New Jersey

[NJRoadfan]

Perhaps the most surprising thing about these new signs is that some of them have lighting. Thought that was phased out decades ago at this point.

I think part of the confusion westbound right after the toll plaza is that you don't know what the US-1-9-22 sign is for at that point. Are you on US-1&9 South already, or is it an exit ahead? Perhaps some exit tabs (it IS Exit 58A-B) and better signing that its mainline I-78 West Local would help. The roadway configuration kinda sucks there. After all, you have a mainline interstate dropping down to one lane!

[jeffandnicole]

Perhaps the most surprising thing about these new signs is that some of them have lighting. Thought that was phased out decades ago at this point.

Jersey, for a short period of time, didn't include lighting on new overhead signage. But nearly every overhead constructed over the past 2 decades has included lighting.

[akotchi]

Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.

In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.

Not obvious in the first photo is that the two right lanes exiting the toll plaza both go to the Newark destination.

Agree on the second photo, though there is a ramp that enters just behind the camera view and the roadway is only two lanes before that.  It is true that both lanes exit (so "BOTH LANES" may be better on the advance sign), but "through" traffic has to shift right to stay on I-78 local.  Markings are not intuitive there.

Almost begs for an APL sequence.

Not sure why the u-turn message . . . only traffic that enters is from the frontage road ramp, referenced above, but none of the movements from there would be a u-turn, except to go back to the hotels.

Following the "U-Turn" message, the next split has a half a sign remaining indicating U-turns to the right.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hpiGHGPd8pSjjq3S8  Then after that is a BGS for the NJ Turnpike.

My only guess is that with the large number of options that could lead someone to the Exit 14 plaza, there was enough people that took the wrong option that there was a need to sign a u-turn. Although that doesn't explain a lack of a u-turn blade on the first BGS after the toll plaza.

After doing a GSV tour of the area I found this.
https://goo.gl/maps/sx6ihCbmfQracFjBA
If you exit NB US 1 & 9 to Frontage Road, to U Turn you must enter the opposing direction of US 1 & 9 via the local lanes of I-78 WB to reach the SB lanes.

So the U Turn mentioned on the left exit for US 1 & 9 on I-78 local is most likely the follow up to the sign in the link I just provided.

That would explain the lack of U Turn posted previously at the post Exit 14 gantry.  It's not for those mistakenly exiting at 14 to get back to I-78 EB or I-95, although you can return to I-78 EB from US 1 & 9 SB after you exit onto it if that scenario does happen.

Makes more sense now, as that is the only BGS in the I-78 local sequence that has the U-turn sign in it.  Good catch.

[storm2k]

Perhaps the most surprising thing about these new signs is that some of them have lighting. Thought that was phased out decades ago at this point.

I think part of the confusion westbound right after the toll plaza is that you don't know what the US-1-9-22 sign is for at that point. Are you on US-1&9 South already, or is it an exit ahead? Perhaps some exit tabs (it IS Exit 58A-B) and better signing that its mainline I-78 West Local would help. The roadway configuration kinda sucks there. After all, you have a mainline interstate dropping down to one lane!

It was phased out for quite a while, but has made a comeback in the past few years, especially now that they have LED standards they use on the structures now.

[Alps]

Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.

In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.

Third photo, the Exit 55 sign should have a road name on it in addition to the two town names, but that's a whole other controversial subject. I get that they're following MUTCD recommendations that I disagree with.  And on the Crossover sign, I think G S Parkway would be fine. I don't get why they won't abbreviate it anymore.

And in the last photo, the Exit 48 sign again should have had arrows at the split instead of right 3 lanes legend.

I really don't understand NJDOT's way of doing things.........

1) mainline BGS do not typically get arrows. not needed here, reduced messaging.
2) This one I agree with you on.
3) No. No need for local street names. MUTCD all the way.
4) No. These are cantilevers. You're not getting a gigantic sign with arrows over all 3 lanes. This is fine as is.

Thanks Alps. Good to hear the rationale from someone on the inside. But you didn't mention; would you know why they're not using the abbreviation G S Parkway anymore and insisting on full wording there? What happened to the words you used above: Not needed, reduced messaging ?

