(We've actually not yet had a general catch-all for NJ.)
Got this question online, does anyone have an idea?
Quote"found Alps` Roads while searching for the history of the Maple lake rd. under pass on Rt.23 . When I was a kid , (66 now) I was told it was called the Bridge to nowhere ,$$$$$$ cow path when built and was in Ripelys believe it or not. Can anybody help ?"
I looked back to 1953 on Historic Aerials, overpass was there with houses on both sides, didn't seem like a bridge to nowhere. I looked at 1931, Maple Lake Rd. (Kinnelon) was still there, well before 23. Why would it have been in Ripley's?
Quote from: Steve on September 17, 2013, 07:00:19 PM
(We've actually not yet had a general catch-all for NJ.)
Got this question online, does anyone have an idea?
Quote"found Alps` Roads while searching for the history of the Maple lake rd. under pass on Rt.23 . When I was a kid , (66 now) I was told it was called the Bridge to nowhere ,$$$$$$ cow path when built and was in Ripelys believe it or not. Can anybody help ?"
I looked back to 1953 on Historic Aerials, overpass was there with houses on both sides, didn't seem like a bridge to nowhere. I looked at 1931, Maple Lake Rd. (Kinnelon) was still there, well before 23. Why would it have been in Ripley's?
It would probably have been in a newspaper one, they might have been milking it as a "thousands spent on a bridge...for cows!" type thing.
While driving on NJ 31 South heading towards Trenton, there was a new blue sign installed recently (around the intersection with CR 518, I believe, and the bridge is still closed) naming NJ 31 the "Tri-County Purple Heart Memorial Highway" (or something close to that).
What's the third county? I know NJ 31 lies in Hunterdon and Mercer Counties, but I can't figure out the third one. At first I thought Somerset (where I live), but I know NJ 31 doesn't show up until you are in Hunterdon. Does anyone know anything about the sign?
Quote from: Zeffy on October 21, 2013, 07:53:35 PM
While driving on NJ 31 South heading towards Trenton, there was a new blue sign installed recently (around the intersection with CR 518, I believe, and the bridge is still closed) naming NJ 31 the "Tri-County Purple Heart Memorial Highway" (or something close to that).
What's the third county? I know NJ 31 lies in Hunterdon and Mercer Counties, but I can't figure out the third one. At first I thought Somerset (where I live), but I know NJ 31 doesn't show up until you are in Hunterdon. Does anyone know anything about the sign?
Warren.
(Google: http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/doherty/senate-approves-doherty-bill-designating-rt-31-as-tri-county-purple-heart-memorial-highway/11547 first result)
Quote from: Steve on October 21, 2013, 08:08:32 PM
Warren.
(Google: http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/doherty/senate-approves-doherty-bill-designating-rt-31-as-tri-county-purple-heart-memorial-highway/11547 first result)
Ah, that was the third one. I forgot about it running all the way to US 46 near Washington Township.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 21, 2013, 08:18:06 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 21, 2013, 08:08:32 PM
Warren.
(Google: http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/doherty/senate-approves-doherty-bill-designating-rt-31-as-tri-county-purple-heart-memorial-highway/11547 first result)
Ah, that was the third one. I forgot about it running all the way to US 46 near Washington Township.
Buttzville, to be precise. Remember that one.
Quote from: Steve on October 21, 2013, 08:23:11 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 21, 2013, 08:18:06 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 21, 2013, 08:08:32 PM
Warren.
(Google: http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/doherty/senate-approves-doherty-bill-designating-rt-31-as-tri-county-purple-heart-memorial-highway/11547 first result)
Ah, that was the third one. I forgot about it running all the way to US 46 near Washington Township.
Buttzville, to be precise. Remember that one.
Wasn't even in Washington Township as is. That's White Township with Buttzville I believe.
http://www.nj.com/messenger-gazette/index.ssf/2013/10/christie_administration_opens_portion_of_route_206_bypass_in_hillsborough.html
The 1/3 finished middle section of the Hillsborough Bypass is now open.
Quote from: mtantillo on October 28, 2013, 06:42:35 PM
http://www.nj.com/messenger-gazette/index.ssf/2013/10/christie_administration_opens_portion_of_route_206_bypass_in_hillsborough.html
The 1/3 finished middle section of the Hillsborough Bypass is now open.
Saw it. Until the other parts are done traffic will still be bullshit through Hillsborough.
Another "stealth" NJDOT project. There is zip on their website about it. This project seems to be taking forever too, just the the dualization they did on 206 just north of that project 10 years ago.
In other news, NJDOT discovered YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/NJDeptTransportation
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 28, 2013, 08:18:06 PM
Another "stealth" NJDOT project. There is zip on their website about it. This project seems to be taking forever too, just the the dualization they did on 206 just north of that project 10 years ago.
In other news, NJDOT discovered YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/NJDeptTransportation
I believe Somerset County had details on the 206 Bypass. I also believe that there was a list of NJDOT projects and the 206 bypass was advertised on it. Somewhere.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 28, 2013, 08:18:06 PM
Another "stealth" NJDOT project. There is zip on their website about it. This project seems to be taking forever too, just the the dualization they did on 206 just north of that project 10 years ago.
It's there...it's just very old information due to the length of the project. I wish NJDOT would keep their information more current...and promote and update their current projects a lot better than they do.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1019/sec3/routes/rt206.pdf (Page 5)
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1423/sec2/routes/rt206.pdf (Pages 12 & 13)
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/awards10.shtm (Awarded 6/10/10)
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs09182.pdf (Bid Tabulation, which shows the project should have been completed in August, 2012)
I have nothing to ad about the Hillsborough Bypass as it has been said already about its timing.
Being this is NJ, I think this would qualify as that instead of starting a new thread on this.
I was noticing that on the Palisades Interstate Parkway in Bergen County via GSV, I saw the ramp signs for both Exits 3 and 4 that connect with US 9W (or RT 9 W as the signs say) and they all seem to have typical NYSDOT type of signing with mileage numbers along with the directional control points. Exit 3 for example has "G Washington Br. 9" and "Tappan Zee Br. 8" at the end of that ramp. The only thing NJDOT is the US 9W shield on top of the sign with directional headers, but the rest is definetly NY.
Is that a new NJ thing or is it the fact the Parkway is maintained by its own agency that is influenced by New York? I do see on ramp signage different in both states though, as NY uses the PIP shields while NJ uses green text signs. In addition NY uses control cities for the road while NJ does not including mileage signs on the parkway itself in the Empire State and none in the Garden State.
New NJDOT thing. All new ground mounted signs are mixed case to comply with the 2009 MUTCD requirements.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 02, 2013, 01:57:01 PM
New NJDOT thing. All new ground mounted signs are mixed case to comply with the 2009 MUTCD requirements.
He was asking about the distances on the directional sign, not mixed case...
Was strolling through Trenton and saw these nice looking street signs:
http://goo.gl/maps/wIYL6
What font is that on them? It looks like an older FHWA font, perhaps the one used on the old US shields?
^^ Except the red which is no longer MUTCD compliant.
I was noticing that a couple of times on this forum in other discussions about I-295 and I-95, that someone made the suggestion to sign US 1 from I-95/I-295 in Lawrence, NJ for Princeton instead of US 206 to comply with "Princeton" being used as control city along those two interstates. This got me to thinking about other places in New Jersey, especially along I-287, that direct motorists to a nearby city via another road.
Back in 1985, I worked on Campus Drive in Somerset (present day Exit 12 off the I-287) at an office building where I drove one of my female coworkers home who lived in Downtown Somerville. I drove I-287 North to US 22 West. Then exited at North Bridge Street (US 22's only WB exit for Somerville) to pass through the interchange (North Bridge is a pair of right ins and outs at US 22 with a connector road connecting the two discontinuous segments of North Bridge Street together) to Ivanhoe Avenue West to Davenport Street South. Then Davenport to NJ 28 in Downtown Somerville where she had her apartment where NJ 28 deviated from West Main Street. Yet, if you follow the exit guides it has Somerville signed off of I-287 Northbound from Exit 13 for NJ 28 West, with US 22 Westbound signed for Clinton.
It got me thinking about this, as I did use the way I drove her home because it was the fastest and most convenient way to get to her place from that direction of I-287. Therefore just like some of us believe that US 1 in Mercer County is more convenient to reach Princeton than US 206 from I-95/I-295 there despite its signage. I-287 should have US 22 Westbound at Exit 14 signed for Somerville instead of Clinton and replace NJ 28 at Exit 13 with Finderne, a small community of Bridgewater Township, NJ located just west of I-287 from I-287.
One thing about signage along I-287 in New Jersey is its inconsistency as it interchanges with many arteries that connect NYC with far reaches of its metropolitan area, yet some are signed local (particularly the newest section of the freeway north of Boonton), while other are signed regionally. For example NJ 23 in Riverdale is signed inward to NYC area as "Riverdale/ Wayne," but US 22 is signed "New York City." Both are major arterials that lead to the epicenter of the great NYC Metro area, but signed differently from that same interstate freeway. That is in part why Somerville is not mentioned at Exit 14 on the freeway as its part of the regional signing for I-287's signing practice for that area.
I believe that is what happened in the Trenton area, as Princeton was later added to the system as control point for both I-95 and I-295 after control cities were already assigned for exits along those two routes. In both cases I do not think that NJDOT had either Princeton nor Somerville in mind for many motorists as a point of interest so signing the guide signs was just the usual way of using either regional or local points for the connecting roads. Somerville is not directly on US 22 and Princeton is not directly on US 1 either. So nearby interstates crossing would not get them respectively on the exit guides. However, interestingly enough "Somerville" is used on US 22 from local roads connecting with US 22 at other points of US 22 statewide and "Princeton" is indeed used in Trenton on some guides for US 1 NB.
What's interesting is how Princeton is used on this (http://goo.gl/maps/T7p4A) BGS as you approach the Somerville Circle, but there is no mention of Trenton except on distance signs, and a LGS where US 206 turns right as NJ 27 continues left in Princeton. US 206 passes straight through [the ghettos of*] Trenton, and the only time I believe US 206 is signed with Trenton as a control city is off of the Trenton section of I-95. (Exit 7A)
Another thing that always confuses me is 'West Trenton'. From what I can tell by looking at maps, West Trenton is pretty far away from Trenton itself in terms of distances from East Trenton, South Trenton, etc. It appears that West Trenton is a totally different neighborhood then the city itself, and seems like it should be in Ewing Township. This is what confuses me: is West Trenton somehow connected to the actual city, or is it a totally separate entity? Even Google Maps says 'Ewing Township' when you use streetview in West Trenton.
*Not to offend Trenton residents, but the area I drove through on US 206 looked deplorable. There are other areas in the city that are much nicer.
West Trenton is where the commuter rail line ends.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 30, 2013, 10:31:54 AM
What's interesting is how Princeton is used on this (http://goo.gl/maps/T7p4A) BGS as you approach the Somerville Circle, but there is no mention of Trenton except on distance signs, and a LGS where US 206 turns right as NJ 27 continues left in Princeton. US 206 passes straight through [the ghettos of*] Trenton, and the only time I believe US 206 is signed with Trenton as a control city is off of the Trenton section of I-95. (Exit 7A)
Another thing that always confuses me is 'West Trenton'. From what I can tell by looking at maps, West Trenton is pretty far away from Trenton itself in terms of distances from East Trenton, South Trenton, etc. It appears that West Trenton is a totally different neighborhood then the city itself, and seems like it should be in Ewing Township. This is what confuses me: is West Trenton somehow connected to the actual city, or is it a totally separate entity? Even Google Maps says 'Ewing Township' when you use streetview in West Trenton.
*Not to offend Trenton residents, but the area I drove through on US 206 looked deplorable. There are other areas in the city that are much nicer.
West Trenton is a section of Ewing.
And you may have been the first person to compliment anything in Trenton in the past 20 years.
I honestly think west trenton exists because of the reading railroad. It makes sense as a train station name more than a town name
Quote from: SteveG1988 on November 30, 2013, 12:20:53 PM
I honestly think west trenton exists because of the reading railroad. It makes sense as a train station name more than a town name
In 1849 (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/1849/index.htm) and 1872 (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/1872Atlas/MercerCounty1872.jpg) it was called Birmingham. In 1918 (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/1918/index.htm) it was Trenton Junction, definitely a railroad name. Then in 1938 (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/MercerCounty_1938.jpg) it was West Trenton. Note that there was a post office, so the USPS probably got its greedy little Obamunistic fingers in there.
Drove thru the Newark airport zone yesterday and most of the signs in the terminal are in Clearview font and I think the PANJNY did this because the gantries lack lighting on them Lastly the Musconetcong River sign on I-78 West is in clearview font and I think the clearview switch in NJ will occur first in the cities then the rural parts of NJ
Before the Somerville Circle was revamped, "Trenton" did indeed exist as a control city at the point that US 206 SB exited the roundabout.
What is more interesting is that on the US 202/ US 206 exit SB off I-287, there used to be LGSes that read "Somerville/ Princeton" as the overheads used to omit the control points. When NJDOT added the modern freeway signs, they chose Flemington over Princeton instead of carbon copying the old signs, however the ramp guide signs on US 202/ US 206 SB at the I-287 ramps in Bedminster still list Somerville- Princeton. Those signs were placed there so that through traffic would bypass Pluckemin and Bridgewater and use the freeway. The engineers who done the signing on I-287 did not take that into consideration, so following the guides literally will not lead you to where you are supposed to.
If it were up to me, I would put back Princeton and leave out Flemington as I would say more through US 206 traffic exits I-287 than through US 202 traffic does. I believe most US 202 traffic south of the Circle is from US 22 Westbound. It might be wise to have a supplemental sign on I-287 NB at Exit 14 for Flemington or simply sign is as another control point for US 22 WB as NJ has no problem signing two or more control points on guide signs like the rest of us do.
Quote from: NE2 on November 30, 2013, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on November 30, 2013, 12:20:53 PM
I honestly think west trenton exists because of the reading railroad. It makes sense as a train station name more than a town name
In 1849 (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/1849/index.htm) and 1872 (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/1872Atlas/MercerCounty1872.jpg) it was called Birmingham. In 1918 (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/1918/index.htm) it was Trenton Junction, definitely a railroad name. Then in 1938 (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/MercerCounty_1938.jpg) it was West Trenton. Note that there was a post office, so the USPS probably got its greedy little Obamunistic fingers in there.
My town changed names around then too, went from Northampton to Mount Holly...kind of screws up the naming since we got S/E/W ampton still
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on November 30, 2013, 01:20:11 PM
Drove thru the Newark airport zone yesterday and most of the signs in the terminal are in Clearview font and I think the PANJNY did this because the gantries lack lighting on them Lastly the Musconetcong River sign on I-78 West is in clearview font and I think the clearview switch in NJ will occur first in the cities then the rural parts of NJ
For the love of God, learn punctuation. Seriously. If this offends you, grow up and
then learn punctuation.
Also, you're wrong. PANYNJ uses Frutiger, not Clearview. I-78 would not have any Clearview unless it's within DRJBTA jurisdiction - and I haven't been that far west recently enough to know if it does.
I-78 crosses the river well east of anything DRJTBA maintains. NJDOT has switched to mixed case LGSes to comply with the 2009 MUTCD, but they definitely aren't Clearview.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2013, 11:06:59 AM
And you may have been the first person to compliment anything in Trenton in the past 20 years.
I keep hoping that if any of New Jersey's shitty cities can re-gain it's ground, that city is Trenton. Not only is it conveniently close to me, it's a city that is rich with wonderful history, and me being a history nut would love to see the city regain its former glory. I've been through downtown Trenton and South Trenton, and there's some nice [looking] neighborhoods. Unfortunately, that all goes away when you cross anywhere north of the Battle Monument. There was a recent marathon in Trenton, as well as an art exhibit, and articles on NJ.com praised the city for being able to host those types of venues, even in those blighted areas. However, it is still extremely dangerous to hang around Trenton past sundown. I guess when you have corruption run rampant in the city's offices you end up not being able to keep the city appealing to more wealthy families. While this is straying a bit off topic from road discussion (don't worry, I'll make my post still relevant at the end), it seems that Camden is doing better than Newark these days, at least in murders. (
That doesn't sound right at all) Camden has around 47 homicides this year, while Newark has double that at about 95. Trenton has about 33 homicides this year, but I don't know if that's an increase or a decrease from previous years. All in all, New Jersey has about 7-8 cities on the 'Most Dangerous Places to Live' list. Are there really any cities where you don't have to worry about your own safety more-so than other places? The closest one I can think of may be New Brunswick... I have not visited Jersey City, Atlantic City, Hoboken, etc.
Now, on topic, does anyone know when the construction on the CR 518 bridge leading to Hopewell will be re-opened? I'm pretty sure that the bridge has been closed for 8+ months now, and it feels like it shouldn't take this long to repair a bridge. I looked for information on the Mercer County / NJDOT website, but I can't find anything. I drove past the intersection about a week ago, and sure enough, the 'ROAD CLOSED' signs are still there.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 30, 2013, 11:30:45 PM
Now, on topic, does anyone know when the construction on the CR 518 bridge leading to Hopewell will be re-opened? I'm pretty sure that the bridge has been closed for 8+ months now, and it feels like it shouldn't take this long to repair a bridge. I looked for information on the Mercer County / NJDOT website, but I can't find anything. I drove past the intersection about a week ago, and sure enough, the 'ROAD CLOSED' signs are still there.
I did get this from
Hunterdon:
"Inter-County Bridge E-140-M is located on County Route 518 over the Stony Brook, East Amwell Township, Hunterdon County and Hopewell Township, Mercer County. Inter-County Bridge E-140-M is .21 mile East of State Route 31. Inter-County Bridge E-140-M and approach roadway of County Route 518 will be closed starting on or about July 1, 2013 (was previously scheduled for April 1, 2013) . The Reconstruction Inter-County Bridge E-140-M and approach roadway of County Route 518 is scheduled to last approximately four (4) months.
A detour will be posted.
The contractor is Interstate Contracting & Excavating, LLC."
It sounds like it should be close to reopening, based on July plus 4.
Also check out http://www.hopewelltwp.org/notices/bear_tavern_road_20131112.html
Has NJ used the centerline rumble strip which other states (such as Pennsy) love to use? If not, they will. The following is on the NJDOT website to go out to bid in December:
Quote
Rt 70, Center Line Rumble Strip Installation
This is a two lane road with a high incidence of centerline crossover head-on crashes as evidenced by three individual segments having been identified as high frequency crash clusters on our Cross Centerline Head-on Crash list. This roadway needs to be addressed with safety measures to reduce the frequency of these types of severe crashes for which the installation of centerline rumble strips is considered a proven, low-cost countermeasure. Various locations.
Proposed Advertised Month December, 2013
Project Details
Burlington, Ocean Counties/Evesham Twp, Medford Twp, Southampton Twp, Woodland Twp, Pemberton Twp, Manchester Twp, Lakehurst Boro, Toms River Twp, Brick Twp
MP: 9.95- 18.43, 18.64 - 26.30, 26.50-43.43, 43.65-44.28, 44.84- 49.40, 54.02- 54.17
(Head-on crashes) 10.10-11.56, 21.00-23.50, 39.93-40.50
Estimate Range $1 - $1,000,000
I haven't seen it used here before. Not surprised it being deployed on NJ-70 though.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2013, 12:50:16 PM
Has NJ used the centerline rumble strip which other states (such as Pennsy) love to use? If not, they will. The following is on the NJDOT website to go out to bid in December:
Quote
Rt 70, Center Line Rumble Strip Installation
This is a two lane road with a high incidence of centerline crossover head-on crashes as evidenced by three individual segments having been identified as high frequency crash clusters on our Cross Centerline Head-on Crash list. This roadway needs to be addressed with safety measures to reduce the frequency of these types of severe crashes for which the installation of centerline rumble strips is considered a proven, low-cost countermeasure. Various locations.
Proposed Advertised Month December, 2013
Project Details
Burlington, Ocean Counties/Evesham Twp, Medford Twp, Southampton Twp, Woodland Twp, Pemberton Twp, Manchester Twp, Lakehurst Boro, Toms River Twp, Brick Twp
MP: 9.95- 18.43, 18.64 - 26.30, 26.50-43.43, 43.65-44.28, 44.84- 49.40, 54.02- 54.17
(Head-on crashes) 10.10-11.56, 21.00-23.50, 39.93-40.50
Estimate Range $1 - $1,000,000
I think that is the section that would most benefit from it anyway, since it is in the middle of nowhere, and a fairly straight route so you get hypnotized by it particularlly at night
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2013, 04:08:11 PM
I haven't seen it used here before. Not surprised it being deployed on NJ-70 though.
If it's not on NJ 70 yet, it's not anywhere. I do think I've come across it on some county roads, though.
Does anyone know what is up on US 22 in Bridgewater/ Somerville at both the Adamsville Road and North Gaston Avenue Intersections, that both had J Turns for years, prohibiting left turns, but allowing U turns?
I noticed that Adamsville Road at its turn ramp has signs directing you to North Gaston Avenue and turnabout to US 22 EB back to the intersection. North Gaston Avenue has you continue on to the North Bridge Street exit and turnabout through the interchange and return back. Both ramps do allow U turns and white on black signs say that it is allowed ONLY!
I can imagine that it has to do with accidents occurring, but if that is the case I would think that u turns would be prohibited more than the left turn. At least with a left turn a motorist travels across the busy roadway in a straight line allowing him to "gun it" and be out of 55 or greater moving traffic where a u turn requires maneuvering a vehicle to turn and causing it start out again thus slowing down the traffic. Me personally have had more troubles with u turning vehicles than left and cross traffic because you have to many times "slow down" while these vehicles take their time accelerating to speed.
I do not see the logic in this measure, but then again I do not live in NJ anymore either. Does anyone know what NJDOT's reasoning is behind the move?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Somerville,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.577733,-74.583837&spn=0.000674,0.00181&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=6.43622,14.831543&oq=somerville,&t=h&hnear=Somerville,+Somerset,+New+Jersey&z=19
Here is the US 22 EB/Adamsville Road Intersection that is now a RIRO. You can see that U turns are still allowed without even a merging area. That would be more a danger issue, like I stated, than crossing the highway itself.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8367%2F8474377346_852063c5c4_z.jpg&hash=fe77be3c6e4597a0e70571b28952a8a6a4c0687c)
Signage on US 22 WB at the former J turn ramp.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2013, 09:44:58 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8367%2F8474377346_852063c5c4_z.jpg&hash=fe77be3c6e4597a0e70571b28952a8a6a4c0687c)
Lexus lane :bigass:
Easy, they don't want the traffic cutting across. Its dangerous, particularly at night when you might not see a car cutting across the roadway. Traffic speeds are much higher than the posted 55mph, gunning it across 2-3 lanes isn't easy to do with moderate traffic. I have seen it done illegally in Union on 22 to/from the center island, quite a few close calls there.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 03, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Easy, they don't want the traffic cutting across. Its dangerous, particularly at night when you might not see a car cutting across the roadway. Traffic speeds are much higher than the posted 55mph, gunning it across 2-3 lanes isn't easy to do with moderate traffic.
West of Bridgewater on US 22 there are almost always police cars sitting in the median. That's the only area of 22 where people obey the speed limit. But if you ask me, the speed limit should be 60, not 55, especially because US 22 eventually forms a concurrency with I-78 (where the traffic goes well beyond 65 anyway). The road doesn't go into any residential neighborhoods, so I don't see why it can't be 60...
Quote from: Zeffy on December 03, 2013, 04:50:43 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 03, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Easy, they don't want the traffic cutting across. Its dangerous, particularly at night when you might not see a car cutting across the roadway. Traffic speeds are much higher than the posted 55mph, gunning it across 2-3 lanes isn't easy to do with moderate traffic.
West of Bridgewater on US 22 there are almost always police cars sitting in the median. That's the only area of 22 where people obey the speed limit. But if you ask me, the speed limit should be 60, not 55, especially because US 22 eventually forms a concurrency with I-78 (where the traffic goes well beyond 65 anyway). The road doesn't go into any residential neighborhoods, so I don't see why it can't be 60...
Remember you are talking about a state that does not let you pump gas yourself! 48 other states have been letting you do that for well over 30 years and STILL the Garden State will not follow suit. Heck they were one of the last states that let freeways have a higher than 55 mph limits when congress first raised the national limit to 65. In fact it was after Clinton signed the bill allowing states to have complete control over maximum speeds that NJ finally budged on that one. Then to get 55 on two lane roads took forever and even so it is rare to see two lane roads with a limit higher than 50 even in rural South Jersey.
Good luck in getting them to do 60 on an off freeway roadway!
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2013, 05:07:54 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 03, 2013, 04:50:43 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 03, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
Easy, they don't want the traffic cutting across. Its dangerous, particularly at night when you might not see a car cutting across the roadway. Traffic speeds are much higher than the posted 55mph, gunning it across 2-3 lanes isn't easy to do with moderate traffic.
West of Bridgewater on US 22 there are almost always police cars sitting in the median. That's the only area of 22 where people obey the speed limit. But if you ask me, the speed limit should be 60, not 55, especially because US 22 eventually forms a concurrency with I-78 (where the traffic goes well beyond 65 anyway). The road doesn't go into any residential neighborhoods, so I don't see why it can't be 60...
Remember you are talking about a state that does not let you pump gas yourself! 48 other states have been letting you do that for well over 30 years and STILL the Garden State will not follow suit. Heck they were one of the last states that let freeways have a higher than 55 mph limits when congress first raised the national limit to 65. In fact it was after Clinton signed the bill allowing states to have complete control over maximum speeds that NJ finally budged on that one. Then to get 55 on two lane roads took forever and even so it is rare to see two lane roads with a limit higher than 50 even in rural South Jersey.
Good luck in getting them to do 60 on an off freeway roadway!
All I know is that when it was 28 degrees on thanksgiving I did not have to get out of my car and pump my gas...and it was 75 cents cheaper than where I live in NY. They must be doing something right.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2013, 05:07:54 PM
Then to get 55 on two lane roads took forever and even so it is rare to see two lane roads with a limit higher than 50 even in rural South Jersey.
They've always permitted 55 on 2 lane roads. For as long as I remember, the limit was 55 mph on Rt. 72, Rt. 539 and on the county road going from the GSP to Sea Isle City. Several years ago, the speed limit was raised from 50 to 55 on Rt. 70 east of Medford as well.
Having said that, I wish more roads were signed 55 (or greater).
Many people confuse the 50 mph rural speed limit law as the maximum. 50 mph is the statutory limit applied to roads not signed with speed limit signs. It never had anything to do with a maximum permitted speed limit.
Technically, when 55 was the maximum limit state-wide, there was never anything written in the law books stating that. I always wondered why we needed a law permitting 65 mph, because, again, there was no law saying 55 mph was the top speed.
As far as not raising the limit to 65 during the 65/55 NMSL, for a state like NJ it was kinda pointless. The rules at the time limited where 65 mph could be posted. The NJ Turnpike between Interchanges 2 & 4 for example - a very rural area of the state - would have had to remain at 55 mph because of it's distance to Philadelphia. It was frustrating that the governors at the time wouldn't permit the speed limit to be raised, but if they had, very few areas would have been permitted to be posted at 65 mph.
I always enjoy reading the NJ Turnpike meeting minutes - especially the public comment sections.
2 interesting comments at their last meeting: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2013-11-19_Minutes-410-440.pdf
Page 4 of the PDF (Page 3 of the minutes): Barton Lee mentioned that the Turnpike should consider using the clear view (sic) font for its static signs. I looked and didn't see Barton as a member of this forum. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are very few members of the public that are even aware of the clearview font...and I'm sure many of the members of the board (along with the board secretary) are unfamiliar with the font as well!
Page 5 of the PDF (page 4 of the minutes): Tom Fuscaldo believes that all EZ Pass violations should be delivered by hand in person by a human being. Why? He doesn't like technology.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2013, 03:39:22 PM
Page 5 of the PDF (page 4 of the minutes): Tom Fuscaldo believes that all EZ Pass violations should be delivered by hand in person by a human being. Why? He doesn't like technology.
Or he just wants to avoid paying the fines. If they are required to be delivered by hand, the law doesn't consider them "served" until the person in question actually receives the violation and signs for it. Arizona had a similar situation with their speed cameras.
Barton Lee is a roadgeek. That is very apparent in his "demands". Hopefully they issue a formal response like they promised in the notes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2013, 03:39:22 PM
Page 5 of the PDF (page 4 of the minutes): Tom Fuscaldo believes that all EZ Pass violations should be delivered by hand in person by a human being. Why? He doesn't like technology.
Tom "One Eye On Paterson" Fuscaldo (can't make this up):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politickernj.com%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Ffusco.jpg.preview.jpg&hash=b56e75a57d9e6c5c20c78ca4d779d8e03b6dfe06)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2013, 08:42:51 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2013, 05:07:54 PM
Then to get 55 on two lane roads took forever and even so it is rare to see two lane roads with a limit higher than 50 even in rural South Jersey.
They've always permitted 55 on 2 lane roads. For as long as I remember, the limit was 55 mph on Rt. 72, Rt. 539 and on the county road going from the GSP to Sea Isle City. Several years ago, the speed limit was raised from 50 to 55 on Rt. 70 east of Medford as well.
Having said that, I wish more roads were signed 55 (or greater).
Many people confuse the 50 mph rural speed limit law as the maximum. 50 mph is the statutory limit applied to roads not signed with speed limit signs. It never had anything to do with a maximum permitted speed limit.
Technically, when 55 was the maximum limit state-wide, there was never anything written in the law books stating that. I always wondered why we needed a law permitting 65 mph, because, again, there was no law saying 55 mph was the top speed.
As far as not raising the limit to 65 during the 65/55 NMSL, for a state like NJ it was kinda pointless. The rules at the time limited where 65 mph could be posted. The NJ Turnpike between Interchanges 2 & 4 for example - a very rural area of the state - would have had to remain at 55 mph because of it's distance to Philadelphia. It was frustrating that the governors at the time wouldn't permit the speed limit to be raised, but if they had, very few areas would have been permitted to be posted at 65 mph.
You have not been around as long as I have. True NJ's default speed limit on rural roads is 50 and 25 on urban roads unless posted otherwise, but it did have all two lane roads when I was living there as 50! I even argued with NDOT in snail mail letters back in the 90's about it and they responded back saying that NJ only has few two lane roads that are candidates for 55 mph so NJDOT did not push Trenton to change the law. Also the 65 thing was all over the Northeast at the time. I do remember either Tom Keane or Jim Florio stating that it would something like a cold day in you know where before I raise the NJ interstate speed limits greater than 55.
I lived in New Jersey in the 80s so that was time the 65 interstate maximum took effect. In fact when I visited CA in 88 and saw the 65 mph signs on I-15, I though someone was playing a joke, as no where in Jersey, PA, or NY was there ever such a thing at the time.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2013, 03:39:22 PM
I always enjoy reading the NJ Turnpike meeting minutes - especially the public comment sections.
2 interesting comments at their last meeting: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2013-11-19_Minutes-410-440.pdf
Page 4 of the PDF (Page 3 of the minutes): Barton Lee mentioned that the Turnpike should consider using the clear view (sic) font for its static signs. I looked and didn't see Barton as a member of this forum. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are very few members of the public that are even aware of the clearview font...and I'm sure many of the members of the board (along with the board secretary) are unfamiliar with the font as well!
Page 5 of the PDF (page 4 of the minutes): Tom Fuscaldo believes that all EZ Pass violations should be delivered by hand in person by a human being. Why? He doesn't like technology.
Trust me. You get to see some real "characters" when you go to one of the Turnpike Authority's monthly meetings. One dude brought a set of golf clubs into the meeting with him just so he could make a golfing-related metaphor. The NJ State Police kept a close eye on the guy as he delivered his speech with golf club in hand.
Lou Corsaro pointed me to Monmouth County's Road Plan (http://www.co.monmouth.nj.us/Documents/24/MC%20Road%20Plan%20Text%20Oct%2015%202012.pdf). I of course jumped right to "potential county roads." Here's what they are considering:
* CR 13 "35 Overpass" - I guess they want to take Shrewsbury Ave. over 35, instead of the existing jughandle/signal, and tie it to the south. It says to "537 Extension" - I'm thinking this means that Shrewsbury becomes the fourth leg at the northern 35/537 junction, since the southern junction has 71 on it as well. Since 537 isn't listed, I'm assuming it's not an extension to tie 537 in and eliminate the concurrency. 13/35 is one of the busier intersections, so this will be an improvement, and the county funding it takes pressure off the NJDOT's limited funds.
* CR 11 "realignment" - Looks like they're taking the back parking lots of Monmouth Race Track and turning it into an Oceanport Ave. connector, eliminating the jog along Port-Au-Peck. This is a cheap job but I don't see a need for it.
* CR 55 "realignment" - CR 55 is a mostly four-lane eastern Freehold bypass, but necks down to 2 lanes south of NJ 33. That's more than .47 miles. I think this takes Edinburgh Drive and extends it northward as CR 55, around the east side of the Burkes Creek ponds. It's a start, but 55 should be four lanes and straight from 33 back down to 9. I think Edinburgh is part of those plans, leaving a chunk in the middle that remains unaddressed.
* CR 524 "realignment" - The only possibility I see for that is to head straight into Montgomery Drive. A solution in search of a problem.
* CR 526 Spur "Alanland Bypass" - The existing short road is a terrible misnomer, only leading from 526 (east) to 524/539 (northeast). Any sort of through traffic has to go and not go straight through Alanland. The limits of the proposed project, from 539 (southeast) to Mercer County line (anyone's guess), still don't yield an actual bypass for 526, but this is a "SPUR" route, so it's not expected to return to the parent. It seems that this extension will actually yield something useful, taking traffic from 539 (a major road) around toward Trenton. I can't tell whether this is only building the west half of the bypass (with Mercer cooperation), or everything from county line to county line. I've never seen plans for a continuation/completion of 526 Spur. For all I know, this can become the first circular route in the state.
Quote from: Steve on December 17, 2013, 07:14:48 PM
* CR 55 "realignment" - CR 55 is a mostly four-lane eastern Freehold bypass, but necks down to 2 lanes south of NJ 33. That's more than .47 miles. I think this takes Edinburgh Drive and extends it northward as CR 55, around the east side of the Burkes Creek ponds. It's a start, but 55 should be four lanes and straight from 33 back down to 9. I think Edinburgh is part of those plans, leaving a chunk in the middle that remains unaddressed.
Look to the left at municipal roads. Cypress Point is what the Goog calls Edinburgh, and apparently current county maintenance ends north of 33 at Willow Brook.
Quote from: Steve on December 17, 2013, 07:14:48 PM
* CR 526 Spur "Alanland Bypass" - The existing short road is a terrible misnomer, only leading from 526 (east) to 524/539 (northeast). Any sort of through traffic has to go and not go straight through Alanland.
Currently I-195 can be used to return to CR 526. I don't know if it's actually faster except when the goats are out.
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2013, 07:58:14 PM
Quote from: Steve on December 17, 2013, 07:14:48 PM
* CR 55 "realignment" - CR 55 is a mostly four-lane eastern Freehold bypass, but necks down to 2 lanes south of NJ 33. That's more than .47 miles. I think this takes Edinburgh Drive and extends it northward as CR 55, around the east side of the Burkes Creek ponds. It's a start, but 55 should be four lanes and straight from 33 back down to 9. I think Edinburgh is part of those plans, leaving a chunk in the middle that remains unaddressed.
Look to the left at municipal roads. Cypress Point is what the Goog calls Edinburgh, and apparently current county maintenance ends north of 33 at Willow Brook.
Not understanding your first comment. As for the second, I guess the interchange is NJDOT maintenance? So then the question is what happens to the south, but it's still more than .47mi regardless.
Look to the left of 'sample future construction'. There's another table of 'municipal roads'. The two entries for CR 55 fill in the missing distance.
Just one of the more interesting byproducts of my research into county 6XX routes. Some counties post a nice list, and others make you hunt for the information. NJDOT's straight line diagrams for 6XX routes are wildly inaccurate or outdated for most counties.
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2013, 08:28:52 PM
Look to the left of 'sample future construction'. There's another table of 'municipal roads'. The two entries for CR 55 fill in the missing distance.
AHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bloomfield,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.826703,-74.17501&spn=0.012372,0.022745&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,11.645508&oq=bloomfi&t=h&hnear=Bloomfield,+Essex,+New+Jersey&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.828669,-74.17643&panoid=MyiVYfaZmQiILqqZYpyqLQ&cbp=12,270,,0,0
I see that the NJTA is using the bridge designs they have been using on the New Jersey Turnpike for years now on the Garden State Parkway. Interesting to see the NJTA keeping things uniform for both roadways they maintain.
Does NJ 47 now end at the Garden State Parkway in Rio Grande, NJ? https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.007517,-74.864991&spn=0.000802,0.001422&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,11.645508&oq=rio+grande,+n&t=h&hnear=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+Cape+May,+New+Jersey&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.007517,-74.864991&panoid=sPN1cIcGEvOHfWdi8s54tA&cbp=12,56.63,,0,0
This sign has been this way even back in 96 showing that NJ 47 only goes north from Exit 4 on the GSP. I do not even think the SB ramp (Exit 4B) is even signed at all, as the Exit 4A diverge is only marked with a ground sign of NJ 47 North and no overheads like you usually find at cloverleafs or two ramps in a row.
Then again this is normal for the GSP as the Toms River cloverleaf interchange for NJ 37 had ground mounted signs exclusively for decades just as to sign Exit 4A before Exit 4B as on SB roads, its supposed to be B before A and the fact most cloverleafs on the GSP are signed as the whole number plus the second (northernmost) exit as an "A" suffix. For example the AC Expressway as Exits 38-38A or NJ 37 as Exits 82-82A, so you would figure the GSP would sign NJ 47 NB from the SB Lanes as Exit 4A with NJ 47 SB as plain Exit 4 instead of 4B.
To steal from Johnny Carson's old game show, who do you trust? The agency that put up this monstrosity (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.304284,-74.618068&spn=0.033208,0.066047&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,11.645508&oq=rio+grande,+n&t=h&hnear=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+Cape+May,+New+Jersey&layer=c&cbll=39.30411,-74.618093&panoid=tkd_77Qj5gYVMycNNtPjXQ&cbp=12,25.57,,2,0.42&z=15) or the agency that maintains the frickin' road? (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000047__-.pdf)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 30, 2013, 03:47:03 PM
To steal from Johnny Carson's old game show, who do you trust? The agency that put up this monstrosity (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.304284,-74.618068&spn=0.033208,0.066047&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,11.645508&oq=rio+grande,+n&t=h&hnear=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+Cape+May,+New+Jersey&layer=c&cbll=39.30411,-74.618093&panoid=tkd_77Qj5gYVMycNNtPjXQ&cbp=12,25.57,,2,0.42&z=15) or the agency that maintains the frickin' road? (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000047__-.pdf)
I know that part very well of whom to trust, but you never know these days. If a 3 thousand page healthcare legislation can become law, then I could believe the NJTA deciding where NJ 47 ends.
NJDOT maintains NJ-47 to the south end of the bridge into Wildwood. From there to Atlantic Ave., its county maintained as CR-661 (yes it is signed).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 30, 2013, 03:47:03 PM...The agency that put up this monstrosity (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.304284,-74.618068&spn=0.033208,0.066047&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,11.645508&oq=rio+grande,+n&t=h&hnear=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+Cape+May,+New+Jersey&layer=c&cbll=39.30411,-74.618093&panoid=tkd_77Qj5gYVMycNNtPjXQ&cbp=12,25.57,,2,0.42&z=15) or...
Hey, an Interstate 9 Shield! :-D (Yes, I know...I'm very directly recalling this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9775.0)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 30, 2013, 08:24:22 PM
NJDOT maintains NJ-47 to the south end of the bridge into Wildwood. From there to Atlantic Ave., its county maintained as CR-661 (yes it is signed).
Yesssss! I remember my 1987 visit to Wildwood, and got messed up by NJ 47 being signed as CR 661 and not as NJ 47. Luckily the GSP puts there shields up, so I was able to find it.
NJ always had a strange way of signing things, which is what got me into roads in the first place.
I have an interesting question about the Truck ban on the EB NJ 3 to EB NJ 495 in North Bergen. I noticed that both Trucks and JFK Boulevard Traffic are directed via the second ramp to NJ 495 EB instead of the main (left) ramp.
I realize that the JFK traffic exits on the right just after NJ 3 merges into NJ 495 ramp from the left. Its evident that NJDOT is preventing weaving issues there, but with the Trucks I see nothing along the left ramp that would be a problem for truckers.
That always was something I noticed over the years that I often wondered about. I was wondering if someone knows what NJDOT's logic is in this as it seems right if they did let a truck on that particular ramp.
South Jersey officials oppose toll road merger
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/south-jersey-officials-oppose-toll-rode-merger/article_460ba8e4-8188-11e3-a3a4-001a4bcf887a.html
Quote from: BrianP on January 23, 2014, 10:57:10 AM
South Jersey officials oppose toll road merger
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/south-jersey-officials-oppose-toll-rode-merger/article_460ba8e4-8188-11e3-a3a4-001a4bcf887a.html
And the reasons are entirely invalid. "We want to protect our ability to get South Jerseyans into these positions." NJTA is run very tightly and hires from all regions of the state. They are unquestionably the best stewards for a toll road this state has. How many agencies do we need, really? Every piece of the SJTA could theoretically be handed off to another agency.
So, I ought to post this here...
MILE MARKERS
A few years ago, a project in several pieces repaved and re-signed I-295 north of Bellmawr. As part of that, several different styles of mile markers appeared. You had blue with a shield inside, and without, green with, and without. Different shapes, sizes, and layouts, sort of a test section as it were. (I would delete "sort of," but I do not know whether any test was actually done with these.) I hadn't seen anything larger than the traditional NJDOT mile markers (MILE over #, and tiny tenth-miles) before that time in this state.
Nor, for that matter, since - until this year. Suddenly, new MUTCD-compliant mile markers with shields inside have gone up on I-80 between I-287 and I-280, along the outside of the local roadways. They're still under construction, but clearly the outsides of them have been completed, and the work is now along the insides. (NJDOT, if you're reading, PLEASE widen the locals to three lanes between the 280/46 merge and 287.) The western few miles of I-280 don't have shields inside, but they are full-size green mile markers with the number on top, decimal on bottom, and a white line between them. (The white line I do not believe to be MUTCD standard, but I haven't checked in awhile / am lazy.)
Are these appearing anywhere else in the state? If NJDOT is reading this, please get an account and let us know if this is the new normal! (And I have SO MANY THINGS I want to talk to you about. Please sign up!)
Quote from: Alps on February 03, 2014, 06:54:58 PM
If NJDOT is reading this, please get an account and let us know if this is the new normal! (And I have SO MANY THINGS I want to talk to you about. Please sign up!)
Yes,
please. Someone should shoot NJDOT an email and see if they would be interested in joining.
Also, two new intersections in Hillsborough now have what I believe are called protected left-turns (left on green arrow only) - these are the US 206 / CR 514 (Amwell Rd) intersection, and the US 206 / Triangle Rd intersection. I haven't figured out the reasoning for the second one yet.
Those mileposts appeared on 295 around NJ 73 and extended about a mile north, including some of the ramps with 73 & 295. Unless they've been hit and knocked down, they are still there.
Quote from: Alps on February 03, 2014, 06:54:58 PM
So, I ought to post this here...
MILE MARKERS
A few years ago, a project in several pieces repaved and re-signed I-295 north of Bellmawr. As part of that, several different styles of mile markers appeared. You had blue with a shield inside, and without, green with, and without. Different shapes, sizes, and layouts, sort of a test section as it were. (I would delete "sort of," but I do not know whether any test was actually done with these.) I hadn't seen anything larger than the traditional NJDOT mile markers (MILE over #, and tiny tenth-miles) before that time in this state.
Nor, for that matter, since - until this year. Suddenly, new MUTCD-compliant mile markers with shields inside have gone up on I-80 between I-287 and I-280, along the outside of the local roadways. They're still under construction, but clearly the outsides of them have been completed, and the work is now along the insides. (NJDOT, if you're reading, PLEASE widen the locals to three lanes between the 280/46 merge and 287.) The western few miles of I-280 don't have shields inside, but they are full-size green mile markers with the number on top, decimal on bottom, and a white line between them. (The white line I do not believe to be MUTCD standard, but I haven't checked in awhile / am lazy.)
Are these appearing anywhere else in the state? If NJDOT is reading this, please get an account and let us know if this is the new normal! (And I have SO MANY THINGS I want to talk to you about. Please sign up!)
Generally between Mile 2 and Mile 1 on I-95 in Mercer County, there are enhanced mile markers (white on green), with the message "South/(95)/Mile/1/-/3," for example. They are posted every tenth mile on the right side (southbound is all I saw). Every two tenths, one on the opposite side (i.e. far shoulder of northbound) is visible (back to back, probably). I only rode the highway southbound lately, so I am not sure whether this is consistent on the other side as well.
Quote from: Alps on February 03, 2014, 06:54:58 PM
If NJDOT is reading this, please get an account and let us know if this is the new normal!
And let us know if DOT accounts are the new normal :bigass:
US-22 in Hillside at the Liberty Ave. viaduct has one of those new style larger TMMs marking mile 57.5 (same size as the ones on I-295, not quite full MUTCD sized). No shield on it though.
I was noticing that at the Manasquan River Bridge on NJ 35 there is a county line sign there which is very unusual for New Jersey. Usually NJDOT signs county borders as municipal boundaries instead and thought this is interesting to point out.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Brielle,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.102363,-74.052004&spn=0.001793,0.003819&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.494959,15.644531&oq=brie&t=h&hnear=Brielle,+Monmouth,+New+Jersey&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.102843,-74.052349&panoid=NWm92TndQ1Tg5qeAwfAARg&cbp=12,80.39,,0,0.2
Its even profile style erected where its not seen by the driver. It can only be seen by observers looking to the side or pedestrians.
I've seen town line signs which are similar to those in Vermont, but without the arrows.
The Holland and Lincoln Tunnels mark the state line in this matter. Also the NJ Turnpike and PA Turnpike Delaware River Bridge also marks New Jersey and Pennsylvania the same, but like in Vermont without the arrows.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2014, 01:51:32 PM
I was noticing that at the Manasquan River Bridge on NJ 35 there is a county line sign there which is very unusual for New Jersey. Usually NJDOT signs county borders as municipal boundaries instead and thought this is interesting to point out.
They have been doing it for years, but the signs aren't all that common.
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_22/suc.jpg
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_47/ncg.jpg
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 17, 2014, 02:18:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2014, 01:51:32 PM
I was noticing that at the Manasquan River Bridge on NJ 35 there is a county line sign there which is very unusual for New Jersey. Usually NJDOT signs county borders as municipal boundaries instead and thought this is interesting to point out.
They have been doing it for years, but the signs aren't all that common.
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_22/suc.jpg
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_47/ncg.jpg
I remember vaguely those types of signs when I was younger. I do, very vividly remember the one for Union and Somerset that Steve has for US 22 as those were on the Blue Brook bridge near the infamous Blue Star Shopping Center.
The only road in NJ that I've seen sign counties (with normal looking signs, not these) is the GS Parkway. I don't know if the Turnpike authority is maintaining them or not nowadays. The Turnpike itself has no boundary signs of any sort, which, I suppose is appropriate for a tolled roadway with relatively few exits where the county or municipality you're currently in is not as important as the one the next exit leads to (I suppose this technically applies to any freeway).
Thanks to the amount of salt being used this winter, NJDOT says that the next winter snowstorm may force a closure of the Interstates in New Jersey due to dangerously low salt supplies:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/dot_chief_says_low_salt_supplies_could_force_interstate_closures_in_snow_storms.html#incart_river_default
Here's an even better part of that article:
Quote"A lot of the counties and municipalities are out of salt," Department of Transportation Commissioner Jim Simpson said yesterday. "If we have one more storm, New Jersey is going to have to close its interstates."
Simpson said he has been trying to get the federal government to grant a waiver allowing an empty ship already in Maine to bring 40,000 tons of road salt to Port Newark.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security denied his request, he said, and the salt remains in Maine.
A Homeland Security spokesperson could not be reached for comment yesterday.
The waiver was needed because the empty ship, the Anastasia S, is homeported in the Marshall Islands and is subject to a 94-year-old maritime law that prohibits foreign ships from moving cargo from one U.S. port to another.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 17, 2014, 07:06:36 PM
The only road in NJ that I've seen sign counties (with normal looking signs, not these) is the GS Parkway. I don't know if the Turnpike authority is maintaining them or not nowadays. The Turnpike itself has no boundary signs of any sort, which, I suppose is appropriate for a tolled roadway with relatively few exits where the county or municipality you're currently in is not as important as the one the next exit leads to (I suppose this technically applies to any freeway).
The only time it's important is when a traffic ticket is issued. In NJ, you would pay a fine or fight the ticket within the municipality the ticket is issued. So, for example, say you get stopped on the turnpike while you were within Deptford's borders (a moderate-sized town between Exits 2 & 3). If you wish to fight the ticket, you would have to go to Deptford to fight it, even though the NJ Turnpike doesn't have an exit leading to Deptford.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2014, 12:21:00 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 17, 2014, 07:06:36 PM
The only road in NJ that I've seen sign counties (with normal looking signs, not these) is the GS Parkway. I don't know if the Turnpike authority is maintaining them or not nowadays. The Turnpike itself has no boundary signs of any sort, which, I suppose is appropriate for a tolled roadway with relatively few exits where the county or municipality you're currently in is not as important as the one the next exit leads to (I suppose this technically applies to any freeway).
The only time it's important is when a traffic ticket is issued. In NJ, you would pay a fine or fight the ticket within the municipality the ticket is issued. So, for example, say you get stopped on the turnpike while you were within Deptford's borders (a moderate-sized town between Exits 2 & 3). If you wish to fight the ticket, you would have to go to Deptford to fight it, even though the NJ Turnpike doesn't have an exit leading to Deptford.
I imagine that will only be important to know to the police officer issuing the ticket. I can't imagine someone would say to themselves "oh, I'm in Deptford. I better not speed. Don't want to go to court there".
Weather warnings are also given by county.
Am I the only person here who thinks the intersection between US 9W and Linwood Avenue in Fort Lee should be completely eliminated?
:-/
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 06, 2014, 04:15:21 PM
Am I the only person here who thinks the intersection between US 9W and Linwood Avenue in Fort Lee should be completely eliminated?
:-/
I don't know, but I've used it so many dozens of times that I'm inclined to disagree.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 05:05:54 PM
I don't know, but I've used it so many dozens of times that I'm inclined to disagree.
Maybe you don't see that much of a problem, but to me it looks a little too close to the Palisades Interstate Parkway Spur interchange for my tastes.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 06, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 05:05:54 PM
I don't know, but I've used it so many dozens of times that I'm inclined to disagree.
Maybe you don't see that much of a problem, but to me it looks a little too close to the Palisades Interstate Parkway Spur interchange for my tastes.
Wait, what exactly are you talking about? I assumed you meant where Fletcher Ave. meets Linwood -- there's a Palisades Parkway entrance right there going north. It's the start of the spur you mention.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 06, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 05:05:54 PM
I don't know, but I've used it so many dozens of times that I'm inclined to disagree.
Maybe you don't see that much of a problem, but to me it looks a little too close to the Palisades Interstate Parkway Spur interchange for my tastes.
I can see some SB issues with a very short weave/merge distance. I don't know that this is a high-crash location though, and usually when you're looking at an existing facility, that's one of the first things you look at in deciding whether/how to fix it. Having gone that way a few times, it's not a capacity constraint either, as there are other lights closer to I-95 that are more of a problem. Usually best to let sleeping dogs lie and keep it as is. The interchange may disappear at some point also, since the bridges are getting older.
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:19:34 PM
The interchange may disappear at some point also, since the bridges are getting older.
Ugh! Give me
more reasons to be repulsed about driving in the Tri-State area, why don't you? I wouldn't mind a some kind of improvement project, or even a restoration of the US 9W/NJ 67 PIP interchange, but a complete elimination? Yecch!
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 06, 2014, 06:37:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:19:34 PM
The interchange may disappear at some point also, since the bridges are getting older.
Ugh! Give me more reasons to be repulsed about driving in the Tri-State area, why don't you? I wouldn't mind a some kind of improvement project, or even a restoration of the US 9W/NJ 67 PIP interchange, but a complete elimination? Yecch!
There are no plans I know of for anything at that interchange at the moment, but please enlighten me why you would find that a problem?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 06:08:00 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 06, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 05:05:54 PM
I don't know, but I've used it so many dozens of times that I'm inclined to disagree.
Maybe you don't see that much of a problem, but to me it looks a little too close to the Palisades Interstate Parkway Spur interchange for my tastes.
Wait, what exactly are you talking about? I assumed you meant where Fletcher Ave. meets Linwood -- there's a Palisades Parkway entrance right there going north. It's the start of the spur you mention.
I'm looking at it again and now see what you're talking about. When you say "interchange" I automatically think of a ramped, grade-separated situation and thought you meant the PIP entrance that more or less begins there. Linwood/Fletcher (9W) is just an intersection with a traffic light from my point of view.
I have also used this intersection plenty (not as much as the adjacent PIP entrance) but never had a problem with it.
I'm curious, were these signs recently installed by Elizabeth or are they decently old? I ask because there's Clearview on it, something that isn't too common in NJ (other than on street name signs).
http://goo.gl/maps/MK3qF
On a side note, that is a good example of Clearview not used in a way that makes me hate the font.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 08, 2014, 08:12:18 PM
I'm curious, were these signs recently installed by Elizabeth or are they decently old? I ask because there's Clearview on it, something that isn't too common in NJ (other than on street name signs).
http://goo.gl/maps/MK3qF
On a side note, that is a good example of Clearview not used in a way that makes me hate the font.
Of course those are town signs.
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
There are no plans I know of for anything at that interchange at the moment, but please enlighten me why you would find that a problem?
Eliminating an interchange and converting it into an at-grade intersection; You mean you don't see that as a problem?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 06:08:00 PM
I'm looking at it again and now see what you're talking about. When you say "interchange" I automatically think of a ramped, grade-separated situation and thought you meant the PIP entrance that more or less begins there. Linwood/Fletcher (9W) is just an intersection with a traffic light from my point of view.
I have also used this intersection plenty (not as much as the adjacent PIP entrance) but never had a problem with it.
Well, if you don't see a problem I guess it's okay. I was thinking that that all the people coming from US 9W and the Parkway would have to slam on the brakes every time they approach the intersection with Linwood, and people going towards the Parkway from US 9W would have to slam on their brakes at Linwood before reaching the intersection.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 08, 2014, 08:12:18 PM
I'm curious, were these signs recently installed by Elizabeth or are they decently old? I ask because there's Clearview on it, something that isn't too common in NJ (other than on street name signs).
http://goo.gl/maps/MK3qF
On a side note, that is a good example of Clearview not used in a way that makes me hate the font.
You know Elizabeth is taking better care of guide signs than NJDOT. In fact the State is careless as the Bayway Circle was well signed at one time. For example the only mention of NJ 439 is the large JCT sign in the caption that you linked. There used to be one at the intersection attached to the signal pole where the PANYNJ has their Goethals Bridge sign plus an LGS next to it with Staten Island- Goethals Bridge- Roselle with individual arrows plus more signage within the circle itself that now seems to have vanished. At least Elizabeth cares enough to put something even though its not road related. At least its one up on NJDOT.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 09, 2014, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
There are no plans I know of for anything at that interchange at the moment, but please enlighten me why you would find that a problem?
Eliminating an interchange and converting it into an at-grade intersection; You mean you don't see that as a problem?
Not if the traffic volumes don't warrant there being an interchange. You can coordinate with the Linwood signal easily.
Looks like both of the bridges into Trenton from Pennsylvania (Trenton-Morrisville and Lower Trenton) are going to be undergoing repairs this year:
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/02/resurfacing_repair_work_to_begin_on_trenton-morrisville_toll_bridge_lower_trenton_bridge.html
I think it's great to preserve each of these bridges. The Trenton Makes (Lower Trenton Bridge) bridge is a gleaming icon at night for the city of Trenton.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 09, 2014, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
There are no plans I know of for anything at that interchange at the moment, but please enlighten me why you would find that a problem?
Eliminating an interchange and converting it into an at-grade intersection; You mean you don't see that as a problem?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2014, 06:08:00 PM
I'm looking at it again and now see what you're talking about. When you say "interchange" I automatically think of a ramped, grade-separated situation and thought you meant the PIP entrance that more or less begins there. Linwood/Fletcher (9W) is just an intersection with a traffic light from my point of view.
I have also used this intersection plenty (not as much as the adjacent PIP entrance) but never had a problem with it.
Well, if you don't see a problem I guess it's okay.
Thank you. Your graciousness speaks well of you.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 10, 2014, 08:11:51 PM
Looks like both of the bridges into Trenton from Pennsylvania (Trenton-Morrisville and Lower Trenton) are going to be undergoing repairs this year:
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/02/resurfacing_repair_work_to_begin_on_trenton-morrisville_toll_bridge_lower_trenton_bridge.html
I think it's great to preserve each of these bridges. The Trenton Makes (Lower Trenton Bridge) bridge is a gleaming icon at night for the city of Trenton.
Looking at what the work involves, it appears to be stuff on the approaching to the bridges, not the bridges themselves. The majority of work is as follows: "Anticipated construction activities include milling and resurfacing of designated areas of the approach roadway, cleaning and sealing roadway concrete, concrete bridge deck cleaning and sealing, sidewalk and curbing replacements, installation of sidewalk ramps, and restriping of the rights of way". Since the bridges are steel-grated bridges, there's no asphalt and concrete to deal with. And it does appear to match up with deteriorated conditions one will find approaching the bridges.
Both bridges underwent major rehab work over the past 5 years or so. The Calhoun St. Bridge was closed entirely for about 4 months; the Trenton Makes bridge was closed on one side at a time, with both directions of traffic squeezed onto the other side of the bridge.
The big GSP signing contract on the "free" section in Union and Middlesex counties is ramping up. Cranes are all over the place putting in new gantries to replace the NJDOT ones. One new sign is already up at Exit 130 southbound. The only thing that changed is the NJ Turnpike control cities for Exit 129's 1.5 mile advance sign. The southbound control city is now Camden as opposed to NJDOT's "Del Mem Br."
So now the big brown gantries that Baltimore for I-95 and Chicagoland for I-290 have scrapped are now being added to the Union- Middlesex free section? I remember seeing the NB Exit 140 bridge replaced a few years back, so I figure something was wrong with the old one then.
Usually the GSP only replaces signs if in dyer need. This is something new that they're doing a whole sign replacement over several miles without a road widening. Wow!
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2014, 06:32:24 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 09, 2014, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
There are no plans I know of for anything at that interchange at the moment, but please enlighten me why you would find that a problem?
Eliminating an interchange and converting it into an at-grade intersection; You mean you don't see that as a problem?
Not if the traffic volumes don't warrant there being an interchange. You can coordinate with the Linwood signal easily.
The important thing that needs to be emphasized in cases like this is that it isn't a question of leaving it alone versus tearing it down as some people like to think. Whenever there is discussion of removing an overpass, or a freeway, or whatever, it is almost always because the infrastructure in question is nearing the end of its design life and will soon require a heavy overhaul or even a complete rebuild if it is to continue existing. This costs money. Sometimes, downgrading the infrastructure may cost substantially less than preserving it or replacing it in kind. Because of this, it is a completely fair discussion as to whether it is worth spending the money to keep the interchange there, or whether replacing it with an at-grade intersection might be a more cost-effective solution.
Now, yes, it was built in the first place, so you would think that would indicate it was worth it, right? Well, two reasons why maybe not: one, construction is more expensive today than it was 50 years ago due to higher cost of living, tighter design standards, and more political red tape. Two, our priorities are different today than they were 50 years ago ("build roads!" is no longer such a huge thing). So, looking at it from a cost/benefit analysis perspective, you might reasonably come to a different conclusion now than you did then.
I don't think tearing down a bunch of freeways like some people want is a good idea, but that interchange is not particularly vital. We're not talking about knocking down an interstate through a city here, it's one grade separation on a road that already has traffic signals nearby on both sides. And southbound US 9W could remain a free-flowing movement anyway, since it's a right turn.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 12, 2014, 08:35:19 PM
So now the big brown gantries that Baltimore for I-95 and Chicagoland for I-290 have scrapped are now being added to the Union- Middlesex free section? I remember seeing the NB Exit 140 bridge replaced a few years back, so I figure something was wrong with the old one then.
Usually the GSP only replaces signs if in dyer need. This is something new that they're doing a whole sign replacement over several miles without a road widening. Wow!
A lot of those signs are in "dire" need. A lot of the old gantries are aluminum, and you can't replace signs on them because they aren't structurally sound enough for that. (I forget the details of why.) The new gantries are intentionally oxidized to fit the "character" of the Parkway by being brown instead of steel. Personally, I agree that a thin steel overhead is nicer than a big brown box, but it's not my decision.
Quote from: Alps on March 13, 2014, 12:01:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 12, 2014, 08:35:19 PM
So now the big brown gantries that Baltimore for I-95 and Chicagoland for I-290 have scrapped are now being added to the Union- Middlesex free section? I remember seeing the NB Exit 140 bridge replaced a few years back, so I figure something was wrong with the old one then.
Usually the GSP only replaces signs if in dyer need. This is something new that they're doing a whole sign replacement over several miles without a road widening. Wow!
A lot of those signs are in "dire" need. A lot of the old gantries are aluminum, and you can't replace signs on them because they aren't structurally sound enough for that. (I forget the details of why.) The new gantries are intentionally oxidized to fit the "character" of the Parkway by being brown instead of steel. Personally, I agree that a thin steel overhead is nicer than a big brown box, but it's not my decision.
I recall the brown stuff taking over as wood was phased out, because, you know — rust looks like wood, right?
Oh do not get me wrong, I like the big brown signs. In fact I am peeved at MDSHA for nixing them on I-95 in Baltimore as they looked great. The ones we are talking about are over 30 years old and an constructed when the Parkway was widened in 1980. It is a shame that further south at Keyport that the NB local lanes gantry is not replaced as it is a stand alone metal gantry. At least those from 129 to 140 had others to offset it.
It is just that the Parkway was always so conservative with its signs and everything, it just is surprising to hear. I am fascinated by Camden now being used for the NJ Turnpike instead of the previous Delaware Memorial Bridge. I only hope NB they finally add NYC to the NJT panel for Exit 129 as it needs it badly. BTW the NB gantry there was older than the others as that was erected during the tangle construction of the early 80's. In fact it was so old it was the last of the signs that got I-95 shields on them. For years it just had NJ Turnpike on them as back in the 1970's the MUTDC was not as fickle as they are today.
Anyway then this sign is a historic figure now. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8373%2F8500715822_38f12d8915_c.jpg&hash=e955cd1d27f1a41e211fdcf9dbf7d33f1a6ab421)
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2014, 06:32:24 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 09, 2014, 10:45:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 06, 2014, 06:38:59 PM
There are no plans I know of for anything at that interchange at the moment, but please enlighten me why you would find that a problem?
Eliminating an interchange and converting it into an at-grade intersection; You mean you don't see that as a problem?
Not if the traffic volumes don't warrant there being an interchange. You can coordinate with the Linwood signal easily.
Speaking of (a different) Linwood, interchanges, and the GSP, why can't we get a single proper interchange on the GSP in Atlantic County that isn't with the Atlantic City Expressway? All the others have at least some limitations on exits, entrances, or both. Exit 36 comes the closest, but:
1. No access to 40/322 from the southbound exit
2. No direct access to 40/322 from the northbound exit (must make a U-Turn from Fire Road)
3. No direct entrance onto Parkway South from 40/322 West
4. Only 563 (Tilton Road) south (not north) is accessible from the southbound exit
5. No direct access to thee Parkway from Tlton Road north (must make U-turn)
6. No direct access to Fire Road north from the southbound exit (must make a U-Turn from Tilton Road)
In summary, not a single road that is served by this interchange can be accessed in both directions from both directions, and the most important one (30/422) has no direct ramps at all except for a westbound to northbound entrance.
Is there really no need for a single proper interchange in Atlantic County?
NJTA isn't addressing all the missing movements that you're mentioning, but they are working on improvements for Interchanges 36, 37, and 38:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/public-info-center-handout-36-37-38.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/public-info-center-handout-36-37-38.pdf)
Also, Interchanges 41 and 44:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Public-Info-Center-handout-41-44-August-2012.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Public-Info-Center-handout-41-44-August-2012.pdf)
Better than nothin!
Since the Cardiff Power Plaza is almost empty at this point (Forman Mills is on the way out after a disappointing stay, and the Pathmark is long gone), I say raze it, completely rebuild Exit 38 into a four-level stack, and combine exits 37 and 36 into a proper interchange using the land from the Plaza. Something like the ON 400-ON 407 interchange in Vaughan.
This is a good start. Though it doesn't address any of my points, it does help my commute in two ways (the 2-lane onramp at exit 38 and the acceleration lane at exit 36). However, does this mean that those entering onto the Parkway South at interchange 38 will not get access to exit 37 or will there be a separate exit from the new onramp?
Quote from: bzakharin on March 14, 2014, 08:10:42 AM
This is a good start. Though it doesn't address any of my points, it does help my commute in two ways (the 2-lane onramp at exit 38 and the acceleration lane at exit 36). However, does this mean that those entering onto the Parkway South at interchange 38 will not get access to exit 37 or will there be a separate exit from the new onramp?
There will be separate ramps from the ACE onramp and GSP SB for Exit 37, as well as an accompanying overpass, to eliminate weaving.
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on March 14, 2014, 12:02:07 AM
Since the Cardiff Power Plaza is almost empty at this point (Forman Mills is on the way out after a disappointing stay, and the Pathmark is long gone), I say raze it, completely rebuild Exit 38 into a four-level stack, and combine exits 37 and 36 into a proper interchange using the land from the Plaza. Something like the ON 400-ON 407 interchange in Vaughan.
I would like to see more of a stack or, at minimum, flyover ramps between the GSP and the ACX.
However, just because the shopping center is nearly empty doesn't mean it's available for the taking. I would imagine that property is worth a lot of money...more than either highway authority is willing to spend.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 13, 2014, 08:25:09 AM
Oh do not get me wrong, I like the big brown signs. In fact I am peeved at MDSHA for nixing them on I-95 in Baltimore as they looked great. The ones we are talking about are over 30 years old and an constructed when the Parkway was widened in 1980. It is a shame that further south at Keyport that the NB local lanes gantry is not replaced as it is a stand alone metal gantry. At least those from 129 to 140 had others to offset it.
It is just that the Parkway was always so conservative with its signs and everything, it just is surprising to hear. I am fascinated by Camden now being used for the NJ Turnpike instead of the previous Delaware Memorial Bridge. I only hope NB they finally add NYC to the NJT panel for Exit 129 as it needs it badly. BTW the NB gantry there was older than the others as that was erected during the tangle construction of the early 80's. In fact it was so old it was the last of the signs that got I-95 shields on them. For years it just had NJ Turnpike on them as back in the 1970's the MUTDC was not as fickle as they are today.
Anyway then this sign is a historic figure now. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8373%2F8500715822_38f12d8915_c.jpg&hash=e955cd1d27f1a41e211fdcf9dbf7d33f1a6ab421)
IIRC, these sign bridges were installed in the early 90s when they built the ramp from GSP SB to Rt 1 NB. These used square gantries while the older NJDOT ones were triangular (which you can still see at 131A-B and by 135... for now)
That is even a shorter life and surprising for the then NJ Highway Authority as in Cranford when the NEXT RIGHT guide for Exit 138 was replaced on the NB travel lanes back in the mid 80s, it was typical GSP brown rust lock type.
This project was done rather recent and the NJHA or NJTA did not do it then is kind of unexpected.
Does anyone here know what use this sign may serve?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FDraftingZone-Mockup_zpsbd24afb1.png&hash=7f5f2ca0ab8910bf2564178d08214dd1374051af)
This is a mockup of what I saw today on US 1 south in Trenton. It was on a cantilever gantry that held an exit sign BGS (can't remember which exit...). Google Maps street view hasn't turned it up yet, making me think it's relatively new. The sign used this dark-red background that's not normally used (it looks like a darker red than the red used for BRS / STOP signs) and was FHWA spec'd with both the fonts and arrows. I'm not sure what 'DRAFTING ZONE' would refer to, or where the arrow was pointing to.
Also, there is a replacement of CR 623 signs in Somerset County (on CR 533). I don't have pictures, but they are horrible. They are non-cutout (white background, RIDOT style), with Arialveticverstesk '623' and that's it. No 'County', and no 'Somerset' where the county name would be. There's a lot of them too, and they are all this ugly. I'm not sure what prompted the sign replacements, but I wish they didn't do such a crap job.
Mockup of what they look like:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FCR623-RIDOT-Mockup_zpsb50e4e80.png&hash=283cd886cc9d0fac0f35d373d6948b8041a4e3bf)
(Yes, the 623 is a bright ugly yellow, instead of the standard yellow that blends into the borders)
Sorry for the lack of real photos, but I'm not good at taking pictures while driving, especially when I least expect it.
The CR 623 signs, aka the Manville Causeway, are probably related to the impending closure of the Causeway for repairs. Are you sure that the RIDOT-like signs are not detour signs? Pretty much all detour signs on county roads are in that style.
EDIT: I found the location of the "Drafting Site" sign on US 1, just south of the Olden Avenue onramp: https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.231856,-74.751856&spn=0.003186,0.013937&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.231858,-74.751857&panoid=V899cmaqpABuwstSVvbucw&cbp=11,251.02,,2,8.37 Based on a quick search, I believe it has to do with a fire fighting technique where a hose connected to the truck collects water from a stream (in this case, the underground Delaware & Raritan Canal).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 16, 2014, 03:41:23 PM
The CR 623 signs, aka the Manville Causeway, are probably related to the impending closure of the Causeway for repairs. Are you sure that the RIDOT-like signs are not detour signs? Pretty much all detour signs on county roads are in that style.
There are no orange construction signs of any type in that area. There
are covered up signs on that road as well, but I'm not sure for what they are for. They are around Black Mills Rd / CR 623 and on Amwell Road / CR 514 at the intersection with CR 533 BYP / SPUR (which is it?).
Also, :thumbsup: for finding the sign. I knew it was around Olden Avenue, but I was looking for gantries, not luminaries. Oh well. Also, my mockup is wrong because it's site, not zone. Derp.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 16, 2014, 11:59:08 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 16, 2014, 03:41:23 PM
The CR 623 signs, aka the Manville Causeway, are probably related to the impending closure of the Causeway for repairs. Are you sure that the RIDOT-like signs are not detour signs? Pretty much all detour signs on county roads are in that style.
There are no orange construction signs of any type in that area. There are covered up signs on that road as well, but I'm not sure for what they are for. They are around Black Mills Rd / CR 623 and on Amwell Road / CR 514 at the intersection with CR 533 BYP / SPUR (which is it?).
Also, :thumbsup: for finding the sign. I knew it was around Olden Avenue, but I was looking for gantries, not luminaries. Oh well. Also, my mockup is wrong because it's site, not zone. Derp.
Also, looks like FHWA red to me, not darker.
Quote from: Alps on March 17, 2014, 06:52:08 PM
Also, looks like FHWA red to me, not darker.
Idk. Maybe because it was the way the light hit the sign or something, but when I physically drove past it, it looked dark red. I will agree that the GMSV shows a normal FHWA red.
At the risk of possibly steering this toward something worthy of the Fictional Highways forum, has New Jersey actually petitioned for US 9 to be moved onto the Garden State Parkway from Shore Road since the Beesley's Point Bridge is being demolished?
Want to own one of those old Neon signs? I'm guessing that's what #60 & #61 is on this: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/List_of_surplus_sale_items.pdf
More Info:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_sur_REVISED.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2014, 11:58:04 AM
Want to own one of those old Neon signs? I'm guessing that's what #60 & #61 is on this: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/List_of_surplus_sale_items.pdf
More Info:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_sur_REVISED.pdf
Holy shit, I wish I could make it out to Hightstown on my own accord... I wonder how much some of those will go for?
I wonder how you'd get them out of there. Bring your own pickup truck, hope they'll hoist it on for you?
Quote from: Alps on March 26, 2014, 07:02:31 PM
I wonder how you'd get them out of there. Bring your own pickup truck, hope they'll hoist it on for you?
It couldn't be
that heavy... could it? In any case, I bet Mr. Matte would
love one of those signs. :sombrero:
I bet those are much heavier "than they look"... The glass neon tubes alone would be hefty...
Quote from: Alps on March 26, 2014, 07:02:31 PM
I wonder how you'd get them out of there. Bring your own pickup truck, hope they'll hoist it on for you?
Yes, and make sure your pickup truck has a 19-foot bed.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 26, 2014, 07:02:31 PM
I wonder how you'd get them out of there. Bring your own pickup truck, hope they'll hoist it on for you?
Yes, and make sure your pickup truck has a 19-foot bed.
Some disassembly required.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 26, 2014, 07:08:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 26, 2014, 07:02:31 PM
I wonder how you'd get them out of there. Bring your own pickup truck, hope they'll hoist it on for you?
It couldn't be that heavy... could it? In any case, I bet Mr. Matte would love one of those signs. :sombrero:
So little want, so much room in the house.
Wait a minute, strike that, reverse it.
I've been wondering about this since I took the written test in NJ. The manual (still, I checked the latest) says that a speed limit of 65 is limited to "Certain interstate highways (as posted)". Does that mean I shouldn't be going 65 on the Atlantic City Expressway or NJ 18 or any other state freeway where 65 is posted? Or does NJ define "interstate highways" differently from everyone else (note that interstate is not capitalized)? The only definition that's consistent with what is actually posted in the field is "any highway that eventually connects to something that allows you to leave the state" at which point they might as well remove "interstate" from that sentence.
That's a misprint. The term used in the state statutes is "Eligible public highways".
Quote from: bzakharin on April 01, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I've been wondering about this since I took the written test in NJ. The manual (still, I checked the latest) says that a speed limit of 65 is limited to "Certain interstate highways (as posted)". Does that mean I shouldn't be going 65 on the Atlantic City Expressway or NJ 18 or any other state freeway where 65 is posted? Or does NJ define "interstate highways" differently from everyone else (note that interstate is not capitalized)? The only definition that's consistent with what is actually posted in the field is "any highway that eventually connects to something that allows you to leave the state" at which point they might as well remove "interstate" from that sentence.
Regardless of what the manual says, everyone does 75+ on Interstates in 65 zones, 65 in 55 zones, etc. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the right or center lane of an Interstate and someone flies by doing probably 85+ in the left lane.
Oh, the Clearview 7... *shudders*
Quote from: Zeffy on April 01, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
Regardless of what the manual says, everyone does 75+ on Interstates in 65 zones, 65 in 55 zones, etc. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the right or center lane of an Interstate and someone flies by doing probably 85+ in the left lane.
Oh, the Clearview 7... *shudders*
Oh, I know, seeing as I live in NJ and commute using multiple freeways daily. It was a theoretical question. Also, in my experience, 55 MPH zones on freeways are treated no different from 65 MPH zones, everyone doing 80+. Non-freeway 55 MPH zones tend to be 60-65, though I've experienced what you describe on non-freeways too occasionally.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 01, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
Regardless of what the manual says, everyone does 75+ on Interstates in 65 zones, 65 in 55 zones, etc. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the right or center lane of an Interstate and someone flies by doing probably 85+ in the left lane.
Oh, the Clearview 7... *shudders*
Whether it's a freeway posted at 55 or 65 traffic tends to move at 70-80, in my experience. The only time you'll see a lot of driver compliance is if a cop is present. Then one will see a sea of brake lights.
To paraphrase what my high school drivers' ed teacher said, they never fix the mistakes in the Driver's Manual, they only change the picture of the Governor.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 01, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 01, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I've been wondering about this since I took the written test in NJ. The manual (still, I checked the latest) says that a speed limit of 65 is limited to "Certain interstate highways (as posted)". Does that mean I shouldn't be going 65 on the Atlantic City Expressway or NJ 18 or any other state freeway where 65 is posted? Or does NJ define "interstate highways" differently from everyone else (note that interstate is not capitalized)? The only definition that's consistent with what is actually posted in the field is "any highway that eventually connects to something that allows you to leave the state" at which point they might as well remove "interstate" from that sentence.
Regardless of what the manual says, everyone does 75+ on Interstates in 65 zones, 65 in 55 zones, etc. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the right or center lane of an Interstate and someone flies by doing probably 85+ in the left lane.
Oh, the Clearview 7... *shudders*
NJ speed limits:
65 = 80
55 = 75 (freeway or Jersey freeway)
55 = 65 (non-freeway)
50 = 65 (Jersey freeway)
Otherwise, as per local custom. I know of a 40 that drives like a 55, and a 25 that drives like a 40. There used to be a 25 that drove like a 55, but now it's posted at 35 and people tend to drive 40-45.
Quote from: Alps on April 02, 2014, 09:45:36 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 01, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 01, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I've been wondering about this since I took the written test in NJ. The manual (still, I checked the latest) says that a speed limit of 65 is limited to "Certain interstate highways (as posted)". Does that mean I shouldn't be going 65 on the Atlantic City Expressway or NJ 18 or any other state freeway where 65 is posted? Or does NJ define "interstate highways" differently from everyone else (note that interstate is not capitalized)? The only definition that's consistent with what is actually posted in the field is "any highway that eventually connects to something that allows you to leave the state" at which point they might as well remove "interstate" from that sentence.
Regardless of what the manual says, everyone does 75+ on Interstates in 65 zones, 65 in 55 zones, etc. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the right or center lane of an Interstate and someone flies by doing probably 85+ in the left lane.
Oh, the Clearview 7... *shudders*
NJ speed limits:
65 = 80
55 = 75 (freeway or Jersey freeway)
55 = 65 (non-freeway)
50 = 65 (Jersey freeway)
Otherwise, as per local custom. I know of a 40 that drives like a 55, and a 25 that drives like a 40. There used to be a 25 that drove like a 55, but now it's posted at 35 and people tend to drive 40-45.
NJ made a big deal about signing the 65 zones as special enforcement areas, double fines, etc. when 65 arrived there. I never saw any extra enforcement, never saw many people doing under 70, and frankly stopped even noticing the signs after a while.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 02, 2014, 10:24:33 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 02, 2014, 09:45:36 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 01, 2014, 11:14:48 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 01, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I've been wondering about this since I took the written test in NJ. The manual (still, I checked the latest) says that a speed limit of 65 is limited to "Certain interstate highways (as posted)". Does that mean I shouldn't be going 65 on the Atlantic City Expressway or NJ 18 or any other state freeway where 65 is posted? Or does NJ define "interstate highways" differently from everyone else (note that interstate is not capitalized)? The only definition that's consistent with what is actually posted in the field is "any highway that eventually connects to something that allows you to leave the state" at which point they might as well remove "interstate" from that sentence.
Regardless of what the manual says, everyone does 75+ on Interstates in 65 zones, 65 in 55 zones, etc. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the right or center lane of an Interstate and someone flies by doing probably 85+ in the left lane.
Oh, the Clearview 7... *shudders*
NJ speed limits:
65 = 80
55 = 75 (freeway or Jersey freeway)
55 = 65 (non-freeway)
50 = 65 (Jersey freeway)
Otherwise, as per local custom. I know of a 40 that drives like a 55, and a 25 that drives like a 40. There used to be a 25 that drove like a 55, but now it's posted at 35 and people tend to drive 40-45.
NJ made a big deal about signing the 65 zones as special enforcement areas, double fines, etc. when 65 arrived there. I never saw any extra enforcement, never saw many people doing under 70, and frankly stopped even noticing the signs after a while.
NJ is one of the best states to drive in. Go with the flow, don't make stupid maneuvers, and you don't have to worry about getting pulled over.
I remember the day 65 mph was first used on the highways here. Magically, overnight, NJDOT may have worked faster than on any project in history, no matter how small. All traces of 55 mph on the 65 mph roads were gone. Many people were going 65 mph...or maybe just a few mph higher. The first person ticketed was someone from Texas. After many years of struggle (and many years forthcoming of further studies), NJ had a 65 mph limit.
Over the years, the tolerance grew. Motorists started going faster. Tolerances were increased.
Today, enforcement appears incredibly laxed. Not only is 80 the minimum you'll be pulled over on most 65 mph highways in most cases, but during rush hours traffic appears to flow even faster, where permitted. As long as there's non LLD holding things up, 85 - 90 mph is entirely attainable on I-295, for example. It's extremely rare to see someone pulled over - and honestly, they could be stopped for any number of reasons, not just speeding, or even simply broken down on the shoulder.
Where traffic congests, it congests. But in the more free-flowing areas, it'll flow fast. Real fast.
The one time I got pulled over on an NJ freeway, I zoomed past some sort of an incident in the right shoulder (with a police car present) while in the right lane doing 80 (in a 65 zone, I believe). The reason for the stop was... not yielding to an emergency vehicle. The policeman didn't even mention my speed and let me off with a warning. I have no idea what the issue was since there was plenty of space between me and the parked cars and no one was moving there, but i'm careful now to switch lanes in such cases whenever possible. Was it a slow day? Why would he go through the trouble of pulling me over on such a flimsy pretense just to give me a warning?
Quote from: bzakharin on April 03, 2014, 09:45:42 AM
The one time I got pulled over on an NJ freeway, I zoomed past some sort of an incident in the right shoulder (with a police car present) while in the right lane doing 80 (in a 65 zone, I believe). The reason for the stop was... not yielding to an emergency vehicle. The policeman didn't even mention my speed and let me off with a warning. I have no idea what the issue was since there was plenty of space between me and the parked cars and no one was moving there, but i'm careful now to switch lanes in such cases whenever possible. Was it a slow day? Why would he go through the trouble of pulling me over on such a flimsy pretense just to give me a warning?
Like most states, NJ has a Move Over (or slow down) law, which requires drivers to move at least one lane over to provide some buffer room. If you can't move over, at least slow down.
To experience this on the other end of the spectrum, get a flat tire or simply pull over and step out of the car on the shoulder. You won't have the same level of confidence of standing there in the open as traffic zooms by at 80 mph.
Point taken. In my experience, no one does any such thing. To the extent that traffic does slow down, it's in all lanes and because they could be targeted for speeding. Looking at the NJ move over law literature, it seems it was only passed in 2009, which would likely explain lack of awareness (and probably why I got a warning and not a ticket).
I've noticed New Jersey is lax when it comes to highway travel (for the most part), however, the same is nowhere true for traveling through 25 and 30 zones. If there is a cop there, you better slow down, otherwise you'll get a ticket. I saw someone in front of me traveling through CR 604 in Mercer County the other day going probably about 29 MPH in a 25, and I was doing 26, and Princeton PD was lurking and snagged him. Now, I know Princeton police have a rather salty reputation, but I saw a bunch of police cars yesterday out in force. One even pulled someone over behind my house! I can name a lot of speed trap areas where I will obey the speed limit, because police seem to be lurking there more often than not.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 03, 2014, 09:45:42 AM
The one time I got pulled over on an NJ freeway, I zoomed past some sort of an incident in the right shoulder (with a police car present) while in the right lane doing 80 (in a 65 zone, I believe). The reason for the stop was... not yielding to an emergency vehicle. The policeman didn't even mention my speed and let me off with a warning.
I'm guessing the lack of mention of your speed was simply because the cop that stopped you wasn't running radar... and thus knew you were going fast, but not exactly how fast.
New Jersey suffers from a plague of little police departments with sleepy, tiny jurisdictions in which not much happens and there's really not far to go in which to look for something serious happening. It can be a tough place to be a teenager driving a beat-up car late at night.
Quote from: Alps on April 02, 2014, 11:02:26 PM
NJ is one of the best states to drive in. Go with the flow, don't make stupid maneuvers, and you don't have to worry about getting pulled over.
Are you aware of any townships in New Jersey that routinely run speed enforcement in places where the speed limit is obviously posted too low?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2014, 03:49:25 PM
Are you aware of any townships in New Jersey that routinely run speed enforcement in places where the speed limit is obviously posted too low?
By townships are you referring to the actual municipality type or just a general description? Because I know one area of Hillsborough that is posted at 35 MPH where I've seen police cars too frequent to ignore the 35 around that area. Hopewell Borough has a 30 zone just south of the intersection with NJ 31 on CR 518
down a decently steep slope which if you're smart you will ride your brake all the way down. Princeton police are pretty common along 25 zones, so when the signs say 'TRAFFIC LAWS STRICTLY ENFORCED' (usually in nasty Arialveticverstesk), they mean it.
Yeah, NJ towns love running speed traps. Townships - Livingston is one that runs speed enforcement at a particular 25 mph stretch of CR 527/E. Cedar St., after a long downhill on a road now posted at 35, which used to be traveled at 45-50 (despite being originally signed at 25). It's at the bottom of a steep downhill in the other direction as well, so clearly just a place to catch people. Whole road should be 35.
It is the last week you will be able to drive the Pulaski Skyway northbound from Newark to Jersey City as after April 12th, it will be closed for 24 months for major deck rehabilitation work. If you live in NJ you might want to seize this opportunity or wait two years to do so.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/pulaski/
A few sign modification projects in my area of I-295:
A sign modification project resulting in 4 county shields on a single BGS. I chose this pic because you can see the fadedness in the background: Previously, the Routes shown were 631 & 640. While it looks bad in this pic; driving underneath it at highway speeds you can barely see the color difference. (I did a slight crosspost; see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7859.msg291755#msg291755 to see an advanced BGS where you can't make out the old lettering and shields at all)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FA7339063-AB69-4852-AD85-4CF0527CC167.jpg&hash=aaa0f79d80cd14914b26fa3632d30eaff2154e5f) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/A7339063-AB69-4852-AD85-4CF0527CC167.jpg.html)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
And this one just off of 295 had this previous look to it: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.855021,-75.164804,3a,75y,330.27h,89.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sWdMwxz6gkxwapxrYl6d9IA!2e0
Today, it looks like the below. Technically, the GSV link above was a sign error that existed for about 20 years. After the turn, the left lane takes you directly onto 295 South; the right left turn lane takes you onto Rt. 44. So you can see how the original sign above would've led you into the wrong lane.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F127D7DA5-73B9-498C-9882-5320D2ACC7D0.jpg&hash=054bf22de3084536baf9d03d15ecf1ea46ab5b83) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/127D7DA5-73B9-498C-9882-5320D2ACC7D0.jpg.html)
That's the most times I've ever seen 6xx county routes on a BGS... which county is this? Gloucester or Burlington? Or is it further south?
Note: Not too familiar with south Jersey other than Cape May, Millville, Bridgeton, Camden, Atlantic City, etc.
Wait, what the hell? Red Bank is in Monmouth County, how does a sign at I-295 point you towards it on a route heading west?
Quote from: Duke87 on April 09, 2014, 11:20:48 PM
Wait, what the hell? Red Bank is in Monmouth County, how does a sign at I-295 point you towards it on a route heading west?
Wow, I just looked at a map and saw this. Someone who knows the area want to clarify?
Red Bank, Gloucester County, New Jersey: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bank,_Gloucester_County,_New_Jersey)
Red Bank is an unincorporated community within West Deptford Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey. Situated on the Delaware River, the Battle of Red Bank occurred here.
manualwikibot
So the BGS references an unincorporated community in West Deptford...?
We are talking Gloucester County here. Someone looking for Red Bank, North Jersey (which, admittedly, should be few people down here) shouldn't be confused, unless they are simply looking randomly for Red Bank and suddenly come upon their destination 90 minutes before or after they thought they should in a completely separate area of the state.
(See also: Washington Twp, NJ, in which 5 exist. And that's down from 6!)
It's not terribly unusual for a BGS to show an unincorporated community, street name, etc. West Deptford is accessed directly from 5 interchanges on 295: 19, 20, 21, 22 & 23. So to prevent confusion, smaller locations within the town are used. Thorofare, another unincorporated area within W.D. is also used at Exit 20.
For me, who drives in this area on a daily basis, never gave Red Bank a second thought. I was more focused on the before/after signage, putting 295 & 44 over the proper turning lanes.
