New Jersey

[Alps]

All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.

I don't buy that. Fiber optic cables are becoming a necessary component of ITS. Does every road with ITS lose Federal funding? Why is FO treated differently than any other utility running along a state right of way? So please cite your source - yes, I Googled and found nothing.

ITS installation specifically is eligible for federal aid (not sure if the three-year maintenance period still applies, though), but putting an unassociated fiber optic cable along the Wantagh did indeed mean that it lost its federal-aid eligibility.

Again - what makes FO different than any other utility? Again - source?

[Rothman]

All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.

I don't buy that. Fiber optic cables are becoming a necessary component of ITS. Does every road with ITS lose Federal funding? Why is FO treated differently than any other utility running along a state right of way? So please cite your source - yes, I Googled and found nothing.

ITS installation specifically is eligible for federal aid (not sure if the three-year maintenance period still applies, though), but putting an unassociated fiber optic cable along the Wantagh did indeed mean that it lost its federal-aid eligibility.

Again - what makes FO different than any other utility? Again - source?

1) Nothing is different, really.  FHWA ruled that the installation of the fiber optic line in the Parkway's right of way in particular was an ineligible expense of federal funding.
 
2) Feel free to ask NYSDOT or the New York Division of the FHWA.  I suppose I might have my facts wrong.

[jeffandnicole]

Ok,  last I'm replying here on this because I don't want to derail the topic -- I am planning on making a large post in Fictional Highways later about how this *might* work.

All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.  NY is also now in danger of more mileage being made ineligible for federal funding due to the Taste of NY fiasco.

As I already said, privatized state roads in my plan wouldn't be eligible for federal funding anyway.   Relying on federal funding is not a valid business plan for a business,  it's not a really good contingency plan for a state to not have self-sufficient infrastructure maintenance, and frankly I don't like some aspects of MUTCD-compliance.

Also, the idea that utilities would rent lines seems amiss to me.  I believe utilities usually own their own infrastructure.  The one contracted to install the line would own it.  There wouldn't be any rent collected.

That is so far off base it's not funny.   I work for a very large national telco and while we do own quite a bit of infrastructure since we are a descendant of the Bell System and have been operating for decades,  a huge operating cost is still real estate and expanding fiber to places that don't have it.   Leasing real estate along roads to put repeaters, distribution equipment, and diagnostic equipment is a large cost,  as well as paying the individual land owners and municipalities for easements and other fees related to using municipal-owned or shared utility poles and space is also costly.   The biggest problem, however,  is running new lines places where there aren't utility poles or existing telco-owned land.   *Roads go everywhere*.   Imagine as a cable company,  you need to run a line down the street from an existing neighborhood to some newly developed houses on a cul-de-sac,  you have three options:  1.  Buy enough contiguous land that you own a single span from point A to point B (which is almost never possible and prevents other use of the land),  2.  Pay multiple real estate owners or the town for an easement to run the cable through their land (which is infeasible, costly, and prone to lots of politics) 3.  The state, for an ongoing fee, runs the cable under the road alongside the network the state already needs to operate for road signage, lights, sensors, etc.    Think about it -- roads go everywhere.   Power lines, gas pipes, and municipal utility space does not.    It is a huge cost to put in underground utilities where there aren't already linear spans of land under single control,  but all of the roads in the state are already there, linked, and periodically dug up and rehabilitated.    Look up "dark fiber",  it's the practice of putting currently-unneeded fiber underground for the future anytime the ground happens to be open just because  it's more cost effective to lay a whole bunch of unused fiber now then to put more in later.

All I have seen in terms of private operation are companies boosting tolls, not investing proportionally in the road, declaring bankruptcy and then laughing all the way to the bank.

Tolls are not a viable way of monetizing DOT operations because they're not dependable,  they're avoidable,  and they directly relate to a specific portion of roadway.   The legislation that privatizes the DOT should put a cap on tolls and make clear what the company/authority's responsibilities are to ensure the people don't get screwed.    My plan would immediately see a huge realization in savings quickly from technological and process efficiency increases alone over the bureaucratic, rigged way we're doing things through subcontractors.    Even without my grandiose ideas,  other states and jurisdictions pay significantly less than NJ does per mile of road maintained,  and that's a pretty commonly accepted fact from talking to folks bitch about the TTF lately.   

Transportation expenses in NJ this year for NJDOT and NJ Transit total a little over $3.9 Billion.  Do you think underground conduit will bring in $4 Billion in revenue a year?

As far as NJ paying more per mile than other states (why you keep repeating this...I guess you want a response)...while it's true, it depends on the report you read.  The report of $2 million per mile was greatly disputed because of their methodology.   NJ will still spend more than most other states anyway, simply because things cost more in this state.  Land costs are higher, salaries are higher, taxes are higher...nearly everything is higher.  Your salary in NJ will probably be higher in comparison to what you would make in most other states...but so is the cost of housing and other expenses.   Granted, it doesn't help that Sweeney, a union boss, required union work on every job raising the cost, although much of the work was union labor anyway, which has a very strong attachment to projects in the region anyway.

