New Jersey Turnpike

[thenetwork]

Hmmm.........haven't seen those. Are they original equipment or an aftermarket add-on? Can't believe they'd be legal. Wouldn't they be an illegal flashing white light?

They don't flash on and off -- more like pulsating high-beam/low-beam for the motorcycle lights.

Here's a video that covers BOTH examples -- both on a motorcycle: 

The tail lights on passenger vehicles could be either standard, factory installed option or aftermarket.  The motorcycle headlight could be factory option as well as the aftermarket device shown on the video.   

[SignBridge]

I still wouldn't be surprised if pulsating headlights are considered by the law to be illegal flashing lights. Looks too much like an emergency vehicle running in emergency mode.

[roadman]

Speaking of turn signals, does anyone else think that amber turn signals surrounded by red bake lights or taillights - which seems to be the latest design trend on many cars - are a bad idea?

Can't be any worse that those surrounded by red broil lights  (sorry, your above-unintended typo was begging for some type of rebuttal).

To more directly answer you question; given that all cars from the 1986 model year onward have the higher-mounted (i.e. 3rd) brake light in addition to the taillights, such a design (the red usually-LED taillights wrapping-around amber turn signals) should not be an issue.  The 3rd/high-mount brake light is unhindered (or at least it's supposed to be) by turnsignals (be it red or amber) regardless of design or location of the latter.

If the wrap-around design was around prior to 1986; then, yes such would be a bad idea. 

Personal choice/opinion (and I realize such is way off the original thread topic): I prefer red lenses/lights for the turn-signals 

You are correct about the high mount (third) brake light (have corrected the unintended typo in my original post).  My point was that, IMO, the red brake light distracts from the amber turn signal due to the wrap around placement.

[roadman65]

The other day I saw a high mount rear stop light on a vehicle that was flickering in rhythm that made me think police or ambulance activity was taking place ahead.  Instead when the light at the intersection turned green and traffic began movement, the truck that had them started to move which ended the flicker on the red stop lamps on his vehicle.  This made me for an instance wonder where the ambulance or fire truck went and made me think "Oh the emergency must be just getting over."  Then I realized its one of those new Johnny Come lately ideas of someone deciding to use a new form of something or another, like the clear rear lights on some cars back in the 90's forgetting that the red cover over the white bulb was placed on all vehicles for a specific reason.

I mentioned in another thread about license plate borders now being accepted as normal, because we all forgot that if not properly displayed it can block the view of the state of issue of the tag defeating its purpose of being displayed.  Well these lights are the same concept, another new things that someone thinks we need and hopes that it will catch on and eventually become the norm.

[NE2]

Such an interesting New Jersey Turnpike discussion going on here.

[CapeCodder]

Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?

[Alps]

Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?

Up to Exit 6.

[CapeCodder]

Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?

Up to Exit 6.

Thanks, I'll be taking part of the NJTP on Tuesday on my Greyhound trip to St. Louis.

[jwolfer]

Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?

What are people's thoughts on making the NJTP south of exit 6 I-895 or 695. Like the Harbor Tunnel Thruway in Baltimore .

[Pete from Boston]

It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route.  It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.

[AMLNet49]

It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route.  It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.

Well doesn't an interstate designation make it apparent as the through route more than a state route? (At least once I-95 is signed as leaving the Turnpike)

[SignBridge]

I agree with Pete. Adding another x95 number to the NJ Turnpike will just cause more confusion. There are too many such numbers already in some areas. They should just stick to the NJT logo which is a good, distinctive ID for that road, unless as Pete suggested they were to make the whole NJT I-95 would be the best answer.

[Pete from Boston]

It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route.  It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.

Well doesn't an interstate designation make it apparent as the through route more than a state route? (At least once I-95 is signed as leaving the Turnpike)

No, because it's called "New Jersey Turnpike" all the way down already and that's sufficient. 

