New Jersey Turnpike

[RobbieL2415]

J&N, what are some of the common complaints people have about the NJT? It's always been my favorite highway to drive.

The tolls. The price of the tolls. The other drivers. Conditions of the service areas. Congestion.

1. If you drive with the flow of traffic you'll have less people giving you the business.

2. The Turnpike Authority is stepping their game up with rest stop renovation.

3. Ever since the latest extension of the second carriageway was completed, I've never experienced any congestion.

[sprjus4]

J&N, what are some of the common complaints people have about the NJT? It's always been my favorite highway to drive.

The tolls. The price of the tolls. The other drivers. Conditions of the service areas. Congestion.

1. If you drive with the flow of traffic you'll have less people giving you the business.

2. The Turnpike Authority is stepping their game up with rest stop renovation.

3. Ever since the latest extension of the second carriageway was completed, I've never experienced any congestion.

Exit 1 - 4 is still only 4 lanes and frequently experiences congestion during peak weekends. Additionally, the areas closer to Newark, Jersey City, and into New York City can be bottlenecks during peak weekends and rush hours.

[Ned Weasel]

Since we always talk about the exit numbers on this thread, I have a question.  Let's suppose that, eventually, all of the New Jersey Turnpike's exits get numbered exactly according to the way the MUTCD wants it.  As has been discussed before....

I fully expect that if the NJTA ever renumbered the turnpike exits to mileage, it would use the turnpike's mileage straight to the GWB.

That said, it would not be hard to renumber NJ Turnpike exits to use I-95's current mileage, similar to the way PTC has two overlapping number sets for the mainline and Northeast Extension...
1 -> (unnumbered)
2 -> 13
3 -> 26
4 -> 34
5 -> 44
6 -> (unnumbered)
(6A) -> 2
7 -> 8
7A -> 15
8 -> 22
8A -> 28
9 -> 38
10 -> 43
11 -> 45
12 -> 51
13 -> 54
13A -> 57
14 -> 59
(unnumbered) - same
15E -> 62
15W -> 63
15X -> 65
16E -> 67
16W -> 68
18E -> (unnumbered)
18W -> (unnumbered)
68 -> 72
69 -> 73
70 -> 74
71 -> 75
72 -> 76
73 -> 77
74 -> 78

While I didn't include them, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include W on the western spur exits and E on the eastern spur ones, for clarity.

The MUTCD would indicate that one alignment becomes the mainline and the other gets numbered as a loop (so 1 to 8 or so).

If all that ends up happening, would it be a bad idea to go ahead and sign NJ 700 south of I-95, and sign NJ 95W on the western spur [if that's actually the official designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Turnpike#Newark_to_Ridgefield_Park)], in order to avoid confusion that may arise from different parts of the Turnpike having exits based on different sets of miles?

I'm just thinking, lots of people might ask, "Why do the exit numbers suddenly go from 44 to 8 when you go north?"  It might be confusing to answer with, "One set of numbers is for just the New Jersey Turnpike, and the other set of numbers is for I-95, which is also the New Jersey Turnpike."  But if you could say, "One set of numbers is for the 700 Turnpike, and the other set of numbers is for the 95 Turnpike (and another set of numbers is for the 78 Turnpike, and another set of numbers is for the 95W Turnpike)," I think that would be easier for people to wrap their heads around.

At least it would for me, and I come from a state where people ask questions along the lines of, "Why do I-70's exit numbers suddenly go from the 300s to the 100s and 200s and then suddenly to the 400s when you go east?," and the answer is "One set of numbers is for the toll-free portions of I-70, and the other set of numbers is for the Kansas Turnpike portion of I-70."

[jeffandnicole]

How do motorists handle this on beltways, when they go thru the origin point of the exit numbers? Do their minds blow up in confusion? Or do they simply continue on to the exit number or route they're looking for?

[1995hoo]

Theres a lot of people that don't understand how mileage-based exiting works.

Funny, because it's easier to understand than sequential-based exit numbering in practice.

