New Jersey

[bzakharin]

this abomination

oh god my eyes

So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.

[Alps]

this abomination

oh god my eyes

So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.

"To NJ 90" makes the most sense to me - reinforcing that the circle is not an error.

[PHLBOS]

They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff'’s idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp. since that’'s what MUTCD prefers now.

Prefers, yes; but given the location and how the routes (I-87/287 & SR 17) intermingle, using N Y Thruway per the current BGS makes for a simple catch-all as it were & is still MUTCD compliant (see recent NJ Turnpike Exit 6 signage as examples).  Further into NY at the I-87/NY Thruway junction; Albany & Tappan Zee Bridge/New York City are what's currently listed on the ramp signs.

Bottom line & Noel had a point; the only BGS on that I-287 gantry at Exit 66 that's the bone of contention & somewhat inaccurate is that centrally-positioned 17 NORTH 1 MILE.  The I-87/NY Thruway junction is one mile from that location; as earlier-mentioned, Exit 15A (off I-87) for SR (NY) 17 northbound is over 2 miles.

this abomination

oh god my eyes

So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.

"To NJ 90" makes the most sense to me - reinforcing that the circle is not an error.

Personally, I would've went with either the circle or just NJ 90 in text form.

[famartin]

They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff''s idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp. since that''s what MUTCD prefers now.

Prefers, yes; but given the location and how the routes (I-87/287 & SR 17) intermingle, using N Y Thruway per the current BGS makes for a simple catch-all as it were & is still MUTCD compliant (see recent NJ Turnpike Exit 6 signage as examples).  Further into NY at the I-87/NY Thruway junction; Albany & Tappan Zee Bridge/New York City are what's currently listed on the ramp signs.

Bottom line & Noel had a point; the only BGS on that I-287 gantry at Exit 66 that's the bone of contention & somewhat inaccurate is that centrally-positioned 17 NORTH 1 MILE.  The I-87/NY Thruway junction is one mile from that location; as earlier-mentioned, Exit 15A (off I-87) for SR (NY) 17 northbound is over 2 miles.

It may be a good "catch all" to use NY Thruway, but probably isn't helpful if you aren't familiar with the region. 

Also, I know others have mentioned this, but the current wording at Exit 6 isn't ideal, either. It ideally should have "To 276/(PATP) (instead of just 276), and below that list Philadelphia and Harrisburg.

[PHLBOS]

It may be a good "catch all" to use NY Thruway, but probably isn't helpful if you aren't familiar with the region.

That's where the signs approaching the I-87/NY Thruway interchange; here, here and here, come into play.

Additionally, there's nothing in the MUTCD I'm aware of that mandates all pull-through signs must have control city legends in them.  Many pull-through signs simply list the direction cardinal(s) & route number(s).  Such would work at the Exit 66 gantry as well.

[akotchi]

They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff''s idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp. since that''s what MUTCD prefers now.

Prefers, yes; but given the location and how the routes (I-87/287 & SR 17) intermingle, using N Y Thruway per the current BGS makes for a simple catch-all as it were & is still MUTCD compliant (see recent NJ Turnpike Exit 6 signage as examples).  Further into NY at the I-87/NY Thruway junction; Albany & Tappan Zee Bridge/New York City are what's currently listed on the ramp signs.

Bottom line & Noel had a point; the only BGS on that I-287 gantry at Exit 66 that's the bone of contention & somewhat inaccurate is that centrally-positioned 17 NORTH 1 MILE.  The I-87/NY Thruway junction is one mile from that location; as earlier-mentioned, Exit 15A (off I-87) for SR (NY) 17 northbound is over 2 miles.

It may be a good "catch all" to use NY Thruway, but probably isn't helpful if you aren't familiar with the region. 

Also, I know others have mentioned this, but the current wording at Exit 6 isn't ideal, either. It ideally should have "To 276/(PATP) (instead of just 276), and below that list Philadelphia and Harrisburg.

Having designed those panels as part of one of the widening contracts, I can state that your suggested layout was proposed, but the Turnpike wanted to go with the wording that is currently shown.

[famartin]

They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff''s idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp. since that''s what MUTCD prefers now.

