News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

New Jersey

Started by Alps, September 17, 2013, 07:00:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Alps on August 20, 2018, 12:45:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 19, 2018, 11:46:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 19, 2018, 02:00:15 AM
162 is NOT state maintained. It's state numbered but county maintained.
Assuming the SLD is correct. NBI claims the state owns the bridge: http://bridgereports.com/1364764

By the way, the NJ 13 bridge was owned by the Board of Commerce and Navigation until 1938.
Is it possible that the state owns the bridge but the county maintains it? Or maintains the roadway? There could be some serious convolution going on here. I can tell you that all of the signage is county, not state, so it supports the SLDs.

This probably doesn't provide any additional clues because it's dealing with the waterway, but Page 5 of 5 of this: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/6-8-2017.pdf details a state project for fender replacements on this bridge. 

Then again, the county has been dealing with the Townsends Inlet Bridge between Sea Isle and Avalon forever since it's their toll bridge, seemingly without any state involvement.


J Route Z

It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.

bzakharin

Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
Are they really done? My area was only completed in the past month or so, and I'm not sure whether the entirety of the NJ 42 freeway section is complete. The last time I paid attention there was a mix of different size markers there still.

On a semi-related note, DRBA has gotten rid of their own mileage on the part of I-295 it controls, and the numbers on their new mile markers are now consistent with Delaware / NJ mileage, and reset to zero in the right place.

akotchi

Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
As I understand it, Mile 0 is used at the southern/western end of the state highway, which can be pretty clearly defined.  Mile End is (obviously) at the other end, but it was used (not everywhere) because it would not be as well defined otherwise.  Mile 0 on I-80 is more easily defined through conventional signing means than Mile 68.30 (or wherever it actually ends), for instance.  Not sure if Mile End is used with the new enhanced markers.

I tried using this on a project in Utah years ago, and UDOT had no idea what I was proposing . . .
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

Mr. Matté

#2154
Quote from: akotchi on September 04, 2018, 02:18:40 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
As I understand it, Mile 0 is used at the southern/western end of the state highway, which can be pretty clearly defined.  Mile End is (obviously) at the other end, but it was used (not everywhere) because it would not be as well defined otherwise.  Mile 0 on I-80 is more easily defined through conventional signing means than Mile 68.30 (or wherever it actually ends), for instance.  Not sure if Mile End is used with the new enhanced markers.

Doesn't seem like Mile Ends are being posted with the new posts. Having biked through NJ 79's northern terminus in Matawan this weekend, the rest of the road has the new markers but the old Mile End at NJ 34 still exists. A lot of other state highway ends just don't have them period.

However, it appears that previously unsigned roads are now popping into the public's view:




EDIT: I regret not linking to the pages though I wasn't certainly trying to claim them as my own
User:Famartin and Adam Moss

ixnay

Mr. Matte, IIRC NJ 324 was the last leg of U.S. 322 going towards the Chester-Bridgeport Ferry in the pre-Commodore Barry days.

ixnay
The Washington/Baltimore/Arlington CSA has two Key Bridges, a Minnesota Avenue, and a Mannasota Avenue.

artmalk

I live in Parsippany where a portion of US 202 is county maintained.  There are old mile markers (without shield) on 202 in Morris Plains but they seem to be missing in Parsippany. 

NJRoadfan

Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.

Mile 0 is the south/west end of the highway and the old Mile ENDs were posted on the east/north end. NJDOT has long since stopped posting Mile END markers (they all date from the 90s or earlier). FWIW, there is no Mile 0 posted for NJ-47 in Wildwood, or even a 0.5 (there used to be one), that section of roadway from Atlantic Ave. to the base of the bridge off the island is maintained by Cape May County as CR-661.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 20, 2018, 09:35:15 AM
Then again, the county has been dealing with the Townsends Inlet Bridge between Sea Isle and Avalon forever since it's their toll bridge, seemingly without any state involvement.

It doesn't cross a man made canal....

Speaking of Cape May County Bridges. More plans for replacing the aging Middle Thorofare Bridge have been released:

https://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/transportation/article_48825402-aac2-11e8-bed4-0313d9059352.html

https://capemaytwomilebridge.com/

cl94

That 324 mile marker is new this year. That thing had no markers whatsoever when I drove it in March.

The 167 marker was up last fall when I drove it and US 9. AFAIK, none of the other unsigned routes have EMMs yet. NJ 59 did not as of June.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

storm2k

Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 04, 2018, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.

Mile 0 is the south/west end of the highway and the old Mile ENDs were posted on the east/north end. NJDOT has long since stopped posting Mile END markers (they all date from the 90s or earlier). FWIW, there is no Mile 0 posted for NJ-47 in Wildwood, or even a 0.5 (there used to be one), that section of roadway from Atlantic Ave. to the base of the bridge off the island is maintained by Cape May County as CR-661.