I see the point about a number giving it some network legitimacy, but any change other than making it all 95 still means motorists "exit" 95 to stay on the through route, then re-enter, which is the main problem and one no x95 will address.

[jeffandnicole]

It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route.  It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.

Well doesn't an interstate designation make it apparent as the through route more than a state route? (At least once I-95 is signed as leaving the Turnpike)

No, because it's called "New Jersey Turnpike" all the way down already and that's sufficient. 

I see the point about a number giving it some network legitimacy, but any change other than making it all 95 still means motorists "exit" 95 to stay on the through route, then re-enter, which is the main problem and one no x95 will address.

Do a poll of non-roadgeeks who know what the PA Turnpike is signed between NJ & King of Prussia, and you'll get a whole lot of "Uhs" & "Ums".

The NJ Turnpike should have been provided with an I-x95 number back in the 50s or 60s.  But it wasn't.  The worst confusion isn't that it doesn't have a I-x95 number; it's that there's nothing to let you know that I-95 has ended, and where you need to go to return to the real I-95 around Trenton.

[bzakharin]

The NJ Turnpike should have been provided with an I-x95 number back in the 50s or 60s.  But it wasn't.  The worst confusion isn't that it doesn't have a I-x95 number; it's that there's nothing to let you know that I-95 has ended, and where you need to go to return to the real I-95 around Trenton.

I believe that is by design. Why confuse people when they are most likely not going to miss I-95 until they're on it again in Delaware. If they are looking for something near I-95 in PA (or NJ for that matter) it might be a problem, but I think not signing it is the lesser of two evils. 

[roadman65]

It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route.  It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.

Well doesn't an interstate designation make it apparent as the through route more than a state route? (At least once I-95 is signed as leaving the Turnpike)

No, because it's called "New Jersey Turnpike" all the way down already and that's sufficient. 

I see the point about a number giving it some network legitimacy, but any change other than making it all 95 still means motorists "exit" 95 to stay on the through route, then re-enter, which is the main problem and one no x95 will address.

Do a poll of non-roadgeeks who know what the PA Turnpike is signed between NJ & King of Prussia, and you'll get a whole lot of "Uhs" & "Ums".

The NJ Turnpike should have been provided with an I-x95 number back in the 50s or 60s.  But it wasn't.  The worst confusion isn't that it doesn't have a I-x95 number; it's that there's nothing to let you know that I-95 has ended, and where you need to go to return to the real I-95 around Trenton.

The I-95 end at US 1 is signed via I-295 S Bound and I-195 E Bound.

Before the early 90's it was signed via US 1 north to either NJ 18, or most definitely I-287.  The end at US 1 had "New York" for US 1 North's control city instead of "New Brunswick" and was cosigned "TO I-95".

[bzakharin]

I think Pete was talking about where I-95 ends on the Turnpike going Southbound and how to get to the other segment of I-95.

[roadman65]

I think Pete was talking about where I-95 ends on the Turnpike going Southbound and how to get to the other segment of I-95.

There is no need to place an end sign there because it goes in directly to I-95 at Wilmington.

True, there is no sign at Exit 7A directing you to the other segment to travel south from Lawrence, NJ; but that would be so misleading at this point.  The shorter way to I-95 to Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Jacksoville, and Miami is to reconnect with I-95 later.  If you placed signs at Exit 7A and people followed them, people would complain about the longer journey that they are going on.  So it is better in their interest to make it seem like the NJT is I-95 than to make it not.

[jeffandnicole]

I think Pete was talking about where I-95 ends on the Turnpike going Southbound and how to get to the other segment of I-95.

There is no need to place an end sign there because it goes in directly to I-95 at Wilmington.

True, there is no sign at Exit 7A directing you to the other segment to travel south from Lawrence, NJ; but that would be so misleading at this point.  The shorter way to I-95 to Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Jacksoville, and Miami is to reconnect with I-95 later.  If you placed signs at Exit 7A and people followed them, people would complain about the longer journey that they are going on.  So it is better in their interest to make it seem like the NJT is I-95 than to make it not.