I am not on the inside - these signs are not on any project of mine, so I can't speak to why any specific decisions were made.

[roadman65]

Perhaps the most surprising thing about these new signs is that some of them have lighting. Thought that was phased out decades ago at this point.

I think part of the confusion westbound right after the toll plaza is that you don't know what the US-1-9-22 sign is for at that point. Are you on US-1&9 South already, or is it an exit ahead? Perhaps some exit tabs (it IS Exit 58A-B) and better signing that its mainline I-78 West Local would help. The roadway configuration kinda sucks there. After all, you have a mainline interstate dropping down to one lane!

I agree. It should be signed as an exit with a number. However NJDOT thinks within the box that these are follow up signs for Exit 14 of the Turnpike and therefore distributing all the 14 toll plaza traffic to the many different highways.

The fact that US 1-9-22 are signed as the pull through and I-78 mainline is down to a single lane goes back to before I-78 was completed. Originally all traffic from Exit 14 went mainly to US 1 & 9 SB after exiting the toll road. So this is a holdover from that. Plus NJDOT believes the express I-78 is the mainline like they did on I-95 SB in Fort Lee from the GWB Upper level. If you go from the upper level of the GWB and to the I-95 local you have at NJ 4 the local through lane drop down into a single lane ramp giving you the feeling that you exited I-95 to NJ 4 and then are reentering the freeway again. Of course now it's NJTA that inherited it, but they, like  NJDOT think then, that most traffic on the Upper Level is using the express lanes and people generally use the Lower Level for local traffic.

Ditto leaving the Exit 14 toll plaza.

[Plutonic Panda]

Almost half a billion dollars in fed money coming to NJ for various projects: https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562023/approved/20230906a.shtml

[TheGrassGuy]

Was Industrial Hwy in Carteret ever a 600 county route in Middlesex? One traffic light gantry near the western terminus just has 6, but with the middle and right numbers blanked out.

There is no mention of Industrial Hwy on the Wikipedia article.

Also, Bridge St in Metuchen was formerly signed as CR 669, which was and is Central Avenue in Metuchen. Did CR 669 have multiple spurs like the utter mess that is CR 657?

[storm2k]

Was Industrial Hwy in Carteret ever a 600 county route in Middlesex? One traffic light gantry near the western terminus just has 6, but with the middle and right numbers blanked out.

There is no mention of Industrial Hwy on the Wikipedia article.

Also, Bridge St in Metuchen was formerly signed as CR 669, which was and is Central Avenue in Metuchen. Did CR 669 have multiple spurs like the utter mess that is CR 657?

IIRC when the Industrial Hwy was planned there was talk about it being under Middlesex County jurisdiction. However, it ended up staying local with Carteret. However, this was also around the time Exit 12 was redesigned and part of that work was the connection to the Industrial Hwy. Hence they erected the signs with the CR shield on them. Those signs were replaced around 2016-17 and none of them have CR shields on them. They also have the "West Carteret" sign which isn't technically a place (it's just the western half of the borough that's on the other side of the Turnpike, but is not a separate municipality).

One interesting note is that at the two intersections with Roosevelt Ave (it basically does a backwards C around the Industrial Hwy) those signals are maintained by Middlesex County since Roosevelt Ave is a county road. The street name blades on the signal arms show "Industrial Rd" and not "Industrial Hwy"

[Alps]

Was Industrial Hwy in Carteret ever a 600 county route in Middlesex? One traffic light gantry near the western terminus just has 6, but with the middle and right numbers blanked out.

There is no mention of Industrial Hwy on the Wikipedia article.

Also, Bridge St in Metuchen was formerly signed as CR 669, which was and is Central Avenue in Metuchen. Did CR 669 have multiple spurs like the utter mess that is CR 657?

IIRC when the Industrial Hwy was planned there was talk about it being under Middlesex County jurisdiction. However, it ended up staying local with Carteret. However, this was also around the time Exit 12 was redesigned and part of that work was the connection to the Industrial Hwy. Hence they erected the signs with the CR shield on them. Those signs were replaced around 2016-17 and none of them have CR shields on them. They also have the "West Carteret" sign which isn't technically a place (it's just the western half of the borough that's on the other side of the Turnpike, but is not a separate municipality).