If it weren't for the New Jersey Turnpike, I wouldn't have even known about Robbinsville, a.k.a. the now-former Washington, NJ. I think it's in Mercer County.
New Jersey is funny when it comes to names of communities. Like you said there are total of 5 Washington's with 2 of them next to each other in Warren County with a third in Morris County less than 10 miles away. It may be confusing, though not alarming though. However, some took action like Madison in Middlesex becoming Old Bridge which was the name of a section of former Madison and also Dover in Ocean becoming Toms River which it was always called by the US Post Office and in everyday use. Both have places elsewhere in the state with the same name and one was never used except in paperwork being Dover in Ocean.
However, you have North Carolina that has another circumstance, though not the exact same, it has counties and cities with the same name, but nowhere even near each other! Rockingham is a city in Richmond County on the SC Border and then Rockingham County is on the northern side of the state near Greensboro. Henderson is another instance where the county is near Asheville in the Blue Ridge Mountain region of Western NC while Henderson the city is located along the I-85 corridor hundreds of miles to the east from the county with its name.
Each state has its own quirks when it comes to naming places. Even PA has two communities named Morrisville on different ends of that state.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 10, 2014, 08:34:49 AM
If it weren't for the New Jersey Turnpike, I wouldn't have even known about Robbinsville, a.k.a. the now-former Washington, NJ. I think it's in Mercer County.
Yes, I believe it's a suburb of Trenton, just like Hamilton and Ewing townships.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2014, 06:23:16 AM
(See also: Washington Twp, NJ, in which 5 exist. And that's down from 6!)
There's also I think 4 Franklin Townships: One's in Somerset County, one is in Hunterdon, another in Gloucester, and the last one I believe is in Warren. And to add to that, I think there used to be one in Essex County that was renamed!
Every few years an enterprising reporter probes the mail mixups between Wood-Ridge and Woodbridge. Compelling stuff.
The existence of a second Cherry Hill in Northern New Jersey (as opposed to the one in South Jersey where I live) caused problems when trying to register for the SAT back in the day. They had me take a 2.5 hour ride to be at a test center up there at 7 AM. And we had to pay a fine for change of location even though it was their fault.
NJ also has two Egg Harbors (City and Township) in the same county (Atlantic) but a fair distance from each other. One has a convenient train station. The other is where I work. To be fair, they are both named after the same geographic feature they are both on, so it's sort of ok.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2014, 09:01:48 AM
However, you have North Carolina that has another circumstance, though not the exact same, it has counties and cities with the same name, but nowhere even near each other! Rockingham is a city in Richmond County on the SC Border and then Rockingham County is on the northern side of the state near Greensboro. Henderson is another instance where the county is near Asheville in the Blue Ridge Mountain region of Western NC while Henderson the city is located along the I-85 corridor hundreds of miles to the east from the county with its name.
NJ has Gloucester Township in Camden County (not Gloucester) and Union City in Hudson County (not to be confused with Union Township in Union County, site of Union Station which confuses people boarding trains for DC at Newark).
Quote
Each state has its own quirks when it comes to naming places. Even PA has two communities named Morrisville on different ends of that state.
PA also has 2 Palmyras bordering each other in Wayne and Pike counties
Quote from: bzakharin on April 10, 2014, 01:32:33 PM
NJ has Gloucester Township in Camden County (not Gloucester)...
Heck, Camden County has both Gloucester Township and Gloucester City. They both border Gloucester County but are many miles apart from each other. Many will think either or both are part of Gloucester County, especially when the (former) G.C. Times newspaper would normally report on news events in those towns. There's a new shopping center in Gloucester Township that many think of as being in Turnersville, which is part of Washington Twp, Gloucester County, which many visit because of the good, higher class restaurants and stores located within the shopping center. OK, maybe Texas Roadhouse and BWW aren't "high class", but they don't have locations elsewhere within GloCo.
Technically, unless you have to do county government business, it really doesn't matter which county people think it's in, since NJ doesn't permit counties to set sales taxes or anything of that nature. Even if you were to receive a traffic ticket, you just need to know the town, not the county.
Another oddity, thanks to the USPS: Two Sewells, Two Towns, One Zip Code. The "original" Sewell (which I grew up in) is in Mantua Twp. When the USPS started using ZIP codes, they added a section of neighboring Washington Twp, mostly farmland at the time, to the Sewell ZIP code (08080), so that became known as Sewell as well. Farmers in that Sewell started selling their land and the population swelled. Other than still using the same post office today, the two neighboring Sewells have absolutely nothing to do with each other; government, schools, or otherwise.
In keeping with so much of New Jersey's logic, North Bergen is in Hudson County, just south of the southern border of Bergen County. It sits on the Bergen Peninsula, almost none of which is in Bergen County.
Of course, Bergen County takes its name from those areas, which it once encompassed before they seceded and became Hudson County. But they don't give you that history lesson on the road signs, so plenty of confusion.
Back to Red Bank in Gloucester: It's actually a historical site, I think Revolutionary War. I've been there - interesting old stuff and a great view of Philly. It's worthy of being signed.
Passed some new BGSes on I-295 south today. Anyone know if there was a contract awarded semi-recently? I didn't get pictures, but this is one of the new gantries I passed (drawn from memory):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI295_NewGantries_Exit64_zpsa6195e01.png&hash=4e5ce27e73486946fd743276d32c26eb3c58429a)
Interesting things to note here:
* The pullthrough control legend is the Delaware Memorial Bridge... however, at the next pullthrough it is blank, and at either Exit 62/61 the pullthrough says Camden. Contractor error?
* E State St has been added as a legend to this BGS. Previous BGSes had Mercerville and Trenton IIRC.
There are also some new ones on I-95 NB Exit 8 for Princeton Pike - I didn't draw these because they have deformed county route shields, resulting in a more square design instead of a pentagon. It's ugly.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 13, 2014, 11:23:24 AM
Passed some new BGSes on I-295 south today. Anyone know if there was a contract awarded semi-recently? I didn't get pictures, but this is one of the new gantries I passed (drawn from memory):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI295_NewGantries_Exit64_zpsa6195e01.png&hash=4e5ce27e73486946fd743276d32c26eb3c58429a)
Interesting things to note here:
* The pullthrough control legend is the Delaware Memorial Bridge... however, at the next pullthrough it is blank, and at either Exit 62/61 the pullthrough says Camden. Contractor error?
* E State St has been added as a legend to this BGS. Previous BGSes had Mercerville and Trenton IIRC.
There are also some new ones on I-95 NB Exit 8 for Princeton Pike - I didn't draw these because they have deformed county route shields, resulting in a more square design instead of a pentagon. It's ugly.
How do you make those signs??
Quote from: J Route Z on April 14, 2014, 10:30:17 PM
How do you make those signs??
PowerPoint 2010. If you're interested in trying to make your own, here's some things to help you out:
You can see how long it took me to get good at this by viewing my sign thread below:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8637.0
Same with the Redesign This! thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9539.0
Lastly, here's a bunch of resources to help you actually make the signs:https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9994.0
Quote from: Zeffy on April 13, 2014, 11:23:24 AM
Passed some new BGSes on I-295 south today. Anyone know if there was a contract awarded semi-recently?
It appears it may be part of this contract: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs13139.pdf It doesn't offer any specifics, but it does give you an idea of everything that goes into a contract bid.
Quote
* The pullthrough control legend is the Delaware Memorial Bridge... however, at the next pullthrough it is blank, and at either Exit 62/61 the pullthrough says Camden. Contractor error?
Most likely not. Probably a difference of opinion at NJDOT of what the Control City/Location should be, or Camden was an old control city that still manages to pop up on some of the signage.
While I was writing my Trenton article, I noticed something odd. US 206 north of the Battle Monument in Trenton continues as two according to both Google Maps and GIS - the "mainline" 206 continues as Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, while the other 206 continues as Brunswick Avenue. Upon further examination, the SOUTH 206 designation is signed at this point in the Brunswick Circle in Lawrence:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.googleapis.com%2Fmaps%2Fapi%2Fstreetview%3Fsize%3D450x450%26amp%3Blocation%3D40.245567%2C-74.743295%26amp%3Bheading%3D235%26amp%3Bfov%3D25%26amp%3Bsensor%3Dfalse&hash=5020495640ecd8c0a0df878fdefd789fe511173d)
It points to Princeton Avenue, which becomes MLK Jr. Boulevard in Trenton. So what gives with this other designation of US 206?
Here's a map to show it in Trenton:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2Fmaps%2FTwo206sInTrenton_zps4ff7a06c.png&hash=828f0d3b79841fdff57338225853e16dc1587751)
The mainline 206 is a two-way road, 1 lane on each side with city street parking near the curbs.
US 206 NB is Brunswick Avenue and US 206 SB is Princeton Avenue despite that both are two way streets. What is more interesting is when US 1 Alternate was commissioned in Trenton both alignments of NB and SB were on Princeton giving a half concurrency to speak of. Princeton Avenue had a duplex going SB, but only US 1 Alternate going NB. Why did NJ put US 206 NB on Brunswick is just as mysterious why NJDOT will not sign the US 206 and CR 583 intersection in Lawrence Township with a shield directing motorists onto SB Princeton Avenue across from CR 583. Technically SB US 206 does not enter the Brunswick Circle like its NB counterpart, but following signs will make you think it does there.
After looking at some old views of the Battle Monument (via HistoricAerials), I noticed that US 1 ALTERNATE (not Business) traveled on the left side of the Battle Monument heading south, and US 206 traveled on the right side heading north, eventually up to Brunswick Avenue. It looks like US 1 Alt was the original routing of today's 206 routing through Trenton.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/GSP-83-to-100-public-hearing-presentation.pdf
I have here a link that shows the summary as well as maps and diagrams of the Garden State Parkway 83-100 shoulder widening and interchange improvements in Brick Township.
Anyone know the current situation with the Route 17 widening proposal between Hackensack and Paramus?
In the timeline on the web site mentions a lack of funding to proceed beyond environmental review, but the most recent timepoint seems to be mid-2013, with milestones still projected into 2014.
http://www.rt17bottleneckproject.org/status.php
http://www.app.com/article/20140430/NJNEWS10/304300012/NJ-Turnpike-puts-off-toll-privatization-decision-until-fall
Nokia Lumia 810
Quote from: Pete from Boston on April 30, 2014, 08:28:29 AM
Anyone know the current situation with the Route 17 widening proposal between Hackensack and Paramus?
In the timeline on the web site mentions a lack of funding to proceed beyond environmental review, but the most recent timepoint seems to be mid-2013, with milestones still projected into 2014.
http://www.rt17bottleneckproject.org/status.php
The website will be updated when there's new information to put there. The project is currently in a static stage, but it's not by any means dead.
I was noticing that the Garden State Parkway engineers do not like to use the term collector-distributor as in all their plans for the type of roadway is referred to as a Service Road.
I thought that an at grade facility was going to be installed between exits 88 and 89 that was running alongside the Parkway itself when they included Service Roads in their plans, but from the diagrams they have its just their way of describing a C/D roadway which in the diagrams makes it out to be more of a local lane setup than anything.
I also noticed that at the Exit 91 reconfiguration, that they are doing more things that does not need to be done. Now I am not sure of the state of the Burnt Store Road Bridge over the Parkway, so I cannot say for sure if its replacement is warranted, but the Parkway underneath is not really needed to extend the c/d roads and even create one on the NB side. One ramp from Burnsville Road & N Lanes Mille Road is enough as the two that are both planned is redundant! Just have the one north of Burnt Store on Lanes Mill, and eliminate the WB Burnt Store cloverleaf ramp altogether and just use the one on Lanes Mille Road South for the entrance to the Parkway South.
They can use the extra money saved on this for a SB Exit 83 which is needed that is not planned. A diamond ramp to CR 571 could be the SB Exit 83 using CR 571 and US 9 access to NJ 166. Also to include a NB GSP ramp to NJ 70 EB as that is lacking for one ramp for both as the interchange should be a full cloverleaf and not a partial one.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2014, 01:32:42 PM
I thought that an at grade facility was going to be installed between exits 88 and 89 that was running alongside the Parkway itself when they included Service Roads in their plans, but from the diagrams they have its just their way of describing a C/D roadway which in the diagrams makes it out to be more of a local lane setup than anything.
I also noticed that at the Exit 91 reconfiguration, that they are doing more things that does not need to be done. Now I am not sure of the state of the Burnt Store Road Bridge over the Parkway, so I cannot say for sure if its replacement is warranted, but the Parkway underneath is not really needed to extend the c/d roads and even create one on the NB side. One ramp from Burnsville Road & N Lanes Mille Road is enough as the two that are both planned is redundant! Just have the one north of Burnt Store on Lanes Mill, and eliminate the WB Burnt Store cloverleaf ramp altogether and just use the one on Lanes Mille Road South for the entrance to the Parkway South.
QuoteAlso to include a NB GSP ramp to NJ 70 EB as that is lacking for one ramp for both as the interchange should be a full cloverleaf and not a partial one.
There's really one main project here that has several additional components to it. The main project is the shoulder widening from Exits 83 - 100. Due to that, several overpasses/underpasses need to be widened or replaced. And as a result, they looked at the entire area to see what else was warranted.
Per the NJ Turnpike website, the Interchange 91 project is an Ocean County led project, and it appears to incorporate an area much further than a traditional interchange reconstruction project.
Also, the interchange with NJ 70 will be rebuilt as a full interchange as part of the shoulder widening project. It'll be a modified cloverleaf: the GSP NB to Rt. 70 movement is the 'modified' part of the interchange. Due to a shopping center, motorists will have two chances to get from Rt. 70 East to GSP North.
The reason for no direct ramp from GSP NB to 70 EB is the short weave to Shorrock Ave. Old aerials show that the land was clearly reserved for such a ramp.
I wonder if they're going to sign NJ 70 EB for Point Pleasant instead of Exit 90 like is being done? With total access to NJ 70, it does not need to be signed for Exit 90 any more.
Also its going to be interesting to see Exits 88, 89, 90, and 91 all going to be signed for Brick and Lakewood when completed. Considering that NJ does like to sign control cities over street names they most likely will not concede to this along with NJ 70 not having a local road name as well to make it at least do what many states would.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2014, 06:34:51 AM
I wonder if they're going to sign NJ 70 EB for Point Pleasant instead of Exit 90 like is being done? With total access to NJ 70, it does not need to be signed for Exit 90 any more.
Also its going to be interesting to see Exits 88, 89, 90, and 91 all going to be signed for Brick and Lakewood when completed. Considering that NJ does like to sign control cities over street names they most likely will not concede to this along with NJ 70 not having a local road name as well to make it at least do what many states would.
I believe you have Brick, Lakewood at Exit 88 and Lakehurst at Exit 89. Depends whether you're heading north or south. 90 and 91 signs are outside the contract limits, so don't know what will happen to those (separate contract is adding shoulders to the Parkway, not sure if it's replacing signs at those interchanges though).
You said the key word: Contractor.
It would be great to update information on signs as the same goes for Florida as well. It depends on the contract, the project manager, and the area being worked on as factors.
It really should be "Brick" on Next 3 Exit signs going NB and Next 2 Exits going SB. Exit 88 should be Lakehurst- Pt. Pleasant for NJ 70. Then Exit 89 should be Lakewood- Mantoloking. Exit 90 should be Lakewood, and for Exit 90 it should be Herbertsville going NB and Lakewood- Herbertsville going SB.
The combination of Exits 88 & 89 make it most interesting to sign, but I am going to take a guess that it will be for both NJ 70 and CR 528 sharing one diverging sign to have both routes with Brick- Lakewood- Lakehurst. Then on the service road going for NJ 70 it will be Brick- Lakehurst and then for Cr 528 it will be Brick- Lakewood. Going SB will have the same three points at diverge using Brick- Lakewood for CR 528 and then for NJ 70 WB will be Lakewood- Lakehurst and then for NJ 70 EB will be Brick.
Exit 91 will most likely include Herbertsville going NB but keep Lakewood going SB.
I despise partial interchanges. Exit 40 on the GSP should be a full interchange, since it provides access to US 30, a major highway. There is access to the GSP northbound from US 30 westbound, and the exit from the GSP southbound to US 30 eastbound. The Atlantic City Expressway also has partial interchanges, including exits 14, 31, and 33.
Don't be surprised if Camden shows up as a control city for NJ-70 somewhere. NJDOT already uses it in the area. The southbound exit sign off of the mainline is already installed, they are just going to tack on a NJ-70 shield when done. Its also very likely that Exit 88 will cease to exist after the project is done.
http://goo.gl/maps/em0eh
Note the pull-through with an actual control city.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 04, 2014, 02:22:17 AM
Don't be surprised if Camden shows up as a control city for NJ-70 somewhere. NJDOT already uses it in the area. The southbound exit sign off of the mainline is already installed, they are just going to tack on a NJ-70 shield when done. Its also very likely that Exit 88 will cease to exist after the project is done.
http://goo.gl/maps/em0eh
Note the pull-through with an actual control city.
Wow the GSP is using control cities! I am impressed! I am guessing that the FHWA is putting pressure on them as before only the NJ 17 southbound on ramp in Paramus and the pull through on the SB GSP at Exit 129 used Shore Points (not exactly a city) and that is about it. Oh yeah and Atlantic City and Woodbridge were used at Exit 105 on NJ 36 WB along with the Express/ Local split. However, still not that much and those were very little of use of controls.
I also see that south of Exit 80 the GSP has an overhead mileage sign for Long Beach Island 23 (not exactly on the GSP itself, but its something) and Atlantic City 50. The GSP has come a long way now.
Just off the Garden State Parkway at exit 98 NB I have to pass under this sign every morning:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FNJ195WBatNJ34_zps92730dd3.jpg&hash=569e00b73bff27bec02aa84d22148fae15f3a2a7)
The middle sign for Exit 35A (34 SB from I-195 WB) should indicate "1/4 mile" but instead it was recently replaced with the sign with the arrow that appears to direct drivers off onto 35B. I believe this was installed when they replaced the older I-195 WB (NJ-138) bridge over the GSP about a year ago to allow for the widening project below.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 14, 2014, 11:47:48 PM
Just off the Garden State Parkway at exit 98 NB I have to pass under this sign every morning:
The middle sign for Exit 35A (34 SB from I-195 WB) should indicate "1/4 mile" but instead it was recently replaced with the sign with the arrow that appears to direct drivers off onto 35B. I believe this was installed when they replaced the older I-195 WB (NJ-138) bridge over the GSP about a year ago to allow for the widening project below.
Yes...I saw this sign about a month ago too. It was so unexpected I didn't have my camera ready, and I probably won't be passing by again for another month or two.
It's also the only sign assembly along 195 that has the pull-thru West 195 to 29 on it...until you're about 2 miles away from 29 itself.
Bad work all around here.
I do not know if the mileage sign for Jackson- Allentown- Trenton is still located between the SB exit ramp to NJ 34 and the SB NJ 34 on ramp as it should be west of the farthest interchange ramp, but another oddity for this interchange's signing practice.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 14, 2014, 11:47:48 PM
Just off the Garden State Parkway at exit 98 NB I have to pass under this sign
The middle sign for Exit 35A (34 SB from I-195 WB) should indicate "1/4 mile" but instead it was recently replaced with the sign with the arrow that appears to direct drivers off onto 35B. I believe this was installed when they replaced the older I-195 WB (NJ-138) bridge over the GSP about a year ago to allow for the widening project below.
Thanks for sharing that. With the TO NJ 29 reference added, does that mean we'll see TO NJ 138 added at the eastbound beginning? SMH
Quote from: Alex on May 15, 2014, 09:50:06 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 14, 2014, 11:47:48 PM
Just off the Garden State Parkway at exit 98 NB I have to pass under this sign
The middle sign for Exit 35A (34 SB from I-195 WB) should indicate "1/4 mile" but instead it was recently replaced with the sign with the arrow that appears to direct drivers off onto 35B. I believe this was installed when they replaced the older I-195 WB (NJ-138) bridge over the GSP about a year ago to allow for the widening project below.
Thanks for sharing that. With the TO NJ 29 reference added, does that mean we'll see TO NJ 138 added at the eastbound beginning? SMH
I would think NJ 29 is much more important than NJ 138, seeing as the latter just extends 195 by a few miles. Also, isn't this sign technically on NJ 138?
To change the subject a bit, does anyone know if the US 22 & Chimney Rock Road interchange is completed? I was also noticing that a bridge for the defunct Chimney Rock Branch of the former CNJ is being built even though no trains use the line anymore. Then you have I-287 it appears that the NB Exit 10A ramp will be merged into the EB diamond portion of the ramp passing through Chimney Rock Road at grade instead of below it like the mainline US 22.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 15, 2014, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: Alex on May 15, 2014, 09:50:06 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 14, 2014, 11:47:48 PM
Just off the Garden State Parkway at exit 98 NB I have to pass under this sign
The middle sign for Exit 35A (34 SB from I-195 WB) should indicate "1/4 mile" but instead it was recently replaced with the sign with the arrow that appears to direct drivers off onto 35B. I believe this was installed when they replaced the older I-195 WB (NJ-138) bridge over the GSP about a year ago to allow for the widening project below.
Thanks for sharing that. With the TO NJ 29 reference added, does that mean we'll see TO NJ 138 added at the eastbound beginning? SMH
I would think NJ 29 is much more important than NJ 138, seeing as the latter just extends 195 by a few miles. Also, isn't this sign technically on NJ 138?
I think that was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
For those going to the shore though, 138 is very important.
I am amazed that going EB on I-195 that Brielle is more important than Pt. Pleasant. I know WB on NJ 138 its because Pt. Pleasant is the control point for NJ 18 SB, so it was later added on in addition to Brielle. Also the WB control city for NJ 138 WB is Pt. Pleasant as well.
What they need to do is install supplemental signs approaching the end of I-195 breaking the Shore Points into regions. Then direct those to the Belmar-Asbury Park area straight through on NJ 138. Then add the Ocean County resorts as well as Atlantic City, and Cape May County Resorts via GSP SB to help motorists out as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 15, 2014, 11:11:37 AM
To change the subject a bit, does anyone know if the US 22 & Chimney Rock Road interchange is completed? I was also noticing that a bridge for the defunct Chimney Rock Branch of the former CNJ is being built even though no trains use the line anymore. Then you have I-287 it appears that the NB Exit 10A ramp will be merged into the EB diamond portion of the ramp passing through Chimney Rock Road at grade instead of below it like the mainline US 22.
Not even close to being done.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2014, 06:24:25 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 14, 2014, 11:47:48 PM
Just off the Garden State Parkway at exit 98 NB I have to pass under this sign every morning:
The middle sign for Exit 35A (34 SB from I-195 WB) should indicate "1/4 mile" but instead it was recently replaced with the sign with the arrow that appears to direct drivers off onto 35B. I believe this was installed when they replaced the older I-195 WB (NJ-138) bridge over the GSP about a year ago to allow for the widening project below.
Yes...I saw this sign about a month ago too. It was so unexpected I didn't have my camera ready, and I probably won't be passing by again for another month or two.
It's also the only sign assembly along 195 that has the pull-thru West 195 to 29 on it...until you're about 2 miles away from 29 itself.
Bad work all around here.
I was just in Long Branch today.
I noticed the Exit 35A error. There is also another "to 29" pullthrough at Exit 21 WB.
If you look closely at the photo (or at Google street view), you can see a smaller ground mounted sign just past the exit sign for 35B that directs traffic straight ahead for 34 / GSP SB. I guess it was cheaper to install a new sign to correct the error on the overhead.
Does anyone know if NJ ever decided to put a WELCOME sign along I-78 entering the Garden State? I always remember one never being there, and GSV shows nothing except a mileage sign just after being on dry land saying Clinton 15-Bedmnister 27- Newark 56.
I know lately NJ has been adding signs that resemble a giant post card at many state entries or afterward like on NJ 495 where the Welcome sign is at the 3/NJ Turnpike split in North Bergen almost 3 miles from the actual state line from NY. I was wondering if they included this location among that particular sign campaign?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 18, 2014, 11:05:51 PM
Does anyone know if NJ ever decided to put a WELCOME sign along I-78 entering the Garden State? I always remember one never being there, and GSV shows nothing except a mileage sign just after being on dry land saying Clinton 15-Bedmnister 27- Newark 56.
I know lately NJ has been adding signs that resemble a giant post card at many state entries or afterward like on NJ 495 where the Welcome sign is at the 3/NJ Turnpike split in North Bergen almost 3 miles from the actual state line from NY. I was wondering if they included this location among that particular sign campaign?
I-78 has a postcard.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 18, 2014, 11:05:51 PM
Does anyone know if NJ ever decided to put a WELCOME sign along I-78 entering the Garden State? I always remember one never being there, and GSV shows nothing except a mileage sign just after being on dry land saying Clinton 15-Bedmnister 27- Newark 56.
I know lately NJ has been adding signs that resemble a giant post card at many state entries or afterward like on NJ 495 where the Welcome sign is at the 3/NJ Turnpike split in North Bergen almost 3 miles from the actual state line from NY. I was wondering if they included this location among that particular sign campaign?
They've put the postcard in a lot of places, even off the interstate path. 9W got one right after you cross the line from NY, at The Palisades Exit 4.
Any more news on how the new signage project on the Parkway's free section is coming? They got one post up at 131A and they put a sign for Exit 130 on the new VMS just before the NS overpass, but all I've seen otherwise are a bunch of concrete forms for the bases of further signs. Is this just going to be one of those slow things since they'd have to close the road down for a while overnights to get the new signs up?
Quote from: storm2k on May 24, 2014, 02:45:48 AM
Any more news on how the new signage project on the Parkway's free section is coming? They got one post up at 131A and they put a sign for Exit 130 on the new VMS just before the NS overpass, but all I've seen otherwise are a bunch of concrete forms for the bases of further signs. Is this just going to be one of those slow things since they'd have to close the road down for a while overnights to get the new signs up?
What project is this? I was on the Parkway 2 days ago and passed this very interchange.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 15, 2014, 11:11:37 AM
To change the subject a bit, does anyone know if the US 22 & Chimney Rock Road interchange is completed?
An update on this. The overpass is mostly done and westbound US-22 is routed underneath it. Eastbound still hasn't been moved. New signs are up too. The I-287 interchange and the Foothill Rd. exit have all new signs. The rail line is still active for the quarry.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBXHwoBGBcs and http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=104007&start=0 .
Reading the railfan boards, some folks show up on 22 for the rare times a train crosses there, usually late at night. They get tipped off listening to the rail's radio channels as they have to notify authorities of crossing a busy highway on a rarely used grade crossing. BTW, listening to that radio feed and watching folks blow the signal, you can see why this crossing should be grade separated.
Quote from: storm2k on May 24, 2014, 02:45:48 AM
Any more news on how the new signage project on the Parkway's free section is coming? They got one post up at 131A and they put a sign for Exit 130 on the new VMS just before the NS overpass, but all I've seen otherwise are a bunch of concrete forms for the bases of further signs. Is this just going to be one of those slow things since they'd have to close the road down for a while overnights to get the new signs up?
Haven't seen any new signs yet. Overheads aren't done with road closures, they're done with 15-minute slowdowns, and then traffic clears before the next slowdown.
I feel the need to ask this here because the Internet is failing me. There's what looks like to be a road construction project going on near the intersection at Mountain View Rd on US 206 in Hillsborough. I've checked Hillsborough's website, Somerset County's website, and NJDOT's website, and I have found nothing on this whatsoever. My first guess was that it was for the bypass, but I thought it wasn't supposed to be in this area.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fg0gn4R2.png&hash=b67a2bff1a598d5c341effd5484f3a32d0e02a93)
It's in that general area. If I go around that area again I'll take photos of what I saw, but it definitely looks like a road is going up.
Based on this PDF link I found of the bypass (see last page), it looks like what you're seeing is construction of the southern tie-in point of the bypass to existing 206.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout061307CF_002.pdf
Quote from: Zeffy on June 02, 2014, 07:17:07 PM
I feel the need to ask this here because the Internet is failing me. There's what looks like to be a road construction project going on near the intersection at Mountain View Rd on US 206 in Hillsborough. I've checked Hillsborough's website, Somerset County's website, and NJDOT's website, and I have found nothing on this whatsoever. My first guess was that it was for the bypass, but I thought it wasn't supposed to be in this area.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fg0gn4R2.png&hash=b67a2bff1a598d5c341effd5484f3a32d0e02a93)
It's in that general area. If I go around that area again I'll take photos of what I saw, but it definitely looks like a road is going up.
Yes, that's the southern end of the bypass. The northern end is lagging well behind.
Quote from: Alps on June 02, 2014, 09:21:34 PM
Yes, that's the southern end of the bypass. The northern end is lagging well behind.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 02, 2014, 09:21:22 PM
Based on this PDF link I found of the bypass (see last page), it looks like what you're seeing is construction of the southern tie-in point of the bypass to existing 206.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout061307CF_002.pdf
Thanks both of you guys. :) I wasn't sure, because I thought that the bypass would end a little further north near Hillsborough Road rather then at Mountain View. Ah, well, good to know the southern end is in full throttle. I wish they would widen 206 to AT LEAST the Hillsborough Road intersection - someone tried to turn left into the diner and ended up holding traffic for a good minute or two because 206 traffic is ridiculous (which is why the bypass is being built, but I'm skeptical it'll actually work) in Hillsborough.
Side bar here, but, also, they are trying to turn Hillsborough's old 206 into a Main Street. I think Hillsborough is a bit deluded - we're a huge town, the biggest municipality in terms of land area in Somerset County, and unless you like walking half an hour or more, you can't get anywhere in this town without a car. That's why I wanted to move to Manville, they have a decent Main Street, or, they are building some nice apartments in Somerville which I would easily live in...
What really irks me is that south of the bypass, 206 is going to remain two lanes (!) for the short distance until the railroad bridge, where it then widens to four lanes at 601. I don't think it even takes a traffic engineer to notice the problem with that.
Whatever happened to the plan to keep the south end of the Hillsborough bypass east of the railroad and tie it into US 206 near Belle Mead-Griggstown Rd?
The bypass itself is going to be 1 lane in each direction south of CR 514, with a median. Nothing irks me more than a divided highway with a single travel lane per direction. The completion of the Route 33 bypass around Freehold drives me nuts every time I get to the new section and it narrows to one lane. I would prefer they just make it an undivided Super 2 at that point.
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2014, 07:53:12 AM
What really irks me is that south of the bypass, 206 is going to remain two lanes (!) for the short distance until the railroad bridge, where it then widens to four lanes at 601. I don't think it even takes a traffic engineer to notice the problem with that.
Am I the only one who foresees this bypass doing nothing in Hillsborough? I've ridden part of the bypass (the open section), and it's... kinda cool? Okay, maybe that's being too generous. It's not a wide enough at all. North of 514, it's 2 lanes each way for a bit, then it once again reverts back into a single lane. Lame.
206 South is a problematic road because most of the time, it's a single lane each way with spots opening up to 2 lanes here and there before ultimately going back to a single lane. It's filled with trucks, so getting past them is all but impossible. Once you get into Princeton, there's speed traps here and there and Princeton PD are generally dicks about speed limits ("TRAFFIC LAWS STRICTLY ENFORCED" they say... I believe it!), so it's not like you can just blow by the 35 zones without being vigilant.
NJ is moving towards center-line rumble strips. In contracts going out to bid in September, these roads will be getting the groove):
Rt 206 - MP: 0.0-129.77;
Rt 88 - MP: 0.85-9.83;
Rt 79 - MP: 0.06-11.69;
Rt 202 - MP: 26.25-79.35;
Rt 27 - MP: 1.28-38.24;
Rt 71 - MP: 1.72-16.29
Rt 40 - MP: 5.66-51.6;
Rt 77 - MP: 1.53-22.52;
Rt 347 - MP: 0-8.58;
Rt 47 - MP: 0.7, 3.36-75.11;
Rt 30 - MP: 6.47-48.84;
Rt 9 - MP: 1.9-103.37
I believe they already started or are about to install centerline rumble strips along Route 70, which is badly needed in the Pine Barrens stretch.
Does 31 between I-95 and the Pennington Circle already have rumble strips? In the GSV imagery, it looks like there's a regular pattern of grooves in the centerline but I can't tell from the imagery if they are there. (example) (https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.298692,-74.783506&spn=0.008003,0.010182&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.298796,-74.78355&panoid=L4DjcukKvXqb5dr7uIMztQ&cbp=12,147.28,,1,19.01) I'd bike out to the area but I tempt my fate enough biking on Route 31 north of Pennington where there's at least shoulders.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 03, 2014, 02:52:51 PM
I believe they already started or are about to install centerline rumble strips along Route 70, which is badly needed in the Pine Barrens stretch.
Yep - that was a seperate contract that went out to bid a few months ago.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 03, 2014, 03:06:38 PM
Does 31 between I-95 and the Pennington Circle already have rumble strips? In the GSV imagery, it looks like there's a regular pattern of grooves in the centerline but I can't tell from the imagery if they are there. (example) (https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.298692,-74.783506&spn=0.008003,0.010182&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.298796,-74.78355&panoid=L4DjcukKvXqb5dr7uIMztQ&cbp=12,147.28,,1,19.01) I'd bike out to the area but I tempt my fate enough biking on Route 31 north of Pennington where there's at least shoulders.
It certainly looks like it there...which surprises me because I hadn't heard or seen anything where center line rumble strips had been tested or implimented in NJ prior to the Rt. 70 contract mentioned above.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2014, 12:31:09 PM
NJ is moving towards center-line rumble strips. In contracts going out to bid in September, these roads will be getting the groove):
Rt 206 - MP: 0.0-129.77;
Rt 88 - MP: 0.85-9.83;
Rt 79 - MP: 0.06-11.69;
Rt 202 - MP: 26.25-79.35;
Rt 27 - MP: 1.28-38.24;
Rt 71 - MP: 1.72-16.29
Rt 40 - MP: 5.66-51.6;
Rt 77 - MP: 1.53-22.52;
Rt 347 - MP: 0-8.58;
Rt 47 - MP: 0.7, 3.36-75.11;
Rt 30 - MP: 6.47-48.84;
Rt 9 - MP: 1.9-103.37
Above is a list of roads that don't need centerline rumble strips. But more importantly, NJ 347? That's a county road. Is the state taking it over? (They should, but that's a different matter.)
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2014, 07:53:12 AM
What really irks me is that south of the bypass, 206 is going to remain two lanes (!) for the short distance until the railroad bridge, where it then widens to four lanes at 601. I don't think it even takes a traffic engineer to notice the problem with that.
iirc, there was a ton of nimby protests about where the end of the bypass would be which forced the southern end to change it's location. that it will squeeze back into a 2 lane affair for a short while is just par for the course. when they upgraded the section from brown ave to the circle 15 years ago, they squeezed it back down to 2 lanes south of there to where the bypass is supposed to start due to the conrail overpass. still gets congested as hell over there, and who knows if they'll ever upgrade that part too.
Quote from: storm2k on June 11, 2014, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 03, 2014, 07:53:12 AM
What really irks me is that south of the bypass, 206 is going to remain two lanes (!) for the short distance until the railroad bridge, where it then widens to four lanes at 601. I don't think it even takes a traffic engineer to notice the problem with that.
iirc, there was a ton of nimby protests about where the end of the bypass would be which forced the southern end to change it's location. that it will squeeze back into a 2 lane affair for a short while is just par for the course. when they upgraded the section from brown ave to the circle 15 years ago, they squeezed it back down to 2 lanes south of there to where the bypass is supposed to start due to the conrail overpass. still gets congested as hell over there, and who knows if they'll ever upgrade that part too.
Until that bridge needs to be replaced, I don't see anything happening. As substandard as it is, railroads are difficult and costly to deal with, especially when it comes to something that affects their track. (You can be in their right of way without touching their track and they're still not happy.)
World's largest 'jetport' was planned for Pine Barrens (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/new-jersey/2014/06/13/worlds-largest-jetport-was-planned-for-pine-barrens/10412029/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
Could the NJ72 and NJ68 freeways (and perhaps NJ 38 freeway) have been proposed due in part to the planning at the time of this 'jetport'? And the freeways died due to this project being scrapped.
And sort of like how there is BWI airport this could have been NYPHI airport. If this was built perhaps it would have stunted the growth of Newark airport.
I recall that a similar proposal was floated and rejected for the Great Swamp in Morris County. I don't remember which came first. The Port Authority was hungry even in those days.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 13, 2014, 10:51:59 AM
I recall that a similar proposal was floated and rejected for the Great Swamp in Morris County. I don't remember which came first. The Port Authority was hungry even in those days.
According to the article that came first:
QuoteAt the time, an additional airport for New York was considered an eventual necessity and the Port Authority already had run into public opposition in its proposal to build it in what is today the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Morris County, according to the book, "Contested Lands: Conflict and Compromise in New Jersey's Pine Barrens," by author Robert J. Mason.
I have a question about US 206 in Sussex County, NJ. I am not familiar with the traffic count on the part in Newton, but I was wondering being NJDOT widened US 206 in Byram Township from two to four lanes, if the traffic north of there into Newton itself is heavy as well.
I say this because I have always proposed for NJ to build a bypass around Newton for it and NJ 94 to take the two routes off the streets of Newton and to make the alignments more straight without the turns around the square in Newton. Would such a proposal be feasible?
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2014, 12:03:49 PM
I have a question about US 206 in Sussex County, NJ. I am not familiar with the traffic count on the part in Newton, but I was wondering being NJDOT widened US 206 in Byram Township from two to four lanes, if the traffic north of there into Newton itself is heavy as well.
I say this because I have always proposed for NJ to build a bypass around Newton for it and NJ 94 to take the two routes off the streets of Newton and to make the alignments more straight without the turns around the square in Newton. Would such a proposal be feasible?
I just drove from Newton down to I-80. The whole thing absolutely needs to be improved. If you build a bypass of the current road, two lanes may be enough, as you'll split through traffic away from the locals. But anything along the current roads needs 4 lanes badly.
Then a two lane bypass for Newton would be sufficient then. Nonetheless, a bypass though.
I found NJ-24 south over here on a county road.
(https://omgpics.net/fx38e)
The bridge structure it's on is NJDOT, where NJ-57 and NJ-182 meet. I've reported to both NJDOT and the county but nothing's been done about the SOUTH and/or the 24 shield.
Quote from: _Simon on June 26, 2014, 08:11:28 PM
The bridge structure it's on is NJDOT, where NJ-57 and NJ-182 meet. I've reported to both NJDOT and the county but nothing's been done about the SOUTH and/or the 24 shield.
Dammit, just leave it.
Its been there since at least 2001. Might even be a NJDOT install.
No, it's new. There was one here, but it wasn't this one, and it didn't say South above 24. I drive past this every day.
NJDOT recently upgraded their traffic camera website. Compared to before, a LOT more cameras are now available for viewing, and they stream real time, instead of updating every 2 seconds or 30 seconds as they did previously).
http://www.511nj.org/cameras.aspx?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 27, 2014, 12:43:49 PM
NJDOT recently upgraded their traffic camera website. Compared to before, a LOT more cameras are now available for viewing, and they stream real time, instead of updating every 2 seconds or 30 seconds as they did previously).
http://www.511nj.org/cameras.aspx?
Glancing around South Jersey - they're not perfect though. A few aren't working, and at least one is misplaced. The US 30 @ Collingswood Circle Camera's icon is at the Airport circle. It's also no longer a circle.
These new ones seem much more smooth. These are pretty cool. Does the actual map though fail to render upon zooming in? I'm having that problem right now, but the cameras themselves are working. These are much better than the picture-by-picture method I've seen before - the live feed is much better looking!
Bridge over PATCO in Lindenwold closed, needs to be replaced (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/06/26/white-horse-road-bridge-close-repairs/11402387/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
At least they are catching bridge problems before a failure. But like the I-495 bridge problem this one was not found by a routine inspection. On the bright side they can build a replacement bridge that's four lanes wide since White Horse Road is four lanes on either side of the bridge. I remember when this bridge was striped to be only two lanes.
Quote from: Alps on June 26, 2014, 10:21:02 PM
Quote from: _Simon on June 26, 2014, 08:11:28 PM
The bridge structure it's on is NJDOT, where NJ-57 and NJ-182 meet. I've reported to both NJDOT and the county but nothing's been done about the SOUTH and/or the 24 shield.
Dammit, just leave it.
Agreed!! I do love finding the occasional 24 shield along old parts of the route. I know there used to be a few along 510 east of Chester. Haven't driven that way in several years so I don't know if they're still there, but I know the road is still (at least informally) referred to as Rt 24.
I asked them to add an "OLD" banner and change the "SOUTH" to "EAST". I didn't ask them to take it down.
Should New Jersey look into and perhaps build an interchange at North Bridge Street along I-287 in Bridgewater, NJ near Somerville? My thinking is yes being Somerville is a major point in North Central Jersey and not to mention the County Seat of Somerset. It deserves to have an exit ramp directly serving its Downtown area as currently you must use either US 202 & 206 from Exit 17 going SB or using Exit 12 to NJ 28 West going NB which are both indirect ways to the borough's main center from the interstate.
Even another partial interchange at Foothill Road nearby just west of Exit 13 for US 22 would help SB I-287 gain access to the Findern Avenue corridor as well as provide the missing movements from SB I-287 to WB US 22 that are currently missing there as well as allowing EB US 22 access to NB I-287 along with Manville having better access to I-287 in the whole entire process.
What does anyone think about these proposals?
the SB I-287 to WB US-22 movement is served by US-202-206. Somerville can be accessed via NJ-28.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2014, 08:31:15 PM
the SB I-287 to WB US-22 movement is served by US-202-206. Somerville can be accessed via NJ-28.
Yes it does, but to get to Downtown from SB requires you to use 202 & 206 and then EB on 28 going around (and through) the notorious Somerville Circle. From NB it was always easier for me when taking Rose home from work (back when I worked at Campus Drive in Somerset) to exit at US 22 WB and take to N. Bridge Street and then follow the street to the south of US 22 to Davenport Street to take her home. She lived where NJ 28 veers off of Main Street and even that way was too many turns. Yes it would still be the same being the complexity of the US 22/ N. Bridge Street interchange would still be navigated if 287 had a an exit there, but SB for sure it would be easier.
if you buy all the houses,
TAKE IT TO FICTIONAL HIGHWAYS.
thanks
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
Should New Jersey look into and perhaps build an interchange at North Bridge Street along I-287 in Bridgewater, NJ near Somerville? My thinking is yes being Somerville is a major point in North Central Jersey and not to mention the County Seat of Somerset. It deserves to have an exit ramp directly serving its Downtown area as currently you must use either US 202 & 206 from Exit 17 going SB or using Exit 12 to NJ 28 West going NB which are both indirect ways to the borough's main center from the interstate.
Finally, someone else gives Somerville some recognition. I feel like since it's such a small town (I think it's 10k population, maybe less?) it's not recognized; as a resident of Somerset County, I feel like that's bullshit! It's a great town, and I love the downtown area. Coming from Bridgewater or points north of Somerville, my option is to take
every back road possible if need be to avoid using the damned Somerville Circle. I'll use it when it's not full of traffic, but most of the times I'd just avoid it. I do agree that NJ 28 serves Somerville pretty well though, considering it's Main Street within the borough for a short time.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2014, 07:31:07 PM
Should New Jersey look into and perhaps build an interchange at North Bridge Street along I-287 in Bridgewater, NJ near Somerville? My thinking is yes being Somerville is a major point in North Central Jersey and not to mention the County Seat of Somerset. It deserves to have an exit ramp directly serving its Downtown area as currently you must use either US 202 & 206 from Exit 17 going SB or using Exit 12 to NJ 28 West going NB which are both indirect ways to the borough's main center from the interstate.
Even another partial interchange at Foothill Road nearby just west of Exit 13 for US 22 would help SB I-287 gain access to the Findern Avenue corridor as well as provide the missing movements from SB I-287 to WB US 22 that are currently missing there as well as allowing EB US 22 access to NB I-287 along with Manville having better access to I-287 in the whole entire process.
What does anyone think about these proposals?
The Finderne Ave corridor (and trips to Manville and points south) are perfectly handled by Exit 13 as is. First off, there is absolutely nowhere to fit in an interchange with Foothill Rd and it would just get tangled up as is with all the traffic trying to move to get off at Exit 14. I don't see how a direct exit to N Bridge St would be all that useful. It would put you on the Bridgewater side of the road, and you'd still have to navigate through over 22 to get to the downtown area of Somerville. Taking Exit 17 going southbound and getting off at Commons Way or taking Exit 14B northbound and taking 22 West to either N Bridge serve the amount of traffic going to there just fine. Anyway, if you take a look at a map of the area (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.583429,-74.6088465,721m/data=!3m1!1e3) I don't see there being enough real estate to put in ramps without them either being super tightly woven in or left-handed, neither of which is desirable. Somerville is a great town (I grew up right next door in the Dirty 'Derne and went to both grade and high school there) but there's no real need to add more road connections. If anything, looking into ways to take the circle apart would be far more useful than extemporaneous ramps from 287 that don't put you much closer than you already are.
Agreed the Circle needs to go! I have had ideas of my own to build flyovers to take out the US 206 traffic for it, but for NJ 28 cut it through the center like US 1 & 9 through Bayway or Eisenhower Parkway through Livingston and use signals for that movement.
That and building an overpass for N. Gaston Avenue on US 22 would be a novice idea as recently NJDOT prevented you from making full left turns there. Now WB traffic must use the North Bridge Street tangle to make a u turn to return to it and going EB you must proceed to the Adamsville Road turnaround and come back WB to NB Gaston.
At least Chimney Rock Road they are addressing, but Somerset County is flipping the bill for that one and not NJ. Being you have the industrial park located there, plus the TD Bank Ballfields, and the new shopping center where Cyanimid used to be, the county feels its a worthwhile investment. That will be all nice when completed.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 13, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
Agreed the Circle needs to go! I have had ideas of my own to build flyovers to take out the US 206 traffic for it, but for NJ 28 cut it through the center like US 1 & 9 through Bayway or Eisenhower Parkway through Livingston and use signals for that movement.
That and building an overpass for N. Gaston Avenue on US 22 would be a novice idea as recently NJDOT prevented you from making full left turns there. Now WB traffic must use the North Bridge Street tangle to make a u turn to return to it and going EB you must proceed to the Adamsville Road turnaround and come back WB to NB Gaston.
At least Chimney Rock Road they are addressing, but Somerset County is flipping the bill for that one and not NJ. Being you have the industrial park located there, plus the TD Bank Ballfields, and the new shopping center where Cyanimid used to be, the county feels its a worthwhile investment. That will be all nice when completed.
I think you can do it without more flyovers. I don't think there's a lot of room for more flyovers there without some serious landtakings. I agree that you run Rt 28 through the middle. I think you could route the Rt 206 ramps in such a way that a few traffic signals would do the job.
Why should NJ 28 cut through there and not US 206? 28 there is a local road with US 22 serving as the longer distance parallel. 206 is part of a long distance corridor that connects I-95/295/future 195 to I-287, in other words Philadelphia and southern NJ to northern NJ and upstate NY (as much as it shouldn't be. There really needs to be a freeway there, but that's another discussion).
Geometry, most likely. Route 28 is the easier roadway to cut through. U.S. 206 on the north side is a pair of one-way ramps with the U.S. 202 overpass in between. The geometry of the cut-through roadway would seem to be difficult.
Quote from: akotchi on July 14, 2014, 12:20:52 PM
Geometry, most likely. Route 28 is the easier roadway to cut through. U.S. 206 on the north side is a pair of one-way ramps with the U.S. 202 overpass in between. The geometry of the cut-through roadway would seem to be difficult.
Agreed, US 206 would be most difficult to make the straight through route with US 202 already being there. Yes, the flyovers would take away homes and the strip malls. I did not say it would be easy to accomplish, I am only just saying that this would be the only alternative to solve the circle issue unless you build a new US 206 somewhere else to bypass Somerville/ Bridgewater.
That or add signals to NJ 28 cut through, and time the lights longer for US 206 traffic would also work.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 14, 2014, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: akotchi on July 14, 2014, 12:20:52 PM
Geometry, most likely. Route 28 is the easier roadway to cut through. U.S. 206 on the north side is a pair of one-way ramps with the U.S. 202 overpass in between. The geometry of the cut-through roadway would seem to be difficult.
Agreed, US 206 would be most difficult to make the straight through route with US 202 already being there. Yes, the flyovers would take away homes and the strip malls. I did not say it would be easy to accomplish, I am only just saying that this would be the only alternative to solve the circle issue unless you build a new US 206 somewhere else to bypass Somerville/ Bridgewater.
That or add signals to NJ 28 cut through, and time the lights longer for US 206 traffic would also work.
The amount of land that would be required would be a total nonstarter. AFIAC, it's a total nonstarter. I'm not saying the geometry is perfect for making something happen, but there has to be a way to make it work.
There's no way the owners of the strip mall north of the circle would allow any of their land to be used. I wish this could be a signalized intersection, but I truly honestly don't know how you could make that work.
US 206 is really suffering from the non-construction of I-95 in this area, and far too much obstruction to connecting whatever improvements there are. 206 was cut through the street grid back when that was feasible, but development has filled in any possible location for improvements.
Quote from: BrianP on June 27, 2014, 02:00:52 PM
Bridge over PATCO in Lindenwold closed, needs to be replaced (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/06/26/white-horse-road-bridge-close-repairs/11402387/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
At least they are catching bridge problems before a failure. But like the I-495 bridge problem this one was not found by a routine inspection. On the bright side they can build a replacement bridge that's four lanes wide since White Horse Road is four lanes on either side of the bridge. I remember when this bridge was striped to be only two lanes.
The PATCO bridge carrying White Horse Road connecting Voorhees and Lindenwold is in dire need of replacement. We used to cross it all the time, whether going to the train station or coming from the White Horse Pike. I happen to take a look at the underside of the bridge and I noticed cracks and rust everywhere. The closure of this major road will cause trouble to the hundreds of people that use it each day. I wonder what detour is set in place. Also, White Horse Road needs a repaving too. The bridge near Woodcrest Station also was being repaired. As for the Route 495 bridge, this is a future viaduct project and I cannot wait until it is replaced. There is a huge metal grate sticking out of the roadway (eastbound) and causes some serious damage to your tires. I believe it's the bridge over a ramp from Route 3. I have reported this to the DOT but nothing has been done yet.
I am looking here http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/rt27.shtm and it is not showing the speed limits for NJ 27 inside the City of Newark. Has NJ 27 been truncated to the Elizabeth- Newark City Line?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2014, 09:25:51 PM
I am looking here http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/rt27.shtm and it is not showing the speed limits for NJ 27 inside the City of Newark. Has NJ 27 been truncated to the Elizabeth- Newark City Line?
no
I did not think so. However, it is odd that in the document that NJDOT did not mention either that the section north of Elizabeth is not local jurisdiction. Take a look at NJ 33 for example, as its speed limit page clearly states that NJ 33 from milepost zero to just over one mile is under the City of Trenton for jurisdiction or that NJ 28 inside Plainfield is also the City of Plainfield.
Either way NJDOT forgot to publish either the Speed Limits in Newark for NJ 27 or state that State jurisdiction ends at the Newark City Limit and continues as municipal.
I saw what looked like a construction site for the US 206 interchange on I-95 north of Trenton, right after Exit 8. So far, my searches on what the hell it could be is turning up nothing. Anyone know of anything happening in this area? It was off to the right of the ramp for US 206 North towards Somerville.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 20, 2014, 05:49:10 PM
I saw what looked like a construction site for the US 206 interchange on I-95 north of Trenton, right after Exit 8. So far, my searches on what the hell it could be is turning up nothing. Anyone know of anything happening in this area? It was off to the right of the ramp for US 206 North towards Somerville.
Small townhouse development off of CR 546. My company has an involvement in that site though my only involvement was drawing the drainage area map.
Switching over to the Route 27 question, it should be noted that the section of the route through Newark has no NJDOT-style signs (like "NO STOPPING OR STANDING" with the short arrows (http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/UjwAAOSw-dBTst9f/$_57.JPG)) and the traffic light blades are just the Newark-spec with a circle 27 on black.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2014, 02:28:15 PM
I did not think so. However, it is odd that in the document that NJDOT did not mention either that the section north of Elizabeth is not local jurisdiction. Take a look at NJ 33 for example, as its speed limit page clearly states that NJ 33 from milepost zero to just over one mile is under the City of Trenton for jurisdiction or that NJ 28 inside Plainfield is also the City of Plainfield.
Either way NJDOT forgot to publish either the Speed Limits in Newark for NJ 27 or state that State jurisdiction ends at the Newark City Limit and continues as municipal.
Essex County begins at MP 35.8. It appears that Essex County's portion of 27 was excluded from the list available online. My guess is just an innocent error.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 20, 2014, 09:49:39 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 20, 2014, 05:49:10 PM
I saw what looked like a construction site for the US 206 interchange on I-95 north of Trenton, right after Exit 8. So far, my searches on what the hell it could be is turning up nothing. Anyone know of anything happening in this area? It was off to the right of the ramp for US 206 North towards Somerville.
Small townhouse development off of CR 546. My company has an involvement in that site though my only involvement was drawing the drainage area map.
Switching over to the Route 27 question, it should be noted that the section of the route through Newark has no NJDOT-style signs (like "NO STOPPING OR STANDING" with the short arrows (http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/UjwAAOSw-dBTst9f/$_57.JPG)) and the traffic light blades are just the Newark-spec with a circle 27 on black.
Newark maintains its own signals, and this just confirms that it maintains 27 inside its boundaries as well.
Bridge over PATCO in Lindenwold set to reopen (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/07/23/bridge-patco-lindenwold-set-reopen/13044805/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
QuoteThe White Horse Road Bridge over the PATCO tracks in Lindenwold will reopen to limited traffic in six to eight weeks, according to Camden County officials.
The 50-year-old bridge has been closed since June 25 due to structural problems. Construction crews have been working to stabilize the bridge since its closure.
Traffic on the bridge will be limited to cars, passenger trucks and emergency vehicles. Heavy trucks will still have to use the detour.
Lanes on the bridge will be constricted due to the ongoing construction. While the bridge will be stabilized, engineers will continue work on a design for a full replacement. The construction is expected to continue into next year.
I get the impression that NJ is moving away from having the black backing on route markers on BGS's. The new signs they've erected on Rt 22 in Bridgewater where they're doing work around Chimney Rock Rd/Foothill Rd/287 did not have them. On Sunday, I drove down Rt 18 to the Turnpike entrance there in East Brunswick and I saw some of the new overheads they're getting ready to put up and they don't have backings either. It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
Like jughandles:
Jughandles are here to stay (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/07/28/jughandles-stay/13302387/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
QuoteSimilar to their cousin, the traffic circle, jughandles are a uniquely Jersey thing that confuses drivers who aren't from here, said Gilbert Chlewicki, a Maryland traffic engineer and intersection expert.
Quote from: BrianP on July 29, 2014, 11:00:31 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
Like jughandles:
Jughandles are here to stay (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/07/28/jughandles-stay/13302387/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
QuoteSimilar to their cousin, the traffic circle, jughandles are a uniquely Jersey thing that confuses drivers who aren't from here, said Gilbert Chlewicki, a Maryland traffic engineer and intersection expert.
Jughandles are confusing to me because there's no consistency whatsoever as to whether there will be one. Let's say I'm on an unfamiliar stretch of road and I need gas. I see a cheap gas station on the left following a cross street. Do I:
1. Keep left and hope there is a left turn?
2. Keep right before the cross street and hope there is a jughandle?
3. Keep going and hope there is some sort of U-Turn ahead?
4. Forget it, there's no access to the other side of the road here?
I can think of places where all four scenarios exist on the same stretch of roadway, and I'm sorry, but a small "all turns from right lane" sign, which may only be visible when you're already in the right lane doesn't cut it.
Off topic, but a real headscratcher is the Rite Aid Pharmacy in Egg Harbor Township at the corner of US 9 (New Street) and Tilton Road. Both roads are limited access and allow left turns from one to the other, but the pharmacy entrance is only accessible from southbound Tilton Road. That is, only one of the four directions you might be going at that intersection. Do they not want more business or what? Thankfully, I figured out a solution that only works for me. There is a bank across the street that *is* accessible from all four approaches, so I combine my pharmacy trip with my trip to the bank most times and just cross Tilton from the bank exit to the pharmacy entrance (I wouldn't just cut through the bank to make a U-Turn).
Quote from: bzakharin on July 29, 2014, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: BrianP on July 29, 2014, 11:00:31 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
Like jughandles:
Jughandles are here to stay (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/07/28/jughandles-stay/13302387/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
QuoteSimilar to their cousin, the traffic circle, jughandles are a uniquely Jersey thing that confuses drivers who aren't from here, said Gilbert Chlewicki, a Maryland traffic engineer and intersection expert.
Jughandles are confusing to me because there's no consistency whatsoever as to whether there will be one. Let's say I'm on an unfamiliar stretch of road and I need gas. I see a cheap gas station on the left following a cross street. Do I:
1. Keep left and hope there is a left turn?
2. Keep right before the cross street and hope there is a jughandle?
3. Keep going and hope there is some sort of U-Turn ahead?
4. Forget it, there's no access to the other side of the road here?
I can think of places where all four scenarios exist on the same stretch of roadway, and I'm sorry, but a small "all turns from right lane" sign, which may only be visible when you're already in the right lane doesn't cut it.
My method is to stay in the right lane if I'm not familiar with the area. If I see a gas station on the right, I can turn in. If I see one on the left, I can either try to get over to the left (or in NJ look for the "ALL TURNS FROM RIGHT LANE"), or if not, make a U-turn further down. If i'm on the left side and see a gas station on the right, you would have to make two U-turns to get to it if you pass it, so I'd rather not take that chance. Plus, on the right, you are theoretically going slower so you have more opportunity to look.
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
I get the impression that NJ is moving away from having the black backing on route markers on BGS's. The new signs they've erected on Rt 22 in Bridgewater where they're doing work around Chimney Rock Rd/Foothill Rd/287 did not have them. On Sunday, I drove down Rt 18 to the Turnpike entrance there in East Brunswick and I saw some of the new overheads they're getting ready to put up and they don't have backings either. It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
IIRC, the FHWA was being a bitch about NJ's use of the black backing on their state route markers on large guide signs.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 29, 2014, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: BrianP on July 29, 2014, 11:00:31 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
Like jughandles:
Jughandles are here to stay (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/07/28/jughandles-stay/13302387/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
QuoteSimilar to their cousin, the traffic circle, jughandles are a uniquely Jersey thing that confuses drivers who aren't from here, said Gilbert Chlewicki, a Maryland traffic engineer and intersection expert.
Jughandles are confusing to me because there's no consistency whatsoever as to whether there will be one. Let's say I'm on an unfamiliar stretch of road and I need gas. I see a cheap gas station on the left following a cross street. Do I:
1. Keep left and hope there is a left turn?
2. Keep right before the cross street and hope there is a jughandle?
3. Keep going and hope there is some sort of U-Turn ahead?
4. Forget it, there's no access to the other side of the road here?
The theory behind the jughandle is great: Keep right for all turns. After all, this is exactly how most highways work: No one complains that they need to stay to the right to exit, only to have to make a left turn at the time of the ramp.
NJ does need to sign their jughandles better, especially on roads where the turning is inconsistant (jughandle at one intersection; left turn slot at the next intersection). BTW, this type of road system tends to produce a high rate of congestion, as the cycle lengths have to vary from one intersection to the next.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 29, 2014, 11:56:19 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
I get the impression that NJ is moving away from having the black backing on route markers on BGS's. The new signs they've erected on Rt 22 in Bridgewater where they're doing work around Chimney Rock Rd/Foothill Rd/287 did not have them. On Sunday, I drove down Rt 18 to the Turnpike entrance there in East Brunswick and I saw some of the new overheads they're getting ready to put up and they don't have backings either. It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
IIRC, the FHWA was being a bitch about NJ's use of the black backing on their state route markers on large guide signs.
It does very specifically say in the MUTCD that the black background is not to be used on a BGS. Time for NJ to get in compliance with the other 49 states...
Quote from: mtantillo on July 29, 2014, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 29, 2014, 11:56:19 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
I get the impression that NJ is moving away from having the black backing on route markers on BGS's. The new signs they've erected on Rt 22 in Bridgewater where they're doing work around Chimney Rock Rd/Foothill Rd/287 did not have them. On Sunday, I drove down Rt 18 to the Turnpike entrance there in East Brunswick and I saw some of the new overheads they're getting ready to put up and they don't have backings either. It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
IIRC, the FHWA was being a bitch about NJ's use of the black backing on their state route markers on large guide signs.
It does very specifically say in the MUTCD that the black background is not to be used on a BGS. Time for NJ to get in compliance with the other 49 states...
Still surprising that they're doing it. The new signs at I-287/I-80 still have the background, for example. But if they're ready to go with the rest of the country... Nah, I'll still miss it.
Quote from: mtantillo on July 29, 2014, 03:28:50 PM
It does very specifically say in the MUTCD that the black background is not to be used on a BGS. Time for NJ to get in compliance with the other 49 states...
What is the purpose of that, and why does it matter? I can't see the logic in prohibiting it.
I always thought NJ did it to simplify shield inventory. Why make separate cutouts when you can just use existing shields? I don't know the specifics, but cutout shields likely cost more to make too.
On a related note, looking at the planning maps for the new NJTP Exit 8, it shows which signs have cutouts and which ones don't. Strange to see a mix on the same contract, particularly a Turnpike Authority led one. I guess NJDOT had some swing in what their part of the interchange got at NJ-33.
That's the one thing I hate about NJ highways are the jughandles. They cause so many traffic jams, and there are particular ones that you have to make a left onto a busy road, while traffic is sitting for the red light. Meanwhile, you can't block the box. When the light is green for the local road, good luck trying to get in. I just don't understand why they can't make dedicated left turn lanes on these roads. Maybe not enough room ? But there are several dedicated left turn lanes throughout the state for divided highways. It's really inconsistent and dumb.
Quote from: J Route Z on July 30, 2014, 10:12:20 PM
That's the one thing I hate about NJ highways are the jughandles. They cause so many traffic jams, and there are particular ones that you have to make a left onto a busy road, while traffic is sitting for the red light. Meanwhile, you can't block the box. When the light is green for the local road, good luck trying to get in. I just don't understand why they can't make dedicated left turn lanes on these roads. Maybe not enough room ? But there are several dedicated left turn lanes throughout the state for divided highways. It's really inconsistent and dumb.
One of the most frustrating things is when the jughandle geometry is far too tight for the current amount of traffic volume. Vehicles attempting to turn right often have to compete with traffic coming out of the jughandle wishing to turn left (U-turn) or continue straight (left turn). I had a crazy right turn like this on my daily commute for years, that would occasionally send me (and many others) taking a shortcut through local businesses just to make the turn. Of course there often isn't enough room to reconstruct the jughandle to pull its exit further back from the light. I think in many cases these should come to a T intersection with a stop sign to give the traffic on the side road priority to the light, but this would just back up traffic far worse entering the jughandle in many locations.
Quote from: Alps on July 29, 2014, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 29, 2014, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 29, 2014, 11:56:19 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
I get the impression that NJ is moving away from having the black backing on route markers on BGS's. The new signs they've erected on Rt 22 in Bridgewater where they're doing work around Chimney Rock Rd/Foothill Rd/287 did not have them. On Sunday, I drove down Rt 18 to the Turnpike entrance there in East Brunswick and I saw some of the new overheads they're getting ready to put up and they don't have backings either. It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
IIRC, the FHWA was being a bitch about NJ's use of the black backing on their state route markers on large guide signs.
It does very specifically say in the MUTCD that the black background is not to be used on a BGS. Time for NJ to get in compliance with the other 49 states...
Still surprising that they're doing it. The new signs at I-287/I-80 still have the background, for example. But if they're ready to go with the rest of the country... Nah, I'll still miss it.
Yeah, I've always thought of the black background as being an integral part of the NJ shield, something that made it distinct. If they omit it on guide signage then it's just a goddamned circle like a bunch of other states use.
Atlantic City Expressway turns 50 (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/07/31/atlantic-city-expressway-turns/13400547/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
Quote from: BrianP on July 31, 2014, 09:55:08 AM
Atlantic City Expressway turns 50 (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/07/31/atlantic-city-expressway-turns/13400547/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
A longer, more detailed article of the same, from the Atlantic City Press: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/eedition/news/the-fast-lane-turns/article_178b748f-cdd9-5b5f-8257-cad06bc28c52.html
http://defenderofthemiddleclass.com/why-new-jersey-has-full-service-gas-stations
I thought that some of you who always complain why NJ is so backwards with its "Full Service Law" this may be interesting to you.
QuoteBecause gas stations in New Jersey hire fuel associates, they can pay a lower state tax rate.
Huh?
Besides this being nothing more than opinion, it's also entirely opinioned towards why we have it, even if the reasons don't match up with reality. Gas theft still occurs. It's very questionable that most attendants operating the pumps have been trained. And if only those people trained to handle gas are the ones that can safely pump it, then why isn't there a large number of fires started by those untrained individuals too clumsy to pour gas into a lawnmower, or those hundreds of millions of people elsewhere in the country serving themselves at gas stations on a regular basis?
BTW...regarding seniors: Since you live in Florida, where many, many seniors retire, how many complain about the hardships of filling their tank. In fact, since all the states seniors enjoy retiring in have self-service, is this ever really a problem.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2014, 01:20:30 PMIn fact, since all the states seniors enjoy retiring in have self-service, is this ever really a problem.
I think it's more of which era/generation these seniors are from and, yes, gender.
Case and point: my father (currently 83), back when he drove, would do self-service w/no problem whereas my 77-year-old mother (who still drives) has
never done self-service (not even once) and she has lived in MA all her life. She hated the fact that the Prime Energy station in Salem was recently converted (following a major expansion) to a self-serve-only station. She now gasses up at a Gibbs station in Swampscott; which offers full-serve (or at least someone else pumps the gas). She would love NJ and OR for such.
OTOH, Baby-Boomers and those younger were exposed to self-serve at a much earlier age and adapted accordingly.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2014, 05:05:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2014, 01:20:30 PMIn fact, since all the states seniors enjoy retiring in have self-service, is this ever really a problem.
I think it's more of which era/generation these seniors are from and, yes, gender.
Case and point: my father (currently 83), back when he drove, would do self-service w/no problem whereas my 77-year-old mother (who still drives) has never done self-service (not even once) and she has lived in MA all her life. She hated the fact that the Prime Energy station in Salem was recently converted (following a major expansion) to a self-serve-only station. She now gasses up at a Gibbs station in Swampscott; which offers full-serve (or at least someone else pumps the gas). She would love NJ and OR for such.
OTOH, Baby-Boomers and those younger were exposed to self-serve at a much earlier age and adapted accordingly.
Now that's surprising. AL Prime is exclusively full-serve at all the stations I can think of (possibly excluding the one on Route 2 in Fitchburg). Pretty much the price leader in most places, too.
Self-serve is all fine and good 8 months out of the year, but we have enough frigid mornings here that I truly appreciate full serve. Most all-full stations around here are small and thus pretty fast, unlike some of the big, understaffed pump farms in New Jersey.
Quote from: J Route Z on July 30, 2014, 10:12:20 PM
That's the one thing I hate about NJ highways are the jughandles. They cause so many traffic jams, and there are particular ones that you have to make a left onto a busy road, while traffic is sitting for the red light. Meanwhile, you can't block the box. When the light is green for the local road, good luck trying to get in. I just don't understand why they can't make dedicated left turn lanes on these roads. Maybe not enough room ? But there are several dedicated left turn lanes throughout the state for divided highways. It's really inconsistent and dumb.
It lowers the number of signal phases that are needed to move the turns to a jughandle.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 30, 2014, 10:29:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 29, 2014, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 29, 2014, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 29, 2014, 11:56:19 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
I get the impression that NJ is moving away from having the black backing on route markers on BGS's. The new signs they've erected on Rt 22 in Bridgewater where they're doing work around Chimney Rock Rd/Foothill Rd/287 did not have them. On Sunday, I drove down Rt 18 to the Turnpike entrance there in East Brunswick and I saw some of the new overheads they're getting ready to put up and they don't have backings either. It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
IIRC, the FHWA was being a bitch about NJ's use of the black backing on their state route markers on large guide signs.
It does very specifically say in the MUTCD that the black background is not to be used on a BGS. Time for NJ to get in compliance with the other 49 states...
Still surprising that they're doing it. The new signs at I-287/I-80 still have the background, for example. But if they're ready to go with the rest of the country... Nah, I'll still miss it.
Yeah, I've always thought of the black background as being an integral part of the NJ shield, something that made it distinct. If they omit it on guide signage then it's just a goddamned circle like a bunch of other states use.
Given that the background is there for US and county route shields as well, I don't think it's a part of the shield at all (plus all organizations other than NJDOT omit the border for NJ routes).
Quote from: Duke87 on July 30, 2014, 10:29:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 29, 2014, 04:35:27 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on July 29, 2014, 03:28:50 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on July 29, 2014, 11:56:19 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 09:44:00 AM
I get the impression that NJ is moving away from having the black backing on route markers on BGS's. The new signs they've erected on Rt 22 in Bridgewater where they're doing work around Chimney Rock Rd/Foothill Rd/287 did not have them. On Sunday, I drove down Rt 18 to the Turnpike entrance there in East Brunswick and I saw some of the new overheads they're getting ready to put up and they don't have backings either. It's not a big deal, but it was always one of those small things that made New Jersey be New Jersey.
IIRC, the FHWA was being a bitch about NJ's use of the black backing on their state route markers on large guide signs.
It does very specifically say in the MUTCD that the black background is not to be used on a BGS. Time for NJ to get in compliance with the other 49 states...
Still surprising that they're doing it. The new signs at I-287/I-80 still have the background, for example. But if they're ready to go with the rest of the country... Nah, I'll still miss it.
Yeah, I've always thought of the black background as being an integral part of the NJ shield, something that made it distinct. If they omit it on guide signage then it's just a goddamned circle like a bunch of other states use.
Isn't it up to New Jersey and not the FHWA to decide whether its route symbol is a white circle or a white circle on a black square?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 11:37:03 AM
http://defenderofthemiddleclass.com/why-new-jersey-has-full-service-gas-stations
I thought that some of you who always complain why NJ is so backwards with its "Full Service Law" this may be interesting to you.
Bah. The safety argument is bullshit and the argument that "it's cheaper" suffers from a gross assumption that correlation implies causation. Oregon has prices which are usually above the national average despite having a similar law. Yes, New Jersey has really low gas taxes but this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it has all full service.
It being tradition and being popular, at least, are honest statements. In my experience people who grow up in NJ tend to expect full service and find it inconvenient in other states when they don't get it. All a question of what you're used to, I suppose.
As for the elderly/disabled argument, I can see that being a valid concern, but I also see it as oppressive that the service is
mandatory. If you want to require that all stations have full service as an
option, fine. But for stations to refuse to allow you to pump your own gas even if that's what you prefer is horrible customer service, and any establishment that does that (whether required by law to or not) will not get my business.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
Isn't it up to New Jersey and not the FHWA to decide whether its route symbol is a white circle or a white circle on a black square?
I believe the federal standard is that shields as depicted on guide signage are not supposed to have any sort of black border. NJ therefore is required to design their shields accordingly, and cannot weasel out of the requirement by saying "the black border is part of the shield".
Quote from: Duke87 on July 31, 2014, 09:02:42 PMIt being tradition and being popular, at least, are honest statements. In my experience people who grow up in NJ tend to expect full service and find it inconvenient in other states when they don't get it. All a question of what you're used to, I suppose.
As for the elderly/disabled argument, I can see that being a valid concern, but I also see it as oppressive that the service is mandatory. If you want to require that all stations have full service as an option, fine. But for stations to refuse to allow you to pump your own gas even if that's what you prefer is horrible customer service, and any establishment that does that (whether required by law to or not) will not get my business.
Suit yourself. Shorter lines for that cheap gas for everyone else.
Either way, full serve has the support of a very influential group:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fep.yimg.com%2Fay%2Fbuycoolshirts%2Fjersey-girls-t-shirts-don-t-pump-gas-2.jpg&hash=50c90e93e2acf123604afa1f9aa9f42be74c37de)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
Isn't it up to New Jersey and not the FHWA to decide whether its route symbol is a white circle or a white circle on a black square?
QuoteI believe the federal standard is that shields as depicted on guide signage are not supposed to have any sort of black border. NJ therefore is required to design their shields accordingly, and cannot weasel out of the requirement by saying "the black border is part of the shield".
It not only stands out much better with the border, it maintains consistency with the roadside markers. Consistency fosters clarity. Keep the damn border and tell FHWA to find something useful to do.
I would like to see if NJDOT complies with adding the yellow stripe on new signals. I cannot picture them doing it, just like I cannot picture them removing the jughandles.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 09:48:52 PM
I would like to see if NJDOT complies with adding the yellow stripe on new signals. I cannot picture them doing it, just like I cannot picture them removing the jughandles.
Please point to the section of the MUTCD where that is required.
http://www.ite.org/bookstore/MUTCDoutreach.pdf Scroll down to Chapter 4 on Page 10.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 10:15:00 PM
http://www.ite.org/bookstore/MUTCDoutreach.pdf Scroll down to Chapter 4 on Page 10.
QuoteBackplate borders — The optional use of a yellow retroreflective strip along the perimeter of a signal backplate to increase the conspicuity of the signal face at night has been added.
And from the actual MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf):
Quote from: Section 4D.12 Visibility, Aiming, and Shielding of Signal Faces18. If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on an approach to a signalized location is 45 mph or higher, signal backplates should be used on all of the signal faces that face the approach. Signal backplates should also be considered for use on signal faces on approaches with posted or statutory speed limits or 85th-percentile speeds of less than 45 mph where sun glare, bright sky, and/or complex or confusing backgrounds indicate a need for enhanced signal face target value.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 09:48:52 PM
I would like to see if NJDOT complies with adding the yellow stripe on new signals. I cannot picture them doing it, just like I cannot picture them removing the jughandles.
Why would they remove jughandles?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 01, 2014, 09:06:05 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 09:48:52 PM
I would like to see if NJDOT complies with adding the yellow stripe on new signals. I cannot picture them doing it, just like I cannot picture them removing the jughandles.
Why would they remove jughandles?
They would not. That is my point. I do not think that NJ will go along with the yellow stripe deal either.
In a North Jersey Regional Planning Commission publication, the yellow strip backplate was discussed. The publication also discussed other traffic safety features, such as road dieting, roundabouts (both of which NJ has implemented) and center line rumble strips (which NJ is preparing to implement).
So these backplates are at least on NJDOT's radar.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2014, 09:43:10 PM
It not only stands out much better with the border, it maintains consistency with the roadside markers. Consistency fosters clarity. Keep the damn border and tell FHWA to find something useful to do.
I personally find it easier to read guide signs where the shields don't have the borders. Plus having the border is just plain ugly. If you want consistency, I have two things for you:
1. Every other state doesn't have the border
2. If someone is honestly confused because reassurance markers have borders but shields on guide signs don't, they need their head examined.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 31, 2014, 09:02:42 PM
I believe the federal standard is that shields as depicted on guide signage are not supposed to have any sort of black border. NJ therefore is required to design their shields accordingly, and cannot weasel out of the requirement by saying "the black border is part of the shield".
It would be pretty hard to justify that argument anyways in the face of the borders being their for US route and county route shields too.
Quote from: vdeane on August 01, 2014, 06:39:34 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 31, 2014, 09:43:10 PM
It not only stands out much better with the border, it maintains consistency with the roadside markers. Consistency fosters clarity. Keep the damn border and tell FHWA to find something useful to do.
I personally find it easier to read guide signs where the shields don't have the borders. Plus having the border is just plain ugly. If you want consistency, I have two things for you:
1. Every other state doesn't have the border
Most viewers of the signs are likely from New Jersey, even accounting for New Jersey's high pass-through volume.
Quote
2. If someone is honestly confused because reassurance markers have borders but shields on guide signs don't, they need their head examined.
Visual recognition happens in a split second. Every split second sooner is safer. Consistent shapes and representations are contributors to fewer split seconds of thinking on the way to processing information. Nothing trumps consistency and clarity because nothing trumps safety (most definitely not "it's ugly").
It's typical of state and federal highway agencies to impose their particular logic rather than conform to public understanding, but it's well known that said agencies can stand to have their own collective heads examined.
Classic "ain't broke, let's fix it" situation.
Quote
Quote from: Duke87 on July 31, 2014, 09:02:42 PM
I believe the federal standard is that shields as depicted on guide signage are not supposed to have any sort of black border. NJ therefore is required to design their shields accordingly, and cannot weasel out of the requirement by saying "the black border is part of the shield".
It would be pretty hard to justify that argument anyways in the face of the borders being their for US route and county route shields too.
It would actually be pretty easy to say "that's our shield" and be done with it.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 31, 2014, 11:12:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 10:15:00 PM
http://www.ite.org/bookstore/MUTCDoutreach.pdf Scroll down to Chapter 4 on Page 10.
QuoteBackplate borders — The optional use of a yellow retroreflective strip along the perimeter of a signal backplate to increase the conspicuity of the signal face at night has been added.
:)
I've never had any issues with seeing or comprehending a guide sign with a normal route marker (black background) vs. a guide sign with a cutout route marker.
Quote from: vdeane on August 01, 2014, 06:39:34 PM
1. Every other state doesn't have the border
If every other state jumped off a cliff, should New Jersey do it too? :-D
Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 02, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one. Plus, road signs should be
beautiful; the yellow background CR shields in particular make me want to gouge my eyes out. The borders look VERY sloppy.
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2014, 12:02:45 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 02, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one. Plus, road signs should be beautiful; the yellow background CR shields in particular make me want to gouge my eyes out. The borders look VERY sloppy.
Boy, it's got to be hard leaving the house with such sensibilities. I don't feel it's the sign's job to be anything but clear and informative and thus safe. When the TTF is healthy again (stop laughing) maybe beautiful can be discussed.
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2014, 12:02:45 PM
Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one.
Again, I have never found this to be the case.
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2014, 12:02:45 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 02, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one.
:-D
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2014, 12:02:45 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 02, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one. Plus, road signs should be beautiful; the yellow background CR shields in particular make me want to gouge my eyes out. The borders look VERY sloppy.
Please provide proof that they are prohibited by the MUTCD - if there is no such... FWHA has no leg to stand on.
Beautiful. *scoff*
Things like this make states unique - if NJ has to change, then I would argue California must change their ways. :ded:
There is
nothing prohibiting them in the MUTCD - the only thing the MUTCD says is (Section 2D.11):
Quote
12 Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as components of guide signs, only the distinctive shape of
the shield itself and the route numerals within should be used. The rectangular background upon which the
distinctive shape of the shield is mounted, such as the black area around the outside of the shields on the M1-4
and standard M1-5 signs, should not be included on the guide sign. Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as
components of other signs of non-contrasting background colors, the rectangular background should be used to
so that recognition of the distinctive shape of the shield can be maintained.
Notice, that it says SHOULD, and not SHALL. Unless FHWA implicitly revises that to shall not, than I believe they are acting out of line in regards to New Jersey's use of the black background on US and state routes. Of course, couldn't New Jersey counter that by making their own supplement to the MUTCD, just like California does?
Quote from: Zeffy on August 02, 2014, 06:19:59 PM
There is nothing prohibiting them in the MUTCD - the only thing the MUTCD says is (Section 2D.11):
Quote
12 Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as components of guide signs, only the distinctive shape of
the shield itself and the route numerals within should be used. The rectangular background upon which the
distinctive shape of the shield is mounted, such as the black area around the outside of the shields on the M1-4
and standard M1-5 signs, should not be included on the guide sign. Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as
components of other signs of non-contrasting background colors, the rectangular background should be used to
so that recognition of the distinctive shape of the shield can be maintained.
Notice, that it says SHOULD, and not SHALL. Unless FHWA implicitly revises that to shall not, than I believe they are acting out of line in regards to New Jersey's use of the black background on US and state routes. Of course, couldn't New Jersey counter that by making their own supplement to the MUTCD, just like California does?
There you go.
I think in instances such as these, the black background would be an improvement:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5472/9267639585_b99b90eb3f_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7455/9267637085_90675b3fae_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/f7X4Ci)
2013 Chattanooga meet trip - 190 (https://flic.kr/p/f7X4Ci) by hbelkins (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3775/9270420868_c5891fc077_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/f8ck9y)
2013 Chattanooga meet trip - 194 (https://flic.kr/p/f8ck9y) by hbelkins (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
--link fix -- SSO
I didn't even see the US 127 shield on that third photo until I looked a second time.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 02, 2014, 06:19:59 PM
There is nothing prohibiting them in the MUTCD - the only thing the MUTCD says is (Section 2D.11):
Quote
12 Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as components of guide signs, only the distinctive shape of
the shield itself and the route numerals within should be used. The rectangular background upon which the
distinctive shape of the shield is mounted, such as the black area around the outside of the shields on the M1-4
and standard M1-5 signs, should not be included on the guide sign. Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as
components of other signs of non-contrasting background colors, the rectangular background should be used to
so that recognition of the distinctive shape of the shield can be maintained.
Notice, that it says SHOULD, and not SHALL. Unless FHWA implicitly revises that to shall not, than I believe they are acting out of line in regards to New Jersey's use of the black background on US and state routes. Of course, couldn't New Jersey counter that by making their own supplement to the MUTCD, just like California does?
"Should" is not defined in the MUTCD the same as in the English language. "Should" doesn't mean "we recommend this, but do as you will." "Should" means, "You have to do this unless you have a sound engineering reason not to." In contrast, "shall" means, "You can't have a policy in place that goes against this, but you can contravene in individual cases where it's impossible to comply." Is there a sound engineering reason to keep the black border, or is it just an aesthetic choice? I'd argue the latter, unless someone can demonstrate the added cost of cutting out a US shield (or printing it directly on the sign, with today's technology) versus attaching a separate black-background shield.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2014, 09:28:40 PM
I think in instances such as these, the black background would be an improvement:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5472/9267639585_b99b90eb3f_z.jpg)
Well, what most states do is a black outline of the shield shape. I'd accept anything that defines the shield shape, but I think this goes against an MUTCD
Standard regarding the shape of the shield.
Quote from: Alps on August 03, 2014, 01:33:34 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 02, 2014, 06:19:59 PM
Notice, that it says SHOULD, and not SHALL. Unless FHWA implicitly revises that to shall not, than I believe they are acting out of line in regards to New Jersey's use of the black background on US and state routes. Of course, couldn't New Jersey counter that by making their own supplement to the MUTCD, just like California does?
"Should" is not defined in the MUTCD the same as in the English language. "Should" doesn't mean "we recommend this, but do as you will." "Should" means, "You have to do this unless you have a sound engineering reason not to." In contrast, "shall" means, "You can't have a policy in place that goes against this, but you can contravene in individual cases where it's impossible to comply." Is there a sound engineering reason to keep the black border, or is it just an aesthetic choice? I'd argue the latter, unless someone can demonstrate the added cost of cutting out a US shield (or printing it directly on the sign, with today's technology) versus attaching a separate black-background shield.
I wanted to quibble with this, but looked back to 1A.13.01. and you're right:
QuoteGuidance–a statement of recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. All Guidance statements are labeled, and the text appears in unbold type. The verb "should" is typically used. The verbs "shall" and "may" are not used in Guidance statements. Guidance statements are sometimes modified by Options.
Quote from: Alps on August 03, 2014, 01:34:24 AM
Well, what most states do is a black outline of the shield shape. I'd accept anything that defines the shield shape, but I think this goes against an MUTCD Standard regarding the shape of the shield.
I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting is against standard, but note 2D.11.12, which says "Where U.S. or State Route signs are used as components of other signs of non-contrasting background colors, the rectangular background should be used to so that recognition of the distinctive shape of the shield can be maintained." This seems to suggest that on the green guide signs, rectangles aren't to be used absent engineering reasons; but on white regulatory signs, rectangles are supposed to be used. (Which may be agreeing with you. I just wasn't clear whether you were disagreeing with rectangles, shield outlines, or the pictured sign.)
My examples were from Tennessee, which is notorious for doing this. There's something similar along I-65 northbound nearing the Kentucky state line, where a weigh station serves both I-65 and US 31W. There's a "No access to US 31W" sign on I-65 that uses the same white-on-white setup for a 31W marker.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 02, 2014, 12:43:34 PM
Boy, it's got to be hard leaving the house with such sensibilities. I don't feel it's the sign's job to be anything but clear and informative and thus safe. When the TTF is healthy again (stop laughing) maybe beautiful can be discussed.
Not really. NYSDOT signs tend to look good, and as someone who both lives and works in the suburbs, I don't have to deal with run-down areas.
What's TTF?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2014, 04:49:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2014, 12:02:45 PM
Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one.
Again, I have never found this to be the case.
I do. When I look at them, my eyes focus on the border and not the rest of the shield. Plus, if white on black was the best contrast, it would be what we use for guide signs instead of green on white. Maybe it's that I have young eyes? Or the fact that I've been staring at freeway signage ever since I was an infant?
Quote from: SSOWorld on August 02, 2014, 05:38:56 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2014, 12:02:45 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 02, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
Having the black border on guide signs has always been New Jersey's thing - and should continue to be. Plus, it matches up with the assembly markers that also have a black border, and really, there's NO harm in NJDOT's use of the black bordered US / State route, so I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Well, the signs are harder to read with the black border, for one. Plus, road signs should be beautiful; the yellow background CR shields in particular make me want to gouge my eyes out. The borders look VERY sloppy.
Please provide proof that they are prohibited by the MUTCD - if there is no such... FWHA has no leg to stand on.
Beautiful. *scoff*
Things like this make states unique - if NJ has to change, then I would argue California must change their ways. :ded:
If I had my way, the entire universe would be one big work of art.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if California had to change. Caltrans signage makes me want to throw up.
FYI, I'm not against uniqueness. I would mourn if all the NYSDOT regions and NYSTA standardized their mile markers, for example. And even though I advocate for NY to convert to mile-based numbers since it's a better system, the sequential numbers will always have a place in my heart. And I love Canadian signage (Ontario's inability to keep its font size consistent notwithstanding).
Quote from: Alps on August 03, 2014, 01:34:24 AM
Well, what most states do is a black outline of the shield shape.
That's what I'd do too.
Quote from: vdeane on August 03, 2014, 06:07:12 PM
I do. When I look at them, my eyes focus on the border and not the rest of the shield.
Could that be because you, like most of us, aren't used to that practice because it's not widely used outside of New Jersey? I've seen a few examples in some other states, and because it's so unusual, it automatically jumps out at you.
Quote from: Alps on August 03, 2014, 01:33:34 AM"Should" is not defined in the MUTCD the same as in the English language. "Should" doesn't mean "we recommend this, but do as you will." "Should" means, "You have to do this unless you have a sound engineering reason not to." In contrast, "shall" means, "You can't have a policy in place that goes against this, but you can contravene in individual cases where it's impossible to comply." Is there a sound engineering reason to keep the black border, or is it just an aesthetic choice? I'd argue the latter, unless someone can demonstrate the added cost of cutting out a US shield (or printing it directly on the sign, with today's technology) versus attaching a separate black-background shield.
Although this is OT, if that is indeed MUTCD's definition of the word
should; then why are local townships/cities/boroughs in PA (primarily southeastern PA) allowed to erect & use
STOP signs as a means of speed control on
their (non-PennDOT) roads even though the wording of MUTCD Section 2B.04.05 states:
QuoteYIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.
Heck, over 15 years ago; one road near me, the township actually took it back from PennDOT so that they could erect 3 (later 4)
STOP along the
main road, one of them was at an intersection w/a dead-end street.
I also know that anyone who receives tickets from running these particular
STOP signs usually has the charge on the ticket listed as
failing to obey a traffic-control device rather than
failing to stop at a STOP sign.
Supposedly, the former does not have as stiff a penalty vs. the latter; although I personally think it's their (police/township) way of avoiding being brought to court if the defendant just happens to be aware of MUTCD's criteria for erecting
STOP signs.
Quote from: vdeane on August 03, 2014, 06:07:12 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 02, 2014, 12:43:34 PM
Boy, it's got to be hard leaving the house with such sensibilities. I don't feel it's the sign's job to be anything but clear and informative and thus safe. When the TTF is healthy again (stop laughing) maybe beautiful can be discussed.