Heh, then you have people who understand it too well. A couple of years ago my brother-in-law and his wife were visiting us from Phoenix. He almost flipped out on the Beltway because he thought he was getting close (he was), but then she told him they needed Exit 173 when they had just passed Exit 52 and he was baffled as to how they had 120 miles to go. (For those unfamiliar, the Beltway jumps from Exit 57 at Springfield to Exit 173 three miles east of there due to I-95's exit numbers trumping the Beltway's for the final eight miles in Virginia.) I had warned them of this in the directions I gave them, but it didn't register.



stridentweasel's post reminds me of how I-95 in Maine used to have multiple sets of exit numbers, including (IIRC) some duplicates due to the Maine Turnpike numbers being independent of the others.

[bzakharin]

So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?

Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?

From what I remember reading, it's fictional I-95 mileage based on the fictional highway known as the Somerset Freeway.  However, it might be close enough to the actual I-95 mileage resulting from the PA Turnpike interchange that they could leave those numbers alone.  Does anyone know for sure?

I'm also curious how or if the New Jersey Turnpike's exits are going to be re-numbered according to the MUTCD-mandated mileage-based numbering.  I still have mixed opinions on the MUTCD standardization there.  On the one hand, it would ruin the famous and historic exit numbers, but on the other hand, you'd no longer have the "[X], [X+1], [X+1]A, [X+2], [X+2]A, etc." sort of sequence that has long plagued sequential exit numbering and made it bad idea.

Update:  Other people already answered your question while I was typing my rambling response.

The Somerset Freeway isn't fictional. It's just canceled. Rich Somerset and Mercer County NIMBY's got it wiped off the map because they didn't want a freeway near their homes. Don't call it fictional.

I wonder, though, how the alignment for the canceled Somerset Freeway was known so precisely as to put mile markers or exit numbers at the other end of the state. Surely, as the plans changed several times before cancellation the mileage was premature. Or were there plans to re-align the exit numbers once the roadway was built in case they didn't match? If so, how would it be any different from changing them now that the actual I-95 is complete and its mileage is known?

[Pete from Boston]

Theres a lot of people that don't understand how mileage-based exiting works.

Funny, because it's easier to understand than sequential-based exit numbering in practice.

Heh, then you have people who understand it too well. A couple of years ago my brother-in-law and his wife were visiting us from Phoenix. He almost flipped out on the Beltway because he thought he was getting close (he was), but then she told him they needed Exit 173 when they had just passed Exit 52 and he was baffled as to how they had 120 miles to go. (For those unfamiliar, the Beltway jumps from Exit 57 at Springfield to Exit 173 three miles east of there due to I-95's exit numbers trumping the Beltway's for the final eight miles in Virginia.) I had warned them of this in the directions I gave them, but it didn't register.



stridentweasel's post reminds me of how I-95 in Maine used to have multiple sets of exit numbers, including (IIRC) some duplicates due to the Maine Turnpike numbers being independent of the others.

IIRC it went to 3 or 4 from the NH line then started over at the Turnpike start.

[jeffandnicole]

So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?

Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?

From what I remember reading, it's fictional I-95 mileage based on the fictional highway known as the Somerset Freeway.  However, it might be close enough to the actual I-95 mileage resulting from the PA Turnpike interchange that they could leave those numbers alone.  Does anyone know for sure?

I'm also curious how or if the New Jersey Turnpike's exits are going to be re-numbered according to the MUTCD-mandated mileage-based numbering.  I still have mixed opinions on the MUTCD standardization there.  On the one hand, it would ruin the famous and historic exit numbers, but on the other hand, you'd no longer have the "[X], [X+1], [X+1]A, [X+2], [X+2]A, etc." sort of sequence that has long plagued sequential exit numbering and made it bad idea.

Update:  Other people already answered your question while I was typing my rambling response.

The Somerset Freeway isn't fictional. It's just canceled. Rich Somerset and Mercer County NIMBY's got it wiped off the map because they didn't want a freeway near their homes. Don't call it fictional.

I wonder, though, how the alignment for the canceled Somerset Freeway was known so precisely as to put mile markers or exit numbers at the other end of the state. Surely, as the plans changed several times before cancellation the mileage was premature. Or were there plans to re-align the exit numbers once the roadway was built in case they didn't match? If so, how would it be any different from changing them now that the actual I-95 is complete and its mileage is known?

Engineering. They pretty much knew the exact centimeter where everything would go.  Now, could things have changed later on if the final plans changed? Sure, and it has happened often. Some of the exit numbers on NJ 55 in the Millville area changed after the northern section was built, for example.

