New Jersey Turnpike

[Tonytone]

News sources say it's the Crado plant on the DE side.


EDIT: All reopened. Carry on.

https://www.wdel.com/news/video-delaware-memorial-bridge-reopens-after-chemical-leak-creates-thanksgiving/article_0ae9e340-f102-11e8-a4c7-f32d17c72cd1.html

Apparently it was Croda, not Chambers.  The Croda of no liberty.

ixnay

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2018/11/26/chemical-leak-near-bridge-prompted-fears-burning-cars-people-inhaling-toxic-gas/2112985002/



iPhone

[jeffandnicole]

NJDOT has a fairly generic press release on their website, announcing increased available funding for upcoming projects.  They include both NJDOT and NJTA projects: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/121918.shtm

The most glaring, postive finding in this press release was listed under NJTA projects: "Turnpike bridges at mileposts 30.75 (Camden County) and 33.94 (Burlington County) will be lengthened to prepare for the future widening of the southern portion of the New Jersey Turnpike."  (30.75 is CR 561, which is also just east of Exit 32 of I-295.  33.94 may be CR 616, just south of NJ 73, although it doesn't match up perfectly with the SLDs.)

Now, it doesn't have any sort of timeframe, and bridges have been lengthened in the past, probably dating to around 1980 when a new overpass was constructed over the I-295 ramps for Woodcrest Station. But it's nice to see something in writing, as it shows that the NJTA is still committed to an eventual widening.

[RobbieL2415]

So is the plan to eventually operate dual-carriageways the full length of the Turnpike?

[jeffandnicole]

So is the plan to eventually operate dual-carriageways the full length of the Turnpike?

No.  It should just be an additional lane, making it 3 lanes from Interchange 1 to south of Interchange 6.

Dual carriageways are not needed south of Interchange 6 as traffic levels are significantly lower compared to north of Interchange 6.  I would like to see 4 lanes each direction between Interchange 4 and 6 or even 3 and 6, but doubt that's in the offering.

[storm2k]

NJDOT has a fairly generic press release on their website, announcing increased available funding for upcoming projects.  They include both NJDOT and NJTA projects: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/121918.shtm

The most glaring, postive finding in this press release was listed under NJTA projects: "Turnpike bridges at mileposts 30.75 (Camden County) and 33.94 (Burlington County) will be lengthened to prepare for the future widening of the southern portion of the New Jersey Turnpike."  (30.75 is CR 561, which is also just east of Exit 32 of I-295.  33.94 may be CR 616, just south of NJ 73, although it doesn't match up perfectly with the SLDs.)

Now, it doesn't have any sort of timeframe, and bridges have been lengthened in the past, probably dating to around 1980 when a new overpass was constructed over the I-295 ramps for Woodcrest Station. But it's nice to see something in writing, as it shows that the NJTA is still committed to an eventual widening.

It makes sense. When they built the 133 overpass near Exit 8 in the early 90s, they built it to accommodate eventual expansion of the dual-dual roadway configuration, even though it didn't happen for well over a decade later. The most important thing is that, unlike the PA Turnpike Commission (at least in the days of yore), they do some modicum of future proofing for when the time is right.

[Alps]

NJDOT has a fairly generic press release on their website, announcing increased available funding for upcoming projects.  They include both NJDOT and NJTA projects: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/121918.shtm

The most glaring, postive finding in this press release was listed under NJTA projects: "Turnpike bridges at mileposts 30.75 (Camden County) and 33.94 (Burlington County) will be lengthened to prepare for the future widening of the southern portion of the New Jersey Turnpike."  (30.75 is CR 561, which is also just east of Exit 32 of I-295.  33.94 may be CR 616, just south of NJ 73, although it doesn't match up perfectly with the SLDs.)

Now, it doesn't have any sort of timeframe, and bridges have been lengthened in the past, probably dating to around 1980 when a new overpass was constructed over the I-295 ramps for Woodcrest Station. But it's nice to see something in writing, as it shows that the NJTA is still committed to an eventual widening.