Not really. NYSDOT signs tend to look good, and as someone who both lives and works in the suburbs, I don't have to deal with run-down areas.
What's TTF?
The perennially destitute New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund.
Quote
If I had my way, the entire universe would be one big work of art.
Oh, to be young again. In any case, art need not be tied to beauty. But eye of the beholder, and all that.
Bill to prohibit NJ MVC from turning over vehicle information to other states when requested for automated enforcement violations gaining traction: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/senate_transportation_chairman_wants_to_hit_the_gas_on_anti-traffic_camera_bill_the_auditor.html
NJ does have red light cameras, under a 5 year "test". The testing period is set to expire in December, at which case the state can say all contracts are null and void, or continue with the program. How well is the program working? Depends on who you ask...and based on the respondent, the answers are fairly predictable.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2014, 10:30:54 PM
Bill to prohibit NJ MVC from turning over vehicle information to other states when requested for automated enforcement violations gaining traction: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/senate_transportation_chairman_wants_to_hit_the_gas_on_anti-traffic_camera_bill_the_auditor.html
NJ does have red light cameras, under a 5 year "test". The testing period is set to expire in December, at which case the state can say all contracts are null and void, or continue with the program. How well is the program working? Depends on who you ask...and based on the respondent, the answers are fairly predictable.
The program works great for scaring people into no longer making rights on red. I'm very happy that Brick, NJ pulled the plug on them.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 14, 2014, 06:29:09 PM
There's no way the owners of the strip mall north of the circle would allow any of their land to be used. I wish this could be a signalized intersection, but I truly honestly don't know how you could make that work.
(https://omgpics.net/fx3a8)
Also, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a "black border", it's part of the shield design. The New Jersey state route shield is not a white circle on a black "background", it's a white square with four rounded black arcs in the corners, framing the route number. This is evident when you look at a 3DNJ shield -- it's not an "oval" or stretched out circle, it's a rectangle with the same 90 degree round arcs in all of the corners. It gives the shield the appearance of almost a lottery ball.
If the NJ shield were merely a white circle, then:
* The "border", if any, would be a black circle around the perimeter of the white circle
* The "black background" would not, in and of itself, have curved edges, and would resemble a RIDOT shield with sharp square edges
Check out this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_New_Jersey#State_highways) and tell me that those shields are not uniquely and intrinsically more identifiable as NJ shields in a way that simple white circles would not.
I also applaud the fact that they are the same whether or not they are on a BGS or not. If you omit the background on a BGS, why wouldn't you omit it on a freestanding sign? If the black part adds contrast on standalone signs, why would it not add the same contrast on a BGS? I honestly think it makes the sign clearer, easier to read, makes the sign look more aligned, makes the fact that it's a NJ route stand out (as opposed to a DE route), and serves an added bonus when it's being plastered on top of a shield of a different size.
Have you ever driven in New York? Notice how our free-standing signs have rounded corners even though our shields don't have a black border? Some states use rounding corners on all their signs. NJ is one of them ;) Also note that the Turnpike does NOT have the background.
The green background on a BGS provides contrast. Having the black background too just makes the sign busier.
Wikipedia having the background doesn't mean anything. They put backgrounds on all state shields.
The fact that the turnpike, parkway, and ACE don't have black backgrounds only give credibility to the premise that the black background is part of the "circle" design, as if it were "just something NJ does on signs", they'd do the same thing to the other shields.
Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2014, 06:33:18 PM
Have you ever driven in New York? Notice how our free-standing signs have rounded corners even though our shields don't have a black border? Some states use rounding corners on all their signs. NJ is one of them ;) Also note that the Turnpike does NOT have the background.
The green background on a BGS provides contrast. Having the black background too just makes the sign busier.
Wikipedia having the background doesn't mean anything. They put backgrounds on all state shields.
You say that like New York doesn't use them (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.795483,-78.753216,3a,75y,45.66h,107.15t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5OUl9HLGMLr5ONRRA1xnqg!2e0).
Quote from: _Simon on August 17, 2014, 08:30:28 PM
The fact that the turnpike, parkway, and ACE don't have black backgrounds only give credibility to the premise that the black background is part of the "circle" design, as if it were "just something NJ does on signs", they'd do the same thing to the other shields.
The black background is not part of the design, sorry, go back to start. The NJ Turnpike Authority doesn't use it, and they presumably know what the standard is. DOT just has always applied shields directly to signs instead of using cutouts. Well, now they're going to start using cutouts.
Quote from: _Simon on August 17, 2014, 08:30:28 PM
The fact that the turnpike, parkway, and ACE don't have black backgrounds only give credibility to the premise that the black background is part of the "circle" design, as if it were "just something NJ does on signs", they'd do the same thing to the other shields.
ACE does put the backgrounds on state shields in most places. A better argument would be US shields, which also get the background and, clearly, the background is not part of the design of the US Shield since it's federally mandated. On the other hand, the county pentagons have a yellow background on BGSs, but not free-standing assemblies. I wonder why that would be.
Quote from: cl94 on August 17, 2014, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2014, 06:33:18 PM
Have you ever driven in New York? Notice how our free-standing signs have rounded corners even though our shields don't have a black border? Some states use rounding corners on all their signs. NJ is one of them ;) Also note that the Turnpike does NOT have the background.
The green background on a BGS provides contrast. Having the black background too just makes the sign busier.
Wikipedia having the background doesn't mean anything. They put backgrounds on all state shields.
You say that like New York doesn't use them (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.795483,-78.753216,3a,75y,45.66h,107.15t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5OUl9HLGMLr5ONRRA1xnqg!2e0).
Ah, the dreaded Five Corners in Orchard Park: Almost a necessity for signage, but true - the rare occurrence of Black-BG route shields on NY's B/LGSs...
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on August 18, 2014, 06:27:41 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 17, 2014, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 17, 2014, 06:33:18 PM
Have you ever driven in New York? Notice how our free-standing signs have rounded corners even though our shields don't have a black border? Some states use rounding corners on all their signs. NJ is one of them ;) Also note that the Turnpike does NOT have the background.
The green background on a BGS provides contrast. Having the black background too just makes the sign busier.
Wikipedia having the background doesn't mean anything. They put backgrounds on all state shields.
You say that like New York doesn't use them (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.795483,-78.753216,3a,75y,45.66h,107.15t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5OUl9HLGMLr5ONRRA1xnqg!2e0).
Ah, the dreaded Five Corners in Orchard Park: Almost a necessity for signage, but true - the rare occurrence of Black-BG route shields on NY's B/LGSs...
Everything about that intersection's assemblies is wrong. For a while, there were a few of them on NY 33 in Buffalo and Cheektowaga. Quite a few signs in the area use standalone black and white lane signage on BGSes while, IIRC, the standard is a white arrow directly on the green background. Typical Region 5 signage.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 18, 2014, 09:19:59 AM
Quote from: _Simon on August 17, 2014, 08:30:28 PM
The fact that the turnpike, parkway, and ACE don't have black backgrounds only give credibility to the premise that the black background is part of the "circle" design, as if it were "just something NJ does on signs", they'd do the same thing to the other shields.
ACE does put the backgrounds on state shields in most places. A better argument would be US shields, which also get the background and, clearly, the background is not part of the design of the US Shield since it's federally mandated. On the other hand, the county pentagons have a yellow background on BGSs, but not free-standing assemblies. I wonder why that would be.
The newer signs on the ACX WB Exit for NJ 73 does not have the black background. The one remaining older sign does. Same with NJ 168. (Personally, it looks naked without the black background!)
Quote from: Alps on August 17, 2014, 09:51:45 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 17, 2014, 08:30:28 PM
The fact that the turnpike, parkway, and ACE don't have black backgrounds only give credibility to the premise that the black background is part of the "circle" design, as if it were "just something NJ does on signs", they'd do the same thing to the other shields.
The black background is not part of the design, sorry, go back to start. The NJ Turnpike Authority doesn't use it, and they presumably know what the standard is. DOT just has always applied shields directly to signs instead of using cutouts. Well, now they're going to start using cutouts.
For the last god knows how many years, I've read your website and you always point out when someone forgets the black background. I always thought to myself, "wow, he really cares about that black background". I'm really surprised I'm the one here rooting for the black background, which I never used to give two shits about. It's tradition. It's the same reason we'll never have self-service gas. The same reason we eat pork roll, and the same way we get a buttered roll in the morning. We're New Jersey -- when you cut us off, you get the horn AND the finger. You go right to turn left because our medians are narrower than our big floppy slices of pizza. We have high speed, fast action traffic circles and we sign them with a picture of a hamburger with the word CIRCLE on it. And we most certainly put black backgrounds behind the shields on our goddamn BGSs.
Also,
The westbound lanes (14th St) of at-grade I-78 do not have traditional traffic signal street signage, but the eastbound lanes (12th St) do. You'd think they would mention I-78 or NJ-139.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.730265,-74.043054,3a,26.3y,174.42h,100.03t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjJzcRjv7PHYK7U-Af5jWtw!2e0
Quote from: _Simon on August 19, 2014, 10:42:36 PM
For the last god knows how many years, I've read your website and you always point out when someone forgets the black background. I always thought to myself, "wow, he really cares about that black background". I'm really surprised I'm the one here rooting for the black background, which I never used to give two shits about. It's tradition. It's the same reason we'll never have self-service gas. The same reason we eat pork roll, and the same way we get a buttered roll in the morning. We're New Jersey -- when you cut us off, you get the horn AND the finger. You go right to turn left because our medians are narrower than our big floppy slices of pizza. We have high speed, fast action traffic circles and we sign them with a picture of a hamburger with the word CIRCLE on it. And we most certainly put black backgrounds behind the shields on our goddamn BGSs.
Agreed with this. It's not a state highway in New Jersey without the black backgrounds.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 19, 2014, 11:04:26 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 19, 2014, 10:42:36 PM
For the last god knows how many years, I've read your website and you always point out when someone forgets the black background. I always thought to myself, "wow, he really cares about that black background". I'm really surprised I'm the one here rooting for the black background, which I never used to give two shits about. It's tradition. It's the same reason we'll never have self-service gas. The same reason we eat pork roll, and the same way we get a buttered roll in the morning. We're New Jersey -- when you cut us off, you get the horn AND the finger. You go right to turn left because our medians are narrower than our big floppy slices of pizza. We have high speed, fast action traffic circles and we sign them with a picture of a hamburger with the word CIRCLE on it. And we most certainly put black backgrounds behind the shields on our goddamn BGSs.
Agreed with this. It's not a state highway in New Jersey without the black backgrounds.
This and what was quoted. New Jersey is different because
we're different. Call us a shadow of New York City and you'll end up in a hospital. For the New Jerseyans that actually care about their state - our pride is greater than Texan's love for Texas. Removing our black backgrounded state and US route shields on guide signs is killing a part of New Jersey. We're New Jersey - if you hate us, don't worry, we hate
you too! :sombrero:
Quote from: Zeffy on August 19, 2014, 11:37:18 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 19, 2014, 11:04:26 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 19, 2014, 10:42:36 PM
For the last god knows how many years, I've read your website and you always point out when someone forgets the black background. I always thought to myself, "wow, he really cares about that black background". I'm really surprised I'm the one here rooting for the black background, which I never used to give two shits about. It's tradition. It's the same reason we'll never have self-service gas. The same reason we eat pork roll, and the same way we get a buttered roll in the morning. We're New Jersey -- when you cut us off, you get the horn AND the finger. You go right to turn left because our medians are narrower than our big floppy slices of pizza. We have high speed, fast action traffic circles and we sign them with a picture of a hamburger with the word CIRCLE on it. And we most certainly put black backgrounds behind the shields on our goddamn BGSs.
Agreed with this. It's not a state highway in New Jersey without the black backgrounds.
This and what was quoted. New Jersey is different because we're different. Call us a shadow of New York City and you'll end up in a hospital. For the New Jerseyans that actually care about their state - our pride is greater than Texan's love for Texas. Removing our black backgrounded state and US route shields on guide signs is killing a part of New Jersey. We're New Jersey - if you hate us, don't worry, we hate you too! :sombrero:
Well said. That about sums up the sentiment of long time NJ residents who are proud to call the Garden State home.
You know I lived in NJ for years. I did notice the NJT not using black borders on its signs and never gave it a second thought, but do not forget Texas. They use totally different signs on their BGSes than they do for stand alone shields. The FM highways have square shields on BGSes, but state outlines on the stand alone shields. At least NJ keeps the circles no matter what.
So many states carve out their own exceptions to the MUTCD, I can't understand why New Jersey won't continue to do so for route markers on guide signs.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 20, 2014, 11:24:34 AM
So many states carve out their own exceptions to the MUTCD, I can't understand why New Jersey won't continue to do so for route markers on guide signs.
I think this is getting a bit overblown for the most picayune of arguments. If you really feel that a black background defines the essence of New Jersey, let's start with the fact that we're still using the most boring of all shield shapes. Are we a boring circle?
Quote from: Alps on August 20, 2014, 05:50:12 PM
the most boring of all shield shapes
nah, that's the MA square. the circle is based on the classic state-named double-circle shield.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NJ/NJ19262061i1.jpg)
don't ask me when the state outline or the triangle were used, but my guess is early 20s.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NJ/NJ19230041i1.jpg)
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NJ/NJ19160131i1.jpg)
I stand corrected. the most boring is just writing on a post, as with NJ 1 on that last photo.
State outline was in use in the 1920s, and was commonly seen painted on a pole. The triangle may have been a proposal, but never used to my knowledge.
Also, bitchin' S-31 shield.
I'm already pissed enough that "EXIT XX XX MILES" turnpike signage is going in the garbage. I can tolerate that change because there's an actual technical reason for it (and I never did like how ambiguous it was to place two numbers next to each other) and normal exit tabs are used everywhere else in NJ, but any attempts to legitimize regulatory controls on the shield background or any aspect of shield design is just bullshit. If anyone is doing anything to increase readability of state route shields, the first rule should be that states can't use more than two colors, and all states must have a 3-digit wide version. It should be a misdemeanor for any sign fabricator to cram 3 digits (and a felony for 4 digits, Virginia) into a shield that conforms to a square form factor, with the exception of the county route pentagon, which are already invisible to non-roadgeeks.
Quote from: _Simon on August 20, 2014, 08:38:22 PM
I'm already pissed enough that "EXIT XX XX MILES" turnpike signage is going in the garbage. I can tolerate that change because there's an actual technical reason for it (and I never did like how ambiguous it was to place two numbers next to each other) and normal exit tabs are used everywhere else in NJ, but any attempts to legitimize regulatory controls on the shield background or any aspect of shield design is just bullshit. If anyone is doing anything to increase readability of state route shields, the first rule should be that states can't use more than two colors, and all states must have a 3-digit wide version. It should be a misdemeanor for any sign fabricator to cram 3 digits (and a felony for 4 digits, Virginia) into a shield that conforms to a square form factor, with the exception of the county route pentagon, which are already invisible to non-roadgeeks.
I happen to love narrow-width shields. I'm looking fondly at you, Kentucky.
So how about you realize that we all have varying OPINIONS about what matters, and the state is working based on the RULES.
Quote from: Alps on August 20, 2014, 05:50:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 20, 2014, 11:24:34 AM
So many states carve out their own exceptions to the MUTCD, I can't understand why New Jersey won't continue to do so for route markers on guide signs.
I think this is getting a bit overblown for the most picayune of arguments. If you really feel that a black background defines the essence of New Jersey, let's start with the fact that we're still using the most boring of all shield shapes. Are we a boring circle?
I would love for NJ to use something different for their state routes, especially incorporating the shape of NJ. I just can't come up with anything that looks somewhat decent.
If NJ would use the circle with a green outline of the state in the middle, that would look cool!
Quote from: Alps on August 21, 2014, 07:11:08 AM
I happen to love narrow-width shields. I'm looking fondly at you, Kentucky.[/quote]
So do I, but at present only two highway districts in Kentucky (District 8/Somerset and District 12/Pikeville) are currently using them extensively. District 4/E-town uses them for three-digit routes for the most part, but there are exceptions. And D-8 seems to be phasing them out for four-digit routes. If you see a wide route marker sign in D-12, it was either installed by a contractor (the newest section of US 119) or it's pretty rare.
QuoteSo how about you realize that we all have varying OPINIONS about what matters, and the state is working based on the RULES.
Yep, but as I said once before, lots of states carve out exceptions to the rules. If NJ felt strongly about using independent route markers on guide signs the way California still uses cutouts, it would be fighting to keep them. Apparently the state DOT doesn't think it's a big deal.
Quote from: _Simon on August 20, 2014, 08:38:22 PMIt should be a misdemeanor for any sign fabricator to cram 3 digits (and a felony for 4 digits, Virginia) into a shield that conforms to a square form factor, with the exception of the county route pentagon, which are already invisible to non-roadgeeks.
What's wrong with these?
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5126/5357679999_b55377f106_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7170/6755905023_37a9f1233f_z.jpg)
QuoteI would love for NJ to use something different for their state routes, especially incorporating the shape of NJ. I just can't come up with anything that looks somewhat decent.
Straying slightly off topic, but I came up with this several years ago:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2Fnj024.png&hash=d5c3233d85e45cdc4493c65c97acf87a08215b1a) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2Fnj208.png&hash=affa2f00872f96ae0e41ca3d095ecc2f7f6e065f)
QuoteWhat's wrong with these?
B-series numerals, IMO. Virginia does theirs much better, even if the numbers aren't as tall...
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2014, 01:13:39 PM
QuoteI would love for NJ to use something different for their state routes, especially incorporating the shape of NJ. I just can't come up with anything that looks somewhat decent.
Straying slightly off topic, but I came up with this several years ago:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2Fnj024.png&hash=d5c3233d85e45cdc4493c65c97acf87a08215b1a) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2Fnj208.png&hash=affa2f00872f96ae0e41ca3d095ecc2f7f6e065f)
QuoteWhat's wrong with these?
B-series numerals, IMO. Virginia does theirs much better, even if the numbers aren't as tall...
Looks like the toll road shields used in Florida.
Maybe use something similar to Florida's state routes with a New Jersey outline?
Quote from: froggie on August 21, 2014, 01:13:39 PM
QuoteI would love for NJ to use something different for their state routes, especially incorporating the shape of NJ. I just can't come up with anything that looks somewhat decent.
Straying slightly off topic, but I came up with this several years ago:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2Fnj024.png&hash=d5c3233d85e45cdc4493c65c97acf87a08215b1a) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2Fnj208.png&hash=affa2f00872f96ae0e41ca3d095ecc2f7f6e065f)
I would doubt that anything behind a number would fly since it would degrade readability. That and the state outline and name together is a bit of overkill.
How about:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfMZcjEj.png&hash=14f629af53bcbd99b934de05a607729438336fa7)
Then you'd have an excuse for using the whole shield on a BGS. :awesomeface:
QuoteStraying slightly off topic
At least you're not talking about gas prices...lol
Or something more appropriate like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FNJ42_zps4803f5d5.jpg&hash=2485e284cf4d94730514f38151ec1c772d69a673)
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 22, 2014, 12:31:07 AM
Or something more appropriate like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FNJ42_zps4803f5d5.jpg&hash=2485e284cf4d94730514f38151ec1c772d69a673)
There are no smokestacks along 42!!!!! LOL
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2014, 08:59:12 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 22, 2014, 12:31:07 AM
Or something more appropriate like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FNJ42_zps4803f5d5.jpg&hash=2485e284cf4d94730514f38151ec1c772d69a673)
There are no smokestacks along 42!!!!! LOL
True...just go with it! Now if there was an oil/gas tank there instead of a building it would be perfect!
EDIT: Put a flame on the smokestack to represent a burnoff tower and it's dead on!
Or this...
(https://omgpics.net/fx3ab)
Quote from: DeaconG on August 22, 2014, 09:23:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2014, 08:59:12 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 22, 2014, 12:31:07 AM
Or something more appropriate like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FNJ42_zps4803f5d5.jpg&hash=2485e284cf4d94730514f38151ec1c772d69a673)
There are no smokestacks along 42!!!!! LOL
True...just go with it! Now if there was an oil/gas tank there instead of a building it would be perfect!
EDIT: Put a flame on the smokestack to represent a burnoff tower and it's dead on!
Certainly confirms every stereotype we New Yorkers have of your...um..."pungent" state
Quote from: cl94 on August 22, 2014, 08:59:25 PM
Certainly confirms every stereotype we New Yorkers have of your...um..."pungent" state
Not all of NJ is that fragrant. Just near NYC and Philadelphia to keep NYers and Pennsylvanians on their side of the rivers! :sombrero:
Quote from: cl94 on August 22, 2014, 08:59:25 PM
Certainly confirms every stereotype we New Yorkers have of your...um..."pungent" state
It's okay, because most New Jerseyans think that New Yorkers are the most self-centered, arrogant and generally the biggest assholes on the planet. * Saying our state smells only applies to a few parts of the state, anyway.
* Does not reflect my actual opinion on New Yorkers
Quote from: Zeffy on August 23, 2014, 10:26:13 AM
Quote from: cl94 on August 22, 2014, 08:59:25 PM
Certainly confirms every stereotype we New Yorkers have of your...um..."pungent" state
It's okay, because most New Jerseyans think that New Yorkers are the most self-centered, arrogant and generally the biggest assholes on the planet. * Saying our state smells only applies to a few parts of the state, anyway.
* Does not reflect my actual opinion on New Yorkers
Oh, not all of the state smells. Just Newark and the surrounding area.
Simon: I like it!
froggie: Too "provincial".
Here was my concept, keeping NJ's circle we all know and love...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNJRouteShieldConcept_zpsb71d193d.png&hash=6fba397caf9f86dba7d39df073699b64c0a94701)
The only problem I had making this was I could not for the life of me get the GARDEN STATE in a perfect arc, mainly because I suck at using the "Put Text on Path" tool in Inkscape. Anyone who wants to take it upon them and improve it, go ahead.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 23, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
Here was my concept, keeping NJ's circle we all know and love...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNJRouteShieldConcept_zpsb71d193d.png&hash=6fba397caf9f86dba7d39df073699b64c0a94701)
The only problem I had making this was I could not for the life of me get the GARDEN STATE in a perfect arc, mainly because I suck at using the "Put Text on Path" tool in Inkscape. Anyone who wants to take it upon them and improve it, go ahead.
I would say to solve this issue, move the state silhouette slightly over to the right, until you can get Garden State even in the arc.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2014, 11:13:12 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 23, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
Here was my concept, keeping NJ's circle we all know and love...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNJRouteShieldConcept_zpsb71d193d.png&hash=6fba397caf9f86dba7d39df073699b64c0a94701)
The only problem I had making this was I could not for the life of me get the GARDEN STATE in a perfect arc, mainly because I suck at using the "Put Text on Path" tool in Inkscape. Anyone who wants to take it upon them and improve it, go ahead.
I would say to solve this issue, move the state silhouette slightly over to the right, until you can get Garden State even in the arc.
Why not Make the NJ itself doubled, on either side of the number
You know hearing the anti New Jersey remarks brings back memories of when I first moved down to Florida. One guy I worked with named Greg, used to call New Jersey "The Garbage State" making a reference to the fact that our license plates made a mistake by saying "Garden State." I plenty of times had to deal with it, but as far as the smell goes when I lived in NJ I did not notice it even though I passed through Linden quite often. However now that I live here, whenever I visit home I noticed how industrialized NJ is as when I was a part of it I never really noticed it then.
I did get a guy who told the infamous What Exit joke, and living near Exit 135 on the Parkway, I made him dumfounded. When I proudly said one thirty five, he found that hard to believe and then like gasped when he realized that there is one that high.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2014, 11:18:25 AM
You know hearing the anti New Jersey remarks brings back memories of when I first moved down to Florida. One guy I worked with named Greg, used to call New Jersey "The Garbage State" making a reference to the fact that our license plates made a mistake by saying "Garden State." I plenty of times had to deal with it, but as far as the smell goes when I lived in NJ I did not notice it even though I passed through Linden quite often. However now that I live here, whenever I visit home I noticed how industrialized NJ is as when I was a part of it I never really noticed it then.
I did get a guy who told the infamous What Exit joke, and living near Exit 135 on the Parkway, I made him dumfounded. When I proudly said one thirty five, he found that hard to believe and then like gasped when he realized that there is one that high.
According to DRPA NJ has an exit 354 on I-76.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2014, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2014, 11:18:25 AM
You know hearing the anti New Jersey remarks brings back memories of when I first moved down to Florida. One guy I worked with named Greg, used to call New Jersey "The Garbage State" making a reference to the fact that our license plates made a mistake by saying "Garden State." I plenty of times had to deal with it, but as far as the smell goes when I lived in NJ I did not notice it even though I passed through Linden quite often. However now that I live here, whenever I visit home I noticed how industrialized NJ is as when I was a part of it I never really noticed it then.
I did get a guy who told the infamous What Exit joke, and living near Exit 135 on the Parkway, I made him dumfounded. When I proudly said one thirty five, he found that hard to believe and then like gasped when he realized that there is one that high.
According to DRPA NJ has an exit 354 on I-76.
That number makes more sense than the numbering scheme NJDOT actually uses. Given the close proximity of I-676 and the short length of I-76 in NJ, it really doesn't make sense for it to have its own numbering scheme.
It shouldn't make any difference how long a highway is in any given state. And while this exit for I-676 on I-76 East is 354, the exit on 76 West is Exit 2.
That continued exit number has always bothered me, and the time to change it (easily) would have been when PA renumbered exits.
Quote from: Flyer78 on August 24, 2014, 07:31:37 PM
That continued exit number has always bothered me, and the time to change it (easily) would have been when PA renumbered exits.
Prior to that point, the previous eastbound exit number was 48; a continuation of the sequential I-76 exits in PA.
Side bar: The exit tabs for that ramp have only been in existence since the mid-1990s. It was unnumbered prior to that time.
In an effort to promote safer pedestrian measures, the Somerset County Dept. of Public Works are unveiling 12 new Driver Feedback Signs in Somerville, Raritan, and Bridgewater. The locations are as follows:
Somerville
- West High Street east bound and west bound, in the vicinity of Somerville Middle School
- North Davenport Street north bound and south bound, in the vicinity of Somerville High School
Raritan (Borough)
- Bell Avenue west bound, east of Southwick
- Sherman Avenue west bound, east of Southwick
- Anderson Street north bound, in the vicinity of St. Anne's School
- Woodmere Street north bound, north of Helene Place
Bridgewater
- Country Club Road north bound, between Gregory Avenue and Alletra Avenue (on hold — road construction)
- Milltown Road south bound, between Bujak Court and Shields Lane (to be installed with Country Club)
- Walters Brook Drive north bound, between Huntley Way and Langon Hollow Road
- Vanderveer Road west bound, between Bertran Drive and Colmart Way
There are already DFS signs placed on Grove Street in Somerville, although it doesn't really stop the speeders because AFAIK there are no cameras embedded in the signs. I would think a slightly larger police presence would curb the speeding in the residential zones. And FWIW, a DFS sign is basically a "YOUR SPEED" sign with an electronic speedometer below the text.
Full article is here (http://www.nj.com/messenger-gazette/index.ssf/2014/08/bridgewater_raritan_somerville_take_measures_to_enhance_pedestrian_safety.html#incart_river), but the article basically restates what I said here.
I think the DFS signs do work to some extent, by really drawing your attention to your speed or just the fear that a patrol car is lurking nearby watching (more likely with the portable installations). There are probably many people who think they have a speed camera on them as well, even if they should know better here in NJ. I like that I get a free calibration check of my speedometer as well.
Does anyone know the reason why in Monmouth County, NJ why the NJ 36 unofficial scenic drive from Highlands to Atlantic Highlands was realigned around the area of the Eastpointe tower?
I heard rumors that the road running along the cliff in front of the condominium high rise was in danger of falling down below due to the added weight of the tall structure. Along the same rumor, that eventually Eastpointe would have to be condemned as it was next to fall off the cliff. This was back in 1985 and now its almost 30 years later and the building is still there and not vacated or removed, so that rumor then was obviously false, or is part of it true? I mean that high rise could have compromised the integrity of the cliff in front of it enough for the road to be in jeopardy, but not so that the building is in danger.
Anyway for those of you who know the area, just north of NJ 36 the road that is called Scenic Road takes a turn to the north after its intersection with NJ 36. The road ahead becomes a dead end to the Eastpointe Tower. Back in the 70's the dead end was Scenic Road ( Ocean Boulevard) that went around the condo and had a hairpin turn and then went between the building and the cliff and ended up in what is now the parking lot for the overlook of Sandy Hook Bay and NYC to then join its current alignment. Google images from satellite show how the road once looped around the condo structure as you can clearly see the path once used by it clearly to this day.
Old news:
http://mtlaurelsun.com/2013/03/29/county-freeholders-approved-road-surfacing-program-plan/
Burlington County redoing 17 miles of road. They received money from the state highway transportation fund for the projects. Major construction is on CR541 between Mt Holly and I-295, which includes NJTP Exit 5.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 26, 2014, 09:26:49 AM
Does anyone know the reason why in Monmouth County, NJ why the NJ 36 unofficial scenic drive from Highlands to Atlantic Highlands was realigned around the area of the Eastpointe tower?
I miss the Hofbrauhaus right up the street past the overlook - at least for its parking lot for where you could get a really good view of the Raritan Bay and beyond. Now there's some fancy new homes and no place to stop.
You mean the overlook is now gone too?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2014, 09:15:17 AM
You mean the overlook is now gone too?
Here is the spot I was referring to, across from the old Hofbruahaus:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.410923,-74.010848&spn=0.000016,0.010943&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.410922,-74.012882&panoid=RH_uzI5iDwl_lgWG6G9qUQ&cbp=12,25.68,,0,7.77 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.410923,-74.010848&spn=0.000016,0.010943&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.410922,-74.012882&panoid=RH_uzI5iDwl_lgWG6G9qUQ&cbp=12,25.68,,0,7.77)
Mount Mitchill Overlook Park up the street is still there, but it seemed like every time I would be in the area it was already closed for the day. The Hofbrauhaus spot was the overlook I used to stop at.
You know from what you tell me, this road is not much of a scenic road alternate anymore. If you want to stop at Mount Mitchell you can exit NJ 36 at the Eastpointe intersection and quickly return to it.
Also, now you mention Mount Mitchell overlook, I seem to remember it now. The sign at the overlook states that its the highest point directly on the Atlantic Ocean as the other Mount Mitchell in NC is the highest point east of the Mississippi River. However, is not Mount Cadillac in Maine higher in elevation than this one spot in Monmouth County? Also Mt. Cadillac is also very close to the Atlantic as well as technically being on an island off the Maine Coast in that you can not rule that one place out either.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2014, 01:37:47 PM
You know from what you tell me, this road is not much of a scenic road alternate anymore. If you want to stop at Mount Mitchell you can exit NJ 36 at the Eastpointe intersection and quickly return to it.
Also, now you mention Mount Mitchell overlook, I seem to remember it now. The sign at the overlook states that its the highest point directly on the Atlantic Ocean as the other Mount Mitchell in NC is the highest point east of the Mississippi River. However, is not Mount Cadillac in Maine higher in elevation than this one spot in Monmouth County? Also Mt. Cadillac is also very close to the Atlantic as well as technically being on an island off the Maine Coast in that you can not rule that one place out either.
Sounds like the semantic difference is "overlook drops more or less straight down to the ocean" vs. "overlook slopes up (and thus back) from the ocean." Local promoters can make anyplace sound superlative if they try.
Just like Baseball. They count achievements from every little thing a player does from most pitches, to most hits, and to most runs. You can pitch a No Hitter and lose the game just by giving up walks or if a fellow fielders screws up and creates an error it does not count toward the pitcher giving up a hit.
I thought maybe that it is the fact that you can argue that Cadillac Mountain in Maine is not on the continent proper as it is on Mount Desert Island while Mount Mitchell, NJ is located on the US mainland. Yet I heard another story that there is another mountain in Maine that you actually see the sun first in the whole US before any other place in all 50 which if that story is true, then there is another mountain that has to be taller somewhere else in that particular state as well.
Edit: I just researched the subject and fount that Mt. Katahdin, ME is the highest point in ME. I do not know if that was the place talked about as this conversation was long before the forum existed. Living in Orlando I get to talk to tourists from all over, so I heard the scoop then. If that was the place it could be far inland out of the immediate coastline, but higher enough over Mt. Cadillac that the sun shines there first still even though further west.
Edit: I checked it out and actually the location of Mt. Katahdin, ME is north of Mt. Cadillac, ME as the ME coast runs SW to NE. So that may be the truth to the story told to me by visitors of Maine to Orlando many years ago. Mt. Katahdin is located in the Northern Maine Wilderness and is the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2014, 07:58:30 PM
Just like Baseball. They count achievements from every little thing a player does from most pitches, to most hits, and to most runs. You can pitch a No Hitter and lose the game just by giving up walks or if a fellow fielders screws up and creates an error it does not count toward the pitcher giving up a hit.
I thought maybe that it is the fact that you can argue that Cadillac Mountain in Maine is not on the continent proper as it is on Mount Desert Island while Mount Mitchell, NJ is located on the US mainland. Yet I heard another story that there is another mountain in Maine that you actually see the sun first in the whole US before any other place in all 50 which if that story is true, then there is another mountain that has to be taller somewhere else in that particular state as well.
Edit: I just researched the subject and fount that Mt. Katahdin, ME is the highest point in ME. I do not know if that was the place talked about as this conversation was long before the forum existed. Living in Orlando I get to talk to tourists from all over, so I heard the scoop then. If that was the place it could be far inland out of the immediate coastline, but higher enough over Mt. Cadillac that the sun shines there first still even though further west.
Edit: I checked it out and actually the location of Mt. Katahdin, ME is north of Mt. Cadillac, ME as the ME coast runs SW to NE. So that may be the truth to the story told to me by visitors of Maine to Orlando many years ago. Mt. Katahdin is located in the Northern Maine Wilderness and is the northern terminus of the Appalachian Trail.
It is true that one can see the sunrise on the summit of Mt. Katahdin before anywhere else in the country. Katahdin stands alone in the nortern Maine wilderness and on a clear day it can be seen from a few viewpoints off I-95 which is many miles away from the mountain. I have plans to visit Baxter State Park (where Katahdin is located) and hopefully climb Katahdin one day. Extreme cold and wind and generally horrible conditions can pop up at any time on its summit. It's so tall it creates its own weather and the summit can get snow year round. Nearly half the mountain is above tree line.
I am a hiker as well as a roadgeek. I have logged many miles on the Appalachian Trail and have completed it in NJ, NY, CT, and almost all of PA. I have intentions of completing the trail one day, one section at a time. I don't have the time to invest thru hiking it in one season. A trek from Georgia to Maine can take 4-6 months depending on the mileage one covers in a day.
So I was driving on US 1 North through Trenton today, and I noticed they must've done some sign work, because a lot of the signs with left exits now have a LEFT tab on the left corner of the sign. I couldn't grab pictures, so I made a few mockups:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FUS1-Trenton-OldenAve_zpsdc211c1c.png&hash=b0051bbad51eccb6b095b6cb10cbffb3de310aa8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FUS1-Trenton-Gantry_zps95ed0903.png&hash=f7e3194f45d7b4e7ff43656ad2d7ec037967119d)
Button copy retained because it was present on the originals. Also, why did they choose to sign New York here, when New Brunswick is the control city for US 1 North in this area on almost every other highway?
Any idea what's going on at exit 9 of the turnpike on NJ-18? It looks like they're about to kill the at grade intersection with Naricon Pl and force tower center traffic to u turn somewhere "1 1/2 miles ahead" (rest of sign was bagged)..
Quote from: _Simon on August 31, 2014, 05:28:51 PM
Any idea what's going on at exit 9 of the turnpike on NJ-18? It looks like they're about to kill the at grade intersection with Naricon Pl and force tower center traffic to u turn somewhere "1 1/2 miles ahead" (rest of sign was bagged)..
I noticed this as well today, right after the exit for US 1 there's a bunch of signs that are covered on an overhead gantry. No idea what's going on either, but it looks like maybe a lane widening or something of that nature.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2014, 05:39:38 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 31, 2014, 05:28:51 PM
Any idea what's going on at exit 9 of the turnpike on NJ-18? It looks like they're about to kill the at grade intersection with Naricon Pl and force tower center traffic to u turn somewhere "1 1/2 miles ahead" (rest of sign was bagged)..
I noticed this as well today, right after the exit for US 1 there's a bunch of signs that are covered on an overhead gantry. No idea what's going on either, but it looks like maybe a lane widening or something of that nature.
See these articles here:
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/08/state_to_widen_rouytew_18_north_in_new_brunswick_and_replace_bridge_over_route_1.html (http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/08/state_to_widen_rouytew_18_north_in_new_brunswick_and_replace_bridge_over_route_1.html)
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/08/construction_of_new_route_18_bridges_over_rt_1_begins_lane_closures_expected.html#incart_related_stories (http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/08/construction_of_new_route_18_bridges_over_rt_1_begins_lane_closures_expected.html#incart_related_stories)
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 31, 2014, 05:55:31 PM
See these articles here:
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/08/state_to_widen_rouytew_18_north_in_new_brunswick_and_replace_bridge_over_route_1.html (http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/08/state_to_widen_rouytew_18_north_in_new_brunswick_and_replace_bridge_over_route_1.html)
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/08/construction_of_new_route_18_bridges_over_rt_1_begins_lane_closures_expected.html#incart_related_stories (http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/08/construction_of_new_route_18_bridges_over_rt_1_begins_lane_closures_expected.html#incart_related_stories)
Must've missed those when I was browsing NJ.com around that time. (Although I tend to only look at Mercer and Somerset Counties) Thanks for the links!
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2014, 12:24:00 PM
So I was driving on US 1 North through Trenton today, and I noticed they must've done some sign work, because a lot of the signs with left exits now have a LEFT tab on the left corner of the sign. I couldn't grab pictures, so I made a few mockups:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FUS1-Trenton-OldenAve_zpsdc211c1c.png&hash=b0051bbad51eccb6b095b6cb10cbffb3de310aa8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FUS1-Trenton-Gantry_zps95ed0903.png&hash=f7e3194f45d7b4e7ff43656ad2d7ec037967119d)
Button copy retained because it was present on the originals. Also, why did they choose to sign New York here, when New Brunswick is the control city for US 1 North in this area on almost every other highway?
I'm pretty sure I posted a few photos of the actual signs on here several months ago, but hell if I know where I posted them. Maybe I just took the pics and never posted them.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2014, 11:48:26 PM
I'm pretty sure I posted a few photos of the actual signs on here several months ago, but hell if I know where I posted them. Maybe I just took the pics and never posted them.
You could always post them again. :-P I don't recall seeing you posting pictures relating to this though, but then again I don't remember what I ate for dinner past a week though...
Quote from: Zeffy on September 01, 2014, 11:37:52 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2014, 11:48:26 PM
I'm pretty sure I posted a few photos of the actual signs on here several months ago, but hell if I know where I posted them. Maybe I just took the pics and never posted them.
You could always post them again. :-P I don't recall seeing you posting pictures relating to this though, but then again I don't remember what I ate for dinner past a week though...
I only remember what I ate for dinner last night because the leftovers are still in the fridge!!!
Quote from: _Simon on August 31, 2014, 05:28:51 PM
Any idea what's going on at exit 9 of the turnpike on NJ-18? It looks like they're about to kill the at grade intersection with Naricon Pl and force tower center traffic to u turn somewhere "1 1/2 miles ahead" (rest of sign was bagged)..
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/INT9-Public-Hearing.pdf
I see NJ is finally improving the I-280 and NJ 21 substandard interchange after many years of heartache.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/rte280rte21interchange/pdf/projectplan.pdf
Now all movements will be made between the two routes which right now is missing three of the needed movements. However the down side is the State Street ramp that currently exists is going to be removed so WB traffic to Broad Street will not be allowed unless I am misreading the plan.
Work is scheduled for next Summer to begin this massive overhaul.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 04, 2014, 02:17:19 AM
I see NJ is finally improving the I-280 and NJ 21 substandard interchange after many years of heartache.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/rte280rte21interchange/pdf/projectplan.pdf
Now all movements will be made between the two routes which right now is missing three of the needed movements. However the down side is the State Street ramp that currently exists is going to be removed so WB traffic to Broad Street will not be allowed unless I am misreading the plan.
Work is scheduled for next Summer to begin this massive overhaul.
WB traffic will not get to Broad St. It's a low-volume movement, and with improvements to Route 21 that have already happened, it's the corridor NJ and Newark would rather you use.
One change since the preliminary design - now it looks like EB exit 14 to MLK Ave. is also coming out. While that's great news for merging onto the freeway from Exit 13, the NJ 21 exit had better be able to handle that much more traffic than it does now. Given that traffic now backs up due to the light to the south on 21 during rush hour, it will still back up, and now there's no relief valve at MLK. That's going to push people back to Exit 13, since Exit 16 also overcrowds when 15 backs up. But now you won't be able to judge in advance, because you can't see 15 from 13, whereas you can see 15 from 14.
Got that? In short, eliminating that one exit makes the lives of queue-dodgers much harder.
Why are you telling me any of this??? I am not complaining about the sacrificed ramp. I just stated that its a downside to the whole thing for whomever uses that exit ramp. We have had that same situation here in Orlando. The EB I-4 Anderson Street exit was eliminated for a new ramp to South Street. The Gore Street exit was eliminated permanently for no other exit and WB South Street was closed as well for whatever reason.
i am all for this project which is long overdue. I posted it for some of those on here who might find it interesting in which I am sure many on here are finding it to be interesting. You even said it yourself how substandard that interchange really is, so I imagine that you are relieved that NJDOT has finally gotten around to this project.
I used to use 14B WB to MLK quite a bit when I had a project in Newark. It kind of dumps you off in an odd spot on State St., a relatively narrow unstriped side street, sending you toward a stop sign and annoying left turn across traffic onto MLK SB - not exactly the best 'Welcome to Newark' the BGS promises with its destinations of Rutgers / NJIT / Essex Co. College / Broad St. Station. It also comes up on you rather quick around a curve and is easy to overshoot if you're not paying attention (it doesn't help that NJDOT hadn't bothered to replace the missing exit sign - not sure if that's been done recently). But, it served its purpose and I'll miss it if I have to get to that area again as I would rather not have to deal with McCarter Hwy (21).
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2014, 02:59:41 AM
Why are you telling me any of this??? I am not complaining about the sacrificed ramp. I just stated that its a downside to the whole thing for whomever uses that exit ramp. We have had that same situation here in Orlando. The EB I-4 Anderson Street exit was eliminated for a new ramp to South Street. The Gore Street exit was eliminated permanently for no other exit and WB South Street was closed as well for whatever reason.
i am all for this project which is long overdue. I posted it for some of those on here who might find it interesting in which I am sure many on here are finding it to be interesting. You even said it yourself how substandard that interchange really is, so I imagine that you are relieved that NJDOT has finally gotten around to this project.
Holy shit, I'm not telling YOU this. I'm telling the entire thread. Trust me, you're not that important.
Can anyone tell me what this bridge is? I thought it was the Beesley's Point bridge at first, but if you go into street view on the opposite side (where US 9 rides with the Garden State Parkway), you can see there seems to be work going on there. I can't figure out what else this could be though.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS8yqekf.png&hash=6cbda7fa45f8b257217f8b34d5fefb827801fb3c)
Quote from: Zeffy on September 12, 2014, 05:29:29 PM
Can anyone tell me what this bridge is? I thought it was the Beesley's Point bridge at first, but if you go into street view on the opposite side (where US 9 rides with the Garden State Parkway), you can see there seems to be work going on there. I can't figure out what else this could be though.
Yup - that's the Beesley's Point Bridge. The work you see is the demolition of the bridge. You can see this work on GSV from the adjacent Garden State Parkway bridge.
And US 9 still hasn't been officially moved onto the Parkway from what I gather, even though Google Maps is showing it along that stretch. Which leads me to wonder if the old portion of US 9 will be kept on by NJDOT and given a new number.
So much for Jeff Van Drew's plans for an emergency corridor back in the day.
I haven't been on the stretch of 9 south of the old bridge in about a year or so I think, but looking at GSV (dated October last year), the signage is pretty lousy on 9 north approaching the temporary/permanent detour on CR 623 out to the GSP. If I recall, there used to be plenty of detour signs, and all I could see now on GSV is a single sign in advance of the signal that the bridge is closed ahead but nothing about the detour of 9.
It makes one wonder why NJDOT is dragging their butt on this one. Its apparent that there is no replacement in sight for the Beeslys Point Bridge, so why not put up permanent signs and get it over with.
This strikes me as another "permanent temporary setup" a la the Robert Moses state Parkway between Niagara Falls and NY 104. I wonder if they feel AASHTO might object if they "officially" re-route US 9 (the GSP is toll southbound over the bridge) and they don't want to hear it.
There is a project to replace the SB span of the GSP bridge (including a right shoulder that's the size of two travel lanes) and finally demolish the Beesley's Point Bridge, so maybe some permanent stuff for US 9 SB will come out of it. I have no idea if there's a project to replace the NB GSP bridge coming up. There wasn't one on the website.
No right now the NJTA is replacing only the SB side as it is in worse shape than the NB side. The Beeslys Point Bridge is part of that project in its removal.
Also, if you noticed the new SB span will feature a sidewalk/bikeway in addition to wider shoulders.
Quote from: vdeane on September 14, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
This strikes me as another "permanent temporary setup" a la the Robert Moses state Parkway between Niagara Falls and NY 104. I wonder if they feel AASHTO might object if they "officially" re-route US 9 (the GSP is toll southbound over the bridge) and they don't want to hear it.
The Beesley's Point Bridge was a privately owned toll facility with tolls higher than the GSP when it closed. I doubt they would object to a re-route.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 14, 2014, 04:15:42 AM
It makes one wonder why NJDOT is dragging their butt on this one. Its apparent that there is no replacement in sight for the Beeslys Point Bridge, so why not put up permanent signs and get it over with.
NJ does a fairly poor sign of signing roads that haven't changed routing for decades. Who knows when they'll sign this! :-)
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on September 13, 2014, 07:48:48 PM
And US 9 still hasn't been officially moved onto the Parkway from what I gather, even though Google Maps is showing it along that stretch. Which leads me to wonder if the old portion of US 9 will be kept on by NJDOT and given a new number.
Google Maps shows a lot of things that aren't correct, since individuals can make modifications when they wish to do so.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 14, 2014, 07:24:23 PM
Quote from: vdeane on September 14, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
This strikes me as another "permanent temporary setup" a la the Robert Moses state Parkway between Niagara Falls and NY 104. I wonder if they feel AASHTO might object if they "officially" re-route US 9 (the GSP is toll southbound over the bridge) and they don't want to hear it.
The Beesley's Point Bridge was a privately owned toll facility with tolls higher than the GSP when it closed. I doubt they would object to a re-route.
I expect the holdup is that NJDOT would not want to permanently designate US 9 over a county route. They would probably want to swap the mileage with the county. This may be a mileage mismatch in that dead-end 9 is longer than the link to the Parkway, and it leaves a dead-end stub at the north side of the bridge. We could see the creation of another 3-digit secret NJ state highway to handle this, but the state is probably anxious to eliminate mileage and costs wherever they can, so they may right now be in the process of slowly getting their ducks in a row before taking action.
It wouldn't be a new thing for Cape May County as all of NJ-347 is maintained as CR-670 in Cape May (and Cumberland) County.
Which state highways need to be resurfaced that are not part of the resurfacing program? I think all of NJ 79, NJ 28 in Roselle Park, US 9W, and parts of US 322.
167 and 324.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 15, 2014, 12:15:52 PM
167 and 324.
Route 167 is unsigned and very short. How bad is it?
324 could also use a little bit of trim of the foliage on the sides:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.815607,-75.364258&spn=0.000033,0.0209&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.8156,-75.368344&panoid=ZhuNokYx0055COqRSdvGTQ&cbp=12,304.07,,0,1.86 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.815607,-75.364258&spn=0.000033,0.0209&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.8156,-75.368344&panoid=ZhuNokYx0055COqRSdvGTQ&cbp=12,304.07,,0,1.86)
In a move to help fight crime, Newark is installing... happy street signs.
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/09/poll_do_you_think_happy_street_signs_will_help_reduce_crime_in_newark.html#incart_river
Cute, and very positive, but I don't think hanging a sign with a message like that is going to deter any criminals from committing their crimes. The kids need to get off the streets and families need to not be so cash strapped, that's what would help reduce the crime.
yep, you're going to stop violence by contracting out to someone named Killy Kilford.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 15, 2014, 04:08:58 PM
yep, you're going to stop violence by contracting out to someone named Killy Kilford.
Dammit - Beat me to it. I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, the entire concept or this statement alone:
"We are really looking forward to working with Killy Kilford to bring Happy Street signs to Newark"
It makes me a little sad to think about the perspective of someone born into a cycle of poverty, disinvestment, and crime, who sees their city's answer is cute inspirational messages.
"Stop killing kids, please" would be more to the point and just as ineffective.
What starts as a well-intentioned speed-bump in Jersey City turns into a nightmare for those who drive over it...
http://www.nj.com/news/video/?ndn.trackingGroup=90019&ndn.siteSection=njdotcom_nws_non_fro&ndn.videoId=26831041&freewheel=90019&sitesection=njdotcom_nws_non_fro&vid=26831041
(There's actually no article it seems, so hopefully that works)
In short, because the City cares about it's pedestrians and children, they decided to install a speed bump on a residential street. The problem is, it's not marked, and it's basically sending cars airborne and when they hit the ground they bottom-out. What do you think?
Quote from: Zeffy on September 17, 2014, 10:30:26 AM
What do you think?
The first time a fire engine, on its way to a fire, encounters that speed bump, it'll be gone as soon as they can get a road crew there.
Who goes to bed at night and dreams up these incredibly stupid ideas?
They should've installed speed bumps like the ones here in Huntsville, AL. People still have to slow down, but firetrucks can go past without having to slow down.
NJ is looking at merging transportation agencies to save money: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/merging_transportation_agencies_could_help_pay_for_projects_says_key_lawmaker.html
No SJTA in there?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2014, 04:32:52 PM
No SJTA in there?
Between the airport being managed by Port Authority and the expressway tagged to go to NJTA, they may have nothing to merge.
If this goes through, I wonder if it'll make more sense to have 42 interchange with the Turnpike, extend the ACE onto it and have a seamless system of toll roads in NJ. Has this been tried in other states? What's the effect on the relationship of the toll road network to the non-toll freeway network? Is there more incentive on putting toll on existing free roads (or even removing tolls from toll roads a la Connecticut)?
Quote from: bzakharin on September 18, 2014, 09:53:39 AM
If this goes through, I wonder if it'll make more sense to have 42 interchange with the Turnpike, extend the ACE onto it and have a seamless system of toll roads in NJ. Has this been tried in other states?
If it was done, it wouldn't be seemless, unless one has EZ Pass. Each road will remain independent as to the tolls collected. Even today, with the NJ Turnpike and GS Parkway under one toll agency, each road maintains its individual character and toll structure.
QuoteWhat's the effect on the relationship of the toll road network to the non-toll freeway network?
In the past, the NJ Turnpike could be its own separate planet, in that information about issues on the Turnpike aren't relayed on NJDOT owned roadways, and vice-versa. That isn't as true anymore, in my opinion. I take 295 on nearly a daily basis, and they will use the VMS signage regarding Turnpike issues; usually in a manner that encourage motorists to remain on 295 rather than getting onto the Turnpike. The Turnpike doesn't tend to show congestion issues on 295 though (which, similarly, would encourage traffic to remain on the Turnpike). I can't speak regarding signage on the turnpike if 295 was closed completely, as that rarely occurs and I can't recall being on the Turnpike for such an issue.
The ACX & GSP are a bit different as there isn't a parallel road system that could handle the load of the highway traffic, and VMS signage is rare to non-existent on the parallel roads.
QuoteIs there more incentive on putting toll on existing free roads (or even removing tolls from toll roads a la Connecticut)?
Just the opposite...a law was passed in 1999 prohibiting tolls on Rt. 42. While laws can always be changed, it highlights the public opinion that free roads should remain free.
"27:25A-7.1. Route 42 to remain toll-free
2.Notwithstanding any other law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the authority shall not fix, charge or collect tolls or other charges for the use of State Highway Route No. 42, or any parts or sections thereof, which it may acquire ownership of pursuant to an agreement between the authority and the department."
Wasn't the original plan to have 55 terminate at Exit 3 of the NJT? With this there could be a connexion between 42 and the NJT.
Quote from: Alps on September 17, 2014, 05:45:17 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2014, 04:32:52 PM
No SJTA in there?
Between the airport being managed by Port Authority and the expressway tagged to go to NJTA, they may have nothing to merge.
That's officially happening? I thought it was just proposals and roadgeek speculation.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on September 18, 2014, 11:57:15 AM
Wasn't the original plan to have 55 terminate at Exit 3 of the NJT? With this there could be a connexion between 42 and the NJT.
It actually was proposed to meet up with US 130 south of Route 42 in the West Deptford area (probably before I-295 was constructed in the area). I've never seen a proposed map of this...only this state statute.
State Statute 27:6-1. State highway routes set forth.
The state highway system shall consist of the following routes:
"ROUTE NO. 55. Beginning at a point in Route U.S. 130 in the vicinity of Westville in the county of Gloucester, thence in a general southeasterly direction passing west of Vineland in the county of Cumberland and east of Millville in the county of Cumberland to a point in Route U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Cape May Court House in the county of Cape May. The route shall traverse the counties of Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland and Cape May. L.1964, c. 16, s. 1."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on September 18, 2014, 11:57:15 AM
Wasn't the original plan to have 55 terminate at Exit 3 of the NJT? With this there could be a connexion between 42 and the NJT.
It actually was proposed to meet up with US 130 south of Route 42 in the West Deptford area (probably before I-295 was constructed in the area). I've never seen a proposed map of this...only this state statute.
State Statute 27:6-1. State highway routes set forth.
The state highway system shall consist of the following routes:
"ROUTE NO. 55. Beginning at a point in Route U.S. 130 in the vicinity of Westville in the county of Gloucester, thence in a general southeasterly direction passing west of Vineland in the county of Cumberland and east of Millville in the county of Cumberland to a point in Route U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Cape May Court House in the county of Cape May. The route shall traverse the counties of Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland and Cape May. L.1964, c. 16, s. 1."
I need to dig up my old Franklin maps. I had some of Gloucester County that showed multiple proposed routings of 55 through the northern part of the County, with at least one I think that might have been similar to the above description.
Officials eye gas tax hike to fix N.J. roads and bridges (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/officials_agree_that_transportaton_spending_is_a_good_investment_where_to_get_the_money_is_harder_to.html)
They'll talk about it, but the gas tax has become one of those magical political third rails where anyone who actually did it would likely commit political suicide. And to think the TTF used to be a model for the nation on how to fund road construction and maintenance.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 18, 2014, 02:11:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on September 18, 2014, 11:57:15 AM
Wasn't the original plan to have 55 terminate at Exit 3 of the NJT? With this there could be a connexion between 42 and the NJT.
It actually was proposed to meet up with US 130 south of Route 42 in the West Deptford area (probably before I-295 was constructed in the area). I've never seen a proposed map of this...only this state statute.
State Statute 27:6-1. State highway routes set forth.
The state highway system shall consist of the following routes:
"ROUTE NO. 55. Beginning at a point in Route U.S. 130 in the vicinity of Westville in the county of Gloucester, thence in a general southeasterly direction passing west of Vineland in the county of Cumberland and east of Millville in the county of Cumberland to a point in Route U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Cape May Court House in the county of Cape May. The route shall traverse the counties of Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland and Cape May. L.1964, c. 16, s. 1."
I need to dig up my old Franklin maps. I had some of Gloucester County that showed multiple proposed routings of 55 through the northern part of the County, with at least one I think that might have been similar to the above description.
Back in the day when Exxon had those really nice folding maps that showed the alignments of future freeways, I remember seeing that NJ 55 was only proposed to end at NJ 47 just north of Malaga.
I have read here that NJ 55 was indeed planned to go where (or somewhere near) it does now back real far in history. The maps that showed that were the early 70's edition, so I am to assume that at one point NJDOT cancelled its proposal before deciding to actually go through with the original plan?
Quote from: storm2k on September 25, 2014, 02:33:17 AM
Officials eye gas tax hike to fix N.J. roads and bridges (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/officials_agree_that_transportaton_spending_is_a_good_investment_where_to_get_the_money_is_harder_to.html)
They'll talk about it, but the gas tax has become one of those magical political third rails where anyone who actually did it would likely commit political suicide. And to think the TTF used to be a model for the nation on how to fund road construction and maintenance.
I think this has enough support to get past a Christie veto without incurring the state's wrath. We all know our roads are crumbling and we need to raise the tax. I just paid $3.04, and I'm not even in the lowest-price part of the state.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2014, 06:52:48 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 18, 2014, 02:11:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 01:17:26 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on September 18, 2014, 11:57:15 AM
Wasn't the original plan to have 55 terminate at Exit 3 of the NJT? With this there could be a connexion between 42 and the NJT.
It actually was proposed to meet up with US 130 south of Route 42 in the West Deptford area (probably before I-295 was constructed in the area). I've never seen a proposed map of this...only this state statute.
State Statute 27:6-1. State highway routes set forth.
The state highway system shall consist of the following routes:
"ROUTE NO. 55. Beginning at a point in Route U.S. 130 in the vicinity of Westville in the county of Gloucester, thence in a general southeasterly direction passing west of Vineland in the county of Cumberland and east of Millville in the county of Cumberland to a point in Route U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Cape May Court House in the county of Cape May. The route shall traverse the counties of Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland and Cape May. L.1964, c. 16, s. 1."
I need to dig up my old Franklin maps. I had some of Gloucester County that showed multiple proposed routings of 55 through the northern part of the County, with at least one I think that might have been similar to the above description.
Back in the day when Exxon had those really nice folding maps that showed the alignments of future freeways, I remember seeing that NJ 55 was only proposed to end at NJ 47 just north of Malaga.
I have read here that NJ 55 was indeed planned to go where (or somewhere near) it does now back real far in history. The maps that showed that were the early 70's edition, so I am to assume that at one point NJDOT cancelled its proposal before deciding to actually go through with the original plan?
The 1970's maps probably showed the actual route of construction, which was going on during that time. It was always proposed to go from the Parkway to the 42/295 area. Why that little stretch was built first around Vineland/Millville...who knows!
Quote from: Alps on September 26, 2014, 12:58:55 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 25, 2014, 02:33:17 AM
Officials eye gas tax hike to fix N.J. roads and bridges (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/officials_agree_that_transportaton_spending_is_a_good_investment_where_to_get_the_money_is_harder_to.html)
They'll talk about it, but the gas tax has become one of those magical political third rails where anyone who actually did it would likely commit political suicide. And to think the TTF used to be a model for the nation on how to fund road construction and maintenance.
I think this has enough support to get past a Christie veto without incurring the state's wrath. We all know our roads are crumbling and we need to raise the tax. I just paid $3.04, and I'm not even in the lowest-price part of the state.
If the gas tax increase is not severe enough to surpass the current gas prices charged across the Hudson (NY) & Delaware Rivers (DE & PA); NJ can still have bragging rights for having lower prices than its neighboring states, and hence, still have some support.
IMHO & personal prediction, this increase could be up for a vote after the November elections but before the new State Legislature is sworn in.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 26, 2014, 10:27:38 AM
IMHO & personal prediction, this increase could be up for a vote after the November elections but before the new State Legislature is sworn in.
The New Jersey Legislature is up for election in odd-numbered years, but with a governor who's going to go on a losing primary race for President, he's not going to sign off on it anyway.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 26, 2014, 12:32:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 26, 2014, 10:27:38 AM
IMHO & personal prediction, this increase could be up for a vote after the November elections but before the new State Legislature is sworn in.
The New Jersey Legislature is up for election in odd-numbered years, but with a governor who's going to go on a losing primary race for President, he's not going to sign off on it anyway.
You're right; I forgot about that and since updated my post to reflect such.
As far as your latter point is concerned; if Gov. Christie faces a potential override to his veto, he may have no choice but to sign such. Across the Delaware, Gov. Corbett was recently pressured to sign legislation that ultimately raised/raises PA's gas tax earlier (to fund transportation projects) and he's up for re-election this year.
While I'm tempted to comment more on the political side of the above; I will exercise restraint.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 26, 2014, 12:42:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 26, 2014, 12:32:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 26, 2014, 10:27:38 AM
IMHO & personal prediction, this increase could be up for a vote after the November elections but before the new State Legislature is sworn in.
The New Jersey Legislature is up for election in odd-numbered years, but with a governor who's going to go on a losing primary race for President, he's not going to sign off on it anyway.
You're right; I forgot about that and since updated my post to reflect such.
As far as your latter point is concerned; if Gov. Christie faces a potential override to his veto, he may have no choice but to sign such. Across the Delaware, Gov. Corbett was recently pressured to sign legislation that ultimately raised/raises PA's gas tax earlier (to fund transportation projects) and he's up for re-election this year.
While I'm tempted to comment more on the political side of the above; I will exercise restraint.
The real problem is that Christie is really eyeing a 2016 presidential run and everything he does these days is more or less calculated to the optics of how he'll look to GOP power brokers and voters in 2016. The current political climate on that side of the aisle is very tax-unfriendly. Not only that, but voters already grumble about how much they pay for gas as it is now. To ask them to pay for more is not going to be very popular no matter how you stack it up.
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2014, 03:08:16 PMThe real problem is that Christie is really eyeing a 2016 presidential run and everything he does these days is more or less calculated to the optics of how he'll look to GOP power brokers and voters in 2016. The current political climate on that side of the aisle is very tax-unfriendly. Not only that, but voters already grumble about how much they pay for gas as it is now. To ask them to pay for more is not going to be very popular no matter how you stack it up.
Christie could always
switch political parties if he wanted to (and run for President as a Democrat); but that's another topic for another forum.
With regards to the gas tax increase: as I mentioned earlier, if there are enough state legislators backing the increase to constitute a veto override; Gov. Christie can't really do too much in that particular scenario.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 26, 2014, 03:33:58 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2014, 03:08:16 PMThe real problem is that Christie is really eyeing a 2016 presidential run and everything he does these days is more or less calculated to the optics of how he'll look to GOP power brokers and voters in 2016. The current political climate on that side of the aisle is very tax-unfriendly. Not only that, but voters already grumble about how much they pay for gas as it is now. To ask them to pay for more is not going to be very popular no matter how you stack it up.
Christie could always switch political parties if he wanted to (and run for President as a Democrat); but that's another topic for another forum.
With regards to the gas tax increase: as I mentioned earlier, if there are enough state legislators backing the increase to constitute a veto override; Gov. Christie can't really do too much in that particular scenario.
Christie is just not Presidential material, any more than Giuliani was. Wish he'd recognize that and back off.
I feel like this in an underwhelming number... (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/nearly_90_million_awarded_for_road_and_bridge_improvements_across_state.html#incart_river)
Quote
The state Department of Transportation Friday announced nearly $90 million in grants to help repair streets and bridges across the state and to beef up enforcement along so-called "safe corridors," roadways with historically high crash rates.
All the state's 21 counties will share in more than $78 million in aid to be used by the counties for road and bridge projects at their discretion. The grants are appropriated annually by the state Legislature and are based on a combination of population and roadway mileage. Awards ranged from $1.6 million for Cape May County to a high of $6.1 million for Ocean.
QuoteAnother $3 million has been allotted under the Safe Corridors program, which provides smaller grants for safety and enforcement measures along designated 14-mile stretches of highway throughout the state. More than 50 grants of anywhere from a few thousand to $150,000 will be doled out for segments of US 1 in Mercer, Middlesex and Union counties; US 9 in in Ocean, Monmouth and Middlesex; US 22 in Somerset, Union and Essex; US 40 in Atlantic; US 46 in Morris, Essex and Passaic; State Highway 47 in Cumberland; State Highway 73 in Camden and Burlington; and US 206 in Somerset.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 04, 2014, 09:38:22 AM
I feel like this in an underwhelming number... (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/nearly_90_million_awarded_for_road_and_bridge_improvements_across_state.html#incart_river)
Quote
The state Department of Transportation Friday announced nearly $90 million in grants to help repair streets and bridges across the state and to beef up enforcement along so-called “safe corridors,” roadways with historically high crash rates.
All the state’s 21 counties will share in more than $78 million in aid to be used by the counties for road and bridge projects at their discretion. The grants are appropriated annually by the state Legislature and are based on a combination of population and roadway mileage. Awards ranged from $1.6 million for Cape May County to a high of $6.1 million for Ocean.
QuoteAnother $3 million has been allotted under the Safe Corridors program, which provides smaller grants for safety and enforcement measures along designated 14-mile stretches of highway throughout the state. More than 50 grants of anywhere from a few thousand to $150,000 will be doled out for segments of US 1 in Mercer, Middlesex and Union counties; US 9 in in Ocean, Monmouth and Middlesex; US 22 in Somerset, Union and Essex; US 40 in Atlantic; US 46 in Morris, Essex and Passaic; State Highway 47 in Cumberland; State Highway 73 in Camden and Burlington; and US 206 in Somerset.
There are numerous grants NJDOT provides the counties and municipalities each year. Even though this has been going on for many, many years, newspaper reporters tend to come and go, don't really understanding how transportation funding works, and next thing you know you get a very incomplete picture of funding levels.
Across the board, everyone would love to have billions.
So is all the money going to fixing potholes and that's it? For example; US 206 in Somerset County is listed, but what are they going to do there? There's already repaving work in Mercer County (where the pavement degrades in quality the moment you cross from Montgomery) on 206, but no repaving is going to alleviate the horrible congestion the road has. If you're stuck behind a truck you're practically SOL until you get to a passing zone, which lasts all of about 1/2 mile most of the time. The congestion from Hillsborough all the way up to the Somerville Circle (and even further north all the way up to I-287) during rushhour is insane. Unless the bypass of US 206 is signed as the truck route while the mainline US 206 is signed for local deliveries only, Hillsborough congestion isn't going to get better even when the bypass is completed. Having ridden the open portions, it's a one-land road both ways, just like US 206 itself in Hillsborough is.
I know that money isn't magical, but something needs to be done so we can replenish our depleted Highway Trust Fund. Once that is done, we need to find ways to improve roadways that aren't simply repaving.
Looking at the NJDOT website where the news story was derived from (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2014/100314a.shtm), I believe the money was provided to the counties to do as they wish. Usually they have some sort of wish list already made up which what projects they want to complete. It can vary from sidewalk installation to intersection reconstruction to traffic lights to signage to widening, and everything in between.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2014, 11:16:42 AM
Looking at the NJDOT website where the news story was derived from (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2014/100314a.shtm), I believe the money was provided to the counties to do as they wish. Usually they have some sort of wish list already made up which what projects they want to complete. It can vary from sidewalk installation to intersection reconstruction to traffic lights to signage to widening, and everything in between.
With Hillsborough being given $154k for US 206 projects, I cannot imagine what they would be doing. US 22 in Bridgewater is poised for some upgrades as well, with $167k being given, hopefully in the area near US 202/206, where fatalities aren't too uncommon.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 04, 2014, 10:35:51 AM
The congestion from Hillsborough all the way up to the Somerville Circle (and even further north all the way up to I-287) during rushhour is insane. Unless the bypass of US 206 is signed as the truck route while the mainline US 206 is signed for local deliveries only, Hillsborough congestion isn't going to get better even when the bypass is completed. Having ridden the open portions, it's a one-land road both ways, just like US 206 itself in Hillsborough is.
The two lane / partial divided 'Super-2' is the biggest disappointment on the bypass. They did the same thing with the final section of the 33 bypass in Freehold. I understand budgets and environmental constraints, but building a new bypass to (almost) freeway standards and then have it one lane per direction is a terrible idea. At the very least, don't bother with the median, so I can at least make my own passing lane as needed, safety be damned.
Can't wait for the replacement of the Route 495 bridge over Route 1/9: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec4/route/rt9.pdf
and the revamp of the interchange at Routes 9 and 35: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec4/route/rt9.pdf (listed at bottom of page)
They should be going out to bid sometime next year?
Quote from: J Route Z on October 05, 2014, 05:29:07 PM
and the revamp of the interchange at Routes 9 and 35: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec4/route/rt9.pdf (listed at bottom of page)
Wow - finally. Fixing that "interchange" should have been a priority long ago.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 05, 2014, 05:44:16 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on October 05, 2014, 05:29:07 PM
and the revamp of the interchange at Routes 9 and 35: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec4/route/rt9.pdf (listed at bottom of page)
Wow - finally. Fixing that "interchange" should have been a priority long ago.
I assume you have driven through it? Heh. Yeah it sure should have.
Saw some road work on I-95 north in Ewing today - looks like Exit 2 for CR 579 was closed off among other things. I looked on NJDOT's website, Mercer County's website, couldn't find nothing on it. Anyone know what's going on?
Quote from: Zeffy on October 04, 2014, 10:35:51 AM
So is all the money going to fixing potholes and that's it? For example; US 206 in Somerset County is listed, but what are they going to do there? There's already repaving work in Mercer County (where the pavement degrades in quality the moment you cross from Montgomery) on 206, but no repaving is going to alleviate the horrible congestion the road has. If you're stuck behind a truck you're practically SOL until you get to a passing zone, which lasts all of about 1/2 mile most of the time. The congestion from Hillsborough all the way up to the Somerville Circle (and even further north all the way up to I-287) during rushhour is insane. Unless the bypass of US 206 is signed as the truck route while the mainline US 206 is signed for local deliveries only, Hillsborough congestion isn't going to get better even when the bypass is completed. Having ridden the open portions, it's a one-land road both ways, just like US 206 itself in Hillsborough is.
I know that money isn't magical, but something needs to be done so we can replenish our depleted Highway Trust Fund. Once that is done, we need to find ways to improve roadways that aren't simply repaving.
The good part about the bypass is that it will take traffic away from the "main street" part of current 206 in Hillsborough, around Amwell, new Amwell, Triangle, etc., which will help. I'm not really all that sure why they striped the damn thing as divided super 2 (much like the 33 bypass in freehold), but i'm sure a good dose of nimby'ism was involved. i was disappointed when i rode that section, both that there is only 2 lanes **and** that there are traffic lights.
The truth, though, is that nnless they ever figure out how to rebuild the section of 206 between the eventual northern end of the bypass and where they built the 4 lane segment 15 years ago, nothing will improve in any tangible fashion. The Conrail overpass really mucks up the ability to do much in that area. I doubt that NJDOT can get Conrail to build up their tracks to allow for a better overpass, and there isn't the room to construct an overpass of 206 over the tracks without some serious landtaking, so we're kind of stuck with another half finished and not very useful road bypass that will do little more than lip service to fix the traffic problems of the area.
Quote from: J Route Z on October 05, 2014, 05:29:07 PM
Can't wait for the replacement of the Route 495 bridge over Route 1/9: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec4/route/rt9.pdf
and the revamp of the interchange at Routes 9 and 35: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec4/route/rt9.pdf (listed at bottom of page)
They should be going out to bid sometime next year?
9 & 35: They are in the PE (Planning & Engineering, I believe) phase...a very early phase. The construction part of the project isn't until FY2020 at the earliest.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1423/sec3/routes/rt35.pdf
Quote from: Zeffy on October 05, 2014, 08:56:52 PM
Saw some road work on I-95 north in Ewing today - looks like Exit 2 for CR 579 was closed off among other things. I looked on NJDOT's website, Mercer County's website, couldn't find nothing on it. Anyone know what's going on?
Was just up there this morning -- my wife works at the new hospital at Exit 3, and my office is at Exit 8 (though I take U.S. 1). On the northbound side, an overhead sign structure providing guide signs for Exit 2 has been down for a time, possibly due to structural issues. The work in this area might be to replace the structure -- some is in the median, some on the outer northbound side. Could not tell for sure behind the barriers, but the work may include new foundations and guide rail treatments, too. Portable VMS are there providing the missing messages: one on the right for Exit 2, one on the left for the downstream Exit 3.
This seems to be the only construction work going on there. Not sure why the exit ramp would have been closed last weekend.
For this month only, tolls on the Atlantic City Expressway will be waived on every Tuesday:
http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2014/10/atlantic_city_expressway_rolls_out_toll_free_tuesdays.html#incart_river
QuoteATLANTIC CITY – There will be no tolls on the Atlantic City Expressway on Tuesday this month for eastbound travelers.
In an effort to bring visitors into Atlantic City in the middle of the week, travel along the highway will be free from noon to midnight starting today, the Atlantic City Alliance announced. Drivers can proceed through the Egg Harbor and Pleasantville toll plazas without stopping.
The alliance, a non-profit organization that promotes the city, also unveiled a series of low-cost hotel packages.
In addition, the parking fee will be waived at the The Wave Parking Garage at Mississippi and Fairmount avenues on Tuesdays between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m..
I'm not sure if that will help Atlantic City, because there
are alternate toll-free routes into AC, plus, people are, well, working on Tuesdays usually.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 07, 2014, 12:40:48 PM
For this month only, tolls on the Atlantic City Expressway will be waived on every Tuesday:
http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2014/10/atlantic_city_expressway_rolls_out_toll_free_tuesdays.html#incart_river
QuoteATLANTIC CITY – There will be no tolls on the Atlantic City Expressway on Tuesday this month for eastbound travelers.
In an effort to bring visitors into Atlantic City in the middle of the week, travel along the highway will be free from noon to midnight starting today, the Atlantic City Alliance announced. Drivers can proceed through the Egg Harbor and Pleasantville toll plazas without stopping.
The alliance, a non-profit organization that promotes the city, also unveiled a series of low-cost hotel packages.
In addition, the parking fee will be waived at the The Wave Parking Garage at Mississippi and Fairmount avenues on Tuesdays between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m..
I'm not sure if that will help Atlantic City, because there are alternate toll-free routes into AC, plus, people are, well, working on Tuesdays usually.
Good
friggin'
luck.
This is mostly a way to invent something positive to attach the words "Atlantic City" to in the news. And since the effort's futile and sad, it completely backfires in this regard.
Quote from: akotchi on October 07, 2014, 12:24:01 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 05, 2014, 08:56:52 PM
Saw some road work on I-95 north in Ewing today - looks like Exit 2 for CR 579 was closed off among other things. I looked on NJDOT's website, Mercer County's website, couldn't find nothing on it. Anyone know what's going on?
Was just up there this morning -- my wife works at the new hospital at Exit 3, and my office is at Exit 8 (though I take U.S. 1). On the northbound side, an overhead sign structure providing guide signs for Exit 2 has been down for a time, possibly due to structural issues. The work in this area might be to replace the structure -- some is in the median, some on the outer northbound side. Could not tell for sure behind the barriers, but the work may include new foundations and guide rail treatments, too. Portable VMS are there providing the missing messages: one on the right for Exit 2, one on the left for the downstream Exit 3.
This seems to be the only construction work going on there. Not sure why the exit ramp would have been closed last weekend.
i drive by this every day (exit 2 is home). looks like they're doing drainage work, and needed to take the gantry down for full access under the support tower in the median.
the new sign for "no trucks over 4 tons on 579 North" on northbound 95 is very poorly placed; it partially occludes the 1/4 advance sign for the exit. it should be farther away from the edge of the road and possibly 20 feet forward.
They already closed 7 casinos. The tolls are what make AC stay alive. :nod:
Seven? The story apparently got old here after five. Reporting on it also hurts our new best friends the casino developers of Massachusetts.
I assume we're just making up random numbers now, right?
This year, Hilton, Revel, Showboat & Trump Plaza have closed. 4 total. Not 5. Definitely not 7.
I thought Taj Mahal was done. Must have been speculation that I heard.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2014, 10:34:36 PM
I assume we're just making up random numbers now, right?
This year, Hilton, Revel, Showboat & Trump Plaza have closed. 4 total. Not 5. Definitely not 7.
I was about to say. NJ.com reported all of these, and I sure hope they would continue to report those that continue to close. RIP Atlantic City... :no:
Quote from: odditude on October 08, 2014, 09:41:21 AM
the new sign for "no trucks over 4 tons on 579 North" on northbound 95 is very poorly placed; it partially occludes the 1/4 advance sign for the exit. it should be farther away from the edge of the road and possibly 20 feet forward.
I noticed this as well. It's not particularly conspicuous either, being more of a small white sign than anything else. Did 579 always have truck restrictions on it?
It's pretty much National news when a casino closes. The Taj has threatened that they may be next, but nothing beyond that.
There's also a rumor that the recently-closed Revel (a casino that shouldn't have been built in the first place IMHO due to casino competition in neighboring states) may be getting a new buyer that will still operate it as a casino/hotel.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 08, 2014, 07:52:47 PMReporting on it also hurts our new best friends the casino developers of Massachusetts.
Should that MA casino ballot question pass next month; Wynn will just pack up & leave; he has a history of doing such.
He ditched Philly
twice already: once for the originally-planned Foxwoods Casino and than later for his own casino (the rendering looked exactly like the one he's proposing for Everett) along the Delaware.
Hey does NJ still require the drawbridge operator to leave his station and manually close the added safety gates that other states do not use?
One of things I hated about drawbridge openings in New Jersey was that added steel safety gates that other states do not use that were manually operated that would add more time to the wait then was actually needed.
Where other states would have just the lower down gate at the signal stopping traffic which as we know is fully automatic just like the rail road gates are, the Garden State has hard steel swing gates on both sides of the draw spans that must be closed by hand. If the road is over two lanes wide then there are two gates opposite each other having a total of four gates. The operator would have to get out of his booth, walk to the one side to close one gate, lock it, and then move across the street to the other gate, close it, and then lock it before doing the same on the other side of the bridge again.
This all takes more time as even in the end, again, he has do the reverse and unlock and open the four gates individually and then go back to his controls.
I was wondering if NJDOT finally decided to fully automate all gates so the operator not only has to do more work, but time is cut to the wait for the whole process?
Quote from: Zeffy on October 07, 2014, 12:40:48 PM
For this month only, tolls on the Atlantic City Expressway will be waived on every Tuesday:
http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2014/10/atlantic_city_expressway_rolls_out_toll_free_tuesdays.html#incart_river
I saw a billboard touting Toll Free Tuesdays for the ACX along Interstate 95 southbound in Philly on Friday.
Some nonstandard 3di-sized shields using Series D were installed as part of the replacement overhead signage at exit 47A (CR 541) on I-295 northbound after the full-depth reconstruction a few years back (GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0417753,-74.8363588,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBQK4AWZE5JenJZRqpw54oQ!2e0)); while driving through on Saturday I noticed those shields have been replaced with standard shields using Series B. I didn't notice any other changes - although fixing the abysmal lack of padding would require either new signage or going back to the previous text size.
Does anyone have any idea when they're planning on reinstalling the gantry at 52A? That was taken down shortly after the assembly at 47, but still hasn't been replaced.
Quote from: odditude on October 20, 2014, 07:01:16 PM
Some nonstandard 3di-sized shields using Series D were installed as part of the replacement overhead signage at exit 47A (CR 541) on I-295 northbound after the full-depth reconstruction a few years back (GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0417753,-74.8363588,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBQK4AWZE5JenJZRqpw54oQ!2e0))
The font on that I-295 shield is Series C. Truth be told, I wasn't aware of that 3di shield being one of those subtle asymetrical shields (as seen on some I-287, I-195 (along the NJ Turnpike) & even one or two I-276 shields) until I zoomed in on GSV. Never mind.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 21, 2014, 08:47:05 AM
Quote from: odditude on October 20, 2014, 07:01:16 PM
Some nonstandard 3di-sized shields using Series D were installed as part of the replacement overhead signage at exit 47A (CR 541) on I-295 northbound after the full-depth reconstruction a few years back (GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0417753,-74.8363588,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBQK4AWZE5JenJZRqpw54oQ!2e0))
The font on that I-295 shield is Series C. Truth be told, I wasn't aware of that 3di shield being one of those subtle asymetrical shields (as seen on some I-287, I-195 (along the NJ Turnpike) & even one or two I-276 shields) until I zoomed in on GSV.
I was referring to the county route shields.
Quote from: odditude on October 21, 2014, 09:59:07 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 21, 2014, 08:47:05 AM
Quote from: odditude on October 20, 2014, 07:01:16 PM
Some nonstandard 3di-sized shields using Series D were installed as part of the replacement overhead signage at exit 47A (CR 541) on I-295 northbound after the full-depth reconstruction a few years back (GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0417753,-74.8363588,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBQK4AWZE5JenJZRqpw54oQ!2e0))
The font on that I-295 shield is Series C. Truth be told, I wasn't aware of that 3di shield being one of those subtle asymetrical shields (as seen on some I-287, I-195 (along the NJ Turnpike) & even one or two I-276 shields) until I zoomed in on GSV.
I was referring to the county route shields.
They stretched the shield to fit the D numerals. To be honest, it's not exactly easy to fit any CR number that doesn't include a 1 somewhere with D
or C in a standard width shield. To normally do so, you'd need to use Series B, like shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.285641,-74.717372,3a,15y,113.69h,90.08t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sABx1SyfG-oQ2g60iEw5Eaw!2e0).
(On a side note - is that sign using Series E half-modified (no stroke width modification but increased character spacing? This sign however was replaced along with a bunch of new signs on I-95 north of Trenton as well as I-295 east of Trenton.)
Quote from: odditude on October 21, 2014, 09:59:07 AMI was referring to the county route shields.
My previous post has since been modified to reflect such.
One thing about New Jersey is the fact that there is no long distance state route designation running N-S. The longest state route designation is NJ 47 at 75 miles, but does not go even half the state's length.
I thought that it is interesting as there are no N-S numbered routes in North Jersey that are in South Jersey other than US 9 and US 206, but they are US route designations. The Parkway is not numbered although it is the longest road in the state.
US 130.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2014, 09:45:28 PM
US 130.
And NJ 47, 49, 54, among others. Don't pay attention to facts if you're going to pay attention to roadman65.
54 is short and is only in South Jersey.
But CR 527.
I think Roadman was referring to state bannered routes that run N-S through both north and south Jersey (if we assume the division line is somewhere around 195, but that's a separate debate). The only state route that crosses that line for any somewhat significant length is probably 35, but I wouldn't really consider that a South Jersey route. US bannered routes, secret number freeways and even good old CR 527 (as noted above) hogged up all the good corridors between North and South Jersey.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2014, 09:45:28 PM
US 130.
US 130 is not a state designation. It may be a state highway on the books, but it is not the circle shielded route that NJ gives.
In response to roadrunner, I would say that NJ 35 is iffy, as it just barely reaches South Jersey and just barely reaches North Jersey.
On the other hand, NJ 70 is the only East-West state route that spans almost the entire width of the state. NJ 49 sort of comes close. NJ 47 does it too, though it's signed North-South. All of these are in South Jersey, oddly enough.
NJ 33 also spans the width of the state as well, but is in Central Jersey.
NJ 24 used to do it in North Jersey before it was truncated to Hackettstown in the early 70's. Even though it stopped in Newark at Springfield Avenue and South Orange Avenue some eight miles from the Hudson River, still it was pretty close.
NJ even thought it has an abundance of state routes, has them mostly regionally or from E-W spanning the state's width more than complete N-S length do to the fact you have some designated US routes and now freeways doing that job.
Other longer routes that don't span both North and South Jersey:
NJ 18 (Piscataway to NJ 138 in Wall Twp)
NJ 31 (US 46 in Buttzville to US 206 in Trenton)
NJ 23 (CR 577 in Verona to CR 15 in Montague)
Didn't know 33 spans the width. I've been on the 130/33 multiplex many times without knowing it. Is 33 signed anywhere along that stretch?
Quote from: bzakharin on October 23, 2014, 10:32:50 AM
Didn't know 33 spans the width. I've been on the 130/33 multiplex many times without knowing it. Is 33 signed anywhere along that stretch?
A telltale sign is that "Trenton 13" was added to the next mileage sign, where it wasn't listed before (since 33 will go directly into Trenton). However, I know there's at least one hybrid reassurance marker located here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2402791,-74.5792392,3a,21.4y,268.07h,86.03t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sF9gsksqbogjCniIlhEEE5w!2e0).
Various guide signs are becoming mixed case letters, no more ALL CAPS, here: http://goo.gl/maps/xS0Ys but not here: just a 1/4 mile south: http://goo.gl/maps/YGeBq
here: http://goo.gl/maps/Ez1NQ and here: http://goo.gl/maps/WXJWu
I wonder if they will all eventually be replaced?
Quote from: J Route Z on October 23, 2014, 10:51:31 PM
Various guide signs are becoming mixed case letters, no more ALL CAPS, here: http://goo.gl/maps/xS0Ys but not here: just a 1/4 mile south: http://goo.gl/maps/YGeBq
here: http://goo.gl/maps/Ez1NQ and here: http://goo.gl/maps/WXJWu
I wonder if they will all eventually be replaced?
Well, if I remember correctly, the MUTCD doesn't like all-caps destination signs anymore. Mixed case Series E is much more legible than all-caps Series D.
I noted that over 2 years ago :P. Exclusively all caps series D LGSes was always a NJDOT thing. Do any other states consistently use all caps ground mounted like NJ did? The closest I've seen is parts of South Carolina. NJ also tends to use LGSes in areas where other states use larger signs, like the signs that list destinations and distances on freeways, so they look kind of odd in mixed case now.
Quote from: J Route Z on October 23, 2014, 10:51:31 PM
Various guide signs are becoming mixed case letters, no more ALL CAPS, here: http://goo.gl/maps/xS0Ys but not here: just a 1/4 mile south: http://goo.gl/maps/YGeBq
here: http://goo.gl/maps/Ez1NQ and here: http://goo.gl/maps/WXJWu
I wonder if they will all eventually be replaced?
As Zeffy mentioned, the MUTCD doesn't like all caps signage. I'm pretty sure that the state is replacing signs as they need to be replaced, so it will likely be many years before all of the old all caps signs are gone. Consider how many ancient LGS's survived for so many years and you should get the idea.
Ugh, what a micro-travesty that so many of the wonderful New Jersey quirks that formed the environment of my burgeoning roadgeekery as a child are now being undone! The NJ-style, all-caps LGSs, the loss of the inimitable NJTA signage style...what's next, no more black backplates on BGS-mounted shields? Oh, what a bland world the MUTCD wants us to live in!
Incidentally, I'm glad that people like Steve and co. have photos of the good old days that we can enter into the historical record when we're one day living in a Clearviewed dystopia of a highway system.
Quote from: motorway on October 24, 2014, 01:47:25 PM
what's next, no more black backplates on BGS-mounted shields? Oh, what a bland world the MUTCD wants us to live in!
Hate to tell you, but that's already happening. New signage that's gone up on Rt 18 (road widening and reconfig at the Turnpike exit) and Rt 22 (reconstruction between Chimney Rock and Foothill Rd in Bridgewater) feature backless shields. It was already discussed in this thread.
For this link: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec6/njdot5year.pdf one of the projects says traffic signal replacement program. Does this mean they will be replacing certain traffic lights statewide? Will these be taking place between 2015 and 2025?
New Jersey apparently has a new toll road: http://goo.gl/maps/wpJLF
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2014, 01:24:58 PM
New Jersey apparently has a new toll road: http://goo.gl/maps/wpJLF
Google always marked the Hightstown Bypass as a toll road because it leads directly to the NJ Turnpike. The problem is they should only mark it as such
after the SPUI with NJ 33 (because at that point, you just committed to the Turnpike).
But yet, if you pan westward, the next "Hightstown Bypass" does not have the (Toll Road) next to it.
Quote from: J Route Z on October 26, 2014, 05:53:16 PM
For this link: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec6/njdot5year.pdf one of the projects says traffic signal replacement program. Does this mean they will be replacing certain traffic lights statewide? Will these be taking place between 2015 and 2025?
That would make sense since they're responsible for any signals on state or federally signed routes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2014, 02:28:33 PM
But yet, if you pan westward, the next "Hightstown Bypass" does not have the (Toll Road) next to it.
The attributes for the road are likely by segment, and this first segment probably has some kind of "Toll=Y" that the rest do not.