What about Philadelphia and points in PA on I-95?

I think you're missing the point here.  While motorists will reconnect with 95 down in Delaware, motorists that are looking for I-95 in PA are going to bypass it if strictly looking for I-95 signs.

Even in the future when PA finally finishes that I-95/Penn Turnpike connection, taking I-95 will still take people slightly out of the way.   If looking solely at speed limits and ignoring the speed at which people actually drive, it will be a longer ride timewise to boot as I-95 in PA is strictly 55 mph with significantly more congestion vs. a generally free-flowing 65 mph on the Turnpike.

[Pete from Boston]

When is someone going to start a "Top Ten Dead Horses" thread?   This one is getting its thousandth beating.

Change numbers only if a problem–an actual, real-world problem, not a I-think-about-route-numbers-all-day problem–can be solved by doing so.

Big problem with people missing the Turnpike by staying on 95?  Put up big signs that say "THRU TRAFFIC TO NEW YORK/DEL-MD-DC" at the respective junctions.  Problem solved.  If Pennsylvania doesn't like losing the potential for people to stumble upon the singular paradise that is Philadelphia (to pass through is to instantly fall in love, of course) they'll have to cry themselves to sleep.

[roadman65]

Then the same should be said about I-95 in Baltimore.  The Harbor Tunnel Thruway was defacto I-95 until 1985 when the newer freeway finally opened to traffic.  One could say there that the HTT should have became I-95 instead of them building the freeway that is and of course the Fort McHenry Tunnel.

Of course we cannot get the proper interstate designations we wanted. Heck if it were not for the NIMBY's in Central Jersey we would have had the Somerset Freeway built and none of this would have never happened either.  At least with Baltimore the endpoints of the HTT were at least made so that no confusion existed as a motorist approached from each end before it was finally completed.

Remember the logical thing is not always the chosen thing.  Why is US 41 north of Terre Haute, IN on the least direct alignment and substandard highway instead of on the four lane straighter route?  Why is US 6 across the OH/ PA Border on a double back instead of on the straighter road across the reservoir there?

[bzakharin]

Of course we cannot get the proper interstate designations we wanted. Heck if it were not for the NIMBY's in Central Jersey we would have had the Somerset Freeway built and none of this would have never happened either.

Not really. The Turnpike is the most direct way for through traffic regardless of whether the Somerset Freeway is there or not, so the potential confusion would still exist.

[Pete from Boston]

I'm envisioning a map in which I-895 and I-295 run parallel to one another, with those designations implicitly existing for the sake of the Interstate designation informing a motorist's decision as to what route to take.  Would this scenario be more or less confusing than what exists now? I would call it a wash.

Of course, since we seem to be talking about a world in which no one looks at maps, a motorist on the Turnpike would have a little idea that 295 even exists, given how much reference is made to it along the way.

[bzakharin]

I think anyone originating south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge knows 295 exists, as it's signed profusely on both sides of the bridge, and the driver has to make a choice between 295 and the Turnpike. What they don't know is that they're actually on 295 before the Turnpike starts. As for 895, it certainly won't make the situation worse as long as they keep the Turnpike shields too, but it doesn't help anyone either, so I don't see why it needs to be done. But imagine if the Turnpike was signed as 895 from the beginning (well, from the time I-95 was planned). It would have to be renumbered multiple times. First the whole Turnpike would b 895, then only south of exit 10, and then exit 6. Imagine if the 895 number were used by the general public how much confusion that would cause. It would be like what has been going on (and still is) with the various moves of 295's northern terminus, only a lot more people would care.

[dgolub]

Maybe what they should do is install a sign that says something like "Baltimore, Washington, Points South -- USE NJTP" on the turnpike when I-95 gets signed across the river into Pennsylvania.  That way, through traffic heading south is routed to avoid Philadelphia.