New Jersey

[KEVIN_224]

Or "To All Maine Points" on I-95 North in Portsmouth, NH. See? It's not just a Jersey thing!

[roadman65]

You think that Maine would be sufficient just like New Jersey satisfies New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians when they see the Garden State written out as the state it is over the cities or boroughs it has that could make good control interests.

[bzakharin]

You think that Maine would be sufficient just like New Jersey satisfies New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians when they see the Garden State written out as the state it is over the cities or boroughs it has that could make good control interests.

Indeed, New Jersey or the name of the bridge/tunnel or both is all you get for most crossings (some will just skip straight to New York too). The exceptions I know of are I-95 in PA (Trenton, but soon to be New York), US 1 in PA (Trenton), the Riverton—Belvidere Bridge from PA (Belvidere), the Dingman's Ferry Bridge from PA (Layton), NJ 23 from I-84 in NY (Sussex), and US 202 in NY (Mahwah). The George Washington Bridge is signed "Trenton" from I-87, but "Newark" from I-95 and I-295, and just the bridge name elsewhere.

[jeffandnicole]

NJDOT published their draft FY2019 (Oct, 2018 thru Sept, 2019) Transportation Capital Program: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp19/sec5/ .  The link will open up to the page with projects sorted by county or route; other links give you NJ Transit projects as well as NJDOT's 5 year plan.

Of interest to me: It appears the 295/42 Missing Moves project is still set to begin construction at some point in the fiscal year.

[plain]

It appears the 295/42 Missing Moves project is still set to begin construction at some point in the fiscal year.

SM-S820L

[roadman65]

You think that Maine would be sufficient just like New Jersey satisfies New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians when they see the Garden State written out as the state it is over the cities or boroughs it has that could make good control interests.

Indeed, New Jersey or the name of the bridge/tunnel or both is all you get for most crossings (some will just skip straight to New York too). The exceptions I know of are I-95 in PA (Trenton, but soon to be New York), US 1 in PA (Trenton), the Riverton—Belvidere Bridge from PA (Belvidere), the Dingman's Ferry Bridge from PA (Layton), NJ 23 from I-84 in NY (Sussex), and US 202 in NY (Mahwah). The George Washington Bridge is signed "Trenton" from I-87, but "Newark" from I-95 and I-295, and just the bridge name elsewhere.

On Staten Island both Perth Amboy and Jersey City got brief mention in the early 00's.  At the south end of the West Shore Expressway NY 440 S Bound onto the Outerbridge Crossing got the Middlesex County city mentioned while the County Seat of Hudson got mentioned on I-278 for NY 440 NB where it enters the MLK Expressway.  Both were removed shortly afterward and replaced with the bridge names once again.

[Rothman]

Maybe around the time Montreal got replaced with Glens Falls on the BGS from NY 7 to I-87 north of Albany.  There was some weird push for more local destinations in the mid-oughts.

[jeffandnicole]

https://www.nj.com/data/2018/08/should_the_speed_limit_on_njs_highways_be_higher_we_used_a_radar_gun_to_find_the_answer.html

This may be one of the best written articles I've ever seen on nj.com; the state's main newspaper company.  They talk about their (unscientific) speed findings on highways earlier this year and an overview about the 85th percentile speed.  They also have NJDOT's official database linked to the article, which details speeds at various locations on various highways.  The article also shows the current limit and what the limit could be based on the 85th percentile speeds that NJDOT recorded last year.

There does appear to be a bill in the state senate to raise the speed limit to the 85th percentile speed, drafted by a senator who has long supported higher limits.  I can't view the bill though, or see if there's even co-sponsors.  There doesn't appear to be a similar bill in the assembly, which is required for a new/revised law to be passed.

