News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Old NJ Turnpike Photos

Started by Steve D, January 30, 2013, 08:47:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

roadman65

It would be interesting to know why the original SB lanes crossed over US 9 while its original NB counterpart passed under US 9?  That explains why today the SB Truck Lanes pass over US 9 on an original 1954 bridge while the other 3 carriageways pass beneath it on a newer type of bridge.

I saw the original Exit 11 configuration and it was a simple trumpet to trumpet interchange, so it seems unclear why the two different level gradings at that location.  In fact the maintenance yard just north of the US 9 crossing on the right side going toward Newark is the old Exit 11 toll plaza area and you can see how the old set up was looking on aerial views or even on that one site that shows historic air photos from the 1950's with the working set up of the time.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe


SignBridge

SteveD, you are quite the NJT historian! I never knew 'til now about the original dual/dual lanes at Exit-13. Didn't often travel that far south as a kid unfortunately. I thought it all began when the western leg was built. So NJT's express/local concept even predates I-80, which I thought was the first in NJ. Actually, I should have remembered that configuration existed on U.S. 1-9 through Newark even before the Turnpike or I-80.

And you must have read my mind re: the 15E toll-plaza. I thought it was a completely new one, not an expansion of the original 'cause it no longer had the wide spacing between the booths.

And re: the wide space under the orignal GS Parkway overpass, the original Turnpike designers must have been people of real vision. They obviously anticipated that some years ahead, traffic volumes would increase and expansion would be needed. How smart they were to plan for it. Unlike the way most highways are built where it's thought they would be adequate for 50 years only to have the volume greatly exceed projections from day one.

roadman65

Quote from: SignBridge on February 03, 2013, 08:15:52 PM
SteveD, you are quite the NJT historian! I never knew 'til now about the original dual/dual lanes at Exit-13. Didn't often travel that far south as a kid unfortunately. I thought it all began when the western leg was built. So NJT's express/local concept even predates I-80, which I thought was the first in NJ. Actually, I should have remembered that configuration existed on U.S. 1-9 through Newark even before the Turnpike or I-80.

And you must have read my mind re: the 15E toll-plaza. I thought it was a completely new one, not an expansion of the original 'cause it no longer had the wide spacing between the booths.

And re: the wide space under the orignal GS Parkway overpass, the original Turnpike designers must have been people of real vision. They obviously anticipated that some years ahead, traffic volumes would increase and expansion would be needed. How smart they were to plan for it. Unlike the way most highways are built where it's thought they would be adequate for 50 years only to have the volume greatly exceed projections from day one.
Even the bridge carrying the SB Truck/ Bus Lanes over US 9 is made for the current three lanes plus shoulder, that was originally two lanes.
That and the fact that all the stone overpasses on the GSP between the NJT and US 22 were able to accomdate extra travel lanes added over time, as prior to 1980 the GSP was six lanes. Only was the viaduct over NJ 28, The former CNJ (present Raritan Valley Line), South Avenue, Conrail Shared Assets, and the SIRT Line in Cranford widened in 80 to allow for expansion.  Even across Walnut Avenue in Clark, or Lake Avenue in Colonia it had three lanes crossing it that now has five.  Only the Inman Avenue and New Dover Road required the grade of the GSP to be dropped so the end lanes could have overheight vehicles under the arches before the fifth lane was added to have the low clearance signs for the right lane.

Also, the Raritan River Bridge was mad with extra piers when it was first constructed to allow for expansion as well.  Even look at the wide median between the Raritan and Asbury Park Toll Plazas.  The dual configuration was added in the early 70's, so that median had to be much wider without the express lanes.  The median there is still so wide as it is.  Basically the engineers of both highways saw potential for near growth.  Only in Irvington and East Orange did they not allow for extra ROW as it was urban and I imagine that land was hard to come by just to get the Parkway though Irvington and The Oranges as it was.  The lanes through 143 to 145 were narrowed to 10 feet each from their original 12 feet plus shoulders.

Like you said too many road agencies do not think for the long term and how many major projects have taken place do to the lack of early planning.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

Quote from: SignBridge on February 03, 2013, 08:15:52 PM
And re: the wide space under the orignal GS Parkway overpass, the original Turnpike designers must have been people of real vision. They obviously anticipated that some years ahead, traffic volumes would increase and expansion would be needed. How smart they were to plan for it. Unlike the way most highways are built where it's thought they would be adequate for 50 years only to have the volume greatly exceed projections from day one.

