AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: New Jersey Turnpike  (Read 426261 times)

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8583
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 40
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 05:49:19 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2250 on: August 23, 2017, 11:25:44 AM »

As city-happy the NJ Turnpike is/was on their BGS, they still couldn't hold a candle to the Indiana Toll Road in the 70s, when they had supplemental BGSs which would regularly list 5 or more cities on the same sign that you could access from the upcoming exit.

ISTHA says hello with their supplemental signage.
https://goo.gl/maps/G24iKQY7W9q
https://goo.gl/maps/iR5oQ8KTKVr
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 963
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 09:02:13 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2251 on: August 23, 2017, 08:46:43 PM »

Roadman your point is well taken. But just for argument's sake, if the FHWA wanted to strictly enforce the city name requirement, they could force the NJTA to sign Exit 14C as Lower-Manhattan, Exit 16E as Mid-Manhattan and Exit 18E as Upper-Manhattan. I'm NOT suggesting they should do that, but again if they were that insistent, who knows how absurd it could get?

Wouldn't be the first time the writers of the MUTCD created a problem where there wasn't one. Take the issue of down arrows and APL signs for instance or discouraging a street name and city name on the same sign.
Logged

amroad17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 962
  • Viaduct or Community Grid. It's now up to NYSDOT.

  • Age: 55
  • Location: Northern Kentucky
  • Last Login: September 18, 2017, 11:47:00 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2252 on: August 23, 2017, 09:27:22 PM »

As city-happy the NJ Turnpike is/was on their BGS, they still couldn't hold a candle to the Indiana Toll Road in the 70s, when they had supplemental BGSs which would regularly list 5 or more cities on the same sign that you could access from the upcoming exit.

ISTHA says hello with their supplemental signage.
https://goo.gl/maps/G24iKQY7W9q
https://goo.gl/maps/iR5oQ8KTKVr
ISHTA fairly much has to do that considering how many cities and towns there are in the Chicagoland area.

I could see supplemental signs like this on the NJTP from Edison up to Ft. Lee.
Logged
I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

storm2k

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 492
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:41 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2253 on: August 24, 2017, 12:02:10 AM »

As city-happy the NJ Turnpike is/was on their BGS, they still couldn't hold a candle to the Indiana Toll Road in the 70s, when they had supplemental BGSs which would regularly list 5 or more cities on the same sign that you could access from the upcoming exit.

ISTHA says hello with their supplemental signage.
https://goo.gl/maps/G24iKQY7W9q
https://goo.gl/maps/iR5oQ8KTKVr
ISHTA fairly much has to do that considering how many cities and towns there are in the Chicagoland area.

I could see supplemental signs like this on the NJTP from Edison up to Ft. Lee.

ISHTA is also mostly allergic to putting anything other than road names or shields up on their signage, except for interstate to interstate connections, so that's not surprising. The Turnpike Authority, on the other hand, is almost taking it to the other extreme, putting up a ton of supplemental signs with only one destination on them.
Logged

bzakharin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1093
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 03:26:05 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2254 on: August 24, 2017, 09:18:47 AM »

Roadman your point is well taken. But just for argument's sake, if the FHWA wanted to strictly enforce the city name requirement, they could force the NJTA to sign Exit 14C as Lower-Manhattan, Exit 16E as Mid-Manhattan and Exit 18E as Upper-Manhattan. I'm NOT suggesting they should do that, but again if they were that insistent, who knows how absurd it could get?
Manhattan is not a city. Didn't they get rid of a bunch of non-municipalities like Iselin on the Parkway? And are things like "Lower Manhattan" allowed even if Manhattan were a city? I know "Central Philadelphia" is on I-95 and I-76, and borough names are used within NYC, but are those even ok?
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7566
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: September 14, 2017, 09:41:43 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2255 on: August 24, 2017, 09:45:35 AM »

Nether are the bridges and tunnels are really encouraged so using the boroughs is not much different. 


