New Jersey

[Alps]

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.

It could still be useful access to Hobart Ave.

[Roadsguy]

I noticed this when looking for that bridge, but what expressway was meant to cross here?

[PHLBOS]

I noticed this when looking for that bridge, but what expressway was meant to cross here?

This now-empty gantry along westbound 24 once carried a blank BGS panel including exit tab.  The BGS was taken down over a decade ago.

Until you posted that aerial view; I wasn't even aware that a full-cloverleaf path was even made.  Interesting indeed.

[Roadsguy]

I did some research and apparently it would have been for a southern extension of the Eisenhower Parkway, which would have extended both north and south from its two current ends. I don't know where it would've gone south of NJ 24, though.

[Alps]

I did some research and apparently it would have been for a southern extension of the Eisenhower Parkway, which would have extended both north and south from its two current ends. I don't know where it would've gone south of NJ 24, though.

To 124, roughly along the power lines.

[noelbotevera]

I did some research and apparently it would have been for a southern extension of the Eisenhower Parkway, which would have extended both north and south from its two current ends. I don't know where it would've gone south of NJ 24, though.

The planned name for this extension was to be Triborough Road. It would serve Chatham, Madison (I think?), and Livingston, and the interchange with 24 was built, albeit incomplete (ramps have only been graded). It, like many other highway projects, got blocked thanks to NIMBY opposition, which explains the sudden end at CR 510. There was also a northern extension planned (that you mentioned) that probably would've gone up to US 46. It only had things like drainage work installed. I assume you researched this, but there's nothing wrong with redundancy.

Also, does anyone happen to have pictures of the sign?

[storm2k]

I did some research and apparently it would have been for a southern extension of the Eisenhower Parkway, which would have extended both north and south from its two current ends. I don't know where it would've gone south of NJ 24, though.

The planned name for this extension was to be Triborough Road. It would serve Chatham, Madison (I think?), and Livingston, and the interchange with 24 was built, albeit incomplete (ramps have only been graded). It, like many other highway projects, got blocked thanks to NIMBY opposition, which explains the sudden end at CR 510. There was also a northern extension planned (that you mentioned) that probably would've gone up to US 46. It only had things like drainage work installed. I assume you researched this, but there's nothing wrong with redundancy.

Also, does anyone happen to have pictures of the sign?

There is one on Steve Anderson's page about the Route 24 freeway. It was a vintage late 70s/early 80s nonreflective button copy sign with a centered exit tab.

[roadman65]

Considering that NJ has lots of traffic and plenty on JFK Parkway, the Triborough would been pushed again for a second attempt.  Also the office parks that are in that region are astronomical.  Even to go north as far as Bloomfield Avenue would ease traffic in the Roseland corporate office parks and provide another way in and out.

[J Route Z]

New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.

[swiftdo]

New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.

I saw new mile markers on 9 in Monmouth County (nothing in Middlesex) and on 18 from 9-537. They have been installed in the past week. The markers on 18 are posted every 2/10 of a mile.

[jeffandnicole]

Yep...on limited access highways in NJ, they are installing mm every 0.2 miles, but they are front & back of the post so you can see them whether you are in front of it or past it.

Personally, I'd rather have them every 1/10th of a mile.  MM posts tend to get hit fairly often and replaced slowly if at all, so if one's missing, that means a 4/10th of a mile gap between MMs at best.

On non-limited access state roads, they are being installed at the .0 and .5 locations.   Useful in rural areas; not so much in suburban/urban areas where they blend in with every other sign along the road.

[roadman65]

I used to like that one when NJDOT was trying an experiment on Route 27, posting milemarkers on railway an waterway crossings like in Rahway at the Rahway River it would say Rahway River plus its mileage from its zero point in Princeton and in Elizabeth where the NB lanes cross the defunct CNJ tracks at NJ 28 with "Conrail Railroad" plus mileage to the end.

Being other roads never had it later, I assumed it was not a good experiment.  I wonder if any of them are still left after 30 plus years?

[NJRoadfan]

The signs on NJ-27 are still there. Some have even been replaced with identical markers with the mileage.

[storm2k]

The signs on NJ-27 are still there. Some have even been replaced with identical markers with the mileage.

Correct. When they replaced the Conrail overpass at the Metuchen/Edison border, they replaced the signs with it. I'm assuming that there was a replace in kind thing in the specs for that project.