I think a bigger deal is being made of this in roadgeek circles than needs be. These are nearly 70 year old bridges. Now that it's time to replace them, may as well account for a potential future widening. Other bridges are being built with an extra lane width - look at Interchange 4 for example.

[storm2k]

One other thing I saw in that press release from NJDOT:

Both the Parkway and the Turnpike will get 25 new variable message signs providing motorists with more real-time reports about accidents, inclement weather and other situations, so they can make travel choices.

Now, the Parkway did not get new VMS's at any sort of regular interval when they were added in a few years ago (mainly in approaches to major exits and connecting roads), but the Turnpike got them every two miles, the same way that the old neon signs always were. Where else on the Turnpike do they feel they really need more VMS's in the future?

[RobbieL2415]

Maybe in the future they can just push their traffic alerts to our infotainment systems.

[jeffandnicole]

One other thing I saw in that press release from NJDOT:

Both the Parkway and the Turnpike will get 25 new variable message signs providing motorists with more real-time reports about accidents, inclement weather and other situations, so they can make travel choices.

Now, the Parkway did not get new VMS's at any sort of regular interval when they were added in a few years ago (mainly in approaches to major exits and connecting roads), but the Turnpike got them every two miles, the same way that the old neon signs always were. Where else on the Turnpike do they feel they really need more VMS's in the future?

In reality they're about 3 or 4 miles - and actually a little further apart than where they used to be.

I think a few are set for the southern-most end of the Turnpike.  There's no signage for the first 2 miles going Northbound - not even a speed limit sign!  The last speed limit sign is actually on DRBA property for their 50 mph limit.  The final Southbound sign is just after the last service plaza.  Again, no VMS or speed limit signage after the toll plaza.

[roadman65]

Is not the Turnpike where paired with US 40  posted for 50 mph?  It was always 55 up to the old turnpike toll plaza and 50 from there into Delaware.  So either it got changed or when the new Exit 1 got added they overlooked the needed signs.

[jeffandnicole]

Is not the Turnpike where paired with US 40  posted for 50 mph?  It was always 55 up to the old turnpike toll plaza and 50 from there into Delaware.  So either it got changed or when the new Exit 1 got added they overlooked the needed signs.

I've never seen any speed limit posted down there. Historically it was 55 mph. The NJTA has never actually signed the limit, so it's normally been treated as a 65 zone. Its probably doubtful they done much speed-related enforcement on that stretch of highway.

[jeffandnicole]

Remember the Delaware Memorial Bridge Closure Thanksgiving Weekend?  The company responsible - Croda - paid the DRBA the invoice for the lost fares and additional manpower.

https://www.nj.com/south/2019/02/oops-that-massive-bridge-closure-was-our-fault-so-well-pick-up-the-giant-tab-company-says.html

[64CatalinaVentura]

We were stuck for about an hour last night on the GSP, northbound heading back from Atlantic City. The electrical wires on a bridge overpass for Lawrence Harbor Road, were down across the local lanes and along side the express lanes. All lanes of traffic were stopped. We literally sat there waiting for a utility worker to drag the line off the road (30 seconds to complete). What was crazy is that the express lanes were stopped first, by about ten minutes), even though the wires was on the local side......nothing was done to the express lanes to open them other than move the police cruiser. Also interesting is that they literally stopped us (I was the second car back from the front) right at the wires, not before. We had police, fire and utility workers walking in between our cars trying to figure out the situation. It was quite the experience. WCBS radio 880 AM was reporting on it as we sat in the car.

[storm2k]

These shield assemblies have started appearing in the Port Reading/Carteret area leading to the interchange 12 entrance to the Turnpike:


(This particular one is on the Industrial Road in Carteret, near the lower Roosevelt Ave intersection)

Pretty sure these are NJTA created assemblies, since they use the circular arrow shield instead of the more standard square ones NJDOT favors. Still, I like this assembly overall. Nice to see the Turnpike Authority including 95 in its assemblies for the Turnpike these days. They're also doing it in areas around Exit 11. Hope it spreads.