It is a toll road. With a hilariously low speed limit of 50 (45 when it opened in 1999), it's a good source of income for my hometown.
But like the red light camera at 130 and Dutch Neck, it's for our $afety.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 30, 2014, 04:36:38 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2014, 02:28:33 PM
But yet, if you pan westward, the next "Hightstown Bypass" does not have the (Toll Road) next to it.
The attributes for the road are likely by segment, and this first segment probably has some kind of "Toll=Y" that the rest do not.
Might say "toll road", but it doesn't have the toll road outline Google introduced recently until south of the interchange, so somebody at Google just effed up with the road name. The system obviously doesn't recognize this segment as a toll road (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.2850178,-74.5270868/40.268005,-74.4941476/@40.2817299,-74.5202309,13z/am=t).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 30, 2014, 08:21:59 PM
It is a toll road. With a hilariously low speed limit of 50 (45 when it opened in 1999), it's a good source of income for my hometown.
But like the red light camera at 130 and Dutch Neck, it's for our $afety.
Lol. That's how I feel about a few roads near me. Cash-strapped Erie County keeps speed limits 10-15 mph lower than they should be and tickets everyone who goes above.
I never really noticed it before when driving it, but looking at 133 again on GSV the grassed median seems a little narrow for not having crossover protection, especially considering that NJDOT has been busily adding it on freeways.
Route 133 should be raised to 55 mph. Route 33 is 55 mph between the NJT and Business Route 33, and it has traffic lights.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 30, 2014, 04:36:38 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2014, 02:28:33 PM
But yet, if you pan westward, the next "Hightstown Bypass" does not have the (Toll Road) next to it.
The attributes for the road are likely by segment, and this first segment probably has some kind of "Toll=Y" that the rest do not.
Oh, knock that crap off. It's not a toll road, plan and simple. Even if the absolute final segment south of 33 doesn't have any options other than going thru the toll booth, the moment you leave the turnpike and pass thru the toll plaza, it's not a toll road anymore.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 30, 2014, 08:41:17 PM
I never really noticed it before when driving it, but looking at 133 again on GSV the grassed median seems a little narrow for not having crossover protection, especially considering that NJDOT has been busily adding it on freeways.
The median crossover protection contracts are moving along. Currently they are in contract #12 and #13 I believe. I don't see 133 mentioned for either contract, but then again they are only getting around to Rt. 55 now, and that road has some similarly narrow median sections with a 65 mph limit.
Update: Street View has been updated a little bit in NJ with image dates from September 2014, and even August and July of 2014. Quite recent! Here is one example: http://goo.gl/maps/JwDNT and I tried to follow the car, where it carried the updated imagery.
Quote from: J Route Z on October 31, 2014, 12:02:00 PM
Update: Street View has been updated a little bit in NJ with image dates from September 2014, and even August and July of 2014. Quite recent! Here is one example: http://goo.gl/maps/JwDNT and I tried to follow the car, where it carried the updated imagery.
I wish Street View would grab new images of Downtown Somerville... half of the imagery is from 2007, and subsequently, looks like crap. The new apartment buildings downtown look great, and I only caught a small glimpse when I was in Somerville a few weeks back, so I was hoping they would have newer coverage. Nope. Oh well.
Quote from: Zeffy on October 31, 2014, 12:08:10 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on October 31, 2014, 12:02:00 PM
Update: Street View has been updated a little bit in NJ with image dates from September 2014, and even August and July of 2014. Quite recent! Here is one example: http://goo.gl/maps/JwDNT and I tried to follow the car, where it carried the updated imagery.
I wish Street View would grab new images of Downtown Somerville... half of the imagery is from 2007, and subsequently, looks like crap. The new apartment buildings downtown look great, and I only caught a small glimpse when I was in Somerville a few weeks back, so I was hoping they would have newer coverage. Nope. Oh well.
Yeah same here..they do a half ass job. I don't get why they update one part, then leave the rest to shit. They have a listing of where they are currently driving and I saw once they were in Somerset County. But that was about a year ago. Not sure what they are really up to.
Quote from: J Route Z on October 31, 2014, 12:02:00 PM
Update: Street View has been updated a little bit in NJ with image dates from September 2014, and even August and July of 2014. Quite recent! Here is one example: http://goo.gl/maps/JwDNT and I tried to follow the car, where it carried the updated imagery.
I saw 8/2014 as far north as Route 70 (I noticed that when I was playing my Streetview game during my lunch break, I saw that the travel lanes were freshly paved with centerline rumble strips as I saw when I biked down it during the summer).
I don't understand how they pick which areas to do. In this last update, Bainbridge and Unadilla both got new imagery in NY... but Sidney, sandwiched between them (it's only two miles between towns here, and the car even went all the way to Sidney before turning around in one spot), did not. In a previous update, St. Lawrence University and Clarkson University plus nearby streets got imagery, but none of the roads connecting them to the rest of the world did, or even other roads in the villages; Potsdam's new US 11 imagery from Clarkson still hasn't been fixed either, so it's on a slightly different path than the old imagery instead of replacing it.
It's a crapshoot when it comes to Street View. Some places around here have gotten new imagery a couple times in the past few years while others have imagery that is 7+ years old. Even the major roads aren't kept up to date in places. Take I-87 in Albany, where no post-reconstruction imagery exists, so I haven't had a chance to see the new traffic patterns or signs.
The time stamp on my Connecticut home says June 2012. Yay?
I didn't check any Garden State addresses except for Arm & Hammer Field in Trenton. The image at the corner of Cass Street and NJ Route 29 had the Trenton Thunder advertising sign reading "169 days until Opening Day 2014", along with the then-current jackpots for Mega Millions and PowerBALL.
http://goo.gl/maps/GqPgX
Quote from: Zeffy on October 31, 2014, 12:08:10 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on October 31, 2014, 12:02:00 PM
Update: Street View has been updated a little bit in NJ with image dates from September 2014, and even August and July of 2014. Quite recent! Here is one example: http://goo.gl/maps/JwDNT and I tried to follow the car, where it carried the updated imagery.
I wish Street View would grab new images of Downtown Somerville... half of the imagery is from 2007, and subsequently, looks like crap. The new apartment buildings downtown look great, and I only caught a small glimpse when I was in Somerville a few weeks back, so I was hoping they would have newer coverage. Nope. Oh well.
They're really doing a great job with Downtown Somerville. The new apartments and shopping are really nice, the new little arts district they've created is a great place to walk around, and some nice new street stuff (new intersections, etc.). In fact, I'll be there tomorrow.
Quote from: storm2k on November 01, 2014, 12:17:17 AM
They're really doing a great job with Downtown Somerville. The new apartments and shopping are really nice, the new little arts district they've created is a great place to walk around, and some nice new street stuff (new intersections, etc.). In fact, I'll be there tomorrow.
It's such a hidden gem in Somerset County. I would love to be able to live in Somerville. Plus, the access to the train station allows you to pretty much get anywhere in New Jersey (or, New York or Philadelphia) without needing a vehicle (though driving would still be my preferred option).
Quote from: Zeffy on November 01, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
Plus, the access to the train station allows you to pretty much get anywhere in New Jersey (or, New York or Philadelphia) without needing a vehicle (though driving would still be my preferred option).
Have you ever actually tried using NJ Transit trains to do anything other than commute to NYC (or a point that happens to be between the station you live near and NYC)? I have, and it's not pretty. Here's how my trip from Morristown to Cherry Hill went:
Morristown line to Newark Broad Street station - about an hour
Newark Light Rail to Newark Penn Station - 15 minutes
Northeast Corridor Line to Trenton - another hour
River Line to Camden - yet another hour
PATCO to Cherry Hill - 15 minutes
That's 3.5 hours of just travel time for a 90 minute drive, and the connections are horrible.
Back to Somerville, though, you won't get a one-seat ride even to New York (except a few off-peak trains). Have to change trains at Newark Penn.
Quote from: cl94 on October 31, 2014, 03:45:26 PM
It's a crapshoot when it comes to Street View. Some places around here have gotten new imagery a couple times in the past few years while others have imagery that is 7+ years old. Even the major roads aren't kept up to date in places. Take I-87 in Albany, where no post-reconstruction imagery exists, so I haven't had a chance to see the new traffic patterns or signs.
About 3/4 of the way down the page (after the Deegan photos): http://www.nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i87&state=NY
Quote from: bzakharin on November 01, 2014, 11:01:06 PM
Have you ever actually tried using NJ Transit trains to do anything other than commute to NYC (or a point that happens to be between the station you live near and NYC)? I have, and it's not pretty. Here's how my trip from Morristown to Cherry Hill went:
Morristown line to Newark Broad Street station - about an hour
Newark Light Rail to Newark Penn Station - 15 minutes
Northeast Corridor Line to Trenton - another hour
River Line to Camden - yet another hour
PATCO to Cherry Hill - 15 minutes
That's 3.5 hours of just travel time for a 90 minute drive, and the connections are horrible.
Back to Somerville, though, you won't get a one-seat ride even to New York (except a few off-peak trains). Have to change trains at Newark Penn.
I just traced out your route on the Goog.
You, sir; are a man among men.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 01, 2014, 11:01:06 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 01, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
Plus, the access to the train station allows you to pretty much get anywhere in New Jersey (or, New York or Philadelphia) without needing a vehicle (though driving would still be my preferred option).
Have you ever actually tried using NJ Transit trains to do anything other than commute to NYC (or a point that happens to be between the station you live near and NYC)? I have, and it's not pretty. Here's how my trip from Morristown to Cherry Hill went:
Morristown line to Newark Broad Street station - about an hour
Newark Light Rail to Newark Penn Station - 15 minutes
Northeast Corridor Line to Trenton - another hour
River Line to Camden - yet another hour
PATCO to Cherry Hill - 15 minutes
That's 3.5 hours of just travel time for a 90 minute drive, and the connections are horrible.
Have you tried using another state's mass transit system to get nearly anywhere in the state?
You can't. New Jersey has probably the most comprehensive system in the country. (Delaware isn't too bad either.)
But in order to provide that convenience, it's going to be a long ride. You can cut out a lot of time if the train went directly from the station you start at to the station you need without stopping at the other stations, but then that cuts away at the convenience of the service.
It's also tough to cover an entire state, even in NJ. People forget the "mass" in mass-transit. It's supposed to be a system designed to moving a massive amount of people, not a shuttle service for individuals. Someone in the Pine Barrens may complain they don't have bus service, but if there's a bus that came by every half hour but doesn't go to where the rider wants to go, it's pointless.
(BTW, you could've also taken the Riverline to the NJ Transit Atlantic City line transfer station, and taken a NJ Transit Train to Cherry Hill as well.)
Quote from: bzakharin on November 01, 2014, 11:01:06 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 01, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
Plus, the access to the train station allows you to pretty much get anywhere in New Jersey (or, New York or Philadelphia) without needing a vehicle (though driving would still be my preferred option).
Have you ever actually tried using NJ Transit trains to do anything other than commute to NYC (or a point that happens to be between the station you live near and NYC)? I have, and it's not pretty. Here's how my trip from Morristown to Cherry Hill went:
Morristown line to Newark Broad Street station - about an hour
Newark Light Rail to Newark Penn Station - 15 minutes
Northeast Corridor Line to Trenton - another hour
River Line to Camden - yet another hour
PATCO to Cherry Hill - 15 minutes
That's 3.5 hours of just travel time for a 90 minute drive, and the connections are horrible.
Back to Somerville, though, you won't get a one-seat ride even to New York (except a few off-peak trains). Have to change trains at Newark Penn.
3.5 hours is better than not being able to go anywhere because of a lack of a vehicle. Might be inconvenient because of all the transferring, but as said, if you don't have a vehicle, it allows you to get to places.
Also, what's up with Trenton having little to none guide signs to help you get around? This afternoon, I came over the Trenton Makes Bridge thinking I would be able to get on US 1 North (I can access the bridge from US 1 SB to avoid the toll) near William Trent Place - I was wrong. It was marked with a flashing yellow traffic signal as well as a "NO TURNS" plaque at the first intersection. So I took a right at the next light, thinking that the onramp was there (note, there is a distinct lack of any signage in this area). Well, 0 for 2 on my guesses, because I found myself in the city streets. I was able to find my way back using US 206 to NJ 129 (and at that point, I decided on using I-295 to get home instead of US 1), but the only reason I could do that was because I was following the signs for the Sun National Bank Center, which lead me to Cass Street (where I got stuck behind the gates at the crossing for the River Line Station for about 8 minutes...), and then I turned left onto NJ 129 and followed that to 295.
At the intersection of Broad Street (206) and Bridge Street, there is no signs to tell you that you are at the intersection with US 206. It's not reflected on the street signs, and there are no trailblazer assemblies. What gives? The average person would probably have been lost at that point, but I knew that Broad Street was US 206.
I realized now that I could've avoided this if I went up one more intersection to US 1 from PA 32, but I could've sworn you could get to US 1 north from that bridge. Well, I guess I know now that you can't.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 02, 2014, 05:06:03 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 01, 2014, 11:01:06 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 01, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
Plus, the access to the train station allows you to pretty much get anywhere in New Jersey (or, New York or Philadelphia) without needing a vehicle (though driving would still be my preferred option).
Have you ever actually tried using NJ Transit trains to do anything other than commute to NYC (or a point that happens to be between the station you live near and NYC)? I have, and it's not pretty. Here's how my trip from Morristown to Cherry Hill went:
Morristown line to Newark Broad Street station - about an hour
Newark Light Rail to Newark Penn Station - 15 minutes
Northeast Corridor Line to Trenton - another hour
River Line to Camden - yet another hour
PATCO to Cherry Hill - 15 minutes
That's 3.5 hours of just travel time for a 90 minute drive, and the connections are horrible.
Back to Somerville, though, you won't get a one-seat ride even to New York (except a few off-peak trains). Have to change trains at Newark Penn.
3.5 hours is better than not being able to go anywhere because of a lack of a vehicle. Might be inconvenient because of all the transferring, but as said, if you don't have a vehicle, it allows you to get to places.
Also, what's up with Trenton having little to none guide signs to help you get around? This afternoon, I came over the Trenton Makes Bridge thinking I would be able to get on US 1 North (I can access the bridge from US 1 SB to avoid the toll) near William Trent Place - I was wrong. It was marked with a flashing yellow traffic signal as well as a "NO TURNS" plaque at the first intersection. So I took a right at the next light, thinking that the onramp was there (note, there is a distinct lack of any signage in this area). Well, 0 for 2 on my guesses, because I found myself in the city streets. I was able to find my way back using US 206 to NJ 129 (and at that point, I decided on using I-295 to get home instead of US 1), but the only reason I could do that was because I was following the signs for the Sun National Bank Center, which lead me to Cass Street (where I got stuck behind the gates at the crossing for the River Line Station for about 8 minutes...), and then I turned left onto NJ 129 and followed that to 295.
And those city streets aren't in the best of neighborhoods either! If you turned right under the overpass instead of left, you would've run into NJ 29 pretty quickly.
You're right - there aren't any signs for US 1 North after crossing the Trenton Makes, but then again that street doesn't intersect with US 1 North either, and Jersey in general doesn't post a whole lot of "To" signage if you're more than an intersection away from the desired route.
If you went up two more intersections to Market Street and turned right, that would've been your preferred route. But you would've had to know that as well.
QuoteAt the intersection of Broad Street (206) and Bridge Street, there is no signs to tell you that you are at the intersection with US 206. It's not reflected on the street signs, and there are no trailblazer assemblies. What gives? The average person would probably have been lost at that point, but I knew that Broad Street was US 206.
The average person probably wouldn't care about the route number either, especially coming from the inner city streets like that. Most people I talk with in Trenton when we're talking directions or locations care about "Broad Street", not "US 206".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 02, 2014, 06:30:27 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 02, 2014, 05:06:03 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 01, 2014, 11:01:06 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 01, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
Plus, the access to the train station allows you to pretty much get anywhere in New Jersey (or, New York or Philadelphia) without needing a vehicle (though driving would still be my preferred option).
Have you ever actually tried using NJ Transit trains to do anything other than commute to NYC (or a point that happens to be between the station you live near and NYC)? I have, and it's not pretty. Here's how my trip from Morristown to Cherry Hill went:
Morristown line to Newark Broad Street station - about an hour
Newark Light Rail to Newark Penn Station - 15 minutes
Northeast Corridor Line to Trenton - another hour
River Line to Camden - yet another hour
PATCO to Cherry Hill - 15 minutes
That's 3.5 hours of just travel time for a 90 minute drive, and the connections are horrible.
Back to Somerville, though, you won't get a one-seat ride even to New York (except a few off-peak trains). Have to change trains at Newark Penn.
3.5 hours is better than not being able to go anywhere because of a lack of a vehicle. Might be inconvenient because of all the transferring, but as said, if you don't have a vehicle, it allows you to get to places.
Also, what's up with Trenton having little to none guide signs to help you get around? This afternoon, I came over the Trenton Makes Bridge thinking I would be able to get on US 1 North (I can access the bridge from US 1 SB to avoid the toll) near William Trent Place - I was wrong. It was marked with a flashing yellow traffic signal as well as a "NO TURNS" plaque at the first intersection. So I took a right at the next light, thinking that the onramp was there (note, there is a distinct lack of any signage in this area). Well, 0 for 2 on my guesses, because I found myself in the city streets. I was able to find my way back using US 206 to NJ 129 (and at that point, I decided on using I-295 to get home instead of US 1), but the only reason I could do that was because I was following the signs for the Sun National Bank Center, which lead me to Cass Street (where I got stuck behind the gates at the crossing for the River Line Station for about 8 minutes...), and then I turned left onto NJ 129 and followed that to 295.
And those city streets aren't in the best of neighborhoods either! If you turned right under the overpass instead of left, you would've run into NJ 29 pretty quickly.
You're right - there aren't any signs for US 1 North after crossing the Trenton Makes, but then again that street doesn't intersect with US 1 North either, and Jersey in general doesn't post a whole lot of "To" signage if you're more than an intersection away from the desired route.
If you went up two more intersections to Market Street and turned right, that would've been your preferred route. But you would've had to know that as well.
Yup, but I was like "shit, what did I do?" at the time, and chose to go left, not noticing the "ROUTE 29 ->" sign on top of the stop sign to the right. The area wasn't too bad though, and I wasn't scared, considering I've been thru Trenton plenty of times before. I just think it's ridiculous that there is no signage in the area. I get it, it's in the ghetto, but considering the Sun National Bank Center is right there, a few signs would've been nice.
Weird. Looking at old aerials, that ramp didn't exist until the 1980s. Instead the underpass carried a ramp from US 1 north to Bridge Street north. There was also no southbound exit to Bridge Street, but an entrance from Centre Street with a branch off to Bridge where the current offramp is now. So NJ 33 was the last exit before and first entrance after the toll bridge.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 02, 2014, 04:54:37 PM
(BTW, you could've also taken the Riverline to the NJ Transit Atlantic City line transfer station, and taken a NJ Transit Train to Cherry Hill as well.)
This Is true, but:
1. The station did not exist when I needed to make such trips
2. The schedule is so infrequent that PATCO is almost always faster even from 30th street station (via the Market Frankford subway line)
Yes, Trenton is a confusing mess. Every once in awhile I have to go down to NJDEP on State St. and if it's around lunch time I like to drive across the Trenton Makes bridge to have lunch at a really good deli in Morrisville. I don't do it that often, so I always find myself stumbling around trying to find the bridge, which is not well marked. For some reason, I always think it will be somewhat of a straight shot west toward the water, and forget I have to swing a left at some point to loop around to the bridge. Years ago if I recall correctly, this was signed as ALT US 1, which would have made this a lot easier today.
Jeff and Nicole got it right not about Trenton, but every major city. Locals use street names in almost every place, so if shields go missing no one (including cops) even bother to notice.
Try driving US 1 through Baltimore or Providence and see how little to none US 1 trailblazing is.
One thing that gets me is New Jersey will sign toll road trailblazing in many places far away from the actual freeway, but interstate and US routes nearby along major arteries get none. Even I-78 from US 22 gets only signed at the eastern terminus at the Newark Tangle, Bonnie Burn Road in Scotch Plains, I-287, and an East assembly in Lebanon at the road to Cokesbury. There are plenty of connections between the two routes even though the Watchung Mountain creates an obstacle, nonetheless if I-78 were the Parkway or the Turnpike there would be shields at Warrenville Road in Greenbrook as well as CR 531 in North Plainfield and even CR 523 in Whitehouse along Route 22 leading to it on those side roads.
Also at NJ 31 northern terminus, if I-80 were a toll road would have a TO I-80 shield at the US 46 intersection directing the motorists West on Route 46, then at the CR 519 intersection have motorists for I-80 EB to turn north there and for those heading west on I-80 to keep straight on Route 46.
It is interesting how many trailblazers for free NJDOT maintained freeways or arterials have lack of shields even just a few blocks away while the Parkway has shields to it even as far away as Sussex County. Heck I think I have seen the NJT with trailblazers over 50 miles away from it in some other areas of NJ.
Spotted some new signs on US 22 WB in Bridgewater yesterday. It looks like Steve may have been totally right about NJDOT ditching the black-backing on state and US shields practice, because of the one
good decent crappy picture I managed to get, you can clearly see the US 22 shield does NOT have a black-backing like it normally would've. This is also true for each of the subsequent signs approaching Finderne Avenue.
Here's the crappy photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2Frealphotos%2FUS22nobacking_zps98419aae.jpg&hash=70d53766d2b0765fcb2245a33ecadcd9f65907fd)
Quote from: roadman65 on November 12, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
Jeff and Nicole got it right not about Trenton, but every major city. Locals use street names in almost every place, so if shields go missing no one (including cops) even bother to notice.
At least in Camden they sign numbered roads on the street signs. In all my travels through Trenton, I'm not sure if I've seen even one signed. Most of the trailblazers are in some obsecure spots too.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 12, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
There are plenty of connections between the two routes even though the Watchung Mountain creates an obstacle, nonetheless if I-78 were the Parkway or the Turnpike there would be shields at Warrenville Road in Greenbrook as well as CR 531 in North Plainfield and even CR 523 in Whitehouse along Route 22 leading to it on those side roads.
US 22 EB has Parkway trailblazers as far away as the border of Somerville. I would think people would've used I-287 to get to the Parkway instead of dealing with all the signalized intersections and jughandles US 22 contains.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 02, 2014, 10:01:40 PM
Yes, Trenton is a confusing mess. Every once in awhile I have to go down to NJDEP on State St. and if it's around lunch time I like to drive across the Trenton Makes bridge to have lunch at a really good deli in Morrisville.
There's lots of hidden delicacies in Downtown Trenton along Front Street. I went to Settimo Cielo one night and didn't feel any danger at all, plus, the Italian food was as good as I'd find in Brooklyn. Wish more people would give some of the restaurants in Trenton a try!
Quote from: Zeffy on November 02, 2014, 06:55:01 PM
Yup, but I was like "shit, what did I do?" at the time, and chose to go left, not noticing the "ROUTE 29 ->" sign on top of the stop sign to the right.
It's bizarrely interesting, because you pretty much need to know where you're going in order to run into this sign in the first place. It's the only known sign like this as well.
QuoteSpotted some new signs on US 22 WB in Bridgewater yesterday. It looks like Steve may have been totally right about NJDOT ditching the black-backing on state and US shields practice, because of the one good decent crappy picture I managed to get, you can clearly see the US 22 shield does NOT have a black-backing like it normally would've. This is also true for each of the subsequent signs approaching Finderne Avenue.
Yup, I pointed that out back in the summertime. Wave of the future. Also happening on 18 at the Turnpike where they are building the additional lanes and expanding the overpass.
Jeesh, I'm glad there's a large and well-tended photographic archive of the "personality" NJDOT and NJTA signage will once have had.
Quote from: motorway on November 12, 2014, 06:36:56 PM
Jeesh, I'm glad there's a large and well-tended photographic archive of the "personality" NJDOT and NJTA signage will once have had.
True of all states. Whither LeHay font, state-name US shields, embossed signs... everything ends and progresses.
Quote from: Alps on November 12, 2014, 07:29:25 PM
Quote from: motorway on November 12, 2014, 06:36:56 PM
Jeesh, I'm glad there's a large and well-tended photographic archive of the "personality" NJDOT and NJTA signage will once have had.
True of all states. Whither LeHay font, state-name US shields, embossed signs... everything ends and progresses.
Everything may end, but I'm not sure that change automatically signifies "progress"...
Shut 'em down!
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/stop_red_light_cameras_must_be_turned_off_next_month_nj_tells_towns.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2014, 02:31:43 PM
Shut 'em down!
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/stop_red_light_cameras_must_be_turned_off_next_month_nj_tells_towns.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Finally. Now let's hope that the DOT decides to end the program all-together.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 14, 2014, 02:47:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2014, 02:31:43 PM
Shut 'em down!
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/stop_red_light_cameras_must_be_turned_off_next_month_nj_tells_towns.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Finally. Now let's hope that the DOT decides to end the program all-together.
Actually, it's not in their hands. All they can do is collect the data & issue the report. Ultimately, it's up to the Governor to sign or veto any bill that applies to this. And as of now, there's no bill. I'm a bit surprised even the most supportive members of the legislature and assembly haven't drafted something as of yet. I would've thought after Election Day last week something would've popped up. While Christie hasn't said he will absolutely veto any bill that gets to him, he did indicate that he probably won't continue the program.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2014, 10:52:49 PM
It's pretty much National news when a casino closes. The Taj has threatened that they may be next, but nothing beyond that.
Threat made good:
Trump Taj Mahal Will Be 5th Atlantic City Casino to Close This Year (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/nyregion/trump-taj-mahal-to-be-fifth-casino-to-close-in-atlantic-city-this-year.html?_r=0)
(Footnote: Don Guardian has to be the funniest name of the mayor of a mobbed-up town there is.)
Considering that it takes 2 million in sales per day to keep it at even, it is no surprise to me that it will.
Some people will be happy to hear as Trump is not everyone's favorite person. For years he kept out the Vegas developers, who actually know how to run casino's and many feel this is his payback for that and, of course, the Junk Bond scandal of his thirty years ago.
Plus, his real estate empire will cover his loss soon enough anyway. I believe that closing some of your venues in the world of business is considered being smart.
State DOT Officials Expect US 46 / NJ 3 Interchange Rework Project to Begin Next Spring (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/work_to_fix_hazardous_route_46-3_merge_could_start.html#incart_river)
QuoteState Department of Transportation officials expect the first phase of work to start next spring on a larger project to straighten out the messy merge between Routes 46, 3 and Valley Road in Clifton.
Construction on the project's first phase, to build a new two-way service road between Notch/Rifle Camp Road and Valley Road to take local traffic off Route 46 west, is expected to begin in the spring of 2015 and be completed in the fall of 2017, said Stephen Schapiro, a state Department of Transportation spokesman.
QuoteWork on the second contract, to rework and upgrade the merge between Routes 46 and 3 and Valley Road is expected to begin in the spring of 2018 with a tentative completion date of fall 2021, Schapiro said.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 21, 2014, 08:40:32 PM
State DOT Officials Expect US 46 / NJ 3 Interchange Rework Project to Begin Next Spring (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/work_to_fix_hazardous_route_46-3_merge_could_start.html#incart_river)
QuoteState Department of Transportation officials expect the first phase of work to start next spring on a larger project to straighten out the messy merge between Routes 46, 3 and Valley Road in Clifton.
Construction on the project's first phase, to build a new two-way service road between Notch/Rifle Camp Road and Valley Road to take local traffic off Route 46 west, is expected to begin in the spring of 2015 and be completed in the fall of 2017, said Stephen Schapiro, a state Department of Transportation spokesman.
QuoteWork on the second contract, to rework and upgrade the merge between Routes 46 and 3 and Valley Road is expected to begin in the spring of 2018 with a tentative completion date of fall 2021, Schapiro said.
Just looked at it on Google Maps.
Oh. My. God.
Quote from: DeaconG on November 21, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Just looked at it on Google Maps.
Oh. My. God.
Yup, sometimes I have no idea how NJDOT thought their creations were anywhere near efficient, let alone safe.
It was the 1930s.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 21, 2014, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on November 21, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Just looked at it on Google Maps.
Oh. My. God.
Yup, sometimes I have no idea how NJDOT thought their creations were anywhere near efficient, let alone safe.
Actually a number of intersections like this were considered state of the art in the 30s and 40s when they were built. also, not nearly as much car traffic as there is now.
Quote from: storm2k on November 21, 2014, 09:51:34 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 21, 2014, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on November 21, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Just looked at it on Google Maps.
Oh. My. God.
Yup, sometimes I have no idea how NJDOT thought their creations were anywhere near efficient, let alone safe.
Actually a number of intersections like this were considered state of the art in the 30s and 40s when they were built. also, not nearly as much car traffic as there is now.
Doesn't mean that it should stay the way it always was. I avoid this area at all costs because of that interchange. 3 lanes on both US 46 and NJ 3 go to 2 and both merge directly into 3 lanes. Thing is a nightmare. Merge signage is nonexistent as well. Not too far west of there is the I-80 interchange I
hate.
Quote from: cl94 on November 21, 2014, 10:50:00 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 21, 2014, 09:51:34 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 21, 2014, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on November 21, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Just looked at it on Google Maps.
Oh. My. God.
Yup, sometimes I have no idea how NJDOT thought their creations were anywhere near efficient, let alone safe.
Actually a number of intersections like this were considered state of the art in the 30s and 40s when they were built. also, not nearly as much car traffic as there is now.
Doesn't mean that it should stay the way it always was. I avoid this area at all costs because of that interchange. 3 lanes on both US 46 and NJ 3 go to 2 and both merge directly into 3 lanes. Thing is a nightmare. Merge signage is nonexistent as well. Not too far west of there is the I-80 interchange I hate.
Which is why they're going to reconstruct it.
Quote from: cl94 on November 21, 2014, 10:50:00 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 21, 2014, 09:51:34 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 21, 2014, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on November 21, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Just looked at it on Google Maps.
Oh. My. God.
Yup, sometimes I have no idea how NJDOT thought their creations were anywhere near efficient, let alone safe.
Actually a number of intersections like this were considered state of the art in the 30s and 40s when they were built. also, not nearly as much car traffic as there is now.
Doesn't mean that it should stay the way it always was. I avoid this area at all costs because of that interchange. 3 lanes on both US 46 and NJ 3 go to 2 and both merge directly into 3 lanes. Thing is a nightmare. Merge signage is nonexistent as well. Not too far west of there is the I-80 interchange I hate.
Living less than a half-mile from said interchange, you get used to it. If you have to get off at Valley Road, you get three opportunities to reach it.
It is an annoying interchange going eastbound, but going westbound, it is rather easy, minus the odd left turn NJ 3 (old S3) makes before reaching US 46 (old 6).
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Try doing it from Clove Road, you hate the design going eastbound, because you have to run across 2 lanes of traffic to get to US 46 east.
Eastbound, you're jammed for miles getting up the hill, basically all the way back from the 80/46 merge, because of the slow traffic moving over to the right at Route 3 into two lanes. If they honestly just made three lanes go to Route 3 and just had one left lane Route 46, it would all go away.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Wait.
Wait.
The fuck.
The new solution STILL has two lanes from Route 3 WB? They're going to spend umpteen billion dollars and not solve the single biggest problem of all by a country mile?
I want my tax dollars back.
The good news is that with the state's funding situation, they won't even make it through Contract A.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Hmm, interesting. It seems many of NJDOT's fuckups in the modern age can be solved with roundabouts. Also, is it just me, or is that merge lane from Great Notch Road onto US 46 WB really short?
Quote from: Zeffy on November 22, 2014, 10:24:22 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Hmm, interesting. It seems many of NJDOT's fuckups in the modern age can be solved with roundabouts. Also, is it just me, or is that merge lane from Great Notch Road onto US 46 WB really short?
I haven't been through there in over a year, but it may be due to the space constraints within the notch itself. One of the folks at the excellent Great Notch Inn once explained to me that the inn itself predates Route 46, and had to actually be relocated back over the years as the highway displaced it.
It is better than nothing I guess, but as Steve points out why spend millions to get the same results.
Quote from: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:11:43 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Wait.
Wait.
The fuck.
The new solution STILL has two lanes from Route 3 WB? They're going to spend umpteen billion dollars and not solve the single biggest problem of all by a country mile?
I want my tax dollars back.
I noticed that as well. Biggest issue there is the damn merge on NJ 3. It'll improve things somewhat, but not as much as is needed. Someone probably plugged the design into a software package and decided that it the cost-benefit ratio wasn't good, but 3 lanes would be better.
Quote from: cl94 on November 22, 2014, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:11:43 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Wait.
Wait.
The fuck.
The new solution STILL has two lanes from Route 3 WB? They're going to spend umpteen billion dollars and not solve the single biggest problem of all by a country mile?
I want my tax dollars back.
I noticed that as well. Biggest issue there is the damn merge on NJ 3. It'll improve things somewhat, but not as much as is needed. Someone probably plugged the design into a software package and decided that it the cost-benefit ratio wasn't good, but 3 lanes would be better.
I have not been a NJ resident for over 24 years, so I am not familiar with the current road situations, but it does sound like they are putting a band aid on what should be major surgery. If I am not mistaken the whole bottleneck on NJ 3 WB approaching the 46 merge is caused by a lane drop, so how is not eliminating that going to do major change to commuters traveling there?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2014, 02:31:02 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 22, 2014, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:11:43 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Wait.
Wait.
The fuck.
The new solution STILL has two lanes from Route 3 WB? They're going to spend umpteen billion dollars and not solve the single biggest problem of all by a country mile?
I want my tax dollars back.
I noticed that as well. Biggest issue there is the damn merge on NJ 3. It'll improve things somewhat, but not as much as is needed. Someone probably plugged the design into a software package and decided that it the cost-benefit ratio wasn't good, but 3 lanes would be better.
I have not been a NJ resident for over 24 years, so I am not familiar with the current road situations, but it does sound like they are putting a band aid on what should be major surgery. If I am not mistaken the whole bottleneck on NJ 3 WB approaching the 46 merge is caused by a lane drop, so how is not eliminating that going to do major change to commuters traveling there?
Kind of. As noted before, there are too many things wrong with this area and that plan (if it ever happens) will fix most of them. The CR 621 interchange is a weaving nightmare that can back things up, the merge itself with the right lane of US 46 and the left lane of NJ 3 combining without warning is a mess, the Notch Rd interchange is a mess, the NJ 3 lane drop, the list goes on and on. GSV on US 46 and NJ 3 EB shows the issues, especially if you look over to the WB side. It's a clusterfuck, and that's being nice.
While I'm not familiar with all of New Jersey's roundabouts, I do know Most of them are single lane roundabouts. I know there's a partial double lane near Cinnaminson, but in a much less congested area.
Looking at the plans for the 46/3 project, I noticed the one roundabout is very close to a 3 partial lane roundabout, but the right turn lane is separated either by a stripped line or a minor bypass. And in at least one other case, while it's a dual lane output from the roundabout, it quickly becomes a single lane on the side street.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2014, 02:31:02 PM
Quote from: cl94 on November 22, 2014, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 22, 2014, 01:11:43 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2014, 12:07:07 AM
Plans for said interchange:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/plans.shtm
I never had a problem with it eastbound. Its westbound with all the merging that is a mess. The left lane of NJ-3 just kinda vanishes into the right lane of US-46.
For historical context, this is the original 2003 plan for this project, note the lack of roundabouts: https://web.archive.org/web/20041125170344/http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/rt46/altB.pdf
Wait.
Wait.
The fuck.
The new solution STILL has two lanes from Route 3 WB? They're going to spend umpteen billion dollars and not solve the single biggest problem of all by a country mile?
I want my tax dollars back.
I noticed that as well. Biggest issue there is the damn merge on NJ 3. It'll improve things somewhat, but not as much as is needed. Someone probably plugged the design into a software package and decided that it the cost-benefit ratio wasn't good, but 3 lanes would be better.
I have not been a NJ resident for over 24 years, so I am not familiar with the current road situations, but it does sound like they are putting a band aid on what should be major surgery. If I am not mistaken the whole bottleneck on NJ 3 WB approaching the 46 merge is caused by a lane drop, so how is not eliminating that going to do major change to commuters traveling there?
It's NJ. There aren't too many projects that shouldn't be a major surgical procedure. Unfortunately due to the existing conditions & properties, the wants/desires/fears/cries of local residents & municipal leaders, and the budget limitations, many projects that would benefit from a complete overhaul get the bandaid treatment. And there's other issues as well, especially downstream. 3 lanes may be best here, but would it simply bottleneck traffic a mile down the road?
Maybe build the project where the road could easily be widened in the future, keeping bridge piers and major utilities far enough away to allow for an additional lane.
Using the GS Parkway Int 9/10/11 project as an example, there was one design where a county road condition would result in a Service Level 'F', even after the rebuild. The town was willing to accept it because of the overall benefits elsewhere. I'm not sure if this was the selected option though.
Quote from: cl94 on November 21, 2014, 10:50:00 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 21, 2014, 09:51:34 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 21, 2014, 09:16:15 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on November 21, 2014, 09:08:41 PM
Just looked at it on Google Maps.
Oh. My. God.
Yup, sometimes I have no idea how NJDOT thought their creations were anywhere near efficient, let alone safe.
Actually a number of intersections like this were considered state of the art in the 30s and 40s when they were built. also, not nearly as much car traffic as there is now.
Doesn't mean that it should stay the way it always was. I avoid this area at all costs because of that interchange. 3 lanes on both US 46 and NJ 3 go to 2 and both merge directly into 3 lanes. Thing is a nightmare. Merge signage is nonexistent as well. Not too far west of there is the I-80 interchange I hate.
I agree completely. This interchange should have been fixed years ago. Unfortunately, time, money, and strong NIMBY-ism often conspire to create less than ideal solutions to old infrastructure problems.
Quote from: storm2k on November 23, 2014, 03:50:58 AM
I agree completely. This interchange should have been fixed years ago. Unfortunately, time, money, and strong NIMBY-ism often conspire to create less than ideal solutions to old infrastructure problems.
Oh, so true. Every moment I look at the 206 Bypass in my own town I just sigh and think of what it
could have been...
Quote from: Zeffy on November 23, 2014, 10:16:58 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 23, 2014, 03:50:58 AM
I agree completely. This interchange should have been fixed years ago. Unfortunately, time, money, and strong NIMBY-ism often conspire to create less than ideal solutions to old infrastructure problems.
Oh, so true. Every moment I look at the 206 Bypass in my own town I just sigh and think of what it could have been...
I grew up in Finderne so I feel exactly the same way.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 23, 2014, 10:16:58 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 23, 2014, 03:50:58 AM
I agree completely. This interchange should have been fixed years ago. Unfortunately, time, money, and strong NIMBY-ism often conspire to create less than ideal solutions to old infrastructure problems.
Oh, so true. Every moment I look at the 206 Bypass in my own town I just sigh and think of what it could have been...
When I drive through Tenafly (the town fighting resumption of rail service to its downtown) and its richy-rich neighbors, I am often sad that the Turnpike Northern Extension didn't get rammed through them as planned. Ah, what
could have been...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6725441,-74.3297379,3a,75y,19.16h,86.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srXA4eBYIxuIcOL2yt6oU4g!2e0 I see Union County, NJ decided to sign CR 509 SPUR as CR 577 along CR 509 in Westfield after NJDOT was signing it as this for years.
To me I always thought the CR 509 SPUR should have been this all along as basically it always was an extension of CR 577 more than it was a spur of its parent. Both had a head to head terminus with NJ 124 in Springfield and I do not know why it was never conceived from the very beginning.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 25, 2014, 08:41:02 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6725441,-74.3297379,3a,75y,19.16h,86.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srXA4eBYIxuIcOL2yt6oU4g!2e0 I see Union County, NJ decided to sign CR 509 SPUR as CR 577 along CR 509 in Westfield after NJDOT was signing it as this for years.
To me I always thought the CR 509 SPUR should have been this all along as basically it always was an extension of CR 577 more than it was a spur of its parent. Both had a head to head terminus with NJ 124 in Springfield and I do not know why it was never conceived from the very beginning.
That's been like that for several years at least. I used to drive through there all the time when going from my apartment in Union to downtown Westfield.
The 577 signs were switched in back in 2003 when the county signed all their 600 routes. Prior to that, county posted signed were all CR-509 Spur and relatively new (1998ish?). There were county posted traffic light overheads at Hillside Ave. in Springfield that said CR-577 the whole time. NJDOT still has a CR-509 Spur SLD, but even they have always posted 577 signs on that roadway at US-22 and NJ-124.
The old shields:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2Fcr-509_spur.jpg&hash=94666fcab339f5c7519c124279c1f114cd621aa5)
Prior to the construction of I-78 relocating Main St. in Millburn/Springfield, CR-577 used to end at Morris Ave. in a different location, across from Mountain Ave. next to the church. The stub that used to be called Main St. is now Church Mall. Once Main St. was relocated to intersect Springfield Ave., CR-577 and 509 Spur basically ended at each other. It was pretty logical to extend the route and kill the spur as NJDOT was doing that anyway to other Spur 500 routes.
Wow, it's very interesting to see a SPUR 509 shield. The new SLDs are due out any day now and should clear things up.
I took a picture of it because it had SPUR in the shield. Hopefully the new SLDs don't invent all kinds of county routes that don't exist. I heard NJDOT actually contacted the counties this time for information.
Quote from: Alps on November 26, 2014, 12:16:42 AM
Wow, it's very interesting to see a SPUR 509 shield. The new SLDs are due out any day now and should clear things up.
Are there actually going to be new SLDs coming soon? I'm sure going to miss the old data on municipal roads from 1999.
This sign must be an error..http://goo.gl/maps/1KPzJ as there is no road coming up that is CR 630, at a T intersection, unless they should've posted it in the other direction because Millburn Ave is CR 630, though Vauxhall Road is signed as CR 630 here: http://goo.gl/maps/B3gug It's sorta misleading.
Quote from: J Route Z on November 28, 2014, 11:05:00 PM
This sign must be an error..http://goo.gl/maps/1KPzJ as there is no road coming up that is CR 630, at a T intersection, unless they should've posted it in the other direction because Millburn Ave is CR 630, though Vauxhall Road is signed as CR 630 here: http://goo.gl/maps/B3gug It's sorta misleading.
Posted too far south maybe?
Its posted on the wrong side of the street. Millburn Ave. is Essex CR-630. Vauxhall Rd. is Union CR-630... confusing ain't it? Essex County signs its tiny part of Vauxhall Rd. as CR-630 ALT.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 28, 2014, 11:23:43 PM
Its posted on the wrong side of the street. Millburn Ave. is Essex CR-630. Vauxhall Rd. is Union CR-630... confusing ain't it? Essex County signs its tiny part of Vauxhall Rd. as CR-630 ALT.
I was looking for the ALT. Couldn't make out the county name from that angle.
Interesting thing I saw driving home from my mom's house on Thanksgiving. On 287 SB at the approach for Exit 14A, they've not only "Left Exit" tabs to the two diagrammatic approach signs, they have also changed the destination from New York City to Newark. The interesting thing about that is that instead of putting a green out panel over the old destination, they actually did the new destination in button copy. I was impressed.
Quote from: storm2k on November 30, 2014, 12:28:28 AM
Interesting thing I saw driving home from my mom's house on Thanksgiving. On 287 SB at the approach for Exit 14A, they've not only "Left Exit" tabs to the two diagrammatic approach signs, they have also changed the destination from New York City to Newark. The interesting thing about that is that instead of putting a green out panel over the old destination, they actually did the new destination in button copy. I was impressed.
That's really neat. Isn't button copy a thing of the past?
Quote from: J Route Z on November 30, 2014, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 30, 2014, 12:28:28 AM
Interesting thing I saw driving home from my mom's house on Thanksgiving. On 287 SB at the approach for Exit 14A, they've not only "Left Exit" tabs to the two diagrammatic approach signs, they have also changed the destination from New York City to Newark. The interesting thing about that is that instead of putting a green out panel over the old destination, they actually did the new destination in button copy. I was impressed.
That's really neat. Isn't button copy a thing of the past?
That's why it's interesting :)
I'll be interested to see what they do with other signs at the exit. Northbound sign still says New York, as does the pull through on 22 EB.
Quote from: storm2k on November 30, 2014, 12:28:28 AM
Interesting thing I saw driving home from my mom's house on Thanksgiving. On 287 SB at the approach for Exit 14A, they've not only "Left Exit" tabs to the two diagrammatic approach signs, they have also changed the destination from New York City to Newark. The interesting thing about that is that instead of putting a green out panel over the old destination, they actually did the new destination in button copy. I was impressed.
Most of the letters were already there. Where did the "a" come from?
Quote from: Alps on December 01, 2014, 08:35:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 30, 2014, 12:28:28 AM
Interesting thing I saw driving home from my mom's house on Thanksgiving. On 287 SB at the approach for Exit 14A, they've not only "Left Exit" tabs to the two diagrammatic approach signs, they have also changed the destination from New York City to Newark. The interesting thing about that is that instead of putting a green out panel over the old destination, they actually did the new destination in button copy. I was impressed.
Most of the letters were already there. Where did the "a" come from?
I was wondering that. I'm not really sure, unless they borrowed it from another sign they've replaced (like Easton PA on the NB side? I'm not sure).
Also of note is that the sign on the overhead bridge at the exit itself has not changed at all. That sign has bothered me for 20 years because the exit tab is on the wrong side and the spacing on the numbers for the exit tab are bad, but I think that's because the exit was originally numbered as Exit 11 before they renumbered the exits on 287 to make them start at the Turnpike. I'm wondering if they're going to just replace the whole bridge as part of the work they're doing on the interchange and the improvements to 22 at Chimney Rock Rd.
Quote from: storm2k on December 02, 2014, 04:35:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 01, 2014, 08:35:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 30, 2014, 12:28:28 AM
Interesting thing I saw driving home from my mom's house on Thanksgiving. On 287 SB at the approach for Exit 14A, they've not only "Left Exit" tabs to the two diagrammatic approach signs, they have also changed the destination from New York City to Newark. The interesting thing about that is that instead of putting a green out panel over the old destination, they actually did the new destination in button copy. I was impressed.
Most of the letters were already there. Where did the "a" come from?
I was wondering that. I'm not really sure, unless they borrowed it from another sign they've replaced (like Easton PA on the NB side? I'm not sure).
Also of note is that the sign on the overhead bridge at the exit itself has not changed at all. That sign has bothered me for 20 years because the exit tab is on the wrong side and the spacing on the numbers for the exit tab are bad, but I think that's because the exit was originally numbered as Exit 11 before they renumbered the exits on 287 to make them start at the Turnpike. I'm wondering if they're going to just replace the whole bridge as part of the work they're doing on the interchange and the improvements to 22 at Chimney Rock Rd.
Aha, I was wondering where that "Parsipp ny" control city came from... :spin:
Just remembered something I wanted to ask..
On US 1 south of NJ 18, there are several mentions for a "DETOUR" of TRUCK NJ 27. Looking through the SLDs, I'm pretty sure there isn't a TRUCK NJ 27 in the first place. What gives?
Probably a truck detour for NJ 27...
Most likely. The reason I was confused was because they signed it like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FNJ27AssemblyRenderF_zpsbc543dad.png&hash=b89ec7d1f94cfbf86b96dd9a7c489a35c7c2d068)
However, I guess it probably saves more money fabricating it like this rather than making a larger green / orange sign.
You're reading into it too much. I think it's just meant for truckers wanting to use Rt. 27 to follow these signs. They wouldn't need a large green/orange sign for a detour. If you started on Rt. 27 and saw the first detour signs for truckers, it would probably make more sense.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2014, 12:54:36 PM
You're reading into it too much.
I guess that's why they call me a roadgeek! :sombrero:
To avoid the confusion above, roadgeek-induced or not, I have usually specified the "TRUCK" banner in black-on-orange as well, for what it is worth.
Clearview Alert - The 1 mile advance sign for US 206 (S Broad St / Arena Dr) on I-195 West in Hamilton has been replaced with a sign in full Clearview (with the US 206 shield retaining both the black background and FHWA fonts). I didn't see any newer signs in the area though, and this was the only one that looked to be replaced, so I'm assuming it was just a one-off installation. Hoping it was.
In the same general area, on 295 North, the (not so) Scenic View sign with the often ignored truck prohibition warning has been replaced with Clearview letting as well.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F5B4356B4-487C-41E4-BC83-24038CE0C321.jpg&hash=04e9ee5a60ab051bc19c45615b30e6e7ca834927) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/5B4356B4-487C-41E4-BC83-24038CE0C321.jpg.html)
Isn't clearview font mostly popular in PA and DE? It must be recent that NJ is adopting it. What is the font called on most signs here?
I was under the impression that NJDOT has not officially adopted use of the Clearview font.
The above-example as well as some of the newer BGS' along I-676 in Camden are either one-offs or experimental applications of the font.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2014, 07:11:34 PM
I was under the impression that NJDOT has not officially adopted use of the Clearview font.
The above-example as well as some of the newer BGS' along I-676 in Camden are either one-offs or experimental applications of the font.
NJDOT has not. I don't know where these signs may be coming from.
Quote from: Alps on December 07, 2014, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2014, 07:11:34 PM
I was under the impression that NJDOT has not officially adopted use of the Clearview font.
The above-example as well as some of the newer BGS' along I-676 in Camden are either one-offs or experimental applications of the font.
NJDOT has not. I don't know where these signs may be coming from.
Is this one of those cases of a contractor not paying attention to standards and just producing signs in CV because that's what they do elsewhere?
Quote from: storm2k on December 09, 2014, 04:31:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 07, 2014, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2014, 07:11:34 PM
I was under the impression that NJDOT has not officially adopted use of the Clearview font.
The above-example as well as some of the newer BGS' along I-676 in Camden are either one-offs or experimental applications of the font.
NJDOT has not. I don't know where these signs may be coming from.
Is this one of those cases of a contractor not paying attention to standards and just producing signs in CV because that's what they do elsewhere?
I find it surprising, since Clearview costs so much money, but maybe once a company has it, they decide to use it? It could be the engineer, the contractor, or the signing company - and ultimately rests with the DOT accepting a sign that should be rejected (though it may not be enough of an issue to warrant rejection). Engineer's fault = plans show Clearview. Contractor's fault = plans show FHWA, signing company was told Clearview. Signing company's fault = told FHWA, put Clearview anyway.
NJ.COM: United Airlines asks FAA to investigate Port Authority spending on Pulaski Skyway (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/united_airlines_port_authority_complaint.html)
QuoteNEWARK – United Airlines is asking federal regulators to investigate what it says is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's use of "excessive" departure fees at Newark Liberty International Airport to pay for an overhaul the Pulaski Skyway and other non-aviation projects.
QuoteIn a complaint filed Wednesday with the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington, D.C., the airline asserts that fees charged by the Port Authority at Newark are the highest in the nation, 75 percent higher than at John F. Kennedy International, also a Port Authority airport.
The airline says this amounts to discrimination against United, which accounts for more than two thirds of Newark's flights.
QuoteUnited further asserts that the Port Authority is violating federal law requiring that fees to be fair and reasonable and be used for airport-related costs, and the airline is asking the FAA to conduct an audit of the bi-state agency's airport fee structure and related finances.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 13, 2014, 12:06:45 AM
NJ.COM: United Airlines asks FAA to investigate Port Authority spending on Pulaski Skyway (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/united_airlines_port_authority_complaint.html)
QuoteNEWARK – United Airlines is asking federal regulators to investigate what it says is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's use of "excessive" departure fees at Newark Liberty International Airport to pay for an overhaul the Pulaski Skyway and other non-aviation projects.
QuoteIn a complaint filed Wednesday with the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington, D.C., the airline asserts that fees charged by the Port Authority at Newark are the highest in the nation, 75 percent higher than at John F. Kennedy International, also a Port Authority airport.
The airline says this amounts to discrimination against United, which accounts for more than two thirds of Newark's flights.
QuoteUnited further asserts that the Port Authority is violating federal law requiring that fees to be fair and reasonable and be used for airport-related costs, and the airline is asking the FAA to conduct an audit of the bi-state agency's airport fee structure and related finances.
Can motorists at the Hudson River crossings join?
NJ.com has an article (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_supermarkets_in_nj.html) about vintage supermarkets today, and their pictures included this gem:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLHrESsA.jpg&hash=0639ea443cfad901a951d0928c260fed79d023a6)
What color would the Rt 10 shield have been?
I'm guessing white on green, but not 100% sure.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 13, 2014, 09:17:33 AM
I'm guessing white on green, but not 100% sure.
I am 100% sure, and now I have to see how that intersection was configured in the 1950s because it's just a regular 4-way now. Also, a Shop Rite there? Huh. It was a kitchen store since the late 50s/early 60s.
EDIT: No, it appears that was always 4-way. The cars in the photo would be angled parking along Route 10 EB. So what's that one-way sign all about??
There's probably a place name inside the arrow.
So I haven't seen any work on the Hillsborough Bypass in about a month now. There's still construction signs up, and it looks like nothing is remotely close to done. (The signs and such are located right before Mountain View) Did it get stalled or something..? Or maybe NJDOT realized how much of a waste this is in it's current form?
The 5 year pilot program for the Red Light Cameras ended yesterday (12/16/14). As of midnight, cameras are no longer allowed to capture pictures of violations. Violations committed prior to midnight must be mailed to the registered owners of vehicles within 90 days.
While a few politicians would like to see the program continue and have drafted bills to do so, bills have also been drafted by other pols to permanently close the program. Other bills have been drafted to add speed cameras, which are currently prohibited by law.
NJDOT now has 12 months to publish a report showing the effectiveness or lack thereof of the cameras. Previous reports (reports were required each year) have been criticized, with some stating the private camera operators have asked NJDOT to cherry-pick accident information for the reports. For the most part, NJDOT has appeared to remain relatively neutral on the subject.
Apparently, very long "cattle chutes" are a horrible idea after all, at least according to NJDOT:
(NJ.com) Route 80 construction: DOT admits mistakes after huge spike in crashes (http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/12/route_80_crash_spike_2014.html#incart_m-rpt-1)
QuoteIn New Jersey, traffic is a grudging companion to many motorists.
But, this past summer, the Route 80 construction zone in Morris County was more than an annoyance. It was an environment where crashes nearly tripled, according to data obtained by NJ Advance Media. In July alone, in the construction area of this major national east-west highway there were more than 110 crashes, which averages out to about three a day. Before construction, the area averaged about one crash a day, the data shows.
Part of the cause for such a high crash rate are barriers that separated some of the fast-moving highway traffic into a single lane, creating what traffic experts call a "cattle chute," said state transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox. That chute, Fox said, was the longest ever used for a New Jersey road project.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 22, 2014, 09:41:15 AM
Apparently, very long "cattle chutes" are a horrible idea after all, at least according to NJDOT:
(NJ.com) Route 80 construction: DOT admits mistakes after huge spike in crashes (http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/12/route_80_crash_spike_2014.html#incart_m-rpt-1)
QuoteIn New Jersey, traffic is a grudging companion to many motorists.
But, this past summer, the Route 80 construction zone in Morris County was more than an annoyance. It was an environment where crashes nearly tripled, according to data obtained by NJ Advance Media. In July alone, in the construction area of this major national east-west highway there were more than 110 crashes, which averages out to about three a day. Before construction, the area averaged about one crash a day, the data shows.
Part of the cause for such a high crash rate are barriers that separated some of the fast-moving highway traffic into a single lane, creating what traffic experts call a "cattle chute," said state transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox. That chute, Fox said, was the longest ever used for a New Jersey road project.
Nothing in the article ever explained HOW the accidents were occurring? Were there merging conditions in the cattleshute? Were drivers tailgating and running into each other? Were drivers merging at the last minute before the cattleshute?
At 2.7 miles, it may have been NJ's longest, but overall there's been longer ones in other states.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2014, 11:13:30 AM
Were drivers tailgating and running into each other? Were drivers merging at the last minute before the cattleshute?
At 2.7 miles, it may have been NJ's longest, but overall there's been longer ones in other states.
Well, given the state we are talking about, and the neighboring ones surrounding us...
Tailgating? - Very likely
Merging at the last minute? - Very likely
When should one merge? At the first sign stating that there is a merging at a certain distance ahead? Or, at the location where the lane ends and one must merge? What is most efficient?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on December 22, 2014, 01:09:01 PM
When should one merge? At the first sign stating that there is a merging at a certain distance ahead? Or, at the location where the lane ends and one must merge? What is most efficient?
After I pass the first advance warning sign for the merge ahead I start to plan to merge. Once I have enough space, I will do it so I don't have to worry about it later. I've seen many people force their way in as the lane is already gone.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on December 22, 2014, 01:09:01 PM
When should one merge?
When they're knocking the barrels over and scrapping along the jersey barrier.
Everyone has their theories about when it's best to merge. Personally, I do it when the lane ends. After all, at a stop ahead sign, I don't stop at that sign...I stop at the actual stop sign.
With a cattleshute setup, people tend to enter/leave the cattleshuted lane at the very last possible moment, especially those not familiar with the setup and after they've ignored the many warning signs about the lane split.
I generally try to avoid a single lane cattleshute because if there is an accident/blockage, there's no way around it until the accident is cleared or moved to an emergency pulloff area.
My thinking of what the primary cause of the accidents was is pretty much what Zeffy alluded to: People travelling way too close to each other at way too high of a speed, and simply didn't stop in time when the vehicle in front of them slowed down.
So why exactly did they need cattle chutes for a "repaving" project? Something seems fishy about that to me.
Not familiar with this particular project but having done similar recent ones in the State, there must be some full-depth (asphalt and/or concrete) pavement replacement/repairs in some areas. Street view in this area shows work areas from a year ago, presumably for the same project.
2.7 miles is quite long for a cattle chute. Sometimes they're unavoidable, like staged bridge deck repair, but as a work zone designer, one generally seeks to minimize their length both in terms of distance and in terms of time (weeks/months of project). I've driven through the various configurations on Route 80, but my entry/exit points never put me on the mainline when it was down to 1 lane. Anything above about 1/2 mile becomes bothersome in an area like this because of truck traffic, and above about 2 miles goes from bother to burden. I've been on multi-mile one/one work zones in PA, where all traffic is on a single carriageway, but those aren't usually cattle chutes because the median is grassy. For additional perspective, I've never come across a project, whether of my own design or in review, with more than about 1/2 mile of cattle chute.
I've seen crazy-long cattle chutes in Ohio. One time on I-90 east of Cleveland in recent years, the WB carriageway was split between the right shoulder and a cattle chute on the EB side. Median may have been "grassy", but there were Jersey barriers on both sides with the occasional emergency pull-off due to the median conditions. This went on for at least 5 miles. Ohio uses cattle chutes a lot to maintain all lanes during a full reconstruction, but this was excessive even by their standards.
On a different note, you have the ~17 foot carriageways on the Thruway during full reconstruction, often bounded on both sides by a Jersey barrier. Not a single lane, but it's effectively a cattle chute for the 10 or so miles everyone's forced onto one side. Driving the construction zone west of Syracuse was not a fun experience, especially at night.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 22, 2014, 03:39:27 PM
So why exactly did they need cattle chutes for a "repaving" project? Something seems fishy about that to me.
Welcome the to the world of NJ newspapers, where the only fishy thing is in the reporting.
If it was a simple repaving project it would be done at night. The majority of the commuters wouldn't even realize much was going on. And it would cost much less.
This is a full depth reconstruction project.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on December 22, 2014, 01:09:01 PM
When should one merge? At the first sign stating that there is a merging at a certain distance ahead? Or, at the location where the lane ends and one must merge? What is most efficient?
Whenever they can move over with so little disruption to traffic that there would be no accident even if their car was completely invisible.
Quote from: cl94 on December 22, 2014, 07:55:13 PM
On a different note, you have the ~17 foot carriageways on the Thruway during full reconstruction, often bounded on both sides by a Jersey barrier. Not a single lane, but it's effectively a cattle chute for the 10 or so miles everyone's forced onto one side. Driving the construction zone west of Syracuse was not a fun experience, especially at night.
That construction zone made me a better driver. And it was nice that one could still pass slow moving cars/trucks.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on December 22, 2014, 01:09:01 PM
When should one merge? At the first sign stating that there is a merging at a certain distance ahead? Or, at the location where the lane ends and one must merge? What is most efficient?
I'll address "what is most efficient": Either way, as long as everyone does it. In the NYC area, everyone merges at the very end. In PA, everyone merges right at the beginning. People from the NYC area then take advantage and zoom past the line and force their way in at the end. In that sense, everyone merging right at the end is ideal because it prevents that behavior - when there is a queue. In free-flow conditions, the opposite is true - move over early to avoid conflicts.
Quote from: Alps on December 22, 2014, 09:33:35 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on December 22, 2014, 01:09:01 PM
When should one merge? At the first sign stating that there is a merging at a certain distance ahead? Or, at the location where the lane ends and one must merge? What is most efficient?
I'll address "what is most efficient": Either way, as long as everyone does it. In the NYC area, everyone merges at the very end. In PA, everyone merges right at the beginning. People from the NYC area then take advantage and zoom past the line and force their way in at the end. In that sense, everyone merging right at the end is ideal because it prevents that behavior - when there is a queue. In free-flow conditions, the opposite is true - move over early to avoid conflicts.
Agree with the above. As construction zones with a lane drop are rarely free-flow in the northeast, there is usually a queue. Get outside of the northeast and people merge before the end. This isn't a problem if everyone does it, but of course, that's never the case. If everyone merges at the end, 2 shorter queues form. Assuming everyone follows alternate merging, average wait time per vehicle is minimized while keeping the queue as close to the blockage as possible. The problem is that VMSes will occasionally alert one to a closure several miles beforehand and people move over as soon as they see the first sign. The queue stretches back and people take advantage of the empty lane to jump the queue. This behavior reduces capacity along the highway as people will spend more time in a single-file line.
I don't know if PA still does this, but once upon a time, they posted signs that, along with pavement markings, forbade people from changing lanes in the short distance before a lane ended to avoid this behavior.
I suppose if you're a goody two shoes and everyone's merging early you should stay in the empty lane but go at the speed of the full lane, then merge at the end.
At many NJ construction sites, the first "lane ends" sign can often be found just 1500 feet before the lane ends. It's still over 1/4 mile away, so there's still plenty of time, and it keeps the lanes full till near the work zone. (The NJ Turnpike however always announces lane closures about 1 mile in advance)
Quote from: NE2 on December 22, 2014, 10:12:27 PM
I suppose if you're a goody two shoes and everyone's merging early you should stay in the empty lane but go at the speed of the full lane, then merge at the end.
Two trucks tried to do this in Pennsylvania and left a quarter-mile plus gap in front. I waited until the very end when they could no longer block the shoulder, shot the gap and got that quarter mile ahead.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
At many NJ construction sites, the first "lane ends" sign can often be found just 1500 feet before the lane ends. It's still over 1/4 mike away, so there's still plenty of time, and it keeps the lanes full till near the work zone. (The NJ Turnpike however always announces lane closures about 1 mile in advance)
The TP- standard drawings are on their website and explain when they use 1 or 2 mile advances.
Quote from: Alps on December 23, 2014, 12:23:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
At many NJ construction sites, the first "lane ends" sign can often be found just 1500 feet before the lane ends. It's still over 1/4 mike away, so there's still plenty of time, and it keeps the lanes full till near the work zone. (The NJ Turnpike however always announces lane closures about 1 mile in advance)
The TP- standard drawings are on their website and explain when they use 1 or 2 mile advances.
I couldn't remember if they did 2 mile "Left/Right Lane Closed" signs. At least the times I've traveled, the most I've seen is lane shifts, which are typically announced via electronic sign far in advance.
How clever...
http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/12/exit_135_clark_griswold_tricksters_change_clark_westfield_sign_on_gsp.html#incart_river
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgick.nj.com%2Fhome%2Fnjo-media%2Fwidth620%2Fimg%2Funion_impact%2Fphoto%2F16644857-mmmain.jpg&hash=978e4e5d7184dfd3af9fe0e66b0e282af8d8e3da)
Even more interesting is the fact that the replaced letters look to use FHWA Series EM.
Wonder how long it was up, I was heading south around 11:45.
On a related note, more new cutout shield signs on NJ-18 north around the NJTP interchange.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 25, 2014, 08:03:05 PM
How clever...
http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/12/exit_135_clark_griswold_tricksters_change_clark_westfield_sign_on_gsp.html#incart_river
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgick.nj.com%2Fhome%2Fnjo-media%2Fwidth620%2Fimg%2Funion_impact%2Fphoto%2F16644857-mmmain.jpg&hash=978e4e5d7184dfd3af9fe0e66b0e282af8d8e3da)
Even more interesting is the fact that the replaced letters look to use FHWA Series EM.
I thought this was quite clever. Easy enough to do with something like Roadgeek fonts. Glad they went the distance for authentic looking fonts, and not just Arial or something.
Quote from: storm2k on December 26, 2014, 12:40:38 AM
I thought this was quite clever. Easy enough to do with something like Roadgeek fonts. Glad they went the distance for authentic looking fonts, and not just Arial or something.
While it's certainly very plausible that they downloaded the fonts, my thought is that they had a shot of another highway sign (such as this one (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Griswold,+CT&hl=en&ll=41.58916,-71.98843&spn=0.006901,0.013937&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=58.627396,114.169922&oq=grisw&hnear=Griswold,+New+London+County,+Connecticut&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.589258,-71.988187&panoid=qRmkWHwwjfuK6FeMqPZyIA&cbp=12,100.4,,1,1.91)) and used a photo of that to put onto what looks like a long garbage bag.
It's a trending topic on my Facebook page this morning. Pretty cute. ;-)
Isn't that sign going to be replaced anyway? I don't see any sign base mounting in the picture.
Quote from: J Route Z on December 27, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
Isn't that sign going to be replaced anyway? I don't see any sign base mounting in the picture.
NJTA already replaced it, and they did so rather quickly.
Quote from: J Route Z on December 27, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
Isn't that sign going to be replaced anyway? I don't see any sign base mounting in the picture.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 27, 2014, 12:17:01 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on December 27, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
Isn't that sign going to be replaced anyway? I don't see any sign base mounting in the picture.
NJTA already replaced it, and they did so rather quickly.
This is usually the way the GSP always mounted their signs on wooden posts. PennDOT did (I do not know if they still do or not) on the Lehigh Valley Thruway near Allentown- Bethlehem- Easton but used 2 x 4's or 2 x 6's in lumber.
Back in 1987 when the GSP went MUTCD with their ground mounted signs and their exit tabs (remember the old number only on the top was norm years ago) then started using round fence post lumber to support the signs on the ground. That is what is used here, even though the GSP still kept the old NJDOT sign supports for years, I am assuming that the original One mile NB exit to Exit 135 was destroyed sometime after I moved out of Clark (yes I lived in this township and went to middle school just across the Parkway from this sign) as it was there I think as of 1987.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 26, 2014, 01:02:11 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 26, 2014, 12:40:38 AM
I thought (defacing the GSP Exit 135 sign) was quite clever. Easy enough to do with something like Roadgeek fonts. Glad they went the distance for authentic looking fonts, and not just Arial or something.
While it's certainly very plausible that they downloaded the fonts, my thought is that they had a shot of another highway sign (such as this one (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Griswold,+CT&hl=en&ll=41.58916,-71.98843&spn=0.006901,0.013937&sll=37.6,-95.665&sspn=58.627396,114.169922&oq=grisw&hnear=Griswold,+New+London+County,+Connecticut&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.589258,-71.988187&panoid=qRmkWHwwjfuK6FeMqPZyIA&cbp=12,100.4,,1,1.91)) and used a photo of that to put onto what looks like a long garbage bag.
Too bad I've never been a
National Lampoon connesur (I can NEVER spell that word right). I'd appreciate the gag more.
In the early '70s on PA 252 near Media, there was a "Right Turn Keep Moving" sign for NB traffic (headed towards Newtown Square) at a fork on that route. Somebody covered "Moving" with a sticker saying "On Truckin'". Somewhere Eddie Kendricks is smiling. Maybe even Jerry Garcia.
ixnay
Quote from: Zeffy on December 27, 2014, 12:17:01 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on December 27, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
Isn't that sign going to be replaced anyway? I don't see any sign base mounting in the picture.
NJTA already replaced it, and they did so rather quickly.
Just the sign, or did they put in a new sign with sign bases? Wonder how long they deliberated on that? What would've the long term consequences be for GSP users if the alteration had been let up for a few days? Obviously no sense of humor at the NJTA.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on December 27, 2014, 05:01:26 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 27, 2014, 12:17:01 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on December 27, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
Isn't that sign going to be replaced anyway? I don't see any sign base mounting in the picture.
NJTA already replaced it, and they did so rather quickly.
What would've the long term consequences be for GSP users if the alteration had been let up for a few days? Obviously no sense of humor at the NJTA.
With the exception of the I-5 north thing in LA, when has any DOT or agency intentionally left up sign vandalism? The liability of having an incorrect or damaged sign is probably more than the cost of sending someone out to take it down.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 27, 2014, 05:49:42 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 27, 2014, 05:01:26 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 27, 2014, 12:17:01 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on December 27, 2014, 11:55:05 AM
Isn't that sign going to be replaced anyway? I don't see any sign base mounting in the picture.
NJTA already replaced it, and they did so rather quickly.
What would've the long term consequences be for GSP users if the alteration had been let up for a few days? Obviously no sense of humor at the NJTA.
With the exception of the I-5 north thing in LA, when has any DOT or agency intentionally left up sign vandalism? The liability of having an incorrect or damaged sign is probably more than the cost of sending someone out to take it down.
That's an understatement. (blush) I recant my accusation of the NJTA lacking humor. Good quick action on their part.
ixnay
New Jersey Monthly's January issue has "Why NJ Roads Suck" as their cover article, including a Top 20 of worst "traffic nightmares" in the state, and a discussion of the trust fund, our friend the jughandle, etc. For the "Top" list, the GSP between the Union and Essex tolls was #1.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 27, 2014, 07:58:41 PM
New Jersey Monthly's January issue has "Why NJ Roads Suck" as their cover article, including a Top 20 of worst "traffic nightmares" in the state, and a discussion of the trust fund, our friend the jughandle, etc. For the "Top" list, the GSP between the Union and Essex tolls was #1.
Here's a link to said article: http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/why-jersey-roads-suck.html
(Though I fail to see how US 17 and I-495's problems back up into our state...[/endPicky])
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 27, 2014, 08:55:03 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 27, 2014, 07:58:41 PM
New Jersey Monthly's January issue has "Why NJ Roads Suck" as their cover article, including a Top 20 of worst "traffic nightmares" in the state, and a discussion of the trust fund, our friend the jughandle, etc. For the "Top" list, the GSP between the Union and Essex tolls was #1.
Here's a link to said article: http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/why-jersey-roads-suck.html
(Though I fail to see how US 17 and I-495's problems back up into our state...[/endPicky])
Wait a minute! I don't need to pay for this magazine for its two articles and 50 pages of "Top Doctors"???
Grabbed a couple of pics heading SB on 287 near Exit 14 of the changes in signage related to this exit. They really did just update the 1994 signs with new tabs and changed around the button copy to change the control city from New York to Newark (which is what it always should have been, since that's where 22 ends). The sign at the exit itself is... ugh. A pretty shoddy job, if you ask me. At least the long standing quirk (right aligned exit tab for a left exit) is gone. And we still don't know where they found these button copy "a" letters from. Also you can see how badly they spaced out Newark on the 1 mile approach. Everything is smushed as compared to the Perth Amboy copy on the other side of the sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2XryMCn.png&hash=32f5d13a9663f3efe1610b078e2c08a328aa05ab)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHQzNpOx.png&hash=3bbb1d9f738d5d4c4b999ab4308bdb203b9aa7b2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FL3tzWQI.png&hash=1ac4ab854cef8112c8d11b1b0ff5d442845e3fd7)
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2014, 01:56:33 AMAnd we still don't know where they found these button copy "a" letters from.
Northbound, one sign has been replaced, and the other two still say New York. The sign that says Newark is reflective - and the "a" is also reflective, but much shinier. NJDOT never used demountable copy, so I have no clue how the letters moved around.
Quote from: Alps on December 31, 2014, 12:08:09 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2014, 01:56:33 AMAnd we still don't know where they found these button copy "a" letters from.
Northbound, one sign has been replaced, and the other two still say New York. The sign that says Newark is reflective - and the "a" is also reflective, but much shinier. NJDOT never used demountable copy, so I have no clue how the letters moved around.
The NB signs were installed in 1998 and are all reflective with no button copy (everything from 13 south to the Turnpike was installed in 1998). It was changed, but it looks like the peeled off the old letters and installed new ones. I imagine that they will eventually do the same for the other two signs. Likely when they add the new Left Exit tabs to the 1/2 mile sign and the exit point sign.
What's interesting is that the 1 mile advance sign looked to use Series E instead of EM at first for Newark, but upon closer inspection, the stroke thickness looks like the one used by EM.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 27, 2014, 08:55:03 PM
Here's a link to said article: http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/why-jersey-roads-suck.html
(Though I fail to see how US 17 and I-495's problems back up into our state...[/endPicky])
From http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/bumper-to-bumper-20-traffic-hot-spots.html...
Quote4. In Camden County, the hairpin turn where I-295 connects with I-76 and NJ Route 42 has been so notorious for so long that it still carries the name of the long-defunct nightclub that once overlooked it: Al-Jo's Curve.
Can any South Jerseyans tell us where Al-Jo's was, so that it can be pinpointed on Google satellite?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on December 31, 2014, 03:45:40 PM
Can any South Jerseyans tell us where Al-Jo's was, so that it can be pinpointed on Google satellite?
Apparently the Goog is a South Jerseyan: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-blinq/Al-Jos-The-club-that-gave-the-curve-its-name.html
QuoteClub Al-Jo, the sign for which was visible from what's long been called the Al-Jo curve, closed some 20 years ago. Its West Kings Highway site has been occupied by the John D. West Senior Center, a 74-unit housing complex, since 2004.
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2014, 02:49:15 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 31, 2014, 12:08:09 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2014, 01:56:33 AMAnd we still don't know where they found these button copy "a" letters from.
Northbound, one sign has been replaced, and the other two still say New York. The sign that says Newark is reflective - and the "a" is also reflective, but much shinier. NJDOT never used demountable copy, so I have no clue how the letters moved around.
The NB signs were installed in 1998 and are all reflective with no button copy (everything from 13 south to the Turnpike was installed in 1998). It was changed, but it looks like they peeled off the old letters and installed new ones.[/u] I imagine that they will eventually do the same for the other two signs. Likely when they add the new Left Exit tabs to the 1/2 mile sign and the exit point sign.
That's my question - HOW did they peel off the letters when they're not demountable. It's not greenout.
Quote from: ixnay on December 31, 2014, 03:45:40 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 27, 2014, 08:55:03 PM
Here's a link to said article: http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/why-jersey-roads-suck.html
(Though I fail to see how US 17 and I-495's problems back up into our state...[/endPicky])
From http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/bumper-to-bumper-20-traffic-hot-spots.html...
Quote4. In Camden County, the hairpin turn where I-295 connects with I-76 and NJ Route 42 has been so notorious for so long that it still carries the name of the long-defunct nightclub that once overlooked it: Al-Jo's Curve.
Can any South Jerseyans tell us where Al-Jo's was, so that it can be pinpointed on Google satellite?
ixnay
It's the grey roof building in the center of this: http://goo.gl/maps/gEc66 The location is now a senior/assisted living center. It's barely visible thru the summertime brush: http://goo.gl/maps/7ejkc , although it's a lot easier to see from the roadway now in the wintertime!
You'll notice the road it sits on - Kings Highway - sits mere feet from 295, although the road is never visible from the highway.
Quote from: Alps on December 31, 2014, 05:18:32 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2014, 02:49:15 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 31, 2014, 12:08:09 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2014, 01:56:33 AMAnd we still don't know where they found these button copy "a" letters from.
Northbound, one sign has been replaced, and the other two still say New York. The sign that says Newark is reflective - and the "a" is also reflective, but much shinier. NJDOT never used demountable copy, so I have no clue how the letters moved around.
The NB signs were installed in 1998 and are all reflective with no button copy (everything from 13 south to the Turnpike was installed in 1998). It was changed, but it looks like they peeled off the old letters and installed new ones.[/u] I imagine that they will eventually do the same for the other two signs. Likely when they add the new Left Exit tabs to the 1/2 mile sign and the exit point sign.
That's my question - HOW did they peel off the letters when they're not demountable. It's not greenout.
When they redid the BGSs on 295, there was a sign error down my way, which I took a picture of and it made it's way into the paper. At the time, NJDOT said that they don't need to replace the entire sign - they can just switch or replace the two letters, which they did fairly quickly. If I recall, it was this sign, spelled "Gibbtsown".
Quote from: Alps on December 31, 2014, 05:18:32 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2014, 02:49:15 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 31, 2014, 12:08:09 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2014, 01:56:33 AMAnd we still don't know where they found these button copy "a" letters from.
Northbound, one sign has been replaced, and the other two still say New York. The sign that says Newark is reflective - and the "a" is also reflective, but much shinier. NJDOT never used demountable copy, so I have no clue how the letters moved around.
The NB signs were installed in 1998 and are all reflective with no button copy (everything from 13 south to the Turnpike was installed in 1998). It was changed, but it looks like they peeled off the old letters and installed new ones.[/u] I imagine that they will eventually do the same for the other two signs. Likely when they add the new Left Exit tabs to the 1/2 mile sign and the exit point sign.
That's my question - HOW did they peel off the letters when they're not demountable. It's not greenout.
No idea, but I rode up there again today and the NB signs are all changed. Again, they took down the old letters and put up new reflective ones. I'll try to grab a couple of pics soon.
Quote from: Alps on December 31, 2014, 05:18:32 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2014, 02:49:15 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 31, 2014, 12:08:09 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2014, 01:56:33 AMAnd we still don't know where they found these button copy "a" letters from.
Northbound, one sign has been replaced, and the other two still say New York. The sign that says Newark is reflective - and the "a" is also reflective, but much shinier. NJDOT never used demountable copy, so I have no clue how the letters moved around.
The NB signs were installed in 1998 and are all reflective with no button copy (everything from 13 south to the Turnpike was installed in 1998). It was changed, but it looks like they peeled off the old letters and installed new ones.[/u] I imagine that they will eventually do the same for the other two signs. Likely when they add the new Left Exit tabs to the 1/2 mile sign and the exit point sign.
That's my question - HOW did they peel off the letters when they're not demountable. It's not greenout.
Actually a lot of the signs that I see in South Jersey have removable lettering and I'm not just talking about copy either. Only the real new ones from what I've seen are flat screened.
2014 Straight Line Diagrams are out!
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/_Booklet.pdf
Much to my surprise, there are a lot of updates (a lot less "Date Last Inventoried: December 1999) but some picky changes have not been corrected, ie. Route 18 last inventoried in July 2014 but the freeway portion north of the Raritan is shown as a 45 MPH speed limit, I remember that changing during the summer of my sophomore-junior year of college.
*facepalm*
The county 6XX routes are still an incorrect disaster. They did fix Hudson County finally though.
I had looked on the NJDOT website this morning, and they still had the 2010 SLs up at that time.
I did notice I-295 has at least one error: At the southern-most mile or so, it lists both 295 North & South has having 3 lanes. Both directions have 4 lanes between the Delaware Memorial Bridge & the NJ Turnpike. Has for decades, so not sure how this could've been overlooked.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 02, 2015, 02:46:04 PM
2014 Straight Line Diagrams are out!
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/_Booklet.pdf
Much to my surprise, there are a lot of updates (a lot less "Date Last Inventoried: December 1999) but some picky changes have not been corrected, ie. Route 18 last inventoried in July 2014 but the freeway portion north of the Raritan is shown as a 45 MPH speed limit, I remember that changing during the summer of my sophomore-junior year of college.
I spot-checked a few things. 509 Spur still exists south of NJ 124 despite Union County signing it as 577. Hudson Co. looks a little better - but CR 63? A month late and an eagle short. (1 eagle = $10)
Question. If the US 206 Bypass is under NJDOT jurisdiction, would I be better off emailing them or Hillsborough Twp's (or Somerset County's) DOTs? I'm seriously lost why there hasn't been any construction as of late. It's been about 5 months now since I saw any activity, on both ends of the bypass. I looked online and can't find any project website or anything that would say they ran into problems, but the grass is beginning to grow back on the land they cleared to make way for the road, so I'm just wondering... what the hell?
Quote from: Zeffy on January 02, 2015, 06:21:45 PM
Question. If the US 206 Bypass is under NJDOT jurisdiction, would I be better off emailing them or Hillsborough Twp's (or Somerset County's) DOTs? I'm seriously lost why there hasn't been any construction as of late. It's been about 5 months now since I saw any activity, on both ends of the bypass. I looked online and can't find any project website or anything that would say they ran into problems, but the grass is beginning to grow back on the land they cleared to make way for the road, so I'm just wondering... what the hell?
Chill. It's winter.
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2015, 05:29:38 PM
I spot-checked a few things. 509 Spur still exists south of NJ 124 despite Union County signing it as 577. Hudson Co. looks a little better - but CR 63? A month late and an eagle short. (1 eagle = $10)
CR-63 = NJ-63 the very short time its in Hudson County, it says so in Hudson County's own records.
Its quite obvious not much work went into this new addition as assumed. For example, the splitting of CR-501 into a one way couplet thru Englewood via Dean St/Grand Ave north of NJ-93 isn't in there, something that happened years ago.
NJDOT also continues to ignore that Passaic County DPW extended NJ-7 to NJ-3 despite posting it on NJ-3 itself. Its in Passaic County DPW's route log and they posted NJ-7 shields in Clifton when they signed all their 600/700 routes. Both Middlesex and Union County's SLDs are still very very wrong though.
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2015, 07:26:46 PM
Chill. It's winter.
I know that. I didn't think they would stop working at the end of September though, which is the about the last time I saw work on it.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 02, 2015, 10:54:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2015, 07:26:46 PM
Chill. It's winter.
I know that. I didn't think they would stop working at the end of September though, which is the about the last time I saw work on it.
Probably when they got to a stage in the work where it made more sense to stop before it got cold. I'm sure things will pick back up in the spring.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 02, 2015, 06:21:45 PM
Question. If the US 206 Bypass is under NJDOT jurisdiction, would I be better off emailing them or Hillsborough Twp's (or Somerset County's) DOTs? I'm seriously lost why there hasn't been any construction as of late. It's been about 5 months now since I saw any activity, on both ends of the bypass. I looked online and can't find any project website or anything that would say they ran into problems, but the grass is beginning to grow back on the land they cleared to make way for the road, so I'm just wondering... what the hell?
The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_206#Bannered_routes says that it was partially completed in 2013?
On Facebook, look up "Yummygal's South Jersey Adventures" ( https://www.facebook.com/TheYummygal ). This poster has a lot of great info on South Jersey, and a number of posts involves roads, especially from the mid 20th century. One such recent post was Saturday about 8pm, which is an old home video of someone travelling along the Black Horse Pike, Rt. 30, Admiral Wilson Blvd, and the Ben Franklin Bridge. Great stuff.
So nice to see the Ben Franklin Bridge way back when! So strange to not see I-676 in the back right like you would now!
Article on NJ.com with a list of NJ road projects for 2015:
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/01/20_road_construction_projects_that_will_affect_nj_drivers_in_2015.html (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/01/20_road_construction_projects_that_will_affect_nj_drivers_in_2015.html)
Regarding the earlier posts about Al-Jo's (the curve), here is an article with a picture:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-blinq/Al-Jos-The-club-that-gave-the-curve-its-name.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-blinq/Al-Jos-The-club-that-gave-the-curve-its-name.html)
This is pretty much the way I remember it, with the big roof sign.
NE2 beat you with the posting of the article...
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 03:48:09 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 31, 2014, 03:45:40 PM
Can any South Jerseyans tell us where Al-Jo's was, so that it can be pinpointed on Google satellite?
Apparently the Goog is a South Jerseyan: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-blinq/Al-Jos-The-club-that-gave-the-curve-its-name.html
QuoteClub Al-Jo, the sign for which was visible from what's long been called the Al-Jo curve, closed some 20 years ago. Its West Kings Highway site has been occupied by the John D. West Senior Center, a 74-unit housing complex, since 2004.
And the question was, where was it, not what did it look like. The picture of the building from 3 decades ago won't help in locating that spot today! As I responded earlier, It's the grey roof building in the center of this: http://goo.gl/maps/gEc66
[/quote]
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2015, 06:33:37 AM
NE2 beat you with the posting of the article...
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2014, 03:48:09 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 31, 2014, 03:45:40 PM
Can any South Jerseyans tell us where Al-Jo's was, so that it can be pinpointed on Google satellite?
Apparently the Goog is a South Jerseyan: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-blinq/Al-Jos-The-club-that-gave-the-curve-its-name.html
QuoteClub Al-Jo, the sign for which was visible from what's long been called the Al-Jo curve, closed some 20 years ago. Its West Kings Highway site has been occupied by the John D. West Senior Center, a 74-unit housing complex, since 2004.
And the question was, where was it, not what did it look like. The picture of the building from 3 decades ago won't help in locating that spot today! As I responded earlier, It's the grey roof building in the center of this: http://goo.gl/maps/gEc66
Not trying to answer the question, as you already commented on the location and I'm well aware of the spot as well. Didn't see the earlier posted link, so just trying to put a photo of the old club to show the roof sign that got the curve its name.
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2014, 01:56:33 AM
Grabbed a couple of pics heading SB on 287 near Exit 14 of the changes in signage related to this exit. They really did just update the 1994 signs with new tabs and changed around the button copy to change the control city from New York to Newark (which is what it always should have been, since that's where 22 ends).
The 1994 signs are likely a carbon copy of what the previous signs said. Remember that I-78 didn't actually go to New York City until 1986 when the Watchung Reservation segment was completed. Now I'm wondering, what did the exit for I-78 east use as a control city before 1986?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2015, 05:44:01 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2014, 01:56:33 AM
Grabbed a couple of pics heading SB on 287 near Exit 14 of the changes in signage related to this exit. They really did just update the 1994 signs with new tabs and changed around the button copy to change the control city from New York to Newark (which is what it always should have been, since that's where 22 ends).
The 1994 signs are likely a carbon copy of what the previous signs said. Remember that I-78 didn't actually go to New York City until 1986 when the Watchung Reservation segment was completed. Now I'm wondering, what did the exit for I-78 east use as a control city before 1986?
They were those experimental diagramatic signs that existed between Rt 1 and Rt 22. I don't remember the control cities at this point unfortunately.
For those unfamiliar with I-76 in NJ, near Philly, this doesn't belong in the left lane! :sombrero: Apparently a truck had 2 of these, and was a bit too high for the Browning Rd overpass where 295 & 76 meet. The overpass clearance is a bit on the low side: 13', 11", but the truck should have been checked to verify its load was under the 13' 6" limit.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F10898133_771612482893296_2816218768581645062_n.jpg&hash=7d951da10be43aa9ea963b51418c1cbabadbdd5d) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/10898133_771612482893296_2816218768581645062_n.jpg.html)
(Photo Credit: NJ State Police: https://www.facebook.com/NewJerseyStatePolice/photos/a.608860989168447.1073741830.102867543101130/771612482893296/?type=1&theater )
Local Traffic and Mount Bethel was used for I-78 Eastbound on I-287 before February 1986.
Quote from: Alps on December 07, 2014, 08:56:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 07, 2014, 07:11:34 PM
I was under the impression that NJDOT has not officially adopted use of the Clearview font.
The above-example as well as some of the newer BGS' along I-676 in Camden are either one-offs or experimental applications of the font.
NJDOT has not. I don't know where these signs may be coming from.
Here's another NJ Clearview sign on 295 South that was installed Wednesday (1/7). (On a side note, look at the coating of salt on the shoulder, not to mention the windshield!).
And what's a bit interesting: There's there's only been one sign replacement per interchange. Usually a sign replacement project would replace all the signs. The signs that have been replaced are all ground-mounted signs, not the overhead signs. But again, only one - a similar ground-mounted sign going on the opposite direction hasn't been touched. And at least from my view, the signs appeared to be in good shape - they definitely weren't worn or otherwise visually unattractive.
