News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Garden State Parkway

Started by Roadrunner75, July 30, 2014, 09:53:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NJRoadfan

The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!


ekt8750

#251
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:34:36 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.  One exception being NJTP signage for Exit 5 (CR 541).

I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0

PHLBOS

Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:37:25 PMI-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
Jeffandnicole on the previous page of this thread already posted a similar BGS near that interchange.

Nonetheless, I have since re-worded/corrected my original post.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bzakharin

I'm more frustrated that the local radio reports (from Philadelphia) give route numbers instead of exit numbers or road names. That serves no one as those who are familiar with the area will not know the (county) route numbers, while those who are unfamiliar will only have looked up the destination and not some random place that might end up being congested, so have no idea if it's on the way. NJ 511 reports seem to mostly recite all of the information on overhead signs, so they are more understandable to everyone. For that matter, so do most GPS devices.

SignBridge

 I agree with PHLBOS's suggestion on for the legend on that sign for Exit-135. That seems like a good compromise. Other road names/shields could be shown on a supplemental sign. BTW, the MUTCD specifies route shields should be used where they exist, not street names; so I wasn't suggesting all those street names be displayed with the town names. That would be an excessive amount of legend. Also, I did not know that New Jersey distinguished between primary and secondary county routes using a 500 series number vs. a 600/700 series number and that "normally" only the 500 routes were signed.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: bzakharin on February 02, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
...NJ 511 reports seem to mostly recite all of the information on overhead signs, so they are more understandable to everyone. For that matter, so do most GPS devices.

511 basically takes from the NJDOT database, so they should always match up to (or give more info than) what is seen on the highway.

Quote from: SignBridge on February 02, 2015, 07:20:34 PM
...I did not know that New Jersey distinguished between primary and secondary county routes using a 500 series number vs. a 600/700 series number and that "normally" only the 500 routes were signed.

Throughout the state, on can encounter several duplicate 6xx's, although each county would only have 1 of each number (ie: there may be a 601 in Salem County & Mercer County, completely unrelated to each other). But, there will only be one 5xx, such as 501, in the state. They can be several counties long in distance.  7xx are relatively rare. I can't think of an example off the top of my head of a duped 7xx, although some seem to carry a good deal of traffic (such as my Creek Rd example on the previous page).

Alps

Wow, a whole page of this before I get to it.
The official rule is that the NJTA will post all 5xx routes and no 6xx (etc.) routes. Any exceptions will be corrected in due course, including CR 541 at Exit 5 and any 6xx's on the southern Parkway.
No reason to sign 6xx's in North Jersey from any intersecting highway. Even if you're not from the area, you will be looking for street names, not numbers. This applies to Union, Essex, Passaic, Bergen, and Hudson Counties, as well as eastern Ocean and Monmouth Counties.
NJDOT has no policy. They'll sign 6xx routes if it makes sense to do so, i.e. outside of the above counties.

Roadrunner75

Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:37:25 PM
I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
I always thought the gratuitous use of four 600 series routes on this BGS was absolutely ridiculous.  I believe at one time, CR 534 was signed all the way to this interchange, and it would be just as well to continue to sign it here directly or with a "TO" (or just add yet another "TO 44" on the sign and be done with it).

They recently removed the 600 series shields from GSP exits 77 and 74 in Ocean County when they widened the roadway through that area.  I don't think the 600 shields were up for that long before that either.  Ocean County itself is very sloppy with signing 600 series routes, if they bother to sign them at all.  New Hampshire Ave. in the Lakewood area (CR 623) is only sporadically signed at certain intersections.  Why even bother?

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Roadrunner75 on February 03, 2015, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:37:25 PM
I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
I always thought the gratuitous use of four 600 series routes on this BGS was absolutely ridiculous.  I believe at one time, CR 534 was signed all the way to this interchange, and it would be just as well to continue to sign it here directly or with a "TO" (or just add yet another "TO 44" on the sign and be done with it).

The 4, 6xx routes on the sign is a new addition - there were 2 routes on the advanced signage, and as one entered the ramp area, the individual exits had the additional 6xx routes that could be accessed from the ramp.  Last summer or so is when they modified the advanced BGSs to show all 4, 6xx routes that could be accessed thru the interchange area.

Exit 21 (Delaware St) can also be used to get to the AC Expressway.  No, there's no sign on 295 for that.  But there's a single, lone sign along Delaware St that provides you this info.

NJRoadfan

Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.

NE2

Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.
Just because NJDOT maintains it doesn't mean it can't have a county route number.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

jeffandnicole

Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.

The whole thing, or just the portion from the Exit 22 ramp to the Red Bank Ave light (CR 644)?  I think from Red Bank up to the ramp leading traffic back onto 130/295 is still county maintained.

NJRoadfan

#262
The whole thing as per the county. Any signs that are up are old and likely won't be replaced.

Its also omitted from their map: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
and route log: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882

storm2k

Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 02, 2015, 03:31:08 PM
The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!