IMO opinion I have no issues using the bridges and tunnels.   I even miss the classic Turnpike arrows too, but life goes on.   I am not like some users on here who cry about silly things out of their control and even write road agencies to argue with certain rulings (yes one user  here specifically wrote a DOT about a route number he did not like).

I hate to see the classic signs go, but whatever they choose I must accept and will accept it.  I still though have my opinions and we all should be able to express them of course.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7298
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 03:29:54 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2256 on: September 12, 2017, 02:57:16 PM »

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/09/once_in_a_generation_remake_of_16_service_areas_set_to_begin_on_parkway_turnpike.html#incart_river_home

The NJ Turnpike authorized the agreement to have HMS Host rebuild and/or renovate numerous Service Plazas along the Turnpike and Parkway.

The new design will be based on the rebuilt Glover Cleveland Service Area.   The entire concept is based on the rebuilt buildings in Delaware and Maryland, which definitely attracted the attention of NJ officials.

The I-78 NJ Turnpike Extension may also receive new Service Areas as well, between Exits 14A & 14B.
Logged

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 955
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 26
  • Location: State Route 324, Tonawanda, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:24 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2257 on: September 12, 2017, 06:32:30 PM »

The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 963
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 09:02:13 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2258 on: September 12, 2017, 07:30:52 PM »

Weren't some of the Service Areas rebuilt not too long ago? Not talking about the one in Woodbridge; is that Grover Cleveland (?) that was rebuilt after Sandy.
Logged

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1581
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 08:55:59 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2259 on: September 12, 2017, 08:53:35 PM »

Roadman your point is well taken. But just for argument's sake, if the FHWA wanted to strictly enforce the city name requirement, they could force the NJTA to sign Exit 14C as Lower-Manhattan, Exit 16E as Mid-Manhattan and Exit 18E as Upper-Manhattan. I'm NOT suggesting they should do that, but again if they were that insistent, who knows how absurd it could get?
Manhattan is not a city. Didn't they get rid of a bunch of non-municipalities like Iselin on the Parkway? And are things like "Lower Manhattan" allowed even if Manhattan were a city? I know "Central Philadelphia" is on I-95 and I-76, and borough names are used within NYC, but are those even ok?


For Manhattan areas, I would use "Lower Manhattan", "Midtown", and "Upper Manhattan".   As for the other boroughs, it really depends on a case by case basis.  For example, using an exit from the BQE to the LIE , I would put "495 East-Hempstead" and "495 West TO (symbol for) Queens Midtown Tunnel -Midtown".  If there are multiple exits for a boro, say for Queens off the Cross-Bronx, I'd use neighborhoods.  Examples: "678 South-Whitestone/Flushing (can't use an airport as a control city), where on I-295 I'd use "295 South-Bayside/Fresh Meadows".  I'm also a fan of using 2 control cities if warranted, so the exit from the Deegan to I-95 south would say "95 South-Trenton/Philadelphia"

Iselin is still used.  It replaced "Metropark", just like "Churchmans Crossing" replaced "Metroform" for the DE 1/7 North exit off of I-95 in DE.

 I'd like to see Central Philadelphia replaced by "Center City Philadelphia" in the Camden area for I-676 West (Center could be abbreviated as Ctr.),  and even "Center City" could be used within the Philadelphia city limits. 
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7566
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: September 14, 2017, 09:41:43 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2260 on: September 13, 2017, 12:59:08 PM »

Usually sign it accordance with downtown and business districts.  In NYC its hard as each borough has its own downtown area and many different business districts for each neighborhood, but the main business center is the Financial Center along with Wall Street (hence why I-78 E Bound is signed as New York City from Newark Airport) so Exit 14 should be signed for Downtown Manhattan.

Midtown Manhattan too is a business district as many skyscrapers are erected there  as it has global importance as well.  It has Broadway, Times Square, and Central Park which are prominent destinations.  In addition so it should get a mention for 16E as Midtown Manhattan.


