends-inlet-bridge-closed-for-emergency-repairs/article_03ce497c-8644-5937-b7a2-e34e5330c597.html

[roadman65]

Well whether its the county or the township, NJDOT in the past always mostly used Truss arms, and toward the late 80's went monotube as well.   Cities like Newark were able to retain their trombone style arms on state routes, and even Burlington County on county maintained signals used span wire up until 88 or 89, but on Route 130 still followed the state installations elsewhere.   

Like you said it was about fitting in with the historic nature of the area, which may be why NJDOT approved.  In Union County when their roads changed all the signals on Martine Avenue in Fanwood, the one at NJ 28 was not the present day Union County type of arm that was used on other intersections in Fanwood, but the truss arms painted brown instead.  I take NJDOT would not allow Union County or the borough of Fanwood use the latest of Union County there and compromised instead to use the Union County brown color but apply it to standard truss style signaling.

[jeffandnicole]

Well whether its the county or the township, NJDOT in the past always mostly used Truss arms, and toward the late 80's went monotube as well.   Cities like Newark were able to retain their trombone style arms on state routes, and even Burlington County on county maintained signals used span wire up until 88 or 89, but on Route 130 still followed the state installations elsewhere.   

Like you said it was about fitting in with the historic nature of the area, which may be why NJDOT approved.  In Union County when their roads changed all the signals on Martine Avenue in Fanwood, the one at NJ 28 was not the present day Union County type of arm that was used on other intersections in Fanwood, but the truss arms painted brown instead.  I take NJDOT would not allow Union County or the borough of Fanwood use the latest of Union County there and compromised instead to use the Union County brown color but apply it to standard truss style signaling.

The monotubes are due to the use of longer masts to comply to stricter federal standards.  The longest trombone style mast the state is permitted to use is 25 to 30 feet long.   This limits the mast to covering 2 lanes.  Now that the state is complying with the 1 light over each lane federal requirement, the mast arms are now upwards of 60 feet in length, necessitating the monotube.

Here's a 60' +/- example on Rt. 38, as a result of a large repaving and traffic light upgrade project: https://goo.gl/maps/9iRVYMtuFgK2

To compare the difference of how basic a Jersey-style traffic light intersection was, this GSV view in the same location from 2012 only had 1 overhead farside traffic light for all 4 lanes...with the post being in the median!  https://goo.gl/maps/hUH1S9SNzTP2

[roadman65]

US 1 used to have those that got changed in the late 90's.  They got rid of the center poles and placed two mast arms on both sides with one head per lane and a third on the left side opposing arm as well.  The side roads got the usual truss arms cause the distance over is not that far but for two 10 feet lanes.

Yes, even at Ford Avenue in Woodbridge Township they have one per lane, but the right lane signal is on a near side truss mast arm while the monotube is across with the center and left lane signals with the reverse side signal head.

Apparently that will be changed out if it had not already, but the monotubes used where two to three lanes used as they are best for covering the 24 to 48 feet.

BTW. NJDOT is looking like PennDOT with the brown backplates in your links on Route 38.  Interesting to see NYC how they are going to do it with trombone mounts from a diagonal on the opposite corners with the two three and even four way signals.  Most likely the will say FU like they still do with signal controllers using the old analogue equipment and the out of date mast arms they use to keep it NYC's own style.

[jeffandnicole]

NJDOT has put up some additional traffic cams on their website.  I'll point out two of interest (to me)...

US 130 at Delaware Memorial Bridge (it's really I-295 there; not sure why it's not included on that list).  The camera appears to generally be zoomed out, providing a nice picture of the bridges.

US 130 at the Brooklawn Circle.  It's located within the circle so you can't get a perfect view of the madness, but just watching some of it shows how a Jersey Traffic circle really works (shame there's no audio...just imagine the horn beeping in your head!).  Viewing it today, it was facing NJ 47 at the circle.  Creek Rd is to the left; the Speedway gas station is to the right.