[bzakharin]

https://www.nj.com/data/2018/08/should_the_speed_limit_on_njs_highways_be_higher_we_used_a_radar_gun_to_find_the_answer.html

This may be one of the best written articles I've ever seen on nj.com; the state's main newspaper company.  They talk about their (unscientific) speed findings on highways earlier this year and an overview about the 85th percentile speed.  They also have NJDOT's official database linked to the article, which details speeds at various locations on various highways.  The article also shows the current limit and what the limit could be based on the 85th percentile speeds that NJDOT recorded last year.

There does appear to be a bill in the state senate to raise the speed limit to the 85th percentile speed, drafted by a senator who has long supported higher limits.  I can't view the bill though, or see if there's even co-sponsors.  There doesn't appear to be a similar bill in the assembly, which is required for a new/revised law to be passed.

See, I'm not convinced. These numbers seem to confirm what I find to be the case on the roads I drive. Non-freeway drivers go 9 above the speed limit. Freeway drivers go 14 above speed limits. The exceptions are freeways with 55 MPH speed limits, where, oftentimes they act as if the speed limit is really 65 (i.e, they go 79). It is mostly about how fast you can go and avoid a speeding ticket, so even if the 85th percentile speed is significant, it may be lower than it could be due to the fear of getting a ticket.

[roadman65]

Maybe around the time Montreal got replaced with Glens Falls on the BGS from NY 7 to I-87 north of Albany.  There was some weird push for more local destinations in the mid-oughts.

NYSDOT  should do what IDOT does and sign the big cities at interstate junctions and the more regional ones at other routes.  Leave Montreal from the NYS Thruway and from I-90, but have Glens Falls for local roads in the capital region like NY 7.

[Alps]

A certain cl94 had mentioned that NJ had many non-state maintained segments of highway. So I found them all.

Route   From   To   Jurisdiction   Notes
5   3.14   3.18   Bergen Co   E end
7   8.26   9.25   Nutley   Park Ave. to border
   9.25   9.40   Passaic Co   Entirety of Passaic route
9   30.72  31.83  Beesley's Pt   closed
12   0.12   0.94   Hunterdon Co   Frenchtown except bridge
19    2.91   3.04   Passaic Co   N end (Marshall St.)
20    3.99   4.15   Passaic Co   N end (23rd St.)
27    15.38  16.55  Middlesex Co  New Brunswick south of 18
28    12.41  17.26  Union Co    Plainfield
29    34.00  34.71  Hunterdon Co   Frenchtown
31    0.00   1.15   Trenton   Trenton
33    0.11   1.46   Trenton   Trenton except 1 interchange
40   64.08   64.32   Atlantic Co   E end (Sunset Ave)
41   4.95   10.73    Camden Co   old 573/Temp 41 (168-154)
45   17.59   18.24   Gloucester Co  Mullica Hill
47   0.00   0.65   Cape May Co   Wildwood off bridge
56   7.69   9.19   Vineland   East of 55
73   0.00   6.22   Camden Co   old Spur 561 to N of ACE
109   0.00   1.34   Cape May Co  south of Cape Island Ck
122   0.00   0.79   Warren Co   Phillipsburg
124   13.29  14.74  Maplewood   Maplewood
162   0.00   0.70   Cape May Co   Entirety
166Z   0.00   0.44   Ocean Co   SB @ 527-530-549
171   1.29   3.10   Middlesex Co   New Brunswick
175   0.00   0.26   Trenton   Trenton
202   46.99   50.05   Morris Co     53 to 80 interchange
    50.62   51.42   Morris Co        80 int. to 46 intersection
    51.82   62.95   Morris/Passaic   I-80/Waterview to 23
    65.37   72.37   Passaic/Bergen   23/504 circle to 287 Oakland
    72.68   80.31   Bergen Co   287/Franklin Av. to NY
206   38.90   44.50   Hamilton/Trenton  White Horse Cir to Lawrence
   Z   42.57   44.28   Trenton   SB (Trenton)
   Z   44.28   45.36   Mercer Co   SB (Lawrence-Ewing), old 583
322   8.45   15.05    Gloucester Co   Mullica Hill/Harrison W of 55
    17.22   17.78   Gloucester Co   residential Glassboro
   B   0.00   1.53   Gloucester Co     Mullica Hill, old 322
347   0.00   8.33   Cape May/Cumbd   Entirety
413   0.38   0.76   Burlington Co    East of bridge (divided)

