New Jersey Turnpike

[roadman65]

The new signs on the Newark Bay Extension still show US-22 for Exit 14. Speaking of, a new mileage sign popped up on the NBE.

https://goo.gl/maps/mifMfc6RNmo

There is apparently nothing of interest in NJ on I-78 west of Newark. NJDOT's choices of Clinton and Easton didn't make the cut (Clinton was also removed from the Exit 14 signs). How much traffic is actually going to Harrisburg anyway?

I am impressed that NJTA is recognizing I-78 as being on their road system. Sad that Clinton is gone from Exit 14 signs as I thought its still a worthwhile place to mention even in Bedminster on I-287 where in the mid 90s it was switched from previous Clinton to Easton, PA, I was kind of heartbroken when it was done.

Anyway glad Harrisburg is mentioned as that is near where the other terminus of I-78 is located and gives a traveler an idea of how far the whole trip is even if the PA Capital is still 15 miles beyond the end.  Allentown, I am better pleased over Easton as that was only good when I-78 defaulted onto US 22 at Exit 3 in Greenwich, NJ.  As Easton is where that route entered the PA city and of course Route 22 serves that city's heart where now I-78 bypasses the central core with one exit to it and still several miles from its business center.

NJDOT, at least on GSV, still uses Clinton on the Express Lanes guide at its start west of Exit 14's toll plaza.  Of course the GSP will always use Springfield as its WB control city at Exit 142, carbon copied from the old days when I-78 terminated there before the road finally got completed almost 20 years behind schedule thanks to NIMBY's in Berkley Heights and in Union County Government.

[storm2k]

The new signs on the Newark Bay Extension still show US-22 for Exit 14. Speaking of, a new mileage sign popped up on the NBE.

https://goo.gl/maps/mifMfc6RNmo

There is apparently nothing of interest in NJ on I-78 west of Newark. NJDOT's choices of Clinton and Easton didn't make the cut (Clinton was also removed from the Exit 14 signs). How much traffic is actually going to Harrisburg anyway?

I am impressed that NJTA is recognizing I-78 as being on their road system. Sad that Clinton is gone from Exit 14 signs as I thought its still a worthwhile place to mention even in Bedminster on I-287 where in the mid 90s it was switched from previous Clinton to Easton, PA, I was kind of heartbroken when it was done.

Anyway glad Harrisburg is mentioned as that is near where the other terminus of I-78 is located and gives a traveler an idea of how far the whole trip is even if the PA Capital is still 15 miles beyond the end.  Allentown, I am better pleased over Easton as that was only good when I-78 defaulted onto US 22 at Exit 3 in Greenwich, NJ.  As Easton is where that route entered the PA city and of course Route 22 serves that city's heart where now I-78 bypasses the central core with one exit to it and still several miles from its business center.

NJDOT, at least on GSV, still uses Clinton on the Express Lanes guide at its start west of Exit 14's toll plaza.  Of course the GSP will always use Springfield as its WB control city at Exit 142, carbon copied from the old days when I-78 terminated there before the road finally got completed almost 20 years behind schedule thanks to NIMBY's in Berkley Heights and in Union County Government.

It's still Phillipsburg on the signs at Exit 29 (287), even after signage replacements. Plus 287 still shows Easton for the WB destination even though Allentown is a better choice.

[roadman65]

Then "Newark" is still the pull through EB despite it being "New York City" on 287 as well.  Funny as one sees Clinton, then Phillipsburg before you reach Clinton.  Then again MoDOT does the same on I-70 with Columbia being the principal mileage control east of KC, but long before you reach Columbia cities like Wentzville start appearing instead.  Or even here in FL, we have Daytona Beach on I-95 NB from West Palm Beach that dissappears at the Brevard County line about 100 miles from the destination in favor of Jacksonville.


I wonder if the mainline will now include mileage for places like Newark, Trenton, Camden, and even Wilmington if the NBE is finally getting this one sign.

[storm2k]

Then "Newark" is still the pull through EB despite it being "New York City" on 287 as well.  Funny as one sees Clinton, then Phillipsburg before you reach Clinton.  Then again MoDOT does the same on I-70 with Columbia being the principal mileage control east of KC, but long before you reach Columbia cities like Wentzville start appearing instead.  Or even here in FL, we have Daytona Beach on I-95 NB from West Palm Beach that dissappears at the Brevard County line about 100 miles from the destination in favor of Jacksonville.