So...not sure what you can take from that Steve.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2Fc8babb82-f291-4396-b28d-f0fceeecff30.jpg&hash=faef5394c69ce3d739981490f1535582c78ab970) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/c8babb82-f291-4396-b28d-f0fceeecff30.jpg.html)
What isn't wrong with that sign? YUCK! I'm sure it will make the FHWA's "Clearview done wrong" wall of shame. I'm surprised the shield isn't Clearview either. I'd write to NJDOT and complain, its that horrible.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2015, 06:56:25 PM
Here's another NJ Clearview sign on 295 South that was installed Wednesday (1/7). (On a side note, look at the coating of salt on the shoulder, not to mention the windshield!).
And what's a bit interesting: There's there's only been one sign replacement per interchange. Usually a sign replacement project would replace all the signs. The signs that have been replaced are all ground-mounted signs, not the overhead signs. But again, only one - a similar ground-mounted sign going on the opposite direction hasn't been touched. And at least from my view, the signs appeared to be in good shape - they definitely weren't worn or otherwise visually unattractive.
So...not sure what you can take from that Steve.
the sign it replaced was in good shape, unless it was damaged in the week prior.
Something about the destination legend looks off. Like.. at first glance it looked more like Arial/Helvetica more than Clearview 5-W. Whatever it may be, the sign replacements in Clearview needs to die. Immediately.
that sign is pretty atrocious. alps has stated that nj does not use clearview (and new signage on 22 and 18, for example, are in standard highway gothic). this looks like a major contractor fuck up if you asked me.
Quote from: odditude on January 09, 2015, 12:06:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2015, 06:56:25 PM
Here's another NJ Clearview sign on 295 South that was installed Wednesday (1/7). (On a side note, look at the coating of salt on the shoulder, not to mention the windshield!).
And what's a bit interesting: There's there's only been one sign replacement per interchange. Usually a sign replacement project would replace all the signs. The signs that have been replaced are all ground-mounted signs, not the overhead signs. But again, only one - a similar ground-mounted sign going on the opposite direction hasn't been touched. And at least from my view, the signs appeared to be in good shape - they definitely weren't worn or otherwise visually unattractive.
So...not sure what you can take from that Steve.
the sign it replaced was in good shape, unless it was damaged in the week prior.
It was in good shape the day prior!
What's also worth noting is that the BGS that this one replaced and the other BGS' still remaining at this interchange were one of the last BGS' to have button-copy lettering.
Interestingly, shortly after these BGS' were erected (which are original due to this stretch being the newest part of I-295 to open); many of the BGS' along I-295 south of this interchange were replaced with non-button-copy signage.
Clearview aside, it seems that NJDOT can't make up its mind as towards using Series D or C numerals for its 3-digit US & NJ shields. General rule of thumb is if at least one of the digits in the route number contains a "1", then using Series D is appropriate; otherwise use Series C.
The old BGS' rightly (IMHO) used Series D for the US 130 shield whereas this new installation uses Series C. Oh well, at least the numerals in the US 130 shield weren't in Clearview.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2015, 08:37:52 AM
What's also worth noting is that the BGS that this one replaced and the other BGS' still remaining at this interchange were one of the last BGS' to have button-copy lettering.
The newer sections of Rt. 55 have plenty of button copy signage as well, and those signs are approaching 25-30 years of age. (Sad when I still call it the new section, and we're talking stuff built in the 80's) Numerous other signs throughout the state that escaped various sign replacement programs and continue with button copy as well.
A new bill will attempt to have yellow lights timed to meet the 85th percentile speed, not the speed limit, to make intersections safer. Currently, I believe it can be either/or. This is somewhat in response to the red light traffic camera program, which ended in December.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/01/bill_to_extend_yellow_light_time_could_make_red_li.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:00:29 AMThe newer sections of Rt. 55 have plenty of button copy signage as well, and those signs are approaching 25-30 years of age. (Sad when I still call it the new section, and we're talking stuff built in the 80's)
The
original BGS' along I-295 between US 130 and I-195/NJ 29 are from the early-to-mid 1990s.
Addtionally, the button-copy BGS' along NJ 38 & 70 in Pennsauken/Cherry Hill are also 90s-vintage as well.
Is there documentation required, or does the ticketed motorist have to go out there and time the light, find the traffic study, and do the math him/herself?
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2015, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:00:29 AMThe newer sections of Rt. 55 have plenty of button copy signage as well, and those signs are approaching 25-30 years of age. (Sad when I still call it the new section, and we're talking stuff built in the 80's)
The original BGS' along I-295 between US 130 and I-195/NJ 29 are from the early-to-mid 1990s.
The ones approaching Rt. 29/195 had already been replaced around 2010, so the only original signage that remains are the BGSs approaching Rt. 130 (Exit 57) and the BBSs for the Scenic View pulloff area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:10:54 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2015, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:00:29 AMThe newer sections of Rt. 55 have plenty of button copy signage as well, and those signs are approaching 25-30 years of age. (Sad when I still call it the new section, and we're talking stuff built in the 80's)
The original BGS' along I-295 between US 130 and I-195/NJ 29 are from the early-to-mid 1990s.
The ones approaching Rt. 29/195 had already been replaced around 2010, so the only original signage that remains are the BGSs approaching Rt. 130 (Exit 57) and the BBSs for the Scenic View pulloff area.
Unless it was recently replaced, the 90s-vintage northbound I-295 button-copy pull-through (listing
Princeton) at I-195/NJ 29 also remains. At least it was there prior to last Christmas.
The Exit 60B BGS (for NJ 29) along I-295 southbound still appears to be 90s-vintage button-copy as well.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2015, 10:15:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:10:54 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2015, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:00:29 AMThe newer sections of Rt. 55 have plenty of button copy signage as well, and those signs are approaching 25-30 years of age. (Sad when I still call it the new section, and we're talking stuff built in the 80's)
The original BGS' along I-295 between US 130 and I-195/NJ 29 are from the early-to-mid 1990s.
The ones approaching Rt. 29/195 had already been replaced around 2010, so the only original signage that remains are the BGSs approaching Rt. 130 (Exit 57) and the BBSs for the Scenic View pulloff area.
Unless it was recently replaced, the 90s-vintage northbound I-295 button-copy pull-through (listing Princeton) at I-195/NJ 29 also remains. At least it was there prior to last Christmas.
So it is! And I know that's not the original sign either. Well, it could be, and the '3 Left Lane' was added at a later point, or the sign was replaced and button copy still used. But I know that 3 Left Lane plate wasn't originally there when I started commuting up here in 1998.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:35:57 AMSo it is! And I know that's not the original sign either. Well, it could be, and the '3 Left Lane' was added at a later point, or the sign was replaced and button copy still used. But I know that 3 Left Lane plate wasn't originally there when I started commuting up here in 1998.
Correct, the yellow
3 LEFT LANE placard was added later to the original BGS. IIRC, the original legend (in button-copy lettering) that the placard replaced read
STRAIGHT AHEAD.
Don't forget the multiple button copy signs remaining in the Princeton area on US 1. AFAIK, there's still a good amount of button copy (not non-reflective for the most part, but button copy nonetheless) in the state. What I want to know is why these sign replacements are happening in the Trenton area, but nowhere else. As storm2k pointed out, the signs on 22 in my area are still using Highway Gothic, and with Steve's experience in NJDOT, I'd have to believe that this whole ordeal is just a huge contractor fuck up. I don't understand why they are replacing the signs anyway - all of them were still perfectly legible, considering I'm in that area (295/195) at least once a week.
EDIT: Also, this was the original. Unless something happened where the sign got pwnt or something, there was NO way it needed a replacement. Not by a long shot. This sign still had 10+ years before that needed to happen: http://goo.gl/maps/pdXCq
Quote from: Zeffy on January 09, 2015, 10:56:07 AM
Zeffy, the point I was originally trying to convey was that the original signage along that particular stretch of I-295 is/was
one of the later if not final NJDOT signage with button-copy lettering erected during the 1990s
not the only ones.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:01:57 AM
A new bill will attempt to have yellow lights timed to meet the 85th percentile speed, not the speed limit, to make intersections safer. Currently, I believe it can be either/or. This is somewhat in response to the red light traffic camera program, which ended in December.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/01/bill_to_extend_yellow_light_time_could_make_red_li.html#incart_m-rpt-1
IMO that should be a MUTCD requirement.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2015, 06:56:25 PM
(On a side note, look at the coating of salt on the shoulder, not to mention the windshield!).
Looks like a typical NY highway this time of year aside from the sign.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 09, 2015, 08:37:52 AM
What's also worth noting is that the BGS that this one replaced and the other BGS' still remaining at this interchange were one of the last BGS' to have button-copy lettering.
Interestingly, shortly after these BGS' were erected (which are original due to this stretch being the newest part of I-295 to open); many of the BGS' along I-295 south of this interchange were replaced with non-button-copy signage.
Clearview aside, it seems that NJDOT can't make up its mind as towards using Series D or C numerals for its 3-digit US & NJ shields. General rule of thumb is if at least one of the digits in the route number contains a "1", then using Series D is appropriate; otherwise use Series C.
The old BGS' rightly (IMHO) used Series D for the US 130 shield whereas this new installation uses Series C. Oh well, at least the numerals in the US 130 shield weren't in Clearview.
287 still has plenty of button copy north of Exit 14. Some signs have been replaced, but most remain. All of that signage was replaced in 1993 or 94 when the HOV lanes came in.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 10:01:57 AM
A new bill will attempt to have yellow lights timed to meet the 85th percentile speed, not the speed limit, to make intersections safer. Currently, I believe it can be either/or. This is somewhat in response to the red light traffic camera program, which ended in December.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/01/bill_to_extend_yellow_light_time_could_make_red_li.html#incart_m-rpt-1
IMO this should be DOT policy, not legislation. Also, speed limits are supposed to be set by the 85th percentile, which would make this moot. (In fact, NJ law provides for speed limits to be studied and reset if the 85th percentile is faster than the posted speed limit, barring other interests such as downtown areas with parking or school zones.)
I can chalk this up for weirdest reason to close a road - this morning, I was driving up Somerset CR 601 when the RR Xing gates near the J&J building were down with the lights flashing. Got up closer and saw that people were turning into the building to make a U-turn and head backwards. I wondered why, but as I got closer, I could see there was A. no train in sight, and B. cones blocking the roadway. I'm guessing the gate must've malfunctioned, and permanently remained in the closed position. That of which is kind of funny, since they did road work on that segment only a few months ago, and during that time it looked like they might've replaced the crossing gates.
What pissed me off though was that there was no indication that this was coming, no police vehicles, construction vehicles, etc., and not even a hint of a sign to warn you that the road was closed. There was no articles or news alerts either, and if there were cones down, then I guess that someone had to have been here before to put those down.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 11, 2015, 12:22:02 PM
I can chalk this up for weirdest reason to close a road - this morning, I was driving up Somerset CR 601 when the RR Xing gates near the J&J building were down with the lights flashing. Got up closer and saw that people were turning into the building to make a U-turn and head backwards. I wondered why, but as I got closer, I could see there was A. no train in sight, and B. cones blocking the roadway. I'm guessing the gate must've malfunctioned, and permanently remained in the closed position. That of which is kind of funny, since they did road work on that segment only a few months ago, and during that time it looked like they might've replaced the crossing gates.
What pissed me off though was that there was no indication that this was coming, no police vehicles, construction vehicles, etc., and not even a hint of a sign to warn you that the road was closed. There was no articles or news alerts either, and if there were cones down, then I guess that someone had to have been here before to put those down.
The cones were probably put down by some municipal or county worker or the police who ran across it as a quick measure until they could get the railroad's people out there to look at it. You probably got there right after it happened, and they were scrambling to deal with it or they anticipated it would be resolved quickly.
During Sandy, a large tree from my neighbor's yard across the street fell down right across our street just past my driveway, completely blocking the road. Our blocks are relatively short and there were plenty of other streets to get around the blockage, but it was a big hazard at night for anyone zooming down the street, and my driveway (and cars) were right in the path of anyone who might swerve at the last minute. I ended up using some yellow caution tape I had to go out and tape both sides. Eventually after some calls, a day or two later the town showed up and put down some cones as well (they of course were swamped with other Sandy related issues, as we are not far from the shore). For about a week, I enjoyed having a nice cul-de-sac in front of my house until someone finally showed up and cut it up.
more ugly signs on I-295. this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.111957,-74.731336,3a,75y,45.77h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s52ZCaoYWdo--UYJ3Z-A7lA!2e0)advance sign and the 1/4 mile one have been replaced with signs in wide Clearview with no padding anywhere. also, the exit tab has no bottom border (as usual in NJ) but has the same corner radius as the main panel (which is rare and looks odd).
The legend is now EXIT 56: US 206/NJ TPK/NJ 68 - Rising Sun Rd - Joint Base MDL.
Quote from: odditude on January 14, 2015, 10:56:20 PM
more ugly signs on I-295. this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.111957,-74.731336,3a,75y,45.77h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s52ZCaoYWdo--UYJ3Z-A7lA!2e0)advance sign and the 1/4 mile one have been replaced with signs in wide Clearview with no padding anywhere. also, the exit tab has no bottom border (as usual in NJ) but has the same corner radius as the main panel (which is rare and looks odd).
The legend is now EXIT 56: US 206/NJ TPK/NJ 68 - Rising Sun Rd - Joint Base MDL.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F5789BDB1-EF8C-4639-983E-F64735655FB4.jpg&hash=570a45c9991fd228fb7b6dce3df688f8edf0ddab) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/5789BDB1-EF8C-4639-983E-F64735655FB4.jpg.html)
(Apologies for the blurriness...I was sitting in the 3rd row of an SUV when I took the pic!)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2015, 07:45:45 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F5789BDB1-EF8C-4639-983E-F64735655FB4.jpg&hash=570a45c9991fd228fb7b6dce3df688f8edf0ddab) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/5789BDB1-EF8C-4639-983E-F64735655FB4.jpg.html)
The
only positive thing I can say about that BGS is that NJ 68 (which ends at US 206 nearby) is finally getting mentioned. Previous BGS' along I-295 as well as Exit 7 BGS' along the Turnpike completely ignore the existence of NJ 68, the main route to Joint Base MDL (aka Fort Dix/McGuire AFB).
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:02:08 AM
The only positive thing I can say about that BGS is that NJ 68 (which ends at US 206 nearby) is finally getting mentioned. Previous BGS' along I-295 as well as Exit 7 BGS' along the Turnpike completely ignore the existence of NJ 68, the main route to Joint Base MDL (aka Fort Dix/McGuire AFB).
I don't think the mentioning of NJ 68 outweighs the general ugliness of that piece of crap. These contractors need to
stop infecting the area around my favorite city with this shit.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 15, 2015, 11:08:51 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:02:08 AM
The only positive thing I can say about that BGS is that NJ 68 (which ends at US 206 nearby) is finally getting mentioned. Previous BGS' along I-295 as well as Exit 7 BGS' along the Turnpike completely ignore the existence of NJ 68, the main route to Joint Base MDL (aka Fort Dix/McGuire AFB).
I don't think the mentioning of NJ 68 outweighs the general ugliness of that piece of crap. These contractors need to stop infecting the area around my favorite city with this shit.
Just
where did I say such outweighed the ugliness? All I said, see quoted post above, was that including the NJ 68 shield was the only positive that came out of such. Nothing more, nothing less.
Personally, I would just added the NJ 68 shield to the existing BGS (& reposition the US 206 & NJTP shields as appropriate) and used a mask for the revised/updated destination listings.
Is the reasoning for this new BGS have to do with military bases being consolidated/renamed?
Either way, I find it a bit ironic that there are now BGS' erected in NJ featuring nearly all-Clearview
after states that haven't already adopted such are no longer allowed to implement
any Clearview on their signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:22:02 AM
Just where did I say such outweighed the ugliness? All I said, see quoted post above, was that including the NJ 68 shield was the only positive that came out of such. Nothing more, nothing less.
Relax, I was just adding a comment based on yours saying that the sign is just a piece of crap.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:22:02 AM
Either way, I find it a bit ironic that there are now BGS' erected in NJ featuring nearly all-Clearview after states that haven't already adopted such are no longer allowed to implement any Clearview on their signs.
What's ironic is that newer signs by both PennDOT and TxDOT, two main Clearview states, look heaps better than these latest signs in New Jersey. Unbelievable.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:02:08 AM
The only positive thing I can say about that BGS is that NJ 68 (which ends at US 206 nearby) is finally getting mentioned. Previous BGS' along I-295 as well as Exit 7 BGS' along the Turnpike completely ignore the existence of NJ 68, the main route to Joint Base MDL (aka Fort Dix/McGuire AFB).
I was just thinking the other day how wide a sign would be needed to fit the McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst destination. MDL takes the fun out of that!
On this and the previously revised signage, it appears the sign is about the same size, but the lettering is larger. NJ tends to use the minimum acceptable letter height on signage, so the larger lettering is nice to see. But for a sign like this, they probably should've reduced the lettering size, or enlarged the sign a bit.
Technically, 206/NJ TPK/68 should all have "TO" mentioned on the sign. And last time I looked, while there are signs on the exit ramp and along Rising Sun Rd to get you to 206 or the Turnpike, there's nothing to guide you to Rt. 68. (Maybe this will change as well. Probably just as likely as we'll ever see gas fall below $2 again. Oh, wait....)
I contacted the NJTA a year ago regarding the mentioning of NJ 68, and they said it is not a "major route"....
Quote from: Zeffy on January 15, 2015, 11:08:51 AM
I don't think the mentioning of NJ 68 outweighs the general ugliness of that piece of crap. These contractors need to stop infecting the area around my favorite city with this shit.
Hey Zeffy, what's your favorite city in NJ?
Quote from: J Route Z on January 15, 2015, 06:58:09 PM
Hey Zeffy, what's your favorite city in NJ?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-e.ak.instagram.com%2Fhphotos-ak-xap1%2Ft51.2885-15%2F10254069_1441929292717732_531595574_n.jpg&hash=027ed457212b974091d6f00f9b22880a6fc3513d) (http://instagram.com/trenton_250/)
That one.
That has to be photoshopped. Newark only has factories and smokestacks.
Except it isn't Newark.
Quote from: J Route Z on January 15, 2015, 06:58:09 PM
I contacted the NJTA a year ago regarding the mentioning of NJ 68, and they said it is not a "major route"...
NJTA or NJDOT?
Quote from: cl94 on January 15, 2015, 07:58:41 PM
That has to be photoshopped. Newark only has factories and smokestacks.
Harrison has smokestacks and factories, Trenton has them, Paterson has them. Kearny has them. Need I continue?
Quote from: odditude on January 15, 2015, 08:21:04 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on January 15, 2015, 06:58:09 PM
I contacted the NJTA a year ago regarding the mentioning of NJ 68, and they said it is not a "major route"...
NJTA or NJDOT?
Oh I meant on the Turnpike..so the Turnpike Authority. They are very stubborn.
Quote from: cl94 on January 15, 2015, 07:58:41 PM
That has to be photoshopped. Newark only has factories and smokestacks.
Every city has something to offer if you're someone who can take the time to visit it and explore it fully.
Oh, and:
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 15, 2015, 08:00:29 PM
it isn't Newark.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2015, 12:01:12 PM
On this and the previously revised signage, it appears the sign is about the same size, but the lettering is larger. NJ tends to use the minimum acceptable letter height on signage, so the larger lettering is nice to see. But for a sign like this, they probably should've reduced the lettering size, or enlarged the sign a bit.
I feel like this sign is a common case for where I argue that is Clearview
really more legible than the FHWA series when you have the
same letter heights? In this case, this Clearview probably is more legible, but look at it - it's definitely larger than the FHWA lettering before (never-mind the layout changing slightly).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2015, 12:01:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:02:08 AM
The only positive thing I can say about that BGS is that NJ 68 (which ends at US 206 nearby) is finally getting mentioned. Previous BGS' along I-295 as well as Exit 7 BGS' along the Turnpike completely ignore the existence of NJ 68, the main route to Joint Base MDL (aka Fort Dix/McGuire AFB).
I was just thinking the other day how wide a sign would be needed to fit the McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst destination. MDL takes the fun out of that!
On this and the previously revised signage, it appears the sign is about the same size, but the lettering is larger. NJ tends to use the minimum acceptable letter height on signage, so the larger lettering is nice to see. But for a sign like this, they probably should've reduced the lettering size, or enlarged the sign a bit.
Technically, 206/NJ TPK/68 should all have "TO" mentioned on the sign. And last time I looked, while there are signs on the exit ramp and along Rising Sun Rd to get you to 206 or the Turnpike, there's nothing to guide you to Rt. 68. (Maybe this will change as well. Probably just as likely as we'll ever see gas fall below $2 again. Oh, wait....)
Should also note that it is U.S. 206
South as well, as U.S. 206 North is accessible at the next exit.
Quote from: akotchi on January 15, 2015, 10:17:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2015, 12:01:12 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 15, 2015, 11:02:08 AM
The only positive thing I can say about that BGS is that NJ 68 (which ends at US 206 nearby) is finally getting mentioned. Previous BGS' along I-295 as well as Exit 7 BGS' along the Turnpike completely ignore the existence of NJ 68, the main route to Joint Base MDL (aka Fort Dix/McGuire AFB).
I was just thinking the other day how wide a sign would be needed to fit the McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst destination. MDL takes the fun out of that!
On this and the previously revised signage, it appears the sign is about the same size, but the lettering is larger. NJ tends to use the minimum acceptable letter height on signage, so the larger lettering is nice to see. But for a sign like this, they probably should've reduced the lettering size, or enlarged the sign a bit.
Technically, 206/NJ TPK/68 should all have "TO" mentioned on the sign. And last time I looked, while there are signs on the exit ramp and along Rising Sun Rd to get you to 206 or the Turnpike, there's nothing to guide you to Rt. 68. (Maybe this will change as well. Probably just as likely as we'll ever see gas fall below $2 again. Oh, wait....)
Should also note that it is U.S. 206 South as well, as U.S. 206 North is accessible at the next exit.
While that's true, there's a several mile gap between accessing 206 at exit 56 and exit 57. And you actually need to get on 206 North from exit 56 to get to the turnpike (for about 82 feet). So 206 by itself is accurate.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2015, 03:36:03 AMQuote from: akotchi on January 15, 2015, 10:17:56 PMShould also note that it is U.S. 206 South as well, as U.S. 206 North is accessible at the next exit.
While that's true, there's a several mile gap between accessing 206 at exit 56 and exit 57. And you actually need to get on 206 North from exit 56 to get to the turnpike (for about 82 feet). So 206 by itself is accurate.
Unless there was a recent change, the Exit 56 BGS at the gore itself actually has a
SOUTH 206 TO NJTP heading with an accompanying advance Exit 57 BGS that has a
NORTH 130 206 (stacked vertically) heading (http://goo.gl/maps/ESuDf).
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 08:37:32 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2015, 03:36:03 AMQuote from: akotchi on January 15, 2015, 10:17:56 PMShould also note that it is U.S. 206 South as well, as U.S. 206 North is accessible at the next exit.
While that's true, there's a several mile gap between accessing 206 at exit 56 and exit 57. And you actually need to get on 206 North from exit 56 to get to the turnpike (for about 82 feet). So 206 by itself is accurate.
Unless there was a recent change, the Exit 56 BGS at the gore itself actually has a SOUTH 206 TO NJTP heading with an accompanying advance Exit 57 BGS that has a NORTH 130 206 (stacked vertically) heading (http://goo.gl/maps/ESuDf).
as of last night, the sign has been removed and not yet replaced.
the signs on that gantry are new, too - installed upon completion of the full-depth reconstruction just a few years back.
Quote from: odditude on January 16, 2015, 09:46:14 AM
as of last night, the sign has been removed and not yet replaced.
the signs on that gantry are new, too - installed upon completion of the full-depth reconstruction just a few years back.
Oh, great - more shit is probably incoming then.
Quote from: odditude on January 16, 2015, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 08:37:32 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2015, 03:36:03 AMQuote from: akotchi on January 15, 2015, 10:17:56 PMShould also note that it is U.S. 206 South as well, as U.S. 206 North is accessible at the next exit.
While that's true, there's a several mile gap between accessing 206 at exit 56 and exit 57. And you actually need to get on 206 North from exit 56 to get to the turnpike (for about 82 feet). So 206 by itself is accurate.
Unless there was a recent change, the Exit 56 BGS at the gore itself actually has a SOUTH 206 TO NJTP heading with an accompanying advance Exit 57 BGS that has a NORTH 130 206 (stacked vertically) heading (http://goo.gl/maps/ESuDf).
as of last night, the sign has been removed and not yet replaced.
the signs on that gantry are new, too - installed upon completion of the full-depth reconstruction just a few years back.
And the BGS' that those replaced weren't that old either (mid-90s vintage).
Again, if the reasoning for these BGS replacements are due to the new name for the military bases; couldn't they have just masked the old
Fort Dix - McGuire AFB and used the
same size letters & font?
Also, were the plans & specs for these new BGS' actually reviewed by NJDOT? The Clearview font for those BGS' should've been flagged during the shop drawing process at the very latest.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 11:50:36 AM
Also, were the plans & specs for these new BGS' actually reviewed by NJDOT? The Clearview font for those BGS' should've been flagged during the shop drawing process at the very latest.
It should've been flagged, but apparently NJDOT either was oblivious or they didn't verify the pattern sheets at all.
Quote from: odditude on January 16, 2015, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 08:37:32 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2015, 03:36:03 AMQuote from: akotchi on January 15, 2015, 10:17:56 PMShould also note that it is U.S. 206 South as well, as U.S. 206 North is accessible at the next exit.
While that's true, there's a several mile gap between accessing 206 at exit 56 and exit 57. And you actually need to get on 206 North from exit 56 to get to the turnpike (for about 82 feet). So 206 by itself is accurate.
Unless there was a recent change, the Exit 56 BGS at the gore itself actually has a SOUTH 206 TO NJTP heading with an accompanying advance Exit 57 BGS that has a NORTH 130 206 (stacked vertically) heading (http://goo.gl/maps/ESuDf).
as of last night, the sign has been removed and not yet replaced.
the signs on that gantry are new, too - installed upon completion of the full-depth reconstruction just a few years back.
Those signs had been damaged by the contractor. They replaced them after the project was completed.
The contractor also damaged the 295 South gantry at Interchange 45. The entire gantry structure was replaced in full. After that, NJDOT remove the 295 North structure at Int. 45. That still hasn't been replaced.
Note to contractor: Lower your equipment!!!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2015, 02:07:19 PM
Quote from: odditude on January 16, 2015, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 16, 2015, 08:37:32 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2015, 03:36:03 AMQuote from: akotchi on January 15, 2015, 10:17:56 PMShould also note that it is U.S. 206 South as well, as U.S. 206 North is accessible at the next exit.
While that's true, there's a several mile gap between accessing 206 at exit 56 and exit 57. And you actually need to get on 206 North from exit 56 to get to the turnpike (for about 82 feet). So 206 by itself is accurate.
Unless there was a recent change, the Exit 56 BGS at the gore itself actually has a SOUTH 206 TO NJTP heading with an accompanying advance Exit 57 BGS that has a NORTH 130 206 (stacked vertically) heading (http://goo.gl/maps/ESuDf).
as of last night, the sign has been removed and not yet replaced.
the signs on that gantry are new, too - installed upon completion of the full-depth reconstruction just a few years back.
Those signs had been damaged by the contractor. They replaced them after the project was completed.
The contractor also damaged the 295 South gantry at Interchange 45. The entire gantry structure was replaced in full. After that, NJDOT remove the 295 North structure at Int. 45. That still hasn't been replaced.
Note to contractor: Lower your equipment!!!
Signs at Int. 52 were damaged SB and removed NB, not Int. 45.
(edit:was/were)
Oh yeah, that's right!
The overhead signs at exit 52 on 295 are still not repaired since the repaving in 2011: http://goo.gl/maps/CFA7B I drove there last night.
Good one: http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2015/01/oversized_trucks_force_shut_down_of_franklin_bridg.html#incart_river
However, I guess to the truckers' credit, I don't see any signs about a weight limit on the bridge.
Quote from: J Route Z on January 17, 2015, 01:27:09 PM
The overhead signs at exit 52 on 295 are still not repaired since the repaving in 2011: http://goo.gl/maps/CFA7B I drove there last night.
I remember this particular bridge. It was the first gantry to feature exit numbers on it despite I-295 not having numbers yet assigned to it yet. I used to wonder why they place exit numbers here and nowhere else on I-295 except south of the US 130 split near Repaupo at the time.
Ah this is nothing as the same went on I-495 (now NJ 495) at the SB ramp to US 1& 9 in North Bergen back in the late 70's. The overhead sign was removed and for years the supports sat there alone, but no truss.
Also in Newark at the former SB viaduct near Ironbound as the Wilson Avenue overhead sign got removed, and never replaced until almost 10 years later when NJDOT replaced the SB viaduct even when there was the pull through guide on SB US 1 &9 at previous Raymond Boulevard exit that listed Wilson Avenue as control point which needed that missing gantry to follow up on it later.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 17, 2015, 01:35:49 PM
However, I guess to the truckers' credit, I don't see any signs about a weight limit on the bridge.
At the bridge itself, there's this eastbound (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.50326,-74.582791&spn=0.028063,0.055747&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.503234,-74.583092&panoid=PYotlQcDEbNu9YgLPN6uzw&cbp=12,85.84,,1,6.24) (at least in 2011). The sign before the bridge at CR 533 in Millstone is pretty ambiguous, having seen it for the first time* (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.502852,-74.589314&spn=0.006347,0.027874&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.502853,-74.589323&panoid=w_EZEO77l0ZGfgygaCed5g&cbp=11,110.96,,0,-1.39), it looks like the 14 ton limit is for those making a left turn. One thing I like about the one-lane bunny-hop bridges of Hunterdon County, the signs will tell you on the road itself the weight limit and post the mileage to the bridge.
And heading westbound, there's no sign at the county road preceding the bridge (Elizabeth Avenue - CR 621) and the sign at the bridge would've probably been hidden by the house that forces that awful curve in the road in East Millstone. (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.503325,-74.582062&spn=0.012694,0.055747&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.503327,-74.582058&panoid=KBTlfdoG8ZKD4-cp3VWTjw&cbp=11,269.24,,0,5.82)
* I've biked on 514 many times but I never read the weight limits-- I'm not that fat
It can take a while to get things replaced if there is a lot of insurance go around, etc. The Westbound I-84 3/4 advance exit sign for Exit 63 in Manchester, CT was hit in 2009 and took 3-4 years to get fully replaced. Plenty of others have seen similar fates and sometimes lengthy replacement times.
Anyways, just for memories, here's an article with a picture http://jalopnik.com/5164830/driver-discovers-new-way-to-wheelie-dump-truck
Or the Hartford Courant article (without picture) http://articles.courant.com/2009-03-05/news/truckrescue0305.art_1_truck-s-cab-truck-crash-dump
Quote from: DrSmith on January 17, 2015, 09:07:51 PM
It can take a while to get things replaced if there is a lot of insurance go around, etc. The Westbound I-84 3/4 advance exit sign for Exit 63 in Manchester, CT was hit in 2009 and took 3-4 years to get fully replaced. Plenty of others have seen similar fates and sometimes lengthy replacement times.
Anyways, just for memories, here's an article with a picture http://jalopnik.com/5164830/driver-discovers-new-way-to-wheelie-dump-truck
Or the Hartford Courant article (without picture) http://articles.courant.com/2009-03-05/news/truckrescue0305.art_1_truck-s-cab-truck-crash-dump
Please. This "temporary" sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.153493,-75.888033,3a,50.1y,221.95h,89.38t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPNciuMSdY6nwz36oA2QWeA!2e0) has been on I-88 near Binghamton for 10 years and hasn't been replaced.
Quote from: J Route Z on January 17, 2015, 01:27:09 PM
The overhead signs at exit 52 on 295 are still not repaired since the repaving in 2011: http://goo.gl/maps/CFA7B I drove there last night.
This sign assembly wasn't damaged. NJDOT took it down sometime in 2012, maybe 2013. There's several other examples like this, including Rt. 55 at Exit 58. There's probably legit reasons why the signs were removed, such as a structural issue. It'll be nice though if NJDOT could be a little quicker on replacing them though.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 17, 2015, 05:13:24 PM
At the bridge itself, there's this eastbound (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.50326,-74.582791&spn=0.028063,0.055747&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.503234,-74.583092&panoid=PYotlQcDEbNu9YgLPN6uzw&cbp=12,85.84,,1,6.24) (at least in 2011). The sign before the bridge at CR 533 in Millstone is pretty ambiguous, having seen it for the first time* (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.502852,-74.589314&spn=0.006347,0.027874&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.502853,-74.589323&panoid=w_EZEO77l0ZGfgygaCed5g&cbp=11,110.96,,0,-1.39), it looks like the 14 ton limit is for those making a left turn. One thing I like about the one-lane bunny-hop bridges of Hunterdon County, the signs will tell you on the road itself the weight limit and post the mileage to the bridge.
Hmm, I've driven 514 from the east end in West Amwell all the way into New Brunswick
many times, and I don't remember seeing that sign there. I might have to do a double check the next time I'm out that way.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 17, 2015, 05:13:24 PM
* I've biked on 514 many times but I never read the weight limits-- I'm not that fat
Most massive trucks shouldn't
be on some county roads in the first place honestly, and they should just stick to freeways like the Turnpike and Parkway (exceptions apply of course, but still, the amount of trucks I've seen on these back roads is ridiculous, all in the hopes of avoiding traffic or tolls or whatever).
Quote from: Zeffy on January 17, 2015, 11:41:29 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 17, 2015, 05:13:24 PM
At the bridge itself, there's this eastbound (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.50326,-74.582791&spn=0.028063,0.055747&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.503234,-74.583092&panoid=PYotlQcDEbNu9YgLPN6uzw&cbp=12,85.84,,1,6.24) (at least in 2011). The sign before the bridge at CR 533 in Millstone is pretty ambiguous, having seen it for the first time* (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.502852,-74.589314&spn=0.006347,0.027874&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.502853,-74.589323&panoid=w_EZEO77l0ZGfgygaCed5g&cbp=11,110.96,,0,-1.39), it looks like the 14 ton limit is for those making a left turn. One thing I like about the one-lane bunny-hop bridges of Hunterdon County, the signs will tell you on the road itself the weight limit and post the mileage to the bridge.
Hmm, I've driven 514 from the east end in West Amwell all the way into New Brunswick many times, and I don't remember seeing that sign there. I might have to do a double check the next time I'm out that way.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 17, 2015, 05:13:24 PM
* I've biked on 514 many times but I never read the weight limits-- I'm not that fat
Most massive trucks shouldn't be on some county roads in the first place honestly, and they should just stick to freeways like the Turnpike and Parkway (exceptions apply of course, but still, the amount of trucks I've seen on these back roads is ridiculous, all in the hopes of avoiding traffic or tolls or whatever).
514 suffers from a lack of NJ 74 or 92.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/nj_weather_icy_roads.html#incart_river
Traffic is a
MESS this morning, and maybe throughout the entirety of the day. Here's the important bits:
- All DRPA bridges are CLOSED (Commodore Barry Bridge seems to be reopened with a 15 MPH speed limit)
- New Jersey Turnpike has a speed limit of 35 MPH for the entire length of the highway, from the Delaware Memorial Bridge all the way up to the George Washington Bridge
- Many PANYNJ bridges are closed
- Speed restriction of 35 MPH on the Garden State Parkway from exit 116 to exit 160
- Black ice reported in multiple NJ counties
Guys, if you have to drive today for any reason, take it slow, there is a LOT of ice not just on the roads but on the sidewalks as well. [/list]
Ben Franklin and Walt Whitman Bridges remain closed westbound only.
All other movements on DRPA bridges and BC bridges are OK but at greatly reduced speed limits.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 18, 2015, 10:35:35 AM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/nj_weather_icy_roads.html#incart_river
Traffic is a MESS this morning, and maybe throughout the entirety of the day. Here's the important bits:
- All DRPA bridges are CLOSED (Commodore Barry Bridge seems to be reopened with a 15 MPH speed limit)
- New Jersey Turnpike has a speed limit of 35 MPH for the entire length of the highway, from the Delaware Memorial Bridge all the way up to the George Washington Bridge
- Many PANYNJ bridges are closed
- Speed restriction of 35 MPH on the Garden State Parkway from exit 116 to exit 160
- Black ice reported in multiple NJ counties
Guys, if you have to drive today for any reason, take it slow, there is a LOT of ice not just on the roads but on the sidewalks as well. [/list]
Oddly, it's well up into the 40s in Eastern Massachusetts today.
The Outerbridge and Goethals Bridges were closed this morning as well. http://patch.com/new-jersey/ridgewood/freezing-rain-advisory-bergen-county-effect-until-11-am-sunday
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 01:04:13 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 18, 2015, 10:35:35 AM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/nj_weather_icy_roads.html#incart_river
Traffic is a MESS this morning, and maybe throughout the entirety of the day. Here's the important bits:
- All DRPA bridges are CLOSED (Commodore Barry Bridge seems to be reopened with a 15 MPH speed limit)
- New Jersey Turnpike has a speed limit of 35 MPH for the entire length of the highway, from the Delaware Memorial Bridge all the way up to the George Washington Bridge
- Many PANYNJ bridges are closed
- Speed restriction of 35 MPH on the Garden State Parkway from exit 116 to exit 160
- Black ice reported in multiple NJ counties
Guys, if you have to drive today for any reason, take it slow, there is a LOT of ice not just on the roads but on the sidewalks as well. [/list]
Oddly, it's well up into the 40s in Eastern Massachusetts today.
It was 51 degrees at kickoff in Foxboro.
Another bridge bites the dust... well, sort of (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/01/another_deteriorating_bridge_is_closed_is_closed_i.html#incart_m-rpt-1)
QuoteAnother deteriorated bridge was closed by transportation officials one hour after inspecting it on Friday.
The bridge, which takes Amwell Road across the D&R Canal in Franklin Township, Somerset County, will remain closed for at least 30 days until it can be repaired and reopened. However officials said that work is only temporary and that it ultimately has to be replaced.
QuoteThe Franklin bridge is the second deteriorating span shut down this year. On Jan. 12, Fox announced that the Prospect Street Bridge in Dover had been closed to traffic because engineers deemed it too feeble to carry the weight of traffic.
Fox warned the audience of transportation officials and professionals at the Jan. 12 meeting of North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, which represents 13 northern New Jersey counties, that more bridges could be closed.
QuoteThere are 500 bridges around the state which are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, meaning they will need some kind of work, Fox said.
From today's Bergen Record:
N.J. transportation chief orders immediate review of state's bridges
The fight over New Jersey's nearly-broke transportation fund ratcheted up two notches Tuesday when Transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox called for immediate safety inspections on every bridge in the state and local officials were warned not to count on $200 million in state transportation aid this year.
...
Fox's inspection order came hours after the collapse of an interstate bridge in Cincinnati, and after the department closed a smaller bridge in New Jersey that engineers discovered was unsafe.[/list]
http://www.northjersey.com/mobile/news/n-j-transportation-chief-orders-immediate-review-of-state-s-bridges-1.1228720
Ok, I promise I'm not going to show pics of all the new BGSs around 295. But there is a new one for the the scenic view stop on 295 South. It looks nothing like the old one that was there. It doesn't even look like the new sign on the northbound side. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll try to grab a pic on Monday. It no doubt will become a favorite of yours. It may even be a example of fine art. Just wait...
I noticed they also took down the Exit 56 overhead BGS at the exit ramp, but they didn't out the new one up yet.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2015, 05:22:49 PM
Ok, I promise I'm not going to show pics of all the new BGSs around 295. But there is a new one for the the scenic view stop on 295 South. It looks nothing like the old one that was there. It doesn't even look like the new sign on the northbound side. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll try to grab a pic on Monday. It no doubt will become a favorite of yours. It may even be a example of fine art. Just wait...
I noticed they also took down the Exit 56 overhead BGS at the exit ramp, but they didn't out the new one up yet.
Naw post them! I mean, how many new signs do you think they installed there? Also, how come they are replacing these signs?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2015, 05:22:49 PM
Ok, I promise I'm not going to show pics of all the new BGSs around 295. But there is a new one for the the scenic view stop on 295 South. It looks nothing like the old one that was there. It doesn't even look like the new sign on the northbound side. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll try to grab a pic on Monday. It no doubt will become a favorite of yours. It may even be a example of fine art. Just wait...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F0D26B294-F770-4A6B-B0CB-2CA55C4EA7CC.jpg&hash=2464e03462a27fae8fc25b54a9b430495817bb83) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0D26B294-F770-4A6B-B0CB-2CA55C4EA7CC.jpg.html)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2015, 05:46:33 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F0D26B294-F770-4A6B-B0CB-2CA55C4EA7CC.jpg&hash=2464e03462a27fae8fc25b54a9b430495817bb83) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0D26B294-F770-4A6B-B0CB-2CA55C4EA7CC.jpg.html)
Time to bring this out from the dustbin:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi141.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr60%2Fmr740ti%2Fkill_it_with_fire-s670x394-304461.jpg&hash=84db9ba8e35f271495e716c076cc750a5dd0e990)
^ I was on 295 yesterday in that area, but heading north instead, so I didn't get to see it. Good thing I didn't, I would've gouged my eyes out.
Also, A 2.7m job to rehabilitate the Trenton Makes bridge is set to start in March this year (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/01/27_million_repair_job_for_trenton_makes_bridge_to.html#incart_river).
Quote from: Zeffy on January 30, 2015, 04:06:15 PM
^ I was on 295 yesterday in that area, but heading north instead, so I didn't get to see it. Good thing I didn't, I would've gouged my eyes out.
Also, A 2.7m job to rehabilitate the Trenton Makes bridge is set to start in March this year (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/01/27_million_repair_job_for_trenton_makes_bridge_to.html#incart_river).
Mis-leading headline. Does any newspaper bother printing proper headlines anymore??
The construction is for the approach roads to the bridge. The work is necessary - the roadways are in bad shape. Any bets on if they'll remove the forever flashing signal on the NJ side??
I didn't think the work would be involving the bridge - it's a steel graded bridge - no repaving needed there - and the bridge itself was rehabbed just a few years ago.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2015, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 30, 2015, 04:06:15 PM
^ I was on 295 yesterday in that area, but heading north instead, so I didn't get to see it. Good thing I didn't, I would've gouged my eyes out.
Also, A 2.7m job to rehabilitate the Trenton Makes bridge is set to start in March this year (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/01/27_million_repair_job_for_trenton_makes_bridge_to.html#incart_river).
Mis-leading headline. Does any newspaper bother printing proper headlines anymore??
The construction is for the approach roads to the bridge. The work is necessary - the roadways are in bad shape. Any bets on if they'll remove the forever flashing signal on the NJ side??
I didn't think the work would be involving the bridge - it's a steel graded bridge - no repaving needed there - and the bridge itself was rehabbed just a few years ago.
you're not thinking of the Calhoun St bridge, are you?
Quote from: odditude on January 31, 2015, 02:09:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2015, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 30, 2015, 04:06:15 PM
^ I was on 295 yesterday in that area, but heading north instead, so I didn't get to see it. Good thing I didn't, I would've gouged my eyes out.
Also, A 2.7m job to rehabilitate the Trenton Makes bridge is set to start in March this year (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/01/27_million_repair_job_for_trenton_makes_bridge_to.html#incart_river).
Mis-leading headline. Does any newspaper bother printing proper headlines anymore??
The construction is for the approach roads to the bridge. The work is necessary - the roadways are in bad shape. Any bets on if they'll remove the forever flashing signal on the NJ side??
I didn't think the work would be involving the bridge - it's a steel graded bridge - no repaving needed there - and the bridge itself was rehabbed just a few years ago.
you're not thinking of the Calhoun St bridge, are you?
The Calhoun was worked on as well. The benefit of the Trenton Makes was they could shift traffic to one side of the bridge, so they didn't have to shut it down completely.
Looking back, it looks like this is what I remember...although it appears to be more for painting and rehab of the Ped walkway and 'Trenton Makes' sign: https://www.drjtbc.org/default.aspx?pageid=181
Think its awfully coincidental that bridges are being closed while there is a debate about raising the state gas tax?
Nah, just politics as usual.
Now a PAC has popped up running ads on heavy rotation on the radio and on TV.
http://politickernj.com/2015/02/forward-nj-releases-radio-and-digital-ads-with-ttf-in-mind/
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2015, 05:02:55 PM
Think its awfully coincidental that bridges are being closed while there is a debate about raising the state gas tax?
Nah, just politics as usual.
Now a PAC has popped up running ads on heavy rotation on the radio and on TV.
http://politickernj.com/2015/02/forward-nj-releases-radio-and-digital-ads-with-ttf-in-mind/
Similar happened across the Delaware last year; a whole bunch of
ALTERNATE TRUCK detour routes were established on many routes in the Keystone State and SEPTA threatened to shut off over half of its Regional rail system within a 3-to-5 year period if the cap on wholesale gas taxes wasn't lifted or repealed. Then-Gov. Corbett blinked, the cap was eliminated and the rest is history.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2015, 05:02:55 PM
Think its awfully coincidental that bridges are being closed while there is a debate about raising the state gas tax?
Nah, just politics as usual.
Now a PAC has popped up running ads on heavy rotation on the radio and on TV.
http://politickernj.com/2015/02/forward-nj-releases-radio-and-digital-ads-with-ttf-in-mind/
I can tell you this much - these bridges are legitimately in need of repair to be safely reopened, and there legitimately isn't the money to do it.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2015, 05:02:55 PM
Think its awfully coincidental that bridges are being closed while there is a debate about raising the state gas tax?
Nah, just politics as usual.
Now a PAC has popped up running ads on heavy rotation on the radio and on TV.
http://politickernj.com/2015/02/forward-nj-releases-radio-and-digital-ads-with-ttf-in-mind/
The whole thing about the TTF being out of money within the next six months? No one is making that up. Years of mismanagement by politicians on both sides of the aisle and issuing a massive ton of debt without increasing funds to pay for it all have left us in this position. The TTF used to be a model for how to pay for transportation infrastructure projects. Now it's so broke that the state won't be able to pay for any road projects at all, and one of the main culprits is that no governor has wanted to go near the gas tax for 26 years. Time is up and years of kicking the can down the proverbial road have come back to haunt the state.
Let me put it simply. When you have a Republican governor with eyes towards the White House putting out feelers that he would be ok with a tax increase, when
any tax increase is a complete anathema to the hardliners of his party that he needs to win over to win primaries, then you have the real deal. The last thing Christie wants is to have a tax increase on his record, but the question becomes, which is worse? For him to stand behind a gas tax increase that can put the fund back on some sort of stable footing, or watch as a bridge collapses because the state didn't have the money to fix the damn thing because of political stupidity? The last thing this is is politics as usual.
Quote from: Alps on February 05, 2015, 10:13:32 PM
I can tell you this much - these bridges are legitimately in need of repair to be safely reopened, and there legitimately isn't the money to do it.
Pretty much. Christie will tout about how he has "made a real change" in Camden, yet all you need to do to see the problems our state faces is look at our roads and especially our bridges. Christie needs to actually start doing shit in the state he was elected (twice) in before he considers trying to run the entire damn country. Of course, he'll dump millions into trying to save Atlantic City, as well as go meet with the Prime Minister of England because apparently the TTF doesn't matter.
I have not lived in New Jersey for a long time, but even when I lived there back in the 1980's it had the problems then as well. I do not think that anything will change, no matter who runs it.
It saddens me a little that nothing can be done, as New Jersey is a great state and has not expanded much for a state of its population size.
One Bergen County Lawmaker wants to End County Government in New Jersey (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/02/he_end_of_county_government_in_nj_bergen_county_la.html#incart_river)
Basically, the law calls for New Jersey to pretty much become like Connecticut in the regard that counties aren't government entities anymore. The proposal could save up to $2b for the state if it went through.
However, one big issue with that is... what about the
COUNTY road system? It's a major part of our state highway system, and as the name implies, the roads are maintained by - you guessed it - the counties. Getting rid of the county government would mean you have to transfer the maintenance to a local municipality. That could become problematic in areas where there is already a shortfall of funds (not that we much funds for roads anyway). A lot of county roadways (especially 5xx ones) are still major arterials throughout the state. Depending on other municipalities to maintain them isn't exactly a great idea when they have to maintain all of the other roads in their municipality as well.
Of course, another option is to gradually eliminate the local government in each municipality (of which New Jersey has
565) and let the county handle everything instead (basically how Camden handles policing except on a much much larger scale). Again though, how much
can the county handle doing everything by itself?
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2015, 10:50:00 AM
It saddens me a little that nothing can be done, as New Jersey is a great state and has not expanded much for a state of its population size.
Yup, but no matter what, I'll stick by New Jersey until the very end.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 06, 2015, 12:06:53 PM
One Bergen County Lawmaker wants to End County Government in New Jersey (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/02/he_end_of_county_government_in_nj_bergen_county_la.html#incart_river)
Basically, the law calls for New Jersey to pretty much become like Connecticut in the regard that counties aren't government entities anymore. The proposal could save up to $2b for the state if it went through.
However, one big issue with that is... what about the COUNTY road system? It's a major part of our state highway system, and as the name implies, the roads are maintained by - you guessed it - the counties. Getting rid of the county government would mean you have to transfer the maintenance to a local municipality. That could become problematic in areas where there is already a shortfall of funds (not that we much funds for roads anyway). A lot of county roadways (especially 5xx ones) are still major arterials throughout the state. Depending on other municipalities to maintain them isn't exactly a great idea when they have to maintain all of the other roads in their municipality as well.
Of course, another option is to gradually eliminate the local government in each municipality (of which New Jersey has 565) and let the county handle everything instead (basically how Camden handles policing except on a much much larger scale). Again though, how much can the county handle doing everything by itself?
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2015, 10:50:00 AM
It saddens me a little that nothing can be done, as New Jersey is a great state and has not expanded much for a state of its population size.
Yup, but no matter what, I'll stick by New Jersey until the very end.
You can save a ton more money by municipal consolidation than you will by eliminating counties. Counties are strong in NJ and they handle a lot of services, from roads to public works to police, that would be a significant structural and functional change for the next levels down and up if they disbanded. It won't fly.
Chester Township and Chester Borough should be one town.
Freehold Twp and Freehold Boro should be one town.
Princeton is now one town.
Quote from: J Route Z on February 06, 2015, 09:44:25 PM
Chester Township and Chester Borough should be one town.
Freehold Twp and Freehold Boro should be one town.
Princeton is now one town.
If we started going into "should be one town" we'd run out of characters per post. There are 566 municipalities and at least 100 of them could easily be consolidated.
Most people's opinions sound like this: "Consolidate every town but mine".
There's 607 school districts (yes, in a state that only has 566 municipalities). Consolidation has been mentioned there too. It usually sounds like this: "Consolidate every school district but mine".
Thus, the actual consolidation that takes place is minimal.
Next topic: Why are my taxes so high?
I agree with wrapping all the municipalities up into one county government. Think it's the only way you could even start revitalizing the Delaware River cities.
Quote from: J Route Z on February 06, 2015, 09:44:25 PM
Chester Township and Chester Borough should be one town.
Freehold Twp and Freehold Boro should be one town.
Princeton is now one town.
Pilesgrove and Woodstown should be one as Morristown and Morris Township should be one town.
Then Metuchen and Edison should merge as Bridgewater and Somerville. Then in Warren County both Washington Boro and Washington Township should be one.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 07, 2015, 09:26:01 AM
I agree with wrapping all the municipalities up into one county government. Think it's the only way you could even start revitalizing the Delaware River cities.
Or the Passaic River cities. Newark and Paterson are just as big of a mess as Trenton and Camden are.
What did Alps just say?
Please, let's not turn this into a "Fictional Consolidated New Jersey Towns" thread. You'll get thousands of opinions as to who should merge with who, and it's never going to happen.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2015, 10:30:07 AM
What did Alps just say?
Please, let's not turn this into a "Fictional Consolidated New Jersey Towns" thread. You'll get thousands of opinions as to who should merge with who, and it's never going to happen.
Yes, instead, let's discuss what wonderful products we would buy from the NJTA should they acquire a license for their logos. (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/02/turnpike_travel_mugs_and_parkway_change_purses_it_could_happen.html#incart_river)
In large, municipal consolidation will not happen. A few may, but far more that should merge won't for one reason or another. Because New Jersey. Personally, I'm in favor of it. The town that I live in should be merged with it's borough counterpart. They were the same municipality until 1899 when the borough broke off from the township.
The town I'm in surrounds another town. That town merged police forces with another town. The two towns aren't connected, and require traveling thru my town to reach each other.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 07, 2015, 10:50:18 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2015, 10:30:07 AM
What did Alps just say?
Please, let's not turn this into a "Fictional Consolidated New Jersey Towns" thread. You'll get thousands of opinions as to who should merge with who, and it's never going to happen.
Yes, instead, let's discuss what wonderful products we would buy from the NJTA should they acquire a license for their logos. (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/02/turnpike_travel_mugs_and_parkway_change_purses_it_could_happen.html#incart_river)
I don't get how these are not in the public domain. Is this nonsense some part of the Turnpike being a "quasi-public corporation"?
Quote from: signalman on February 07, 2015, 10:50:59 AM
In large, municipal consolidation will not happen. A few may, but far more that should merge won't for one reason or another. Because New Jersey. Personally, I'm in favor of it. The town that I live in should be merged with it's borough counterpart. They were the same municipality until 1899 when the borough broke off from the township.
Where I grew up in New Jersey, there was extreme territoriality over tiny boroughs whose only distinguishing factor was that their scant few farmers there in the 1890s had different ideas as to how to use their tax dollars. A few generations and many subdivisions later, it was as if these 2- and 3-square mile areas were built on distinct sets of principles, each with a special and unique tradition unlike any around it.
In reality, they mostly shared one characteristic–disgust over very, very high property taxes, so high that they helped greatly change the local demographic by flushing out lower- and middle-income folks. The irony seems lost on people who continue to fight bitterly against the consolidation of inefficient, duplicative municipal services they can't afford.
But memory is short in these places, because once people retire they can't afford to stay, and a new batch of suckers takes their place to continue the territorial fight anew.
Yeah, that is why a lot of people here in Florida from New Jersey. Heck, my friend lives in Sewaren, NJ and would love to leave New Jersey, but his wife does not want to go. Otherwise he would be joining me down here.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 07, 2015, 06:27:31 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 07, 2015, 10:50:18 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2015, 10:30:07 AM
What did Alps just say?
Please, let's not turn this into a "Fictional Consolidated New Jersey Towns" thread. You'll get thousands of opinions as to who should merge with who, and it's never going to happen.
Yes, instead, let's discuss what wonderful products we would buy from the NJTA should they acquire a license for their logos. (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/02/turnpike_travel_mugs_and_parkway_change_purses_it_could_happen.html#incart_river)
I don't get how these are not in the public domain. Is this nonsense some part of the Turnpike being a "quasi-public corporation"?
Only works of the *federal* government (and a few states) are automatically PD. But given that these were 'published' on the road without a copyright notice for many years before 1989 (when said notice became optional), there's a very good case for their being PD.
But they're also trademarked. I have no idea how this applies to use in situations where endorsement is not implied (e.g. shirts, mugs, bumper stickers).
Local school districts should be merged into county-wide dictricts.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 07, 2015, 11:06:50 PM
Local school districts should be merged into county-wide dictricts.
This is where you might run into the most opposition of all. We're talking about counties of half a million to a million that have some excellent (and some very bad) school systems. The residents of the former are not going to just roll over and be folded in with the latter.
Can you imagine Cherry Hill and Collingswood agreeing to be part of a school district with Camden?
School districts were one of the primary causes of "boroughitis" (the 1890s explosion of municipal fragmentation in New Jersey). Poor farmers didn't want higher taxes to pay for burgeoning school, light, water, etc. districts in growing villages in their townships. Ironically, many of the seceded areas grew urbanized, duplicated those districts, and helped create the epidemic of bureaucracy New Jersey has today.
What is up with the "To I-287" shields on the NJ 24 Westbound Exit 48 guide signs? Yes I know that NJ 24 terminates at that particular interstate so it does go to it as the sign states, but what about those heading for I-287 Southbound to Somerville? For southbound I-287 is would be better to stay on I-78 another 18 miles to the point where both routes properly intersect.
Who ever was the one who made the decision to place that shield on all the guides, did not do his homework on that one. Plus the overhead on the CR 577 overpass is right next to a mileage sign listing I-287 as a control point as well. That should have been a clue there.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 08, 2015, 02:15:20 PM
What is up with the "To I-287" shields on the NJ 24 Westbound Exit 48 guide signs? Yes I know that NJ 24 terminates at that particular interstate so it does go to it as the sign states, but what about those heading for I-287 Southbound to Somerville? For southbound I-287 is would be better to stay on I-78 another 18 miles to the point where both routes properly intersect.
Who ever was the one who made the decision to place that shield on all the guides, did not do his homework on that one. Plus the overhead on the CR 577 overpass is right next to a mileage sign listing I-287 as a control point as well. That should have been a clue there.
It would make more sense to post it as to 287 NB and then have a sign to indicate that traffic towards 287 SB stay on 78, but that's how the cookie crumbles. By the same token, when they widened the ramp from 287 SB to 24 EB to 2 lanes, they changed the signs to include a To 78 shield, even though it only makes sense if you want to get to 78 EB and should stay on 287 to reach 78 WB. That would cause a lot of confusion I think.
Yeah it would be more practical to just say "TO I-287 NORTH" from I-78 West. Also by the same token to say TO I-78 EAST" from I-287 South as well.
We got the same issues here in Florida along FL 429 SB at the Florida Turnpike with an I-4 shield directing motorists to use the Tpk Southbound to reach it as it was posted before FL 429 was completed to terminate at I-4 near Disney. This sign should be I-4 EAST since to get to I-4 West to Lakeland and Tampa is best (and direct as the road you are on is doing it) to stay on FL 429.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2015, 09:22:35 AM
Yeah it would be more practical to just say "TO I-287 NORTH" from I-78 West. Also by the same token to say TO I-78 EAST" from I-287 South as well.
Seems to me that if you're taking I-78 westbound from Newark/Irvington, you're far less likely to be heading for any destination reachable from I-78's intersection with I-287, since from that point, I-287 goes either northeast or southeast, and you'll have gone west to go east(ish). You're more likely to have exited before that point to get wherever you want to go. Even if you want to go to Bridgewater, US 22's a better option (generally.)
If you're heading for I-287 via NJ 24, however, you may be heading north to Parsippany or Oakland, or south to Morristown or Bedminster. For the westbound traveler, it's a more useful intersection with I-287.
I think I agree with the current signing, because it's the best way to get to the intersection with I-287 that you'd actually want to get to.
I think you are wrong. Many people from Newark/Irvington/ Maplewood do work in the Somerville/Bridgewater area. And Bedminster is best served to stay on I-78 to I-287. A "NORTH" only header would do fine in this application.
BTW Basking Ridge and Bernardsville are better served by commuters bound for them via Exits 36 and 33 later on.
Complete N.J. 55?
Cape May County Herald.com: Cape Issues: Can We Save Money and Also Be Safer? (http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/cape+issues/105446-cape+issues+can+we+save+money+and+also+be+safer)
QuoteJespersen asked about other safety deficits Cape May County faces. Pagliughi said people need to evacuate early. In a big storm like Superstorm Sandy, both Route 47 and the Garden State Parkway had sections which we impassible due to floodwater covering the roads. He said that it is well known that Cape May County is one of the most difficult places to evacuate in a big storm. As the one responsible for the safety of the public in Cape May County, he stated that "the completion of Route 55 would simplify my life greatly."
QuoteHe added that Route 55 requires forward movement on two issues; one is funding, and the other is environmental concerns. He suggested that the county address funding first. He proposed a toll road as the least problematic solution. After that, we could undertake environmental issues.
I saw that article, but it was about a low-level meeting as you're going to get.
Besides, the Garden State Parkway was impassible due to floodwaters. Where's Route 55 always been proposed to go? To the Garden State Parkway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2015, 10:29:33 PM
I saw that article, but it was about a low-level meeting as you're going to get.
So elected officials are not interested in this?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2015, 10:29:33 PM
Besides, the Garden State Parkway was impassible due to floodwaters. Where's Route 55 always been proposed to go? To the Garden State Parkway.
Where did the waters of Sandy make the Parkway impassible? North or south of where 55 was to connect to it?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 10, 2015, 10:55:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2015, 10:29:33 PM
I saw that article, but it was about a low-level meeting as you're going to get.
So elected officials are not interested in this?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2015, 10:29:33 PM
Besides, the Garden State Parkway was impassible due to floodwaters. Where's Route 55 always been proposed to go? To the Garden State Parkway.
Where did the waters of Sandy make the Parkway impassible? North or south of where 55 was to connect to it?
55 is a non-starter because of the environmental concerns, as badly as it's needed for shore traffic. I'd like to see 47 four-laned from the 55 junction to the 347 split and again from the 347 merge to the CR 657 split. That would at least relieve two chokepoints that lack alternate routes.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 10, 2015, 10:55:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2015, 10:29:33 PM
I saw that article, but it was about a low-level meeting as you're going to get.
So elected officials are not interested in this?
It's not that elected officials aren't interested in this...Lord knows the idea has been talked about for half a century now. It's just for all the people and elected officials interested in getting the route completed, there's an equal number of people and elected officials interested in making sure the route never gets completed. A politician in Cape May may say "Let's get construction started tomorrow". A politician in Port Elizabeth, or any other town that the proposed highway may go thru, may say "You ain't putting that highway in my town".
What's mostly interesting is that you're sure to get people that'll say they don't want the route because it'll bring increased development...when there's been a whole lot of increased development already, which makes an alternate route or widening of existing routes all the more needed.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 10, 2015, 10:55:11 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2015, 10:29:33 PM
Besides, the Garden State Parkway was impassible due to floodwaters. Where's Route 55 always been proposed to go? To the Garden State Parkway.
Where did the waters of Sandy make the Parkway impassible? North or south of where 55 was to connect to it?
Was the portion of the Parkway that was made impassable due to floodwaters of Sandy the stretch that's at grade with intersections rather than interchanges (which is currently being raised and rebuilt as an expressway - those who attended last month's Cape May meet know such first-hand)?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2015, 06:33:42 AMWhat's mostly interesting is that you're sure to get people that'll say they don't want the route because it'll bring increased development...when there's been a whole lot of increased development already, which makes an alternate route or widening of existing routes all the more needed.
Such can be said for nearly every highway project that's been proposed but delayed and/or canned (at least in the Northeast) for the last 4-1/2 decades. The highway construction being halted/idled but the development along existing corridors continues along regardless.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2015, 06:33:42 AM
What's mostly interesting is that you're sure to get people that'll say they don't want the route because it'll bring increased development...when there's been a whole lot of increased development already, which makes an alternate route or widening of existing routes all the more needed.
But it's a freeway. A freeway can't really
have development because it's a controlled access roadway. It's not like the situation with US 1 in Mercer and Middlesex Counties, where development
exploded because it was left as-is. South of Millville, it's pretty rural, but still, it's a route for the shore traffic and the shore traffic is a problem.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 11, 2015, 08:36:21 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 10, 2015, 10:55:11 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on February 10, 2015, 10:29:33 PM
Besides, the Garden State Parkway was impassible due to floodwaters. Where's Route 55 always been proposed to go? To the Garden State Parkway.
Where did the waters of Sandy make the Parkway impassible? North or south of where 55 was to connect to it?
Was the portion of the Parkway that was made impassable due to floodwaters of Sandy the stretch that's at grade with intersections rather than interchanges (which is currently being raised and rebuilt as an expressway - those who attended last month's Cape May meet know such first-hand)?
While the Parkway will be raised at the present, traffic lit intersections as interchanges will carry the Parkway over the intersecting streets, the roadway between those interchanges is staying at it's current level.
There are numerous areas all along the Parkway where the roadbed isn't much higher than the surrounding land, where many areas are wetlands. In South Jersey, there isn't any one area that's particular flood-prone, but a localized, heavy rain could flood the Parkway and many other roadways at any one time.
As for hurricanes and other major storms, if you wait to evacuate until the hurricane hits, you're already too late. In most cases, someone wouldn't be able to get to the Parkway because of flooding on the local roads. It kinda makes the Parkway flooding issues a moot point, and it would be argued that the person should've evacuated when told to do so ahead of time.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 11, 2015, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2015, 06:33:42 AM
What's mostly interesting is that you're sure to get people that'll say they don't want the route because it'll bring increased development...when there's been a whole lot of increased development already, which makes an alternate route or widening of existing routes all the more needed.
But it's a freeway. A freeway can't really have development because it's a controlled access roadway. It's not like the situation with US 1 in Mercer and Middlesex Counties, where development exploded because it was left as-is. South of Millville, it's pretty rural, but still, it's a route for the shore traffic and the shore traffic is a problem.
It sure can spur development, though. A freeway makes the adjacent arterials much more attractive development sites. Of course, this could all prevented with zoning, but those tax dollars tend to be too tempting in the end to zone much of it out.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 11, 2015, 11:07:12 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 11, 2015, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2015, 06:33:42 AM
What's mostly interesting is that you're sure to get people that'll say they don't want the route because it'll bring increased development...when there's been a whole lot of increased development already, which makes an alternate route or widening of existing routes all the more needed.
But it's a freeway. A freeway can't really have development because it's a controlled access roadway. It's not like the situation with US 1 in Mercer and Middlesex Counties, where development exploded because it was left as-is. South of Millville, it's pretty rural, but still, it's a route for the shore traffic and the shore traffic is a problem.
It sure can spur development, though. A freeway makes the adjacent arterials much more attractive development sites. Of course, this could all prevented with zoning, but those tax dollars tend to be too tempting in the end to zone much of it out.
The simplest way to exhibit this is by looking at historic aerial photos before a highway was built, and after. In the years after the highway was built, developments start to go up near the interchanges.
The problem with shore traffic is that it's an issue for about 4 months or so out of the year, and even then generally limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. When the state looks at congested corridors, NJ 47 isn't even close to ranking in the top 10...except when they make adjustments to account for the shore traffic. Then it easily becomes a highly ranked congested corridor. So the state has to balance the needs of the shore and emergency routing with the fact that over 300 days out of the year traffic moves without delay.
There is an upcoming ITS project that will add cameras and variable message signs to Routes 47, 49, 50 & 347 ( http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1423/sec3/routes/rt347.pdf ). The project won't begin till 2016/17 at the earliest, and the reality of those projects is the signs are only as good as what's posted on them. If they use the Time Travel System it'll at least tell you how long it takes to get somewhere, although congestion relief will be minimal if people don't find another route.
Other shore corridors have a lot more year-round traffic...and also benefit from widening projects back in the 60's when it was easier to build and widen roads.
The Route 3 bridge in Secaucus from NJ 495 (as well as the eastbound lane) is going to be closed tonight for repairs after a rather bad accident happened yesterday.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/021115.shtm
But here's the kicker...
QuoteI-495 eastbound lane and ramp closure
tonight for emergency bridge repairs in Secaucus
I-495 is back? This is from NJDOT...so...
Quote from: Zeffy on February 12, 2015, 10:06:55 AM
The Route 3 bridge in Secaucus from NJ 495 (as well as the eastbound lane) is going to be closed tonight for repairs after a rather bad accident happened yesterday.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/021115.shtm
But here's the kicker...
QuoteI-495 eastbound lane and ramp closure
tonight for emergency bridge repairs in Secaucus
I-495 is back? This is from NJDOT...so...
Ironically, NJDOT is generally more likely to use Route XXX rather than I-XXX.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2015, 11:44:27 AM
Ironically, NJDOT is generally more likely to use Route XXX rather than I-XXX.
Yup, so is NJ.com. They always use Route 78 when referring to an accident on I-78 it seems, but other areas (such as around Trenton) use the proper designation of I-95, I-295, etc.
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/02/victim_in_fatal_tractor_trailer_crash_on_route_in.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Those of you that take 295 rather than the Turnpike may remember the iconic Navy ship-looking building slightly north of Rt. 38 (Exit 40). Over the past year or two they've built an addition onto the building, which (IMO) doesn't look nearly as impressive as the original building.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FE6BCA289-A62F-44DB-9C32-AF99FA3FE4E6.jpg&hash=3e7cdb20e8acc3d89b478f24f7e647a9527baa39) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/E6BCA289-A62F-44DB-9C32-AF99FA3FE4E6.jpg.html)
Quote from: Zeffy on February 12, 2015, 11:50:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2015, 11:44:27 AM
Ironically, NJDOT is generally more likely to use Route XXX rather than I-XXX.
Yup, so is NJ.com. They always use Route 78 when referring to an accident on I-78 it seems, but other areas (such as around Trenton) use the proper designation of I-95, I-295, etc.
I have never heard of I-80 or I-287 used. It was always Route 80 and Route 287.
In fact it was not until I moved to Florida when I learned the the General Public actually used "I" before interstate numbers on highways. After living in NJ all my life I thought all states used routes to define any route number. I was the only one calling I-4 by "Route 4" when I first started living in Orlando.
Everything here in eastern NC is "Highway XX", (Highway 70, Highway 17, Highway 55) with no characterization of whether its a US or NC route with the exceptions being the interstates-but we don't mention them much in local conversations, its 79 miles to the nearest interchange on I-95-a topic for a different thread.
This is a big difference from when I grew up in the NW 'burbs of Chicago, where everything was either "The Ike", "The Kennedy" or whatever surface street name a particular numbered route would be signed (Higgins Rd for IL-72, Golf Rd for IL-58). The only exception that I remember was "53" from Lake-Cook Road to the current I-355 interchange. It was Route (pronounced rout) 53, even though I-290 was concurrent all the way up to the then Northwest Tollway (now Jane Adams)
When I was little (until 9 years old) we lived in the Grand Rapids, MI area and it was just 96 or 196 for the interstates, 131 for US-131, and M-XX for the state routes-Chicago Drive was M-21 back in the day.
Most of my family is originally from (and most still live in) the NYC-NJ-Long Island area and everything is route (pronounced root) to them except the named freeways-they seem to do that the same way as Chicago ("The Van Wyck, "The Cross-Bronx" and not I-678 or I-95).
I'm with roadman65-I didn't hear the term "I-" preceding a road number spoken until the first time I visited Fla in the early 80's.
I believe that it is common that the article "the" precedes the "I".
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 13, 2015, 04:33:42 PM
I believe that it common that the article "the" precedes the "I".
Not in Jersey.
From what I could tell, the number by itself was the most common way of saying it, unless the number had fewer than three syllables. So, 295, 206, 130, 78, 76 etc, but Route 30, Route 80, Route 1, etc.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 14, 2015, 01:04:35 AM
From what I could tell, the number by itself was the most common way of saying it, unless the number had fewer than three syllables. So, 295, 206, 130, 78, 76 etc, but Route 30, Route 80, Route 1, etc.
You're fairly spot on. I'm from South Jersey and it was Route 70, 295,537,etc. Sometimes White Horse and Black Horse Pike.
Saw the turnpike sign yesterday, then the sign on 295 today. Of the various messages I've seen posted, I've never seen an orchestrated effort on speed limits being strictly enforced! FWIW, I didn't see any cops on my rides along these roads.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FAF9BD165-22F2-4A20-BE73-B17DAD8F9E13.jpg&hash=ffe48f9cd0306ab19b928c0ceb8d6982a77fe289) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/AF9BD165-22F2-4A20-BE73-B17DAD8F9E13.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F75470615-0CA0-4B1D-A8DD-009290019300.jpg&hash=8858778e1ea9108f7d58907214707cb6db3f1f4d) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/75470615-0CA0-4B1D-A8DD-009290019300.jpg.html)
^ Add 195 to that list as well. Came up from Trenton using 195 today and saw a VMS with the exact same message.
Sometimes they just say it into thinking that it will scare people.
The former OOCEA in Florida used to use scare tactics to get people to slow down to 25 mph through E Pass Lanes by saying if you speed through the ET lanes, you will get your E Pass privileges revoked. This was when I first got my E Pass, I took that literally and slowed down to 25 mph until after a month or two when I noticed that I was tailgated constantly for a good long while.
They were up on US-22 last night too.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 14, 2015, 01:29:34 PM
Sometimes they just say it into thinking that it will scare people.
The former OOCEA in Florida used to use scare tactics to get people to slow down to 25 mph through E Pass Lanes by saying if you speed through the ET lanes, you will get your E Pass privileges revoked. This was when I first got my E Pass, I took that literally and slowed down to 25 mph until after a month or two when I noticed that I was tailgated constantly for a good long while.
Heard that rumor about the SunPass lanes too; if you speed through them (gantry, not booth) you would automatically get a ticket.
Saw the "Speed Limit Strictly Enforced" VMS messages on 287 today on all the VMS's. Didn't see any cops though.
It may be time for their quota.
Quote from: storm2k on February 14, 2015, 10:13:57 PM
Saw the "Speed Limit Strictly Enforced" VMS messages on 287 today on all the VMS's. Didn't see any cops though.
They're all over VMS in the entire state. I laughed when I came off the GWB and saw it. Did my usual 72-75 from there down I-80 and NJ 21 with no issues. I think they just wanted to put something up for some reason. They don't get that if the VMS are always lit, they lose effectiveness. The going thinking is that "if the public sees a blank VMS, they'll think we wasted their tax dollars."
The State Police probably had a bunch of overtime accumulated with all the crappy weather recently and needed to give a bunch of guys some time off, so what better way to do that by scaring the heck out of many unwitting motorists by posting that all over the state on VMS?
Many out-of-towners will slow down when they see that message while they look out for the hordes of troopers that are really non-existent so mission accomplished.
What they do around here when they have that issue is they will hide an empty patrol car in the trees on the center medians leading in to town and that seems to work like a champ.
An unusual warning put out to truckers in NJ this weekend due to the possibility of high winds.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/021315a.shtm
The point was stressed a bit further down that while truckers across the country normally deal with high winds, truckers that stay local to New Jersey and the surrounding area generally don't deal with high winds that often.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 14, 2015, 01:04:35 AM
From what I could tell, the number by itself was the most common way of saying it, unless the number had fewer than three syllables. So, 295, 206, 130, 78, 76 etc, but Route 30, Route 80, Route 1, etc.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we do use the I prefix sometimes here. Route 80 doesn't sound right to me at all. The other ones are optional like you said, but even those have an I prefixed to them sometimes.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 16, 2015, 05:18:59 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 14, 2015, 01:04:35 AM
From what I could tell, the number by itself was the most common way of saying it, unless the number had fewer than three syllables. So, 295, 206, 130, 78, 76 etc, but Route 30, Route 80, Route 1, etc.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we do use the I prefix sometimes here. Route 80 doesn't sound right to me at all. The other ones are optional like you said, but even those have an I prefixed to them sometimes.
I distinctly remember "Route 80" being common, because it was so jarring to me, coming from Texas (where everything is "Highway so-and-so" unless it's an interstate).
Quote from: bzakharin on February 16, 2015, 05:18:59 PM
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we do use the I prefix sometimes here. Route 80 doesn't sound right to me at all. The other ones are optional like you said, but even those have an I prefixed to them sometimes.
I don't think so. If it isn't "Route XX" it's just XX.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 16, 2015, 05:18:59 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 14, 2015, 01:04:35 AM
From what I could tell, the number by itself was the most common way of saying it, unless the number had fewer than three syllables. So, 295, 206, 130, 78, 76 etc, but Route 30, Route 80, Route 1, etc.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we do use the I prefix sometimes here. Route 80 doesn't sound right to me at all. The other ones are optional like you said, but even those have an I prefixed to them sometimes.
No one uses I in North Jersey.
Quote from: Alps on February 16, 2015, 06:15:37 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 16, 2015, 05:18:59 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 14, 2015, 01:04:35 AM
From what I could tell, the number by itself was the most common way of saying it, unless the number had fewer than three syllables. So, 295, 206, 130, 78, 76 etc, but Route 30, Route 80, Route 1, etc.
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure we do use the I prefix sometimes here. Route 80 doesn't sound right to me at all. The other ones are optional like you said, but even those have an I prefixed to them sometimes.
No one uses I in North Jersey.
Even NJDOT uses "Route" in all of their documentation, announcements, STIP, etc.
Prior to 1991 there was talk of replacing the burlington bristol bridge, and making it I-x95, would you consider the future 95 interchange to basically serve the same purpose, except not connecting to I-295.
Wait, was it similar to the I-895 proposal seen in the 1977 map?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvaDio0h.png&hash=1ad5f0d46234c58e947fa92d31c713f03933926f)
Quote from: Zeffy on February 17, 2015, 10:12:30 PM
Wait, was it similar to the I-895 proposal seen in the 1977 map?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvaDio0h.png&hash=1ad5f0d46234c58e947fa92d31c713f03933926f)
Yes, i forgot what x95 it was to be.
Broken traffic signals in Trenton cause a guessing game for drivers (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/02/trenton_residents_raise_concern_about_broken_traff.html#incart_river)
QuoteTRENTON – At the intersection of Calhoun and Spring Streets in Trenton it has become a guessing game for drivers since the traffic light guiding the flow of traffic went out over a week ago.
Some drivers slow to a stop, flashing their high beams or waving on cars looking to cross the intersection, while others speed through, causing what residents are calling a dangerous situation.
Quote"I saw two accidents since the one that caused it," said Rafael Rodriguez, who works behind the counter in the store. He said people don't know what to do when they reach the broken light.
The city's traffic department has placed stop signs at the intersection on Spring Street, but there are no signs on Calhoun Street.
QuoteFoushee expects the light at Calhoun and Spring Street to be repaired in the next few days.
There are five other intersections in the city where the traffic lights are functional but require repairs. There have been numerous reports of other traffic lights not functioning properly, including on Tuesday and Wednesday at the intersection of Bridge and Centre Streets. City spokesman Michael Walker said that light had been repaired Wednesday afternoon.
Walker added that the city is responsible for 96 traffic signals, while 30 are the responsibility of the state or county.
So, when a traffic light goes out and the crews are unable to fix it, the solution is to just install stop signs? That seems half-assed. I know we're talking about Trenton here, but I'd think that at least during the day a single police officer could guide traffic. At night, well...wandering in Trenton at night isn't the best idea in the first place.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 19, 2015, 09:50:00 AM
Broken traffic signals in Trenton cause a guessing game for drivers (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/02/trenton_residents_raise_concern_about_broken_traff.html#incart_river)
QuoteTRENTON – At the intersection of Calhoun and Spring Streets in Trenton it has become a guessing game for drivers since the traffic light guiding the flow of traffic went out over a week ago.
Some drivers slow to a stop, flashing their high beams or waving on cars looking to cross the intersection, while others speed through, causing what residents are calling a dangerous situation.
Quote"I saw two accidents since the one that caused it," said Rafael Rodriguez, who works behind the counter in the store. He said people don't know what to do when they reach the broken light.
The city's traffic department has placed stop signs at the intersection on Spring Street, but there are no signs on Calhoun Street.
QuoteFoushee expects the light at Calhoun and Spring Street to be repaired in the next few days.
There are five other intersections in the city where the traffic lights are functional but require repairs. There have been numerous reports of other traffic lights not functioning properly, including on Tuesday and Wednesday at the intersection of Bridge and Centre Streets. City spokesman Michael Walker said that light had been repaired Wednesday afternoon.
Walker added that the city is responsible for 96 traffic signals, while 30 are the responsibility of the state or county.
So, when a traffic light goes out and the crews are unable to fix it, the solution is to just install stop signs? That seems half-assed. I know we're talking about Trenton here, but I'd think that at least during the day a single police officer could guide traffic. At night, well...wandering in Trenton at night isn't the best idea in the first place.
The intersection in question is a minor intersection with little side street traffic. Putting a cop there is pretty useless.
Normally when a traffic light goes out, it should be treated as a 4 way stop. While putting the stop signs up is a good idea for Spring St., those on Calhoun won't know that, and that probably contributes to the accidents.
Trenton isn't all that great in being prompt with their signal issues. Outside my office building there's a traffic light with a burned out red bulb. Been that way most of the month. 1 - 2 weeks is pretty typical of the time needed to replace a light bulb in this town.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2015, 10:03:57 AM
The intersection in question is a minor intersection with little side street traffic. Putting a cop there is pretty useless.
True, but Calhoun Street isn't exactly a minor street, what with a bridge to Morrisville and all that. The traffic on Calhoun that I've seen has been fairly decent, and I imagine it's because of the bridge (who wants to pay a toll on US 1?) into Pennsylvania.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 19, 2015, 10:09:40 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2015, 10:03:57 AM
The intersection in question is a minor intersection with little side street traffic. Putting a cop there is pretty useless.
True, but Calhoun Street isn't exactly a minor street, what with a bridge to Morrisville and all that. The traffic on Calhoun that I've seen has been fairly decent, and I imagine it's because of the bridge (who wants to pay a toll on US 1?) into Pennsylvania.
While I'll say it's reasonably busy at rush hour, except for the State Street/Calhoun Street intersection, I can generally pull up on any side street to Calhoun and I could easily pull out onto Calhoun during a red light if I wanted to.
I've seen other street lights out (or on flash) during rush hour at busier intersections, and traffic gets thru just fine.
Why's the city involved in this at all? Calhoun St. == CR 653 therefore county's fault.
(Though potholes I've called in a few weeks ago in suburbia haven't been filled yet either)
EDIT: Lookie here, the signals along Calhoun are city-maintained, see pg. 27 of this (http://www.trentonnj.org/documents/housing-economic/city_master_plan/phase%20one%20summary%20report.pdf).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 19, 2015, 07:27:03 PM
Why's the city involved in this at all? Calhoun St. == CR 653 therefore county's fault.
(Though potholes I've called in a few weeks ago in suburbia haven't been filled yet either)
Actually, that is a good question, because I just looked at the SLDs and 653 is definitely maintained by Mercer County and not the City of Trenton (though, since the county seat is Trenton, I wonder if that has anything to do with it...).
While in most cases county routes are maintained by the county and State/US/Interstate routes are maintained by the state, there are exceptions. Closer to me, some stretches of US 322 are maintained by Gloucester County, for example.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2015, 08:41:38 PM
While in most cases county routes are maintained by the county and State/US/Interstate routes are maintained by the state, there are exceptions. Closer to me, some stretches of US 322 are maintained by Gloucester County, for example.
US 322 in the vicinity of Rowan University, would this be owned by the county? I have tried to contact them about pedestrian sign issues, as there are many redundant signs within the campus (http://goo.gl/maps/UMPA6), as well as vandalized ones. And there is one missing school advance crossing sign eastbound approaching the Harvard Road intersection.
Quote from: J Route Z on February 20, 2015, 12:11:52 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2015, 08:41:38 PM
While in most cases county routes are maintained by the county and State/US/Interstate routes are maintained by the state, there are exceptions. Closer to me, some stretches of US 322 are maintained by Gloucester County, for example.
US 322 in the vicinity of Rowan University, would this be owned by the county? I have tried to contact them about pedestrian sign issues, as there are many redundant signs within the campus (http://goo.gl/maps/UMPA6), as well as vandalized ones. And there is one missing school advance crossing sign eastbound approaching the Harvard Road intersection.
That would be state jurisdiction there. County jurisdiction basically is within Mullica Hill. Generally speaking, they own Rt. 322 east of Rt. 55 to about Tomlin Station Rd.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2015, 08:41:38 PM
While in most cases county routes are maintained by the county and State/US/Interstate routes are maintained by the state, there are exceptions. Closer to me, some stretches of US 322 are maintained by Gloucester County, for example.
And US 206 despite being a... national road is wholly maintained by the city of Trenton, as well as the township of Hamilton.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2015, 08:41:38 PM
While in most cases county routes are maintained by the county and State/US/Interstate routes are maintained by the state, there are exceptions. Closer to me, some stretches of US 322 are maintained by Gloucester County, for example.
They even emphasize that with the CR 322 shields they have erected on that stretch of road.
US 202 is also county maintained north of NJ 53 into New York State. Only the interchange at I-80, the NJ 23 overlap, and the I-287 interchange in Oakland are the exceptions.
As far as US 206 in Trenton goes the signing is terrible there I noticed on GSV. When they replaced the intersection at the south end of the Warren Street one way section with a roundabout, the city did not bother to re-erect the US 206 shields to direct motorists to turn left there and even right back on Broad one block over. However, by ridding the US 1 Business shields they did right on that one since it never was US 1 Business and US 1 Alternate was decommissioned decades ago that continued down Warren into PA via the Trenton Makes Bridge.
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 20, 2015, 10:13:33 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2015, 08:41:38 PM
While in most cases county routes are maintained by the county and State/US/Interstate routes are maintained by the state, there are exceptions. Closer to me, some stretches of US 322 are maintained by Gloucester County, for example.
They even emphasize that with the CR 322 shields they have erected on that stretch of road.
They're gone. They were only up during the construction when former 322 was closed for the replacement of the dam, and were only used for detouring of traffic. The road reopened in December.
CR 536 overlaps US 322.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 20, 2015, 09:37:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2015, 08:41:38 PM
While in most cases county routes are maintained by the county and State/US/Interstate routes are maintained by the state, there are exceptions. Closer to me, some stretches of US 322 are maintained by Gloucester County, for example.
And US 206 despite being a... national road is wholly maintained by the city of Trenton, as well as the township of Hamilton.
U.S. 1 and U.S. 40, despite also having national status, are maintained by the city of Baltimore, MD within that jurisdiction. So are I-83 and the state-numbered roads within same IIRC. I-95, I-695, and I-895 within Baltimore city are maintained by the MD Transportation Authority, which operates MD's toll facilities.
ixnay
Just look at the SLR SLD and it tells you what NJ designated highways are NJDOT maintained and where and which segments are not! NJ 31 and NJ 33 are not state maintained inside Trenton either, as well as NJ 47 east of the Intracoastal Waterway into Wildwood as there Cape May County maintains it and even shields it as their designated 600 series route.
You think they would sign both, unless they added some NJ 47 signs along that stretch, as it is a tourist area and many do not know the roads being strangers that it should be signed real well as that is the main road leading in and out of the resort area. Plus it connects to Exit 4 on the Parkway which is the main freeway in New Jersey serving the lower Cape from Northern South Jersey as well as Central and North Jersey.
The only evidence that Rio Grande Ave. in Wildwood is NJ-47 is the 0.5 mile marker posted by NJDOT. It is unsigned otherwise. Same goes for NJ-109 in Cape May City.
SLD. It has been corrected.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 21, 2015, 05:28:35 PM
The only evidence that Rio Grande Ave. in Wildwood is NJ-47 is the 0.5 mile marker posted by NJDOT. It is unsigned otherwise.
There *are* coastal evacuation route and GSP signs pointing at it from Ocean Avenue, but I agree, the way off the island needs to be signed better than that
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20150224_Tanker_fire_forces_evacuations_in_Pennsauken.html
You can't tell by the picture currently shown, but take a look at the posted video. No doubt that road surface ain't going to be in good shape!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2015, 01:58:32 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20150224_Tanker_fire_forces_evacuations_in_Pennsauken.html
You can't tell by the picture currently shown, but take a look at the posted video. No doubt that road surface ain't going to be in good shape!
the smoke was clearly visible from Center City.
A Hamilton Firm Wins $23m Contract For Scudder Falls Bridge (I-95) Replacement (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/02/hamilton_firm_wins_23_million_design_contract_for.html#incart_river)
QuoteEWING – The Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission is moving ahead with the replacement of the Scudder Falls Bridge, the most significant step in the project in over two years.
As part of its $22.5 million contract with the commission, Michael Baker Jr. Inc. will provide design services for the replacement of the 4.4-mile portion of the I-95 corridor, between the Bear Tavern Road/Route 579 exit in Ewing and the Route 332/Yardley-Newtown Road exit in Lower Makefield, Pa.
QuoteThe current Scudder Falls Bridge has an inadequate number of lanes and lacks shoulders, causing massive traffic delays after even the simplest of crashes and emergencies. On average, traffic congestion at the bridge results in a 27-minute delay for commuters.