I never really thought about that and I live about a half mile from the exit. Middlesex County indeed does not sign CR-602, but the Turnpike authority did when they rebuilt Exit 12. There are also county shields on the overhead street signs that the Turnpike Authority controls (Roosevelt and Harrison and from the Turnpike off-ramp). There's also a covered up county shield for the Industrial Highway because Carteret and the county could not come to an agreement about jurisdiction.

storm2k

Quote from: NE2 on February 02, 2015, 01:52:17 PM
5xx routes are intended for through travel, while 6xx routes are more for inventory purposes.

PS: doesn't I-78 have a 6xx signed at one of the former spur 5xxes? And yes, the part of I-295 that replaced US 130 on the spot has a bunch.

Exit 36 certainly does have shields for CR-651. Holdover from the days when it had a spur route. When the spur route was replaced with a 600 route, they replaced the shield, and the contractor actually replaced it verbatim

Alps

Quote from: storm2k on February 04, 2015, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 02, 2015, 03:31:08 PM
The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!

I never really thought about that and I live about a half mile from the exit. Middlesex County indeed does not sign CR-602, but the Turnpike authority did when they rebuilt Exit 12. There are also county shields on the overhead street signs that the Turnpike Authority controls (Roosevelt and Harrison and from the Turnpike off-ramp). There's also a covered up county shield for the Industrial Highway because Carteret and the county could not come to an agreement about jurisdiction.
You can have 6xx signs on the ramps, just not the mainline guide signs.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 05:21:50 PM
The whole thing as per the county. Any signs that are up are old and likely won't be replaced.

Its also omitted from their map: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
and route log: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882

Yet, per NJDOT's Straight Line Diagram, the portion I thought was county maintained does show to be under county jurisdiction: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/08000631__-.pdf

The traffic light at Crown Point/Hessian Ave is definitely county maintained, whereas the light at Crown Point/Red Bank is state maintained.  In Gloucester County, one easy way to tell is by the street signs hanging from the masts: State signs were printed with first letter capitalized; rest are small letters.  GloCo used all caps on their signs.

This is also in the area of my NJDOT plowing zone.  We salt and plow Crown Point on the west side of 295 (from Red Bank to Delaware), and Crown Point on the east side from Exit 22 down to Red Bank.  But we don't treat Crown Point from Red Bank thru Hessian to 295...the county comes by and gets that.

I'm thinking the county data sheet is wrong on this one, based on what I know of the area.

roadman65

I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

bzakharin

Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2015, 09:43:53 AM
I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
Saving space? Decreasing the time needed to process the info on the sign?

Alps

Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2015, 09:43:53 AM
I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
"not mandatory" = "mandatory NOT to have"
It's just a policy. The NJTA has decided that 6xx routes are not important enough to sign by number, and they would rather sign the destinations it reaches.

storm2k

Update on sign replacement on the free section: They replaced the exit tabs at 131A SB (now shows 131 with a yellow "Former 131A" tab above it) and changed the 130 tabs to show 130B-A. They also replaced the signs at 131B NB. Interestingly, they reused the existing sign bridge, even though it looks like they put in the concrete base for at least a cantilever sign. Did not expect that. Also, the Metropark sign does not have the NJT or Amtrak logos on it, even though it looks like there is room for them. Not sure if they will add them later or just put up a ground mount sign for them. Curious because the sign is for a train station. I will try to grab some pics when I can.

roadman

Quote from: storm2k on March 03, 2015, 11:09:06 PM
Also, the Metropark sign does not have the NJT or Amtrak logos on it, even though it looks like there is room for them. Not sure if they will add them later or just put up a ground mount sign for them.
Not sure what the exact policy in the NJ area is, but the FHWA region office that oversees Massachusetts have had a long time aversion to placing transit logos on overhead guide signs (despite the fact there is no such provision in the MUTCD), even if the exit serves a transit or rail station.  This is why the overhead signs on I-95 (MA 128) for University Avenue have "Amtrak/MBTA Station" spelled out instead of using logos.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

odditude

NJDOT has placed logo signs on I-295 (PATCO at Exit 31/Woodcrest Sta) and NJ 29 (NJ Transit and Amtrak at the southbound exit TO NJ 33 / US 1 NORTH / Market St / NJ 129 Arena), so there's precedent for NJTA to follow if they chose to do so.

PHLBOS

On the subject of transit logo/shields on BGS': PennDOT, at least for 30th St. Station placed both Amtrak & SEPTA logo shields for this exit BGS off I-76 (this exit serves more than just 30th St. Station BTW) but yet there's still no PA 3 shield present whatsoever, not even a supplemental trailblazer.  :banghead:

We now bring you back to our regularly-scheduled GSP thread topic already in progress.  :sombrero:
GPS does NOT equal GOD

storm2k

The reason I find this curious is that the 131 sign SB (formerly 131A) says Metropark and has the NJT/Amtrak logos on it, so I figured they'd repeat it NB. The old blue signs for 131A and B had the logos on it. Given that 131B was built for the express purpose of accessing the train station, I don't know why they stayed away from it.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.