[roadman65]

They did even calculate where it would have tied into I-287 in South Plainfield as I-287 had its zero milepost at Durham Ave.  It was changed after the Somerset got cancelled which is why north of Bernardsville the exit numbers were changed in the mid 1980's.  The section south of North Maple Avenue did not have exit numbers until circa 1994 due to that situation as CR 529 would have been Exit 1 and Durham Avenue, CR 501, NJ 27, and US 1 all would have been awkward as they would have have to given it future I-95 exit numbers or leave those unnumbered.

They did though give some ramps random numbers like CR 527, Weston Canal Road, and US 202 & 206 at both interchanges plus one gore Exit 10 for US 22 going NB on the left ramp.  Do not know what logic that was if the rest of the numbers around them were not numbered yet.

[bluecountry]

Since we always talk about the exit numbers on this thread, I have a question.  Let's suppose that, eventually, all of the New Jersey Turnpike's exits get numbered exactly according to the way the MUTCD wants it.  As has been discussed before....

I fully expect that if the NJTA ever renumbered the turnpike exits to mileage, it would use the turnpike's mileage straight to the GWB.

That said, it would not be hard to renumber NJ Turnpike exits to use I-95's current mileage, similar to the way PTC has two overlapping number sets for the mainline and Northeast Extension...
1 -> (unnumbered)
2 -> 13
3 -> 26
4 -> 34
5 -> 44
6 -> (unnumbered)
(6A) -> 2
7 -> 8
7A -> 15
8 -> 22
8A -> 28
9 -> 38
10 -> 43
11 -> 45
12 -> 51
13 -> 54
13A -> 57
14 -> 59
(unnumbered) - same
15E -> 62
15W -> 63
15X -> 65
16E -> 67
16W -> 68
18E -> (unnumbered)
18W -> (unnumbered)
68 -> 72
69 -> 73
70 -> 74
71 -> 75
72 -> 76
73 -> 77
74 -> 78

While I didn't include them, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include W on the western spur exits and E on the eastern spur ones, for clarity.

The MUTCD would indicate that one alignment becomes the mainline and the other gets numbered as a loop (so 1 to 8 or so).

If all that ends up happening, would it be a bad idea to go ahead and sign NJ 700 south of I-95, and sign NJ 95W on the western spur [if that's actually the official designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Turnpike#Newark_to_Ridgefield_Park)], in order to avoid confusion that may arise from different parts of the Turnpike having exits based on different sets of miles?

I'm just thinking, lots of people might ask, "Why do the exit numbers suddenly go from 44 to 8 when you go north?"  It might be confusing to answer with, "One set of numbers is for just the New Jersey Turnpike, and the other set of numbers is for I-95, which is also the New Jersey Turnpike."  But if you could say, "One set of numbers is for the 700 Turnpike, and the other set of numbers is for the 95 Turnpike (and another set of numbers is for the 78 Turnpike, and another set of numbers is for the 95W Turnpike)," I think that would be easier for people to wrap their heads around.

At least it would for me, and I come from a state where people ask questions along the lines of, "Why do I-70's exit numbers suddenly go from the 300s to the 100s and 200s and then suddenly to the 400s when you go east?," and the answer is "One set of numbers is for the toll-free portions of I-70, and the other set of numbers is for the Kansas Turnpike portion of I-70."

Oh I would love it if they went to mileage base.
And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.

[Ned Weasel]

And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.

Old "Fictional Highways" type of idea.  Probably never going to happen.  Pennsylvania likes having I-95 go through their state, and the "Express" banner would probably cause more confusion than it would solve.

I still kind of think it might be worth signing the NJ 700 designation, however, just to differentiate it from the I-95 portion.  Others may disagree.

I-x95 has also been discussed, but it's unnecessary.

[bluecountry]

And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.

Old "Fictional Highways" type of idea.  Probably never going to happen.  Pennsylvania likes having I-95 go through their state, and the "Express" banner would probably cause more confusion than it would solve.

I still kind of think it might be worth signing the NJ 700 designation, however, just to differentiate it from the I-95 portion.  Others may disagree.

I-x95 has also been discussed, but it's unnecessary.