The design work is expected to take about 18 months of a three- to four-year construction timeline, but the release from the commission noted that start and end dates are not yet established.
QuoteAs a part of the $327.5 million project, the commission will reconfigure the Taylorsville Road interchange in Lower Makefield, Pa., and make drainage improvements along the Bear Tavern Road exit.
Bicycle and pedestrian walkways will also be constructed, connecting to recreational canal paths along the Delaware River, and noise abatement walls will be constructed on roadways adjacent to the bridge.
A southbound all-electronic toll collection system will also be implemented, consisting of high-speed E-Z Pass tag readers and video cameras to identify license plates from non-E-Z Pass customers. There is currently no toll collected on the bridge.
In other words, soon one of the last free crossings in the state is going to become tolled for leaving the state.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 24, 2015, 09:57:17 AM
In other words, soon one of the last free crossings in the state is going to become tolled for leaving the state.
Yep. This bridge has always been a pain in the DRJTBC's side. It's by far their largest, most used bridge without any tolls. Motorists certainly take advantage of that.
It has been their plans all along to charge tolls. The plans though have slowed, as previous timelines showed this bridge should have been under construction, if not completely rebuilt, by now. As noted above, the current timeline still isn't known.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2015, 10:49:43 AM
Yep. This bridge has always been a pain in the DRJTBC's side. It's by far their largest, most used bridge without any tolls. Motorists certainly take advantage of that.
It has been their plans all along to charge tolls. The plans though have slowed, as previous timelines showed this bridge should have been under construction, if not completely rebuilt, by now. As noted above, the current timeline still isn't known.
Doesn't matter for me - if I'm going into Pennsylvania I usually take either the Trenton Makes or Calhoun Street bridges in Trenton, the Lambertville-New Hope Bridge off of NJ 179 in Lambertville, or the Washington's Crossing bridge off of NJ 29. I barely use the Scudder Falls Bridge. One thing I am interested in the status of however is the reconstruction of the NJ 29 interchange just before the bridge - has there been any news on that?
Quote from: Zeffy on February 24, 2015, 11:09:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2015, 10:49:43 AM
Yep. This bridge has always been a pain in the DRJTBC's side. It's by far their largest, most used bridge without any tolls. Motorists certainly take advantage of that.
It has been their plans all along to charge tolls. The plans though have slowed, as previous timelines showed this bridge should have been under construction, if not completely rebuilt, by now. As noted above, the current timeline still isn't known.
Doesn't matter for me - if I'm going into Pennsylvania I usually take either the Trenton Makes or Calhoun Street bridges in Trenton, the Lambertville-New Hope Bridge off of NJ 179 in Lambertville, or the Washington's Crossing bridge off of NJ 29. I barely use the Scudder Falls Bridge. One thing I am interested in the status of however is the reconstruction of the NJ 29 interchange just before the bridge - has there been any news on that?
That's part of the Scudder Falls bridge project. As the new bridge will be widened by over 100% and will be on a separate footprint, the entire Rt. 29 interchange would need to be rebuilt at that time.
welp, that's another 18 months (at minimum) until this project starts screwing with my daily commute.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2015, 02:04:42 PM
Just look at the SLR SLD and it tells you what NJ designated highways are NJDOT maintained and where and which segments are not!
Where is this SLD? On NJDOT's website?
ixnay
Yes. Look under References/Links.
Quote from: ixnay on February 24, 2015, 08:11:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2015, 02:04:42 PM
Just look at the SLR SLD and it tells you what NJ designated highways are NJDOT maintained and where and which segments are not!
Where is this SLD? On NJDOT's website?
ixnay
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/
Quote from: Zeffy on February 25, 2015, 12:43:29 PM
Quote from: ixnay on February 24, 2015, 08:11:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2015, 02:04:42 PM
Just look at the SLR SLD and it tells you what NJ designated highways are NJDOT maintained and where and which segments are not!
Where is this SLD? On NJDOT's website?
ixnay
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/
Thanks! :thumbsup:
ixnay
Has Calhoun Street in Trenton ever been part of US 1 at any time in history? I do know that it was indeed the original Lincoln Highway, but as we all know the Trenton Makes Bridge was the original US 1 for many years prior to the Trenton Freeway Bridge being built to cross the Delaware.
The Lower Trenton Bridge, as the official name of it, was opened in 1928 replacing an another crossing that was built in the 19th Century just a couple years after US 1 was formed.
Also Calhoun Street does blend in with Warren Street in Trenton which was the old US 1. Plus, if you go through Morrisville west from the Calhoun Street Bridge you will find yourself defaulted onto US 1 Business. These two factors prove not only how they were part of Lincoln Highway, but US 1 could have been as well. Just because the Trenton Makes Bridge was built in the 19th Century does not either mean that it had to be US 1 when the great US numbering took place either.
All of this does raise interesting questions as both are great candidates for a route alignment at any point in history.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 02, 2015, 01:49:17 PM
Has Calhoun Street in Trenton ever been part of US 1 at any time in history?
Doubt it. The Pennsylvania-side route to the Makes Bridge was state-maintained LR 281, while the route to the Calhoun Street Bridge was initially a state aid road that seems to have ended before the bridge.
Note that the diagonal from Calhoun to Princeton (not Warren) in Trenton did not exist until 1932 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calhoun_Street_Extension). When the Lincoln Highway used Calhoun, it turned off on State to Warren (though it may have been moved to Bank-Passaic (http://books.google.com/books?id=9zQ1AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA6-PA17) before the rerouting to the Makes Bridge).
Quote from: roadman65 on March 02, 2015, 01:49:17 PM
Also Calhoun Street does blend in with Warren Street in Trenton which was the old US 1.
Warren Street is much more vibrant, seeing as it goes through Downtown, which is populated during the daytime hours. Calhoun is more residential. I can't really say that they blend in too well.
At exit 3 of I-78/U.S. 22 near Alpha, is there grading visible showing where the old ramps were from when I-78 terminated (westbound) before it was extended along the south side of the Lehigh Valley? I'd like to bring back memories of 1979-80 when I rode Carl (not Justin) Bieber Tourways no less than three times to NYC from Kutztown (to see the Unisphere up close one trip and to catch a Mets game on another). I was a freshman at what is now Kutztown University. I-78 in the LV was stalled at the time (as was I-476 in Montco and Delco) and all thru traffic along the Valley (including Bieber buses) had to use U.S. 22 down the S-curve in Easton and across the truss bridge into Phillipsburg.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 08, 2015, 04:16:25 PM
At exit 3 of I-78/U.S. 22 near Alpha, is there grading visible showing where the old ramps were from when I-78 terminated (westbound) before it was extended along the south side of the Lehigh Valley? I'd like to bring back memories of 1979-80 when I rode Carl (not Justin) Bieber Tourways no less than three times to NYC from Kutztown (to see the Unisphere up close one trip and to catch a Mets game on another). I was a freshman at what is now Kutztown University. I-78 in the LV was stalled at the time (as was I-476 in Montco and Delco) and all thru traffic along the Valley (including Bieber buses) had to use U.S. 22 down the S-curve in Easton and across the truss bridge into Phillipsburg.
ixnay
Not much. The stub in the center of the image (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6724468,-75.1367443,662m/data=!3m1!1e3) was the former WB roadway and you can kind of see where it merged into I-78. There's also a small stub on the southwest side of the US 22/NJ 122 intersection. Everything else was obliterated to build the interchange. See here for a 1970 aerial. (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1970&zoom=16&lat=40.67053202087979&lon=-75.1370644569397)
Quote from: ixnay on March 08, 2015, 04:16:25 PM
At exit 3 of I-78/U.S. 22 near Alpha, is there grading visible showing where the old ramps were from when I-78 terminated (westbound) before it was extended along the south side of the Lehigh Valley?
http://historicaerials.com?layer=1972&zoom=16&lat=40.67001121908946&lon=-75.1330304145813
Westbound traffic followed the vegetation line to the north of the current offramp and then what's now a double-ended cul-de-sac (West Avenue according to the Goog). Eastbound traffic used what's now the jughandle to NJ 122 and bore left across NJ 122 on what appears to be a gas station driveway. (Then it cut right across the middle of where the loop to I-78 west is now; there's probably no grading remaining there.)
The original Exit 3 was a wye interchange and no remains of the original EB on ramp exist as it is where most of the interchange is now. The old bridge carrying I-78 E Bound over WB NJ 173 was completely dismantled as NJ thought not to use it when I-78 was finally extended into PA in the mid 80's. The old configuration was mostly where the new one is, except for the original ramp WB.
If you head east from NJ 122 across US 22 you can find it by car easily.
Thanks guys for the links and the info. Brings back memories of those bus rides.
ixnay
A few years back the 'Mullica Hill Bypass' opened around...you guessed it...Mullica Hill. It was quickly designated US 322, but old 322 thru Mullica Hill was never resigned. The only signage to appear was the horribly incorrect 'County 322' when the old route was closed for road and dam reconstruction, which is now gone.
The newest NJ Straight Line diagram package gives insight to what the old route officially became: US 322 Business, which is appropriate for this section. However, no signage was ever installed for the route.
It's a bit significant in that NJ has usually refrained from designating business routes. Per the SLDs, there are only 3 in the state (state and US Hwy designated routes): US 1, NJ 33, and US 322.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000322B_-.pdf
Wonder if those changes were ever approved by AASHTO? After all they are in charge of US highway routing. Gloucester County's records don't seem to reflect any re-routing of CR-536 (what they maintain US-322 as in most of Harrison Twp). The Mullica Hill Bypass is considered CR-536A.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 18, 2015, 04:44:01 PM
Wonder if those changes were ever approved by AASHTO? After all they are in charge of US highway routing. Gloucester County's records don't seem to reflect any re-routing of CR-536 (what they maintain US-322 as in most of Harrison Twp). The Mullica Hill Bypass is considered CR-536A.
Most states don't submit minor realignments to AASHTO. Lapdog MODOT submits everything, including building a new set of lanes in one direction and keeping the old ones for the other direction.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2015, 01:29:46 PM
A few years back the 'Mullica Hill Bypass' opened around...you guessed it...Mullica Hill. It was quickly designated US 322, but old 322 thru Mullica Hill was never resigned. The only signage to appear was the horribly incorrect 'County 322' when the old route was closed for road and dam reconstruction, which is now gone.
The newest NJ Straight Line diagram package gives insight to what the old route officially became: US 322 Business, which is appropriate for this section. However, no signage was ever installed for the route.
It's a bit significant in that NJ has usually refrained from designating business routes. Per the SLDs, there are only 3 in the state (state and US Hwy designated routes): US 1, NJ 33, and US 322.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000322B_-.pdf
The entire route is county-maintained... including the part with 45, interestingly. Wouldn't expect to see this one signed on the county's dime. Now the question is, who will win the argument of where 536 goes? The state just considers it concurrent with 322.
According to Gloucester 536 hasn't changed..... yet.
http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882
http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 19, 2015, 06:39:27 PM
According to Gloucester 536 hasn't changed..... yet.
http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882
http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
Per the 3927 link, the bypass is 536 Alt.
Thus, if both the state SLD and the County map are correct:
Bypass: 322/536A
Original: 322B/536.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2015, 06:52:26 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 19, 2015, 06:39:27 PM
According to Gloucester 536 hasn't changed..... yet.
http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882
http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
Per the 3927 link, the bypass is 536 Alt.
Thus, if both the state SLD and the County map are correct:
Bypass: 322/536A
Original: 322B/536.
They also have 536 ending at the Swedesboro line, which is incorrect. Which is why I said, "let's see who wins."
This is Work Zone Awareness Week on our state highways.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 24, 2015, 02:06:20 PM
This is Work Zone Awareness Week on our state highways.
...and trust me, we're painfully aware they're working.
Quote from: odditude on March 24, 2015, 05:29:57 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 24, 2015, 02:06:20 PM
This is Work Zone Awareness Week on our state highways.
...and trust me, we're painfully aware they're working.
To be followed by PotHole awarness afternoon
And then the burnt out lighting awarness hour
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 29, 2015, 11:11:25 AM
Quote from: odditude on March 24, 2015, 05:29:57 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 24, 2015, 02:06:20 PM
This is Work Zone Awareness Week on our state highways.
...and trust me, we're painfully aware they're working.
To be followed by PotHole awarness afternoon
And then the burnt out lighting awarness hour
Not to mention cranky cop Monday (Ticket Blitz Monday)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.73871,-74.07302,3a,75y,98.85h,79.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sL-2hCKhzZ3Tou3fxzWwBRw!2e0
I was just cruising the GSV and I noticed that the Google Car has been on the Pulaski Skyway since its reconstruction project started last year. I am impressed that the NB side had its original concrete parapet removed in the caption above, as it has always been nice to see construction of the 1930 era which there is not too much left these days.
Anyway, I think it is cool that GSV was around in the past year to give us all who have not been in New Jersey the past year of some of the progress being made there. The Skyway is one of my most favorite bridges to admire despite being dangerous to drive with narrow lanes and left side ramps and no merge areas with very limited site distances in those entrance areas as well as the curve on the Newark end going NB.
It will give me something to look forward to the next time I visit New Jersey as it should be nice when completed.
I noticed that GMSV has some updated 2014 photos of Newark Airport roadways as well. Classic nostalgia being able to read those signs again.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.711038,-74.310569,3a,75y,202.88h,82.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7jaBPzWPcE7eNn6ssPRzlA!2e0
Above is the image from GSV of Church Mall in Springfield, NJ that is a dead end street, but, as you see, on the traffic light pole has a little green sign giving out directions for WB NJ 124 and around the corner Mountain Avenue. To me I always wondered why that sign is there for a street with no traffic, however not much to ever lose sleep over.
Anyway, I was just visiting historic aerials and saw what Springfield, NJ looked like in 1966. Apparently I-78 was just being constructed through Springfield and Union County Route 577 had a different alignment on its home stretch to NJ 24, which is now NJ 124. It used what is now Church Mall and Main Street never intersected the present day one way pair of Springfield and Maple Avenues. It deviated from itself on Taft just north of the I-78 bridge and continued across what is now the freeway into Church Mall and ended at Morris Avenue.
What you see basically in the GSV link above is remnants of when CR 577 came into this particular intersection. Also, when I was a child I remember seeing an old white square CR 509 SPUR shield along the section of South Springfield Avenue that is not part of CR 509 SPUR, which always made me think then it was erroneous. However, with Westfield being control city on the sign on GSV here, it would make sense that the sign was not an error.
County Route 509 SPUR stayed on South Springfield Avenue where it deviates from Meisel Avenue and continued to its end at Mountain Avenue to follow Mountain until Morris Avenue. So both CR 577 and CR 509 SPUR still met then, but just at another location.
I'm going to state the entire post below in one sentence: Church Mall in Springfield, NJ is the former through route of Main St. (CR 577) from Millburn before I-78.
I only clicked to play Pacman. Brutal. Couldn't get to a whole row of dots.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2015, 04:37:56 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.711038,-74.310569,3a,75y,202.88h,82.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s7jaBPzWPcE7eNn6ssPRzlA!2e0
Above is the image from GSV of Church Mall in Springfield, NJ that is a dead end street, but, as you see, on the traffic light pole has a little green sign giving out directions for WB NJ 124 and around the corner Mountain Avenue. To me I always wondered why that sign is there for a street with no traffic, however not much to ever lose sleep over.
Anyway, I was just visiting historic aerials and saw what Springfield, NJ looked like in 1966. Apparently I-78 was just being constructed through Springfield and Union County Route 577 had a different alignment on its home stretch to NJ 24, which is now NJ 124. It used what is now Church Mall and Main Street never intersected the present day one way pair of Springfield and Maple Avenues. It deviated from itself on Taft just north of the I-78 bridge and continued across what is now the freeway into Church Mall and ended at Morris Avenue.
What you see basically in the GSV link above is remnants of when CR 577 came into this particular intersection. Also, when I was a child I remember seeing an old white square CR 509 SPUR shield along the section of South Springfield Avenue that is not part of CR 509 SPUR, which always made me think then it was erroneous. However, with Westfield being control city on the sign on GSV here, it would make sense that the sign was not an error.
County Route 509 SPUR stayed on South Springfield Avenue where it deviates from Meisel Avenue and continued to its end at Mountain Avenue to follow Mountain until Morris Avenue. So both CR 577 and CR 509 SPUR still met then, but just at another location.
Supposedly, there are plans to convert the Whitehorse Circle in Hamilton into a roundabout, to hopefully start as early as 2016, as stated by this article (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/03/new_data_released_for_crashes_at_white_horse_circl.html#incart_river):
QuotePlans for a modern roundabout, in which all motorists yield to traffic within the circle, got a boost last week when the DOT announced it had fast-tracked the project, with construction scheduled to begin in 2016.
Located at the intersection of South Broad Street, White Horse Avenue and Route 206, motorists navigating the current circle configuration must pay close attention to shifting rights of way and traffic coming from multiple directions.
"People that know the area don't have a problem navigating that circle. The problem is, Route 206 and an entrance off Interstate 195 means people are coming in from major gateways who aren't used to it," Mercer County Executive Brian Hughes said last week. "It's going to take a long while to do, but it will increase the safety tenfold."
The DOT announcement came one day after The Times reported that the project was seemingly stuck in limbo, still two years away from construction.
Finally, a circle into a roundabout..what's the difference?
Quote from: Zeffy on March 30, 2015, 10:45:06 AM
I noticed that GMSV has some updated 2014 photos of Newark Airport roadways as well. Classic nostalgia being able to read those signs again.
I noticed that they still have the list of Airport exits sign on the McCellan Street overpass with only one exit left since the airport exits for the Terminals and South area were moved before the sign. Classic sign, but the brown outs defeat its purpose now.
Quote from: J Route Z on March 31, 2015, 07:06:29 PM
Finally, a circle into a roundabout..what's the difference?
It was a circle in name only. 206 North literally make a left cutting thru middle of the 'circle'. 533 also involved a left to get to Broad Street EB. Traffic on Broad Street going west never actually had to turn as they skimmed the edge of the circle.
Of the four legs that approach the circle, there's actually 5 different entrance points into the circle. While one leg (533) has a stop sign, none of the other 4 entrance points have to yield. Yet, there's 7(!!!) different yield points throughout the circle.
There's some bad circles in this state. This one is just comical, as if NJDOT had some award for the most fucked up way to design an intersection.
That was always a screwy intersection. I am surprised that NJDOT let it survive this long.
Anyway speaking of circles I was noticing that the Netcong Circle has been gone for some time now finally. The google car has not visited there yet, but the map and satellite image shows the new 4 way intersection created plus an article claims that the rebuilt the NJ 183 bridge over the NJ Transit track as part of the reconfiguration. I wonder if, though, they got rid of those signs that show US 206 and NJ 183 as concurrent through there?
You can actually make a left turn into the circle from White Horse Ave....... I'm guessing people stop before entering regardless.
NJDOT seems to be going through a signal replacement spree on NJ route 38 from US206 to Mt Holly. A few 3M M-131's are along this stretch of 38.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 01, 2015, 09:07:10 AM
NJDOT seems to be going through a signal replacement spree on NJ route 38 from US206 to Mt Holly. A few 3M M-131's are along this stretch of 38.
Yep.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs14130.pdf
See Page 21, where line item #113 shows the bids for 13 Optically Programmed LED Traffic Signal Heads. They appear to cost about 4x the price of a normal traffic light.
I should snap some photos of the older 3m ones
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2015, 10:05:54 PM
That was always a screwy intersection. I am surprised that NJDOT let it survive this long.
Anyway speaking of circles I was noticing that the Netcong Circle has been gone for some time now finally. The google car has not visited there yet, but the map and satellite image shows the new 4 way intersection created plus an article claims that the rebuilt the NJ 183 bridge over the NJ Transit track as part of the reconfiguration. I wonder if, though, they got rid of those signs that show US 206 and NJ 183 as concurrent through there?
Yes, they're gone. Going west on 46, 206 south turns left at the intersection; which is a protected movement. 183 north (old 206, but no mention of it) turns right.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2015, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 01, 2015, 09:07:10 AM
NJDOT seems to be going through a signal replacement spree on NJ route 38 from US206 to Mt Holly. A few 3M M-131's are along this stretch of 38.
Yep.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs14130.pdf
See Page 21, where line item #113 shows the bids for 13 Optically Programmed LED Traffic Signal Heads. They appear to cost about 4x the price of a normal traffic light.
How does one access the pages for other projects statewide ?
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.580991,-74.602898,3a,75y,345.13h,76.41t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOYEWLQ55d8wxH15iuBSCvg!2e0
A mileage sign I witnessed for every day of my life whenever my parents would take me to visit my aunt in Bridgewater. I always found it fascinating that two of the sign's control points are along US 202 and not US 22 that the sign is on.
This particular assembly always stood right before the exit for North Bridge Street on the westbound side of the highway. I always liked the fact that it recognized motorists planning to exit US 22 West onto US 202 South as there are plenty who do that here especially with traffic originating from I-287 North who use Exit 14. However, after reading the history of NJ highways and their previous numbering something else came into notice for me.
US 22 here was NJ 29, and so was US 202 from Somerville to Lambertville also part of NJ 29 running from Trenton to Newark in a roundabout way in the original numbering scheme in the Garden State. I often wonder if this sign is remnants of that era when indeed this was NJ Route 29 and this particular sign was copied over.
In addition so is a sign at the Flemington Traffic Circle where US 202 Northbound exits the circle it had for many years Somerville and Newark as control cities. The "Newark" I had often assumed it had to do with most traffic heading north on US 202 from Flemington was bound for US 22 East to Newark, but now I often wonder if it too was leftovers from when NJ 29 passed through Flemington.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2015, 01:14:13 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.580991,-74.602898,3a,75y,345.13h,76.41t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOYEWLQ55d8wxH15iuBSCvg!2e0
A mileage sign I witnessed for every day of my life whenever my parents would take me to visit my aunt in Bridgewater. I always found it fascinating that two of the sign's control points are along US 202 and not US 22 that the sign is on.
This particular assembly always stood right before the exit for North Bridge Street on the westbound side of the highway. I always liked the fact that it recognized motorists planning to exit US 22 West onto US 202 South as there are plenty who do that here especially with traffic originating from I-287 North who use Exit 14. However, after reading the history of NJ highways and their previous numbering something else came into notice for me.
US 22 here was NJ 29, and so was US 202 from Somerville to Lambertville also part of NJ 29 running from Trenton to Newark in a roundabout way in the original numbering scheme in the Garden State. I often wonder if this sign is remnants of that era when indeed this was NJ Route 29 and this particular sign was copied over.
In addition so is a sign at the Flemington Traffic Circle where US 202 Northbound exits the circle it had for many years Somerville and Newark as control cities. The "Newark" I had often assumed it had to do with most traffic heading north on US 202 from Flemington was bound for US 22 East to Newark, but now I often wonder if it too was leftovers from when NJ 29 passed through Flemington.
You know, I've spent most of my life driving past this sign and never thought about this. I think it would make sense that it's a hold over from the older NJ-29 routing. Kind of surprised that this never changed because that sign is only about 10-15 years old or so.
It, I believe, is a recent replacement. If I remember this to be correct it used to be 29 miles to Lambertville and not 26 as this sign now says.
Anyway, NJDOT about the time you suggested this assembly was replaced placed another sign just past the SB US 202/206 exit ramp. So now there are two mileage signs within 2 miles of each other. The newer signs that NJDOT have erected since 1998, presently show strategic control cities along them with locations on the routes proper.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.582659,-74.623692,3a,75y,332.46h,83.27t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6OZIK1DcZBOolA_yfF7A2g!2e0
No more newer mileage signs with other route control points. If any they are copied over like this one. The newer signs also have the state name abbreviation of out of state locations like PA on this other assembly for Easton.
What interests me is why this assembly is placed before the merge of SB US 202/206 instead of after it. The same goes for a mileage sign on US 202 in Flemington. It has a mileage sign for Lambertville and Solebury, PA right as you enter the Flemington Circle instead of after you leave it as well. Whoever looks after NJ's mileage signs happens to be careless! https://www.google.com/maps/@40.50333,-74.851621,3a,75y,284.64h,89.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEZir3ZCUeR8BqsZj9w_rNA!2e0
I always thought they listed Flemington on the mileage signs because of the junction with Route 31 which leads directly into Flemington's "downtown" area. A lot of motorists take 22 to 31 based on my travels instead of continuing on to I-78 and the Pennsylvania border.
Of course, now that you mention it, if this is a remnant of the old NJ 29 routing, then it's certainly an interesting question.
Unrelated, it appears that the Pulaski Skyway Rehabilitation Project's estimated completion date will be pushed back until later in 2016 following the discovery of rusted steel beams. (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/harsh_cold_rusted_steel_bump_back_pulaski_skyway_t.html#incart_river)
Below is a link to a story about a risky section of Route 23 where the river runs down the middle of the median.
tl;dr: They didn't fix the superelevation of the road's curves when it was converted from a two-way to a two-lane one-way road.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/route-23-long-known-as-a-dangerous-road-1.1308119?page=all
Say no more as I read the article. Yes the northbound lanes are very winding and have a 40 mph speed limit compared to its southbound counterpart which is set at 50 mph and was built more straight.
I always thought that NJDOT did a bad job on that one, but never knew it was that bad in the left lane there. I always remembered old widening projects where a completely new alignment was built later used for one side of the road's traffic, the original road was never touched as suppose to now. Currently we have a new carriageway added, we then shift both lanes of traffic on to the new road and completely rehabilitate the old road including now replacing old bridges and total regrading of the original roadway.
I always assumed that was the norm all along, but I guess with more traffic on the road we tend to overlook things like this and I think NJDOT did this one for sure.
What is the particular phenomenon which causes the wind speed to be higher for the northbound lanes than it is for the southbound lanes?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 14, 2015, 04:36:07 PM
What is the particular phenomenon which causes the wind speed to be higher for the northbound lanes than it is for the southbound lanes?
I mean the fact the road is winding not wind gusts. Another common misconception just like those people who say dubba you for the letter "W" instead of double you.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2015, 12:47:14 PM
Say no more as I read the article. Yes the northbound lanes are very winding and have a 40 mph speed limit compared to its southbound counterpart which is set at 50 mph and was built more straight.
Southbound is 55.
Quote from: signalman on April 14, 2015, 05:06:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2015, 12:47:14 PM
Say no more as I read the article. Yes the northbound lanes are very winding and have a 40 mph speed limit compared to its southbound counterpart which is set at 50 mph and was built more straight.
Southbound is 55.
Must of changed as I always remembered it as being 50 there. It was always 55 on NJ 23 from Newfoundland southward to where the two carriageways split just south of Echo Lake Road.
New Jersey was always big on the 50's in many areas including Route 22 east of Washington Avenue in Green Brook where it is 50 all the way east to New Providence Road in Mountainside where it is no different than the area west of Washington Avenue.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2015, 05:13:08 PM
Must of changed as I always remembered it as being 50 there. It was always 55 on NJ 23 from Newfoundland southward to where the two carriageways split just south of Echo Lake Road.
Southbound remains 55 until the Hamburg Turnpike exit, it then drops to 50 through Kinnelon and Butler. I believe it then briefly drops to 45 around I-287, then goes back up to 50.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.024425,-74.408387,3a,75y,161.01h,88.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sFxsEaz4-s93O4dzftKpbag!2e0
GSV shows a 50 mph sign south of where the two carriageways split near the West Milford- Kinnelon Line. Now this was only back in 2009 according to the date on the caption, so that 55 you talk about was rather recently.
I stand corrected. I should have checked before commenting. I could have sworn it stayed 55 further south. In fairness, it's not like me or many other motorists are obeying the limit. Traffic tends to move 55-65 until just before Butler.
NJDOT has released a report detailing the worst sections of state maintained roads within New Jersey. The winner? US 9! (Note: winning here is actually not a good distinction)
You can view the full report here: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/lmreports/pdf/pavementreport2014.pdf
Crazy. I live near 9 in Monmouth County and what a nightmare it is. Thank god they are going to pave the sections they did not get to yet.
The ugly Clearview has spread east. All the ground mounted signs on NJ-18 northbound south of Exit 12 have been replaced with what looks like the same mess that is on I-295.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 17, 2015, 03:13:06 PM
The ugly Clearview has spread east.
And South.
And I spotted one on Rt. 55 North for Exit 53 (Rt. 553). Sigh.
At this point is it a rouge/clueless contractor, or does NJDOT actually intend to switch over? If that is the case, at least get the size and kerning right.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 17, 2015, 03:18:32 PM
At this point is it a rouge/clueless contractor, or does NJDOT actually intend to switch over? If that is the case, at least get the size and kerning right.
If NJDOT's indeed planning on switching over; they are a bit too late. IIRC, the Feds put the kibosh on expanding the interim-use of the Clearview font to other states that haven't already adopted such not too long ago.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 17, 2015, 03:39:31 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 17, 2015, 03:18:32 PM
At this point is it a rouge/clueless contractor, or does NJDOT actually intend to switch over? If that is the case, at least get the size and kerning right.
If NJDOT's indeed planning on switching over; they are a bit too late. IIRC, the Feds put the kibosh on expanding the interim-use of the Clearview font to other states that haven't already adopted such not too long ago.
That ain't stopping them though.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2015, 03:49:20 PMThat ain't stopping them though.
The key word in my earlier post was
If
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 17, 2015, 03:18:32 PM
At this point is it a rouge/clueless contractor, or does NJDOT actually intend to switch over? If that is the case, at least get the size and kerning right.
I really can't fathom what's going on. The direction from NJDOT comes centrally - unlike many states, regions don't make design decisions - and there is no direction to use Clearview, I can vouch for that.
I didn't see that horrible 1-mile advance sign for US 206 on I-195 yesterday when I passed by. It's possible I could have missed it, but I don't think so, since that sign is always clearly visible to me. Perhaps someone at NJDOT got wind of it and ordered it taken down and remade with FHWA?
Quote from: Zeffy on April 20, 2015, 09:55:44 AM
I didn't see that horrible 1-mile advance sign for US 206 on I-195 yesterday when I passed by. It's possible I could have missed it, but I don't think so, since that sign is always clearly visible to me. Perhaps someone at NJDOT got wind of it and ordered it taken down and remade with FHWA?
That BGS was there when I saw it two weekends ago.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
That BGS was there when I saw it two weekends ago.
It was also there the previous weekend. That's why I feel like it was removed. How do I suddenly not see a sign that I've seen every time I've been on the highway?
Quote from: Zeffy on April 20, 2015, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
That BGS was there when I saw it two weekends ago.
It was also there the previous weekend. That's why I feel like it was removed. How do I suddenly not see a sign that I've seen every time I've been on the highway?
Usually, when a sign is being replaced (aside from one being knocked over in an accident); the old one isn't taken down until the new one is erected (or ready to be erected).
Who knows; maybe by the end of the week, there will be a new sign.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 20, 2015, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
That BGS was there when I saw it two weekends ago.
It was also there the previous weekend. That's why I feel like it was removed. How do I suddenly not see a sign that I've seen every time I've been on the highway?
Usually, when a sign is being replaced (aside from one being knocked over in an accident); the old one isn't taken down until the new one is erected (or ready to be erected).
Who knows; maybe by the end of the week, there will be a new sign.
the overhead BGS at the exit itself was down for over a week when it was replaced, so it's not out of the question.
speaking of which, are they ever going to put the gantry at 52 NB back up?
Quote from: odditude on April 20, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 20, 2015, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
That BGS was there when I saw it two weekends ago.
It was also there the previous weekend. That's why I feel like it was removed. How do I suddenly not see a sign that I've seen every time I've been on the highway?
Usually, when a sign is being replaced (aside from one being knocked over in an accident); the old one isn't taken down until the new one is erected (or ready to be erected).
Who knows; maybe by the end of the week, there will be a new sign.
the overhead BGS at the exit itself was down for over a week when it was replaced, so it's not out of the question.
speaking of which, are they ever going to put the gantry at 52 NB back up?
I've gotten the feeling that NJDOT is content to leave ground mounted signage for several of the exits in that area. They've taken down a couple of gantries and not replaced them.
Drove down US-22 from Bridgewater to the Union area the other day, which means I drove through several of the new traffic lights they've installed as part of the ITS/coordinated signals project they're doing throughout Somerset and western Union Counties. The fonts and shields for the overhead street signs (I'm not actually sure what the technical name for those is in NJ) do not look to be spaced out correctly at all. It looks like the contractor blew them up in odd proportions to make the lettering as large as possible on the sign. I guess it might be easier to see, but it looks terrible if you ask me:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2acy5n6.jpg&hash=2fb64f3cec91f862888e5fb51ae56c33e1f65d6a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FR6spJFe.jpg&hash=ba4665ba477ff8f4e5ee3e68a92df6af3bad7dc0)
I don't know how well you can see it on these pictures (I grabbed these with my iPhone quickly while I was stopped at the light), but the 22 shield is not well done. It's not even a 3di shield. Just a standard 2di that was horizontally stretched it looks like.
Interestingly enough, they aren't Clearview either - which Somerset (and I think Union as well) uses for their street signs. With Clearview getting the boot, perhaps they are reverting back to FHWA? I can only hope for Manville's sake...
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2015, 02:48:35 AM
I don't know how well you can see it on these pictures (I grabbed these with my iPhone quickly while I was stopped at the light), but the 22 shield is not well done. It's not even a 3di shield. Just a standard 2di that was horizontally stretched it looks like.
Why would it need to be a 3dus shield? It looks like it's using Series B numerals, which is wrong, but the shield itself looks (from my POV) to be the correct size.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 25, 2015, 09:52:48 AM
Interestingly enough, they aren't Clearview either - which Somerset (and I think Union as well) uses for their street signs. With Clearview getting the boot, perhaps they are reverting back to FHWA? I can only hope for Manville's sake...
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2015, 02:48:35 AM
I don't know how well you can see it on these pictures (I grabbed these with my iPhone quickly while I was stopped at the light), but the 22 shield is not well done. It's not even a 3di shield. Just a standard 2di that was horizontally stretched it looks like.
Why would it need to be a 3dus shield? It looks like it's using Series B numerals, which is wrong, but the shield itself looks (from my POV) to be the correct size.
It's definitely Highway Gothic, just the wrong proportions. Also, the shield is stretched out. Can't tell very well from that picture.
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2015, 02:38:40 AM
Quote from: odditude on April 20, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 20, 2015, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
That BGS was there when I saw it two weekends ago.
It was also there the previous weekend. That's why I feel like it was removed. How do I suddenly not see a sign that I've seen every time I've been on the highway?
Usually, when a sign is being replaced (aside from one being knocked over in an accident); the old one isn't taken down until the new one is erected (or ready to be erected).
Who knows; maybe by the end of the week, there will be a new sign.
the overhead BGS at the exit itself was down for over a week when it was replaced, so it's not out of the question.
speaking of which, are they ever going to put the gantry at 52 NB back up?
I've gotten the feeling that NJDOT is content to leave ground mounted signage for several of the exits in that area. They've taken down a couple of gantries and not replaced them.
For those of you who were around in the 70's and 80's, remember how long it took for NJDOT to replace the overhead sign on then westbound I-495 for the US 1 & 9 SB exit on the black viaduct leading down from the Bergen Hill. The supports were there without the truss for many years before they replaced that in the mid to late 80's when all of NJ 495 got a complete sign overhall.
Then you cannot forget how long the original Wilson Avenue exit ramp (the one that was in the middle of the Express and Local lanes before the current viaduct was constructed) lacked its overheads. That one there left Wilson Avenue unsigned for years until NJDOT rebuilt the SB roadway from Wilson Avenue to I-78 in the mid 90's which now has only a local exit from the right side instead of the middle.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:36:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2015, 02:38:40 AM
Quote from: odditude on April 20, 2015, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 20, 2015, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
That BGS was there when I saw it two weekends ago.
It was also there the previous weekend. That's why I feel like it was removed. How do I suddenly not see a sign that I've seen every time I've been on the highway?
Usually, when a sign is being replaced (aside from one being knocked over in an accident); the old one isn't taken down until the new one is erected (or ready to be erected).
Who knows; maybe by the end of the week, there will be a new sign.
the overhead BGS at the exit itself was down for over a week when it was replaced, so it's not out of the question.
speaking of which, are they ever going to put the gantry at 52 NB back up?
I've gotten the feeling that NJDOT is content to leave ground mounted signage for several of the exits in that area. They've taken down a couple of gantries and not replaced them.
For those of you who were around in the 70's and 80's, remember how long it took for NJDOT to replace the overhead sign on then westbound I-495 for the US 1 & 9 SB exit on the black viaduct leading down from the Bergen Hill. The supports were there without the truss for many years before they replaced that in the mid to late 80's when all of NJ 495 got a complete sign overhall.
Was that when this sign was covered up?
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3951/15496418096_a27c9e5e1e_c.jpg)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2015, 05:07:58 PMWas that when this sign was covered up?
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3951/15496418096_a27c9e5e1e_c.jpg)
Note: that one can still see portions of the 2di-sized shield for I-495 underneath the NJ 495 shield. I'm surprised that the old shield wasn't removed first; most BGS items (including shields) were demountable back then.
Looks like it's new sign day. Quick: Identify all the issues with this sign that should've been corrected before it even got on the truck:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FF2EDB349-314D-4919-AF13-C9E77326449A.jpg&hash=1abb7d27c83ed1755195c530e9b33ea85e4441c1) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/F2EDB349-314D-4919-AF13-C9E77326449A.jpg.html)
What the fuck is up with NJDOT and screwing up signs lately? Everything BUT the shield numerals is in Arial/Helvetica!
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 27, 2015, 05:14:19 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 27, 2015, 05:07:58 PMWas that when this sign was covered up?
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3951/15496418096_a27c9e5e1e_c.jpg)
Note: that one can still see portions of the 2di-sized shield for I-495 underneath the NJ 495 shield. I'm surprised that the old shield wasn't removed first; most BGS items (including shields) were demountable back then.
1998:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages495%2Fi-495_nj_wt_02.jpg&hash=4316f0d776e74c74940740ead9b326416f98a472)
2000:
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey300/nj-495_eb_begin.jpg)
Quote from: Zeffy on April 28, 2015, 02:12:57 PM
What the fuck is up with NJDOT and screwing up signs lately? Everything BUT the shield numerals is in Arial/Helvetica!
Notice it's WEST, not
WEST.
Notice MILE is not center justified, but rather 3/4 top justified.
I suspect that was going to NJ-18 south. Looks like their sign machine is missing a few fonts :P
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
Looks like it's new sign day. Quick: Identify all the issues with this sign that should've been corrected before it even got on the truck:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FF2EDB349-314D-4919-AF13-C9E77326449A.jpg&hash=1abb7d27c83ed1755195c530e9b33ea85e4441c1) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/F2EDB349-314D-4919-AF13-C9E77326449A.jpg.html)
Looks like the 1/2 is in Clearview too.
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 28, 2015, 07:19:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
Looks like it's new sign day. Quick: Identify all the issues with this sign that should've been corrected before it even got on the truck:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FF2EDB349-314D-4919-AF13-C9E77326449A.jpg&hash=1abb7d27c83ed1755195c530e9b33ea85e4441c1) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/F2EDB349-314D-4919-AF13-C9E77326449A.jpg.html)
Looks like the 1/2 is in Clearview too.
That's probably the only items that are in Clearview. All the other text is either Aerial/Helvetica.
Did the contractor use DRPA specs when selecting the font for the lettering?
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 29, 2015, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 28, 2015, 07:19:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
Looks like it's new sign day. Quick: Identify all the issues with this sign that should've been corrected before it even got on the truck:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FF2EDB349-314D-4919-AF13-C9E77326449A.jpg&hash=1abb7d27c83ed1755195c530e9b33ea85e4441c1) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/F2EDB349-314D-4919-AF13-C9E77326449A.jpg.html)
Looks like the 1/2 is in Clearview too.
That's probably the only items that are in Clearview. All the other text is either Aerial/Helvetica.
Did the contractor use DRPA specs when selecting the font for the lettering?
If that were the case that 66 shield wouldn't be in a black box ala this monstrosity:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.972658,-75.039628,3a,18.6y,90.63h,90.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8qPf-e1tPHXnIka8ttWvoA!2e0
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
Looks like it's new sign day. Quick: Identify all the issues with this sign that should've been corrected before it even got on the truck:
I wasn't aware that Route 66 went to Freehold. Good to see NJDOT still living the dream.
There's not really a better control city to use. Imagine it says "66 WEST TO 33" and it makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 29, 2015, 06:04:20 PM
There's not really a better control city to use. Imagine it says "66 WEST TO 33" and it makes perfect sense.
This, and the fact that NJ 66 West is already signed to Freehold (https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.225477,-74.050435,3a,40y,13.29h,95.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdUmKZO1q0p-XbIbq1ZMPwg!2e0).
Blame Tinton Falls for not putting up more of a fight.
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 29, 2015, 11:53:20 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 29, 2015, 11:02:01 AM
Did the contractor use DRPA specs when selecting the font for the lettering?
If that were the case that 66 shield wouldn't be in a black box ala this monstrosity:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.972658,-75.039628,3a,18.6y,90.63h,90.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8qPf-e1tPHXnIka8ttWvoA!2e0
Which is the reasoning
why I placed the words
for the lettering at the end of my previous post.
I wasn't referring at all to the shield (the one item actually done right, though I, personally, would have went with Series D numeral). Granted NJTA specs have since done away with the black box for BGS'/LGS'-mounted shields; not yet sure if/when NJDOT will start doing such.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on April 29, 2015, 12:14:38 PM
I wasn't aware that Route 66 went to Freehold. Good to see NJDOT still living the dream.
I wasn't aware people were still anal about control cities not being on the route.
Anybody know the backstory of Abbott Ave in Palisades Park, NJ? US-1/US-9/US-46 cuts right through it and the concrete looks original. Was it part of one of the US routes at one point?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7714/16684262674_25bed7ab98_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rqkd2h)Original concrete pavement looking north on Abbott Ave. Palisades Park, NJ. In foreground is the sidewalk cutting off the street. Abbott Ave was severed in half by US-46/US-1/US-9. (https://flic.kr/p/rqkd2h) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/people/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Quote from: NE2 on April 30, 2015, 02:02:40 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on April 29, 2015, 12:14:38 PM
I wasn't aware that Route 66 went to Freehold. Good to see NJDOT still living the dream.
I wasn't aware people were still anal about control cities not being on the route.
I wasn't aware that that was my point. It's not about pride. It's about having a sign be consistent with available map information for the benefit of the non-familiar usr. Period.
For those who missed it, I was recently featured in an "Ask @CommutingLarry" segment on NJ.com regarding the status of the US 206 Bypass (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commuting_larry_is_the_route_206_bypass_alive.html#incart_river).
As suspected, the future of the project is in jeopardy due to the lack of funding available. Phase 2 will be completed, which includes utility and grading work. Phase 3, which is the actual other segment of the bypass, is currently in the design phase, but the future of that is very much so unknown, and if it were my guess, I wouldn't expect it in the next 5 years.
QuoteQ: Reader Matthew asked about the status of the Route 206 bypass project.
"I physically saw them working on the bypass near the end of September. I thought they might've stopped for the winter, but it's spring now and there is no work being done on it. There hasn't been any news on the road itself, so I don't know the status of the project."
QuoteA: Matthew, the $44 million bypass project is still alive. NJDOT spokesman Kevin Israel said the four-mile bypass, which takes Route 206 traffic around the busy "center" of Hillsborough and to Montgomery, is in the second of three phases. The second contract to do road grading and utility work is "winding down with work scheduled to be completed in the spring," Israel said. The first 1.7 mile section was opened by Gov. Chris Christie in October 2013.
QuoteA third and final contract to construct the two ends of the bypass is in the design phase, but it's future is cloudy. That contract isn't funded and depends on the renewal of the state's Transportation Trust Fund. That fund runs out of money to anything except pay off debt in 2016.
"While the final portion of the project is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2017, without a long term TTF plan, this timetable is uncertain," Israel said. Work on the bypass was started in 2011.
I wouldn't be too worried about funding it. Technically, every project, from the remaining phases of the Pulaski Skyway to changing a light bulb in a traffic light, would be impacted if there wasn't money pumped in to the TTF. They'll figure it out...they ain't the first time they've cried poor regarding the TTF.
While the "contract isn't funded", that's due to the fact they haven't put out the bid yet. There is money in the budget for it in FY17 & FY18, as you can see on about page 22 of the proposed 5 year NJDOT Transportation Program: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp16/sec6/njdot5year.pdf . Personally, the reporter used words that all but made it appear the sky was falling.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2015, 12:16:33 PM
While the "contract isn't funded", that's due to the fact they haven't put out the bid yet. There is money in the budget for it in FY17 & FY18, as you can see on about page 22 of the proposed 5 year NJDOT Transportation Program: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp16/sec6/njdot5year.pdf . Personally, the reporter used words that all but made it appear the sky was falling.
What does MPO stand for? The bypass is listed under (what I presume is) the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTPA) for that category. Main Project Organizer..?
MPO = Municipal Planning Organization
Quote from: Zeffy on May 01, 2015, 12:42:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 01, 2015, 12:16:33 PM
While the "contract isn't funded", that's due to the fact they haven't put out the bid yet. There is money in the budget for it in FY17 & FY18, as you can see on about page 22 of the proposed 5 year NJDOT Transportation Program: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp16/sec6/njdot5year.pdf . Personally, the reporter used words that all but made it appear the sky was falling.
What does MPO stand for? The bypass is listed under (what I presume is) the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTPA) for that category. Main Project Organizer..?
There are 3 MPOs for New Jersey:
DVRPC - Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (also serves 5 counties in PA)
SJTPO - South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
NJTPA - North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
The MPOs are kinda a middleman between the Federal Government and their funding, and NJDOT/NJ Transit and their needs (and I stress kinda, because even 100% state funded projects go thru the MPO as well). If there's a project that is to be worked on, it must get the MPO's approval first. Nearly every project sent to the MPO is given approval, from what I can tell, although the scope may change slightly.
In a perfect world, the MPOs are supposed to organize their projects to improve the entire region...thus, if one project was to take place, it should be reviewed to determine traffic doesn't simply congest further down the line. That deep planning rarely happens though.
Going back to the NJ Turnpike - while the initials are similar, the NJTA (NJ Turnpike Authority) has nothing to do with the NJTPA, other than securing any necessary funding.
Quote from: spooky on May 01, 2015, 12:45:12 PM
MPO = Municipal Planning Organization
Close–Metropolitan Planning Organization.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_planning_organization
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2015, 08:52:30 PM
Blame Tinton Falls for not putting up more of a fight.
I'm not sure that's a decent option (though I'll gladly defer to the opinions of people who still live in New Jersey). While 66 does in fact barely clip the southern limits of Tinton Falls, I think that when most people say/hear "Tinton Falls", they're thinking of an area fairly well north of there (i.e. around the 18/GSP/36 interchange).
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on April 30, 2015, 08:17:15 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 30, 2015, 02:02:40 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on April 29, 2015, 12:14:38 PM
I wasn't aware that Route 66 went to Freehold. Good to see NJDOT still living the dream.
I wasn't aware people were still anal about control cities not being on the route.
I wasn't aware that that was my point. It's not about pride. It's about having a sign be consistent with available map information for the benefit of the non-familiar usr. Period.
How is it not consistent? Any map will tell you that 66 goes towards Freehold (albeit not to/through). And if you want to go from anywhere in the vicinity of 66 to Freehold, then 66 West is the road you want to take.
Are there any plans afoot to complete Route 18 down to Brielle?
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 01, 2015, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2015, 08:52:30 PM
Blame Tinton Falls for not putting up more of a fight.
I'm not sure that's a decent option (though I'll gladly defer to the opinions of people who still live in New Jersey). While 66 does in fact barely clip the southern limits of Tinton Falls, I think that when most people say/hear "Tinton Falls", they're thinking of an area fairly well north of there (i.e. around the 18/GSP/36 interchange).
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on April 30, 2015, 08:17:15 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 30, 2015, 02:02:40 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on April 29, 2015, 12:14:38 PM
I wasn't aware that Route 66 went to Freehold. Good to see NJDOT still living the dream.
I wasn't aware people were still anal about control cities not being on the route.
I wasn't aware that that was my point. It's not about pride. It's about having a sign be consistent with available map information for the benefit of the non-familiar usr. Period.
How is it not consistent? Any map will tell you that 66 goes towards Freehold (albeit not to/through). And if you want to go from anywhere in the vicinity of 66 to Freehold, then 66 West is the road you want to take.
Montague is listed on mileage signs for NJ 23 northbound in many places, yet people when thinking of Montague, seem to call upon a place along US 206. So as far as NJDOT is concerned these days, it is all about proper boundaries.
However, Freehold should be used as it does connect to NJ 33 which does go there. I have no problem with that and if it causes redundancy in signage, so what! How many consecutive exits on freeways do you see that use the same control cities out there? In fact before FDOT changed guide signs on I -75 in Sarasota County, FL you had two exits in a row both signed for Northport.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 30, 2015, 02:59:25 PM
Anybody know the backstory of Abbott Ave in Palisades Park, NJ? US-1/US-9/US-46 cuts right through it and the concrete looks original. Was it part of one of the US routes at one point?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7714/16684262674_25bed7ab98_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rqkd2h)Original concrete pavement looking north on Abbott Ave. Palisades Park, NJ. In foreground is the sidewalk cutting off the street. Abbott Ave was severed in half by US-46/US-1/US-9. (https://flic.kr/p/rqkd2h) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/people/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Looking through Historic Aerials, I found my answer. Abbott Ave. was rebuilt at the time that US 1/9/46 was put through around 1930, at the same time that the 5th St. onramp was built to 46 west. I guess the state did the whole thing. Why, I don't know.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:24:56 PM
How is it not consistent? Any map will tell you that 66 goes towards Freehold (albeit not to/through). And if you want to go from anywhere in the vicinity of 66 to Freehold, then 66 West is the road you want to take.
shit. Here we go. Put Trenton on the sign too. 66 West - Freehold -Trenton. Well done.
I noticed that on the ACE, approaching both 55 MPH zones (westbound at exit 7 and eastbound at the terminus), the "reduce speed ahead" signs were replaced with pictorial ones similar to this.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fseeclickfix.com%2Ffiles%2Fissue_images%2F0001%2F4978%2FSpeedLimitReduction55MPH.jpg&hash=ed5966e23a155cf97f12b002f8ab8b01ea1858b5)
Is there a reason for this? Regulatory change?
Quote from: bzakharin on May 01, 2015, 07:42:41 PM
I noticed that on the ACE, approaching both 55 MPH zones (westbound at exit 7 and eastbound at the terminus), the "reduce speed ahead" signs were replaced with pictorial ones similar to this.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fseeclickfix.com%2Ffiles%2Fissue_images%2F0001%2F4978%2FSpeedLimitReduction55MPH.jpg&hash=ed5966e23a155cf97f12b002f8ab8b01ea1858b5)
Is there a reason for this? Regulatory change?
From http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part2.htm#wsq2 :
Q: What happened to the "REDUCED SPEED ZONE AHEAD" sign in Chapter 2B?
A: The black on white regulatory sign "REDUCED SPEED ZONE AHEAD" in Chapter 2B of the 2000 MUTCD was deleted in the 2003 edition of the MUTCD and replaced with a new black on yellow diamond Speed Reduction warning sign (W3-5 and W3-5a) in Chapter 2C. This change was made because the message is an advance warning message, warning of a change in the regulatory speed ahead.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 01, 2015, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:24:56 PM
How is it not consistent? Any map will tell you that 66 goes towards Freehold (albeit not to/through). And if you want to go from anywhere in the vicinity of 66 to Freehold, then 66 West is the road you want to take.
shit. Here we go. Put Trenton on the sign too. 66 West - Freehold -Trenton. Well done.
do you have an issue with I-295 and I-95 having Trenton as destinations?
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 01, 2015, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:24:56 PM
How is it not consistent? Any map will tell you that 66 goes towards Freehold (albeit not to/through). And if you want to go from anywhere in the vicinity of 66 to Freehold, then 66 West is the road you want to take.
shit. Here we go. Put Trenton on the sign too. 66 West - Freehold -Trenton. Well done.
You got me quoted for saying something I did not. In the box above you have Kacie Jane's quote with my name on it.
Quote from: odditude on May 01, 2015, 09:09:30 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 01, 2015, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:24:56 PM
How is it not consistent? Any map will tell you that 66 goes towards Freehold (albeit not to/through). And if you want to go from anywhere in the vicinity of 66 to Freehold, then 66 West is the road you want to take.
shit. Here we go. Put Trenton on the sign too. 66 West - Freehold -Trenton. Well done.
do you have an issue with I-295 and I-95 having Trenton as destinations?
No. Trenton on I-95 or I-295 would be a control city, not a destination - primary or otherwise. Critical difference. Further, an interstate is a SYSTEM whereas whereever that sign was intended would be presumably on NJ 66 or some junction with it. Except for NJ 18, i guess the sign would be for a SERVICE highway. Thus, Trenton for a sign with NJ 66 that does not include TO NJ 33 in some capacity would be inappropriate.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2015, 02:07:48 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 01, 2015, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:24:56 PM
How is it not consistent? Any map will tell you that 66 goes towards Freehold (albeit not to/through). And if you want to go from anywhere in the vicinity of 66 to Freehold, then 66 West is the road you want to take.
shit. Here we go. Put Trenton on the sign too. 66 West - Freehold -Trenton. Well done.
You got me quoted for saying something I did not. In the box above you have Kacie Jane's quote with my name on it.
My apologies. That shouldn't be the focus if anyone needed me to clarify.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 02, 2015, 03:30:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2015, 02:07:48 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 01, 2015, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:24:56 PM
How is it not consistent? Any map will tell you that 66 goes towards Freehold (albeit not to/through). And if you want to go from anywhere in the vicinity of 66 to Freehold, then 66 West is the road you want to take.
shit. Here we go. Put Trenton on the sign too. 66 West - Freehold -Trenton. Well done.
You got me quoted for saying something I did not. In the box above you have Kacie Jane's quote with my name on it.
My apologies. That shouldn't be the focus if anyone needed me to clarify.
Regardless of who said what, the only problem I'd have with that is 66/33 is not the best route from that general area all the way to Trenton, since I-195 is right there. (195 goes essentially directly towards Trenton, 33 bends north to serve... Freehold.)
(Also, I'm intrigued by what you think the difference is between control cities and destinations. Genuinely intrigued, as 99% of the people on this board tend to use the terms interchangeably.)
Speaking of the Freehold area, I spotted this assembly today off the EB lanes of 33 just past the 537 EB onramp.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7670/17429065142_ca715c2914_o.jpg)
Here's the gantry it will replace.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7673/17243274608_2bbca0e2f1_o.jpg)
Great photos. Nice to know not all of the state is suffering from the Clearview contractor.
^^ Too bad the old sign had "MILES" correct instead of the new sign saying "MILE"
Quote from: swiftdo on May 08, 2015, 02:38:16 PM
Speaking of the Freehold area, I spotted this assembly today off the EB lanes of 33 just past the 537 EB onramp.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7670/17429065142_ca715c2914_o.jpg)
Here's the gantry it will replace.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7673/17243274608_2bbca0e2f1_o.jpg)
Interesting that the shields have the black backing. NJDOT has been moving away from that these days.
Bradley Beach or Asbury Park? On several guide signs, the destinations include Neptune and Asbury Park, not Bradley Beach. However, the route technically goes into Ocean Grove.
Quote from: J Route Z on May 08, 2015, 04:10:14 PM
Bradley Beach or Asbury Park? On several guide signs, the destinations include Neptune and Asbury Park, not Bradley Beach. However, the route technically goes into Ocean Grove.
I've always wondered why Ocean Grove was never made the control city for 33 after Freehold. Especially after construction at 71 aligned the road to Broadway in the Grove. Here's a shot from the start of the EB bypass.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7684/17244791019_f221fdb044_o.jpg)
And I'm all for these new signs. If MILE instead of MILES is the only error, it's a massive improvement for new signs in Freehold.
Quote from: J Route Z on May 08, 2015, 04:10:14 PM
Bradley Beach or Asbury Park? On several guide signs, the destinations include Neptune and Asbury Park, not Bradley Beach. However, the route technically goes into Ocean Grove.
Technically it ends just outside Ocean Grove in Neptune Township. Asbury Park is the obvious choice.
But NJ-66 is the road that actually goes to Asbury Park. :P
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 08, 2015, 07:14:39 PM
But NJ-66 is the road that actually goes to Asbury Park. :P
NJ 33 goes to NJ 66 which goes there. I can point out many places that a control city is not on the main route of the highway being signed.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 08, 2015, 07:14:39 PM
But NJ-66 is the road that actually goes to Asbury Park. :P
Ignoring your needless anality about control cities, they both go there (and NJ 33 actually gets closer to the city limits).
Quote from: NE2 on May 08, 2015, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on May 08, 2015, 04:10:14 PM
Bradley Beach or Asbury Park? On several guide signs, the destinations include Neptune and Asbury Park, not Bradley Beach. However, the route technically goes into Ocean Grove.
Technically it ends just outside Ocean Grove in Neptune Township. Asbury Park is the obvious choice.
Yeah, would the Boss's career have gotten off the ground if his debut LP were called
Greetings From Ocean Grove, N.J.? :biggrin:
This is the kind of town OG is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_Grove,_New_Jersey
ixnay
Direct answer from an NJDOT representative about New Jersey's usage of Clearview. I emailed them a week and a half ago just to get their stance on the issue - turns out, these signs were intentional, but they will be replaced with FHWA once more.
QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
I assume "EC" meant EM, unless it's something else entirely. It also means that Clearview will no longer be pushed by the FHWA, and will presumably, be killed entirely within the entire country.
Quote from: Zeffy on May 10, 2015, 11:52:07 AM
Direct answer from an NJDOT representative about New Jersey's usage of Clearview. I emailed them a week and a half ago just to get their stance on the issue - turns out, these signs were intentional, but they will be replaced with FHWA once more.
QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
I assume "EC" meant EM, unless it's something else entirely. It also means that Clearview will no longer be pushed by the FHWA, and will presumably, be killed entirely within the entire country.
Great question, and great response.
I don't think any Clearview signs were installed on 76. I think they were only installed on 676, and limited to Exit 3 (?).
Of course, when they say they'll replace the signs on 195/295, that problem means they'll be replaced when they're due to be replaced....in 2035!!
A week and a half is a pretty damn good response for NJDOT. I wrote for a couple of months about a bent guiderail over a sidewalk on NJ 64, a route that's only known to the state and roadgeeks, and it took a letter to my state senator for it to get fixed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2015, 03:50:12 PM
Great question, and great response.
Thanks! :sombrero:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2015, 03:50:12 PM
I don't think any Clearview signs were installed on 76. I think they were only installed on 676, and limited to Exit 3 (?).
Of course, when they say they'll replace the signs on 195/295, that problem means they'll be replaced when they're due to be replaced....in 2035!!
There are Clearview signs for Exit
4 / Kaighn Avenue in Camden on I-676. I'm not aware of any installations of Clearview on I-76 though.
EDIT: Oh, and while we're on this discussion, the Clearview US 206 1 mile advance sign on I-195
is still there - I just somehow managed to miss it multiple times.
After a while, it blends in and you don't even notice it. I'm fairly quick to notice something different on my drives that I've taken every workday for 16 years, but ask me a question about a sign that hasn't changed, and I probably have to give it some deep thought, if not specifically look at it in person or on GSV.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2015, 10:04:57 AM
After a while, it blends in and you don't even notice it. I'm fairly quick to notice something different on my drives that I've taken every workday for 16 years, but ask me a question about a sign that hasn't changed, and I probably have to give it some deep thought, if not specifically look at it in person or on GSV.
I think a bit of sleepiness might've contributed to that as well... :) Of course, I've been on that section of I-195 so many times, it just feels so routine so I pretty much just focus on the cars around me instead of anything else (I know where the exits are just by the scenery).
Quote from: Zeffy on May 10, 2015, 11:52:07 AM
Direct answer from an NJDOT representative about New Jersey's usage of Clearview. I emailed them a week and a half ago just to get their stance on the issue - turns out, these signs were intentional, but they will be replaced with FHWA once more.
QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
I assume "EC" meant EM, unless it's something else entirely. It also means that Clearview will no longer be pushed by the FHWA, and will presumably, be killed entirely within the entire country.
Thanks for following up & doing the legwork.
So while the BGS' along I-676 were
a test case (i.e. early on); IMHO, such still does
not excuse NJDOT from not following the
where and where not to apply the Clearview font guidelines on its later BGS' along I-295 & 195.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 11, 2015, 10:27:06 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 10, 2015, 11:52:07 AM
Direct answer from an NJDOT representative about New Jersey's usage of Clearview. I emailed them a week and a half ago just to get their stance on the issue - turns out, these signs were intentional, but they will be replaced with FHWA once more.
QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
I assume "EC" meant EM, unless it's something else entirely. It also means that Clearview will no longer be pushed by the FHWA, and will presumably, be killed entirely within the entire country.
Thanks for following up & doing the legwork.
So while the BGS' along I-676 were a test case (i.e. early on); IMHO, such still does not excuse NJDOT from not following the where and where not to apply the Clearview font guidelines on its later BGS' along I-295 & 195.
It would probably depend on where along the pipeline the signs were created, in relation to the notification from FHWA. Somewhere on these boards someone posted notification to a state mentioning that Clearview was going to be discontinued, but it could take many months for the notification to be sent to all states. And these signs could've been fabricated and just sitting around for months as well.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 11, 2015, 10:27:06 AM
Thanks for following up & doing the legwork.
So while the BGS' along I-676 were a test case (i.e. early on); IMHO, such still does not excuse NJDOT from not following the where and where not to apply the Clearview font guidelines on its later BGS' along I-295 & 195.
Absolutely. In fact, I mentioned it in the email I sent them:
QuoteGreetings,
As of late, I've noticed several new highway sign installations on Interstates 195 and 295 in the Trenton area. These signs appear to be using the alternate typeface known as "Clearview" instead of the federal standard font provided by the FHWA. To my knowledge, NJDOT has not requested interim approval for the typeface, and as of late the FHWA is no longer approving interim approval requests to use the typeface.
As someone who has a great interest in highway signs and roads and highways in general, I would like to inquire if NJDOT is aware of these new installations which violate the FHWA's policy on Clearview by utilizing the typeface in both the exit tab as well as in all-caps situations. Second, if these signs were intended to be fabricated as such, I would like to know if NJDOT is switching to Clearview in the future? Neighboring states such as Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York utilize the typeface, and I wonder if New Jersey is next.
The locations of the newer sign installations that I have personally noticed using Clearview are:
*I-195 WB Exit 2 - US 206 1 MILE sign
*I-295 NB Exit 56 - US 206/NJTPK/NJ 68 1/4 MILE sign
*I-295 NB near Exit 57 SCENIC OVERLOOK sign
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to your responses.
Interestingly enough, the signs on I-676 that are fabricated with Clearview, (https://www.google.ca/maps/@39.918774,-75.11627,3a,23.9y,0.34h,97.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5DAotiTnFjZv85r-2utJtA!2e0) while used incorrectly, look much nicer than the installs of the signs on I-195 and I-295.
EDIT: I did a mockup of the US 206 sign since I fail at getting photos, and I fixed my issue with my Clearview fonts not working.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2FSigns%2FI195NJ-US206Clearshit_zpso5ecnurc.png&hash=775656ed621ea7babadbe131a0fcd11f971b2005)
Quote from: Zeffy on May 11, 2015, 10:48:25 AMInterestingly enough, the signs on I-676 that are fabricated with Clearview, (https://www.google.ca/maps/@39.918774,-75.11627,3a,23.9y,0.34h,97.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5DAotiTnFjZv85r-2utJtA!2e0) while used incorrectly, look much nicer than the installs of the signs on I-195 and I-295.
That's largely because the sign panel wasn't shrunk nor the lettering was't increased in size.
The new 195 & 295 signs use a taller letter height but the same size panels when compared to the previous signs.
Quote from: Zeffy on May 10, 2015, 11:52:07 AM
Direct answer from an NJDOT representative about New Jersey's usage of Clearview. I emailed them a week and a half ago just to get their stance on the issue - turns out, these signs were intentional, but they will be replaced with FHWA once more.
QuoteHello Matthew,
Thank you for contacting the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). NJDOT is aware of all signs in the field using Clearview font. FHWA gave NJDOT interim approval in 2007 for the use of Clearview lettering on I-676 and I-76 as a test case. Based on positive feedback, Clearview font was installed on additional signs on Rt. 18, Rt. 295, and Rt. 195. A representative from FHWA has reached out to us recently and told us that they will no longer be pursuing the standardization of the Clearview font. Based on this direction, NJDOT will not be fabricating or installing more signs using Clearview. These signs will be replaced in the future with signs using the EC Modified font.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the office of Community and Constituent Relations at (609) 530-2110.
NJ DOT Correspondence Unit
I assume "EC" meant EM, unless it's something else entirely. It also means that Clearview will no longer be pushed by the FHWA, and will presumably, be killed entirely within the entire country.
Matthew, how can I contact the NJDOT Community and Constituent Relations so I can e-mail them? The web searches are just leading to me to their phone number and I would prefer to e-mail them or go through a webpage that allows me to fill in information.
Quote from: Jerseyman4 on May 12, 2015, 10:37:38 AM
Matthew, how can I locate the NJDOT Community and Constituent Relations so I can e-mail the DOT? The web searches are just leading to me to their phone number and I would prefer to e-mail them or go through a webpage that allows me to fill in information.
Admittedly, their site is a bit hard to navigate. The form I used was located here: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/contact/
At the bottom of the page is the contact form - I would make sure the question you want to ask them is not listed under the "Please review the topics below first for faster assistance" section. The "comments" textarea is the place to enter your actual message.
I did exactly what you told me to do. Let's hope they respond back! :)
Thank you for your help.
NJDOT has gone round-rect (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt). New LGSes on US-9, 22, and elsewhere have rounded corners.... and crammed in mixed case legends.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 20, 2015, 04:10:07 PM
NJDOT has gone round-rect (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_Everywhere.txt). New LGSes on US-9, 22, and elsewhere have rounded corners.... and crammed in mixed case legends.
Where on 22? Their signage at the Chimney Rock Rd construction looks normal, just no black backing on sheilds. Where else are they replacing signs?
Small ground mounted signs for exits have rounded corners. They still have black backing on the shields too. They can be found on all exits on US-9 from the Edison Bridge to NJ-34 and they just started popping up on US-22. The mixed case font on them is downright tiny in some cases.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 22, 2015, 01:39:39 PM
Small ground mounted signs for exits have rounded corners. They still have black backing on the shields too. They can be found on all exits on US-9 from the Edison Bridge to NJ-34 and they just started popping up on US-22. The mixed case font on them is downright tiny in some cases.
I know the signs you're talking about. They have those on 9 starting from the 1-9 split now around where they've been doing the flood mitigation/safety work by Woodbridge Mall. You are correct. The signs don't look right and the font proportions are way off. But they were using tiny fonts about 15 years old (the darker green LGS's at jughandles and intersections).
NJ.com posted a series of old school Skyway signs. Some of these are from the 60s and earlier and are glorious.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrrGq7Tp.jpg&hash=6362b29addef319249775de6593339db27cc0b30) (http://imgur.com/rrGq7Tp)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fjpyl6Ao.jpg&hash=ee9a1bdd47b8ab3415472fbe25e84dfbb958e3a3) (http://imgur.com/jpyl6Ao)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDe0gNa8.jpg&hash=cc38008095e34f12e0628dba2b18dc2056553182) (http://imgur.com/De0gNa8)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FX1S22h7.jpg&hash=fea0492916c7aa498c440dc5e8599a37b8e4cc2f) (http://imgur.com/X1S22h7)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FsC4KUQm.jpg&hash=7c088662f43407c28f2b755cd2bbc3d3f6cc44fd) (http://imgur.com/sC4KUQm)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfYw58tr.jpg&hash=c751fe57abb4ca44e28e1bbe28fe4c1fa1fe0905) (http://imgur.com/fYw58tr)
Nice vintage Skyway photos to share.
Those are beautiful although the Series F 9 is hideous.
Either a letter fell off, or there is a serious spelling error. Jersey in Jersey City is spelled Jerse.
Also if I remember correctly those signs were back lit. The replacement of those for today's Broadway exit were white on green back in the 1970's though, but nonetheless the same sign regardless of the panels. i even noticed that the yellow flashers were not present in the photo that alert motorists of the ramp diverge that are there now.
Discussion on noelbotevera's New Jersey control cities has been moved to Fictional Highways, located here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15578.msg2065794;boardseen#new). Please resume all other New Jersey talk in this thread. Thanks!
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 22, 2015, 11:21:35 PM
;-) :love: Jersey City love.
Jersey City is one of the few urban cities in this state that isn't mostly a dump. There are bad sections, but there are definitely extremely nice ones as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 22, 2015, 06:18:46 PM
Either a letter fell off, or there is a serious spelling error. Jersey in Jersey City is spelled Jerse.
Also if I remember correctly those signs were back lit. The replacement of those for today's Broadway exit were white on green back in the 1970's though, but nonetheless the same sign regardless of the panels. i even noticed that the yellow flashers were not present in the photo that alert motorists of the ramp diverge that are there now.
You can see the shadow where the Y should be on the sign. And these look like those classic movie theater marquees that were backlit.
Public Meeting regarding the 295/42 missing moves ramps on Thursday, June 11th.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout061115kn.pdf
This is a significant step in the overall transportation network in the general area. These missing moves were originally scheduled to be built a decade ago, but have been pushed off for various reasons. At the numerous 295/76/42 Direct Connection meetings, the missing move ramps have been asked about by many of the attendees, but since the project was always a separate project, those from NJDOT or the private consultant didn't have any info regarding the project (or if they had info, they couldn't say).
The project still won't begin until Fiscal Year 2017 at the earliest (which begins about July or October, 2016), and will take about 3 or 4 years to complete.
What does it mean "These new ramps will intersect Benigno Boulevard at a signalized intersection."? Is this anotherBreezewood in the making?
Is there a map available for this project?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 29, 2015, 01:52:17 PM
What does it mean "These new ramps will intersect Benigno Boulevard at a signalized intersection."?
"the relocation of the existing access ramps to Route 42 northbound from Leaf Avenue...will intersect Benigno Boulevard at a signalized intersection."
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 29, 2015, 01:52:17 PM
What does it mean "These new ramps will intersect Benigno Boulevard at a signalized intersection."? Is this anotherBreezewood in the making?
Is there a map available for this project?
It's within the previous sentence, although it's not very clear: "Additional improvements related to this project will include...the relocation of the existing access ramps to Route 42 northbound from Leaf Avenue. These new ramps will intersect Benigno Boulevard at a signalized intersection."
The good news, to alleviate any worries: The new ramps between 42 & 295 will be direct, and won't have any Breezewood-type intersections. (*)
If you look at the present Exit 14 interchange, traffic to & from Rt. 42 North utilizes Leaf Rd. They are going to shift these ramps slightly south, closer to Rt. 55. The new Exit 14 Interchange will come to a 'T' intersection on Benigno Blvd.
The 5th lane advertised is a fairly short auxiliary lane. Rt. 55 North onto Rt. 42 North will become 2 lanes, which the overpass has always been designed for. The far right lane will exit directly onto the ramp for 295 South just after the Turnpike overpass.
I don't know of any internet-accessible maps of the proposed interchange, although some vague maps can be found within the documents for the 295/76/42 direct connection. I imagine there will be some maps and graphics at the upcoming meeting, which I can take and scan/post afterwards.
(*): One of the reasons the project has been delayed is that a developer that wanted to build a new shopping center in the area wanted better access to his development, and he did propose that the ramps have intersections that would provide access to his development. NJDOT, the overly kind neighbor that they are, listened to the issues. The long story short: NJDOT decided to go with their original plans, which is a direct ramp between the two highways.
NJ State Trooper killed on 195 when car spins out of control after hitting deer.
http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/05/state_trooper_killed_after_vehicle_hits_deer_on_ro.html#incart_river_mobile
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2015, 08:57:14 AM
NJ State Trooper killed on 195 when car spins out of control after hitting deer.
http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/05/state_trooper_killed_after_vehicle_hits_deer_on_ro.html#incart_river_mobile
RIP
The deer population on roads in the state have increased tenfold.
It has also increased in the neighbourhoods.
The cantilever overhead for Exit 14A (22EB) on 287 NB has been taken down, due to the ongoing 22 construction. This is one of the signs that whose control city was changed from New York to Newark. The sign itself dates from 1998 when all of 287 south of Exit 21 received new signage.
Speaking of US 22 construction are they anywhere near completing the Chimney Rock Road Interchange?
Also, I am impressed now that NYC is gone from US 22 E and replaced with "Newark" as even when I-78 was signed for "Newark" before 1998 that exit was always "New York" and it always seemed weird that the arterial would get the nation's largest city before the freeway would..
IMO, I think Greenbrook should be used to keep in uniform with NJ 17 and NJ 23 which are also signed with "Newark" from other area roads where the respected interchanges are located with them along 287, but use the first town along them in the direction of Newark. For instance NJ 23 SB is signed "Wayne" and NJ 17 SB is signed "Mahwah" despite NJ's largest city being signed as control city for both routes in their SB direction. Also US 1 NB should be "Woodbridge" and southbound US 1 should be changed to "New Brunswick" in addition instead of "Trenton" and "Newark" which are both there on that and nearby GSP.
The Delaware thread has been sidetracked to shunpiking (within and outside of DE) but this post pertains to a NJ road so I'll use this sub-board...
There is a Shunpike Road in Cape May County...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shunpike+Rd,+Cape+May,+NJ+08204/@38.9563895,-74.9264708,16z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x89bf550abddb580d:0xf0f33b6f5fd47f3d
Was the present day Seashore Road (which passes Cold Spring Village) once a toll rd. (in horse and buggy days), hence the construction of Shunpike Road?
ixnay
Springfield, NJ has one and so does Summit, NJ. In fact at one time they were once connected.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 29, 2015, 11:56:39 AM
Public Meeting regarding the 295/42 missing moves ramps on Thursday, June 11th.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout061115kn.pdf
This is a significant step in the overall transportation network in the general area. These missing moves were originally scheduled to be built a decade ago, but have been pushed off for various reasons. At the numerous 295/76/42 Direct Connection meetings, the missing move ramps have been asked about by many of the attendees, but since the project was always a separate project, those from NJDOT or the private consultant didn't have any info regarding the project (or if they had info, they couldn't say).
The project still won't begin until Fiscal Year 2017 at the earliest (which begins about July or October, 2016), and will take about 3 or 4 years to complete.
For those interested in attending, the meeting is tonight.
I re-read the attached handout and realized I missed something. It mentions they'll reconstruct the Creek Rd overpass over 295 (which was hit by a truck many years ago and now has an unusual pier configuration to it) slightly north of the original location to accompany the missing moves' ramps underneath it. This implies the entire ramp configuration has been moved closer to the main 295/42/76 interchange, as previous designs always had it further away from the main interchange, south of Creek Rd.
There's also potentially some buildings and businesses in its path now too.
Looking forward to viewing the drawings tonight to see what they have planned for now.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 11, 2015, 11:02:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 29, 2015, 11:56:39 AM
Public Meeting regarding the 295/42 missing moves ramps on Thursday, June 11th.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout061115kn.pdf
This is a significant step in the overall transportation network in the general area. These missing moves were originally scheduled to be built a decade ago, but have been pushed off for various reasons. At the numerous 295/76/42 Direct Connection meetings, the missing move ramps have been asked about by many of the attendees, but since the project was always a separate project, those from NJDOT or the private consultant didn't have any info regarding the project (or if they had info, they couldn't say).
The project still won't begin until Fiscal Year 2017 at the earliest (which begins about July or October, 2016), and will take about 3 or 4 years to complete.
For those interested in attending, the meeting is tonight.
I re-read the attached handout and realized I missed something. It mentions they'll reconstruct the Creek Rd overpass over 295 (which was hit by a truck many years ago and now has an unusual pier configuration to it) slightly north of the original location to accompany the missing moves' ramps underneath it. This implies the entire ramp configuration has been moved closer to the main 295/42/76 interchange, as previous designs always had it further away from the main interchange, south of Creek Rd.
There's also potentially some buildings and businesses in its path now too.
Looking forward to viewing the drawings tonight to see what they have planned for now.
The complication with putting Missing Moves west of Creek Road was either dealing with substandard accel/decel lanes, nonexistent shoulder for a distance, or reconstructing a pair of creek bridges. So that must have been the impetus to shift them east. We did look at it and there's some weird ... thing... north of 295/east of Creek that we decided really couldn't be touched. It's doable to shoehorn a NB-WB ramp in there without touching it, but you need some property acquisition. We didn't want to deal with it (I'm talking a decade ago at the conceptual level, mind you), but I guess someone figured out what it is and that it's touchable.
Here are some of the designs from the meeting last night. As mentioned above, the ramps are now a bit closer to the main interchange on 295 than what I had seen originally, so now they are on the north side of Creek Rd. As Steve alluded to, it does take away the need to build additional ramps over the creek in that particular area, although 295 will still need to be widened a bit to accommodate the additional lane. The Creek Rd bridge will be reconstructed next to the existing overpass, and will probably be raised a bit to accommodate the ramps. The overpass clearance is a bit low for today's design standards anyway.
The ramps to/from Rt. 42 though area basically in the same area as they were originally proposed. Same with the Rt. 42 Northbound on/off for Creek Rd. A big change though for the Rt. 42 Southbound on/off, as those ramps now lead into a roundabout on relocated Leaf Ave, which had never been proposed in the past. Those ramps have always been a bit problematic due to their location in the network there between the 295 and 55 interchanges. The biggest issue will be the truck traffic that will have to go thru that roundabout, which is fairly considerable.
(Steve: I wonder what that weird thing was, although knowing how old the area is, and how much remediation work they had to do just on the landfill alone, I could imagine how interesting it must have been.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F6a1ffcbf-40ce-49eb-9cf2-f1df41440563.jpg&hash=3e014f920e6bf1e58e6627b5737efe6df63816bc) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/6a1ffcbf-40ce-49eb-9cf2-f1df41440563.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F61E47521-20F2-4588-A9CA-1148D7A102E2.jpg&hash=0bd4bbf93c015adaff4ba314735c51745d6748c4) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/61E47521-20F2-4588-A9CA-1148D7A102E2.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F43FA8A3B-9A1B-4B62-8DBC-12E57106E97F.jpg&hash=f349df2cd30e70ff60726f4216c918de19cb45ad) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/43FA8A3B-9A1B-4B62-8DBC-12E57106E97F.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FEBEF5B3E-1EB3-46EC-A6D9-5109F7567C89.jpg&hash=ef9baaae4e47a56e14a0d4b0bfc9bd7c38f146a5) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/EBEF5B3E-1EB3-46EC-A6D9-5109F7567C89.jpg.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F81CAA6A4-DB57-45C7-B4A9-CBCFD6F3DFE9.jpg&hash=562219fb24bedfb811e808525ee584cf1380f6f5) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/81CAA6A4-DB57-45C7-B4A9-CBCFD6F3DFE9.jpg.html)
Curious how there's a roundabout for the southbound ramps, but not the northbound ramps. Why the difference?
Quote from: froggie on June 12, 2015, 01:01:17 PM
Curious how there's a roundabout for the southbound ramps, but not the northbound ramps. Why the difference?
Space. To do a roundabout would likely require acquiring some more land on the east side of Beningo Ave.
I guess it's just cheaper to replace the Creek Road bridge next to current one than do what they did with the Bell Rd overpass doing it in halves in the same location.
It's funny how there's a blob of Deptford, Gloucester County on the other side of the creek there. From historical aerials that was the former route of the creek that has shifted or short-circuited.
Brian
The roundabout on the SB side was a relatively recent addition. On the NB side, you basically have a routine T intersection. But by adding a roundabout there, they would need to acquire additional land, which really isn't necessary (as Brian said).
For the SB side, the proposed missing move ramps go thru existing Leaf Ave, so they were in more if a position to do something there, and land was being taken anyway. I don't know if a roundabout was really even necessary there either, based on how the ramp needs to tie into the local roads to get traffic to/from Creek Rd. The nearby capped landfill is supposed to be developed at some point, so they could've thrown that into consideration as well.
Quote from: BrianP on June 12, 2015, 01:55:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on June 12, 2015, 01:01:17 PM
Curious how there's a roundabout for the southbound ramps, but not the northbound ramps. Why the difference?
Space. To do a roundabout would likely require acquiring some more land on the east side of Beningo Ave.
I guess it's just cheaper to replace the Creek Road bridge next to current one than do what they did with the Bell Rd overpass doing it in halves in the same location.
It's funny how there's a blob of Deptford, Gloucester County on the other side of the creek there. From historical aerials that was the former route of the creek that has shifted or short-circuited.
Brian
And the land is available, unlike at Bell Rd. I'm not really a fan of those shifts though.
I did forget to mention, due to that new ramp alignment by 295 there is one building that needs to be taken between Creek Rd and 295, and an empty lot that appears to be used for truck parking.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
(Steve: I wonder what that weird thing was, although knowing how old the area is, and how much remediation work they had to do just on the landfill alone, I could imagine how interesting it must have been.)
In your drawings, if you look by the leader line for the triangle 4, it's just to the right, or just NNE of the orange splotch. You can drive by and look for yourself sometime. :)
I find it interesting that they've decided to just scrap half the properties between Creek and Leaf. There was a lot of effort much earlier in the process to stay south of Leaf with the Missing Moves and then come up, neatly dividing the landfill area from the light industry/mixed uses above it. Honestly, at this point, they may as well blow out everything west of Exit 14.
Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2015, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
(Steve: I wonder what that weird thing was, although knowing how old the area is, and how much remediation work they had to do just on the landfill alone, I could imagine how interesting it must have been.)
In your drawings, if you look by the leader line for the triangle 4, it's just to the right, or just NNE of the orange splotch. You can drive by and look for yourself sometime. :)
I assume this is on the WIP radio antennas site?
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 12, 2015, 07:22:48 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2015, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
(Steve: I wonder what that weird thing was, although knowing how old the area is, and how much remediation work they had to do just on the landfill alone, I could imagine how interesting it must have been.)
In your drawings, if you look by the leader line for the triangle 4, it's just to the right, or just NNE of the orange splotch. You can drive by and look for yourself sometime. :)
I assume this is on the WIP radio antennas site?
It was definitely not the radio antenna. IIRC there's a square patch of land with a box or a tower or something that's owned or leased by some secret (govt or non-govt, don't know) agency.
Belmar closed to visitors, reached capacity.
http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/belmar_is_at_max_capacity_mayor_says_closes_traffi.html
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2015, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 12, 2015, 07:22:48 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2015, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
(Steve: I wonder what that weird thing was, although knowing how old the area is, and how much remediation work they had to do just on the landfill alone, I could imagine how interesting it must have been.)
In your drawings, if you look by the leader line for the triangle 4, it's just to the right, or just NNE of the orange splotch. You can drive by and look for yourself sometime. :)
I assume this is on the WIP radio antennas site?
It was definitely not the radio antenna. IIRC there's a square patch of land with a box or a tower or something that's owned or leased by some secret (govt or non-govt, don't know) agency.
From the road, one can barely see a few satellite dishes in that general area. The entryway is gated closed, and the brush from both Creek Rd and 295 is too thick to see thru while driving by.
On the other side of 295, from what the officials at the meeting said, they wanted to leave as much of the former landfill untouched so that it can be developed in the future. There's also some sort of landscaping(?) business where Creek Rd turns 90 degrees near 295, and I guess this allows them to remain in business as well. Not sure why this changed, but considering 10 years has passed during the current phase of the project that discussions were had with some of the property owners and they modified the design based on those discussions.
My one issue with NJDOT at these meetings are they are generally unwilling to give too much info about the project, if they know anything at all. And they assume - somewhat correctly - that everyone going in there doesn't understand what's going on. Someone like me - or most anyone on these forums - are a little more intelligent in terms of understanding these concept designs.
When I first started talking to two people, I started mentioned some of the differences compared to what I saw designed earlier. I could quickly pick out the one guy that was fairly new on the project and tried to disagree with some of what I was saying. Luckily, the 2nd guy was more familiar with the history, and interrupted to say that yeah, I was referring to a previous version and some of the changes that the design has undergone. The 1st guy also then tried to tell me what road did what...which I tried to cut him off a little. After the meeting sometimes I think back and realize that maybe they would've said something I wasn't familiar with and should just let them talk, but I have to listen thru all of the obviously stuff they're saying and I would just lose my train of thought anyway.
It's also clear that this project is just another item of work to them. Rarely do they live in the area, so I can't even talk about other projects in the area. They're not familiar with them either on a work level or personal level.
Even after I get thru to them that I'm a bit more familiar than the average person on these projects, it's a bit tough to communicate with them. They're only going to provide a certain amount of info. Sometimes I'm pretty aware they probably know a bit more, but won't or not permitted to say more, or truly they don't know about what I'm referring to.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 15, 2015, 10:41:20 AM
Belmar closed to visitors, reached capacity.
http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/06/belmar_is_at_max_capacity_mayor_says_closes_traffi.html
(No) thanks to a seafood festival.
Belmar's mayor tweeted Sunday night that its entrances were back open. Can't believe you missed that tweet, Steve.
ixnay
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 15, 2015, 11:03:37 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 13, 2015, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 12, 2015, 07:22:48 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2015, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 12, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
(Steve: I wonder what that weird thing was, although knowing how old the area is, and how much remediation work they had to do just on the landfill alone, I could imagine how interesting it must have been.)
In your drawings, if you look by the leader line for the triangle 4, it's just to the right, or just NNE of the orange splotch. You can drive by and look for yourself sometime. :)
I assume this is on the WIP radio antennas site?
It was definitely not the radio antenna. IIRC there's a square patch of land with a box or a tower or something that's owned or leased by some secret (govt or non-govt, don't know) agency.
From the road, one can barely see a few satellite dishes in that general area. The entryway is gated closed, and the brush from both Creek Rd and 295 is too thick to see thru while driving by.
If it's here, it looks like the support building and equipment/backup generator fuel tank for the antenna site, surrounded at the moment by temporary staging for the 295/42 project.
https://www.google.com/maps/mms?ll=39.86451,-75.11024&spn=0.000492,0.000817&t=h&z=21 (https://www.google.com/maps/mms?ll=39.86451,-75.11024&spn=0.000492,0.000817&t=h&z=21)
It does look like from GSV that there is a much smaller antenna next to the building near the dishes.
Took a ride on 78 this morning, and I noticed that past Exit 41 going EB, the mile marker signs have been replaced with the newer enhanced (D10-4 and D10-5) mile marker signs. Two interesting notes. First, they're only placed every two tenths of a mile, instead of every tenth. Secodnly, they're posted in both directions on the sign post, so you can see them from both sides of the road. WB roadway still has the older NJDOT spec mile marker signs, although I'm sure they'll be replaced at some point.
The replacement BGS assembly for Exit 2 (CR 579) on I-95 (M) NB is staged on the side of the highway for installation (the original (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.274362,-74.830866,3a,23.8y,43.79h,91.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ywHNlmcRBKbwf0-XU-6ig!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4ywHNlmcRBKbwf0-XU-6ig%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D136.86188%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) was removed in November in preparation for some roadwork).
The pull-through is now NORTH I-95 TO SOUTH I-295 with Lawrence as the control city. Bit of an odd choice, and inconsistent with the destinations for the NB onramps in Bucks County (which are generally Princeton). The shields appear to be 30" with 18" letters, using D for 95 and B for 295 (yuck) - I personally prefer C for 3DIs (unless there are enough '1's to fit D at the 18" height).
I haven't yet gotten a good look at the advance sign for Exits 3 A-B (Scotch Rd) or the actual sign for Exit 2 itself. The old Exit 3 sign was fine, but the old Exit 2 sign was fugly compared to the advance signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.268847,-74.837201,3a,15y,45.9h,91.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBlrIqNQrVE4jtlvRmxWeqA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DBlrIqNQrVE4jtlvRmxWeqA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D150.43872%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656).