I was down there in August and you are correct that there isn't an EMM on 47 until you're back in Middle Township, on the other side of the drawbridge (this is the first one). In fact, there really aren't any mentions of Rio Grande Ave being NJ-47 once you're in Wildwood proper. I've never really paid attention to that, but it's just Rio Grand Ave in the city itself all the way down to the ocean.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: storm2k on September 05, 2018, 12:44:34 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 04, 2018, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.

Mile 0 is the south/west end of the highway and the old Mile ENDs were posted on the east/north end. NJDOT has long since stopped posting Mile END markers (they all date from the 90s or earlier). FWIW, there is no Mile 0 posted for NJ-47 in Wildwood, or even a 0.5 (there used to be one), that section of roadway from Atlantic Ave. to the base of the bridge off the island is maintained by Cape May County as CR-661.

I was down there in August and you are correct that there isn't an EMM on 47 until you're back in Middle Township, on the other side of the drawbridge (this is the first one). In fact, there really aren't any mentions of Rio Grande Ave being NJ-47 once you're in Wildwood proper. I've never really paid attention to that, but it's just Rio Grand Ave in the city itself all the way down to the ocean.

Even worse, in my opinion, is that when you're on any side street (north/south) street in Wildwood, there's no signage telling you that NJ 47 is coming up.  The only prewarning is 'Hurricane Evacuation' signage approaching Rio Grande.  This should really be signed much better as NJ 47.

Roadgeek Adam

#2161
Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2018, 12:48:33 AM
That 324 mile marker is new this year. That thing had no markers whatsoever when I drove it in March.

The 167 marker was up last fall when I drove it and US 9. AFAIK, none of the other unsigned routes have EMMs yet. NJ 59 did not as of June.

I am currently screaming bloody murder with the 324 one because I was right there and knew none of its existence. (I have clinched 324, but before they did that)

Also for future note, Mr. Matte. My photos are not public domain. They may be on Wikimedia Commons, but I still license them under Creative Commons ShareAlike 4.0. Next time, credit me as the source of that 167 photo.
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

roadman65

NJ non state maintained state designations never got much attention. Hence, US 206 in Trenton, all of US 202 north of NJ 53 excluding NJ 23 overlap, NJ 27 in Elizabeth and Newark (although Newark does include them on overhead street blades now) and even ALT US 22 (now defunct) in Phillipsburg.

I agree when I visited Wildwood in 1987, I had to ask a cop to direct me to Route 47 as there was no mention of the route from the main beach paralleling arterials.  I do remember now how it was signed as a county route which did strike me as odd at the time.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Alps

Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2018, 12:48:33 AM
That 324 mile marker is new this year. That thing had no markers whatsoever when I drove it in March.

The 167 marker was up last fall when I drove it and US 9. AFAIK, none of the other unsigned routes have EMMs yet. NJ 59 did not as of June.
I don't believe 59 has one...

jeffandnicole

New Jersey never renewed their Red Light Camera program after a 5 year experiment ended in 2014. Technically - NJDOT never issued the report on the effectiveness of the program, and there wasn't enough political will to for NJDOT to issue the report.

Now, New Jersey is looking into prohibiting the Motor Vehicle Commission from providing NJ registration information to other states for red light and speed camera violations.

http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/red-light-camera-fines-new-jersey-law-speed-ppa-20180910.html

storm2k

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 10, 2018, 09:37:44 AM
New Jersey never renewed their Red Light Camera program after a 5 year experiment ended in 2014. Technically - NJDOT never issued the report on the effectiveness of the program, and there wasn't enough political will to for NJDOT to issue the report.

Now, New Jersey is looking into prohibiting the Motor Vehicle Commission from providing NJ registration information to other states for red light and speed camera violations.

http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/red-light-camera-fines-new-jersey-law-speed-ppa-20180910.html


Good. The red light camera program was just a legal excuse to take money from motorists. Most places that had the cameras also had their yellow light timings reduced significantly, so they could better catch people in the middle of the intersection on a red and ticket them. The light on Rt 1 at Avanel St in Avanel was definitely affected by this. I know for a fact that they mucked with the timings of the light at Rt 1/Gill Lane in Woodbridge substantially so only a couple of cars could make it thru the light coming from Gill Lane either to make the left onto 1 NB or continue onto Woodbridge Center Dr each cycle. Since the cameras have been gone, the timings are much friendlier and better for traffic.

Alps

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 10, 2018, 09:37:44 AM
New Jersey never renewed their Red Light Camera program after a 5 year experiment ended in 2014. Technically - NJDOT never issued the report on the effectiveness of the program, and there wasn't enough political will to for NJDOT to issue the report.

