New Jersey

[storm2k]

https://goo.gl/maps/iGxz4vM6qSv1Y9eu6
I love how there is no 42B, as the two US 202 exits are 42A and 42C on I-80 c/d roadway.

42B is on the WB side. That's pretty typical of NJDOT, they'll try to keep the suffixes the same on both sides of the same interchange.

[NE2]

https://goo.gl/maps/iGxz4vM6qSv1Y9eu6
I love how there is no 42B, as the two US 202 exits are 42A and 42C on I-80 c/d roadway.

42B is Cherry Hill Road, which doesn't have an eastbound exit...

[Alps]

https://goo.gl/maps/iGxz4vM6qSv1Y9eu6
I love how there is no 42B, as the two US 202 exits are 42A and 42C on I-80 c/d roadway.

42B is Cherry Hill Road, which doesn't have an eastbound exit...

MUTCD would now suggest you need to make it A-B and B-A even if it's different ramps. I'm against this but *shrug* let's see what comes out a month ago

[roadman65]

Here is one other thing interesting. NJ 15 mileposts still exist along Bergen Street even though the route got truncated to the current at grade intersection with US 46.

https://goo.gl/maps/kj8ZVZ9gkcYR3o2x7

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

[Alps]

Here is one other thing interesting. NJ 15 mileposts still exist along Bergen Street even though the route got truncated to the current at grade intersection with US 46.

https://goo.gl/maps/kj8ZVZ9gkcYR3o2x7

no the route is not truncated. see straight line diagrams

[roadman65]

I'm not surprised. All they did was break the continuity when they eliminated the grade separation and created the dead end from the south ( east). Figure that they would do that.

[artmalk]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202.  As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.

[Alps]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202.  As a resident  of Parsippany I can say that the problem  was not solved.

What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.

[Mergingtraffic]

Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part

[interstate73]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202.  As a resident  of Parsippany I can say that the problem  was not solved.

What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.

I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202.  As a resident  of Parsippany I can say that the problem  was not solved.

What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.

I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.

That is not the only example of when a road agency spent millions to improve a traffic nightmare to not make an impression at all. Florida has plenty of examples of spending millions to not at improve a bad situation. I-4 and I-75 interchange is a prime example by creating a cattle chute that still creates the same problem it was promised to alleviate.

[Mergingtraffic]

Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part

Clearly someone must know? Or is there a place to find plans online? Between the NJTP and NJ-19?

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part

Clearly someone must know? Or is there a place to find plans online? Between the NJTP and NJ-19?

Could try an OPRA request if you want the plans badly

[jeffandnicole]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202.  As a resident  of Parsippany I can say that the problem  was not solved.

What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.

I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.

The exit closest to my house has this same 'feature':  2 lanes, merge to 1 for several hundred feet, then splits off into two distinctive turning lanes.  And there's no constraints - the ramp is still 1.5 lanes wide, and it's grass off to the side where the 2nd lane could've been built.

Another NJ irritation:  2 traffic lights fairly close together, with a lane drop in-between.  If the area is even remotely subjected to high traffic volumes, congestion will result.  NJ 29 South near the Trenton Thunder stadium does this.  Could've easily extended 3 lanes thru both lights with a drop afterwards where it becomes free-flowing before the tunnel.  Instead, it's a 10-15 minute traffic jam every rush hour.

[Alps]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202.  As a resident  of Parsippany I can say that the problem  was not solved.

What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.

I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.

The exit closest to my house has this same 'feature':  2 lanes, merge to 1 for several hundred feet, then splits off into two distinctive turning lanes.  And there's no constraints - the ramp is still 1.5 lanes wide, and it's grass off to the side where the 2nd lane could've been built.

Another NJ irritation:  2 traffic lights fairly close together, with a lane drop in-between.  If the area is even remotely subjected to high traffic volumes, congestion will result.  NJ 29 South near the Trenton Thunder stadium does this.  Could've easily extended 3 lanes thru both lights with a drop afterwards where it becomes free-flowing before the tunnel.  Instead, it's a 10-15 minute traffic jam every rush hour.

Not looking into specific cases, but this often becomes a question of right-of-way, drainage, and utilities. The merge may be located where it is to avoid or minimize property acquisition, whether temporary or permanent; it may be a question of limiting new or reconstructed impervious surface so that there are not larger drainage impacts (such as basins) or environmental permits required; or there may be significant utility relocations required by widening the roadway and it was chosen to avoid or minimize that.

It could be the case that none of these apply here and it's simply a decades-old design decision that would require more work now to resolve. But that is a case-by-case consideration.