[jeffandnicole]

We were stuck for about an hour last night on the GSP, northbound heading back from Atlantic City. The electrical wires on a bridge overpass for Lawrence Harbor Road, were down across the local lanes and along side the express lanes. All lanes of traffic were stopped. We literally sat there waiting for a utility worker to drag the line off the road (30 seconds to complete). What was crazy is that the express lanes were stopped first, by about ten minutes), even though the wires was on the local side......nothing was done to the express lanes to open them other than move the police cruiser. Also interesting is that they literally stopped us (I was the second car back from the front) right at the wires, not before. We had police, fire and utility workers walking in between our cars trying to figure out the situation. It was quite the experience. WCBS radio 880 AM was reporting on it as we sat in the car.

While seemingly simple, I'm sure they had to make sure the electric was cut off first, and the utility worker had to get access to the scene. That all takes time. As for being stopped where you were, they stopped traffic at the first opportunity they could.

[PHLBOS]

These shield assemblies have started appearing in the Port Reading/Carteret area leading to the interchange 12 entrance to the Turnpike:


(This particular one is on the Industrial Road in Carteret, near the lower Roosevelt Ave intersection)

Pretty sure these are NJTA created assemblies, since they use the circular arrow shield instead of the more standard square ones NJDOT favors. Still, I like this assembly overall. Nice to see the Turnpike Authority including 95 in its assemblies for the Turnpike these days. They're also doing it in areas around Exit 11. Hope it spreads.

That blue round arrow sign reminds me a little bit of the EMERGENCY (or COASTAL) EVACUATION ROUTE signs that one sees.

Here's an NJ example using COASTAL en lieu of EMERGENCY:

[ChezeHed81]

Can anyone here remember how the distance portion of the previous generation of variable message signs functioned? I never saw this portion illuminated. Discussions about distances on Turnpike VMSes falling out of use and reasons perhaps explaining why that was so have already taken place on this forum, and that's not my point anyway.

My question relates specifically to the way the sign was illuminated (in terms of patterns, not technology). It appears that on the bottom line, in the center, there are distance characters with extra lengths of neon tubing, and I was wondering how these characters appeared when illuminated. For the sake of discussion, let's divide the distance portion into (3) segments: "1", "1/", and "2|".

The leading "1" appears to have redundancy immediately adjacent to it. Although the sign's redundancy is clear for the alphabetic characters, the numeric characters are less so, based on personal evaluation. Were these "1" characters illuminated at the same time, or was the leftmost "1" illuminated only when the "1/2" was also illuminated: "1" or "1[space]1/2"?

The "1/" section is fairly straight forward as the horizontal connecting tube segment of the "a" portion was probably covered in a non-translucent coating to make the "1" and "/" appear as separate characters. The "b" portion of the character pair was joined at the base of the characters, which naturally hid the point of transition. This, though, is merely speculation based on observation.

The most curious segment is the "2|" segment, which appears that it could be a "2" or a "4" (use your imagination to remove the top portion of "2"), but there is no apparent break which might facilitate independent "2" or "4" characters, so this seems unlikely. It would appear that physically the "2" and the "|" must illuminate together. How did this segment appear when in use?

I've assembled the images below (all are sourced from other's Flickr accounts) to show the portions which are of interest to me:



Any information you may be able to share would be appreciated.  I'm working on a digital illustration replica of the "REDUCE SPEED" sign.

[jeffandnicole]

I believe the signs could be lit to show 1/2, 1, 1 1/2, 2, 11 & 12.

I think as these signs aged, the 1 was actually a small interior portion of the 1.

I never saw any other number, including 4. If the distance didn't work within the 1s or 2s,  the sign would just say 'Ahead'.

