Sorry if this was asked before, I tried doing a search and didn't come up with anything.
I noticed that I-78 in NJ, right before entering the Holland Tunnel, becomes a surface street, then becomes a freeway again temporarily in the Holland Tunnel before terminating shortly in NYC.
Google Maps show this as I-78 all the way through NJ, the "at-grade" portion of the interstate, and through the Holland Tunnel. However, looking at Street View, I don't see any eastbound/westbound reassurance I-78 shields from downtown NYC and in the tunnel, and the roads entering "I-78" at the "at-grade" portion show the road as 12th Street, not I-78.
So, my question is... does I-78 terminate before the "at-grade" portion, or is truly an anomaly in the system and the "at-grade" portion is still I-78 through to NYC?
I hope my question makes sense.
It is a horrible situation. There is a similar one in Pennsylvania called "Breezewood". These situations exist because local business interests pressure the politicians to let them.
In Philadelphia there is likewise I-676 with traffic lights on it. That one could be easily resolved by just closing off the cross streets. But again the motoring public is at the mercy of the politicians.
Incidently, I-78 was originally planned to continue eastward across Manhattan, through Brooklyn, loop past Kennedy Airport and then head north over the Throggs Neck Bridge to join I-95 in the Bronx. One and a half portions were actually built, viz. what is now I-295 in Queens and the eastbound freeway from the Belt Parkway to Kennedy Airport. Politicians prevented the completion of this highway.
I believe that I-78 technically continues into Manhattan. When it exits the Holland Tunnel there is a short circle-shaped roadway with "exits" that dump you onto local streets. At the end of this roadway is technically where I-78 ends. Which would mean yes, I-78 through Jersey City has traffic lights and at-grade intersections. Every map I've seen indicates I-78 continues through the Holland Tunnel into Manhattan. And I've seen signage in Manhattan as well that indicates I-78 beginning at the Tunnel entrance (it doesn't say "Begin" , just "West/78" ).
iPhone
officially, yes, the 12th and 14th street arterials are part of 78. given that there are no realistic plans to grade separate all those cross streets and close all the businesses and gas stations along that stretch, 78 should probably end at the bottom of the nbx viaducts and the rest of the approach be 139 (which if i am reading the sld's correctly, it has a silent concurrency) up to the tunnels, in light of the fact that the ny segments of 78 are long dead.
Yes, that one way pair of surface streets is technically part of I-78. As is the Holland Tunnel itself.
I-78 being routed along those streets was supposed to be temporary, there were plans to build a proper freeway in the block between them. These plans got canceled decades ago but I-78 was never truncated to compensate.
Quote from: storm2k on April 09, 2018, 12:06:21 AM
officially, yes, the 12th and 14th street arterials are part of 78. given that there are no realistic plans to grade separate all those cross streets and close all the businesses and gas stations along that stretch, 78 should probably end at the bottom of the nbx viaducts and the rest of the approach be 139 (which if i am reading the sld's correctly, it has a silent concurrency) up to the tunnels, in light of the fact that the ny segments of 78 are long dead.
You read correctly. I've looked at the four blocks at-grade, and realistically, you could get two viaducts of I-78 above grade (two lanes express to the toll plaza) and still keep everything at street level... except the easternmost grade crossing would have to be closed to get the viaducts into the tolls. Of course, Jersey City would never let this happen, and it wouldn't matter because the tie-up is the tunnel merge itself.
Quote from: Alps on April 09, 2018, 12:26:38 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 09, 2018, 12:06:21 AM
officially, yes, the 12th and 14th street arterials are part of 78. given that there are no realistic plans to grade separate all those cross streets and close all the businesses and gas stations along that stretch, 78 should probably end at the bottom of the nbx viaducts and the rest of the approach be 139 (which if i am reading the sld's correctly, it has a silent concurrency) up to the tunnels, in light of the fact that the ny segments of 78 are long dead.