JP is Iselin still used?  I thought it was removed at Exit 131 (now 132) and Metropark is now Wood Ave. South.  That is what GSV shows and some users here have observed in travel.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7298
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 03:29:54 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2261 on: September 13, 2017, 01:19:45 PM »

The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.

The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.

The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.

Logged

storm2k

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 492
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:41 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2262 on: September 13, 2017, 04:37:59 PM »

Usually sign it accordance with downtown and business districts.  In NYC its hard as each borough has its own downtown area and many different business districts for each neighborhood, but the main business center is the Financial Center along with Wall Street (hence why I-78 E Bound is signed as New York City from Newark Airport) so Exit 14 should be signed for Downtown Manhattan.

Midtown Manhattan too is a business district as many skyscrapers are erected there  as it has global importance as well.  It has Broadway, Times Square, and Central Park which are prominent destinations.  In addition so it should get a mention for 16E as Midtown Manhattan.


JP is Iselin still used?  I thought it was removed at Exit 131 (now 132) and Metropark is now Wood Ave. South.  That is what GSV shows and some users here have observed in travel.

Iselin was moved to supplementary signs in both directions. Metropark is still used for 131B NB (since it was built to directly serve the station), but 131A (NB)/131SB are now Wood Ave South and there is a supplementary sign for Metropark going SB before 132.
Logged

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 955
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 26
  • Location: State Route 324, Tonawanda, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:24 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2263 on: September 13, 2017, 06:59:31 PM »

The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.

The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.

The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.

For the two on the NBE, I'd just build a stereotype rest area  for cheap.
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

storm2k

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 492
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:41 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2264 on: September 14, 2017, 01:50:54 AM »

Weren't some of the Service Areas rebuilt not too long ago? Not talking about the one in Woodbridge; is that Grover Cleveland (?) that was rebuilt after Sandy.

They were renovated about 15 years ago. I believe they left the structures of the buildings intact and just redid the interiors. Some of them probably need structural work too.
Logged

storm2k

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 492
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:41 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2265 on: September 14, 2017, 01:56:50 AM »

The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.

The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.

The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.



It would not make sense for a full restaurant/gas station service area like on the mainline. The NBE serves mostly commuter traffic. People filling up on their way to and from the JC waterfront would benefit nicely from this. Less so the people going to the Holland Tunnel since there are numerous gas stations along 12th and 14th Streets already.
Logged

bzakharin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1093
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 03:26:05 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2266 on: September 14, 2017, 10:14:42 AM »

The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.

The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.

The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.



It would not make sense for a full restaurant/gas station service area like on the mainline. The NBE serves mostly commuter traffic. People filling up on their way to and from the JC waterfront would benefit nicely from this. Less so the people going to the Holland Tunnel since there are numerous gas stations along 12th and 14th Streets already.
Honestly, a 5-mile roadway doesn't need service areas. In fact, none of the toll roads in NJ are long enough to require gas services except the NJ Turnpike mainline which is part of an all toll network extending all the way to Chicago, though other amenities are helpful.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7298
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 03:29:54 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2267 on: September 14, 2017, 10:28:21 AM »

The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.

The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.

The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.



It would not make sense for a full restaurant/gas station service area like on the mainline. The NBE serves mostly commuter traffic. People filling up on their way to and from the JC waterfront would benefit nicely from this. Less so the people going to the Holland Tunnel since there are numerous gas stations along 12th and 14th Streets already.
Honestly, a 5-mile roadway doesn't need service areas. In fact, none of the toll roads in NJ are long enough to require gas services except the NJ Turnpike mainline which is part of an all toll network extending all the way to Chicago, though other amenities are helpful.