[RobbieL2415]

Can anyone here remember how the distance portion of the previous generation of variable message signs functioned? I never saw this portion illuminated. Discussions about distances on Turnpike VMSes falling out of use and reasons perhaps explaining why that was so have already taken place on this forum, and that's not my point anyway.

My question relates specifically to the way the sign was illuminated (in terms of patterns, not technology). It appears that on the bottom line, in the center, there are distance characters with extra lengths of neon tubing, and I was wondering how these characters appeared when illuminated. For the sake of discussion, let's divide the distance portion into (3) segments: "1", "1/", and "2|".

The leading "1" appears to have redundancy immediately adjacent to it. Although the sign's redundancy is clear for the alphabetic characters, the numeric characters are less so, based on personal evaluation. Were these "1" characters illuminated at the same time, or was the leftmost "1" illuminated only when the "1/2" was also illuminated: "1" or "1[space]1/2"?

The "1/" section is fairly straight forward as the horizontal connecting tube segment of the "a" portion was probably covered in a non-translucent coating to make the "1" and "/" appear as separate characters. The "b" portion of the character pair was joined at the base of the characters, which naturally hid the point of transition. This, though, is merely speculation based on observation.

The most curious segment is the "2|" segment, which appears that it could be a "2" or a "4" (use your imagination to remove the top portion of "2"), but there is no apparent break which might facilitate independent "2" or "4" characters, so this seems unlikely. It would appear that physically the "2" and the "|" must illuminate together. How did this segment appear when in use?

I've assembled the images below (all are sourced from other's Flickr accounts) to show the portions which are of interest to me:



Any information you may be able to share would be appreciated.  I'm working on a digital illustration replica of the "REDUCE SPEED" sign.

FWIW there's one more old VMS still standing on the PA side of the Turnpike Extension (the "new" I-95)
https://goo.gl/maps/j3VTpexUzE82

[ChezeHed81]

FWIW there's one more old VMS still standing on the PA side of the Turnpike Extension (the "new" I-95)
https://goo.gl/maps/j3VTpexUzE82

Thanks, RobbieL2415.  I "swung by" there on Feb. 9, after attending a concert in Albany, NY, on my way to south Philadelphia.  The guardrail along the remains of the former PATP toll plaza provided a relatively safe place to walk behind along the roadway. I had my point-and-shoot camera on the trip, but the auto-focus apparently fixated on the foreground objects which were constructed/growing in front of the sign, so the detail photos were somewhat disappointing. See below:



Detail photos of the sign above:
Click to download from Flickr: NJTP RSA in PA : I95 NB MM041.1 (left) (1600px X 1200px))

Click to download from Flickr: NJTP RSA in PA : I95 NB MM041.1 (center) (1600px X 1200px))

Click to download from Flickr: NJTP RSA in PA : I95 NB MM041.1 (right) (1600px X 1200px))
__________

The sign has been significantly damaged over time, especially in the lower left area, with what may have been debris from snow plows or other highway-sourced flying objects. Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".

Thanks, again, for your contribution.

[PHLBOS]

Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".

That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.

[jeffandnicole]

Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".

That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.

I don't think that's the real reason why it hasn't been removed though. I believe NJ is adding a new VMS over there to replace it, so it should be removed relatively soon.

[RobbieL2415]

Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".

That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.

I don't think that's the real reason why it hasn't been removed though. I believe NJ is adding a new VMS over there to replace it, so it should be removed relatively soon.

So is is still in use?

[jeffandnicole]

Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".

That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.

I don't think that's the real reason why it hasn't been removed though. I believe NJ is adding a new VMS over there to replace it, so it should be removed relatively soon.

So is is still in use?

Did you not see the pic? There's nothing usable on that sign!!

[Alps]

Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".

That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.

I don't think that's the real reason why it hasn't been removed though. I believe NJ is adding a new VMS over there to replace it, so it should be removed relatively soon.

So is is still in use?

Did you not see the pic? There's nothing usable on that sign!!

The old system is completely turned off at this point. The VMS will sit there until the NJTA comes to take it.