You could just do I-95 EB Spur...like on the North part of the NJTP or in Dallas with I-35, or even in NC with I-85.

[storm2k]

And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.

Old "Fictional Highways" type of idea.  Probably never going to happen.  Pennsylvania likes having I-95 go through their state, and the "Express" banner would probably cause more confusion than it would solve.

I still kind of think it might be worth signing the NJ 700 designation, however, just to differentiate it from the I-95 portion.  Others may disagree.

I-x95 has also been discussed, but it's unnecessary.

You could just do I-95 EB Spur...like on the North part of the NJTP or in Dallas with I-35, or even in NC with I-85.

It's not going to happen. Nor is the signing of 700. The Turnpike shield is enough of a route marker to do the job. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

Also, I think the Turnpike should always stay numbered according to its actual length over resetting the exit numbering where 95 enters it. That's just going to confuse things. Follow the Turnpike's actual mileposts. That's the system that makes the most sense to the driving public who know they're on the NJ Turnpike and probably either have no idea or no care that they're also on Interstate 95 for a portion of the route. Keep the mileage the same, set the exit numbers based on its whole length including the 95 extension to the GWB. I'd prefix the exit numbers on the eastern and western spurs with E and W like they are now. For the NBHCE, just continue 78's exit numbering as long as it doesn't conflict with mainline exit numbers like the PTC does with the Northeast Extension. This is the system that makes the most sense intrinsically. That's far more important to following the letter of the law just to make some road geeks happy.

[jeffandnicole]

And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.

Old "Fictional Highways" type of idea.  Probably never going to happen.  Pennsylvania likes having I-95 go through their state, and the "Express" banner would probably cause more confusion than it would solve.

I still kind of think it might be worth signing the NJ 700 designation, however, just to differentiate it from the I-95 portion.  Others may disagree.

I-x95 has also been discussed, but it's unnecessary.

You could just do I-95 EB Spur...like on the North part of the NJTP or in Dallas with I-35, or even in NC with I-85.

Or just do what's done in a few hundred other cases and sign it as I-695 or I-895, instead of trying to be fancy about it.

[Ned Weasel]

It's not going to happen. Nor is the signing of 700. The Turnpike shield is enough of a route marker to do the job. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

Also, I think the Turnpike should always stay numbered according to its actual length over resetting the exit numbering where 95 enters it. That's just going to confuse things. Follow the Turnpike's actual mileposts. That's the system that makes the most sense to the driving public who know they're on the NJ Turnpike and probably either have no idea or no care that they're also on Interstate 95 for a portion of the route. Keep the mileage the same, set the exit numbers based on its whole length including the 95 extension to the GWB. I'd prefix the exit numbers on the eastern and western spurs with E and W like they are now.

Tell that to the MUTCD gods.

That's far more important to following the letter of the law just to make some road geeks happy.

I actually agree that it would be best just to have the New Jersey Turnpike use its own mile-based numbering for its whole length.  And I'd even be happy with the "W" and "E" exit number suffixes.  I think a lot of roadgeeks would be happy with this, although, as I've said, roadgeeks will probably never agree on anything except "roads are fun."

The problem is the MUTCD mandates that got the classic signage changed in the first place.  You can't get around those without getting an exception or just flat-out ignoring it.

Section 2E.31, Paragraph 16: "Where numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes (see Figure 2E-21).  If one of the routes is an Interstate and the other route is not an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering."

They left some ambiguity in there by saying "numbered" route, but I infer that to mean any route; it's just that routes are usually numbered.  NJ 700 is a numbered route that ends at I-95.  The New Jersey Turnpike is a named route with a shield that fits into road signs as if it were a numbered route.

Again, I don't disagree with you, but if the NJTP is allowed to keep its own mileage-based numbering for its whole length, then why wasn't the PA Turnpike allowed to keep its numbering on the I-95 portion?  A sudden jump on I-95's exit numbers to the 300s would have confused almost nobody, but they changed it to do what the MUTCD wants.

Believe me, there are tons of things in the MUTCD that I would re-write if I were in charge.  But I don't make the rules.  I'm just trying to think of legible ways to work within those rules, and signing NJ 700 seems like one way to let people know, "Oh, okay, that's why the exit numbers suddenly drop from 44 to 8."

