New Jersey Turnpike

[Mergingtraffic]

Plans are afoot to replace all signage north of Exit 11 with MUTCD compliant signage. If you look through this thread, you can see some examples peppered throughout. So, yes, those signs you showed are definitely going to change.

Do you know the timetable of the replacement project?

[jeffandnicole]

The NJ Turnpike (along with newspapers and other agencies) are alerting people to a phishing scam in which people receive an email that they have not paid for driving on a toll road, and that they should service their debt in the shortest possible time.  Any real New Jerseyian knows that these notices aren't send via email.  They are sent care of Fats Tony from the Newark Mafia, and Bubba ain't leaving till you pay up, or else you and your EZ Pass will be swimming with the fishies!

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

[KEVIN_224]

I actually received one of those yesterday, now that you mention it! The funny thing is? I don't own an EZ-Pass tag. Hell, I don't even drive!

[storm2k]

Plans are afoot to replace all signage north of Exit 11 with MUTCD compliant signage. If you look through this thread, you can see some examples peppered throughout. So, yes, those signs you showed are definitely going to change.

Do you know the timetable of the replacement project?

There are those on this forum who would know better than myself. I know Alps had a whole thread about it a while back. It's starting to pick up now as more signs show up, but I think they're putting up new signs piggybacking on the continued replacement of the old neon VMS's with the new LED ones.

[roadman65]

So am I to understand that all signs north of the GSP will soon be replaced?  If that is so why did the NJTA allow the 6-9 signage to be of original then?  It really makes no sense unless the NJTA was making one last ditch effort to keep the existing signs they always had.

[Mr_Northside]

The NJ Turnpike (along with newspapers and other agencies) are alerting people to a phishing scam in which people receive an email that they have not paid for driving on a toll road, and that they should service their debt in the shortest possible time.  Any real New Jerseyian knows that these notices aren't send via email.  They are sent care of Fats Tony from the Newark Mafia, and Bubba ain't leaving till you pay up, or else you and your EZ Pass will be swimming with the fishies!

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

The PA Turnpike was warning of the same EZ-Pass scam on the various news channels around here yesterday as well.

[1995hoo]

I got an e-mail from VDOT warning about the E-ZPass scam.

The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock blog ran an item about it. I found the following part quite amusing, especially considering I don't work for any government agency:

To me, the most chilling thing is that the scammers spell "E-ZPass"  right. Almost nobody outside of government can do that.

[Pete from Boston]

The two appear to be at the same general location, but the scenery around the signs doesn't match up.

Whoa, that's trippy. The GMSV shows a giant mountain-ish piece of terrain to the west of the road, but in the image posted it doesn't seem to be there. The skyline of Newark(?) is visible in both of them though in relatively the same location, which means that the location isn't significantly different between the two pictures.

That's no Newark.  Newark is west-southwest of this point, behind the viewer.  Straight ahead are the illustrious skylines of Secaucus, North Bergen, and their environs.

How boring all this MUTCD signage looks.  The Turnpike is better than that.

[storm2k]

So am I to understand that all signs north of the GSP will soon be replaced?  If that is so why did the NJTA allow the 6-9 signage to be of original then?  It really makes no sense unless the NJTA was making one last ditch effort to keep the existing signs they always had.

IIRC, it was because the signs for that portion of the roadway were already designed and in fabrication when they decided to replace all the signs north of there. They also replaced most of the signs south of there with older Turnpike standard signs before that which is why they won't be replaced either.

[roadman65]

I hope now that the SB Eastern Spur finally gets proper signage for Exit 15E which never had guide signs stating where the road goes.  All signs always referred to it as plain ole Exit 15E.

It will be interesting to see the Turnpike signed with tabs north of Woodbridge and the usual NJT style south of it without tabs.

[SignBridge]

Yeah, I never understood either how a heads-up agency like NJTA could have overlooked proper signing for Exit 15E. And yes, maybe they'll fix it now.

[roadman65]

I wrote to NJTA once and they (or the corresponding engineer told me) that it was not a big deal and the Passaic River Bridge gave no room for the large panel signs it needed.