What I find notable is that the majority of the mainline was built with a 10' or so grassy median w/ guard rail in the middle. (This has been since converted to a paved left shoulder with jersey barrier)  However, the original configuration near Exit 11 provided for an unusually wide median.  It's as if there was a secret design of a dual-dual highway that was never revealed until it was needed.

vdeane

Likewise, much of the Thruway was built to allow for three lanes each way.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

BamaZeus

I wonder if the over-planning may have been inspired by the George Washington Bridge, knowing the 2nd deck would eventually be built.  The bridge was built strong enough to support the 2nd deck when needed, so maybe they already anticipated the extra traffic on the Turnpike down the road as well.

SignBridge

jeffandnicole, one point of information. All the Turnpike photos I've seen from the early 1950's show the 10 foot median without a guide rail. I don't know what year they started building them, but apparently the rails came later. And the current concrete wall is not your standard Jersey barrier either. According to the Turnpike Authority, it is 42-inches high vs. the standard 32-inch wall. And they claim theirs will stop the biggest trucks too. Possibly it's also wider than the standard wall.


Alps

Quote from: SignBridge on February 04, 2013, 04:49:10 PM
jeffandnicole, one point of information. All the Turnpike photos I've seen from the early 1950's show the 10 foot median without a guide rail. I don't know what year they started building them, but apparently the rails came later. And the current concrete wall is not your standard Jersey barrier either. According to the Turnpike Authority, it is 42-inches high vs. the standard 32-inch wall. And they claim theirs will stop the biggest trucks too. Possibly it's also wider than the standard wall.


It's still 2 feet wide. The 42" vs. 32" is not a new development by any means - it's almost the new standard at this point for any roadway with a meaningful truck percentage. Some agencies like PA Tpk. like to go even higher than that, but you'll definitely find plenty of 42" barrier around the country in the Jersey shape.

Steve D

Part 4....

The new exit 10 near completion in 1969.  Note that there is no ramp from the future inner/cars only lane to the toll.  With the start of the truck/bus lanes just a few hundred feet south of this picture, I guess they figured it was not worth the cost.  When the truck/bus lanes were expanded to exit 9 and then 8a this was not repeated and both roads had an exit ramp (same with exit 6 under construction now just north of the new diverge.  In addition, exit 6 traffic entering south will have ramps to both roadways - the first time this has been done just prior to the merging of the two roads).


The original start of the truck/buses lanes at exit 10 in 1969.  As mentioned before, note on the sign that exit 10 can only be accessed from the outer roadway.  Of course the missing ramp to exit 10 was completed in 1974 when the dual/dual reached south to exit 9.


Exit 9 in the 1950's - two lanes and that very unusual exit sign!! Does anyone know when the tanks were removed?


Exit 9 in the 1960's with more modern signs - the one at the exit looks like the GSP!


Exit 9 reconstruction in 1973.  Unlike all of the other dual/dual projects/extensions (including the current), the one between exit 9 and 10 from 1971 to 1974 placed two new roadways on the east side of the existing Turnpike the whole length of the project, as opposed to adding an outer roadway on both sides.


More of the re-construction of Exit 9.  Notice the toll booth replacement and transition.  This project involved a complex sequencing of ramps and detours.  For example, Turnpike traffic was first moved to the new roadways (not complete in this picture) behind the original trumpet.  Exit traffic had to use the bridge under construction at the top which was built half way and then detoured under the existing mainline  bridge using a sharp S curve (I actually remember this from when I was a kid!!!)


To be continued...

1995hoo

I notice the 1969 photo of the split shows that they'd changed to upward-pointing arrows by then instead of the downward-pointing ones seen in earlier photos (and that most of us know so well from the late, lamented signs just north of Exit 6). When did they change their practice in that respect?

BTW, regarding the earlier post about the original short stretch of "express/local" near the original Exit 13, you can find an aerial view on historic-aerials.com if you're interested (though you can't see the signs themselves).
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

lepidopteran

Does anyone remember that there was a traffic signal in the area leading to the Exit 9 toll plaza?  It may have controlled that side road which leads to the Turnpike Authority building.  In any event, whenever we went through there, the light was on flash mode; yellow for the Turnpike traffic and (presumably) red for the side street.  Granted, it was always either the weekend and/or evening.  Sometime in 1974, probably after the widening was completed, the traffic lights were removed.

