Garden State Parkway

[roadman65]

Is the mileage signs at both Exits 80 (SB) and 168 (NB) the only signs on the Parkway of that nature?  Or have they added any more to the roadway?

[storm2k]

interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.

I'm a little surprised the NJTA didn't upgrade the GSP to Variable Speed Limit Signs, as they have added and replaced all (or nearly all) of their variable message signs.  Even though the two toll roads have been under one authority for well over a decade now, they have curiously kept the historic features of each roadway, with minor exceptions such as the speed limit signs you mentioned.

I'm actually curious about that myself. VSLS is actually MUTCD friendly these days. Don't know if it's a legislation thing, or one of those unique historical things as you've said (although the biggest one -- the signage on both roadways -- is slowly going away). I have noticed that for a lot of things, even though one authority runs it, they keep a lot of things between both highways separate.

[bzakharin]

interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.

Isn't there some sort of state law that treats signs that say "conditions permitting" differently from one that don't, maybe as far as enforcement? I vaguely recall hearing that somewhere. The ACE has them too, but it looks like they're slowly going away there too.

[jeffandnicole]

interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.

Isn't there some sort of state law that treats signs that say "conditions permitting" differently from one that don't, maybe as far as enforcement? I vaguely recall hearing that somewhere. The ACE has them too, but it looks like they're slowly going away there too.

No.  By law, the speed limit itself is based on conditions, in as much as if the Speed Limit is 65 mph, and you're going 65 during a snowstorm with several inches of snow covering the road, you can be cited for driving too fast, unsafe for conditions, etc.  The fact that you weren't exceeding the speed limit is irrelevant.  The "Conditions Permitting" sign didn't add or take anything away from the posted speed limit.

VSLS is actually MUTCD friendly these days. Don't know if it's a legislation thing, or one of those unique historical things as you've said (although the biggest one -- the signage on both roadways -- is slowly going away). I have noticed that for a lot of things, even though one authority runs it, they keep a lot of things between both highways separate.

It's not legislation.  There are some state laws that are specific to toll roads, but variable speed limits aren't one of them (some of them are similar to other state laws, such as no u-turns).

[noelbotevera]

Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

[Alps]

Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.

[Roadrunner75]

Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.

I don't drive a truck, and I'm happy using the GSP frequently between Toms River and the Driscoll truck-free, but the alternative for trucks along the coastal north-south corridor is a bit crummy between the end of the truck portion at 105 and the 287/440/Turnpike interchanges.  Route 18 covers part of the more direct alternate route rather well, but US 9 from Old Bridge to the Raritan crossing is a bit lousy with the traffic and the lights - and probably especially bad for truck traffic.  The 9 / 35 interchange in South Amboy can be a particularly bad bottleneck with NB traffic filing into a loop ramp  / merge-or-die combo.  Has there been any studies of the corridor for truck traffic, or planned improvements at 9/35?  The truck ban results in a pretty big gap for what I would think would be an important trucking corridor.

[Alps]

Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.

I don't drive a truck, and I'm happy using the GSP frequently between Toms River and the Driscoll truck-free, but the alternative for trucks along the coastal north-south corridor is a bit crummy between the end of the truck portion at 105 and the 287/440/Turnpike interchanges.  Route 18 covers part of the more direct alternate route rather well, but US 9 from Old Bridge to the Raritan crossing is a bit lousy with the traffic and the lights - and probably especially bad for truck traffic.  The 9 / 35 interchange in South Amboy can be a particularly bad bottleneck with NB traffic filing into a loop ramp  / merge-or-die combo.  Has there been any studies of the corridor for truck traffic, or planned improvements at 9/35?  The truck ban results in a pretty big gap for what I would think would be an important trucking corridor.

From time to time they've considered allowing trucks north of 105, but nothing has come to fruition. I don't know any details.

[Don'tKnowYet]

Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

Yes, the GSP had its foundational anti-truck "policies" because it was a Parkway and that's what parkways did back then. But I think Express-Local opened in the early 70s. The Driscoll Expressway--the truck solution to the Jersey Shore--wasn't killed until 1973 or so. So the Express-Local project specifically didn't need to accommodate for trucks, but as you see and guesstimate blew up in our  collective face.