I wonder if the mainline will now include mileage for places like Newark, Trenton, Camden, and even Wilmington if the NBE is finally getting this one sign.

Not to get too off topic, but not showing Newark on those signs is from a different time when NJDOT seemed to want to forget that Newark existed. 78 is the prime E-W road in and out of there from the south and west, so it would make more sense.

As for the Turnpike, I think more mileage signs will be on tap. They are probably part of the final phases of the MUTCD conversion.

[roadman65]

Newark was added in 1986 to the Bedminster interchange when the Berkley Heights segment opened.  Before that it was signed "Local Traffic" and even Newark & New York were directing motorists south on I-287 to US 22 East via ground mount signs there.

[jeffandnicole]

An active day on the Turnpike yesterday: One man was shot and killed by Troopers at the Molly Pitcher Service area: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/rest_stop_police_shooting_what_we_know_what_we_don.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured .

Further South, between Exits 4 & 3, the Turnpike was blocked for a time when 3 guys were arrested.  At first some news agencies made stuff up saying the arrests were part of the incident at the Service Area, but the State Police later said the incidents were unrelated.

[roadman]

At first some news agencies made stuff up repeated anonymous tweets saying the arrests were part of the incident at the Service Area

FIFY.

[roadman65]

Why don't the NJTA take advantage of the new sign installations to convert the sequential exit numbers to mile based numbers like nearby CT is doing?

Years ago an engineer William Buckley said that the NJTA has always had a goal of going mile based with its exits but could not because of competition from other turnpike worthwhile projects, but now opportunity arises.  The costs can be defrayed as these new MUTCD compliant signs have tabs already that would host the new numbering.  Only added OLD or FORMER tabs would be extra, but the labor costs would not change.

[storm2k]

Why don't the NJTA take advantage of the new sign installations to convert the sequential exit numbers to mile based numbers like nearby CT is doing?

Years ago an engineer William Buckley said that the NJTA has always had a goal of going mile based with its exits but could not because of competition from other turnpike worthwhile projects, but now opportunity arises.  The costs can be defrayed as these new MUTCD compliant signs have tabs already that would host the new numbering.  Only added OLD or FORMER tabs would be extra, but the labor costs would not change.

Well, for one, the sign replacement project only covers the northern half of the Turnpike. All signs south of 9 won't be replaced for a while (8A to 6 were replaced with classic signage during the dual-dual extension and 5 to 1 were replaced in the mid aughts). Secondly, who knows how hard it would be for them to reprogram all their toll equipment to handle different exit numbers and then the cost of printing new tickets. Also, I honestly just don't think there's any real interest on the Authority's part to change the exit number scheme.

[jeffandnicole]

I tried googling William Buckley, Engineer, and the NJ Turnpike, and the 3 don't seem to be related.  If this Buckley guy has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike, I wouldn't take anything from him to be representative of what the NJ Turnpike wants to do.

I read the meeting minutes of the NJ Turnpike Authority on a monthly basis.  I don't recall anyone even bringing up this topic.  I seriously doubt they would have two major projects involving exit signage (the 6 - 9 Widening and the 9 - 18 resigning), and not once officially bring up mileage based signage if they had a goal of going mileage based.

[jwolfer]

Why don't the NJTA take advantage of the new sign installations to convert the sequential exit numbers to mile based numbers like nearby CT is doing?

Years ago an engineer William Buckley said that the NJTA has always had a goal of going mile based with its exits but could not because of competition from other turnpike worthwhile projects, but now opportunity arises.  The costs can be defrayed as these new MUTCD compliant signs have tabs already that would host the new numbering.  Only added OLD or FORMER tabs would be extra, but the labor costs would not change.

Not to mention everyone having to relearn the answer to "What exit?"

I grew up near the parkway so it has always been mile based for me.  The answer is 98.  Although from the NJTP it would be 11,7a or 4 depending on direction or time

LGMS428

[vdeane]

Maybe he works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers?  I recall a rumor that they were considering it, but at the time that had intentions of going AET within a decade (that effort seems to be dead), so it's possible that mile-based numbers would be something that would only be considered after going AET.

[roadman65]

I tried googling William Buckley, Engineer, and the NJ Turnpike, and the 3 don't seem to be related.  If this Buckley guy has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike, I wouldn't take anything from him to be representative of what the NJ Turnpike wants to do.

I read the meeting minutes of the NJ Turnpike Authority on a monthly basis.  I don't recall anyone even bringing up this topic.  I seriously doubt they would have two major projects involving exit signage (the 6 - 9 Widening and the 9 - 18 resigning), and not once officially bring up mileage based signage if they had a goal of going mileage based.