They're a convenience more than anything.  By that nature, Delaware doesn't need a service area along their 11 mile highway, and Maryland doesn't need 2 along their 43 mile Turnpike.  The AC Expressway and GSP Service Areas do very well also.  All are money makers.
Logged

hubcity

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 114
  • Location: Central NJ
  • Last Login: Today at 01:32:31 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2268 on: September 14, 2017, 02:10:26 PM »

For Manhattan areas, I would use "Lower Manhattan", "Midtown", and "Upper Manhattan".   As for the other boroughs, it really depends on a case by case basis.  For example, using an exit from the BQE to the LIE , I would put "495 East-Hempstead" and "495 West TO (symbol for) Queens Midtown Tunnel -Midtown".  If there are multiple exits for a boro, say for Queens off the Cross-Bronx, I'd use neighborhoods.  Examples: "678 South-Whitestone/Flushing (can't use an airport as a control city), where on I-295 I'd use "295 South-Bayside/Fresh Meadows".  I'm also a fan of using 2 control cities if warranted, so the exit from the Deegan to I-95 south would say "95 South-Trenton/Philadelphia"

Holland = "Tribeca"
Lincoln = "Hell's Kitchen"
GWB = "Washington Heights"

...I'll get my coat.
Logged

jp the roadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1581
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Outside the I-291 beltway
  • Last Login: Today at 08:55:59 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2269 on: September 14, 2017, 04:43:42 PM »

For Manhattan areas, I would use "Lower Manhattan", "Midtown", and "Upper Manhattan".   As for the other boroughs, it really depends on a case by case basis.  For example, using an exit from the BQE to the LIE , I would put "495 East-Hempstead" and "495 West TO (symbol for) Queens Midtown Tunnel -Midtown".  If there are multiple exits for a boro, say for Queens off the Cross-Bronx, I'd use neighborhoods.  Examples: "678 South-Whitestone/Flushing (can't use an airport as a control city), where on I-295 I'd use "295 South-Bayside/Fresh Meadows".  I'm also a fan of using 2 control cities if warranted, so the exit from the Deegan to I-95 south would say "95 South-Trenton/Philadelphia"

Holland = "Tribeca"
Lincoln = "Hell's Kitchen"
GWB = "Washington Heights"

...I'll get my coat.

And we can use "Meatpacking District" for one of the Lower Manhattan exits off I-78
Logged

storm2k

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 492
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:41 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2270 on: September 14, 2017, 08:19:07 PM »

When did the Admiral Halsey service area close? I always thought it was when they built 13A in the early 80s, but looking at historical aerials, it looks like they had a whole setup with the 13A ramps to go either to the exit or the service area. It looks like it was there thru maybe the mid-90s?
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 963
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 09:02:13 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2271 on: September 14, 2017, 09:01:34 PM »

IIRC it closed sometime after 13A was built. I seem to remember stopping there in it's last days and it was almost under one of the ramps for that interchange. I'd forgotten all about it until now. Surprised it was ever there at all considering there is another one only a few miles before it.
Logged

Roadgeek Adam

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 955
  • Warren CR 14 - Warrensburg, NY

  • Age: 26
  • Location: State Route 324, Tonawanda, New York
  • Last Login: Today at 08:48:24 PM
    • My Flickr Photostream
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2272 on: September 14, 2017, 10:42:38 PM »

6/4/94

As noted in the article, 12 years ago, 13A was finished, sealing its fate
Logged
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University '17
B.A. History, Montclair State University '15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex County College '13

thenetwork

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1983
  • Age: 2013
  • Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Last Login: Today at 05:32:34 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2273 on: September 14, 2017, 11:17:53 PM »

6/4/94

As noted in the article, 12 years ago, 13A was finished, sealing its fate

We're so sorry, Uncle Albert...
Logged

storm2k

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 492
  • Age: 36
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:41 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #2274 on: September 14, 2017, 11:37:26 PM »

IIRC it closed sometime after 13A was built. I seem to remember stopping there in it's last days and it was almost under one of the ramps for that interchange. I'd forgotten all about it until now. Surprised it was ever there at all considering there is another one only a few miles before it.

It was actually the northernmost service area on the Turnpike for almost 20 years. The Vince Lombardi service area didn't open until 1974, so Hallsey and the Alexander Hamilton areas were the northenmost ones for many years.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.