In fact this very same engineer thinks that I-95's exit numbers north of US 46 are a continuation of I-80's numbering scheme, so it goes to show you how much the NJTA's engineers do actually know about the roads in general.

[cpzilliacus]

I've always found those "obey local speed laws" signs amusing because I've always thought they imply you don't have to do so on the Turnpike.

Especially the one south of the Interchange 1 toll barrier (now removed), which implied that the toll and "free" roads ahead were somehow inferior to the N.J. Turnpike.

[J Route Z]

The Turnpike needs to update more of its guide signs, as well as implement more reassurance route markers since it is designated as I-95. When I drive on it, I don't feel like I am on I-95. Other states you have that feel, but not in NJ. The unusual exit signage, the lack of merge signs, the old crappy lighting. These need to be upgraded. The lighting needs to be improved. 70 % of the lighting do not work, on ramps, on the highway itself, at tolls, etc. I wonder why they installed LED lights at exit 13A, yet some are already broken. I hope this is in some future plans to upgrade lighting as well, and pavement resurfacing between 1 and 5.

[jeffandnicole]

I had an interesting conversation with something from their maintenance department several months back. 

Some of the issues with the Turnpike maintenance can be related to the money that the NJ Turnpike has quietly turned over to the state the past few years for use in NJDOT transportation projects, the state's general fund, etc.  While PA has the formal Act 44, NJ doesn't have anything formal per se, but when the governor needs to find money somewhere, the Turnpike Authority is a nice little piggy bank.  The maintenance employee I talked with was truly frustrated by the turnpike's condition, as he knows things like paving on the southern part of the Turnpike is badly needed, but they simply don't have the funds available to do what is needed to be done.

When a series of lights are out in a location, usually that indicated a power supply or wiring issue.  The individual lights themselves are most likely OK.

[jeffandnicole]

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2013_Audited_Financial_State.pdf

The above links to the audited financial statements for the NJ Turnpike (if you're an investor, you can read and understand those reports.  Most other people never look at them).  Page 12 of the PDF (Page 10 of the report) lists 'Payments to the State of New Jersey'.  In each of the past 2 years, over $350 million was diverted from the Turnpike to the State; money that could have easily been used for a lot of the maintenance issues on the Turnpike & Parkway.

[storm2k]

I had an interesting conversation with something from their maintenance department several months back. 

Some of the issues with the Turnpike maintenance can be related to the money that the NJ Turnpike has quietly turned over to the state the past few years for use in NJDOT transportation projects, the state's general fund, etc.  While PA has the formal Act 44, NJ doesn't have anything formal per se, but when the governor needs to find money somewhere, the Turnpike Authority is a nice little piggy bank.  The maintenance employee I talked with was truly frustrated by the turnpike's condition, as he knows things like paving on the southern part of the Turnpike is badly needed, but they simply don't have the funds available to do what is needed to be done.

When a series of lights are out in a location, usually that indicated a power supply or wiring issue.  The individual lights themselves are most likely OK.

This should not be allowed to happen, but according to that audit that was linked, it's allowed. Unfortunately, the idea of raising the gas tax to properly fund the TTF is a major third rail in NJ (and admittedly, gas is super expensive as is, who wants to pay even more) and no politician is going to touch it. It's easier to play political tricks to find money like this.

[vdeane]

Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.

[Pete from Boston]

Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.

My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon.  $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.

[DrSmith]

I think there is also the belief in NJ that they are getting some kind of deal because the price of gas is less than neighboring states and they get "full service."

[NJRoadfan]

Don't forget that the merger of the NJ Highway Authority with the Turnpike Authority was used to shore up the finances of the Garden State Parkway. Like raising gas taxes, raising the tolls on the Parkway was always a political no-no and they have been kept artificially low over the years. Merging the two allowed funds from the Turnpike to be used. People tend to not complain too much about the tolls on the NJTP since "mostly out of staters" pay it.

[Duke87]

Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.

My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon.  $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.

People neglect inflation and don't think long term.

Take a look at this. Gas prices in the 80s and 90s were lower than any other time in the past hundred years. Indeed, they are the only time the price has ever been under $2/gallon in 2013 dollars. It seems considerably less painful if you look at the red line on that graph.