Unfortunately I can't bring up individual cameras...go to http://www.511nj.org/Cameras.aspx then click on the dropdown menu for the US 130 Tour for the 2 I mentioned above.

[jeffandnicole]

In April's 6 month Planned Construction Outlook ( http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ ), this project just popped up!

UPC #173850
Rt 95, Rt 29 to Rt 1
Redesignation and replacement of signs along I-295 from M.P. 0.20-8.77.
Proposed Advertised Month July, 2017
Project Details
Mercer County/Ewing Twp
MP 0.2-8.77
Estimate Range   $1,000,000 - $5,000,000

This appears to finally convert the signage and designation of I-95 to I-295 around Trenton!

Based on the description above...it'll be put out to bid in July (or soon thereafter); it'll take about a month for the bids to come back, another month for the bids to be accepted, and then several months for the project to be completed.  Based on the terminology and estimated cost, it appears they'll be replacing all the BGSs, rather than just doing greenouts and overlays.

[bzakharin]

In April's 6 month Planned Construction Outlook ( http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ ), this project just popped up!

UPC #173850
Rt 95, Rt 29 to Rt 1
Redesignation and replacement of signs along I-295 from M.P. 0.20-8.77.
Proposed Advertised Month July, 2017
Project Details
Mercer County/Ewing Twp
MP 0.2-8.77
Estimate Range   $1,000,000 - $5,000,000

This appears to finally convert the signage and designation of I-95 to I-295 around Trenton!

Based on the description above...it'll be put out to bid in July (or soon thereafter); it'll take about a month for the bids to come back, another month for the bids to be accepted, and then several months for the project to be completed.  Based on the terminology and estimated cost, it appears they'll be replacing all the BGSs, rather than just doing greenouts and overlays.

Assuming that is what they're referring to, isn't this a bit premature? Shouldn't they wait for Penndot to do the redesignation following the completion of phase 1 of the interchange (and who knows if/when that's done)? Is it even approved by the Feds?

[jeffandnicole]

Being that 95 kinda disappears in NJ anyway, it shouldn't have much of an impact on the travelling public, other than the stuff that typically comes with renumbering a roadway.  When the project is put out to bid, it usually indicates at that time when the project should be completed, which gives clues as to when the signs may be installed.  If it's too early, they could use overlays or ground-mounted temporary signage as needed.

It's also possible this is being coordinated with PennDOT, and 95 will simply end at the PA Turnpike prior to the interchange being completed.

Glancing at PennDOT's page, I didn't see anything relating to signage changes, although it could be part of PTC's 95/PA Tpk Project.

For the most part, other than for those aware that 95 and the PA Turnpike will be connected soon, there's been virtually no mention of the fact that 95 and its related exits needs to be renumbered in NJ & PA.

[akotchi]

The change in designation is approved by FHWA -- the agencies can post "future interstate" signs alongside the existing ones.  Could be part of this.

Pure speculation (I was not the designer on this contract) . . . existing signing is being replaced with signs with ultimate messages.  Those ultimate messages are likely to be overlaid with the existing messages.  If there are any new sign structures going up (I think the existing ones are fairly old), this will require some lead time before the panels go up.

I suspect NJDOT wants to be ready when PTC finally finishes the ramp connections to unveil the new I-295 designation and remove the overlays.  There may also be some "Formerly Exit" panels to go up at that time as well.

My office is along the I-95 (I-295) corridor, so I will keep a look out for what is going on.

[vdeane]

Given that I-95 currently vanishes at US 1, I don't think it vanishing at the state line would be an issue.  I would think that overlays and stuff would be more labor than its worth.

[bzakharin]

It would be kind of funny to see "Future 295" signs on existing I-95, effectively advertising an impending downgrade.

[Alps]

I'm pretty sure NJDOT is doing this all at once and final. They specifically are holding off on upgrades to 95-related signs along Route 31, for example.