[storm2k]

Was poking around on GSV, and it looks like they've installed a HAWK signal on George St in New Brunswick on the College Ave Campus. Interesting thing is that it replaced a standard signal that controlled the crossing for years (certainly back in the late 90s when I was on the banks).

[Alps]

All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.

I don't buy that. Fiber optic cables are becoming a necessary component of ITS. Does every road with ITS lose Federal funding? Why is FO treated differently than any other utility running along a state right of way? So please cite your source - yes, I Googled and found nothing.

ITS installation specifically is eligible for federal aid (not sure if the three-year maintenance period still applies, though), but putting an unassociated fiber optic cable along the Wantagh did indeed mean that it lost its federal-aid eligibility.

Again - what makes FO different than any other utility? Again - source?

1) Nothing is different, really.  FHWA ruled that the installation of the fiber optic line in the Parkway's right of way in particular was an ineligible expense of federal funding.
 
2) Feel free to ask NYSDOT or the New York Division of the FHWA.  I suppose I might have my facts wrong.

Installation of a utility is not for Federal funding, I would agree. But that doesn't mean the entire road can't be funded, only the installation of the FO line. If the FO line was for ITS, I imagine that it could have been Federally funded under a different program.

[Alex]

Looks like a bit of recent discussion here should be partitioned into a separate thread(s).

Anyway, not sure if this had been previously posted about. Recently drove I-80 west from I-95 to I-476, and thought of the old U.S. 611 shield at Columbia. Did not check it out this go around, but looking at GSV last night, the shield was oddly replaced with a reverse video US 611 shield.

[_Simon]

Looks like a bit of recent discussion here should be partitioned into a separate thread(s).

Anyway, not sure if this had been previously posted about. Recently drove I-80 west from I-95 to I-476, and thought of the old U.S. 611 shield at Columbia. Did not check it out this go around, but looking at GSV last night, the shield was oddly replaced with a reverse video US 611 shield.

I guess they ran out of "historic" or "old" banners, so they opted for reverse video.  I personally would have invoked Sepia tone.

SM-G930V

[storm2k]

Looks like a bit of recent discussion here should be partitioned into a separate thread(s).

Anyway, not sure if this had been previously posted about. Recently drove I-80 west from I-95 to I-476, and thought of the old U.S. 611 shield at Columbia. Did not check it out this go around, but looking at GSV last night, the shield was oddly replaced with a reverse video US 611 shield.

That looks like a lovely shield straight out of Florida. I actually like the look.

I kind of wish NJ was more into the idea of the brown "Historic Route" signage that a lot of other states use. In NJ, they could certainly post most of historic NJ-24 along its old route. Hell, most people still call it 24, especially east of Chester, and there are still plenty of old 24 shields that will probably stand until they fall down for good.

[NJRoadfan]

There are NEW NJ-24 shields posted on that stretch of roadway.

[_Simon]

Looks like a bit of recent discussion here should be partitioned into a separate thread(s).

Anyway, not sure if this had been previously posted about. Recently drove I-80 west from I-95 to I-476, and thought of the old U.S. 611 shield at Columbia. Did not check it out this go around, but looking at GSV last night, the shield was oddly replaced with a reverse video US 611 shield.

That looks like a lovely shield straight out of Florida. I actually like the look.

I kind of wish NJ was more into the idea of the brown "Historic Route" signage that a lot of other states use. In NJ, they could certainly post most of historic NJ-24 along its old route. Hell, most people still call it 24, especially east of Chester, and there are still plenty of old 24 shields that will probably stand until they fall down for good.

I agree.  I even offered to buy Brown "old" banners for nj-24 if they would put them up.  I'm still looking for a state contact that has some level of decision making power.

We sign former exit numbers meticulously, sometimes for decades, even though we still have people and Google maps calling entire networks of roads the wrong thing.  It's a shame our prioritiies are so ass backwards.

SM-G930V

[Alps]

There are NEW NJ-24 shields posted on that stretch of roadway.

There are not. Having driven the corridor extensively in recent years, the 24 signs are all gone, new and old.

[NJRoadfan]

https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.

[ixnay]

https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.

That shot is from October 2016.  You sure the sign hasn't come down since then?

ixnay

[Alps]

https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.

That's one double-error shield (being there at all, and being SOUTH). That doesn't indicate they're still signing the route. Nothing "east" of there exists beyond the old yellow diamond hill signs referencing RT. 24

[_Simon]

https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.