One interesting note is that at the two intersections with Roosevelt Ave (it basically does a backwards C around the Industrial Hwy) those signals are maintained by Middlesex County since Roosevelt Ave is a county road. The street name blades on the signal arms show "Industrial Rd" and not "Industrial Hwy"

I'll just add that when a road is built, it initiates under the jurisdiction of whoever built it. Any transfer of jurisdiction requires a signed agreement by both parties. Even if the intent all along was to transfer to the 2nd party, a change in leadership, changes in revenue, or just a change of heart can quash it. It's a risk taken on by the constructing agency.

[NJRoadfan]

It was supposed to be CR-643. The portion in Woodbridge, which is signed Prologis Way, is county maintained.

[TheGrassGuy]

CR 663 (Clinton Ave) is also signed as CR 669 erroneously.

[Roadgeek Adam]

CR 663 (Clinton Ave) is also signed as CR 669 erroneously.

That's been signed erroneously for over a decade. I remember seeing it too.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

[jeffandnicole]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

[Rothman]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

Right.  I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

Right.  I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.

You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?

[Rothman]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

Right.  I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.

You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?

Pfft.  People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

Right.  I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.

You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?

Pfft.  People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.

Can you show me another intersection in the US with a similar layout? I'm curious so I'm going to OPRA crash records for this one as well. Maybe the engineers at Bergen county have a similar attitude to you but I don't like it. It's clearly dangerous.

[jeffandnicole]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

Right.  I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.

You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?

Pfft.  People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.

Can you show me another intersection in the US with a similar layout? I'm curious so I'm going to OPRA crash records for this one as well. Maybe the engineers at Bergen county have a similar attitude to you but I don't like it. It's clearly dangerous.

While not to this extreme, any five-way intersection with at least three legs controlled by stop signs will have a similar issue. The left side is a leg coming from a cul-de-sac with about 9 homes, so it's not really much of a traffic generator, and they're used to the issue. Sure, they'll have occasional visitors, but again, light traffic. Drivers give each other a little wave if necessary, and everyone is fine.

This is one of those situations where the condition has existed for decades, at least since 1966 per historicaerials.com, but you're seeing it for the first time and immediately think it causes deadly mayhem.

[Alps]

My bigger issue is the left turn off Ackerman coming to an immediate stop. Could leave a vehicle sticking out into free-flow traffic.

[storm2k]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

Right.  I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.

You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?

Pfft.  People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.

It's sad how true this is. It's why I will not be upset if the rumors that Somerset County wants to replace this intersection with a roundabout are true. When there are a decent amount of cars on all four legs of this intersection, it's dicey because people really have no idea what to do.

[Alps]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

Right.  I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.

You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?

Pfft.  People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.

It's sad how true this is. It's why I will not be upset if the rumors that Somerset County wants to replace this intersection with a roundabout are true. When there are a decent amount of cars on all four legs of this intersection, it's dicey because people really have no idea what to do.

Heh? In my town there's a 4-way stop and everyone alternates politely. Has been no issue, and I did suggest a roundabout to the town but it got no legs.

[roadman65]

What are your thoughts on this intersection?

Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?

The one on the right. 

39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.

Right.  I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.

You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?

Pfft.  People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.

It's sad how true this is. It's why I will not be upset if the rumors that Somerset County wants to replace this intersection with a roundabout are true. When there are a decent amount of cars on all four legs of this intersection, it's dicey because people really have no idea what to do.

All way Stops are good for light traffic, but for heavier traffic it can create confusion as it's hard to tell who arrived first. We had an issue in Orlando in the early nineties that was such, but Orange County fixed it with a traffic signal to make it better.

Don't know this intersection well, but if it's become too congested, then the roundabout might be a viable solution here.

[odditude]

apologies if this was already noted elsewhere, but the signage for the soon-to-open Missing Moves exit from 295 NB to 42 SB is up (albeit still covered) - drove through the area for the first time in months today).