Quote from: odditude on June 24, 2015, 08:44:42 PMThe pull-through is now NORTH I-95 TO SOUTH I-295 with Lawrence as the control city. Bit of an odd choice, and inconsistent with the destinations for the NB onramps in Bucks County (which are generally Princeton).
It's worth noting that the
Princeton listings on the I-95 BGS' in Bucks County only started appearing within the past decade. Previous BGS' used to list
Trenton as a northbound I-95 destination all the way up until the Scudder Falls Bridge. BTW, the previous-generation pull-through BGS at that location used to read (stacked vertically), "
NORTH 95 New York"
Quote from: odditude on June 24, 2015, 08:44:42 PMThe shields appear to be 30" with 18" letters, using D for 95 and B for 295 (yuck) - I personally prefer C for 3DIs (unless there are enough '1's to fit D at the 18" height).
I agree with you 100% with the above. Unlike other states, Series B on 3di-shields in NJ were (thankfully) rare, only in isolated locations and on stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers.
Damn, I was just in that area yesterday for a job interview (I used Exit 3A instead of getting down to 2). The last replacement I saw on this stretch of (future I-295) I-95 north of Trenton was the CR 583 / Princeton Pike signs. Those are pretty ugly, with nasty looking county route shields and I think B numerals. B numerals are so gross to look at.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2015, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: odditude on June 24, 2015, 08:44:42 PMThe pull-through is now NORTH I-95 TO SOUTH I-295 with Lawrence as the control city. Bit of an odd choice, and inconsistent with the destinations for the NB onramps in Bucks County (which are generally Princeton).
It's worth noting that the Princeton listings on the I-95 BGS' in Bucks County only started appearing within the past decade. Previous BGS' used to list Trenton as a northbound I-95 destination all the way up until the Scudder Falls Bridge. BTW, the previous-generation pull-through BGS at that location used to read (stacked vertically), "NORTH 95 New York"
Quote from: odditude on June 24, 2015, 08:44:42 PMThe shields appear to be 30" with 18" letters, using D for 95 and B for 295 (yuck) - I personally prefer C for 3DIs (unless there are enough '1's to fit D at the 18" height).
I agree with you 100% with the above. Unlike other states, Series B on 3di-shields in NJ were (thankfully) rare, only in isolated locations and on stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers.
i was mistaken; the numerals on the 295 shield are C, but they look horizontally compressed.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2015, 01:20:21 PM
Damn, I was just in that area yesterday for a job interview (I used Exit 3A instead of getting down to 2). The last replacement I saw on this stretch of (future I-295) I-95 north of Trenton was the CR 583 / Princeton Pike signs. Those are pretty ugly, with nasty looking county route shields and I think B numerals. B numerals are so gross to look at.
Worse than even Clearview?
Quote from: odditude on June 30, 2015, 11:14:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2015, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: odditude on June 24, 2015, 08:44:42 PMThe pull-through is now NORTH I-95 TO SOUTH I-295 with Lawrence as the control city. Bit of an odd choice, and inconsistent with the destinations for the NB onramps in Bucks County (which are generally Princeton).
It's worth noting that the Princeton listings on the I-95 BGS' in Bucks County only started appearing within the past decade. Previous BGS' used to list Trenton as a northbound I-95 destination all the way up until the Scudder Falls Bridge. BTW, the previous-generation pull-through BGS at that location used to read (stacked vertically), "NORTH 95 New York"
Quote from: odditude on June 24, 2015, 08:44:42 PMThe shields appear to be 30" with 18" letters, using D for 95 and B for 295 (yuck) - I personally prefer C for 3DIs (unless there are enough '1's to fit D at the 18" height).
I agree with you 100% with the above. Unlike other states, Series B on 3di-shields in NJ were (thankfully) rare, only in isolated locations and on stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers.
i was mistaken; the numerals on the 295 shield are C, but they look horizontally compressed.
I did in fact see I-295 shields down there on my way to AC almost a week ago - I'd say the shields at NJ 42 and I-295 were in fact, Series C but Series D shields still dominate the area.
Quote from: Henry on June 30, 2015, 11:18:37 AM
Worse than even Clearview?
Oh hell no. Clearview numerals are much worse than Series B numerals.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 30, 2015, 12:14:41 PM
Quote from: odditude on June 30, 2015, 11:14:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 25, 2015, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: odditude on June 24, 2015, 08:44:42 PMThe pull-through is now NORTH I-95 TO SOUTH I-295 with Lawrence as the control city. Bit of an odd choice, and inconsistent with the destinations for the NB onramps in Bucks County (which are generally Princeton).
It's worth noting that the Princeton listings on the I-95 BGS' in Bucks County only started appearing within the past decade. Previous BGS' used to list Trenton as a northbound I-95 destination all the way up until the Scudder Falls Bridge. BTW, the previous-generation pull-through BGS at that location used to read (stacked vertically), "NORTH 95 New York"
Quote from: odditude on June 24, 2015, 08:44:42 PMThe shields appear to be 30" with 18" letters, using D for 95 and B for 295 (yuck) - I personally prefer C for 3DIs (unless there are enough '1's to fit D at the 18" height).
I agree with you 100% with the above. Unlike other states, Series B on 3di-shields in NJ were (thankfully) rare, only in isolated locations and on stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers.
i was mistaken; the numerals on the 295 shield are C, but they look horizontally compressed.
I did in fact see I-295 shields down there on my way to AC almost a week ago - I'd say the shields at NJ 42 and I-295 were in fact, Series C but Series D shields still dominate the area.
Let's be clear here, the BGS in question is located in
Mercer County by the Delaware River; some 50 miles away from I-76/NJ 42 in Camden County.
Most of the I-295 shields on BGS' (at least the ones from I-76/NJ 42 to US 130/206) have recently been replaced or
restickered with ones with smaller Series C numerals and with the red shield crests not quite in-line with the edges of the actual 3-di shield.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 30, 2015, 12:14:41 PM
I did in fact see I-295 shields down there on my way to AC almost a week ago - I'd say the shields at NJ 42 and I-295 were in fact, Series C but Series D shields still dominate the area.
Have they changed from when I took these almost exactly a year ago going to Camden?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2Frealphotos%2FIMG_1717_zpsea5ed4c7.jpg&hash=e85b155eef6c18beb04a2766a136186199a28785)
And PHLBOS is right - the sign odditude is referring to is nowhere near this interchange. It's on the (future I-295) segment of I-95 about 3 miles north of Trenton, one exit after crossing into New Jersey over the Delaware River.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 30, 2015, 12:40:59 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 30, 2015, 12:14:41 PM
I did in fact see I-295 shields down there on my way to AC almost a week ago - I'd say the shields at NJ 42 and I-295 were in fact, Series C but Series D shields still dominate the area.
Have they changed from when I took these almost exactly a year ago going to Camden?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2Frealphotos%2FIMG_1717_zpsea5ed4c7.jpg&hash=e85b155eef6c18beb04a2766a136186199a28785)
And PHLBOS is right - the sign odditude is referring to is nowhere near this interchange. It's on the (future I-295) segment of I-95 about 3 miles north of Trenton, one exit after crossing into New Jersey over the Delaware River.
I was on I-76 EB and NJ 42 SB; I don't know about the signs on I-295.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 30, 2015, 12:40:59 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 30, 2015, 12:14:41 PM
I did in fact see I-295 shields down there on my way to AC almost a week ago - I'd say the shields at NJ 42 and I-295 were in fact, Series C but Series D shields still dominate the area.
Have they changed from when I took these almost exactly a year ago going to Camden?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2Frealphotos%2FIMG_1717_zpsea5ed4c7.jpg&hash=e85b155eef6c18beb04a2766a136186199a28785)
And PHLBOS is right - the sign odditude is referring to is nowhere near this interchange. It's on the (future I-295) segment of I-95 about 3 miles north of Trenton, one exit after crossing into New Jersey over the Delaware River.
While we have now discovered we're talking about 2 completely different highways that have nothing to do with each other...
Just to recap these signs: They are still there, although I think they will be gone shortly. They are working in the median installing drainage, a new jersey barrier (I mean, a jersey barrier that is new, not a new new jersey barrier! :) ) and pavement, so these signs appear they will need to come down so they do their work in the area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 15, 2015, 11:03:37 AM
My one issue with NJDOT at these meetings are they are generally unwilling to give too much info about the project...
...
It's also clear that this project is just another item of work to them. Rarely do they live in the area, so I can't even talk about other projects in the area. They're not familiar with them either on a work level or personal level.
Even after I get thru to them that I'm a bit more familiar than the average person on these projects, it's a bit tough to communicate with them. They're only going to provide a certain amount of info. Sometimes I'm pretty aware they probably know a bit more, but won't or not permitted to say more, or truly they don't know about what I'm referring to.
Have you observed a difference between NJDOT and contractor personnel? Before I started working for PennDOT District 6, I noticed that contractor personnel on a project were much more cards-close-to-the-vest, but that PennDOT personnel, especially project managers and Community Relations Coordinators (CRCs) in the engineering districts, would dump as much information on me as I wanted, often much more than I asked for. After I joined PennDOT, I noticed this from the inside as the PennDOT and contractor personnel interacted with the public.
The contractors almost always have blinders on for their own projects. Usually nearby projects are designed or constructed (or both) by other, unrelated companies. The contractors may be aware of them, but they rarely know any details about them.
The PennDOT project managers, though, know quite a lot about other projects in their district. Sometimes it's another one of their own projects; often it belongs to another project manager, but they're usually reasonably well informed on it, even if it's not managed directly by them. They almost always live in the same engineering district, but probably not in the immediate neighborhood of the project.
BTW (and here's an example of extra information you didn't ask for), some of the PennDOT design or construction project managers in engineering district 6-0 (the five counties of southeast PA) are directly responsible for up to three times the number of major projects that their counterparts manage in the other 11 engineering districts. (The level of activity in that district is just so much higher than the rest of the state. Quite the workload.) Does NJDOT see a difference like that between the northern and southern portions of NJ?
The contractor that drew up the plans for the "missing moves" project appears to be Dewberry.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 30, 2015, 09:59:33 PM
The contractor that drew up the plans for the "missing moves" project appears to be Dewberry.
Dewberry is the contractor for both the Missing Moves and the large 295/76/42 project. I got to know and recognize the main contacts for the large project pretty well. I didn't recognize anyone from Dewberry at the recent Missing Moves meeting.
Quote from: qguy on June 30, 2015, 08:52:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 15, 2015, 11:03:37 AM
My one issue with NJDOT at these meetings are they are generally unwilling to give too much info about the project…
…
It's also clear that this project is just another item of work to them. Rarely do they live in the area, so I can't even talk about other projects in the area. They're not familiar with them either on a work level or personal level.
Even after I get thru to them that I'm a bit more familiar than the average person on these projects, it's a bit tough to communicate with them. They're only going to provide a certain amount of info. Sometimes I'm pretty aware they probably know a bit more, but won't or not permitted to say more, or truly they don't know about what I'm referring to.
Have you observed a difference between NJDOT and contractor personnel? Before I started working for PennDOT District 6, I noticed that contractor personnel on a project were much more cards-close-to-the-vest, but that PennDOT personnel, especially project managers and Community Relations Coordinators (CRCs) in the engineering districts, would dump as much information on me as I wanted, often much more than I asked for. After I joined PennDOT, I noticed this from the inside as the PennDOT and contractor personnel interacted with the public.
The contractors almost always have blinders on for their own projects. Usually nearby projects are designed or constructed (or both) by other, unrelated companies. The contractors may be aware of them, but they rarely know any details about them.
The PennDOT project managers, though, know quite a lot about other projects in their district. Sometimes it's another one of their own projects; often it belongs to another project manager, but they're usually reasonably well informed on it, even if it's not managed directly by them. They almost always live in the same engineering district, but probably not in the immediate neighborhood of the project.
BTW (and here's an example of extra information you didn't ask for), some of the PennDOT design or construction project managers in engineering district 6-0 (the five counties of southeast PA) are directly responsible for up to three times the number of major projects that their counterparts manage in the other 11 engineering districts. (The level of activity in that district is just so much higher than the rest of the state. Quite the workload.) Does NJDOT see a difference like that between the northern and southern portions of NJ?
NJDOT splits themselves into 3 regions: North, Central and South. (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/directory/northregion.shtm links general maps of all 3). I would imagine that the South region sees a bit less work than the Central & North.
As far as my experiences go though, everyone in those meetings are reluctant to talk about any other projects.
For those of you interested in providing your comments and opinions on future NJDOT, NJ Transit and other New Jersey projects, the official commenting period is now open or will soon be open so you can provide suggestions on transportation-related projects. Comments during this period are on the record, and are officially responded to.
Generally, those that comment are writing about pedestrian and bicycle issues. While the overwhelming majority drive, there are very few if any comments about roads and highways. The second-highest group of commuters - those that take mass transit - are also under-represented. For the most part, this public commenting period is not known to most people. At least with the DVRPC, people with a keen interest in bicycling are actually over-represented, so they use their social and online groups to write in letters and such.
Highway users can do the same. It will be nice to get additional comments in this year, to show that roads and highways do matter as well. My only suggests: Be reasonable (the comment period isn't to suggest changes in laws; it's to comment on proposed projects or suggestions for projects), and try to suggest the agency the comment should be sent to; ie: NJDOT. (A few years back, several of my comments obviously dealing with state roads were sent to county agencies to respond. Obviously, they came back saying the road wasn't part of their jurisdiction. Why the DVRPC would send a comment about a state road to a county office is beyond me.)
Here's the proposed 2016-25 TIP: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1625/
If you want to send in a comment regarding roads/highways in the Philly 4 county area (Mercer, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester):
http://www.dvrpc.org/newsletters/dvrpcnews/2015/July/
Quote
Input Needed on Long-Range Plan, NJ TIP, and Transportation Conformity
This summer, DVRPC will open a 30-day public comment period for the following:
Draft FY 2016-2019 New Jersey Transportation Improvement Program (NJ TIP)
Draft Amendments to the Long-Range Plan, Connections 2040
Draft Transportation Conformity Finding
NJDOT Draft FY 2016 - 2025 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The public comment period will open on July 9, 2015 and close at 5 p.m., August 10, 2015.
DVRPC will also host two public meetings on these important documents that guide growth in the region. The first will be on July 23, 2015 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. at DVRPC's offices, 190 N. Independence Mall West, 8th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Web conference is available for the July 23rd public meeting. Please register by July 16, 2015 by contacting 215-592-1800 or public_affairs@dvrpc.org. The second meeting will be on July 30, 2015 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. at the Cherry Hill Library, 1100 Kings Highway North, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034.
Comments must be submitted in writing and may be emailed to tip-plan-comments@dvrpc.org, faxed to 215-592-9125, or submitted online at:
NJ TIP
Connections 2040
Transportation Conformity
For more details, contact Alison Hastings, Manager of the Office of Communications and Engagement, at 215-238-2929 or ahastings@dvrpc.org.
If you want to comment about other South Jersey Counties: http://www.sjtpo.org/Documents/TIP/16-25/TIP_PublicMeetingFlyer.pdf
There should be a comment period for North Jersey as well, although I haven't seen anything posted.
Some are really amazing projects coming up. Is it true that the amount in millions lined up under the year that says in the CON phase means when they will start such projects? So a lot won't begin until 2019. Also I thought the state was practically bankrupt!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 30, 2015, 06:06:53 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 30, 2015, 12:40:59 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 30, 2015, 12:14:41 PM
I did in fact see I-295 shields down there on my way to AC almost a week ago - I'd say the shields at NJ 42 and I-295 were in fact, Series C but Series D shields still dominate the area.
Have they changed from when I took these almost exactly a year ago going to Camden?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1300.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fag88%2FZeffyboy%2Frealphotos%2FIMG_1717_zpsea5ed4c7.jpg&hash=e85b155eef6c18beb04a2766a136186199a28785)
And PHLBOS is right - the sign odditude is referring to is nowhere near this interchange. It's on the (future I-295) segment of I-95 about 3 miles north of Trenton, one exit after crossing into New Jersey over the Delaware River.
While we have now discovered we're talking about 2 completely different highways that have nothing to do with each other...
Just to recap these signs: They are still there, although I think they will be gone shortly. They are working in the median installing drainage, a new jersey barrier (I mean, a jersey barrier that is new, not a new new jersey barrier! :) ) and pavement, so these signs appear they will need to come down so they do their work in the area.
Well, one of them is gone...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FD7D42432-5E8E-4160-804F-457A46C585A2.jpg&hash=88d684a3407d8a316928bdc4aaf12f42b2f2c7ca) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/D7D42432-5E8E-4160-804F-457A46C585A2.jpg.html)
Quote from: J Route Z on July 07, 2015, 06:24:30 PM
Some are really amazing projects coming up. Is it true that the amount in millions lined up under the year that says in the CON phase means when they will start such projects? So a lot won't begin until 2019.
Which table are you looking at here, or are you looking at individual projects? I can usually find a chart showing the breakdown of costs by phase, but I didn't see it yet.
There's a few Construction phases. For the most part, CON is the normal one used here. EC and ERC (Engineering/Right of Way/Construction) can also be found. A lot of it depends on the routes or areas that you are looking at, and/or how much money is tied up in a particular project.
QuoteAlso I thought the state was practically bankrupt!
This message gets blown up in newspapers and especially in opinions. The state spends a lot of money, no doubt, but it's far from bankrupt.
In the 2015 budget for example, only about 4% of the entire state budget goes to the Department of Transportation. In other words, 96% of the budget goes to everything else. But what do people focus on? What they see. And Roads and Highways - along with buses and trains - are by far the most visible of state services. Education, while visible and always in the news, tends to be focused on more around election time and tax time and uses up over 6x more money. And Human Resources is a much less visible state department, but yet spends nearly 4x more state money than DOT.
But guaranteed, statements dealing with bankruptcy are always heard when it comes to transportation projects, as if they can't spend a penny. The state has a budget of around $35 billion. No one ever talks about bankruptcy when discussing the other $33 Billion of state expenses, because most of those services are invisible to the public. They just focus on the $2 Billion of state funds spent by DOT, and even more narrow than that - the actual construction going on. They still ignore the Billion or so of that $2 Billion spent on studies, right of way, engineering, trash pick up, bridge inspections, etc, etc.
(NJDOT's actual budget is something close to $5 Billion, but a lot of that money comes from other sources, such as the Feds, Toll Roads, etc)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 08, 2015, 09:47:54 AM
But guaranteed, statements dealing with bankruptcy are always heard when it comes to transportation projects, as if they can't spend a penny. The state has a budget of around $35 billion. No one ever talks about bankruptcy when discussing the other $33 Billion of state expenses, because most of those services are invisible to the public. They just focus on the $2 Billion of state funds spent by DOT, and even more narrow than that - the actual construction going on. They still ignore the Billion or so of that $2 Billion spent on studies, right of way, engineering, trash pick up, bridge inspections, etc, etc.
(NJDOT's actual budget is something close to $5 Billion, but a lot of that money comes from other sources, such as the Feds, Toll Roads, etc)
Hm. I'm wondering how the state's first instance funding for the federal funds is figured into those figures.
Small plane with sky jumpers loses power and lands in median of NJ 72.
http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2015/07/plane_lands_safely_outside_home_depot.html#comments
Route 72 isn't exactly a great emergency area to land a plane: Busy roadway with shore traffic, traffic lights, narrow grass median with signs and other stuff, and power lines lining both sides of the road and crossing the highway. The pilot deserves a lot of credit for missing all of that stuff.
Roadway remained open, with just the left lane closed in both directions.
Don't know if he missed everything, looks like there is wing damage on the plane. All I know is, that Cessna 210 will likely never see service again.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2015, 08:59:06 AM
Here's the proposed 2016-25 TIP: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1625/
A lot of love in Bergen County for Route 4; no mention at all of the Route 17 bottleneck which is more than a bit disconcerting
Quote from: dangerb407 on July 13, 2015, 12:21:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2015, 08:59:06 AM
Here's the proposed 2016-25 TIP: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1625/
A lot of love in Bergen County for Route 4; no mention at all of the Route 17 bottleneck which is more than a bit disconcerting
The 17 bottleneck website will be updated once the project has new information. That's your best bet to monitor progress.
I saw some clearview signs along I-195 westbound today, near exit 2. Holy crap you can't miss these. I know this was discussed before but are these new regulations? They finally installed a large exit guide sign on westbound I-195 eastbound, just before NJ Turnpike bridge, approaching exit 7 in Robbinsville (this has been missing for a few years, since NJT widening).
Quote from: J Route Z on July 19, 2015, 07:28:04 PM
I saw some clearview signs along I-195 westbound today, near exit 2. Holy crap you can't miss these. I know this was discussed before but are these new regulations? They finally installed a large exit guide sign on westbound I-195 eastbound, just before NJ Turnpike bridge, approaching exit 7 in Robbinsville (this has been missing for a few years, since NJT widening).
They were test signs for Clearview. NJDOT has said they will not be pursuing Clearview any further for the state.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/072815.shtm
NJDOT and NJ TRANSIT announce plans for handling crowds expected for the Haskell Invitational at Monmouth Park on Sunday
Additional trains and traffic management aim to ease congestion
(Trenton) - The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and NJ TRANSIT announced today plans to help move a record number of attendees going to the Haskell Invitational at Monmouth Park to see Triple Crown winner American Pharoah this Sunday, August 2.
"With record crowds expected to come out to see Triple Crown winner American Pharoah at the Haskell Invitational this weekend, NJDOT and NJ TRANSIT have developed a plan to move people in and out of Monmouth Park as safely and efficiently as possible," NJDOT Commissioner and NJ TRANSIT Chairman Jamie Fox said. "We are adding additional trains dedicated to fans departing after the race, and implementing traffic management plans with local law enforcement to keep traffic moving on Route 36 to the Garden State Parkway." ...
Well, this is a little unusual. The NJSP posted on Facebook and Instagram to say that there ISN'T a speeding ticket frenzy, they don't use p/t troopers, and the Ford Crown Victorias were discontinued 4 years ago!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F3CB222FF-F864-4BC9-BCDB-29672CB59A05.png&hash=7f41c02c0e280299db7ed78442d065fd4e64c14e) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/3CB222FF-F864-4BC9-BCDB-29672CB59A05.png.html)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2015, 01:55:19 PM
Well, this is a little unusual. The NJSP posted on Facebook and Instagram to say that there ISN'T a speeding ticket frenzy, they don't use p/t troopers, and the Ford Crown Victorias were discontinued 4 years ago!
If one does a quick web-search; this NJSP ticketing frenzy memo for the end of July has been circulating in one form or another since
2005. Such likely explains the
30 brand-new unmarked Crown Victorias reference (newer senders forgot to update the reference).
The upshoot: it was a hoax then; it's a hoax now.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 31, 2015, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2015, 01:55:19 PM
Well, this is a little unusual. The NJSP posted on Facebook and Instagram to say that there ISN'T a speeding ticket frenzy, they don't use p/t troopers, and the Ford Crown Victorias were discontinued 4 years ago!
If one does a quick web-search; this NJSP ticketing frenzy memo for the end of July has been circulating in one form or another since 2005. Such likely explains the 30 brand-new unmarked Crown Victorias reference (newer senders forgot to update the reference).
The upshoot: it was a hoax then; it's a hoax now.
And from what I've seen NJSP doesn't have a single Taurus PI on their force and have been buying Caprices PPV lately.
Quote from: ekt8750 on July 31, 2015, 03:29:28 PMAnd from what I've seen NJSP doesn't have a single Taurus PI on their force and have been buying Caprices PPV lately.
This was discussed in the
New Jersey Turnpike thread a while back; but NJSP
will have to be looking for another vehicle after the 2016 model year. The Holden-based Caprice is officially on death-row since Holden made the decision to get out of the car manufacturing business roughly a year ago.
That aside, I've seen a few Tahoe PPVs (not the new 2015 models) in NJSP colors as well.
NJ route 38 is being repaved from Mount holly NJ to Hainesport NJ, they are doing it over the night time hours, and have been doing one lane at a time.
I just noticed today that there appears to be a new HAWK signal installation on NJ 35 in Seaside Heights along the bay side at a pedestrian crosswalk here (Streetview taken before the installation):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.945928,-74.079133,3a,66.8y,355.96h,90.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scrl0dwo5mE7eG1NOfqDgFA!2e0?force=lite
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.945928,-74.079133,3a,66.8y,355.96h,90.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scrl0dwo5mE7eG1NOfqDgFA!2e0?force=lite)
I haven't actually seen these before, but I've heard about them on this forum. It will be interesting to see how well these do with NJ drivers (and all the out of state vacationers) who haven't seen them before - especially after they switch to the alternating red phase. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see them activated when I passed by. Next time..
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 09, 2015, 08:51:43 PM
I just noticed today that there appears to be a new HAWK signal installation on NJ 35 in Seaside Heights along the bay side at a pedestrian crosswalk here (Streetview taken before the installation):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.945928,-74.079133,3a,66.8y,355.96h,90.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scrl0dwo5mE7eG1NOfqDgFA!2e0?force=lite
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.945928,-74.079133,3a,66.8y,355.96h,90.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scrl0dwo5mE7eG1NOfqDgFA!2e0?force=lite)
I haven't actually seen these before, but I've heard about them on this forum. It will be interesting to see how well these do with NJ drivers (and all the out of state vacationers) who haven't seen them before - especially after they switch to the alternating red phase. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see them activated when I passed by. Next time..
The one on 27 by Metropark works fairly well. The trick is knowing the actual traffic law, like that you can proceed after stopping when the red lights are blinking (not solid). I think they're proving to be effective, because I know there's one on Port Reading Ave by the church in Port Reading and another one on Central Ave in Westfield going towards Clark.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 09, 2015, 08:51:43 PM
I just noticed today that there appears to be a new HAWK signal installation on NJ 35 in Seaside Heights along the bay side at a pedestrian crosswalk here (Streetview taken before the installation):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.945928,-74.079133,3a,66.8y,355.96h,90.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scrl0dwo5mE7eG1NOfqDgFA!2e0?force=lite
(https://www.google.com/maps/@39.945928,-74.079133,3a,66.8y,355.96h,90.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scrl0dwo5mE7eG1NOfqDgFA!2e0?force=lite)
I haven't actually seen these before, but I've heard about them on this forum. It will be interesting to see how well these do with NJ drivers (and all the out of state vacationers) who haven't seen them before - especially after they switch to the alternating red phase. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see them activated when I passed by. Next time..
Next time you gotta stop & activate the light yourself! :-)
Because there are so few of these lights in NJ, there will be a learning curve. As long as there's signage visible to the motorists, especially those at the stop line, they should be able to figure it out.
If anything, something I've seen (which I mentioned before) is motorists from out-of-state are getting too used to a flashing yellow arrow for left turns. Sometimes these motorists will sit at a green light refusing to turn because there's no flashing yellow arrow!
NJDOT did a pretty good job on Rt. 3 over the Passaic River Bridge at Rt. 21 in Clifton. Seen the new signs for Rt. 3 East for the Lincoln Tunnel. Anyone have pics for Rt. 3 EAST between the GSP and Rt. 495 U.S. 1-9 ?
Pennington Circle residents oppose DOT plan for metering signalshttp://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/08/residents_near_pennington_circle_oppose_njdot_plan.html#incart_river
QuoteHOPEWELL TOWNSHIP - A few residents who live near the Pennington Circle have concerns with the state's $1 million plan to ease traffic issues, which is already underway.
QuoteThe state Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to install flashing metering signals on the circle, but what residents want is a full stoplight by Ingleside Avenue.
That circle, while not as bad as the Flemington or Somerville Circles, is pretty bad. It's especially annoying if you're on CR 546 and you have to go through it to get to the opposite side of CR 546. What I don't see is how installing a signal at Ingleside Avenue will do anything for the circle. Also, by metering signals - are they talking about the ones that were used on the Atlantic City Expressway years ago?
Quote from: Zeffy on August 12, 2015, 11:02:05 PM
Pennington Circle residents oppose DOT plan for metering signals
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/08/residents_near_pennington_circle_oppose_njdot_plan.html#incart_river
QuoteHOPEWELL TOWNSHIP - A few residents who live near the Pennington Circle have concerns with the state's $1 million plan to ease traffic issues, which is already underway.
QuoteThe state Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to install flashing metering signals on the circle, but what residents want is a full stoplight by Ingleside Avenue.
That circle, while not as bad as the Flemington or Somerville Circles, is pretty bad. It's especially annoying if you're on CR 546 and you have to go through it to get to the opposite side of CR 546. What I don't see is how installing a signal at Ingleside Avenue will do anything for the circle. Also, by metering signals - are they talking about the ones that were used on the Atlantic City Expressway years ago?
Metering traffic lights will be the standard red/yellow/green light, which will cycle thru every once in a while. The purpose is to clear out the circle and create gaps to give traffic on those side roads a chance to enter the circle.
Back when the Garden State Park Circle and Ellisburg Circle existed on NJ 70, there were traffic light meters for those circles as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2015, 12:01:20 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 12, 2015, 11:02:05 PM
Pennington Circle residents oppose DOT plan for metering signals
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/08/residents_near_pennington_circle_oppose_njdot_plan.html#incart_river
QuoteHOPEWELL TOWNSHIP - A few residents who live near the Pennington Circle have concerns with the state's $1 million plan to ease traffic issues, which is already underway.
QuoteThe state Department of Transportation (DOT) plans to install flashing metering signals on the circle, but what residents want is a full stoplight by Ingleside Avenue.
That circle, while not as bad as the Flemington or Somerville Circles, is pretty bad. It's especially annoying if you're on CR 546 and you have to go through it to get to the opposite side of CR 546. What I don't see is how installing a signal at Ingleside Avenue will do anything for the circle. Also, by metering signals - are they talking about the ones that were used on the Atlantic City Expressway years ago?
Metering traffic lights will be the standard red/yellow/green light, which will cycle thru every once in a while. The purpose is to clear out the circle and create gaps to give traffic on those side roads a chance to enter the circle.
Back when the Garden State Park Circle and Ellisburg Circle existed on NJ 70, there were traffic light meters for those circles as well.
The Somerville Circle still has them, but not for all movements. They exist for 28WB (West End Ave), 206SB. 28EB has a light at the shopping center entrance a few hundred feet back, but it's not really a metering light. Same for 206NB which has a light at Bell Ave, which helps slow some traffic into the circle but is not a true metering light. The light on West End Ave still has the old metering traffic signal sign from the 80s before the 202 flyover was constructed and all sides had metering lights into the circle to try and control traffic.
The Somerville Circle, according to my late Aunt who lived nearby in Bridgewater, during the period after the US 202 flyover was opened to traffic several decades ago, that more accidents occurred after the modification than before it. In fact the YIELD signs were installed after these accidents post flyover addition happened. Still it did not deter any other accidents after the extra traffic control devices were added.
I imagine that that situation has not changed even over 20 years afterwards. So the only way to improve safety and operational efficiency of the circle is to completely remove it and install an at grade intersection beneath the flyover there similar to the Victory Circle in Sayreville, NJ which also had a five way intersection.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2015, 11:11:17 AM
The Somerville Circle, according to my late Aunt who lived nearby in Bridgewater, during the period after the US 202 flyover was opened to traffic several decades ago, that more accidents occurred after the modification than before it. In fact the YIELD signs were installed after these accidents post flyover addition happened. Still it did not deter any other accidents after the extra traffic control devices were added.
I imagine that that situation has not changed even over 20 years afterwards. So the only way to improve safety and operational efficiency of the circle is to completely remove it and install an at grade intersection beneath the flyover there similar to the Victory Circle in Sayreville, NJ which also had a five way intersection.
Having grown up in Bridgewater and still in the area frequently, I can tell you that the flyover did little to improve things. I agree that a direct intersection might help, but the roadway geometry would be tricky I think.
Quote from: storm2k on August 13, 2015, 10:10:45 PM
Having grown up in Bridgewater and still in the area frequently, I can tell you that the flyover did little to improve things. I agree that a direct intersection might help, but the roadway geometry would be tricky I think.
The strip mall makes it nearly impossible to build anything to solve the Somerville Circle's issues. If you can somehow replace the circle with perhaps 2 traffic signals, it may be beneficial than trying to navigate the death trap. The issue is that you have to not only yield in the circle, but if you are going around it, you have to STOP for US 202/206 traffic coming down the ramp.
The I-676 will be closed "north" of Morgan Blvd. in Camden over the last weekend in September.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 14, 2015, 06:44:49 AM
The I-676 will be closed "north" of Morgan Blvd. in Camden over the last weekend in September.
I take your from California with using "the" in referencing highway numbers.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 14, 2015, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 14, 2015, 06:44:49 AM
The I-676 will be closed "north" of Morgan Blvd. in Camden over the last weekend in September.
I take your from California with using "the" in referencing highway numbers.
no, the 02 Park Ave is just stubborn and/or trolling.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 13, 2015, 11:09:27 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 13, 2015, 10:10:45 PM
Having grown up in Bridgewater and still in the area frequently, I can tell you that the flyover did little to improve things. I agree that a direct intersection might help, but the roadway geometry would be tricky I think.
The strip mall makes it nearly impossible to build anything to solve the Somerville Circle's issues. If you can somehow replace the circle with perhaps 2 traffic signals, it may be beneficial than trying to navigate the death trap. The issue is that you have to not only yield in the circle, but if you are going around it, you have to STOP for US 202/206 traffic coming down the ramp.
My best thought was to turn 206 into a through road with 28 crossing. The southern ramps to/from 202 would have to come in somewhere else to keep the intersection simple (and green time similar to the mall and Bell Ave.). That would probably require knocking down the buildings in the southwest quadrant, or a giant jughandle through the AutoZone at Bell (if you keep the ramps where they are and force right turns only).
Quote from: odditude on August 14, 2015, 05:48:39 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 14, 2015, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on August 14, 2015, 06:44:49 AM
The I-676 will be closed "north" of Morgan Blvd. in Camden over the last weekend in September.
I take your from California with using "the" in referencing highway numbers.
no, the 02 Park Ave is just stubborn and/or trolling.
I lean towards trolling just by how he keeps referencing the Papal visit as merely "the last weekend in September" as if all of these road closures are just for shits and giggles. :rolleyes:
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 14, 2015, 06:57:03 PM
I lean towards trolling just by how he keeps referencing the Papal visit as merely "the last weekend in September" as if all of these road closures are just for shits and giggles. :rolleyes:
The Pope isn't there for shitting and giggling? Does the Pope shit in Penn's Woods?
Quote from: NE2 on August 15, 2015, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 14, 2015, 06:57:03 PM
I lean towards trolling just by how he keeps referencing the Papal visit as merely "the last weekend in September" as if all of these road closures are just for shits and giggles. :rolleyes:
The Pope isn't there for shitting and giggling? Does the Pope shit in Penn's Woods?
if not, he's gonna be mighty uncomfortable by that Monday...
No one mentioned this yet, but the Exit 7 signs on I-195 now say Robbinsville instead of Washington Township. NJ.com has more about it here: http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/08/robbinsville_is_no_longer_referred_to_as_washinton.html#incart_river
And here's what the signs now look like (it's better for a greenout then a Clearview remake...):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgick.nj.com%2Fhome%2Fnjo-media%2Fwidth620%2Fimg%2Fcentraljersey_impact%2Fphoto%2F18534652-mmmain.jpg&hash=db0eaffeee6ec3d0d1fee06821788491e46b3017)
It originally said "Robbinsville" back in the 70's and 80's, but was changed later on to "Washington" for whatever reason. Technically Robbinsville always existed but like Toms River where it was an unincorporated section of Dover it never had a proper government identity.
Now to see it go back all because the proper township was changed is still a good reason. I do not know what changed it to be Washington, but I always thought it was cause the MUTCD did something as I noticed that NJ has done that in other places using the proper municipal name instead of the unincorporated areas as well. Whatever, its interesting to see a change as for me changes in road signs always fascinated me since I could remember.
Work to begin on NJ37 East Bound Bridge to seaside heights:
http://www.nj.gov/transportation/commuter/roads/rte37mathisbridge/
Will start this november, and will continue through winter until 2018.
Wow, I never knew that US 9 between the GSP and NJ 166 in Beachwood was built over an old railroad grade.
The map on the link above has the old NY & LB Railroad Crossing the Barnegate Bay from Seaside Park to Berkley running through Pine Beach and directly into what is now US 9 after its split from NJ 166.
Furthermore old RR maps show that as well, as I had to research it in more detail and found it all out.
That same map claims that Toms River has a "Cactus Island Park" too. Way to go NJDOT. (Its actually Cattus Island)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wayne,+NJ/@40.944279,-74.272129,3a,66.8y,357.82h,85.22t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sy1-zRjex3FReNM374GudKA!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c30260113c84d3:0xe654539a1cb20344
What is up with the placement of this here sign? Yes its located on US 202 proper and that route goes to both towns, and the NB NJ 23/US 202 Service Road is technically the NB alignment for US 202 at this point, but why here? You have the actually split for US 202 from NJ 23 still ahead, and you also have the junction with County Route 504 1000 feet ahead of the sign. Would not this assembly be much better service to motorists north of CR 504, or even after the NJ 23 to US 202 connector one half mile further. The latter would be best as vehicles from SB NJ 23 would also see the distances to both Mahwah and Ramapo as generally mileage signs are to be post highway junctions.
Also why is Ramapo the control city and not Suffern? Does not US 202 enter Suffern after crossing the NY State Line? Also more people are most familiar with Suffern over Ramapo anyway, as I am sure not many people are familar with Ramapo, NY.
Everyone knows the Ramapo Service Plaza on the Thruway.
Quote from: Rothman on August 28, 2015, 05:24:21 PM
Everyone knows the Ramapo Service Plaza on the Thruway.
If only because it's the last one, undersized, and insanely busy.
Suffern is a village within the Town of Ramapo. Technically it is correct.
"Ramapo" here is really not useful. No person refers to Ramapo as a destination in either New York or New Jersey because it is a comparatively vast place that has many more specific locales within it.
What puzzles me is the six-mile difference between Ramapo and Mahwah, which abut one another. The town center of Mahwah is a mile off 17 and 202. I don't know that there even is a town center of Ramapo.
According to the US-202 SLD, the mileages are actually correct. NJDOT seems to sign mileages to the municipal/state border. The Mahwah border is at MP74 and the state line is MP80.
Correct all the newer mileage signs that NJDOT erected post 1998, excluding replacements, are to the crossover into the said community. For example on US 22 E Bound at the North Plainfield- Watchung Border has a sign that refers to Newark being 12 miles away in which Downtown Newark is further than that and the original mile signs indicated mileage to that point in New Jersey's largest city. If you travel 12 miles east to where US 22 EB enters the Borough of Watchung at the Mountain Avenue intersection, you will come to the Hillside-Newark border just east of North Broad Street in Hillside.
Yes those signs are technically correct as well as giving out mileage to the point US 202 crosses over those two municipal limits. US 202 spends 6 miles in Mahwah and Suffern is part of Ramapo in NY. However, my gripe is to use Suffern (which US 202 immediately enters upon crossing the NY State Line, instead of its larger corporation name as that appears on the map over Ramapo. Plus years ago before the Ratzer Road Circle was eliminated the control cities for US 202 NB leaving the circle were "Pompton Lakes" and "Suffern." Suffern was always used as it was not only at the state line, but because the NYS Thruway was there. Even though NJ is careless about US 202 north of NJ 53 allowing the counties to maintain it with very poor signage along the way and nowadays seems like a useless through route, NE 2 along time ago said that it was a good alternative to bypassing the NYC direct metro area years ago before the freeway boom, and it was. So having "Suffern" used along US 202 made sense.
So Ramapo includes Hillburn, Airmont, Chestnut Ridge, Monsey, Montebello, Sloatsburg, Spring Valley, and Suffern, ALL of which appear on signs independently as well. It's even worse than Woodbridge, NJ.
Yes true, but Suffern is the place that US 202 passes through when it crosses the border. It is just like using Ewing over Trenton on I-295 N Bound for ultimate destination. Yes Ewing is on the map, but for reference it would be better if Trenton was used as that rather than its suburb.
You mention he various communities that make up Ramapo, NY all mentioned in other signs, still they are known for their individual names over the town they are part of. If Suffern was not there along US 202, it would be the best choice like Orangetown is for US 9W on its mileage sign in Fort Lee as there is no major village at point of entry to the town along that route.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2015, 10:06:53 AM
Yes true, but Suffern is the place that US 202 passes through when it crosses the border. It is just like using Ewing over Trenton on I-295 N Bound for ultimate destination. Yes Ewing is on the map, but for reference it would be better if Trenton was used as that rather than its suburb.
You mention he various communities that make up Ramapo, NY all mentioned in other signs, still they are known for their individual names over the town they are part of. If Suffern was not there along US 202, it would be the best choice like Orangetown is for US 9W on its mileage sign in Fort Lee as there is no major village at point of entry to the town along that route.
Orangetown and Ramapo are useless because
no one uses those names in reference to location.Piermont is the logical choice for 9W if you want something close to the state line.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2015, 10:06:53 AMIt is just like using Ewing over Trenton on I-295 N Bound for ultimate destination. Yes Ewing is on the map, but for reference it would be better if Trenton was used as that rather than its suburb.
If you're referring to the distance signage along I-295 northbound; IIRC, most of the ones that include
Ewing in the listings are not too far from the immediate Trenton area and the various I-295 interchanges that serve Trenton. Ewing's actually
on I-295; Trenton is not.
Additionally, while cars can simply use NJ 29 North from I-295 North to get to Trenton; trucks over 13 tons & hazmat vehicles are prohibited from using NJ 29 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.166195,-74.7206132,3a,75y,346.5h,80.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPdF6r34Xa8ylyRnOJqRTQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) in that area due to the tunnel. The signs direct trucks to use the US 1 interchange as a means to reach Trenton (which adds on more miles).
Yardley, PA is now listed on several northbound 295 mileage signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2015, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2015, 10:06:53 AMIt is just like using Ewing over Trenton on I-295 N Bound for ultimate destination. Yes Ewing is on the map, but for reference it would be better if Trenton was used as that rather than its suburb.
If you're referring to the distance signage along I-295 northbound; IIRC, most of the ones that include Ewing in the listings are not too far from the immediate Trenton area and the various I-295 interchanges that serve Trenton. Ewing's actually on I-295; Trenton is not.
Additionally, while cars can simply use NJ 29 North from I-295 North to get to Trenton; trucks over 13 tons & hazmat vehicles are prohibited from using NJ 29 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.166195,-74.7206132,3a,75y,346.5h,80.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPdF6r34Xa8ylyRnOJqRTQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) in that area due to the tunnel. The signs direct trucks to use the US 1 interchange as a means to reach Trenton (which adds on more miles).
Yardley, PA is now listed on several northbound 295 mileage signs.
Just use Philadelphia - what is Yardley anyways?
Yardley is a small town off of PA 32. It's worth having on some signs, but I'm a bit leery of using it as a control city on most applications.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2015, 03:47:31 PM
Yardley is a small town off of PA 32. It's worth having on some signs, but I'm a bit leery of using it as a control city on most applications.
I don't believe Yardley is used as a control city anywhere along I-295; it's only on the mileage signs.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 31, 2015, 03:39:24 PMJust use Philadelphia
IMHO,
Philadelphia should only be used as a control city for I-295 from the US 1 interchange (Exit 67) westward. It makes no sense whatsoever listing it as a
northbound I-295 destination south of the US 1 interchange.
At least they didn't use "Lower Makesfield, PA" *ducks*
Yardley is also the first town 95 passes through after the Scudder Falls Bridge; its appearance on the mileage signs is essentially the mileage to the state line.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2015, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2015, 10:06:53 AMIt is just like using Ewing over Trenton on I-295 N Bound for ultimate destination. Yes Ewing is on the map, but for reference it would be better if Trenton was used as that rather than its suburb.
If you're referring to the distance signage along I-295 northbound; IIRC, most of the ones that include Ewing in the listings are not too far from the immediate Trenton area and the various I-295 interchanges that serve Trenton. Ewing's actually on I-295; Trenton is not.
Additionally, while cars can simply use NJ 29 North from I-295 North to get to Trenton; trucks over 13 tons & hazmat vehicles are prohibited from using NJ 29 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.166195,-74.7206132,3a,75y,346.5h,80.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPdF6r34Xa8ylyRnOJqRTQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) in that area due to the tunnel. The signs direct trucks to use the US 1 interchange as a means to reach Trenton (which adds on more miles).
Yardley, PA is now listed on several northbound 295 mileage signs.
Ewing is used along all of I-295. The first mileage sign is between Interchange 2 and the welcome center, and lists Ewing (72 Miles).
Trucks over 13 tons are prohibited from the Trenton Tunnel. But they are permitted to use Rt. 129. If trucks want to get to PA from NJ, they are supposed to use 295 North to 1 South. But they are welcome to use 29 North-129 North-1 North to access points in Trenton.
Speaking of control cities, one that irks me is the non-use of Hillsborough, my home town, on any guide signs. All of the US 206 ones point to Belle Meade - even in Montgomery which is where Belle Meade is a part of - but not Hillsborough, which is a town of 40K people. Why is that?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4498699,-74.6616923,3a,24.9y,56.91h,85.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHLbLN429h7dK3WlFojP8Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(Hey look, another math sign where the top two distances add up to the bottom one...)
Even in Hopewell, you have this sign that points to Belle Meade for some odd reason!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3634032,-74.7988848,3a,75y,207.75h,82.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTWn-7LEnR7H2SZv98RSuyg!2e0!5s20110701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry about the last image, it turns out GMSV doesn't have the sign in question, but it sits on those empty poles.
NorthJersey.com: Big N.J. police crackdown on big rigs (http://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-big-n-j-police-crackdown-on-big-rigs-1.1399737)
QuoteResponding to several high-profile truck crashes and fatalities, state, county and Port Authority police are issuing significantly more traffic tickets to commercial drivers this year – crackdowns that New Jersey's leading trucking industry group considers misplaced.
QuoteIn Bergen County, police in the newly reorganized traffic bureau of the Sheriff's Department issued more than 8,000 tickets to commercial drivers in the first six months – 38 percent more than the year before.
QuoteThe Port Authority, whose police patrol most airports and the region's major river crossings, reported more than 1,700 truck violations this year through Aug. 22 – nearly an eight-fold increase over the same period last year, mainly because its commercial vehicle inspection unit was |expanded.
QuoteAnd New Jersey State Police reported a 23 percent hike in truck summonses on the New Jersey Turnpike – from 2,133 for the first seven months of 2014 to 2,633 this year. Parking tickets rose 50 percent to 1,494 for trucks pulled onto turnpike shoulders, often to allow drivers to nap.
QuoteState Transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox applauded the heightened vigilance, which came in response to a string of collisions that Âbegan 14 months ago when comedian Tracy Morgan was seriously hurt and his friend James McNair was killed in a van hit by a truck on the turnpike. Deadly crashes are still Âhappening, however, with Michael Lavecchia Jr. and Giovanni Laboy killed in a crash with a truck this month on Route 80 in Wayne.
Quote"With traffic volume increasing as the economy improves, it seems like truck crashes are happening almost once each day," said the commissioner, who also serves as chairman of the Turnpike Authority. "We're seeing these 80,000-pound missiles tailgating or going 80 miles an hour, sometimes with sleepy, inadequately trained drivers behind the wheel of vehicles that aren't always state of the art."
Quote from: Zeffy on August 31, 2015, 08:39:56 PM
Speaking of control cities, one that irks me is the non-use of Hillsborough, my home town, on any guide signs. All of the US 206 ones point to Belle Meade - even in Montgomery which is where Belle Meade is a part of - but not Hillsborough, which is a town of 40K people. Why is that?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4498699,-74.6616923,3a,24.9y,56.91h,85.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHLbLN429h7dK3WlFojP8Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
(Hey look, another math sign where the top two distances add up to the bottom one...)
Even in Hopewell, you have this sign that points to Belle Meade for some odd reason!
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3634032,-74.7988848,3a,75y,207.75h,82.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTWn-7LEnR7H2SZv98RSuyg!2e0!5s20110701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Sorry about the last image, it turns out GMSV doesn't have the sign in question, but it sits on those empty poles.
Some of the larger suburban towns were nothing but fields or forests and collections of smaller towns when distance signs were put up. As signs got replaced they were just copied.
Signs on Route 70 had Laurelton instead of Brick. ( I haven't been to NJ since 1999, so it may have changed)
And directions should be given to Woodbridge not The Amboys
I believe the first mileage sign for US 9 in Lower Township uses "Woodbridge" so it is becoming more popular than "The Amboys" once were on guide signs including one sign in Brick that some user here said he saw at the new Exit 89 tangle.
Also talk about weird use of control cities how about the former sign on NJ 23 Northbound in Verona just north of those two large apartment houses that used to list "Montague" as final control destination because technically Montague is the last town along NJ 23 before it terminates. However, many would benefit more by using Port Jervis, NY as that sticks out more. If anyone ever heard of Montague they would think its along US 206, as it also is and the maps show it as that too being along Sussex County's other N-S State Highway.
Then "Bedminster" being used on I-78 across the Delaware River Bridge into NJ when there is not even an exit signed for that Somerset Township community. Yes its where I-287 meets I-78, but does the average person know that? In fact to get to that township's street system, you must exit onto I-287 N Bound to US 202 & 206, so using that is pointless even if everyone knew where Bedminster is. Plus, NJDOT wasted the cost of a sign as PennDOT has a mileage sign east of the PA 611 exit stating 4 miles to Phillipsburg (its actually more than that but PennDOT signs miles to the exits and not corporate lines) and 68 ( I think, but I am not going to go on GSV just for a proper number) for NYC. If NJDOT was smart they would place the sign after US 22 merges in, however at least they use "Newark" instead of "New York" along with "Clinton" and the one I just stated which are also not listed in PA previously.
Quote from: odditude on August 31, 2015, 05:20:01 PM
Yardley is also the first town 95 passes through after the Scudder Falls Bridge; its appearance on the mileage signs is essentially the mileage to the state line.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2015, 04:14:16 AM
Then "Bedminster" being used on I-78 across the Delaware River Bridge into NJ when there is not even an exit signed for that Somerset Township community. Yes its where I-287 meets I-78, but does the average person know that?
Why not put state lines and interstates on mileage signs instead of these proxies? Maryland shows mileage to I-695 and the Delaware state line on I-95, and to I-83, I-70, and I-95 on I-695. NJ only ever does that on VMSs (yes, there are distance signs to the Garden State Parkway on the Atlantic City Expressway, but they're not on the regular mileage signs that only show Atlantic City, Atlantic City Airport, and Philadelphia).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2015, 11:05:21 PM
NorthJersey.com: Big N.J. police crackdown on big rigs (http://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-big-n-j-police-crackdown-on-big-rigs-1.1399737)
QuoteResponding to several high-profile truck crashes and fatalities, state, county and Port Authority police are issuing significantly more traffic tickets to commercial drivers this year — crackdowns that New Jersey’s leading trucking industry group considers misplaced.
QuoteIn Bergen County, police in the newly reorganized traffic bureau of the Sheriff’s Department issued more than 8,000 tickets to commercial drivers in the first six months — 38 percent more than the year before.
QuoteThe Port Authority, whose police patrol most airports and the region’s major river crossings, reported more than 1,700 truck violations this year through Aug. 22 — nearly an eight-fold increase over the same period last year, mainly because its commercial vehicle inspection unit was |expanded.
QuoteAnd New Jersey State Police reported a 23 percent hike in truck summonses on the New Jersey Turnpike — from 2,133 for the first seven months of 2014 to 2,633 this year. Parking tickets rose 50 percent to 1,494 for trucks pulled onto turnpike shoulders, often to allow drivers to nap.
QuoteState Transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox applauded the heightened vigilance, which came in response to a string of collisions that Âbegan 14 months ago when comedian Tracy Morgan was seriously hurt and his friend James McNair was killed in a van hit by a truck on the turnpike. Deadly crashes are still Âhappening, however, with Michael Lavecchia Jr. and Giovanni Laboy killed in a crash with a truck this month on Route 80 in Wayne.
Quote“With traffic volume increasing as the economy improves, it seems like truck crashes are happening almost once each day,” said the commissioner, who also serves as chairman of the Turnpike Authority. “We’re seeing these 80,000-pound missiles tailgating or going 80 miles an hour, sometimes with sleepy, inadequately trained drivers behind the wheel of vehicles that aren’t always state of the art.”
I think the trucking industry would get a little (just a little) more sympathy if they would acknowledge that there are some bad drivers out there. Some of these truck accidents having nothing to do with long-haul truckers that need rest areas. Some of these truckers are going well over the speed limit and in the left lane of 3 lane plus highways. They want to get to where they need to go today, not tomorrow.
No doubt car drivers account for many, if not a majority, of truck accidents. And otherwise safe truck drivers that do all the necessary checks sometimes will have an unfortunate accident. But many of these truck accidents are completely avoidable just by utilizing basic driving techniques, such as slowing down when traffic is stopped ahead!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2015, 10:54:24 AM
I think the trucking industry would get a little (just a little) more sympathy if they would acknowledge that there are some bad drivers out there. Some of these truck accidents having nothing to do with long-haul truckers that need rest areas. Some of these truckers are going well over the speed limit and in the left lane of 3 lane plus highways. They want to get to where they need to go today, not tomorrow.
Industry spokespeople are not paid to say things like "okay, maybe our industry is a little at fault." That's a general rule.
Quote from: hubcity on September 01, 2015, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2015, 10:54:24 AM
I think the trucking industry would get a little (just a little) more sympathy if they would acknowledge that there are some bad drivers out there. Some of these truck accidents having nothing to do with long-haul truckers that need rest areas. Some of these truckers are going well over the speed limit and in the left lane of 3 lane plus highways. They want to get to where they need to go today, not tomorrow.
Industry spokespeople are not paid to say things like "okay, maybe our industry is a little at fault." That's a general rule.
They can...to an extent.
"We remind our drivers that they are the face of the company on the road. Their trucks are an advertisement for the companies they work for. They are hauling the goods that you will be buying in national chains and mom and pop stores. They have families, just like you and I. We always instruct our drivers to obey all traffic laws, and a late delivery is better than no delivery. When travelling around trucks, remember that they need extra distances to stop, and be aware of their blind spots when they may not see you."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2015, 08:52:00 PM
Quote from: hubcity on September 01, 2015, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2015, 10:54:24 AM
I think the trucking industry would get a little (just a little) more sympathy if they would acknowledge that there are some bad drivers out there. Some of these truck accidents having nothing to do with long-haul truckers that need rest areas. Some of these truckers are going well over the speed limit and in the left lane of 3 lane plus highways. They want to get to where they need to go today, not tomorrow.
Industry spokespeople are not paid to say things like "okay, maybe our industry is a little at fault." That's a general rule.
They can...to an extent.
"We remind our drivers that they are the face of the company on the road. Their trucks are an advertisement for the companies they work for. They are hauling the goods that you will be buying in national chains and mom and pop stores. They have families, just like you and I. We always instruct our drivers to obey all traffic laws, and a late delivery is better than no delivery. When travelling around trucks, remember that they need extra distances to stop, and be aware of their blind spots when they may not see you."
Regular vehicle drivers
STOP PASSING US ON THE RIGHT AND THEN GOING AROUND THE NOSE! WE LOSE YOU FOR A FEW SECONDS IN THE MIRROR WHEN YOU DO THAT!
also....
DO NOT CUT AROUND US ON THE SOLID WHITE GORE POINT LINE TO MERGE ONTO THE INTERSTATE 285 RIGHT LANE IN ATLANTA GA. IT HAPPENS EVERY TIME I GO THERE!
Also, do not speed up if you see us passing you, if it is 65mph and i am passing you, you're going slower than the posted limit, do not use my passing you as a clue that you're going slow.
The problem is that many are not aware of the people around you. I hate it when I move over to let a guy from the merge area into the right lane and then he guns it while you are passing. I do not think he is aware that what you are doing as we all think driving freeways and side roads as a free for all. When is the last time cops have ticketed speeders and other safety concerns? That is why we drive like we do. There are no rules enforced especially traffic signal jumping hence the red light cameras, because our cops do not chase vehicles that are rogue anymore when it comes to when to stop for a red light. Just like speed limits are generally 10 mph more, the red light means 5 seconds after it becomes red, and 5 seconds more for proceeding after green lights begin. If cops would do their jobs there would be more order on the roads for us all instead of the free for all we encounter in this 21st Century.
Another thing to note. many purposely drive in the left lane as default. You have no choice but to pass on the right. I see many make it an emergency to get across three or four lanes stopping traffic in the right lanes to only get over real fast to just drive that left lane for several miles. That is my biggest pet peeve as if you had to get in that left lane right away where you have all the time and distance to move over gradually, that is an act of rudeness and shows that person has no clue to reality.
Here's something else.
People will call the agressive driving hotline on a big rig before they would do it to another automobile.
The other week i called it in NJ to report a bunch of sport bikes doing 120+ down the truck lanes on the turnpike. I saw them all stopped at the exit 14 off ramp. Am i an asshole?
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2015, 09:18:04 AM
Here's something else.
People will call the agressive driving hotline on a big rig before they would do it to another automobile.
The other week i called it in NJ to report a bunch of sport bikes doing 120+ down the truck lanes on the turnpike. I saw them all stopped at the exit 14 off ramp. Am i an asshole?
If it makes you feel any better, there's quite a network of cameras on the Turnpike actively monitored by the State Police in Woodbridge, so they were probably seen before you even made the call!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2015, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2015, 09:18:04 AM
Here's something else.
People will call the agressive driving hotline on a big rig before they would do it to another automobile.
The other week i called it in NJ to report a bunch of sport bikes doing 120+ down the truck lanes on the turnpike. I saw them all stopped at the exit 14 off ramp. Am i an asshole?
If it makes you feel any better, there's quite a network of cameras on the Turnpike actively monitored by the State Police in Woodbridge, so they were probably seen before you even made the call!
On i-20 in GA i called the state police since in a construction zone i saw someone texting with one hand,wrist on the wheel kind of position, with two open huge cans of beer. I was like "so many things wrong with the way he is driving...he can get someone killed"
NJ drivers are a mess. During my trip to AC two months ago, returning home by getting onto I-78 west 13 miles east of the PA line, everyone was going all New Yorker on us. My dad (driver) ragequit and hit the gas, then went New Yorker style on everyone else. Then relaxed when we got into PA. I think in five years, when I get my license, I should probably start driving as a New Jersey guy.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:52:28 PM
NJ drivers are a mess. During my trip to AC two months ago, returning home by getting onto I-78 west 13 miles east of the PA line, everyone was going all New Yorker on us. My dad (driver) ragequit and hit the gas, then went New Yorker style on everyone else. Then relaxed when we got into PA. I think in five years, when I get my license, I should probably start driving as a New Jersey guy.
Sounds like a typical PA driver - goes slow in the left lane and gets passed by everyone, then suddenly randomly speeds up and goes too fast and cuts everyone off. Then goes slowly again.
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2015, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:52:28 PM
NJ drivers are a mess. During my trip to AC two months ago, returning home by getting onto I-78 west 13 miles east of the PA line, everyone was going all New Yorker on us. My dad (driver) ragequit and hit the gas, then went New Yorker style on everyone else. Then relaxed when we got into PA. I think in five years, when I get my license, I should probably start driving as a New Jersey guy.
Sounds like a typical PA driver - goes slow in the left lane and gets passed by everyone, then suddenly randomly speeds up and goes too fast and cuts everyone off. Then goes slowly again.
Those usually hail from parts west of Lancaster and north of Allentown. I don't get how hard it is to figure out "Keep Right, Pass Left". It's fairly simple to follow. Our state troopers in the Philly area at least will clear the left lane of slower traffic if they need to.
Down in Florida we get em all. NY, NJ, PA, MI, and other tourists because of the warn weather and the mouse. They all love to make turns from the wrong lane instead of going up the road and u turning back to the desired turn location.
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 03, 2015, 02:10:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2015, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:52:28 PM
NJ drivers are a mess. During my trip to AC two months ago, returning home by getting onto I-78 west 13 miles east of the PA line, everyone was going all New Yorker on us. My dad (driver) ragequit and hit the gas, then went New Yorker style on everyone else. Then relaxed when we got into PA. I think in five years, when I get my license, I should probably start driving as a New Jersey guy.
Sounds like a typical PA driver - goes slow in the left lane and gets passed by everyone, then suddenly randomly speeds up and goes too fast and cuts everyone off. Then goes slowly again.
Those usually hail from parts west of Lancaster and north of Allentown. I don't get how hard it is to figure out "Keep Right, Pass Left". It's fairly simple to follow. Our state troopers in the Philly area at least will clear the left lane of slower traffic if they need to.
Oh, there's plenty in the Philadelphia area. And not enough troopers to clear them out. And then they all come to Jersey and do it here.
For all the hills in Pennsylvania, you'd think PA drivers would know that you have to apply more gas to maintain your speed...
...but they don't.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 03, 2015, 07:25:28 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 03, 2015, 02:10:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 03, 2015, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:52:28 PM
NJ drivers are a mess. During my trip to AC two months ago, returning home by getting onto I-78 west 13 miles east of the PA line, everyone was going all New Yorker on us. My dad (driver) ragequit and hit the gas, then went New Yorker style on everyone else. Then relaxed when we got into PA. I think in five years, when I get my license, I should probably start driving as a New Jersey guy.
Sounds like a typical PA driver - goes slow in the left lane and gets passed by everyone, then suddenly randomly speeds up and goes too fast and cuts everyone off. Then goes slowly again.
Those usually hail from parts west of Lancaster and north of Allentown. I don't get how hard it is to figure out "Keep Right, Pass Left". It's fairly simple to follow. Our state troopers in the Philly area at least will clear the left lane of slower traffic if they need to.
Oh, there's plenty in the Philadelphia area. And not enough troopers to clear them out. And then they all come to Jersey and do it here.
my commute agrees with you wholeheartedly - ~65 miles of idiocy in Philly and Bucks on a daily basis.
Just to change the subject a bit, although I agree with NJ drivers being aggressive, and yes I used to live in New Jersey years ago and I am saying it not because I am no longer a resident or being shamed to admit I used to live there, but facts are they are.
Anyway, I was on GSV following US 202 north of NJ 23 in Wayne and noticed that many US 202 shields are missing. The NORTH header and arrows are there but at many places, especially at Ratzer Road and where US 202 leaves the Hamburg Turnpike to head north toward Oakland and Mahwah the shields themselves are missing.
I guess we have someone either obsessed with US 202 shields that they stole them, or maybe NJDOT is finally asking AASHTO to decommission it through that part of the state, which I think if that were the case it would be a topic on here.
I have seen shields get stolen, but not in multiple places and in the same direction. Unfortunately, GSV now does not post the capture date anymore and that could be years ago the car was even there. Therefore it all could be at different moments of time that both locations (and others) were captured, however unlikely. This is really unusual I must say.
Some New Jersey business leaders realize that funds for road spending needs to be a higher priority... and that we should have "lower taxes than North Carolina":
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/at_nj_business_summit_continued_calls_for_transpor.html#incart_river
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 02, 2015, 06:52:28 PM
NJ drivers are a mess. During my trip to AC two months ago, returning home by getting onto I-78 west 13 miles east of the PA line, everyone was going all New Yorker on us. My dad (driver) ragequit and hit the gas, then went New Yorker style on everyone else. Then relaxed when we got into PA. I think in five years, when I get my license, I should probably start driving as a New Jersey guy.
Have you even
SEEN how bad people in the eastern portion of your state drive? The only thing worse in the area are New Yorkers.
yes, we all hate "Pennsy drivers." the bane of my commute is people who stay in the left lane and cruise at a decent speed until it's time to actually pass someone, at which time they hover at the other car's back corner for two or three minutes before crawling past them and then accelerating back up to cruising speed. grrraaarrgh.
Because the state is so small and doesn't have nearly the population of PA & NY, Delaware drivers don't get noticed too often. But, when they are in NJ, guaranteed they are clogging up the left lane, running red lights, and just being a menace to others on the road. During my years in college then working in Delaware, based on my observations I half-heartedly joked that Delaware state law mandates at least 2 cars must run the red light. I know one day I really ran a red light...not one of those 'it just turned red', but it was blatantly red. A cop was right there. He didn't even bat an eye.
I don't know why New Yorkers get a bad rap. The last few times that I've driven in the City, drivers actually showed more courtesy than they do Upstate (i.e., letting you in when you turn on your blinker, letting the merge "zipper," etc.). Connecticut drivers are much worse. Makes me wonder if people drive into New York, get cut off by one of those over-insured jerks from Connecticut and then blame New Yorkers.
Quote from: Rothman on September 18, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
I don't know why New Yorkers get a bad rap. The last few times that I've driven in the City, drivers actually showed more courtesy than they do Upstate (i.e., letting you in when you turn on your blinker, letting the merge "zipper," etc.). Connecticut drivers are much worse. Makes me wonder if people drive into New York, get cut off by one of those over-insured jerks from Connecticut and then blame New Yorkers.
I agree completely. Western New York drivers are miserable. Don't let you in, don't use the turn signal and just dart over without any form of hint, believe right on red has the right of way, don't stop for red lights and stop signs, etc. There might be a lot of traffic downstate, but people are typically good drivers. If they weren't, they'd be killed. Jersey drivers (at least from North Jersey) aren't usually all that bad, either (for the same reasons). It's the Boston drivers that are crazy. I saw somewhere that Massachusetts has significantly more accidents by some measure than any other state and I'd believe it.
Quote from: Rothman on September 18, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
I don't know why New Yorkers get a bad rap. The last few times that I've driven in the City, drivers actually showed more courtesy than they do Upstate (i.e., letting you in when you turn on your blinker, letting the merge "zipper," etc.). Connecticut drivers are much worse. Makes me wonder if people drive into New York, get cut off by one of those over-insured jerks from Connecticut and then blame New Yorkers.
When they're in NJ, they sit in the left lane. Forever.
If there was a gigantic sinkhole in the left lane leading down to the fiery basin of hell below, and the options were: A) Get out of the Left Lane, or B) Drive into the hole, they wouldn't give it a second thought and drive directly into the hole.
I grew up in southern New England, and I've always made this differentiation regarding drivers in the three states:
Massachusetts drivers are fearless.
Connecticut drivers are reckless.
Rhode Island drivers are clueless.
Now to keep on topic with New Jersey, I noticed during a recent trip down the GSP that New Jersey drivers love to change multiple lanes at once. Coming up on the exit gore and you're in the third lane? No problem, dart right over!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2015, 01:38:01 PM
Because the state is so small and doesn't have nearly the population of PA & NY, Delaware drivers don't get noticed too often. But, when they are in NJ, guaranteed they are clogging up the left lane, running red lights, and just being a menace to others on the road. During my years in college then working in Delaware, based on my observations I half-heartedly joked that Delaware state law mandates at least 2 cars must run the red light. I know one day I really ran a red light...not one of those 'it just turned red', but it was blatantly red. A cop was right there. He didn't even bat an eye.
From my experience Delaware cops will give you that time between when your light turns red til the other road's turns green. I've actually have gotten a horn honked at me for not running the light before.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2015, 02:35:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 18, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
I don't know why New Yorkers get a bad rap. The last few times that I've driven in the City, drivers actually showed more courtesy than they do Upstate (i.e., letting you in when you turn on your blinker, letting the merge "zipper," etc.). Connecticut drivers are much worse. Makes me wonder if people drive into New York, get cut off by one of those over-insured jerks from Connecticut and then blame New Yorkers.
When they're in NJ, they sit in the left lane. Forever.
If there was a gigantic sinkhole in the left lane leading down to the fiery basin of hell below, and the options were: A) Get out of the Left Lane, or B) Drive into the hole, they wouldn't give it a second thought and drive directly into the hole.
Nah, those are Ohioans. Can't tell you how many times I've been stuck behind an Ohioan who clogs up the left lane.
At least on the Thruway, I've seen most people move over eventually (i.e., a slow poke might pull over to pass a slower poke, but they'll move over once the pass is done).
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 18, 2015, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2015, 01:38:01 PM
Because the state is so small and doesn't have nearly the population of PA & NY, Delaware drivers don't get noticed too often. But, when they are in NJ, guaranteed they are clogging up the left lane, running red lights, and just being a menace to others on the road. During my years in college then working in Delaware, based on my observations I half-heartedly joked that Delaware state law mandates at least 2 cars must run the red light. I know one day I really ran a red light...not one of those 'it just turned red', but it was blatantly red. A cop was right there. He didn't even bat an eye.
From my experience Delaware cops will give you that time between when your light turns red til the other road's turns green. I've actually have gotten a horn honked at me for not running the light before.
If someone honked at me for not running the light, I'd just laugh.
Quote from: ekt8750 on September 18, 2015, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2015, 01:38:01 PM
Because the state is so small and doesn't have nearly the population of PA & NY, Delaware drivers don't get noticed too often. But, when they are in NJ, guaranteed they are clogging up the left lane, running red lights, and just being a menace to others on the road. During my years in college then working in Delaware, based on my observations I half-heartedly joked that Delaware state law mandates at least 2 cars must run the red light. I know one day I really ran a red light...not one of those 'it just turned red', but it was blatantly red. A cop was right there. He didn't even bat an eye.
From my experience Delaware cops will give you that time between when your light turns red til the other road's turns green. I've actually have gotten a horn honked at me for not running the light before.
New York west of I-390 is the same. I've gotten rear-ended on more than one occasion because I didn't run the light.
For me I have seen guys behind me expect me to go through the light, but at the same time the guy in front of me stops prematurely for the red light with most of the time he is already to a complete stop when the light turns red. You would figure that a lot of rear end collisions would take place at signals more, but they do not.
This all is in Orange County, FL and also Kissimmee, FL where both areas love to install new photo cops everyday.
Quote from: Rothman on September 18, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
I don't know why New Yorkers get a bad rap. The last few times that I've driven in the City, drivers actually showed more courtesy than they do Upstate (i.e., letting you in when you turn on your blinker, letting the merge "zipper," etc.). Connecticut drivers are much worse. Makes me wonder if people drive into New York, get cut off by one of those over-insured jerks from Connecticut and then blame New Yorkers.
An astounding amount of them feel the need to blow by me in the left lane when I'm already doing 5 above the speed limit. Then they never leave it until they need to exit, in which case they will cut across however-extra-lanes-there-are without the slightest regard for the people behind them. They also seem to not comprehend the concept of what yielding is.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2015, 01:38:01 PM
Because the state is so small and doesn't have nearly the population of PA & NY, Delaware drivers don't get noticed too often. But, when they are in NJ, guaranteed they are clogging up the left lane, running red lights, and just being a menace to others on the road. During my years in college then working in Delaware, based on my observations I half-heartedly joked that Delaware state law mandates at least 2 cars must run the red light. I know one day I really ran a red light...not one of those 'it just turned red', but it was blatantly red. A cop was right there. He didn't even bat an eye.
I don't see too many Delawareans in New Jersey, but when I was in Delaware a whole mess of them were crack drivers. Made me quite happy to cross into Maryland, where that seemed to dissipate.
Then they wonder why we have weaving issues. It's the same on arterials too. You have a guy blow by everybody in the left lane and then after they realize where they are and need to make a right turn, they just make if from the left lane without regard to any other motorists in how many other lanes are to the right of them.
The same for left turns, just make it from any lane is the norm. Forget you can make a u turn later to return to the intersection, just do it.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 18, 2015, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 18, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
I don't know why New Yorkers get a bad rap. The last few times that I've driven in the City, drivers actually showed more courtesy than they do Upstate (i.e., letting you in when you turn on your blinker, letting the merge "zipper," etc.). Connecticut drivers are much worse. Makes me wonder if people drive into New York, get cut off by one of those over-insured jerks from Connecticut and then blame New Yorkers.
An astounding amount of them feel the need to blow by me in the left lane when I'm already doing 5 above the speed limit.
Does this hurt your feelings? :D
Quote from: Rothman on September 18, 2015, 08:17:01 PM
Does this hurt your feelings? :D
No, because sweet revenge was to be had when an idiot doing what I described passed a lurking cop and the cop promptly turned his lights and sirens on... and he had to pull over.
I miss the county identification scheme of the New York license plates, it made it much easier to know what part of the state to swear at when the drivers on the Thruway were being stupid. On the other hand, it was my experience that if there was a car off the road and into the median in the wintertime on the Thruway somewhere between Utica and Albany, they would have Jersey tags.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 18, 2015, 07:44:59 PM
An astounding amount of them feel the need to blow by me in the left lane when I'm already doing 5 above the speed limit. Then they never leave it until they need to exit, in which case they will cut across however-extra-lanes-there-are without the slightest regard for the people behind them. They also seem to not comprehend the concept of what yielding is.
Isn't 5 above the limit still considered below the speed limit?? :spin:
At least on the 65 mph highways, I tend to believe 80 and above is what gets one noticed. In a 55 zone, 70 or 75 will get one noticed.
"When I'm already doing 5 above the speed limit"...that would be nearly the entire population going at least that speed!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2015, 06:22:58 AM
"When I'm already doing 5 above the speed limit"...that would be nearly the entire population going at least that speed!
It really depends on the town. The normal flow of traffic is usually 5 above the limit, which is what I do. Now, if I'm in a known speed trap, I won't go more than 2 above the limit. But ultimately it depends on the cop, because someone doing ~67 on the freeway portion of NJ 18 in Colts Neck got tagged by a cop while I did 65.
I have a suspicion that we all think drivers from State X are lousy because we immediately notice something glaringly different about their car, while we have no neat identifier to categorize bad drivers from our own state. There is a useless sociological study waiting to be done here if anyone is interested.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 19, 2015, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2015, 06:22:58 AM
"When I'm already doing 5 above the speed limit"...that would be nearly the entire population going at least that speed!
It really depends on the town. The normal flow of traffic is usually 5 above the limit, which is what I do. Now, if I'm in a known speed trap, I won't go more than 2 above the limit. But ultimately it depends on the cop, because someone doing ~67 on the freeway portion of NJ 18 in Colts Neck got tagged by a cop while I did 65.
True. My family has drove I-287 SB and the flow was 70 mph. There was a cop, to boot, but he didn't seem to catch anyone.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 19, 2015, 09:41:30 AM
I have a suspicion that we all think drivers from State X are lousy because we immediately notice something glaringly different about their car, while we have no neat identifier to categorize bad drivers from our own state. There is a useless sociological study waiting to be done here if anyone is interested.
Wait, did you say "useless sociological study" that is related to transportation? Don't you know if you say that three times, NCHRP comes running?!
Quote from: Zeffy on September 19, 2015, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2015, 06:22:58 AM
"When I'm already doing 5 above the speed limit"...that would be nearly the entire population going at least that speed!
It really depends on the town. The normal flow of traffic is usually 5 above the limit, which is what I do. Now, if I'm in a known speed trap, I won't go more than 2 above the limit. But ultimately it depends on the cop, because someone doing ~67 on the freeway portion of NJ 18 in Colts Neck got tagged by a cop while I did 65.
Agree completely. I set cruise control to the speed limit if I'm driving past a known speed trap in a small town. Else, it really depends. Flow in Buffalo is usually 5 above on limited-access highways and 50 MPH on surface roads outside of dense residential areas regardless of speed limit, even if the limit is 55. In other places, it's as fast as people are willing to go. A lot of I-87 flows at however fast the lead person is willing to drive.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 19, 2015, 09:41:30 AM
I have a suspicion that we all think drivers from State X are lousy because we immediately notice something glaringly different about their car, while we have no neat identifier to categorize bad drivers from our own state. There is a useless sociological study waiting to be done here if anyone is interested.
Most cars have clearly identifiable models. Why is no-one railing against Toyota or Ford drivers or something?
Quote from: bzakharin on September 19, 2015, 09:54:18 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 19, 2015, 09:41:30 AM
I have a suspicion that we all think drivers from State X are lousy because we immediately notice something glaringly different about their car, while we have no neat identifier to categorize bad drivers from our own state. There is a useless sociological study waiting to be done here if anyone is interested.
Most cars have clearly identifiable models. Why is no-one railing against Toyota or Ford drivers or something?
Prius drivers :banghead:
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 18, 2015, 10:33:19 PM
I miss the county identification scheme of the New York license plates, it made it much easier to know what part of the state to swear at when the drivers on the Thruway were being stupid. On the other hand, it was my experience that if there was a car off the road and into the median in the wintertime on the Thruway somewhere between Utica and Albany, they would have Jersey tags.
Jersey drivers can't handle snow. (Exception for those who live up in Sussex and maybe Warren where we have "mountains".) When it snows, I typically stay off the freeway because everyone does 10 mph in every lane and refuses to pass the snow plow. (They can be passed. It's not much snowier ahead of them than it is behind, believe it or not.) If I hit a hill, I'm not making it up at 10. I stand a chance at 30.
Quote from: Alps on September 20, 2015, 12:54:23 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 18, 2015, 10:33:19 PM
I miss the county identification scheme of the New York license plates, it made it much easier to know what part of the state to swear at when the drivers on the Thruway were being stupid. On the other hand, it was my experience that if there was a car off the road and into the median in the wintertime on the Thruway somewhere between Utica and Albany, they would have Jersey tags.
Jersey drivers can't handle snow. (Exception for those who live up in Sussex and maybe Warren where we have "mountains".) When it snows, I typically stay off the freeway because everyone does 10 mph in every lane and refuses to pass the snow plow. (They can be passed. It's not much snowier ahead of them than it is behind, believe it or not.) If I hit a hill, I'm not making it up at 10. I stand a chance at 30.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Top Jersey driver of the year goes to Alps. Good job.
Quote from: Alps on September 20, 2015, 12:54:23 AM
Quote from: upstatenyroads on September 18, 2015, 10:33:19 PM
I miss the county identification scheme of the New York license plates, it made it much easier to know what part of the state to swear at when the drivers on the Thruway were being stupid. On the other hand, it was my experience that if there was a car off the road and into the median in the wintertime on the Thruway somewhere between Utica and Albany, they would have Jersey tags.
Jersey drivers can't handle snow. (Exception for those who live up in Sussex and maybe Warren where we have "mountains".) When it snows, I typically stay off the freeway because everyone does 10 mph in every lane and refuses to pass the snow plow. (They can be passed. It's not much snowier ahead of them than it is behind, believe it or not.) If I hit a hill, I'm not making it up at 10. I stand a chance at 30.
Oh, trust me. They pass snow plows.
Since the road probably has been plowed previously, generally, it's not too bad. It's the roads (or lanes) which hadn't been plowed for a while which causes the issues...the driver thinks the road ahead is fine. Then, they pass the plow, and realize the road ahead wasn't fine. Then, they slow down SLOWER than the plow...and now the plow driver is stuck behind Mr. I'm-Afraid-For-My-Life-But-I'm-Not-Putting-2-Hands-On-The-Wheel-Because-I'm-Talking-On-The-Phone. Yep...see it all the time.
I was noticing something interesting about the control cities along US 40 at both NJ 55 and NJ 47. IF you notice that at the cloverleaf interchange just west of Malaga between US 40 and NJ 55, Glassboro and Bellmawr are the control cities for NB NJ 55. Then a mile of so east of US 40 for NJ 47 North is Camden. I know that all is correct, but at the same time very strange.
NJ 55 is the freeway and it does not get the ultimate destination like NJ 47, the local roadway, plus Glassboro is not at all mentioned for NJ 47 anywhere during its two route overlap on any signs. NJ 47 goes directly there as well. Glassboro is a big place along NJ 47 that is hardly not noticeable on its route to Camden, yet ignored.
Also, NJ 55 uses its ending point over the ultimate city it indirectly serves. Even though the MUTCD would rather use direct places, so is NJ 47 with Camden as it terminates at US 130 in Westville several miles before that particular city.
I am guessing that its an oversight on engineers part and most likely the signs were erected on separate projects for the way the destinations are used in Malaga.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 19, 2015, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2015, 06:22:58 AM
"When I'm already doing 5 above the speed limit"...that would be nearly the entire population going at least that speed!
It really depends on the town. The normal flow of traffic is usually 5 above the limit, which is what I do. Now, if I'm in a known speed trap, I won't go more than 2 above the limit. But ultimately it depends on the cop, because someone doing ~67 on the freeway portion of NJ 18 in Colts Neck got tagged by a cop while I did 65.
Staties will usually leave you alone unless you're going ridiculously fast (over 85 or so) or are weaving in and out of traffic to create a dangerous condition. Townie cops are much stricter, especially if they're under pressure to fill up the coffers a bit.
One thing that doesn't happen every day is a true road widening project by NJDOT. However, they are planning on doing one with NJ's Route 66 (not to be confused with some other famous Route 66).
It's not the longest widening project in the world...it'll consist of about 1.5 mile of dualizing a current 1 lane-per-direction roadway. This stretch is between sections of Rt. 66 which are already 2 lanes in each direction.
One thing that helps is that the Right of Way has always existed for a widening. The only ROW needed will be for a stormwater detention basin.
Construction is projected to start in 2019.
News Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout102115rt.pdf
Map of General Area: https://goo.gl/maps/B5djRKKsDjC2
Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2015, 02:29:05 PM
I was noticing something interesting about the control cities along US 40 at both NJ 55 and NJ 47. IF you notice that at the cloverleaf interchange just west of Malaga between US 40 and NJ 55, Glassboro and Bellmawr are the control cities for NB NJ 55. Then a mile of so east of US 40 for NJ 47 North is Camden. I know that all is correct, but at the same time very strange.
NJ 55 is the freeway and it does not get the ultimate destination like NJ 47, the local roadway, plus Glassboro is not at all mentioned for NJ 47 anywhere during its two route overlap on any signs. NJ 47 goes directly there as well. Glassboro is a big place along NJ 47 that is hardly not noticeable on its route to Camden, yet ignored.
Also, NJ 55 uses its ending point over the ultimate city it indirectly serves. Even though the MUTCD would rather use direct places, so is NJ 47 with Camden as it terminates at US 130 in Westville several miles before that particular city.
I am guessing that its an oversight on engineers part and most likely the signs were erected on separate projects for the way the destinations are used in Malaga.
How is "Malaga" pronounced in New Jersey? Like it is in Spain (MAH-lah-gah)? In North Jersey it never came up.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 25, 2015, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2015, 02:29:05 PM
I was noticing something interesting about the control cities along US 40 at both NJ 55 and NJ 47. IF you notice that at the cloverleaf interchange just west of Malaga between US 40 and NJ 55, Glassboro and Bellmawr are the control cities for NB NJ 55. Then a mile of so east of US 40 for NJ 47 North is Camden. I know that all is correct, but at the same time very strange.
NJ 55 is the freeway and it does not get the ultimate destination like NJ 47, the local roadway, plus Glassboro is not at all mentioned for NJ 47 anywhere during its two route overlap on any signs. NJ 47 goes directly there as well. Glassboro is a big place along NJ 47 that is hardly not noticeable on its route to Camden, yet ignored.
Also, NJ 55 uses its ending point over the ultimate city it indirectly serves. Even though the MUTCD would rather use direct places, so is NJ 47 with Camden as it terminates at US 130 in Westville several miles before that particular city.
I am guessing that its an oversight on engineers part and most likely the signs were erected on separate projects for the way the destinations are used in Malaga.
How is "Malaga" pronounced in New Jersey? Like it is in Spain (MAH-lah-gah)? In North Jersey it never came up.
I always pronounced it 'Mal-la-ga', but that doesn't mean everyone else pronounces it that way!
MA luh guh, with the initial "A" sound as in apple and the other two syllables unstressed schwa sounds
Age old question how do South Jerseyians pronounce Gloucester? I always say Glaw- Stur, but is that correct?
Quote from: roadman65 on September 25, 2015, 01:03:55 PM
Age old question how do South Jerseyians pronounce Gloucester? I always say Glaw- Stur, but is that correct?
I only know that North Jerseyans pronounce it "Where?"
Your pronunciation is more or less the one used in Mass., but in the alternating-two-and-three-syllables streets of Boston's Back Bay, it's a
three syllable street, supposedly based upon some old pronunciation.
I always thought it was Glow-chest-er
(Yes I got scolded quite a bit from my Massachusetts friends calling it War-chest-er)
That is why I asked. I know its named after a former Duke in the Old Country hence Gloucester, MA and the main street in Colonial Williamsburg is named "Duke of Gloucester Street."
Yes us in North Jersey did always say Glaw-Stur in two syllables, which is why I ask. Just like El Dorado is pronounced El Door- Rod- Doh, but in Kansas they say El Door- Ray- Doh! Also the Arkansas River, named after the state is pronounced by many in Kansas as Are-Kan- Sas using the word are before the Kansas state name. Yet we all know how the state its named after is pronounced.
Glaw-ster.
Most people pronounce it like that. But spelling it...wow...it's almost universally spelled incorrectly. They usually get the -ter right, but the Glouces- part confuses a lot of people.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2015, 01:39:33 PM
Glaw-ster.
Most people pronounce it like that. But spelling it...wow...it's almost universally spelled incorrectly. They usually get the -ter right, but the Glouces- part confuses a lot of people.
I pronounce it Gloss-ster.
Me, since I was originally from the South, I pronounce it weirdly. gl-low-cest-er
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2015, 10:13:30 AM
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
People who say WOHR-ces-ter or WAR-chest-er deserve to be pointed at and laughed at.
I say WAR-cest-ER.
When I think of Worcester, MA I often think of it being that famous brand steak sauce. :sombrero:
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2015, 10:13:30 AM
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
Wista.
Quote from: Rothman on September 26, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2015, 10:13:30 AM
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
People who say WOHR-ces-ter or WAR-chest-er deserve to be pointed at and laughed at.
Well, it's how it's spelled.
My boss keeps insisting the Rensselaer is pronounced rent-ler (despite everyone on the local radio stations saying ren-sler or ren-sell-ear).
And people think the Rochester area is weird for Chili (pronounced chai-lie).
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2015, 11:01:31 PM
Well, it's how it's spelled.
My boss keeps insisting the Rensselaer is pronounced rent-ler (despite everyone on the local radio stations saying ren-sler or ren-sell-ear).
Don't forget Schenectady, which apparently is pronounced as Ska-neck-tah-dee, or something like that.
I never said Glaw-ster or Wus-ster, but now I do, and that's because I heard people referring to them as they are pronounced and not how they are spelled, otherwise I would still say Glow-cess-ter and War-cess-ter.
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2015, 11:01:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 26, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2015, 10:13:30 AM
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
People who say WOHR-ces-ter or WAR-chest-er deserve to be pointed at and laughed at.
Well, it's how it's spelled.
My boss keeps insisting the Rensselaer is pronounced rent-ler (despite everyone on the local radio stations saying ren-sler or ren-sell-ear).
And people think the Rochester area is weird for Chili (pronounced chai-lie).
The weird thing is that I hear people talking about the "city" of Rensselaer as "rens-sel-er" and the Rennselaer county as "rens-sel-air." Bizarre, as well as wondering how Rensselaer became a city with a population of less than 10,000. :D
Quote from: Rothman on September 27, 2015, 12:31:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2015, 11:01:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 26, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2015, 10:13:30 AM
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
People who say WOHR-ces-ter or WAR-chest-er deserve to be pointed at and laughed at.
Well, it's how it's spelled.
My boss keeps insisting the Rensselaer is pronounced rent-ler (despite everyone on the local radio stations saying ren-sler or ren-sell-ear).
And people think the Rochester area is weird for Chili (pronounced chai-lie).
The weird thing is that I hear people talking about the "city" of Rensselaer as "rens-sel-er" and the Rennselaer county as "rens-sel-air." Bizarre, as well as wondering how Rensselaer became a city with a population of less than 10,000. :D
One could ask the same of Coatesville, PA (also <10k).
Delaware has cities <10k, too... Seaford. Milford. Harrington. New Castle. Also Lewes and Rehoboth Beach (at least based on y-r populations). OTOH Ocean City, MD is officially a town (of <10k y-r) and Mahanoy City and Dickson City, PA are boroughs.
SOMEbody get this back on topic! Pleassse?!?!? I don't have time. Gotta get ready for church...
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on September 27, 2015, 09:11:02 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 27, 2015, 12:31:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2015, 11:01:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 26, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2015, 10:13:30 AM
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
People who say WOHR-ces-ter or WAR-chest-er deserve to be pointed at and laughed at.
Well, it's how it's spelled.