Another piece of history is that the truck ban originally went north to Exit 98 when I-195 was finally finished.  In about 1982/1984, Johnson and Johnson demanded that it be moved to 105 when route 18 was finished. Governor Kean when faced with losing them as a major economic power to another state, ordered the NJHA to relocate the northern terminus.

[roadman65]

Now I also wanted to say that I remember when Exit 98 was the truck terminus, but I had no idea that it was even further south before that.  I imagine it was at US 9 in Pleasant Plains as I know for sure that the US 9 overlap had to originally allow trucks even though motorcycles were banned there as well as the rest of the Parkway.

That is also something that the GSP did not allow motorcycles at one time either.

[noelbotevera]

Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.

So when it was completely reconstructed in 2009, truck loading wasn't anticipated, and so a cheaper structure was used, cutting down the costs. Makes sense, I'll have to admit.

[Mr. Matté]

I can't imagine that they'd use a cheaper / weaker structure just because of the existing truck ban there. I doubt the Turnpike Authority would want to take the risk of a premature replacement or failure and built it to lower specifications. The bridge was completely reconstructed a few years ago and the consideration of trucks through there was proposed circa 2011; based on this quote, the new bridge was built with heavier vehicles in mind:

"One major roadblock has been removed, with the reconstruction of the existing Driscoll Bridge and construction of a new third span in 2009. 'The old bridge . . . wasn't physically capable of handling (the weight of) commercial trucks,' said John O'Hern, New Jersey Turnpike Authority deputy executive director."

I know that nowadays when the little county-owned bridges around here are rebuilt, they are built to handle the heavier traffic, though weight restrictions established prior to reconstruction are often left in place so big rigs aren't driving around neighborhood roads.

[NJRoadfan]

The other concern with the Driscoll Bridge is lane width. It isn't the standard 12ft, more like 10-11ft.

[jeffandnicole]

The other concern with the Driscoll Bridge is lane width. It isn't the standard 12ft, more like 10-11ft.

That was before they rebuilt the bridge 7 years ago. Today it's 12' lanes with full shoulders.

[Don'tKnowYet]

Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

Yes, the GSP had its foundational anti-truck "policies" because it was a Parkway and that's what parkways did back then. But I think Express-Local opened in the early 70s. The Driscoll Expressway--the truck solution to the Jersey Shore--wasn't killed until 1973 or so. So the Express-Local project specifically didn't need to accommodate for trucks, but as you see and guesstimate blew up in our  collective face.

Another piece of history is that the truck ban originally went north to Exit 98 when I-195 was finally finished.  In about 1982/1984, Johnson and Johnson demanded that it be moved to 105 when route 18 was finished. Governor Kean when faced with losing them as a major economic power to another state, ordered the NJHA to relocate the northern terminus.

Express-Local opened to traffic on November 27, 1974.

[NJRoadfan]

That was before they rebuilt the bridge 7 years ago. Today it's 12' lanes with full shoulders.

Source: http://tollroadsnews.com/news/washington-dc-metro-area-has-americas-widest-bridge---a-tale-of-two-bridges-toll-and-tax

[SignBridge]

Re: the truck ban locations and dates. As per an old official Parkway brochure from 1966, trucks were at that time banned north of Exit-97A, which was Route 38. Now Exit-98? 

[roadman65]

Does anyone remember the pre 1980 days of signing on the NJDOT maintained section between the NJT and US 22?  Its hard to believe, but there were no one mile advance guides except for Exit 140 going NB that was attached to the CR 509 overpass in Kenilworth.

The NJDOT used LGSes and not BGSes either, and they had one at one quarter mile saying Exit xxx NEXT RIGHT followed by one again at one eight of a mile listing the route number or street name.

At Exit 139B there was the only overhead assembly there only because both Chestnut Street and US 22 were within 200 feet of each other.  Another thing of note the at exit sign for US 22 going NB had the control cities of Airport and Tunnel as space limitations prevent the full names of both the Newark Airport and Holland Tunnel from being displayed fully on the one LGS there.