[jeffandnicole]

Again, I don't disagree with you, but if the NJTP is allowed to keep its own mileage-based numbering for its whole length, then why wasn't the PA Turnpike allowed to keep its numbering on the I-95 portion?  A sudden jump on I-95's exit numbers to the 300s would have confused almost nobody, but they changed it to do what the MUTCD wants.

Were they not allowed to, or did they elect not to?  The barrier toll was moved west of I-95.  In a sense, the PA Turnpike begins/ends there for most travelers, and I-95 becomes a whole separate highway.

Remember also, the PA Turnpike doesn't begin 276's exit numbering at 0. 

Based on that, the NJ Turnpike could begin their exit numbering at any point they want.  If they decide to make the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge MP 50, they are welcome to do so. When they sign Exits 1 - 6 as 0 to 50ish or whatever, the exit numbers can just keep rolling along, because the I-95 portion of the Turnpike doesn't necessarily have to start with 0.  Remember also, the MUTCD terms milemarkers reference points, so any starting reference point is valid.

[lstone19]

Also, I think the Turnpike should always stay numbered according to its actual length over resetting the exit numbering where 95 enters it. That's just going to confuse things. Follow the Turnpike's actual mileposts. That's the system that makes the most sense to the driving public who know they're on the NJ Turnpike and probably either have no idea or no care that they're also on Interstate 95 for a portion of the route.

(I can't find who actually said that (response may have been edited after quoting) so let's just leave it as someone said it.)

I agree with the above. While I do know what route I'm also on, I tend to think of toll roads by their name as the primary identification and their route as secondary. So with that view, I want exit and milepost numbers to follow the named toll road, not the route. Yet I also understand that many people think of it as route as primary and name as secondary. I think this may be generational - older people knew the name first as many of them pre-dated the Interstate system.

Very few of the older toll roads, once retrofitted with Interstate numbers, were the same route from end to end (the Mass Pike seems to be the one significant exception in the Northeast). And for the closed (ticket) system toll roads, that meant exiting to follow the route (if it was even built yet - I'm pretty sure back in the 60s the Ohio Turnpike just had I-90 disappear at Elyria and then magically change from I-80 to I-76 as none of the free sections of those routes had been built yet.

The problem with standards is as much as one wants to think they work for all situations, they usually don't. Well-known named roads is one place where standards for exit / milepost numbering by route don't work as well as the standards designers want to think they will and is a good place for making an exception since it will align with how many people think.

[jeffandnicole]

https://www.nj.com/news/2020/07/man-struck-killed-on-turnpike-while-riding-electric-scooter.html

Alexander Dziewa, 27, of National Park, Gloucester County, was riding a TailG electric scooter in the left lane of the Turnpike in Kearny around 2:24 a.m. when he was hit from behind by a Buick Rendezvous SUV, police said.

Based on a quick look of these scooters, some models don't even meet the minimum speed requirement for a vehicle on the NJ Turnpike (35 mph), and certainly had no reason to be in the left lane.

[KEVIN_224]

For those asking about Maine, I-95 used to go as

1- Kittery (NB)
2- Kittery
3- Kittery
4- York
[Toll Plaza]
2- Wells
3- Kennebunk
4- Biddeford
5- Saco
etc...

Since the changes in 2004 and widening, it now goes

1- Kittery (NB)
2- Kittery
3- Kittery
7- York
[Toll Plaza - soon to be a mile further north]
19- Wells
25- Kennebunk
32- Biddeford
36- Saco
etc...

Ok...back to Joisey now!

[1995hoo]

For those asking about Maine, I-95 used to go as

1- Kittery (NB)
2- Kittery
3- Kittery
4- York
[Toll Plaza]
2- Wells
3- Kennebunk
4- Biddeford
5- Saco
etc...

Since the changes in 2004 and widening, it now goes

1- Kittery (NB)
2- Kittery
3- Kittery
7- York
[Toll Plaza - soon to be a mile further north]
19- Wells
25- Kennebunk
32- Biddeford
36- Saco
etc...

Ok...back to Joisey now!

Wasn't there yet another set of numbers on the segment past Freeport and Brunswick, the part that's now the northern extension of I-295? I haven't been on that particular stretch of highway since August 1990, so it's understandable why I don't quite recall.