[Mr. Matté]

It would be kind of funny to see "Future 295" signs on existing I-95, effectively advertising an impending downgrade.

Or if "Future 295" signs are actually posted, parts of Future 295 were previously 295.

[jwolfer]

It would be kind of funny to see "Future 295" signs on existing I-95, effectively advertising an impending downgrade.

Or if "Future 295" signs are actually posted, parts of Future 295 were previously 295.

The once and future i295

LGMS428

[storm2k]

US 1 used to have those that got changed in the late 90's.  They got rid of the center poles and placed two mast arms on both sides with one head per lane and a third on the left side opposing arm as well.  The side roads got the usual truss arms cause the distance over is not that far but for two 10 feet lanes.

Yes, even at Ford Avenue in Woodbridge Township they have one per lane, but the right lane signal is on a near side truss mast arm while the monotube is across with the center and left lane signals with the reverse side signal head.

Apparently that will be changed out if it had not already, but the monotubes used where two to three lanes used as they are best for covering the 24 to 48 feet.

BTW. NJDOT is looking like PennDOT with the brown backplates in your links on Route 38.  Interesting to see NYC how they are going to do it with trombone mounts from a diagonal on the opposite corners with the two three and even four way signals.  Most likely the will say FU like they still do with signal controllers using the old analogue equipment and the out of date mast arms they use to keep it NYC's own style.

22 has a ton of these. they had way more before they did the its/signal upgrade from the east end of bridgewater to mountainside. now all those signals are monotubes with one signal per lane. still, west of 287, there are a lot of the trusses in the median (that was a very 80s thing that njdot did on many of their 4-6 lane divided roads) and a large mix of the older monotubes.

[roadman65]

Many of the signals west of US 202 & 206 to Lebanon were added in the 90's.  Milltown Road in Bridgewater was turned on from flash mode to permanent the very day I left NJ in August of 1990.  The one at Orr Road in Branchburg was being installed as I passed by it on my departure, but no signal heads or arms, just the poles.  Only the ones at Ethicon and the office park east of NJ 28 were installed in the 80's as well as both CR 523 signals in 1984.  The one at Exxon just east of I-78 was first installed in the early 80's but only worked at shift starts and ends and remained flashing other times until the late 80's when it operated 24/7.

The one at Country Club Road, one of very few with back plates in the 1970s was there as long as I can remember just like the one in Lebanon.  Than the Round Valley signal was late 70's as most of 1970's had two working signals between the split from I-78 to Somerville while both CR 523 signals were flashing beacons with two section heads on truss arms from the median.

So it predated the 80's with the all sides and angles thing.  Most of US 22 in Watchung had one left, one right and another center.  Then CR 529 had a jughandle within a jughandle and allowed for U Turns WB to not have to turn on CR 529 but turn in its own ramp. 

Also NJ used mainly 8-8-8 and the 12-12-12 came into play from 1985 onward.

[roadman65]

What is up with the bridge to nowhere crossing NJ 24 just east of the JFK Parkway interchange?  I see the sound walls along NJ 24 are built across the road leading to both ends of the bridge from NJ 124, thus allowing anyone, including pedestrians to use it.

Is there a structural issue that NJDOT closed it to all people and traffic?  Wikipedia points out the bridge, but offers no explanation to its demise only that it is one of many to be built and unused.

[Roadgeek Adam]

What is up with the bridge to nowhere crossing NJ 24 just east of the JFK Parkway interchange?  I see the sound walls along NJ 24 are built across the road leading to both ends of the bridge from NJ 124, thus allowing anyone, including pedestrians to use it.

Is there a structural issue that NJDOT closed it to all people and traffic?  Wikipedia points out the bridge, but offers no explanation to its demise only that it is one of many to be built and unused.

It was the crossing of Brantwood Drive over NJ 24, but by 1987, they bulldozed an extension of Brantwood Drive and blocked it off.

You can see its old ROW in Street View as it used to go straight and now turns left.