Portions of 29 routes are county or town maintained. main patterns:           
City limits: Trenton, Mullica Hill, Frenchtown, Plainfield, and more           
Never taken over: 162, 347, 413; 41 (old 573/Temp 41), 73 (old Spur 561), 166 SB in Toms River, 202 north of 53, 206 SB nearing Trenton           
Random route ends: 5, 19, 20, 40/322           

[Mr. Matté]

Nice compilation.

I had thought 27 inside Newark was also county or city maintained based on the non-standard traffic light blades and the old jurisdictional sign at the bottom of your page, but clicking through 2017 Street View, the road's freshly paved and even has the new milepost signs. I had also thought 21 through downtown Newark was the same thing but it might but be a case of the city having a say as to the elements on the street and possibly installation and maintenance of the traffic signals.

I'm also surprised about 162. The bridge itself is definitely still state and the approaches were built by them (tell-tale sign is the white concrete curb). Even with the more recent Street Views, the centerline rumble I thought would have reinforced that. However, doing some research last night, the approaches appear to be county based on the discussion in the Freeholder minutes about the resurfacing job along Seashore Road. Cape May (along with a lot of other counties now too) is also in the process of installing rumble strips on their roads too so we can't use that as a hint anymore. Perhaps it's like the way a freeway overpass or a realignment of a side road was built by the state using their specifications but immediately gets turned over to county/local jurisdiction.

Looking at some of the non-state state highways though, there are bits and pieces of state construction and maintenance like the white curbs, milepost installation, and even other general signage so I'm interested in how they pick and choose what they do with the roads that aren't technically theirs.

[storm2k]

Been meaning to ask this for a while. Does anyone know the details about why NJDOT has jurisdiction over the Port Reading Ave bridges over Conrail in the Port Reading section of Woodbridge? It's not there in the GSV, but there are now bridge identification signs on both spans with NJDOT bridge numbers. The mileage listed is for that of CR-602, which the road is through this area. NJ DOT even issued a press release about work it did, instead of Middlesex County DOT, earlier this year. I don't ever remember seeing this stretch of road being part of a decomm'd state highway or anything, nor does it have any sort of secret route attached to it.

[Alps]

Been meaning to ask this for a while. Does anyone know the details about why NJDOT has jurisdiction over the Port Reading Ave bridges over Conrail in the Port Reading section of Woodbridge? It's not there in the GSV, but there are now bridge identification signs on both spans with NJDOT bridge numbers. The mileage listed is for that of CR-602, which the road is through this area. NJ DOT even issued a press release about work it did, instead of Middlesex County DOT, earlier this year. I don't ever remember seeing this stretch of road being part of a decomm'd state highway or anything, nor does it have any sort of secret route attached to it.

I wanna say anything over railroads is by default NJDOT.

[Alps]

Nice compilation.

I had thought 27 inside Newark was also county or city maintained based on the non-standard traffic light blades and the old jurisdictional sign at the bottom of your page, but clicking through 2017 Street View, the road's freshly paved and even has the new milepost signs. I had also thought 21 through downtown Newark was the same thing but it might but be a case of the city having a say as to the elements on the street and possibly installation and maintenance of the traffic signals.

Newark maintains all of its own signals, and they do erect their own signs, on every road in the city.

I'm also surprised about 162. The bridge itself is definitely still state and the approaches were built by them (tell-tale sign is the white concrete curb). Even with the more recent Street Views, the centerline rumble I thought would have reinforced that. However, doing some research last night, the approaches appear to be county based on the discussion in the Freeholder minutes about the resurfacing job along Seashore Road. Cape May (along with a lot of other counties now too) is also in the process of installing rumble strips on their roads too so we can't use that as a hint anymore. Perhaps it's like the way a freeway overpass or a realignment of a side road was built by the state using their specifications but immediately gets turned over to county/local jurisdiction.