[Ned Weasel]

Again, I don't disagree with you, but if the NJTP is allowed to keep its own mileage-based numbering for its whole length, then why wasn't the PA Turnpike allowed to keep its numbering on the I-95 portion?  A sudden jump on I-95's exit numbers to the 300s would have confused almost nobody, but they changed it to do what the MUTCD wants.

Were they not allowed to, or did they elect not to?

Honestly, I don't know.  Maybe that was a false assumption on my part.

The barrier toll was moved west of I-95.  In a sense, the PA Turnpike begins/ends there for most travelers, and I-95 becomes a whole separate highway.

Good point.

Remember also, the PA Turnpike doesn't begin 276's exit numbering at 0. 

Based on that, the NJ Turnpike could begin their exit numbering at any point they want.  If they decide to make the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge MP 50, they are welcome to do so. When they sign Exits 1 - 6 as 0 to 50ish or whatever, the exit numbers can just keep rolling along, because the I-95 portion of the Turnpike doesn't necessarily have to start with 0.  Remember also, the MUTCD terms milemarkers reference points, so any starting reference point is valid.

That's a loose interpretation of Section 2E.31, Paragraph 11: "Regardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering."

Honestly, though, your interpretation would be my preference.  No reason at all to sign NJ 700 as a distinct route if the NJTP and I-95 exit numbers are allowed to merge together seamlessly.  Simpler and easier for everyone to understand.  I just hope the FHWA/AASHTO/MUTCD gods/whoever is final judge of exit numbers, actually approves of doing it that way, because that really would be the nicest solution, even if it isn't exactly what the MUTCD intended.

As for I-276 not starting at 0 and continuing I-76's mileage (perfect analog to I-335 and I-35 in Kansas, by the way), I'm not sure if that was specifically approved as MUTCD-valid numbering or just given a pass because it's a 3DI that probably more people identify as the PA Turnpike.

[shadyjay]

Wasn't there yet another set of numbers on the segment past Freeport and Brunswick, the part that's now the northern extension of I-295? I haven't been on that particular stretch of highway since August 1990, so it's understandable why I don't quite recall.

1-4, 2-9, 15-28, 15, 31-62

(left the turnpike at Exit 9, reentered at Exit 14 (NB only), Tpke Exit 15 was also I-95 Exit 30)

Good god, it was quite the confusing system if you didn't know what was up.  At least the NJ Turnpike is pretty straight forward. 

[SignBridge]

Part of the problem with using MUTCD required numbering on the NJT is that the system in the Manual simply doesn't take into account the reality of the pre-existing toll roads in the Northeast. It was designed for the newly built free interstates that exist in most of the country. It's as if the Feds didn't even know the toll roads existed.

And unfortunately trying to renumber the NJT or NY Thruway using current MUTCD standards is at best a clumsy adaptation of those standards and no matter how ya' set it up, it's not going to be a good fit. There is no easy and logical solution.

And the dumb ass driving public will be scratching their heads every time the numbers change along the route.

[vdeane]

I wouldn't be surprised if the intent behind grandfathering in the toll roads was that they will die and free interstates just like the ones that were built that way would arise from their corpses.

[lstone19]

Part of the problem with using MUTCD required numbering on the NJT is that the system in the Manual simply doesn't take into account the reality of the pre-existing toll roads in the Northeast. It was designed for the newly built free interstates that exist in most of the country. It's as if the Feds didn't even know the toll roads existed.

And unfortunately trying to renumber the NJT or NY Thruway using current MUTCD standards is at best a clumsy adaptation of those standards and no matter how ya' set it up, it's not going to be a good fit. There is no easy and logical solution.

And the dumb ass driving public will be scratching their heads every time the numbers change along the route.

Thank you for saying (but better) what I've been trying to say both there and in the NY Thruway topic. Trying to retro-fit numbering exit by route on the pre-existing toll roads is clumsy as evidenced by the Pennsylvania Turnpike where saying "PA Turnpike Exit n"  means nothing without knowing which of the five interstate routes (I-76, I-276, I-95, I-476, and I-70 (not that it factors into the exit numbering)) it's on. "Pennsylvania Turnpike"  no longer has any meaning in navigation directions.


iPad