[jeffandnicole]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202.  As a resident  of Parsippany I can say that the problem  was not solved.

What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.

I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.

The exit closest to my house has this same 'feature':  2 lanes, merge to 1 for several hundred feet, then splits off into two distinctive turning lanes.  And there's no constraints - the ramp is still 1.5 lanes wide, and it's grass off to the side where the 2nd lane could've been built.

Another NJ irritation:  2 traffic lights fairly close together, with a lane drop in-between.  If the area is even remotely subjected to high traffic volumes, congestion will result.  NJ 29 South near the Trenton Thunder stadium does this.  Could've easily extended 3 lanes thru both lights with a drop afterwards where it becomes free-flowing before the tunnel.  Instead, it's a 10-15 minute traffic jam every rush hour.

Not looking into specific cases, but this often becomes a question of right-of-way, drainage, and utilities. The merge may be located where it is to avoid or minimize property acquisition, whether temporary or permanent; it may be a question of limiting new or reconstructed impervious surface so that there are not larger drainage impacts (such as basins) or environmental permits required; or there may be significant utility relocations required by widening the roadway and it was chosen to avoid or minimize that.

It could be the case that none of these apply here and it's simply a decades-old design decision that would require more work now to resolve. But that is a case-by-case consideration.

In this particular case, there's certainly plenty of median width. https://goo.gl/maps/GSQMzyAiM62MJqJQA  There's a drainage pond to the south of Cass.  There would've been about 500 feet to end the left lane and taper it down.  In the wider median there's a fenced off area that has some historic significance. On the NB side the fence comes close to the road; on the SB side there's a shoulder that's widened out from nearly nothing, and about 10-15 feet of room before the fence.  The most restraining feature may be the roadway on Cass between the NB & SB lanes, which would've lost another 12 feet of space if another lane came in.

In this particular case, maybe it was any of those issues that they decided was the issue that kept 29 SB from continuing as 3 lanes thru Cass. 

[Alps]

https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.

https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9

Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.

https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8

Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.

The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202.  As a resident  of Parsippany I can say that the problem  was not solved.

What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.

I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.

The exit closest to my house has this same 'feature':  2 lanes, merge to 1 for several hundred feet, then splits off into two distinctive turning lanes.  And there's no constraints - the ramp is still 1.5 lanes wide, and it's grass off to the side where the 2nd lane could've been built.

Another NJ irritation:  2 traffic lights fairly close together, with a lane drop in-between.  If the area is even remotely subjected to high traffic volumes, congestion will result.  NJ 29 South near the Trenton Thunder stadium does this.  Could've easily extended 3 lanes thru both lights with a drop afterwards where it becomes free-flowing before the tunnel.  Instead, it's a 10-15 minute traffic jam every rush hour.

Not looking into specific cases, but this often becomes a question of right-of-way, drainage, and utilities. The merge may be located where it is to avoid or minimize property acquisition, whether temporary or permanent; it may be a question of limiting new or reconstructed impervious surface so that there are not larger drainage impacts (such as basins) or environmental permits required; or there may be significant utility relocations required by widening the roadway and it was chosen to avoid or minimize that.

It could be the case that none of these apply here and it's simply a decades-old design decision that would require more work now to resolve. But that is a case-by-case consideration.

In this particular case, there's certainly plenty of median width. https://goo.gl/maps/GSQMzyAiM62MJqJQA  There's a drainage pond to the south of Cass.  There would've been about 500 feet to end the left lane and taper it down.  In the wider median there's a fenced off area that has some historic significance. On the NB side the fence comes close to the road; on the SB side there's a shoulder that's widened out from nearly nothing, and about 10-15 feet of room before the fence.  The most restraining feature may be the roadway on Cass between the NB & SB lanes, which would've lost another 12 feet of space if another lane came in.

In this particular case, maybe it was any of those issues that they decided was the issue that kept 29 SB from continuing as 3 lanes thru Cass. 

Right - and again, building into the median would be an environmental/drainage condition, plus right now the right lane merge looks to be of standard length and standard taper. That is not something you want to compromise.

[storm2k]

Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part

Clearly someone must know? Or is there a place to find plans online? Between the NJTP and NJ-19?

NJDOT is replacing the older triangular truss overhead structures across the state. It's not necessarily entire stretches of various highways getting all new signs, just specific structures. A lot of those structures are from the early 1980s or earlier and have reached the end of their service life. You'll see one structure get replaced and get new signs and the next set of signs will be untouched because the structure they're on is newer. If you look at some of my posts in this thread, I've been documenting ones I have found during trips around the state.