I think that's what happened here. NJDOT built the bridge but turned it over upon completion. The question, of course, is why this still has a number if that was the case. I think it's because this was originally planned as S-4-A way back when, even though the current bridge wasn't built until after 1953 when the current numbering convention was adopted. S-4-A was still on the books and became 162, so they slapped a number on it. Same with NJ 59 - it was built as original SHR 22, which was supposed to be much longer, so that's why exactly one railroad underpass has a state highway number. (64 was also part of a planned longer route, but the state built and maintains that overpass, so it's a bit more open-and-shut as to why it's a state highway.)

Looking at some of the non-state state highways though, there are bits and pieces of state construction and maintenance like the white curbs, milepost installation, and even other general signage so I'm interested in how they pick and choose what they do with the roads that aren't technically theirs.

You still see that in a lot of places. The state turns over anything they can, and they're stuck with anything they can't. I can't vouch for the bits and pieces, but they would certainly install mileposts on their routes and probably have certain deals in place. Maintenance is not the same as construction, but nowadays the state would take something over once it touches it. Back then, maybe not so much.

[NJRoadfan]

NJ-162 and NJ-13 are state maintained due to being a crossing for an intra-coastal waterway canal.

[roadman65]

I believe in Elizabeth the city also maintains most of its signals along NJ 27 with the exception of the two NJ 439 junctions as they used State Installations. 

NJ 439 also uses mostly state signals except in the Elmora Business District which has four city owned signals.  I am not sure if Bayway still uses Elizabeth signals still as some of the horizontal heads were replaced later on with vertical and typical NJDOT style truss arms.

[NE2]

inter-coastal waterway canal

That's a long canal. How does it get across the Rockies?

[Alps]

NJ-162 and NJ-13 are state maintained due to being a crossing for an inter-coastal waterway canal.

162 is NOT state maintained. It's state numbered but county maintained.
And if that's the rationale for 13, what about CR 520?
So I'm going to say no.

[NJRoadfan]

CR-520 doesn't cross a canal... or the ICWW for that matter.

[Alps]

CR-520 doesn't cross a canal... or the ICWW for that matter.

You're right, I thought that was part of the ICWW, but it's not. How about 528 then?

[NJRoadfan]

That crosses the Barnegat Bay, not an artificial waterway. Some place somewhere there was likely legislation requiring the state to build (and perhaps maintain) the crossings over the Cape May and Pt. Pleasant canals as part of the ICWW construction.

[NE2]

162 is NOT state maintained. It's state numbered but county maintained.

Assuming the SLD is correct. NBI claims the state owns the bridge: http://bridgereports.com/1364764

By the way, the NJ 13 bridge was owned by the Board of Commerce and Navigation until 1938.

[storm2k]

I believe in Elizabeth the city also maintains most of its signals along NJ 27 with the exception of the two NJ 439 junctions as they used State Installations. 

NJ 439 also uses mostly state signals except in the Elmora Business District which has four city owned signals.  I am not sure if Bayway still uses Elizabeth signals still as some of the horizontal heads were replaced later on with vertical and typical NJDOT style truss arms.

Bayway still has two city installations.
27 is having a couple of county installs along the Cherry/Chilton one-way pair. I know the signals at Jersey Street is Union County standard.

[Alps]

162 is NOT state maintained. It's state numbered but county maintained.

Assuming the SLD is correct. NBI claims the state owns the bridge: http://bridgereports.com/1364764

By the way, the NJ 13 bridge was owned by the Board of Commerce and Navigation until 1938.

Is it possible that the state owns the bridge but the county maintains it? Or maintains the roadway? There could be some serious convolution going on here. I can tell you that all of the signage is county, not state, so it supports the SLDs.