I remember how when they were widening the truck lanes to Exit 9, when the new northbound "THRU TRAFFIC" signs were first put up, for some reason they both read "Next Exit     Miles".   The space where the number belongs was blank for what seemed like a long time.  As a child I concluded that it was a puzzle; since it was Exit 9, putting another 9 in there (nine miles to Exit 8A) was considered unnecessary.

Another story:  every time we drove between Exits 9 and 10, we always pointed out "my tree" on the east side of the turnpike.  This was a well-formed pine tree (or other conifer) whose thick, rigid, horizontal branches boldly stood out against the ordinary greenery in the area.  Boy, were we disappointed when we found that the tree had been removed to make way for the new roadway.

seicer

Quote from: Steve D on February 04, 2013, 09:04:49 PM
Exit 9 in the 1950's - two lanes and that very unusual exit sign!! Does anyone know when the tanks were removed?


Interesting - I noticed this half used bridge on the NJ TPK north of Exit 9: http://goo.gl/maps/ZYz7J

So I did a query on Historic Aerials:
a. The 2x2 + grass median was present in 1953
b. Widened to 3x3 by 1957. It looks like a grass median was still present.
c. A median barrier was installed by 1963.
d. Widening by 1972.
e. Widening to 3x3x3x3 by 1979. The original 2x2 & 3x3 SB/NB bridge for the duration of ~1953-~1972 was chopped in half. (Resulting in this: http://goo.gl/maps/ijjsb)

motorway

The tanks were removed some time in the early or mid 90s, since I remember as a kid wondering in the back seat on the way to Brooklyn how the oil stayed in the latticework (heh).

akotchi

A point of clarification from above . . . there will be only one southbound entrance ramp at Exit 6, to the outer roadway.
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

Interstatefan78

#64
Quote from: Steve D on January 31, 2013, 09:32:52 PM


The funky 1956 art deco style sign, northbound at exit 14 before the 1969 widening.  I think two similar signs still exist on the extension (at the entry points at 14A and 14B); the famous one near exit 6 southbound was taken down last year in the current widening.
There should be something missing in the exit 14 pictures the Newark airport and US-1 &22 being replaced by I-78 express/local in 1977 when I-78 exit 48-58 was opened

SignBridge

Re: the lack of shoulders. In the mid-1960's the Authority installed call-box phones in both directions, at closely spaced intervals on the Passaic and Hackensack River Bridges. I assume they lasted until the widening and shoulders.

motorway

I must say, looking back over these old pictures, I'm feeling increasingly sad about the MUTCD-ification of the Turnpike.  Uniformity and standards, blah blah, the Turnpike and all of its unique elements speak to me as a born and bred New Jerseyan.  I'm going to miss those old quirks, but can take heart at least that they're photographically preserved by so many of you fine people :) .

Steve D

Quote from: akotchi on February 05, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
A point of clarification from above . . . there will be only one southbound entrance ramp at Exit 6, to the outer roadway.

According to the plans I have (see below) there were two ramps planned - has this changed?



jeffandnicole

Quote from: Steve D on February 06, 2013, 08:54:33 AM
Quote from: akotchi on February 05, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
A point of clarification from above . . . there will be only one southbound entrance ramp at Exit 6, to the outer roadway.

According to the plans I have (see below) there were two ramps planned - has this changed?




Unless there's been a design change, there should be both an inner and outer ramp.

Next time I'm thru there, I'll take a look at the bridge columns to see if one is getting installed for the inner lanes.

akotchi

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2013, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Steve D on February 06, 2013, 08:54:33 AM
Quote from: akotchi on February 05, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
A point of clarification from above . . . there will be only one southbound entrance ramp at Exit 6, to the outer roadway.

According to the plans I have (see below) there were two ramps planned - has this changed?




Unless there's been a design change, there should be both an inner and outer ramp.

Next time I'm thru there, I'll take a look at the bridge columns to see if one is getting installed for the inner lanes.
As a member of the design team for that interchange, I can tell you that there will be only one ramp, going to the outer roadway.  What you posted was probably part of a concept report, or some early design concept (I have seen it before, but don't remember where it came from), but the inner ramp was removed prior to our involvement.  Cost savings and low traffic volume were two factors I recall in its elimination.
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

Steve D

Quote from: akotchi on February 06, 2013, 10:24:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2013, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Steve D on February 06, 2013, 08:54:33 AM
Quote from: akotchi on February 05, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
A point of clarification from above . . . there will be only one southbound entrance ramp at Exit 6, to the outer roadway.