Prefers, yes; but given the location and how the routes (I-87/287 & SR 17) intermingle, using N Y Thruway per the current BGS makes for a simple catch-all as it were & is still MUTCD compliant (see recent NJ Turnpike Exit 6 signage as examples).  Further into NY at the I-87/NY Thruway junction; Albany & Tappan Zee Bridge/New York City are what's currently listed on the ramp signs.

Bottom line & Noel had a point; the only BGS on that I-287 gantry at Exit 66 that's the bone of contention & somewhat inaccurate is that centrally-positioned 17 NORTH 1 MILE.  The I-87/NY Thruway junction is one mile from that location; as earlier-mentioned, Exit 15A (off I-87) for SR (NY) 17 northbound is over 2 miles.

It may be a good "catch all" to use NY Thruway, but probably isn't helpful if you aren't familiar with the region. 

Also, I know others have mentioned this, but the current wording at Exit 6 isn't ideal, either. It ideally should have "To 276/(PATP) (instead of just 276), and below that list Philadelphia and Harrisburg.

Having designed those panels as part of one of the widening contracts, I can state that your suggested layout was proposed, but the Turnpike wanted to go with the wording that is currently shown.

At least someone thought it was a good idea...

[Roadwarriors79]

The signage going NB on Route 17 approaching I-287 is probably what should have been done on the NB I-287 approach (or at least similar signage):

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1019837,-74.1665669,3a,75y,300.08h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srGMFsNJXihQc7FwRNt9MIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[ekt8750]

I recall that PennDOT uses an NJ 90 shield on I-95, complete with backplate. I'm guessing they got it from NJDOT. 
https://goo.gl/maps/QwhS5RmRLhw733Sq5

That sign was replaced with a 100% flatscreened sign. It too utilizes a shield on a black background.

[PHLBOS]

I recall that PennDOT uses an NJ 90 shield on I-95, complete with backplate. I'm guessing they got it from NJDOT. 
https://goo.gl/maps/QwhS5RmRLhw733Sq5

That sign was replaced with a 100% flatscreened sign. It too utilizes a shield on a black background.

Must've been replaced very recently because that above-GSV is dated Nov. 2018.

[jeffandnicole]

https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2019/08/dont-follow-this-nj-highway-sign-half-of-it-is-wrong.html

I reported on this elsewhere too...during the current sign replacement program, both exits from NJ 55 onto US 40 were labeled 'West'.  The 1st exit in this direction should be 'East'.

[Alps]

https://morristowngreen.com/2019/08/16/video-how-that-m-station-roundabout-is-supposed-to-work-in-morristown/

Local new roundabout. I'm not a fan of removing the exit from the parking lot at the south leg, which forces everyone onto a back street to filter out at other congested traffic lights. Would be far better to keep the exit here. Also, how well will lane dividers work with shared bike/car lanes? Where are the sharrows in the circle?
On the plus side, this is a dangerous intersection for pedestrians right now, so cleaning up vehicle movements and getting rid of the nearly free-flow WB-NB movement is a step in the right direction. I just think it could be done even better.
(P.S. - who's maintaining the center island?)

[storm2k]

https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2019/08/dont-follow-this-nj-highway-sign-half-of-it-is-wrong.html

I reported on this elsewhere too...during the current sign replacement program, both exits from NJ 55 onto US 40 were labeled 'West'.  The 1st exit in this direction should be 'East'.

More interesting to me is that those signs look like single piece assemblies with a line to separate the main part of the sign from the exit "tab". Not something really seen in NJ all that much, if at all. Also, I know those signs aren't super wide, but the exit "tab" legends look center aligned rather than right aligned.

[NJRoadfan]

Ugh those signs..... the only good thing about them is that NJDOT installed lighting on them for some reason. Those are brand new gantries with sign lighting, not recycled! There are single piece signs elsewhere in the state, but they are all on the small side.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Also, how well will lane dividers work with shared bike/car lanes? Where are the sharrows in the circle?

It's just lazy design. I don't think sharrows have been shown to have any meaningful safety impact, and abandoning bicycle facilities at the intersection is just standard practice for most agencies.