[jeffandnicole]

Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part

Clearly someone must know? Or is there a place to find plans online? Between the NJTP and NJ-19?

NJDOT is replacing the older triangular truss overhead structures across the state. It's not necessarily entire stretches of various highways getting all new signs, just specific structures. A lot of those structures are from the early 1980s or earlier and have reached the end of their service life. You'll see one structure get replaced and get new signs and the next set of signs will be untouched because the structure they're on is newer. If you look at some of my posts in this thread, I've been documenting ones I have found during trips around the state.

They are replacing some signage throughout the state as needed as well on existing gantries.

[roadman65]

It depends. Sometimes they will do a select amount on a certain stretch of one freeway or they'll do a random spot replacement if the gantry was due for a replacement.

Once on I-295, they replaced the entire stretch from US 130 at Westville to NJ 38 at Moorestown. They gave all new overheads to existing ones and erected  some new ones where none has had any before for that project.  This was early eighties when exit numbers were being introduced to I-295 between those two points. 

[storm2k]

It depends. Sometimes they will do a select amount on a certain stretch of one freeway or they'll do a random spot replacement if the gantry was due for a replacement.

Once on I-295, they replaced the entire stretch from US 130 at Westville to NJ 38 at Moorestown. They gave all new overheads to existing ones and erected  some new ones where none has had any before for that project.  This was early eighties when exit numbers were being introduced to I-295 between those two points. 

295 got a lot of new signage back in the very early 2000s, the fully retroflective stuff that NJDOT was putting everywhere in those days. A lot of those were just signage replacements on existing structures, so they've been slowly disappearing as time has worn on and NJDOT has had to replace the gantries themselves, but a lot still survives in various states of repair. They did the same thing on 280 west of the Oranges. In the case of that roadway, the triangle truss structure at 5B westbound had to come down and was only replaced in the last 2 years.

[roadman65]

It depends. Sometimes they will do a select amount on a certain stretch of one freeway or they'll do a random spot replacement if the gantry was due for a replacement.

Once on I-295, they replaced the entire stretch from US 130 at Westville to NJ 38 at Moorestown. They gave all new overheads to existing ones and erected  some new ones where none has had any before for that project.  This was early eighties when exit numbers were being introduced to I-295 between those two points. 

295 got a lot of new signage back in the very early 2000s, the fully retroflective stuff that NJDOT was putting everywhere in those days. A lot of those were just signage replacements on existing structures, so they've been slowly disappearing as time has worn on and NJDOT has had to replace the gantries themselves, but a lot still survives in various states of repair. They did the same thing on 280 west of the Oranges. In the case of that roadway, the triangle truss structure at 5B westbound had to come down and was only replaced in the last 2 years.

The I-280 signs in Roseland have a lot to be desired. Not only listing the endpoint routes of the Turnpike and I-95 as part of the New Jersey DOT thing ( but here listing those works out well unlike I-195), but skipping over Newark for  Kearny heading EB is totally wrong just because the route ends there and to support the I-95 and Turnpike shields.

[SignBridge]

It depends. Sometimes they will do a select amount on a certain stretch of one freeway or they'll do a random spot replacement if the gantry was due for a replacement.

Once on I-295, they replaced the entire stretch from US 130 at Westville to NJ 38 at Moorestown. They gave all new overheads to existing ones and erected  some new ones where none has had any before for that project.  This was early eighties when exit numbers were being introduced to I-295 between those two points. 

295 got a lot of new signage back in the very early 2000s, the fully retroflective stuff that NJDOT was putting everywhere in those days. A lot of those were just signage replacements on existing structures, so they've been slowly disappearing as time has worn on and NJDOT has had to replace the gantries themselves, but a lot still survives in various states of repair. They did the same thing on 280 west of the Oranges. In the case of that roadway, the triangle truss structure at 5B westbound had to come down and was only replaced in the last 2 years.

The I-280 signs in Roseland have a lot to be desired. Not only listing the endpoint routes of the Turnpike and I-95 as part of the New Jersey DOT thing ( but here listing those works out well unlike I-195), but skipping over Newark for  Kearny heading EB is totally wrong just because the route ends there and to support the I-95 and Turnpike shields.

I agree that Newark makes more sense as a control city than Kearny. But I also see your point about why they use Kearny re: the I-95/Turnpike interchange. Once again I suggest that both names could be shown on the entrance and pull-thru signs to have the best of both worlds.

[artmalk]

There is a sign that says Newark and Kearny.