If you look here, it looks like there is both the more standard small sign NJDOT puts up for a water crossing, and the aforementioned signed with the mileage at the same spot. Same for its partner on Chilton St.

ETA - it looks like the sign on the Cherry St overpass over the former Conrail tracks in Elizabeth is still there, and is still the original sign that has completely faded. Same for its partner on Chilton St.

[roadman65]

This one does not look old at all.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5361074,-74.373315,3a,37.5y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snPG4jnbeTSEq4AqsQPbbjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Makes me wonder why Route 27 is the only road with these.  If they replace them then its not just an experiment then.

Also on the old Reading Railroad bridge they replaced, if they added a replacement sign as part of the project that seems odd too, as nearby on US 1 & 9 when they redid the interchange there there was a mileage sign on SB US 9 for Freehold, Lakewood, and Cape May that was never reinstated.  In addition, at the US 1 & 9 and NJ 35 interchange when they replaced the cloverleaf with the diamond they have now they also removed the SB NJ 35 mileage sign for Keyport, Eatontown, and Seaside Heights that was in the project area.

On another note I did see this one though<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1494559597884!6m8!1m7!1sRcMz32ydPqeVZCsERZ-91g!2m2!1d40.42431477988364!2d-74.19792270313431!3f109.74340142530549!4f-6.500796060918887!5f1.9587109090973311" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe> got to be mixed case considering that NJDOT always used all upper cases on mileage signs.

[J Route Z]

New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.

I saw new mile markers on 9 in Monmouth County (nothing in Middlesex) and on 18 from 9-537. They have been installed in the past week. The markers on 18 are posted every 2/10 of a mile.

I have not seen any markings made by the DOT past milepost 121 (north of CR 520). It seems odd they would just stop there.

A lot of railroad crossings are being replaced it looks like, including this one in Allenhurst: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2017/051017a.shtm

Several of them are in awful shape where the rail is sticking up above the pavement which is a death sentence for your tires.

[storm2k]

New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.

Saw these on 35 in Woodbridge tonight. Every half mile, which is NJDOT's standard for non-freeway grade state routes. Interestingly, the 35 shields do not have black backgrounds. The other ones I've seen, especially on Rt 3, do.

[jeffandnicole]

New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.

Saw these on 35 in Woodbridge tonight. Every half mile, which is NJDOT's standard for non-freeway grade state routes. Interestingly, the 35 shields do not have black backgrounds. The other ones I've seen, especially on Rt 3, do.

Any new MM posts I've seen for State and US routes do not have the black background.

[swiftdo]

New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.

I saw new mile markers on 9 in Monmouth County (nothing in Middlesex) and on 18 from 9-537. They have been installed in the past week. The markers on 18 are posted every 2/10 of a mile.

I have not seen any markings made by the DOT past milepost 121 (north of CR 520). It seems odd they would just stop there.

A lot of railroad crossings are being replaced it looks like, including this one in Allenhurst: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2017/051017a.shtm

Several of them are in awful shape where the rail is sticking up above the pavement which is a death sentence for your tires.

They've been installed on 9 through southern Middlesex County; I've seen them from the 35 split in Sayreville/South Amboy south to the county line.

[J Route Z]

Saw them today. They must've just installed them.

[bzakharin]

I saw a bunch of new ones recently including on US 9 near Egg Harbor Twp. The ones I've seen are all full mile and not half, but that may just be an accident since none of the roads I saw them installed on are ones I travel for more than 1/2 mile. I do know that MM 12 on NJ 41 near where I live has not been replaced yet.

[NJRoadfan]

NJ-47 got them at the southern end, every half mile. I haven't seen any in Northern NJ yet outside of the interstates. They must be working their way north.

[jeffandnicole]

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout062917rt.pdf

A public meeting is scheduled for later this month in regards to the US 1 Northbound Bridge over the Raritan River.  The current 3 lane structure is proposed to be widened 4 lanes.  About half of the needed width will be taken from an inaccessible inner sidewalk over the bridge.

[NJRoadfan]

Kinda surprising they would even consider adding a lane there. The bottleneck northbound during rush hour is the Plainfield Ave. light in Edison

[Roadgeek Adam]

Kinda surprising they would even consider adding a lane there. The bottleneck northbound during rush hour is the Plainfield Ave. light in Edison

Considering I lived near that light for 20 years, that bottleneck will be there forever. That or they can demolish half the neighborhood, which will never happen.