The use of in-roadway lighting at the crosswalk is interesting. Has a similar treatment managed to survive anywhere else in the snowbelt?

[storm2k]

Ugh those signs..... the only good thing about them is that NJDOT installed lighting on them for some reason. Those are brand new gantries with sign lighting, not recycled! There are single piece signs elsewhere in the state, but they are all on the small side.

They're doing odd lighted assemblies here and there in a very inconsistent fashion. The new gantries on 280 at Eisenhower Pkwy are also lighted even though they don't need to be.

[Alps]

Also, how well will lane dividers work with shared bike/car lanes? Where are the sharrows in the circle?

It's just lazy design. I don't think sharrows have been shown to have any meaningful safety impact, and abandoning bicycle facilities at the intersection is just standard practice for most agencies.

The use of in-roadway lighting at the crosswalk is interesting. Has a similar treatment managed to survive anywhere else in the snowbelt?

No, NJDOT tried it on US 46 WB at Riverview Dr. in Totowa and abandoned it within months.

[dgolub]

this abomination

oh god my eyes

So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.

At least it's better than the TO CONN NY 124 sign (should be TO CT 124).

[ixnay]

this abomination

oh god my eyes

So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.

"To NJ 90" makes the most sense to me - reinforcing that the circle is not an error.

More interesting to me is (on the sign for the Betsy) the use of Clearview for "90" and MUTCD on the rest of the sign.

ixnay

[jp the roadgeek]

this abomination

oh god my eyes

So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.

At least it's better than the TO CONN NY 124 sign (should be TO CT 124).

Is that similar to the TO MASS 102 sign on NY 22 just south of Exit B3?

[civilmaher]

Also, how well will lane dividers work with shared bike/car lanes? Where are the sharrows in the circle?

It's just lazy design. I don't think sharrows have been shown to have any meaningful safety impact, and abandoning bicycle facilities at the intersection is just standard practice for most agencies.

The use of in-roadway lighting at the crosswalk is interesting. Has a similar treatment managed to survive anywhere else in the snowbelt?

No, NJDOT tried it on US 46 WB at Riverview Dr. in Totowa and abandoned it within months.

I guess the trucks on Morris Street will have to use the left approach lane to the roundabout (and some of the mountable island) to avoid those raised lane dividers. As long as entering + conflicting volumes is <1500 vehicles on approaches, it should work.

[roadman65]

https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt495/schedule.shtm
I see NJDOT is rehabilitating the NJ 495 viaduct over US 1 & 9 and Paterson Plank Road.

Does anyone know how far the work progressed?  I see it will be at least till 2020 for the work to be done as they aim to keep six lanes of Route 495 open at peak hours. 

Then GSV shows NJ 3 at US 46 the same as it ever was https://goo.gl/maps/njEyWuM2AkNR5tfg6 but the NJDOT website say this https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/. 

I guess they hit snags on it.

[famartin]

https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt495/schedule.shtm
I see NJDOT is rehabilitating the NJ 495 viaduct over US 1 & 9 and Paterson Plank Road.

Does anyone know how far the work progressed?  I see it will be at least till 2020 for the work to be done as they aim to keep six lanes of Route 495 open at peak hours. 

Then GSV shows NJ 3 at US 46 the same as it ever was https://goo.gl/maps/njEyWuM2AkNR5tfg6 but the NJDOT website say this https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/. 

I guess they hit snags on it.

Not sure what you mean as the main portion isn't part of contract A. That's contract B.

[roadman65]

Yeah I moved in around the site and saw, but it does not answer why the land is not upset in the last Google image it shows no work has yet started.  Its obviously behind in schedule if they want to make it done in the time slated which I think is 2022.  Yes it can be done, but usually to redo some interchanges like this one in a four season environment would take four years to complete.  The deadline here is 3 years from now.

[famartin]

Yeah I moved in around the site and saw, but it does not answer why the land is not upset in the last Google image it shows no work has yet started.  Its obviously behind in schedule if they want to make it done in the time slated which I think is 2022.  Yes it can be done, but usually to redo some interchanges like this one in a four season environment would take four years to complete.  The deadline here is 3 years from now.

I went thru there last year, plenty of construction along nearby 46. I think it was this project.