According to the plans I have (see below) there were two ramps planned - has this changed?




Unless there's been a design change, there should be both an inner and outer ramp.

Next time I'm thru there, I'll take a look at the bridge columns to see if one is getting installed for the inner lanes.
As a member of the design team for that interchange, I can tell you that there will be only one ramp, going to the outer roadway.  What you posted was probably part of a concept report, or some early design concept (I have seen it before, but don't remember where it came from), but the inner ramp was removed prior to our involvement.  Cost savings and low traffic volume were two factors I recall in its elimination.

Thanks for the clarification.  I was wondering why in the world they would need two ramps.  Can you tell us any other interesting facts about the current widening?

Roadsguy

I'll bet it was preparation for a (distant?) future widening south of there?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

1995hoo

Quote from: Roadsguy on February 06, 2013, 12:57:14 PM
I'll bet it was preparation for a (distant?) future widening south of there?

When I saw the diagram above I thought to myself that it would make sense to build the ramp, even if they don't need it immediately, because it would be one less thing to build later (at greater cost) if they ever extend the separated roadways further south. They didn't build a ramp to the inner roadway at Exit 8A for the same reason that the configuration ended just south of there, but I assume now they've had to add one as part of the current project.

On the other hand, though, the odds of them doing another widening of this scale south of Exit 6 (not counting the three-laning between Exit 4 and the southern terminus) seem quite low, so it'd probably be overkill to build something they expect never to use.

"akotchi," totally separate question for you–will the old-style signs on the eastbound extension remain? I know the one on the southbound carriageway is gone, of course. (Apologies if they're already gone. I've seldom had reason to use the Pennsylvania Extension eastbound and haven't been on the Turnpike at all, except from Exit 14 to Exit 14A, since the widening project began.)
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: akotchi on February 06, 2013, 10:24:55 AM
As a member of the design team for that interchange, I can tell you that there will be only one ramp, going to the outer roadway.  What you posted was probably part of a concept report, or some early design concept (I have seen it before, but don't remember where it came from), but the inner ramp was removed prior to our involvement.  Cost savings and low traffic volume were two factors I recall in its elimination.

FWIW, it was in the NJ Turnpike's public presentation in late 2008.  It can be seen on page 8 of the linked document, which is currently on the NJ Turnpike website created for this project (http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/documents/Program%20Widening%20Presentation.pdf ).

akotchi

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 06, 2013, 01:16:35 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 06, 2013, 12:57:14 PM
I'll bet it was preparation for a (distant?) future widening south of there?

When I saw the diagram above I thought to myself that it would make sense to build the ramp, even if they don't need it immediately, because it would be one less thing to build later (at greater cost) if they ever extend the separated roadways further south. They didn't build a ramp to the inner roadway at Exit 8A for the same reason that the configuration ended just south of there, but I assume now they've had to add one as part of the current project.

On the other hand, though, the odds of them doing another widening of this scale south of Exit 6 (not counting the three-laning between Exit 4 and the southern terminus) seem quite low, so it'd probably be overkill to build something they expect never to use.

"akotchi," totally separate question for you–will the old-style signs on the eastbound extension remain? I know the one on the southbound carriageway is gone, of course. (Apologies if they're already gone. I've seldom had reason to use the Pennsylvania Extension eastbound and haven't been on the Turnpike at all, except from Exit 14 to Exit 14A, since the widening project began.)
To my knowledge, the signs are still there, but they will eventually be removed.  The locations of the structures and messages of the panels are not compatible with what is proposed to replace them, which includes, among other things, both (future) I-95 designation and the car-truck split for the northbound ramp.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2013, 01:45:03 PM
Quote from: akotchi on February 06, 2013, 10:24:55 AM
As a member of the design team for that interchange, I can tell you that there will be only one ramp, going to the outer roadway.  What you posted was probably part of a concept report, or some early design concept (I have seen it before, but don't remember where it came from), but the inner ramp was removed prior to our involvement.  Cost savings and low traffic volume were two factors I recall in its elimination.

FWIW, it was in the NJ Turnpike's public presentation in late 2008.  It can be seen on page 8 of the linked document, which is currently on the NJ Turnpike website created for this project (http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/documents/Program%20Widening%20Presentation.pdf ).
Now I remember . . . I saw many slides of these maps in the numerous professional society dinner presentations on this topic I attended in that time frame.  If I had dug hard enough, I probably could have found it.  Thanks for the reference, though.
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.



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.