That's one double-error shield (being there at all, and being SOUTH). That doesn't indicate they're still signing the route. Nothing "east" of there exists beyond the old yellow diamond hill signs referencing RT. 24

I live down the street from there and that sign assembly with the "South" is only about 10-24 months old.  I think I even posted here when it showed up.  They are most definitely still actively signing non-24 including new signs that replaced the old peeling ones by the intersection of CR-513.

SM-G930V

[Alps]

https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.

That's one double-error shield (being there at all, and being SOUTH). That doesn't indicate they're still signing the route. Nothing "east" of there exists beyond the old yellow diamond hill signs referencing RT. 24

I live down the street from there and that sign assembly with the "South" is only about 10-24 months old.  I think I even posted here when it showed up.  They are most definitely still actively signing non-24 including new signs that replaced the old peeling ones by the intersection of CR-513.

The last time I was through there - possibly more than 10-24 months ago - ALL of the signs along CR 513 were gone, both at 510 and 517.

[_Simon]

https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.

That's one double-error shield (being there at all, and being SOUTH). That doesn't indicate they're still signing the route. Nothing "east" of there exists beyond the old yellow diamond hill signs referencing RT. 24

I live down the street from there and that sign assembly with the "South" is only about 10-24 months old.  I think I even posted here when it showed up.  They are most definitely still actively signing non-24 including new signs that replaced the old peeling ones by the intersection of CR-513.

The last time I was through there - possibly more than 10-24 months ago - ALL of the signs along CR 513 were gone, both at 510 and 517.

I assure you there are others, and it was actually this thread I brought this up in when it showed up:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10453.msg308340.msg#308340

SM-G930V

[roadman65]

NJ 24 always was referred to as such west of Morristown.  I do remember Mendham signing it on the street signs as "Route 24" before the freeway opening in 1992, and I assume that was a major thing then for locals to use that number for reference to the roadway.  Considering that most people still call Route 495 as "Route 3", I would assume that there would be  folks being reluctant to removing that, so if they are gone in favor of Morris County routes being signed its surprising despite it really being need to be done.

Edit:  Menham Borough removed the overhead blades  with Route 24 on them and obviously on Hilltop road only CR 510 is signed.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mendham,+NJ/@40.7752078,-74.6005866,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAn2FGND2gB9uwLLJW2YLQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsAn2FGND2gB9uwLLJW2YLQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.27906%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c3989fad42c315:0xee046946733305b1!8m2!3d40.7870633!4d-74.5765686

[bzakharin]

NJ 24 always was referred to as such west of Morristown.  I do remember Mendham signing it on the street signs as "Route 24" before the freeway opening in 1992, and I assume that was a major thing then for locals to use that number for reference to the roadway.  Considering that most people still call Route 495 as "Route 3", I would assume that there would be  folks being reluctant to removing that, so if they are gone in favor of Morris County routes being signed its surprising despite it really being need to be done.

Edit:  Menham Borough removed the overhead blades  with Route 24 on them and obviously on Hilltop road only CR 510 is signed.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mendham,+NJ/@40.7752078,-74.6005866,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAn2FGND2gB9uwLLJW2YLQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsAn2FGND2gB9uwLLJW2YLQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.27906%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c3989fad42c315:0xee046946733305b1!8m2!3d40.7870633!4d-74.5765686

It was marked as Rt. 24 on the Patriot's Path across 510 from the Lewis Morris park the last time I was there. I can't imagine that one is a high priority on the county's list.

[jeffandnicole]

It's time for the bi-annual story about completing Route 55 to the end: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20170108_Will_the__road_to_nowhere_-NJ_s_Route_55-ever_go_somewhere_.html

The headline is a little mis-leading...it was known as the road to nowhere back when it only went from Elmer to Vineland.  Since it was completed on its northern end, at least it goes somewhere now.

[CrystalWalrein]

Was poking around on GSV, and it looks like they've installed a HAWK signal on George St in New Brunswick on the College Ave Campus. Interesting thing is that it replaced a standard signal that controlled the crossing for years (certainly back in the late 90s when I was on the banks).

Not the first one I've seen. Ocean City's 9th Street has got them as well.

[storm2k]

I got a bit bored and crafted up a Historic NJ 24 sign mockup. Did it in Series C for a more "historic" feel.

[EricJV95]

Does anybody knows when the new Goethals Bridge will be completed ? The current Goethals Bridge seems to be too tight in both directions. And I mean tight !!! And how soon will the Bayonne Bridge be done? And Is there any plans for the Outerbridge Crossing to get a face lift?

[EricJV95]

I think I have noticed some NEW guide signs on Route 3 EASTBOUND just before Rts. 495 and 1-9 for the Lincoln Tunnel and Jersey City splits. Does anybody have any pics of them?

[Alps]

Does anybody knows when the new Goethals Bridge will be completed ? The current Goethals Bridge seems to be too tight in both directions. And I mean tight !!! And how soon will the Bayonne Bridge be done? And Is there any plans for the Outerbridge Crossing to get a face lift?

Use Google.