Its interesting how that worked on freeway, which now with the MUTCD stating larger and overhead signs how people now are still having trouble seeing them.  In fact left over copies of the old gore guides were kept at Toms River for NJ 37 for a long time, which is how the 129 to 140 section was all signed back then.

[hurricanehink]

Yesterday, I drove across the Great Egg Harbor parkway bridge (between Atlantic and Cape May County). Traffic has shifted onto a portion of the new roadway. From the toll plaza at mile marker 29, it goes down to one lane, and about a mile south, the traffic shifts back onto the older portion. There are still two spans that haven't been bridged yet, but it appears to be making quick progress. I also got a close look of what'll be part of a future bike path on the western side. I'll try to get pics next time.

Also, I've been on the construction in Atlantic County from exits 35-37, and that's making progress as well. Over Tilton Road, the new wider bridge is almost done, which will allow for deceleration lanes on Tilton, and three lanes for the parkway portion. Lots of construction, but the part that looks closest to being open is the span going from Expressway east to Parkway south at Exit 38 (Exit 7S on ACE).

[roadman65]

Glad to see that part near the ACE is being addressed.  I wonder though if the SB on ramp from the EB ACE and the SB off ramp to Washington Avenue are going to be completely braided like we do here in Florida.  I am hoping not as we do as the ACE travelers would then have to pay an extra toll at Exit 9 as the SJTA for some reason has a ramp toll there when its not going into a mainline plaza EB.  In fact the Parkway is free to exit at, but the previous exit is tolled.

Yeah, I know they are suckering the airport customers, an old story, but still have a heart though.

[jeffandnicole]

Glad to see that part near the ACE is being addressed.  I wonder though if the SB on ramp from the EB ACE and the SB off ramp to Washington Avenue are going to be completely braided like we do here in Florida.  I am hoping not as we do as the ACE travelers would then have to pay an extra toll at Exit 9 as the SJTA for some reason has a ramp toll there when its not going into a mainline plaza EB.  In fact the Parkway is free to exit at, but the previous exit is tolled.

Yeah, I know they are suckering the airport customers, an old story, but still have a heart though.

You will still be able to access Washington Ave from the Atlantic City Expressway.  The ramp to the GSP South will have a separate exit for Washington Ave.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/4_2014_map_improve_36_37_38.pdf

[swbrotha100]

I was wondering what kind of progress was going on around Exit 163 (NJ 17). According to the NJTA, there may be changes as soon as this weekend:

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_northbound_exit_163_GSP.pdf

[njunderground]

Just a note, I noticed tonight that there is now a Pull Through Sign just before 145 that features the control city "Paramus". This is different than the one before the Union Tolls that uses "Paterson"

[storm2k]

Does anyone remember the pre 1980 days of signing on the NJDOT maintained section between the NJT and US 22?  Its hard to believe, but there were no one mile advance guides except for Exit 140 going NB that was attached to the CR 509 overpass in Kenilworth.

The NJDOT used LGSes and not BGSes either, and they had one at one quarter mile saying Exit xxx NEXT RIGHT followed by one again at one eight of a mile listing the route number or street name.

At Exit 139B there was the only overhead assembly there only because both Chestnut Street and US 22 were within 200 feet of each other.  Another thing of note the at exit sign for US 22 going NB had the control cities of Airport and Tunnel as space limitations prevent the full names of both the Newark Airport and Holland Tunnel from being displayed fully on the one LGS there.

Its interesting how that worked on freeway, which now with the MUTCD stating larger and overhead signs how people now are still having trouble seeing them.  In fact left over copies of the old gore guides were kept at Toms River for NJ 37 for a long time, which is how the 129 to 140 section was all signed back then.

I wish we had pictures of this.

[Alps]

Just a note, I noticed tonight that there is now a Pull Through Sign just before 145 that features the control city "Paramus". This is different than the one before the Union Tolls that uses "Paterson"

I'm pretty sure that should all be Paterson. Someone grabbed the wrong P town.