You read correctly. I've looked at the four blocks at-grade, and realistically, you could get two viaducts of I-78 above grade (two lanes express to the toll plaza) and still keep everything at street level... except the easternmost grade crossing would have to be closed to get the viaducts into the tolls. Of course, Jersey City would never let this happen, and it wouldn't matter because the tie-up is the tunnel merge itself.
Yeah if nothing else the lights meter the flow of traffic into the tunnel and Manhattan. It doesn't feel like a regular surface street down there though, its clear youre on an interstate its like 4 or 5 lanes, surrounded by food and gas stations and security, it feels a lot more like a giant interstate service plaza than a surface street through Jersey City. And yes it is I-78 although there are relatively few signs on that portion. There aren't reassurance shields on the Lomex stub after the eastbound Holland, but all the exits use overhead signage so it still maintains its character. The westbound Holland is actually signed as 78 on BGS's and LGS's in the city including from NY 9A.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 08, 2018, 11:01:08 PM
It is a horrible situation. There is a similar one in Pennsylvania called "Breezewood". These situations exist because local business interests pressure the politicians to let them.
In Philadelphia there is likewise I-676 with traffic lights on it. That one could be easily resolved by just closing off the cross streets. But again the motoring public is at the mercy of the politicians.
Incidently, I-78 was originally planned to continue eastward across Manhattan, through Brooklyn, loop past Kennedy Airport and then head north over the Throggs Neck Bridge to join I-95 in the Bronx. One and a half portions were actually built, viz. what is now I-295 in Queens and the eastbound freeway from the Belt Parkway to Kennedy Airport. Politicians prevented the completion of this highway.
The once proposed lower Manhattan expressway was termed "LOMEX". It was to cut across lower Manhattan Island before crossing into Brooklyn on an pre-existing bridge. Do not know whether it was to be either the Brooklyn or Queensboro. Or another. Once in Brooklyn it was to follow arterials as either a surface or depressed facility before eventually reaching Idlewild Airport, which is now JFK. The disruption of such a facility, and the attitude of Moses, made it pretty much dead on arrival. Believe Moses was credited with a comment along the lines of cutting through neighborhoods as "chopping with a meat axe". This facility, along with the cancelled Cross Manhattan, would have made NYC a far more favorable place today in terms of traffic congestion and trucking.
However, the LOMEX would have destroyed too much of Lower Manhattan in order to do that...
As for your earlier comment, I-78/LOMEX was to have crossed the Williamsburg Bridge. A spur (I-478) would have split at Bowery St and crossed the Manhattan Bridge.
Quote from: froggie on April 09, 2018, 11:15:33 AM
However, the LOMEX would have destroyed too much of Lower Manhattan in order to do that...
The LOMEX should have been built ... as a bored tunnel below everything else, with maybe
one access/egress point on Manhattan itself, and on across the East River. That's how the Second Avenue Subway extension and the Alaskan Way (Bertha) Tunnel in Seattle were built.
SEPTA is looking at possible use of a TBM to extend the the Broad Street Subway to the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard - and unlike most other construction equipment and technologies, the cost of using a TBM is actually declining.
Excluding expense and despite its fictionality, would it be possible to connect the eastern end of the New Jersey Turnpike - Newark Extension (Interstate 78) with the Holland Tunnel (also Interstate 78) via another tunnel beneath the businesses and streets that connect the NJTNE with the Holland Tunnel?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 09, 2018, 04:54:57 PM
Excluding expense and despite its fictionality, would it be possible to connect the eastern end of the New Jersey Turnpike - Newark Extension (Interstate 78) with the Holland Tunnel (also Interstate 78) via another tunnel beneath the businesses and streets that connect the NJTNE with the Holland Tunnel?
This has been looked at - the Bergen Arches plan - but you again run into capacity under the Hudson River being the constraint.
Quote from: Alps on April 09, 2018, 06:40:03 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 09, 2018, 04:54:57 PM
Excluding expense and despite its fictionality, would it be possible to connect the eastern end of the New Jersey Turnpike - Newark Extension (Interstate 78) with the Holland Tunnel (also Interstate 78) via another tunnel beneath the businesses and streets that connect the NJTNE with the Holland Tunnel?