You are right, though. Perception unfortunately is more important than reality and in most people's minds gas has gotten insanely expensive compared to what they grew up expecting it to be. For New Jersey their second-lowest in the nation gas tax is an especially sacred cow and the current administration has done some insane and possibly illegal cartwheels to avoid having to raise it. It's not just NJTA that's been used as a piggy bank, it's the Port Authority as well (the current subject of an investigation against the governor), and the reason why the ARC tunnel was cancelled.

Eventually NJ is going to have to wake up and raise their gas tax, or find some other way to raise dedicated revenue for transportation. They already have the nation's lowest per capita state highway mileage, they can't well shed more costs.

[PHLBOS]

Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.

My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon.  $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.

People neglect inflation and don't think long term.

Take a look at this. Gas prices in the 80s and 90s were lower than any other time in the past hundred years. Indeed, they are the only time the price has ever been under $2/gallon in 2013 dollars. It seems considerably less painful if you look at the red line on that graph.

Due keep in mind that whenever the cost of gas goes up and stays up; the cost of everything else typically follows. 

The double-digit inflation that crippled the nation's economy during much of the 1970s and early 1980s was largely due to the skyrocketing cost of gasoline that took place at the time.  Increased fuel costs = higher transport costs = higher prices for transported goods.  Economics 101 here.

However, when gas prices started falling (& even crashing) during the mid-80s and later in the mid-90s; the cost of everything else that previously increased did not decrease due to the drop in fuels costs.  As a result, the cost of gasoline relative to everything else became lower.  Long story short, and the linked article completely overlooks this; the cost of gas wasn't too low; the cost of everything else was/is too high.

Back to the topic at hand; in a perect world, the best time to increase a gas tax (for road/highway funds) would be to enact such when the overall cost of gas is going down.  The general public only cares about the price on the pump not the percentage allocation of said-price.  If an increase to a gas tax is offset by a decrease in the wholesale price of gasoline; nobody's going to raise too much of a stink.

That said, maybe it's time for a percentage-based gas tax rather than a flat rate.  MA actually tried such circa 1982 (King Administration) and had some success; but it started backfiring when prices fell a few years later (Dukakis changed the state gas tax back to a flat rate in 1986 or 1987) to a point where less money was coming in than prior to 1982.

While some could say that prices today will not fall like they did back then; one needs to keep in mind that during the late 70s/early 80s, nobody thought for a second that gas would fall just a few short years later either.  History can sometimes repeat itself.

If a percentage gas tax is considered (not just in NJ but anywhere); a flat minumum amount may need to be factored in; provided that a particular state's constitution allows for such practice.

[1995hoo]

....

That said, maybe it's time for a percentage-based gas tax rather than a flat rate.  MA actually tried such circa 1982 (King Administration) and had some success; but it started backfiring when prices fell a few years later (Dukakis changed the state gas tax back to a flat rate in 1986 or 1987) to a point where less money was coming in than prior to 1982.

While some could say that prices today will not fall like they did back then; one needs to keep in mind that during the late 70s/early 80s, nobody thought for a second that gas would fall just a few short years later either.  History can sometimes repeat itself.

If a percentage gas tax is considered (not just in NJ but anywhere); a flat minumum amount may need to be factored in; provided that a particular state's constitution allows for such practice.

Virginia has had a version of a percentage-based tax since last year, though it's based on the wholesale price rather than the price at the pump. The risk, as you say, is that the prices could fall. I didn't really notice any difference in the price at the pump when the old 17.5¢-per-gallon tax ended and the new percentage-based tax took effect. Fuel prices seem considerably lower than in DC and Maryland, but that's in part because Maryland raised their per-gallon tax last year at the same time ours was repealed.

I think you have the right solution to the "problem" of prices falling: x percent but not less than y cents per gallon. The logical starting point for the floor would presumably be whatever the current per-gallon tax is now.

[SidS1045]

The PA Turnpike was warning of the same EZ-Pass scam on the various news channels around here yesterday as well.

...as was MassDOT.