It was over 20 years ago and it was done when I asked him why the free section of the Turnpike don't continue the exit numbering of the Turnpike.  He told me that it will stay the same until that day the NJTA goes mile based, but so many worthwhile projects are first.  He even did not know about the free section using potential I-95 mileage if the Somerset Freeway had been built, but he is convinced that its in line with I-80's scheme and the authority thought also that having the numbers it has will make it easier for drivers on I-80.

This was back in the snail mail days and I would have to find his actual name for you to Google.  Then again it might of been an idea by engineers then and gave up on it before they all quit or retired.  I am sure the engineers in the 90's are not all there now and a new blood has been in there as a lot can happen in 20 years.

Its funny though the Turnpike is the only NJ freeway without mile based numbers other than the PIP, but that is only 10 miles long and 3 exits as the Scout Camp is really not an actual interchange.  You figure that Trenton would be putting pressure on the Turnpike to get it all done like PennDOT did with PTC.

You know one thing they could really do is replace the NB Extension with I-78 numbers from 58 on as it would not confuse the current numbers as 18 is the highest sequential number and any mile based on I-78 using its free NJDOT sections scheme would be in the 50's not making duplicate numbers and far apart.

[Alps]

Maybe he works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers?  I recall a rumor that they were considering it, but at the time that had intentions of going AET within a decade (that effort seems to be dead), so it's possible that mile-based numbers would be something that would only be considered after going AET.

That's a large part of it. Source: Works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers.

[jeffandnicole]

Maybe he works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers?  I recall a rumor that they were considering it, but at the time that had intentions of going AET within a decade (that effort seems to be dead), so it's possible that mile-based numbers would be something that would only be considered after going AET.

That's a large part of it. Source: Works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers.

So should that be construed as NJTA having a goal of going mile-based, or should that be construed as a general question, amongst many other general questions that the NJTA asks their consultants?

[roadman65]

I don't know, but its interesting in general to know if NJTA wants to make the big change which is why I asked.  Being its optional and the fact NJTA probably does not get money from the feds as they like to use their own to pay for things.  I did get that impression from an old email from their webmaster as I was curious to know about federal interstate funding long before I joined here.

The email is long gone from my hard drive, but remember that the person responding to me said that NJTA, even though both I-95 and I-78 are interstates and aligned on parts of it,  to some extent were not using the funds for whatever reason. 

[cpzilliacus]

Maybe he works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers?  I recall a rumor that they were considering it, but at the time that had intentions of going AET within a decade (that effort seems to be dead), so it's possible that mile-based numbers would be something that would only be considered after going AET.

That's a large part of it. Source: Works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers.

Could it also be that NJTA is waiting to see what the impact of the NJTA maintaining all of New Jersey's part of I-95 (and I-95 being expressly signed as such) once the slower-than-cold molasses PTC finishes enough of the Bristol Township interchange project to complete I-95?

At that point the NJTA may need to decide if they want mileage-based interchange numbers counting up from the  (currently) not numbered U.S. 130 interchange in Florence to the end of Turnpike maintenance approaching the George Washington Bridge - or retain the current numbers (or do something else).

[bzakharin]

At that point the NJTA may need to decide if they want mileage-based interchange numbers counting up from the  (currently) not numbered U.S. 130 interchange in Florence to the end of Turnpike maintenance approaching the George Washington Bridge - or retain the current numbers (or do something else).

I don't see them doing that. The main line of the Turnpike will remain the main line, and will need continuous numbers. If they do opt to use I-95 mileage numbers for some reason, they can't also use mileage-based numbers south of I-95 because that will mean Exit 51 (formerly 6) followed by Exit 8 (formerly 7), and eventually another Exit 51 (formerly 12). On the other hand, they could keep sequential numbers on that stretch with a smooth transition as Exit 6 would be around Mile 6 on I-95.

[jeffandnicole]

At that point the NJTA may need to decide if they want mileage-based interchange numbers counting up from the  (currently) not numbered U.S. 130 interchange in Florence to the end of Turnpike maintenance approaching the George Washington Bridge - or retain the current numbers (or do something else).

I don't see them doing that. The main line of the Turnpike will remain the main line, and will need continuous numbers. If they do opt to use I-95 mileage numbers for some reason, they can't also use mileage-based numbers south of I-95 because that will mean Exit 51 (formerly 6) followed by Exit 8 (formerly 7), and eventually another Exit 51 (formerly 12). On the other hand, they could keep sequential numbers on that stretch with a smooth transition as Exit 6 would be around Mile 6 on I-95.

Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276.  Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.

Look at I-76 when it enters NJ and becomes Rt. 42: You have, in this order: Exit 354, 1C, 1B, 1A, 14, 13, 12, etc...

So "they can't" isn't true whatsoever.  Basically, the NJ Turnpike's continuous routing could be between the PA Turnpike and the GWB as it will be known as I-95, and south of current day Interchange 6 is more/less an extention of the future I-95 portion of the Turnpike, rather than being known as the mainline as it has been for the past 60some years.

If there is a conflict, such as with two Exit 51s, they can work around that (fudging one or another to become Exit 50 or Exit 52 would be perfectly acceptable, even if it's off a mile).

[bzakharin]

Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276.  Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.

This is completely different because the numbering is ascending. They were lucky they were able to do that. What would have happened if the numbering had to be descending?

Look at I-76 when it enters NJ and becomes Rt. 42: You have, in this order: Exit 354, 1C, 1B, 1A, 14, 13, 12, etc...

I happen to think that that situation is a travesty, but at least nominally they are not the same roadway like the Turnpike is. As for Exit 354, I have no idea.

So "they can't" isn't true whatsoever.  Basically, the NJ Turnpike's continuous routing could be between the PA Turnpike and the GWB as it will be known as I-95, and south of current day Interchange 6 is more/less an extention of the future I-95 portion of the Turnpike, rather than being known as the mainline as it has been for the past 60some years.

Well of course they can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't. Then, too, the NJTA has a vested interest in keeping traffic on the current mainline for financial reasons, not to mention that through traffic *should* be using the mainline and *not* I-95 unless they're going into PA.

[jeffandnicole]

Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276.  Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.

This is completely different because the numbering is ascending. They were lucky they were able to do that. What would have happened if the numbering had to be descending?

You're on the PA Turnpike/I-76 going Eastbound.  You're told to use Exit 339.

Which one?

[bzakharin]

Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276.  Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.

This is completely different because the numbering is ascending. They were lucky they were able to do that. What would have happened if the numbering had to be descending?

You're on the PA Turnpike/I-76 going Eastbound.  You're told to use Exit 339.

Which one?

The one on I-76 because otherwise they'd tell you to use the "Fort Washington" interchange.

But seriously, what's your point? You are presumably replying to my assertion that two different sets of exit numbers on the same roadway would be confusing. Your example does not exhibit this issue, nor is it an example of how it could be done in NJ. Sure, having two different roads with similar exit numbers nearby is also potentially confusing, but it is not the same thing.

[PHLBOS]

Look at I-76 when it enters NJ and becomes Rt. 42: You have, in this order: Exit 354, 1C, 1B, 1A, 14, 13, 12, etc...

I know you know this, but for those unfamiliar: Exit 354 should be Exit 2 since it's located in NJ.  Such was a DRPA screw-up.

[jeffandnicole]

Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276.  Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.

This is completely different because the numbering is ascending. They were lucky they were able to do that. What would have happened if the numbering had to be descending?

You're on the PA Turnpike/I-76 going Eastbound.  You're told to use Exit 339.

Which one?

The one on I-76 because otherwise they'd tell you to use the "Fort Washington" interchange.

But seriously, what's your point? You are presumably replying to my assertion that two different sets of exit numbers on the same roadway would be confusing. Your example does not exhibit this issue, nor is it an example of how it could be done in NJ. Sure, having two different roads with similar exit numbers nearby is also potentially confusing, but it is not the same thing.

Many travelers are only given exit numbers, not interchange designations.  And if they're on the PA Turnpike but are only knowing it as I-76, they could potentially exit the turnpike onto I-76, still looking for that 'Fort Washington' interchange.

I think you get my point.  I also think you had to look up Exit 339 on the PA Turnpike to figure out what the interchange name was, providing my point.

[PHLBOS]

To the best of my knowledge, I have never heard of anyone mistakenly exiting for City Ave. (US 1 South, Exit 339 off I-76/Schuylkill Expressway) when they intended to exit for Fort Washington (PA 309, Exit 339 off I-276/PA Turnpike).

Probably because most of the traffic reporters in the area use highway names (Schuylkill Expressway & PA Turnpike) instead of route numbers for many highways in southeastern PA; and they always mention interchange names (City Ave. & Fort Washington) rather than exit numbers.