This has been looked at - the Bergen Arches plan - but you again run into capacity under the Hudson River being the constraint.
A lot of trying to reinvent the wheel with this one. If anything, the situation lends itself to more radical solutions once it is time to replace the entire Holland Tunnel facility, such as extending the bores all the way to where the PA buildings currently sit, along with more modest improvements like converting entirely to electronic tolling.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 09, 2018, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 09, 2018, 11:15:33 AM
However, the LOMEX would have destroyed too much of Lower Manhattan in order to do that...
The LOMEX should have been built ... as a bored tunnel below everything else, with maybe one access/egress point on Manhattan itself, and on across the East River. That's how the Second Avenue Subway extension and the Alaskan Way (Bertha) Tunnel in Seattle were built.
SEPTA is looking at possible use of a TBM to extend the the Broad Street Subway to the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard - and unlike most other construction equipment and technologies, the cost of using a TBM is actually declining.
If they ever ended up boring a new tunnel from Jersey to Long Island across Manhattan, I feel it would be much more beneficial to the region as a rail tunnel than as a car tunnel. The north river tunnels are going to fail (and possibly kill thousands of people when they do so–and it's a matter of when, not if) unless protracted, extremely disruptive maintenance can be done on them. Make it a bilevel tunnel connecting with the NE corridor and the LIRR: upper level for passenger rail with a Manhattan station or two and allow through-running of trains across the region; lower level for freight, and you've solved the Selkirk hurdle. The capacity benefits of heavy rail in a dense place like NYC just make it a better value for your money than a car tunnel.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 11, 2018, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 09, 2018, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 09, 2018, 11:15:33 AM
However, the LOMEX would have destroyed too much of Lower Manhattan in order to do that...
The LOMEX should have been built ... as a bored tunnel below everything else, with maybe one access/egress point on Manhattan itself, and on across the East River. That's how the Second Avenue Subway extension and the Alaskan Way (Bertha) Tunnel in Seattle were built.
SEPTA is looking at possible use of a TBM to extend the the Broad Street Subway to the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard - and unlike most other construction equipment and technologies, the cost of using a TBM is actually declining.
If they ever ended up boring a new tunnel from Jersey to Long Island across Manhattan, I feel it would be much more beneficial to the region as a rail tunnel than as a car tunnel. The north river tunnels are going to fail (and possibly kill thousands of people when they do so–and it's a matter of when, not if) unless protracted, extremely disruptive maintenance can be done on them. Make it a bilevel tunnel connecting with the NE corridor and the LIRR: upper level for passenger rail with a Manhattan station or two and allow through-running of trains across the region; lower level for freight, and you've solved the Selkirk hurdle. The capacity benefits of heavy rail in a dense place like NYC just make it a better value for your money than a car tunnel.
Both rail and road capacity are sorely needed. Both.
I could see a renumbering to NJ 78 and NY 78 before any grade separation of the four-block segment ever happened.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on April 12, 2018, 02:23:45 PM
I could see a renumbering to NJ 78 and NY 78 before any grade separation of the four-block segment ever happened.
New Jersey doesn't duplicate numbers, and there's no precedent in New Jersey for Interstates to become state routes with the same number, unlike New York and California.
Quote from: 1 on April 12, 2018, 02:25:38 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on April 12, 2018, 02:23:45 PM
I could see a renumbering to NJ 78 and NY 78 before any grade separation of the four-block segment ever happened.
New Jersey doesn't duplicate numbers, and there's no precedent in New Jersey for Interstates to become state routes with the same number, unlike New York and California.
I-495 became NJ 495 and (partly) NY 495, because NY couldn't build a highway through lower Manhattan.
NJ 495 replaced all of I-495, not just a portion. I don't think NY 495 is signed at all (well, there are some I-495 shields on NY 9A). Plus there already is a NY 78; it's a major arterial near Buffalo.