Now, New Jersey is looking into prohibiting the Motor Vehicle Commission from providing NJ registration information to other states for red light and speed camera violations.

http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/red-light-camera-fines-new-jersey-law-speed-ppa-20180910.html

Great, an incentive for Jersey drivers to weave around traffic on DC 295 at 80 mph.

famartin

#2167
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2018, 06:25:00 PM
NJ non state maintained state designations never got much attention. Hence, US 206 in Trenton, all of US 202 north of NJ 53 excluding NJ 23 overlap, NJ 27 in Elizabeth and Newark (although Newark does include them on overhead street blades now) and even ALT US 22 (now defunct) in Phillipsburg.

I agree when I visited Wildwood in 1987, I had to ask a cop to direct me to Route 47 as there was no mention of the route from the main beach paralleling arterials.  I do remember now how it was signed as a county route which did strike me as odd at the time.

From what I can tell, NJDOT is exclusively mileposting  the state maintained portions. It's my main beef with the project, which otherwise is pretty awesome. Also haven't seen any mile ends in the new style. Don't think they are doing them anymore. I'm not sure they are done yet, my hunch is not quite, as some known state maintained portions remain without new markers.

I noticed the ACE has new markers, but they skimped so much they are tiny. There are a few mileposts on the southern NJTP like the new NJDOT ones, namely 0, 10, and 20. They've thrown some parkway shields on some of their mileposts too, but as addons.

Also, not sure the deal with 27 in Newark and Elizabeth previously, but it did get mileposts, so my hunch is that it's now state maintained.

bzakharin

The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers  (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.

famartin

Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2018, 08:56:28 PM
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers  (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Yes, I took a closer look at that (the ACE mile markers) today. Oddly, the signage on the Brigantine Connector is consistent and NJDOT standard (in fact, it appears to be fully mileposted to every tenth mile)

storm2k

Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 09:16:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2018, 08:56:28 PM
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers  (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Yes, I took a closer look at that (the ACE mile markers) today. Oddly, the signage on the Brigantine Connector is consistent and NJDOT standard (in fact, it appears to be fully mileposted to every tenth mile)

495 also has the EMM's every tenth of a mile. I'm assuming this was done to make it easier to pinpoint where a crash or stalled car is on there since it's such a congested road coming to and from the Lincoln Tunnel. I'm not sure who did them, because they're not done the same. The signs don't have the white border around them, and the shields on the signs have the black background, which NJ is moving away from on green signs of all sizes.

famartin

Quote from: storm2k on September 12, 2018, 10:38:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 09:16:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2018, 08:56:28 PM
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers  (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Yes, I took a closer look at that (the ACE mile markers) today. Oddly, the signage on the Brigantine Connector is consistent and NJDOT standard (in fact, it appears to be fully mileposted to every tenth mile)

495 also has the EMM's every tenth of a mile. I'm assuming this was done to make it easier to pinpoint where a crash or stalled car is on there since it's such a congested road coming to and from the Lincoln Tunnel. I'm not sure who did them, because they're not done the same. The signs don't have the white border around them, and the shields on the signs have the black background, which NJ is moving away from on green signs of all sizes.
Those 495 mile markers are very new, they weren't there back in early July. I also noticed a few 322 markers with black backgrounds. I prefer the black backgrounds as I feel they give the route more emphasis, but that's just me.

J Route Z

Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 05:48:10 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 12, 2018, 10:38:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 09:16:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2018, 08:56:28 PM
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers  (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Yes, I took a closer look at that (the ACE mile markers) today. Oddly, the signage on the Brigantine Connector is consistent and NJDOT standard (in fact, it appears to be fully mileposted to every tenth mile)

495 also has the EMM's every tenth of a mile. I'm assuming this was done to make it easier to pinpoint where a crash or stalled car is on there since it's such a congested road coming to and from the Lincoln Tunnel. I'm not sure who did them, because they're not done the same. The signs don't have the white border around them, and the shields on the signs have the black background, which NJ is moving away from on green signs of all sizes.
Those 495 mile markers are very new, they weren't there back in early July. I also noticed a few 322 markers with black backgrounds. I prefer the black backgrounds as I feel they give the route more emphasis, but that's just me.
I actually prefer the black backgrounds too, especially on big gantry signage.
On another note, the Route 495 viaduct in North Bergen will be a disaster the next 2 years or so. There are some alternative routes for those commuting into the city: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2018/08/17/route-495-construction-alternatives/1022087002/

storm2k

The state misspelled a town name on a road sign. Good job, Jersey.

QuoteIn just the latest of what seems like a rash of misspellings on road signs and other highly visible locations, a green state Department of Transportation sign on the eastbound side of the Route 37 causeway, just short of Pelican Island, left out the third "L" in Lavallette.

I assume they'll just put a greenout with the correct spelling over it. Also interesting that they went with an extruded sign for a LGS. Usually they only do that for BGS's and just use flat panels bolted together for the LGS's. Especially as they've been replacing signs all over the state with mixed cased legends (and all sorts of weird sizing and spacing issues).

PHLBOS

Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2018, 11:08:43 AM
The letter spacing for both control cities IMHO leaves a lot to be desired as well.
GPS does NOT equal GOD



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.