If 12th St and 14th St need a number, an extension of NJ 139 would work. The NY side doesn't really need a number, and I doubt one would be signed any more than I-78 is now (which isn't much if anything outside of NY 9A).
It's disputed whether the Lincoln Tunnel has a number in New York. The Lincoln Tunnel is unnumbered in New York per the two most recent versions of the Official Description, but the highway inventory lists it as NY 495. Also worth noting that NY 495 is the unsigned designation between the BQE and Van Wyck.
As far as the Holland Tunnel, agree with everyone who said that the constraint isn't the surface section. There is NO reason to eliminate the gap unless you add tunnel capacity, as the backup onto NJ 139 is from the tunnel itself.
Quote from: cl94 on April 12, 2018, 07:57:11 PM
It's disputed whether the Lincoln Tunnel has a number in New York. The Lincoln Tunnel is unnumbered in New York per the two most recent versions of the Official Description, but the highway inventory lists it as NY 495. Also worth noting that NY 495 is the unsigned designation between the BQE and Van Wyck.
Well, according to FHWA. According to NYSDOT, I-495 extends through the Midtown Tunnel into Manhattan and ends there.
Quote from: vdeane on April 12, 2018, 07:44:53 PM
NJ 495 replaced all of I-495, not just a portion. I don't think NY 495 is signed at all (well, there are some I-495 shields on NY 9A). Plus there already is a NY 78; it's a major arterial near Buffalo.
If 12th St and 14th St need a number, an extension of NJ 139 would work. The NY side doesn't really need a number, and I doubt one would be signed any more than I-78 is now (which isn't much if anything outside of NY 9A).
All (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7261509,-74.0057237,3a,75y,185h,93.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy9umuxDovv7GdA5AGDgBXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) the (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7227824,-74.0065867,3a,57.7y,311.15h,98.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-F6liOxcfOnwdnhNLG1vjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) overheads (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242461,-74.0088089,3a,60y,116.12h,94.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqDprJaMcYD4WtJp30sJtJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) on (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7226398,-74.0080717,3a,75y,352.3h,102.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBOC_r6ZU8UJSm9DVn1GrsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) Canal, Varick, and Hudson show 78 shields, though I believe we have the PA to thank for that, not NYSDOT or NYCDOT.
Quote from: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 12:40:04 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 12, 2018, 07:44:53 PM
NJ 495 replaced all of I-495, not just a portion. I don't think NY 495 is signed at all (well, there are some I-495 shields on NY 9A). Plus there already is a NY 78; it's a major arterial near Buffalo.
If 12th St and 14th St need a number, an extension of NJ 139 would work. The NY side doesn't really need a number, and I doubt one would be signed any more than I-78 is now (which isn't much if anything outside of NY 9A).
All (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7261509,-74.0057237,3a,75y,185h,93.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy9umuxDovv7GdA5AGDgBXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) the (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7227824,-74.0065867,3a,57.7y,311.15h,98.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-F6liOxcfOnwdnhNLG1vjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) overheads (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7242461,-74.0088089,3a,60y,116.12h,94.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqDprJaMcYD4WtJp30sJtJQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) on (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7226398,-74.0080717,3a,75y,352.3h,102.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBOC_r6ZU8UJSm9DVn1GrsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) Canal, Varick, and Hudson show 78 shields, though I believe we have the PA to thank for that, not NYSDOT or NYCDOT.
Yeah it’s pretty well signed as 78 in NY. I just wish there was an “End” sign at the end of the lomex stub because end signs are always cool and appreciated, especially on 2DIs.
Edit: That being said, and as cool as a 2DI end sign right in Manhattan would be, I would also think the location might make it vulnerable to theft.
Quote from: dgolub on April 12, 2018, 08:18:56 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 12, 2018, 07:57:11 PM
It's disputed whether the Lincoln Tunnel has a number in New York. The Lincoln Tunnel is unnumbered in New York per the two most recent versions of the Official Description, but the highway inventory lists it as NY 495. Also worth noting that NY 495 is the unsigned designation between the BQE and Van Wyck.
Well, according to FHWA. According to NYSDOT, I-495 extends through the Midtown Tunnel into Manhattan and ends there.
I recall many years ago (early 90s?) seeing NY 495 (not interstate) reassurance signs on either 34th or 42nd street somewhere in the middle of Midtown.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 14, 2018, 01:16:43 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 12, 2018, 08:18:56 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 12, 2018, 07:57:11 PM
It's disputed whether the Lincoln Tunnel has a number in New York. The Lincoln Tunnel is unnumbered in New York per the two most recent versions of the Official Description, but the highway inventory lists it as NY 495. Also worth noting that NY 495 is the unsigned designation between the BQE and Van Wyck.
Well, according to FHWA. According to NYSDOT, I-495 extends through the Midtown Tunnel into Manhattan and ends there.
I recall many years ago (early 90s?) seeing NY 495 (not interstate) reassurance signs on either 34th or 42nd street somewhere in the middle of Midtown.
Probably dating back to when the LIE was still officially NY-495 before getting interstate status.
I do not know why NY 495 cannot be applied to Dyer Avenue and 34th Street to connect NJ 495 to I-495 to have one continuous Route 495. It would make perfect sense.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 15, 2018, 04:09:44 PM
I do not know why NY 495 cannot be applied to Dyer Avenue and 34th Street to connect NJ 495 to I-495 to have one continuous Route 495. It would make perfect sense.
Except not really. First of all, there isn't a lot of through traffic cutting across midtown Manhattan, and is this is not something you particularly want to encourage. There really isn't a logical continuous corridor through there, if you want to get from Queens to New Jersey you go through Staten Island or up to the GWB (most likely via The Bronx but possibly via the FDR/HRD in some cases).
Locals in New York City do not navigate by route numbers anyway.
So, putting up such signs would have little to no functional benefit, and at least as much downside.
Putting up NY 495 shields across mid Manhattan is no different then the TO I-495 shields that are there now! Plus there is no West I-495 from 34th Street as some signs are saying anyway.
I mean I think everyone understands that 495 is the tunnels from either side of midtown and the freeways on the other side of each river. When you say 495, (which is a term locals dont use, but if prompted thats what they say - I've sort of dropped the number casually to people i have visited in the city, just prior to leaving, when talking about traffic and looking at my phone there just to see what would happen) they think "midtown tunnels and highways on the other side"
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 18, 2018, 12:26:50 PM
I mean I think everyone understands that 495 is the tunnels from either side of midtown and the freeways on the other side of each river. When you say 495, (which is a term locals dont use, but if prompted thats what they say - I've sort of dropped the number casually to people i have visited in the city, just prior to leaving, when talking about traffic and looking at my phone there just to see what would happen) they think "midtown tunnels and highways on the other side"
Yes I know, as most locals still refer to NJ 495 as Route 3 as NYCDOT would be better off leaving TO I-495 WB shields on 34th Street for that as there is no longer an I-495 WB from that direction heading to NJ. It was good when NJDOT kept I-495 alive as it were so, but now the sign is erroneous.
Yes, New Yorkers use street names including freeways. Does anyone refer to either the Major Deegan or NY Thruway as I-87? Is the BQE or Bruckner ever called I-278 or even the Cross Bronx as I-95? How far east on Sunrise Highway do you have to go before Route 27 actually is considered a highway?
Quote from: DJStephens on April 09, 2018, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 08, 2018, 11:01:08 PM
It is a horrible situation. There is a similar one in Pennsylvania called "Breezewood". These situations exist because local business interests pressure the politicians to let them.
In Philadelphia there is likewise I-676 with traffic lights on it. That one could be easily resolved by just closing off the cross streets. But again the motoring public is at the mercy of the politicians.
Incidently, I-78 was originally planned to continue eastward across Manhattan, through Brooklyn, loop past Kennedy Airport and then head north over the Throggs Neck Bridge to join I-95 in the Bronx. One and a half portions were actually built, viz. what is now I-295 in Queens and the eastbound freeway from the Belt Parkway to Kennedy Airport. Politicians prevented the completion of this highway.
The once proposed lower Manhattan expressway was termed "LOMEX". It was to cut across lower Manhattan Island before crossing into Brooklyn on an pre-existing bridge. Do not know whether it was to be either the Brooklyn or Queensboro. Or another. Once in Brooklyn it was to follow arterials as either a surface or depressed facility before eventually reaching Idlewild Airport, which is now JFK. The disruption of such a facility, and the attitude of Moses, made it pretty much dead on arrival. Believe Moses was credited with a comment along the lines of cutting through neighborhoods as "chopping with a meat axe". This facility, along with the cancelled Cross Manhattan, would have made NYC a far more favorable place today in terms of traffic congestion and trucking.
blame Jane Jacobs not Moses for the cancellation of Lower Manhattan Expressway (I-78) and Mid-Manhattan Expressway (I-495)
I'd credit them rather than blame them.
Quote from: Rothman on April 21, 2018, 10:07:29 PM
I'd credit them rather than blame them.
Stop thinking practically. This is AARoads, not AAReasonable.
^ This also isn't the Fictional Highways folder, so AAReasonable is very much at play.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 18, 2018, 12:26:50 PM
I mean I think everyone understands that 495 is the tunnels from either side of midtown and the freeways on the other side of each river. When you say 495, (which is a term locals dont use, but if prompted thats what they say - I've sort of dropped the number casually to people i have visited in the city, just prior to leaving, when talking about traffic and looking at my phone there just to see what would happen) they think "midtown tunnels and highways on the other side"
That is true, I always found the I-495 shield on this sign amusing because people don't think of it as such.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4326/36142850136_e1718f6f26.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X4Py9y)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 22, 2018, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 18, 2018, 12:26:50 PM
I mean I think everyone understands that 495 is the tunnels from either side of midtown and the freeways on the other side of each river. When you say 495, (which is a term locals dont use, but if prompted thats what they say - I've sort of dropped the number casually to people i have visited in the city, just prior to leaving, when talking about traffic and looking at my phone there just to see what would happen) they think "midtown tunnels and highways on the other side"
That is true, I always found the I-495 shield on this sign amusing because people don't think of it as such.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4326/36142850136_e1718f6f26.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/X4Py9y)
See more of them as the MUTCD is pushing for route numbers over road names, despite in NY people use names in common talk.
IMO the signs for 78 and 495 would be accurate if they used "to" as an additional banner. All westbound signs for the 78 and all eastbound signs for 495. The westbound 495 signs would technically be in error. And eastbound 78 simply doesn't need to be signed in Jersey City. (The signs will refer to Holland tunnel and NYC but not 78)
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on May 28, 2018, 10:28:46 AM
IMO the signs for 78 and 495 would be accurate if they used "to" as an additional banner. All westbound signs for the 78 and all eastbound signs for 495. The westbound 495 signs would technically be in error. And eastbound 78 simply doesn't need to be signed in Jersey City. (The signs will refer to Holland tunnel and NYC but not 78)
Nexus 5X
I never really saw a sign east of Jersey City that refers to EB 12th or the tunnel itself as I-78. In fact it was not until this forum I heard that I-78 ends in NYC, as for decades I used to think that it ended with the Turnpike. I am sure a lot of people think that anyway if they don't think that it ends in Newark as most people refer to the NJ Turnpike as the Turnpike and Newark Bay Extension.
I think it is allowed by the feds to exist simply because its not part of two disconnected freeway segments and the fact that many are ignorant to the fact that I-78 exists east of the Turnpike end at Jersey Avenue.
I think most do not care that I-78 has stoplights because it ends at the NY side of the tunnel where having it signed would not help either way. Once you reach the end of the NBTA you are four blocks from the Tunnel that leads straight into the city that you are destined for. Well signed is the tunnel as the toll plaza has large enough lettering that it can be seen for a half a mile, so you might as well consider destination arrived once you arrive at Jersey Avenue.