My boss keeps insisting the Rensselaer is pronounced rent-ler (despite everyone on the local radio stations saying ren-sler or ren-sell-ear).
And people think the Rochester area is weird for Chili (pronounced chai-lie).
The weird thing is that I hear people talking about the "city" of Rensselaer as "rens-sel-er" and the Rennselaer county as "rens-sel-air." Bizarre, as well as wondering how Rensselaer became a city with a population of less than 10,000. :D
One could ask the same of Coatesville, PA (also <10k).
Delaware has cities <10k, too... Seaford. Milford. Harrington. New Castle. Also Lewes and Rehoboth Beach (at least based on y-r populations). OTOH Ocean City, MD is officially a town (of <10k y-r) and Mahanoy City and Dickson City, PA are boroughs.
SOMEbody get this back on topic! Pleassse?!?!? I don't have time. Gotta get ready for church...
ixnay
Corbin City, NJ. Bam. On topic.
Quote from: Alps on September 26, 2015, 03:17:34 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2015, 10:13:30 AM
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
Wista.
There's someone driving around central Massachusetts with a vanity plate containing the exact pronunciation used by the locals: WUSTA
(I lived there for 21 years.)
Quote from: Rothman on September 27, 2015, 12:31:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2015, 11:01:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 26, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 26, 2015, 10:13:30 AM
Try not to mangle WORCESTER, MA. Of course it's WUSS-tur, but I've heard WAR-chest-ER a couple of times! :D
People who say WOHR-ces-ter or WAR-chest-er deserve to be pointed at and laughed at.
Well, it's how it's spelled.
My boss keeps insisting the Rensselaer is pronounced rent-ler (despite everyone on the local radio stations saying ren-sler or ren-sell-ear).
And people think the Rochester area is weird for Chili (pronounced chai-lie).
The weird thing is that I hear people talking about the "city" of Rensselaer as "rens-sel-er" and the Rennselaer county as "rens-sel-air." Bizarre, as well as wondering how Rensselaer became a city with a population of less than 10,000. :D
The polytechnic institute to the north prefers the "rens-sel-air" (or maybe more like "ren-sel-ear") pronunciation, although most still simply prefer "RPI".
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/09/6_huge_nj_transportation_projects_that_never_got_built.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
"6 huge N.J. transportation projects that never got built"
Honestly, the article kinda sucks.
The first project listed is the one everyone knows and loathes....the missing I-95 link The Philly-Camden Aerial Tram. Why this project is even listed is kinda a question mark. Not really sure anyone would've called it a *huge* transportation project!
They also missed NJ 18's southern 6 miles, not to mention what could be dozens of other projects.
And I never realized NJ had a monorail commission!
On the topic of surprising pronunciations in Massachusetts, there's also Concord, which is pronounced like "conquered." When I was a kid, my father went into a gas station to ask for directions on how to get there and was angrily told, "Concorde is a jet, and it's spelled with a 'E.' You want to go to Concord."
Quote from: dgolub on September 28, 2015, 08:45:40 AM
On the topic of surprising pronunciations in Massachusetts, there's also Concord, which is pronounced like "conquered." When I was a kid, my father went into a gas station to ask for directions on how to get there and was angrily told, "Concorde is a jet, and it's spelled with a 'E.' You want to go to Concord."
Sorry, not even close. To the locals, it's CON-kid.
The basic rule of Boston-area pronunciation: If there's an R in the word, act as if it doesn't exist.
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 28, 2015, 10:07:59 AM
Quote from: dgolub on September 28, 2015, 08:45:40 AM
On the topic of surprising pronunciations in Massachusetts, there's also Concord, which is pronounced like "conquered." When I was a kid, my father went into a gas station to ask for directions on how to get there and was angrily told, "Concorde is a jet, and it's spelled with a 'E.' You want to go to Concord."
Sorry, not even close. To the locals, it's CON-kid.
The basic rule of Boston-area pronunciation: If there's an R in the word, act as if it doesn't exist.
Not true. The dropping the "R" is an accent-related thing, NOT pronunciation related. Anyone who lives in the Boston area without a Boston accent calls the town "Con-kerd" (indeed not pronounced like the jet Concorde). Now if the person saying it has a Boston accent, it will come out sounding like "Con-kid", but that's because their accent has them drop their "R"s. If you're not from here and don't have a Boston accent and you say "Con-kid" you will get stared at and maybe worse because it will sound insulting. "Wuss-ter" "Gloss-ter" "Con-kerd" "Kelms-ferd" "Bill-rika"
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 28, 2015, 10:39:52 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 28, 2015, 10:07:59 AM
Quote from: dgolub on September 28, 2015, 08:45:40 AM
On the topic of surprising pronunciations in Massachusetts, there's also Concord, which is pronounced like "conquered." When I was a kid, my father went into a gas station to ask for directions on how to get there and was angrily told, "Concorde is a jet, and it's spelled with a 'E.' You want to go to Concord."
Sorry, not even close. To the locals, it's CON-kid.
The basic rule of Boston-area pronunciation: If there's an R in the word, act as if it doesn't exist.
Not true. The dropping the "R" is an accent-related thing, NOT pronunciation related. Anyone who lives in the Boston area without a Boston accent calls the town "Con-kerd" (indeed not pronounced like the jet Concorde). Now if the person saying it has a Boston accent, it will come out sounding like "Con-kid", but that's because their accent has them drop their "R"s. If you're not from here and don't have a Boston accent and you say "Con-kid" you will get stared at and maybe worse because it will sound insulting. "Wuss-ter" "Gloss-ter" "Con-kerd" "Kelms-ferd" "Bill-rika"
I've been trying to leave this alone because
none of it is about New Jersey, but... "Kelms-ferd"?
iPhone
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 28, 2015, 10:46:08 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on September 28, 2015, 10:39:52 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 28, 2015, 10:07:59 AM
Quote from: dgolub on September 28, 2015, 08:45:40 AM
On the topic of surprising pronunciations in Massachusetts, there's also Concord, which is pronounced like "conquered." When I was a kid, my father went into a gas station to ask for directions on how to get there and was angrily told, "Concorde is a jet, and it's spelled with a 'E.' You want to go to Concord."
Sorry, not even close. To the locals, it's CON-kid.
The basic rule of Boston-area pronunciation: If there's an R in the word, act as if it doesn't exist.
Not true. The dropping the "R" is an accent-related thing, NOT pronunciation related. Anyone who lives in the Boston area without a Boston accent calls the town "Con-kerd" (indeed not pronounced like the jet Concorde). Now if the person saying it has a Boston accent, it will come out sounding like "Con-kid", but that's because their accent has them drop their "R"s. If you're not from here and don't have a Boston accent and you say "Con-kid" you will get stared at and maybe worse because it will sound insulting. "Wuss-ter" "Gloss-ter" "Con-kerd" "Kelms-ferd" "Bill-rika"
I've been trying to leave this alone because none of it is about New Jersey, but... "Kelms-ferd"?
iPhone
Should have written Chelms-ferd, I always say it with the hard Ch which is wrong, the main point was to illustrate that it's not Chelms-fid. It might sound like that if someone has an accent but that's not what they are trying to say.
Dragging this back on topic, does New Jersey have a mileage cap on state highways like Indiana? I haven't seen a map that's recent enough of NJ to see new additions. It seems like nothing's been added.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 28, 2015, 10:09:35 PM
Dragging this back on topic, does New Jersey have a mileage cap on state highways like Indiana? I haven't seen a map that's recent enough of NJ to see new additions. It seems like nothing's been added.
New Jersey doesn't really have the space to build new highways... I would think the newest addition of any state highway would be NJ 133, but I could be wrong.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 28, 2015, 10:21:24 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 28, 2015, 10:09:35 PM
Dragging this back on topic, does New Jersey have a mileage cap on state highways like Indiana? I haven't seen a map that's recent enough of NJ to see new additions. It seems like nothing's been added.
New Jersey doesn't really have the space to build new highways... I would think the newest addition of any state highway would be NJ 133, but I could be wrong.
Agree completely. An astounding percentage of land in New Jersey is developed, protected, or not suited to development (i.e. a mountain). There are farms, but the road network is so dense as it is that the only road additions would be in subdivisions or minor enough to be county-maintained. If there's a tree in New Jersey, chances are you can't build there (and there's not a lot of uninterrupted farmland).
Quote from: cl94 on September 28, 2015, 10:32:34 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 28, 2015, 10:21:24 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 28, 2015, 10:09:35 PM
Dragging this back on topic, does New Jersey have a mileage cap on state highways like Indiana? I haven't seen a map that's recent enough of NJ to see new additions. It seems like nothing's been added.
New Jersey doesn't really have the space to build new highways... I would think the newest addition of any state highway would be NJ 133, but I could be wrong.
One could possibly argue the missing link of 29, which is now mostly the Trenton Tunnel, was built after 133 was completed.
QuoteAgree completely. An astounding percentage of land in New Jersey is developed, protected, or not suited to development (i.e. a mountain). There are farms, but the road network is so dense as it is that the only road additions would be in subdivisions or minor enough to be county-maintained. If there's a tree in New Jersey, chances are you can't build there (and there's not a lot of uninterrupted farmland).
Oh, if there's trees, developers can take it over and build. But if the state wanted to add a little pavement, then the bike freaks come out...ignoring the acres of pavement the developers just put down.
There are some widening projects, and the NJTA just built what is practically a new 25 mile long highway with 3 lanes in each direction. And the cinco-annual "Let's complete Route 55" plea happened this year too.
So it's not a matter of a limit on state highways; it's just as has been mentioned above - there's really not much room to build new roads, and there really isn't much demand for new highways either.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 28, 2015, 10:21:24 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 28, 2015, 10:09:35 PM
Dragging this back on topic, does New Jersey have a mileage cap on state highways like Indiana? I haven't seen a map that's recent enough of NJ to see new additions. It seems like nothing's been added.
New Jersey doesn't really have the space to build new highways... I would think the newest addition of any state highway would be NJ 133, but I could be wrong.
Dude, you live in Hillsborough. You know exactly where the newest addition is. (Until the bypass is completed and 206 is de-designated.)
Quote from: Alps on September 28, 2015, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 28, 2015, 10:21:24 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 28, 2015, 10:09:35 PM
Dragging this back on topic, does New Jersey have a mileage cap on state highways like Indiana? I haven't seen a map that's recent enough of NJ to see new additions. It seems like nothing's been added.
New Jersey doesn't really have the space to build new highways... I would think the newest addition of any state highway would be NJ 133, but I could be wrong.
Dude, you live in Hillsborough. You know exactly where the newest addition is. (Until the bypass is completed and 206 is de-designated.)
I meant state (NJ) highways only. :-P
Quote from: Zeffy on September 28, 2015, 11:40:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 28, 2015, 11:37:54 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 28, 2015, 10:21:24 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 28, 2015, 10:09:35 PM
Dragging this back on topic, does New Jersey have a mileage cap on state highways like Indiana? I haven't seen a map that's recent enough of NJ to see new additions. It seems like nothing's been added.
New Jersey doesn't really have the space to build new highways... I would think the newest addition of any state highway would be NJ 133, but I could be wrong.
Dude, you live in Hillsborough. You know exactly where the newest addition is. (Until the bypass is completed and 206 is de-designated.)
I meant state (NJ) highways only. :-P
SR 206 :-P
NJ 18 is currently getting extended up to I-287.
Quote from: dgolub on September 29, 2015, 08:01:29 PM
NJ 18 is currently getting extended up to I-287.
Hasn't it ended at I-287 for the last couple years?
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 29, 2015, 08:21:18 PM
Quote from: dgolub on September 29, 2015, 08:01:29 PM
NJ 18 is currently getting extended up to I-287.
Hasn't it ended at I-287 for the last couple years?
Nope, it currently ends at Centennial Avenue, which leads to I-287.
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2015, 07:28:33 PM
SR 206 :-P
There is an errant sign in Somerville/Bridgewater that incorrectly has an NJ 202 and NJ 206 shield for US 202 and US 206, which I don't have a photo of, but I think it was erected due to the Chimney Rock Road interchange reconstruction project on US 22. Come to think of it, where is that sign now...
Unless something's changed, NJ 18 still ends at Buckingham Place last I looked, just after the curve from Davidson since they are upgrading Hoes Lane.
Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2015, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2015, 07:28:33 PM
SR 206 :-P
There is an errant sign in Somerville/Bridgewater that incorrectly has an NJ 202 and NJ 206 shield for US 202 and US 206, which I don't have a photo of, but I think it was erected due to the Chimney Rock Road interchange reconstruction project on US 22. Come to think of it, where is that sign now...
Erroneous NJ 206 shields are quite common. I can think of several examples in Morris and Sussex Counties. I know there are others, but their locations escape me. I don't recall ever seeing a NJ 202 shield, but I doubt that the Bridgewater example is the only one.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2015, 08:30:00 AM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/09/6_huge_nj_transportation_projects_that_never_got_built.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
"6 huge N.J. transportation projects that never got built"
Honestly, the article kinda sucks.
The first project listed is the one everyone knows and loathes....the missing I-95 link The Philly-Camden Aerial Tram. Why this project is even listed is kinda a question mark. Not really sure anyone would've called it a *huge* transportation project!
They also missed NJ 18's southern 6 miles, not to mention what could be dozens of other projects.
And I never realized NJ had a monorail commission!
It implies that the 95 PA turnpike interchange is the missing link.. Doesn't mention the Somerset expressway at all
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2015, 08:30:00 AM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/09/6_huge_nj_transportation_projects_that_never_got_built.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
"6 huge N.J. transportation projects that never got built"
Honestly, the article kinda sucks.
The first project listed is the one everyone knows and loathes....the missing I-95 link The Philly-Camden Aerial Tram. Why this project is even listed is kinda a question mark. Not really sure anyone would've called it a *huge* transportation project!
They also missed NJ 18's southern 6 miles, not to mention what could be dozens of other projects.
And I never realized NJ had a monorail commission!
The tram way being first is the current mass transit love fest. Not building mass transit facility is a sin whereas not building a road is a virtue
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 28, 2015, 10:09:35 PM
Dragging this back on topic, does New Jersey have a mileage cap on state highways like Indiana? I haven't seen a map that's recent enough of NJ to see new additions. It seems like nothing's been added.
I think he is saying why are roads like CR 549 in Ocean County not signed ad a state road. Although with that being said why confuse people with a number change
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2015, 08:30:00 AM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/09/6_huge_nj_transportation_projects_that_never_got_built.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
"6 huge N.J. transportation projects that never got built"
Honestly, the article kinda sucks.
The first project listed is the one everyone knows and loathes....the missing I-95 link The Philly-Camden Aerial Tram. Why this project is even listed is kinda a question mark. Not really sure anyone would've called it a *huge* transportation project!
They also missed NJ 18's southern 6 miles, not to mention what could be dozens of other projects.
And I never realized NJ had a monorail commission!
Quote from: signalman on September 30, 2015, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2015, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2015, 07:28:33 PM
SR 206 :-P
There is an errant sign in Somerville/Bridgewater that incorrectly has an NJ 202 and NJ 206 shield for US 202 and US 206, which I don't have a photo of, but I think it was erected due to the Chimney Rock Road interchange reconstruction project on US 22. Come to think of it, where is that sign now...
Erroneous NJ 206 shields are quite common. I can think of several examples in Morris and Sussex Counties. I know there are others, but their locations escape me. I don't recall ever seeing a NJ 202 shield, but I doubt that the Bridgewater example is the only one.
Apls has a bunch of examples on his site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_206/n.html).
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2015, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: signalman on September 30, 2015, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2015, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2015, 07:28:33 PM
SR 206 :-P
There is an errant sign in Somerville/Bridgewater that incorrectly has an NJ 202 and NJ 206 shield for US 202 and US 206, which I don't have a photo of, but I think it was erected due to the Chimney Rock Road interchange reconstruction project on US 22. Come to think of it, where is that sign now...
Erroneous NJ 206 shields are quite common. I can think of several examples in Morris and Sussex Counties. I know there are others, but their locations escape me. I don't recall ever seeing a NJ 202 shield, but I doubt that the Bridgewater example is the only one.
Apls has a bunch of examples on his site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_206/n.html).
NJ and NY love their erroneous shields. I've seen way too many in both states.
You and me both! I only shared what was relevant to the above discussion. There's many examples if errors in both states though.
SCH-I535
Quote from: signalman on September 30, 2015, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2015, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2015, 07:28:33 PM
SR 206 :-P
There is an errant sign in Somerville/Bridgewater that incorrectly has an NJ 202 and NJ 206 shield for US 202 and US 206, which I don't have a photo of, but I think it was erected due to the Chimney Rock Road interchange reconstruction project on US 22. Come to think of it, where is that sign now...
Erroneous NJ 206 shields are quite common. I can think of several examples in Morris and Sussex Counties. I know there are others, but their locations escape me. I don't recall ever seeing a NJ 202 shield, but I doubt that the Bridgewater example is the only one.
I live by a few 202's.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 29, 2015, 11:25:33 PM
Unless something's changed, NJ 18 still ends at Buckingham Place last I looked, just after the curve from Davidson since they are upgrading Hoes Lane.
Which is still behind schedule.... by at least a year now. The good news is at least part of Centennial Ave. is finally getting paved. Piscataway does a poor job of upkeep on that road and Hoes Ln. I'm surprised it was never taken over by the county.
Quote from: Alps on September 30, 2015, 07:16:39 PM
I live by a few 202's.
Ah, yes. I forgot that there's a few in your neck of the woods.
Quote from: cl94 on September 30, 2015, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2015, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: signalman on September 30, 2015, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2015, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2015, 07:28:33 PM
SR 206 :-P
There is an errant sign in Somerville/Bridgewater that incorrectly has an NJ 202 and NJ 206 shield for US 202 and US 206, which I don't have a photo of, but I think it was erected due to the Chimney Rock Road interchange reconstruction project on US 22. Come to think of it, where is that sign now...
Erroneous NJ 206 shields are quite common. I can think of several examples in Morris and Sussex Counties. I know there are others, but their locations escape me. I don't recall ever seeing a NJ 202 shield, but I doubt that the Bridgewater example is the only one.
Apls has a bunch of examples on his site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_206/n.html).
NJ and NY love their erroneous shields. I've seen way too many in both states.
PA did too. I remember back in the 80's Bucks County had plenty of PA 202 shields along its path of US 202. I also think, I cannot remember where, but I saw a erroneous PA 322 sign for US 202 someplace. I want to say Hershey, but I cannot be sure.
I have not traveled PA roads on a regular basis after moving to Florida, so I do not know if they still exist.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2015, 09:00:30 AM
Quote from: cl94 on September 30, 2015, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2015, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: signalman on September 30, 2015, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2015, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2015, 07:28:33 PM
SR 206 :-P
There is an errant sign in Somerville/Bridgewater that incorrectly has an NJ 202 and NJ 206 shield for US 202 and US 206, which I don't have a photo of, but I think it was erected due to the Chimney Rock Road interchange reconstruction project on US 22. Come to think of it, where is that sign now...
Erroneous NJ 206 shields are quite common. I can think of several examples in Morris and Sussex Counties. I know there are others, but their locations escape me. I don't recall ever seeing a NJ 202 shield, but I doubt that the Bridgewater example is the only one.
Apls has a bunch of examples on his site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_206/n.html).
NJ and NY love their erroneous shields. I've seen way too many in both states.
PA did too. I remember back in the 80's Bucks County had plenty of PA 202 shields along its path of US 202. I also think, I cannot remember where, but I saw a erroneous PA 322 sign for US 202 someplace. I want to say Hershey, but I cannot be sure.
I have not traveled PA roads on a regular basis after moving to Florida, so I do not know if they still exist.
Not as much anymore, at least not in the northern and western parts of the state. Haven't seen an erroneous sign in Pennsylvania in quite a while.
Quote from: cl94 on October 01, 2015, 09:38:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 01, 2015, 09:00:30 AM
Quote from: cl94 on September 30, 2015, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2015, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: signalman on September 30, 2015, 12:21:03 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on September 29, 2015, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2015, 07:28:33 PM
SR 206 :-P
There is an errant sign in Somerville/Bridgewater that incorrectly has an NJ 202 and NJ 206 shield for US 202 and US 206, which I don't have a photo of, but I think it was erected due to the Chimney Rock Road interchange reconstruction project on US 22. Come to think of it, where is that sign now...
Erroneous NJ 206 shields are quite common. I can think of several examples in Morris and Sussex Counties. I know there are others, but their locations escape me. I don't recall ever seeing a NJ 202 shield, but I doubt that the Bridgewater example is the only one.
Apls has a bunch of examples on his site (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_206/n.html).
NJ and NY love their erroneous shields. I've seen way too many in both states.
PA did too. I remember back in the 80's Bucks County had plenty of PA 202 shields along its path of US 202. I also think, I cannot remember where, but I saw a erroneous PA 322 sign for US 202 someplace. I want to say Hershey, but I cannot be sure.
I have not traveled PA roads on a regular basis after moving to Florida, so I do not know if they still exist.
Not as much anymore, at least not in the northern and western parts of the state. Haven't seen an erroneous sign in Pennsylvania in quite a while.
Every US highway has a keystone somewhere. I even found PA 1's during construction. 209's is right up near 6. 30's is toward the west.
Sometimes New Jersey state highways get keystones too. :P
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2015, 11:22:04 PM
Every US highway has a keystone somewhere. I even found PA 1's during construction. 209's is right up near 6. 30's is toward the west.
I don't recall ever seeing one for 22 or 222. Have you?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 01, 2015, 11:41:24 PM
Sometimes New Jersey state highways get keystones too. :P
Yep, that happens on occasion too. The one closest to me was for 183 on a BGS in Mount Olive. This was about 15 years ago and the error was quickly fixed.
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2015, 11:22:04 PM
Every US highway has a keystone somewhere. I even found PA 1's during construction. 209's is right up near 6. 30's is toward the west.
I just saw a PA 1 sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1876038,-74.8663424,3a,75y,195.76h,79.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s256Ur9qaE7jmj3EdLDa6Ww!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D256Ur9qaE7jmj3EdLDa6Ww%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.11552%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) last week.
Quote from: signalman on October 02, 2015, 12:54:33 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2015, 11:22:04 PM
Every US highway has a keystone somewhere. I even found PA 1's during construction. 209's is right up near 6. 30's is toward the west.
I don't recall ever seeing one for 22 or 222. Have you?
There's a 222 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.062204,-76.3058773,3a,15.3y,213.74h,85.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgpa27MChsi5klOp905zW4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-US) keystone in Lancaster just south of 30, and a 22 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.393507,-77.8791086,3a,75y,18.64h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3_PiKSidLWNQ4hod1a3bbw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US) at Mt. Union. There are some new 22 keystones on side roads at the reconstructed part near Fredericksburg, but Street View is too old to show them.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 02, 2015, 11:59:32 AM
Quote from: signalman on October 02, 2015, 12:54:33 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2015, 11:22:04 PM
Every US highway has a keystone somewhere. I even found PA 1's during construction. 209's is right up near 6. 30's is toward the west.
I don't recall ever seeing one for 22 or 222. Have you?
There's a 222 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.062204,-76.3058773,3a,15.3y,213.74h,85.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgpa27MChsi5klOp905zW4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-US) keystone in Lancaster just south of 30, and a 22 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.393507,-77.8791086,3a,75y,18.64h,89.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3_PiKSidLWNQ4hod1a3bbw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en-US) at Mt. Union. There are some new 22 keystones on side roads at the reconstructed part near Fredericksburg, but Street View is too old to show them.
Some PA 13 shields in Norwood, Delaware County. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Prospect+Park,+PA/@39.8889353,-75.3010043,3a,75y,155.04h,79.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saXDx9d3h0L2mgjqOsGhcDA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DaXDx9d3h0L2mgjqOsGhcDA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D51.4801%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c6c2ef773d3aaf:0xfc5fc55908ccbd0!6m1!1e1) All the Route 13 trailblazer signs along W. Amosland Road are PA 13 shields.
These 3 separate assemblies with a mix of US & PA 13 shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8814427,-75.3052118,3a,75y,1.75h,80.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRCZZaiXBG6t6aZSItHDR1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) replaced a composite assembly (erected in the early 1990s) that was damaged in an accident a few years ago.
There is also a PA 13 shield along U.S. 1 Business in Levittown.
Awhile ago, I located a PA 322 shield in Stage College, leaving the Penn State campus.
And . . . in a role reversal, PA 32 was upgraded to U.S. 32 in Morrisville at the last intersection before the Trenton Makes Bridge.
Since we're talking about US routes having state shields; MA has a few offenders as well (stand-alones as well as on LGS'). I've seen erroneous state shields in the Bay State for US 1, 3 (where it's actually US 3) 20 & 202. ConnDOT recently posted some erroneous CT 6 shields where it multiplexes w/I-84.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 02, 2015, 04:35:28 PM
Since we're talking about US routes having state shields; MA has a few offenders as well (stand-alones as well as on LGS'). I've seen erroneous state shields in the Bay State for US 1, 3 (where it's actually US 3) 20 & 202. ConnDOT recently posted some erroneous CT 6 shields where it multiplexes w/I-84.
To keep it on topic, a rogue contractor has designated part of Mass. Route 2 in Concord or Lincoln a New Jersey state route. Someone surely has a photo of the sign online, but I could not find it in a quick search.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 02, 2015, 04:35:28 PM
Since we're talking about US routes having state shields; MA has a few offenders as well (stand-alones as well as on LGS'). I've seen erroneous state shields in the Bay State for US 1, 3 (where it's actually US 3) 20 & 202. ConnDOT recently posted some erroneous CT 6 shields where it multiplexes w/I-84.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYkZJTNo.jpg&hash=64fa2d1677aa3828dc0a5900250df155b79f9220)
*cough, cough*
STOP POLLUTING THE THREAD
Two exciting discoveries today.
NJ 61 - a route I never knew existed (now 161) (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/log/6.html#61)
Essex County's original route numbers (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/log/essex.html) - EDITS - figured out the missing bits, I think. Review still welcome, just provide evidence
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2015, 08:44:57 AM
One thing that doesn't happen every day is a true road widening project by NJDOT. However, they are planning on doing one with NJ's Route 66 (not to be confused with some other famous Route 66).
It's not the longest widening project in the world...it'll consist of about 1.5 mile of dualizing a current 1 lane-per-direction roadway. This stretch is between sections of Rt. 66 which are already 2 lanes in each direction.
One thing that helps is that the Right of Way has always existed for a widening. The only ROW needed will be for a stormwater detention basin.
Construction is projected to start in 2019.
News Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout102115rt.pdf
Map of General Area: https://goo.gl/maps/B5djRKKsDjC2
It's about time as they've been talking about this for awhile. I'll probably go to that meeting. Still waiting for a widening of NJ 35 from 70/34 to 138 through Wall Township to come up on the radar, which sorely needs it.
Large sinkhole on N.J. highway ramp causes closures, police say (http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2015/10/large_sinkhole_on_nj_highway_ramp_causes_closures.html)
The ramp in question is Ramp D from 23 SB to 287 SB, which is closed due to a large sinkhole which caused a pavement collapse.
N.Y. Times: New Jersey Transportation Chief to Leave Amid Federal Inquiry (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/nyregion/new-jersey-transportation-chief-to-leave-amid-federal-inquiry.html)
QuoteNew Jersey's transportation commissioner, who has been the subject of questions in a federal inquiry into dealings between United Airlines and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, will leave the job by the end of the month, Gov. Chris Christie announced on Friday.
QuoteThe commissioner, Jamie Fox, has long been a fixture of New Jersey politics, serving in the same position in the administration of former Gov. James E. McGreevey. Between those stints, Mr. Fox was a lobbyist for prominent clients, including United.
QuoteThe United States attorney's office in Newark is investigating whether United reinstated flights to a South Carolina airport close to the weekend home of David Samson, the former Port Authority chairman, in exchange for concessions the airline sought from the agency. Mr. Samson is said to have raised the issue with United officials at a dinner that Mr. Fox attended in Manhattan in September 2011.
The US 22 and Chimney Rock Road Interchange is now officially open!
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/10/06/route-22-interchange-opens/73374028/
Quote from: Zeffy on October 08, 2015, 10:44:21 PM
The US 22 and Chimney Rock Road Interchange is now officially open!
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/10/06/route-22-interchange-opens/73374028/
Nice! I have to head that way this weekend, I will make sure to check it out.
I like the fact that New York comes before Newark on the new guide signs for SB Chimney Rock Road. Also its still uppercase lettering as New Jersey has gone MUTCD and for some time has been adding mix cased signing even on LGS replacements.
While not exactly road related here, I threw this in the NJ section anyway...
The NJ State Library in Trenton has a series of speakers that comes in every few weeks or so to discuss a NJ related topic. Past discussions have included items such as the History of the New Jersey Turnpike. In a few weeks, the presentation will touch on another NJ institution found among our roads...Diners.
QuoteThe next author talk is on October 21st from noon to 1 p.m. and is about New Jersey's diners. Universally known as the Diner Capital of the World, New Jersey's highways and main streets are brightened by the silver Airstreams and neon signs of the classic American diner. Join us as Michael Gabriele shares memories of New Jersey diners as well as interviews with owners, patrons and experts.
All are welcome to this free program. RSVP is appreciated. Please respond to Cindy Warrick at 609-278-2640 ext. 172 or cwarrick@njstatelib.org.
Some pictures from the new 22/Chimney Rock Rd interchange:
EB:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlWsPiiY.jpg&hash=3b3da4de9414c9c19ab09b272730af4254ffa7d0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2Cog0rN.jpg&hash=5408249af3429eb2d3d682da4ba356f40b29480f)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWuedqEq.jpg&hash=8c090adbf6efed80ff9dcbcab33a89349ec613a9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FStsiWgM.jpg&hash=37dc3f29661a3ead83baccca0088b0d4254214ad)
WB:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmUVX4SP.jpg&hash=0ecaf49e37e8efce378bbb64fa9dc29f2c3f0c64)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtBY29zk.jpg&hash=74cca8b8ce42c0b8ea5d754f76f76ccca8753249)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPqawRLj.jpg&hash=77a5e6366a693318efdf819c6d302aac4df867c0)
Some notes:
-Interesting that the shields all have backplates, even though other signs on 22WB at 287 that were replaced first do not (see last photo).
-Don't know why they really need to call it the 22 Service Rd. It's really just for the exit, and traffic coming in from 287NB.
-No mention of CR-525 on the Thompson Ave signs, but Chimney Rock Rd signs all have CR-675 shields, even though state guidelines call for not signing 6XX routes.
-22EB still shows New York as control city even though the signs on 287 (correctly) show Newark.
-Thompson Ave onramp to 22EB now has no merge. That's a welcome improvement.
There are three holes in NJ state route numbering: 16, 86, 89. I have to think they were proposed for various routes at one time, especially 16. I'm more convinced since I discovered 61. Thoughts?
Quote from: Alps on October 10, 2015, 09:28:11 PM
There are three holes in NJ state route numbering: 16, 86, 89. I have to think they were proposed for various routes at one time, especially 16. I'm more convinced since I discovered 61. Thoughts?
16 was once US 122, then US 202. It became US 122 in 1927, then sometime in the 50s or so it became US 202.
Other than that, 86 and 89 haven't been used for anything yet. It seems they never were used since NJ made their route system.
Quote from: noelbotevera on October 11, 2015, 01:26:48 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 10, 2015, 09:28:11 PM
There are three holes in NJ state route numbering: 16, 86, 89. I have to think they were proposed for various routes at one time, especially 16. I'm more convinced since I discovered 61. Thoughts?
16 was once US 122, then US 202. It became US 122 in 1927, then sometime in the 50s or so it became US 202.
Other than that, 86 and 89 haven't been used for anything yet. It seems they never were used since NJ made their route system.
I'm not looking at the original pre-1927 system. Post-1927 when everything was renumbered, 1-12 were in the northern part of the state and then it started again at 20. Here's what happened chronologically:
* 13 was assigned to CR 13N in Ocean
* 17 was assigned to 2 to match NY
* 15 was assigned to S6 and 18 was assigned to S28 (1953 renumbering)
* 14 was assigned to a proposed Bergen County freeway
* 19 was assigned to the leftover piece of 20 (1988)
As you can see, there's no reason why 16 should necessarily have existed, but it's then the only number in the bottom 85 with no story. We only discovered 14 a few years ago thanks to a single newspaper article from the 1960s. It's possible that 16 hides in a similarly obscure place for a similarly obscure proposal.
Its likely the backplate-less signs came from a contractor while the eastbound signs were all from NJDOT's sign shop. They have been posting new signs with the back plate still.
Why is I-287 still being signed to u turn at Thompson Avenue? Now with the Chimney Rock exit you can u turn there much easier and less fuel to burn for your money and to also cut down on pollution.
I know that some may argue that the I-287 shields are not needed at all even at the Thompson exit because US 202 & 206 is the connection going EB, but I think the reasoning was for those patronizing businesses along US 22 between US 202 & 206 and I-287 who need to access I-287 northbound as well as those entering US 22 from Finderne Avenue and Foothill Road which intersects the EB lanes of US 22 right after the I-287 Southbound exit. Plus you travel I-287 N Bound and you exit at US 22 to lodge at either the Red Bull Inn or the Days Inn, or eat at the Bridgewater Diner (or whatever name it goes by nowadays), you now have no way to get back onto I-287 N Bound due to the lack of EB to NB connection, so that sign is guidance for those motorists as well.
Is the DOT starting to put rumble strips on the shoulders of non-freeways now? I took a ride through Hunterdon County on my bike and along about 5 miles of Route 12, they're there complete with rocks and gravel all over the shoulder. I also know Zeffy's favorite road the US 206 bypass also has them. There hasn't been any information online that indeed states they're being actively added in the shoulders.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 11, 2015, 06:33:22 PM
Is the DOT starting to put rumble strips on the shoulders of non-freeways now? I took a ride through Hunterdon County on my bike and along about 5 miles of Route 12, they're there complete with rocks and gravel all over the shoulder. I also know Zeffy's favorite road the US 206 bypass also has them. There hasn't been any information online that indeed states they're being actively added in the shoulders.
NJ 347 (and some areas of the southern portion of 47, I believe) has had shoulder rumble strips for several years. They seem to be installed in a case-by-case basis, when they feel they are necessary.
347 is county-maintained, I've seen other Cumberland County roads with such rumble strips (Warren too). I did submit a complaint to the website about the dirty shoulders and a really rough section of 29 right where a recent repaving ended but I don't expect any action or reply (maybe I'll have to write another letter to Linda Greenstein even though those two are WAY out of her district). I did notice that the traffic light at US 1/546 ped countdown that I mentioned in another thread was fixed.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2015, 02:40:45 PM
Why is I-287 still being signed to u turn at Thompson Avenue? Now with the Chimney Rock exit you can u turn there much easier and less fuel to burn for your money and to also cut down on pollution.
I know that some may argue that the I-287 shields are not needed at all even at the Thompson exit because US 202 & 206 is the connection going EB, but I think the reasoning was for those patronizing businesses along US 22 between US 202 & 206 and I-287 who need to access I-287 northbound as well as those entering US 22 from Finderne Avenue and Foothill Road which intersects the EB lanes of US 22 right after the I-287 Southbound exit. Plus you travel I-287 N Bound and you exit at US 22 to lodge at either the Red Bull Inn or the Days Inn, or eat at the Bridgewater Diner (or whatever name it goes by nowadays), you now have no way to get back onto I-287 N Bound due to the lack of EB to NB connection, so that sign is guidance for those motorists as well.
The 287 shield is a holdover. They didn't really remove any signs there, just added the ground mount BGS without the CR-525 shield.
Well they really should move the I-287 shield to the new exit, or eliminate the new county route shield and attach a I-287 shield to it instead.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 11, 2015, 06:33:22 PM
Is the DOT starting to put rumble strips on the shoulders of non-freeways now? I took a ride through Hunterdon County on my bike and along about 5 miles of Route 12, they're there complete with rocks and gravel all over the shoulder. I also know Zeffy's favorite road the US 206 bypass also has them. There hasn't been any information online that indeed states they're being actively added in the shoulders.
There is a big push to go all PennDOT on the highways and even to do centerline rumble strips in far too many locations with no known crash history of crossovers. I don't know why the nanny state is winning, but I do know we just lost Jamie Fox, so maybe things will get better (maybe)*.
* Not sure he has and doesn't have anything to do with it.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 01:14:06 AM
Well they really should move the I-287 shield to the new exit, or eliminate the new county route shield and attach a I-287 shield to it instead.
287 doesn't need to be signed at either location, really. This is only about a mile after the 287 SB exit and NJDOT has 287 NB signed to use the 202/206 NB exit a few miles prior (which makes good sense). This only really made sense for people using the businesses along the side of 22 to get back to 287, and with the reconfiguration, they're on the service road or on Chimney Rock so that's where the signs should be.
Quote from: storm2k on October 12, 2015, 10:45:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2015, 01:14:06 AM
Well they really should move the I-287 shield to the new exit, or eliminate the new county route shield and attach a I-287 shield to it instead.
287 doesn't need to be signed at either location, really. This is only about a mile after the 287 SB exit and NJDOT has 287 NB signed to use the 202/206 NB exit a few miles prior (which makes good sense). This only really made sense for people using the businesses along the side of 22 to get back to 287, and with the reconfiguration, they're on the service road or on Chimney Rock so that's where the signs should be.
The few times I've used businesses along 22, it was very confusing which way to go on 22 to get back on 287. I seem to remember seeing 287 shields in both directions, so I followed one of them and did get on 287 eventually. Probably was shorter to go the other way (I don't remember which way I went). This was all before the new interchange, though.
Actually I agree with you on that one. I-287 being signed at US 202/206 for I-287 was wonderful when they did that back in 1987 when that interchange was reconfigured so the mall could handle the increased traffic. Before so there was no direct exit ramp to US 202 & 206 N Bound from US 22 E Bound. There was one ramp to US 202 & 206 S Bound where it was signed for both as you made a quick U turn to go N Bound after you exited. Anyway no signs for I-287 N Bound there in them days. In fact the signs in question were there before the US 22 & 202/206 interchange improvements were made which made absolutely no sense to me.
However the businesses along US 22 that cater to I-287 motorists in the area do need the signs for the lack of movements there. In my opinion a TO I-287 shield should be installed on NB Finderne Avenue at NJ 28 to help aide motorists to the interstate that just misses it by inches when it terminates at US 22 at a RIRO intersection. Also a TO I-287 N Bound shield needs to be placed at Adamsville Road this way those who lodge at the Red Bull Inn do not have to make a double u turn to get back on the interstate. Also its another second chance reminder just in case you missed the actual exit onto I-287 northbound previously.
Another question would be, why did NJDOT remove the movement to US 202 & 206 S Bound from US 22 E Bound? Now to get to Somerville you must use Mountain Avenue to NJ 28 and for the two routes proper, you must exit at NJ 28 three miles in advance. BTW NJDOT only installed the TO US 202 & 206 S Bound shields at NJ 28 years after the ramp was moved and not at completion of the new US 22 & US 202/206 interchange when the change was made. Also considering that part of that project was to add a NB to WB movement that did not exist before ( a u turn ramp was north of US 22 that aided in this previously) someone should have seen that this is the direct opposite of the flow and a bell should have went off in the project manager's head.
Found 2-digit circle 202 and 206 shields on the 22 EB-202/206 NB ramp today. Never took that ramp before.
The 2015 Version of the Straight Line Diagrams are now available on the NJDOT website.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/
I thought those were available for quite some time now? I remember downloading them earlier this year...
The 2015 Version was published on Oct 14. Prior to that was the 2014 version. They look exactly identical, save for a few minor changes.
And in true Jersey fashion, half the links are broken.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 26, 2015, 01:38:03 PM
And in true Jersey fashion, half the links are broken.
Which links? I haven't encountered any broken links yet.
A sampling of the 600-county routes don't seem to be working, the one for 156 (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000156__-.pdf) which I accessed on Friday isn't now.
Quote from: Alps on October 11, 2015, 02:19:02 AM
I'm not looking at the original pre-1927 system. Post-1927 when everything was renumbered, 1-12 were in the northern part of the state and then it started again at 20. Here's what happened chronologically:
* 13 was assigned to CR 13N in Ocean
* 17 was assigned to 2 to match NY
* 15 was assigned to S6 and 18 was assigned to S28 (1953 renumbering)
* 14 was assigned to a proposed Bergen County freeway
* 19 was assigned to the leftover piece of 20 (1988)
Correct chronology:
1927: 1-12 and 21-50 legislated (12 was not in the original bill)
1938: CR 13E taken over by state; became 13 in 1953
1939: 18 legislated from Old Bridge to Eatontown
1939: 19 legislated from Paterson to Newark
1942: 17 replaced 2 to match NY
1953: 15 replaced 6A
1953: 20 replaced part of 3
1960s: 14 proposed
14, 15, and 20 were the only numbers chosen entirely by NJDOT (and predecessors). I don't know why they were chosen (or why any of the post-1953 numbers were chosen).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 26, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
A sampling of the 600-county routes don't seem to be working, the one for 156 (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000156__-.pdf) which I accessed on Friday isn't now.
Maybe your Adobe isn't upgraded to a current version, or something's blocking it from being viewed. I clicked on the link you provided and it opened without a problem.
What is up with NJDOT eliminating the truck climb lane on NJ 23 south in Hardyston Township just south of the CR 517 split in Franklin?
If I am not mistaken that part of NJ 23 is in dyer need of either widening or a freeway bypass for decades due to Franklin and Hardyston both developing every empty lot of NJ 23 from Stockholm to Sussex.
Now they restriped the whole entire thing to where the original general purpose lane is now a wide buffer median less divider and the former truck lane is now the all purpose SB lane.
Has anyone mentioned the new signs heading north on I-95 that list Lawrence [Township] as the control city here yet? Very interesting choice.
I feel like someone brought this up but the last 4 pages don't seem like it...
Quote from: Zeffy on November 09, 2015, 03:05:59 PM
Has anyone mentioned the new signs heading north on I-95 that list Lawrence [Township] as the control city here yet? Very interesting choice.
I feel like someone brought this up but the last 4 pages don't seem like it...
They got to be kidding? Lawrence replacing Princeton or New York. That is like Ewing being I-295's mileage control point on its mileage signs.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 09, 2015, 03:05:59 PM
Has anyone mentioned the new signs heading north on I-95 that list Lawrence [Township] as the control city here yet? Very interesting choice.
I feel like someone brought this up but the last 4 pages don't seem like it...
yeah, you did.
Quote from: odditude on October 08, 2015, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 08, 2015, 06:05:43 AM
Here's an interesting one that I don't have a photo of - on I-95 north of Trenton, just past Exit 1, there are now pull through signs that state I-95 NORTH TO I-295 SOUTH LAWRENCE.
How Lawrence Township got chosen over a myriad of other cities is beyond me.
i can give you the technical reason - Lawrence Twp is where the changeover occurs. regardless, i'm not a fan either.
the sign in question is on the new assembly at Exit 2, which somebody beat with an ugly stick before installing.
I noticed that a u turn ramp now exists on I-278 near its western terminus. I see it on GSV and the maps. There is a detour Goethals Bridge sign at the ramp along with an I-278 shield as well.
What is the nature of this?
Goethals Bridge construction has the Turnpike ramp to the bridge closed from time to time, that is the detour.
I am guessing that has to do with the bridge replacement.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 15, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
I noticed that a u turn ramp now exists on I-278 near its western terminus. I see it on GSV and the maps. There is a detour Goethals Bridge sign at the ramp along with an I-278 shield as well.
What is the nature of this?
The ramp from 439 (Bayway) to 278EB onto the bridge is closed as part of the construction. Detour is posted on to 278 WB. I was curious what they were doing with traffic from there since there is no other exits before 278 ends at 1-9.
I am interested in seeing just how many people will use the proposed full interchange with US 1 & 9 that will allow WB to NB and SB to EB.
Do not get me wrong, its about time they addressed that issue, however I do not think if I was coming off the Goethals Bridge if I would stay on I-278 to US 1 & 9 North. I would still use NJ 439 to South Broad Street to US 1 & 9 North. Southbound US 1 & 9 is iffy as you cannot make a direct left onto S. Broad Street from US 1 & 9 S Bound and I do not know for sure if the timing would be any different using the new interchange and doubling back than to go around the Bayway Circle and transit the non freeway NJ 439 that goes directly to the bridge in a shorter distance, but with the stop lights.
Quote from: storm2k on November 16, 2015, 03:29:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 15, 2015, 03:52:16 PM
I noticed that a u turn ramp now exists on I-278 near its western terminus. I see it on GSV and the maps. There is a detour Goethals Bridge sign at the ramp along with an I-278 shield as well.
What is the nature of this?
The ramp from 439 (Bayway) to 278EB onto the bridge is closed as part of the construction. Detour is posted on to 278 WB. I was curious what they were doing with traffic from there since there is no other exits before 278 ends at 1-9.
This is correct.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2015, 05:27:10 AM
I am interested in seeing just how many people will use the proposed full interchange with US 1 & 9 that will allow WB to NB and SB to EB.
That is a thoughtful question. My thinking is that the Bayway (439) will be restricted to trucks, so all of the long trucks currently going through that neighborhood to get to US 1&9 will now be on I-278. That would be REALLY nice.
Back on the note of the SLDs, NJ 68 (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000068__-.pdf) still officially ends inside of Fort Dix despite access to the end being restricted for more than a decade. According to said SLD, NJDOT still has jurisdiction over the entire route, even the portion at and beyond the gate. How is that practically achieved? Do NJDOT snowplows have to clear security at the gate to the base? If the road beyond the gate needs a pothole filled, who does that - NJDOT or the Military?
I'd assume base crews take care of the plowing. Last time I was on the base, NJDOT signing was still posted at the circle along with Milepost 0. Same goes for the county routes that used to pass through the base. Burlington County doesn't maintain them anymore.
The little-used US 130 in South Jersey at the Salem/Gloucester County line will be closed for a few months, starting Nov. 20th, to remove the liftbridge cabilities of this bridge.
Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/111915.shtm
GSV Location: https://goo.gl/maps/uf5qeDEvsUx
While built to allow tall watercraft to go underneath, I don't believe it has ever been used. When one takes a close look at the guiderail, they didn't even bother to place a break in the rail: https://goo.gl/maps/VMnXVsHLTfF2 . And there's nothing to stop traffic if the bridge was actually in operation (no lights, gates, etc).
About 5 miles north of here, and just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge area, is another lift bridge on a busier portion of US 130 over Raccoon Creek ( https://goo.gl/maps/EAEFa4fuyCp ). While rarely used, this lift bridge is in operation, and the station is staffed from 7am to 11pm. This bridge is scheduled to be replaced, with request for bids going out shorty. The new bridge will be a fixed span to allow 25' of clearance underneath.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 19, 2015, 03:38:54 PM
The little-used US 130 in South Jersey at the Salem/Gloucester County line will be closed for a few months, starting Nov. 20th, to remove the liftbridge cabilities of this bridge.
Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/111915.shtm
GSV Location: https://goo.gl/maps/uf5qeDEvsUx
While built to allow tall watercraft to go underneath, I don't believe it has ever been used. When one takes a close look at the guiderail, they didn't even bother to place a break in the rail: https://goo.gl/maps/VMnXVsHLTfF2 . And there's nothing to stop traffic if the bridge was actually in operation (no lights, gates, etc).
About 5 miles north of here, and just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge area, is another lift bridge on a busier portion of US 130 over Raccoon Creek ( https://goo.gl/maps/EAEFa4fuyCp ). While rarely used, this lift bridge is in operation, and the station is staffed from 7am to 11pm. This bridge is scheduled to be replaced, with request for bids going out shorty. The new bridge will be a fixed span to allow 25' of clearance underneath.
As long as they don't remove the neat old NO FISHING sign heading SB that I just saw in GSV.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 19, 2015, 03:38:54 PM
The little-used US 130 in South Jersey at the Salem/Gloucester County line will be closed for a few months, starting Nov. 20th, to remove the liftbridge cabilities of this bridge.
Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/111915.shtm
GSV Location: https://goo.gl/maps/uf5qeDEvsUx
While built to allow tall watercraft to go underneath, I don't believe it has ever been used. When one takes a close look at the guiderail, they didn't even bother to place a break in the rail: https://goo.gl/maps/VMnXVsHLTfF2 . And there's nothing to stop traffic if the bridge was actually in operation (no lights, gates, etc).
About 5 miles north of here, and just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge area, is another lift bridge on a busier portion of US 130 over Raccoon Creek ( https://goo.gl/maps/EAEFa4fuyCp ). While rarely used, this lift bridge is in operation, and the station is staffed from 7am to 11pm. This bridge is scheduled to be replaced, with request for bids going out shorty. The new bridge will be a fixed span to allow 25' of clearance underneath.
I'll miss being able to see those tall lift mechanisms from I-495 in Delaware... :( :)
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on November 19, 2015, 07:28:05 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 19, 2015, 03:38:54 PM
The little-used US 130 in South Jersey at the Salem/Gloucester County line will be closed for a few months, starting Nov. 20th, to remove the liftbridge cabilities of this bridge.
Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/111915.shtm
GSV Location: https://goo.gl/maps/uf5qeDEvsUx
While built to allow tall watercraft to go underneath, I don't believe it has ever been used. When one takes a close look at the guiderail, they didn't even bother to place a break in the rail: https://goo.gl/maps/VMnXVsHLTfF2 . And there's nothing to stop traffic if the bridge was actually in operation (no lights, gates, etc).
About 5 miles north of here, and just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge area, is another lift bridge on a busier portion of US 130 over Raccoon Creek ( https://goo.gl/maps/EAEFa4fuyCp ). While rarely used, this lift bridge is in operation, and the station is staffed from 7am to 11pm. This bridge is scheduled to be replaced, with request for bids going out shorty. The new bridge will be a fixed span to allow 25' of clearance underneath.
I'll miss being able to see those tall lift mechanisms from I-495 in Delaware... :( :)
ixnay
No you won't. They're only removing counterweights and wires.
Quote from: Alps on November 20, 2015, 12:00:39 AM
Quote from: ixnay on November 19, 2015, 07:28:05 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 19, 2015, 03:38:54 PM
The little-used US 130 in South Jersey at the Salem/Gloucester County line will be closed for a few months, starting Nov. 20th, to remove the liftbridge cabilities of this bridge.
Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/111915.shtm
GSV Location: https://goo.gl/maps/uf5qeDEvsUx
While built to allow tall watercraft to go underneath, I don't believe it has ever been used. When one takes a close look at the guiderail, they didn't even bother to place a break in the rail: https://goo.gl/maps/VMnXVsHLTfF2 . And there's nothing to stop traffic if the bridge was actually in operation (no lights, gates, etc).
About 5 miles north of here, and just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge area, is another lift bridge on a busier portion of US 130 over Raccoon Creek ( https://goo.gl/maps/EAEFa4fuyCp ). While rarely used, this lift bridge is in operation, and the station is staffed from 7am to 11pm. This bridge is scheduled to be replaced, with request for bids going out shorty. The new bridge will be a fixed span to allow 25' of clearance underneath.
I'll miss being able to see those tall lift mechanisms from I-495 in Delaware... :( :)
ixnay
No you won't. They're only removing counterweights and wires.
Well, good! That should shorten the time the detour is in effect. Those towers are landmarks (I've driven that Penns Grove-Bridgeport stretch of 130 a couple of times).
You said the Raccoon Creek bridge is being replaced. Will the new bridge be built beside the lift bridge? If so, that should render a detour unnecessary depending on work room.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on November 20, 2015, 07:24:07 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 20, 2015, 12:00:39 AM
Quote from: ixnay on November 19, 2015, 07:28:05 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 19, 2015, 03:38:54 PM
The little-used US 130 in South Jersey at the Salem/Gloucester County line will be closed for a few months, starting Nov. 20th, to remove the liftbridge cabilities of this bridge.
Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/111915.shtm
GSV Location: https://goo.gl/maps/uf5qeDEvsUx
While built to allow tall watercraft to go underneath, I don't believe it has ever been used. When one takes a close look at the guiderail, they didn't even bother to place a break in the rail: https://goo.gl/maps/VMnXVsHLTfF2 . And there's nothing to stop traffic if the bridge was actually in operation (no lights, gates, etc).
About 5 miles north of here, and just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge area, is another lift bridge on a busier portion of US 130 over Raccoon Creek ( https://goo.gl/maps/EAEFa4fuyCp ). While rarely used, this lift bridge is in operation, and the station is staffed from 7am to 11pm. This bridge is scheduled to be replaced, with request for bids going out shorty. The new bridge will be a fixed span to allow 25' of clearance underneath.
I'll miss being able to see those tall lift mechanisms from I-495 in Delaware... :( :)
ixnay
No you won't. They're only removing counterweights and wires.
Well, good! That should shorten the time the detour is in effect. Those towers are landmarks (I've driven that Penns Grove-Bridgeport stretch of 130 a couple of times).
You said the Raccoon Creek bridge is being replaced. Will the new bridge be built beside the lift bridge? If so, that should render a detour unnecessary depending on work room.
ixnay
Correct...there won't be any detours in effect for this bridge. The Southbound lanes will be built next to the existing bridge. When that bridge is complete (they'll have to narrow US 130 to 1-lane per direction during the construction), the existing lift bridge will be demolished and the Northbound bridge will be built.
I found this via a Google search (which I never found searching on NJDOT's own website): https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10453.msg2106752;boardseen#quickreply from 2010. Some of the highlights from this report are below. You can also use this aerial view to help understand some of the locations mentioned: https://goo.gl/maps/zoMmpiEQZAu (Note: NJ 324 is incorrectly labeled here. It is actually Island Road, a local township road.)
The new overpass will be built over Raccoon Creek and over the local roads just to the north of it: Main Street & Island Road. Those two roads will no longer have access to US 130 here. While most traffic will probably use Main Street to Barker Ave to access 130 North, it would probably increase the traffic flow on Springer Lane, which winds underneath the Commodore Barry Bridge.
Sheets Road, which looks likes a decent side road on the aerial image but it really a narrow alleyway, yet has access to 130 North, will have that access removed.
The new overpass's beams will be made of weathered steel.
The new overpass will have a design speed of 65 mph and a posted speed of 55 mph (which is what is currently posted).
LOS is A both now and expected in the future. The most significant traffic load is traffic going from/to the Commodore Barry Bridge turning onto/off of High Hill Road to access the Industrial Park Area and Center Square Road near Exit 10 of I-295.
At the more recent public meeting, this was handed out: http://logan-twp.org/pdf/RT%20%20130%20over%20Raccoon%20Creek%20APPROVED%20FLYER%2010-22-14.pdf
Added to the project area, the township was able to get NJDOT to incorporate into the project building of an acceleration lane from Barker Ave to US 130 North. Currently, traffic must yield/stop as Barker Ave enters immediately into the travel lanes on US 130 North.
Also, a traffic light will be installed at US 130 & High Hill Rd.
That means no more RIRO for both roads. Also NJ 44 and NJ 324 will transform into each other under US 130.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 20, 2015, 10:10:00 AM
That means no more RIRO for both roads. Also NJ 44 and NJ 324 will transform into each other under US 130.
As mentioned, it's not 324 there - Google has it shown incorrectly. And Rt. 44 doesn't end here either: That route number ends at Springer Rd prior to going thru Logan Twp. They are both just local township roads without any route numbers.
Of course google would.
I had business at the Federal Courthouse in Trenton last week, and I walked on the State St overpass for the Trenton Fwy. Took a couple of pictures.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F45s7dnR.jpg&hash=596dae61eff21633e551c6be1314bd1101b7f137)
Imagine if they had ever routed I-95 on this narrow strip of roadway?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQLvHvlp.jpg&hash=be6409877cc01db0892ea79bb99a38c30c45e647)
You can practically touch this sign it's so close.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeKUmvxi.jpg&hash=7e572f4d9ace7b541d1c9f5d1b88086c806f5f68)
Commemoration plate for the freeway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2015, 08:59:06 AM
For those of you interested in providing your comments and opinions on future NJDOT, NJ Transit and other New Jersey projects, the official commenting period is now open or will soon be open so you can provide suggestions on transportation-related projects. Comments during this period are on the record, and are officially responded to.
Generally, those that comment are writing about pedestrian and bicycle issues. While the overwhelming majority drive, there are very few if any comments about roads and highways. The second-highest group of commuters - those that take mass transit - are also under-represented. For the most part, this public commenting period is not known to most people. At least with the DVRPC, people with a keen interest in bicycling are actually over-represented, so they use their social and online groups to write in letters and such.
Highway users can do the same. It will be nice to get additional comments in this year, to show that roads and highways do matter as well. My only suggests: Be reasonable (the comment period isn't to suggest changes in laws; it's to comment on proposed projects or suggestions for projects), and try to suggest the agency the comment should be sent to; ie: NJDOT. (A few years back, several of my comments obviously dealing with state roads were sent to county agencies to respond. Obviously, they came back saying the road wasn't part of their jurisdiction. Why the DVRPC would send a comment about a state road to a county office is beyond me.)
The TIP comments have been published by the DVRPC. Clearly, you people that write nonstop about project ideas on these forums never sent anything in to have it officially put on the record!
Also, as expected, the TIP comments were overrun by those promoting pedestrian safety, bicycle lanes and paths, and other non-car modes of transportation. Many of the comments were nearly identical, regarding support for a 500 - 750 mile network of bicycle paths through a several county area.
Some comments were a little comical. One had to do with a TIP item regarding additional capacity on US 322. The commenter disagreed with the project and said it shouldn't be built because they shouldn't add additional capacity to save an estimated 2 minutes of time. The official responses to that was: The project was built over 5 years ago! It's saved a LOT of time (in the summer, upwards of a half-hour or more as it's a busy shore route). The line item only exists because the state is reimbursing the county the money it cost to build the project over 10 years).
137 people commented on a total of 214 issues. I can tell you that 1 person wrote in regarding suggestions with improving our roads and highways. The other 136 wrote about peds, bikes, and mass transit, and opposed road projects.
If you want to see road projects regain a priority status, you need to speak up...and not just at aaroads dot com!
Link to the comments?
Does NJDOT ever plan to finally erect an overhead sign in Woodbridge, NJ on US 9 N Bound at the left exit for the NB Parkway and the NJ Turnpike Exit 11 ramps? For years it had substandard signs considering its a left exit stealing one of US 9's lanes with the two right lanes being brand new lanes from the Parkway Exit 127 ramp having a continuous two lanes.
I know that that NJDOT finally replaced the SB New Brunswick Avenue ramp sign that was old and need of replacing for decades on the Parkway service road. I was wondering if the trend was continuing as that replacement was somewhat of a miracle itself.
They replaced the northbound New Brunswick Ave. sign on US-9, still nothing for the left exit to the GSP/Turnpike.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 11, 2015, 11:11:31 AM
Does NJDOT ever plan to finally erect an overhead sign in Woodbridge, NJ on US 9 N Bound at the left exit for the NB Parkway and the NJ Turnpike Exit 11 ramps? For years it had substandard signs considering its a left exit stealing one of US 9's lanes with the two right lanes being brand new lanes from the Parkway Exit 127 ramp having a continuous two lanes.
I know that that NJDOT finally replaced the SB New Brunswick Avenue ramp sign that was old and need of replacing for decades on the Parkway service road. I was wondering if the trend was continuing as that replacement was somewhat of a miracle itself.
I've never understood why they never had one to begin with after all these years. It's a fairly major split there. Especially because they have this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5263899,-74.2982055,3a,15.1y,65.6h,86.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWxqHF4J7iVlokqgQHJ8tXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) which is plain out wrong. Then there's only one other tiny sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5286916,-74.2975719,3a,21.6y,309.52h,85.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stbSXslM0rXi6L_8pSrGFmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) which is super easy to miss, and then these mostly MUTCD compliant shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5299001,-74.2976236,3a,43.4y,34.3h,84.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s02PsEGUuxVWBRP8vzf4c9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the gore point.
This used to be where the shields were
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnjtp_%26amp%3B_gsp_enter_sign.jpg&hash=9079bfd35783aff8c3067a72c40759f752a8fc82)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 13, 2015, 11:14:06 AM
This used to be where the shields were
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnjtp_%26amp%3B_gsp_enter_sign.jpg&hash=9079bfd35783aff8c3067a72c40759f752a8fc82)
I remember these signs. Similar ones used to exist on CR 501 as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 13, 2015, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 13, 2015, 11:14:06 AM
This used to be where the shields were
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnjtp_%26amp%3B_gsp_enter_sign.jpg&hash=9079bfd35783aff8c3067a72c40759f752a8fc82)
I remember these signs. Similar ones used to exist on CR 501 as well.
Shouldn't that be TO Turnpike North & South / Parkway North?
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 13, 2015, 06:33:40 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 13, 2015, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 13, 2015, 11:14:06 AM
This used to be where the shields were
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnjtp_%26amp%3B_gsp_enter_sign.jpg&hash=9079bfd35783aff8c3067a72c40759f752a8fc82)
I remember these signs. Similar ones used to exist on CR 501 as well.
Shouldn't that be TO Turnpike North & South / Parkway North?
No. That ramp leads to those roads.
As the NJ Red Light Camera Program ended one year ago today (Dec 16, 2014), it was expected NJDOT would release a report on the effectiveness of those cameras, and a suggestion as to whether red light cameras should remain permanent or be eliminated entirely.
That report isn't coming for the foreseeable future however.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/12/one_year_after_red_light_cameras_went_dark_no_repo.html#incart_river_home
I was noticing on GSV the results of the US 206 widening project, now completed in Byram Township, NJ just north of NJ 183 where the road would narrow to two lanes. Now the road is 5 lanes with a center turn lane instead of the usual continuous jersey barrier in the middle prohibiting median crossovers between major intersections that NJ always implements.
They even allow left turns onto Southbound Waterloo Road from NB US 206 instead of using the traditional NJ jug handle or reverse jug handle.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 20, 2015, 01:19:54 PM
I was noticing on GSV the results of the US 206 widening project, now completed in Byram Township, NJ just north of NJ 183 where the road would narrow to two lanes. Now the road is 5 lanes with a center turn lane instead of the usual continuous jersey barrier in the middle prohibiting median crossovers between major intersections that NJ always implements.
They even allow left turns onto Southbound Waterloo Road from NB US 206 instead of using the traditional NJ jug handle or reverse jug handle.
That's certainly not a 'always' by a long shot.
As far as I have seen and even after I have left, the very little widening projects that have taken place since, have the NJ state routes and US routes widen with the typical jersey barrier and jug handles. Even some county roads in Ocean County, copy NJDOT protocol, as you can look at CR 549 from the GSP to NJ 37 pretty much.
Center Turn Lanes, are pretty much being phased out due to the misuse of the actual turn lane and the results of many accidents, hence the name "Suicide Lane." Yet, NJDOT in this case anyway did the different thing and allowed for a typical arterial set up instead of the usual limited turn control like many other expansions or practices on state highways that are non freeway grade.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 09:50:58 AM
As far as I have seen and even after I have left, the very little widening projects that have taken place since, have the NJ state routes and US routes widen with the typical jersey barrier and jug handles. Even some county roads in Ocean County, copy NJDOT protocol, as you can look at CR 549 from the GSP to NJ 37 pretty much.
Center Turn Lanes, are pretty much being phased out due to the misuse of the actual turn lane and the results of many accidents, hence the name "Suicide Lane." Yet, NJDOT in this case anyway did the different thing and allowed for a typical arterial set up instead of the usual limited turn control like many other expansions or practices on state highways that are non freeway grade.
Actually, you are misusing the term 'suicide lane'. A suicide lane is meant for passing in either direction, and are generally only found in rural areas. A Center-Turn lane is not a suicide lane. In suicide lanes, people are travelling at a high rate of speed. In Center-Turn lanes, people are driving at slower speeds or stopped, so when accidents do occur people generally have minor injuries at most.
Depends on who you ask Jeff. Yes the two way passing lanes were the original suicide lanes back in the day, but now most road agencies 86th them years ago. Now the term shifted over the course of time with the center turn lane becoming popular. Now most people coin the term "suicide lane for the annoying turn lanes.
Just like the word gay, which we all regard as same sex relationships these days used to mean happy at one time. When the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas mentions "We'll make the Yultide gay" it does not mean that they are planning on promoting same sex relationships, but that they are making the season happy. So is the same with the term "Suicide."
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 01:59:29 PM
Depends on who you ask Jeff. Yes the two way passing lanes were the original suicide lanes back in the day, but now most road agencies 86th them years ago. Now the term shifted over the course of time with the center turn lane becoming popular. Now most people coin the term "suicide lane for the annoying turn lanes.
Just like the word gay, which we all regard as same sex relationships these days used to mean happy at one time. When the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas mentions "We'll make the Yultide gay" it does not mean that they are planning on promoting same sex relationships, but that they are making the season happy. So is the same with the term "Suicide."
While the term shifted, it's because people misunderstand the term...and the reasoning behind it. A crash with two cars with a combined speed of 100 - 150 mph will almost always be fatal...especially in vehicles without the modern safety equipment we now have. Center Turn lane crashes are almost at much lower speeds, and rarely is there a fatality. In reality, there ain't much suicide going on in the so-called suicide lanes.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 01:59:29 PM
Depends on who you ask Jeff. Yes the two way passing lanes were the original suicide lanes back in the day, but now most road agencies 86th them years ago. Now the term shifted over the course of time with the center turn lane becoming popular. Now most people coin the term "suicide lane for the annoying turn lanes.
Just like the word gay, which we all regard as same sex relationships these days used to mean happy at one time. When the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas mentions "We'll make the Yultide gay" it does not mean that they are planning on promoting same sex relationships, but that they are making the season happy. So is the same with the term "Suicide."
You are wrong. Wrong wrong WRONG wrong WRONG wrong wrong. No one calls TWLTL's "suicide lanes" except
YOU. You always manage to insist that your opinions are facts. Stay on Fictional Highways and leave highway discussions alone.
There's a guy in my carpool that calls them suicide lanes also. I've tried correcting him to no avail. He also believes accidents only happen in New Jersey. He justifies this because when he went on vacation to Delmarva one weekend, he didn't see an accident.
Sigh.
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2015, 06:40:53 PM
You are wrong. Wrong wrong WRONG wrong WRONG wrong wrong. No one calls TWLTL's "suicide lanes" except YOU. You always manage to insist that your opinions are facts. Stay on Fictional Highways and leave highway discussions alone.
53 no ones here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suicide+lane
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/09/21/suicide-lane-abuse-falls-within-columbus.html
http://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Roadway/Lists/Definitions/DispForm.aspx?ID=31
New GMSV shows the lack of black backgrounds on shields on new guide signs for the Turnpike / NJ 18 interchange reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.478701,-74.4104604,3a,46.9y,343.87h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSdzvDUl6FjQI5Lanz1IiAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2015, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 01:59:29 PM
Depends on who you ask Jeff. Yes the two way passing lanes were the original suicide lanes back in the day, but now most road agencies 86th them years ago. Now the term shifted over the course of time with the center turn lane becoming popular. Now most people coin the term "suicide lane for the annoying turn lanes.
Just like the word gay, which we all regard as same sex relationships these days used to mean happy at one time. When the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas mentions "We'll make the Yultide gay" it does not mean that they are planning on promoting same sex relationships, but that they are making the season happy. So is the same with the term "Suicide."
While the term shifted, it's because people misunderstand the term...and the reasoning behind it. A crash with two cars with a combined speed of 100 - 150 mph will almost always be fatal...especially in vehicles without the modern safety equipment we now have. Center Turn lane crashes are almost at much lower speeds, and rarely is there a fatality. In reality, there ain't much suicide going on in the so-called suicide lanes.
Tell that to the non road geeks. It coined the term regardless. Yes you would not have a fatal crash, yet anyway on a center turn lane head on, but that is the way it is.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2015, 07:39:03 PM
New GMSV shows the lack of black backgrounds on shields on new guide signs for the Turnpike / NJ 18 interchange reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.478701,-74.4104604,3a,46.9y,343.87h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSdzvDUl6FjQI5Lanz1IiAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
For those in the know, does this new sign put up within the last month (and similar signs around the restriped/repaved Pennington Circle) fall under old sign contracts similar to how there were a mix of new signs on the Turnpike of "THRU TRAFFIC" and "New York"/"Wilmington?"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBNOyX2r.jpg&hash=164129721ac6bad8f9bd4014c787afe4b26a374c)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 22, 2015, 07:00:32 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2015, 07:39:03 PM
New GMSV shows the lack of black backgrounds on shields on new guide signs for the Turnpike / NJ 18 interchange reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.478701,-74.4104604,3a,46.9y,343.87h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSdzvDUl6FjQI5Lanz1IiAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
For those in the know, does this new sign put up within the last month (and similar signs around the restriped/repaved Pennington Circle) fall under old sign contracts similar to how there were a mix of new signs on the Turnpike of "THRU TRAFFIC" and "New York"/"Wilmington?"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBNOyX2r.jpg&hash=164129721ac6bad8f9bd4014c787afe4b26a374c)
No. If there was a construction project at this circle, this sign would've been part of that specific project.
Damn! That sign must be confusing as hell if you're speeding through there! It's easy to understand just sitting here looking at the picture, of course! :)
Of course, Connecticut doesn't have a lot of traffic circles the way NJ or MA do.
I guess the small typical guide signs you'd find weren't doing their job well enough. They didn't mention the fucked up turn one has to make if you want to get back to CR 546 heading towards US 1 though. Which entry is this sign located?
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2015, 07:39:03 PM
New GMSV shows the lack of black backgrounds on shields on new guide signs for the Turnpike / NJ 18 interchange reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.478701,-74.4104604,3a,46.9y,343.87h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSdzvDUl6FjQI5Lanz1IiAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Was it NJTA that put up these signs? If so, this is the way they've done it since the beginning
Quote from: Zeffy on December 22, 2015, 10:33:37 AM
Which entry is this sign located?
looks like it's on EB 546.
i'm not a huge fan of that sign in general; i definitely don't like stretched CR shields.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 22, 2015, 12:08:58 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2015, 07:39:03 PM
New GMSV shows the lack of black backgrounds on shields on new guide signs for the Turnpike / NJ 18 interchange reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.478701,-74.4104604,3a,46.9y,343.87h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSdzvDUl6FjQI5Lanz1IiAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Was it NJTA that put up these signs? If so, this is the way they've done it since the beginning
definitely NJDOT signage. NJTA uses rounded corners.
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2015, 01:55:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 22, 2015, 12:08:58 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2015, 07:39:03 PM
New GMSV shows the lack of black backgrounds on shields on new guide signs for the Turnpike / NJ 18 interchange reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.478701,-74.4104604,3a,46.9y,343.87h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSdzvDUl6FjQI5Lanz1IiAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Was it NJTA that put up these signs? If so, this is the way they've done it since the beginning
definitely NJDOT signage. NJTA uses rounded corners.
Yup, that's how I knew it wasn't a NJTA job. With the pushing of the MUTCD to the Turnpike, soon NJTA signs will resemble ones you'd find on the NYS Thruway.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 22, 2015, 02:27:17 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2015, 01:55:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 22, 2015, 12:08:58 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 21, 2015, 07:39:03 PM
New GMSV shows the lack of black backgrounds on shields on new guide signs for the Turnpike / NJ 18 interchange reconstruction:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.478701,-74.4104604,3a,46.9y,343.87h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSdzvDUl6FjQI5Lanz1IiAQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Was it NJTA that put up these signs? If so, this is the way they've done it since the beginning
definitely NJDOT signage. NJTA uses rounded corners.
Yup, that's how I knew it wasn't a NJTA job. With the pushing of the MUTCD to the Turnpike, soon NJTA signs will resemble ones you'd find on the NYS Thruway.
Until NYSTA drops Clearview, more like NYSDOT signage. They're virtually identical except for font.
NJDOT hasn't switched to cutouts on signs yet, plenty of new ones going up with them. The rest of the signs posted at new projects like the Chimney Rock Rd. interchange on US-22 has them.
This sign, now uncovered, doesn't have cutouts: https://goo.gl/maps/PCV3ebffu432
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on December 22, 2015, 10:18:04 AM
Damn! That sign must be confusing as hell if you're speeding through there! It's easy to understand just sitting here looking at the picture, of course! :)
Of course, Connecticut doesn't have a lot of traffic circles the way NJ or MA do.
I would turn the CR 546 arrow a bit more to the right to separate it from Pennington Rd. Otherwise it does the job.
Quote from: odditude on December 22, 2015, 12:20:38 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 22, 2015, 10:33:37 AM
Which entry is this sign located?
looks like it's on EB 546.
i'm not a huge fan of that sign in general; i definitely don't like stretched CR shields.
Stretched CR shields don't bother *me* one bit. Guess that's why there's chocolate, vanilla, and rocky road (no pun intended).
ixnay
Does anyone ever remember the old Fire Signal on US 202 in Raritan, NJ? It was removed after the Somerville Circle Flyover was added, but what used to amaze me was the fact that there was no median break for the firetruck to actually cross US 202. I found that to be quite odd as the purpose to the signal was to allow fire trucks protected access to US 202. If the signal was to allow one way only right outs for the emergency vehicles, then it would have been on one side of the highway only and not for both US 202 North and South.
I am just curious to how that worked then. However, with emergency signals you could pass through one everyday to and from work, and for years never get stopped at one. In 25 years in Florida I only stopped 4 times for one, and two were in Tampa and two at two completely different fire stations. The odds for you to be stopped for one are very high, so unless someone who lived in the area actually caught that particular signal turn red, only that one person could answer it.
Did the Jersey barrier sink to let trucks cross?
Quote from: roadman65 on January 09, 2016, 08:44:33 PM
Does anyone ever remember the old Fire Signal on US 202 in Raritan, NJ? It was removed after the Somerville Circle Flyover was added, but what used to amaze me was the fact that there was no median break for the firetruck to actually cross US 202. I found that to be quite odd as the purpose to the signal was to allow fire trucks protected access to US 202. If the signal was to allow one way only right outs for the emergency vehicles, then it would have been on one side of the highway only and not for both US 202 North and South.
I am just curious to how that worked then. However, with emergency signals you could pass through one everyday to and from work, and for years never get stopped at one. In 25 years in Florida I only stopped 4 times for one, and two were in Tampa and two at two completely different fire stations. The odds for you to be stopped for one are very high, so unless someone who lived in the area actually caught that particular signal turn red, only that one person could answer it.
I vaguely remember that fire signal (I was 13 when the 202 flyover opened). I think that it was a remnant from a time before 202 had a Jersey barrier. If you look at this HA (http://historicaerials.com:?layer=1979&zoom=19&lat=40.57407576278783&lon=-74.63410198688507) from 1979, you can see a clear crossover in the median area which I imagine was for emergency vehicles to come from the Raritan fire house and cross 202 to get to calls on the other side of the road. You can even sort of still see it in this 1987 HA (http://historicaerials.com:?layer=1987&zoom=19&lat=40.57415114336032&lon=-74.6343246102333) of the same location. By the time they did the flyover in 1994, there was a full jersey barrier in place leading up to the death trap.
It appears Mercer County wants to untangle a fairly unusual (meaning, fun) intersection near the Brunswick Circle by converting it into a roundabout.
Location of the intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/EMLGxq14bHH2 . The road curving to the right leads to the actual Brunswick Circle. The building in the lower right is Lottery Headquarters. If you need to go there, you're probably having a good day! :-)
DVRPC description & public comment form: http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/boardcomment/detail.asp?id=1822
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:34:12 AM
If you need to go there, you're probably having a good day! :-)
At least you'll be able to pay for the inevitable accident you'll get into trying to traverse that intersection.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:34:12 AM
It appears Mercer County wants to untangle a fairly unusual (meaning, fun) intersection near the Brunswick Circle by converting it into a roundabout.
Location of the intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/EMLGxq14bHH2 . The road curving to the right leads to the actual Brunswick Circle. The building in the lower right is Lottery Headquarters. If you need to go there, you're probably having a good day! :-)
DVRPC description & public comment form: http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/boardcomment/detail.asp?id=1822
If there were actually pavement markings in the circle and everyone knew how to properly navigate it, it wouldn't be such a death trap. I routinely avoid going anywhere that takes me to that circle if I can help it.
Quote from: Zeffy on January 19, 2016, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:34:12 AM
It appears Mercer County wants to untangle a fairly unusual (meaning, fun) intersection near the Brunswick Circle by converting it into a roundabout.
Location of the intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/EMLGxq14bHH2 . The road curving to the right leads to the actual Brunswick Circle. The building in the lower right is Lottery Headquarters. If you need to go there, you're probably having a good day! :-)
DVRPC description & public comment form: http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/boardcomment/detail.asp?id=1822
If there were actually pavement markings in the circle and everyone knew how to properly navigate it, it wouldn't be such a death trap. I routinely avoid going anywhere that takes me to that circle if I can help it.
Reread the description...it's not the circle that's being reconstructed. It's the small intersection to the west of it.
In a separate project, North of the Brunswick Circle, they're supposed to road diet US 1B to 1 lane per direction.
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 19, 2016, 11:31:48 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:34:12 AM
If you need to go there, you're probably having a good day! :-)
At least you'll be able to pay for the inevitable accident you'll get into trying to traverse that intersection.
If this particular intersection was wider all around and in a more rural area, it would be fine. It's just a very tight area with a lot going on before and after it that makes it tricky.
For those in the Flemington Area: The Flemington Circle will be undergoing some changes (although it won't be reconstructed into a normal roundabout): http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout021816mh.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 20, 2016, 10:22:57 AM
For those in the Flemington Area: The Flemington Circle will be undergoing some changes (although it won't be reconstructed into a normal roundabout): http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout021816mh.pdf
Hmm. I can't visualize most of these proposals, but I'm glad that something is being done to upgrade this circle into something less deadly. There are a lot of bad drivers who do not know how to navigate this (or any circle, really) circle without being a threat to the other motorists.
Now what would be nice is some improvements to the Somerville Circle...
Quote from: Zeffy on January 20, 2016, 10:34:17 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 20, 2016, 10:22:57 AM
For those in the Flemington Area: The Flemington Circle will be undergoing some changes (although it won't be reconstructed into a normal roundabout): http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout021816mh.pdf
Hmm. I can't visualize most of these proposals, but I'm glad that something is being done to upgrade this circle into something less deadly. There are a lot of bad drivers who do not know how to navigate this (or any circle, really) circle without being a threat to the other motorists.
Now what would be nice is some improvements to the Somerville Circle...
My image is a smaller circle, basically inside the current circle. The footprint of 202 NB basically remains the same.
The public meeting usually has the maps of the proposed plans. If you've never stopped at one, here's a good one to check out. Usually the reps there from NJDOT and the consultants figure that everyone attending has no clue about roads and highways...and granted, most of the time they are right. Many of those attending will complain about the project and how horrible it is and that no one ever does anything right and that it's going to take too long.
Good times!
Somebody isn't happy with the DOT: http://politickernj.com/2016/01/the-new-jersey-department-of-transportation-ran-me-over/
Rumble strips are annoying. Do they really prevent crashes?
Quote from: J Route Z on January 20, 2016, 11:33:49 AM
Somebody isn't happy with the DOT: http://politickernj.com/2016/01/the-new-jersey-department-of-transportation-ran-me-over/
Rumble strips are annoying. Do they really prevent crashes?
Per the story:
"...As my property is situated at a sharp curve in the road, motorists consistently contact the rumble strip as they speed around the bend..."
Then he says:
"...that there was no known safety issue on this road..."
Because, as we all know, speeding around a curve & crossing to the wrong side of the road is never a safety issue.
While he does have some good points in the story, and there have been issued raised about NJ's installation of rumble strips in residential areas, he seems to be more concerned about the bicycle/pedestrian aspect of it which he really doesn't provide any relative data. Heck, even the opening picture of his family enjoying a trail next to some wildlife seems to have no relevance whatsoever with the caption below, which states "This photo of the author's family on the canal path shows how cyclists, walkers and wildlife will all be disturbed by the noise generated by the rumble strips".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 02:01:00 PM
In a separate project, North of the Brunswick Circle, they're supposed to road diet US 1B to 1 lane per direction.
Hm. Let's talk more about that one. Are they taking out the median barrier finally or just converting lanes to shoulders? A three lane road with bike lanes might be nice here. I don't know what rush hour volumes look like here though. If directional hourly volumes ever exceed 1,000, I would be opposed.
Quote from: Alps on January 20, 2016, 06:21:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 02:01:00 PM
In a separate project, North of the Brunswick Circle, they're supposed to road diet US 1B to 1 lane per direction.
Hm. Let's talk more about that one. Are they taking out the median barrier finally or just converting lanes to shoulders? A three lane road with bike lanes might be nice here. I don't know what rush hour volumes look like here though. If directional hourly volumes ever exceed 1,000, I would be opposed.
Here it is: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp15/sec4/county/mercer.pdf To be honest, they say reduction of travel lane widths, but they don't say they're reducing it to one lane per direction. The median will become a grassy median vs. the low, narrow concrete median it is now.
http://www.downbeachexpress.com/
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 25, 2016, 03:44:50 AM
http://www.downbeachexpress.com/
Had no idea these tolls even existed until starting to work in the area. I guess they lowered prices (used to be $3 each way). Still a racket when you can take the ACE, a freeway, for 75 cents and the convenience of using the same EZPass transponder most area drivers already have. Or, if you don't mind a slightly circuitous route, you can get there for free. Frankly, the only ones paying these tolls (on purpose, not by accident like I had to once) are those who live on either side of these bridges for short range trips, which makes these tolls even worse on a per mile basis.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 25, 2016, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 25, 2016, 03:44:50 AM
http://www.downbeachexpress.com/
Had no idea these tolls even existed until starting to work in the area. I guess they lowered prices (used to be $3 each way). Still a racket when you can take the ACE, a freeway, for 75 cents and the convenience of using the same EZPass transponder most area drivers already have. Or, if you don't mind a slightly circuitous route, you can get there for free. Frankly, the only ones paying these tolls (on purpose, not by accident like I had to once) are those who live on either side of these bridges for short range trips, which makes these tolls even worse on a per mile basis.
Reminds me of the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County. Insanely expensive and no E-ZPass so they're more difficult to audit.
Quote from: cl94 on January 25, 2016, 10:27:09 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 25, 2016, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 25, 2016, 03:44:50 AM
http://www.downbeachexpress.com/
Had no idea these tolls even existed until starting to work in the area. I guess they lowered prices (used to be $3 each way). Still a racket when you can take the ACE, a freeway, for 75 cents and the convenience of using the same EZPass transponder most area drivers already have. Or, if you don't mind a slightly circuitous route, you can get there for free. Frankly, the only ones paying these tolls (on purpose, not by accident like I had to once) are those who live on either side of these bridges for short range trips, which makes these tolls even worse on a per mile basis.
Reminds me of the Atlantic Beach Bridge in Nassau County. Insanely expensive and no E-ZPass so they're more difficult to audit.
Toll roads have been around for decades prior to EZ Pass being introduced. There are many other ways to audit traffic going thru the lanes.
Article from NJ.com a few days ago with a number of old road photos:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop)
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on January 29, 2016, 07:52:36 PM
Article from NJ.com a few days ago with a number of old road photos:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop)
There was a picture with a left turn lane.. A long time ago you could turn left on a multilane divided highway in NJ!! Sarcasm, I know there still are.
I love the vintage cars
Quote from: jwolfer on January 29, 2016, 09:08:14 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on January 29, 2016, 07:52:36 PM
Article from NJ.com a few days ago with a number of old road photos:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop)
There was a picture with a left turn lane.. A long time ago you could turn left on a multilane divided highway in NJ!! Sarcasm, I know there still are.
I love the vintage cars
Is it really that uncommon? I've seen left turns on divided highways in PA, DE, and OH as well. If anything, it's the jughandles that are more common in NJ, where other states would have a left turn lane more often.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 01, 2016, 10:11:49 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on January 29, 2016, 09:08:14 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on January 29, 2016, 07:52:36 PM
Article from NJ.com a few days ago with a number of old road photos:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop)
There was a picture with a left turn lane.. A long time ago you could turn left on a multilane divided highway in NJ!! Sarcasm, I know there still are.
I love the vintage cars
Is it really that uncommon? I've seen left turns on divided highways in PA, DE, and OH as well. If anything, it's the jughandles that are more common in NJ, where other states would have a left turn lane more often.
The note about sarcasm cannot be stressed enough.
The left turn lane I think he was referring to in those pictures is on US 30, which allows traffic to turn left to access I-295. That left turn lane still exists - with the same concrete curbing - although there's been a traffic light there for at least a few decades now.
Appropriate and something I never knew about.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/02/the_mystery_behind_i-287s_vanishing_streetlights.html?ath=dddcd23b247ba6071fddc0507d83743f#cmpid=nsltr_strybutton
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2016, 12:41:09 PM
Appropriate and something I never knew about.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/02/the_mystery_behind_i-287s_vanishing_streetlights.html?ath=dddcd23b247ba6071fddc0507d83743f#cmpid=nsltr_strybutton
Those HOV lanes were fun. And by fun, I mean terrible.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 04, 2016, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2016, 12:41:09 PM
Appropriate and something I never knew about.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/02/the_mystery_behind_i-287s_vanishing_streetlights.html?ath=dddcd23b247ba6071fddc0507d83743f#cmpid=nsltr_strybutton
Those HOV lanes were fun. And by fun, I mean terrible.
Wait, what? Since when did NJ ever have HOV lanes...
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 04, 2016, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 04, 2016, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2016, 12:41:09 PM
Appropriate and something I never knew about.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/02/the_mystery_behind_i-287s_vanishing_streetlights.html?ath=dddcd23b247ba6071fddc0507d83743f#cmpid=nsltr_strybutton
Those HOV lanes were fun. And by fun, I mean terrible.
Wait, what? Since when did NJ ever have HOV lanes...
Before your time.
Quote from: Alps on February 04, 2016, 07:33:21 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 04, 2016, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 04, 2016, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2016, 12:41:09 PM
Appropriate and something I never knew about.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/02/the_mystery_behind_i-287s_vanishing_streetlights.html?ath=dddcd23b247ba6071fddc0507d83743f#cmpid=nsltr_strybutton
Those HOV lanes were fun. And by fun, I mean terrible.
Wait, what? Since when did NJ ever have HOV lanes...
Before your time.
They were gone well before you were born. 1998. I barely remember them from a trip to PA when I was 3.
NJ still has HOV lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/M6Co2Tpxqzy
Quote from: cl94 on February 04, 2016, 07:43:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 04, 2016, 07:33:21 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 04, 2016, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 04, 2016, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2016, 12:41:09 PM
Appropriate and something I never knew about.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/02/the_mystery_behind_i-287s_vanishing_streetlights.html?ath=dddcd23b247ba6071fddc0507d83743f#cmpid=nsltr_strybutton
Those HOV lanes were fun. And by fun, I mean terrible.
Wait, what? Since when did NJ ever have HOV lanes...
Before your time.
They were gone well before you were born. 1998. I barely remember them from a trip to PA when I was 3.
Let's put it this way: The abandoned gantries (https://goo.gl/maps/hjmj5gYPQHL2) have lasted 7.5x longer than the program (http://tollroadsnews.com/news/new-jerseymajor-highways-i-80-i-287-dehovled). The HOV lanes caused such gridlock that they were totally antithetical to the purpose they served. (http://photos.nj.com/8001122/gallery/the_end_of_i-80_i-287_hov_lanes/index.html#/0)
This press release (http://www.nj.gov/transportation/about/press/1996/093096.shtm) gives you a better idea what the state had in mind.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 04, 2016, 10:53:16 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 04, 2016, 07:43:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 04, 2016, 07:33:21 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 04, 2016, 06:03:21 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 04, 2016, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 04, 2016, 12:41:09 PM
Appropriate and something I never knew about.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/02/the_mystery_behind_i-287s_vanishing_streetlights.html?ath=dddcd23b247ba6071fddc0507d83743f#cmpid=nsltr_strybutton
Those HOV lanes were fun. And by fun, I mean terrible.
Wait, what? Since when did NJ ever have HOV lanes...
Before your time.
They were gone well before you were born. 1998. I barely remember them from a trip to PA when I was 3.
Let's put it this way: The abandoned gantries (https://goo.gl/maps/hjmj5gYPQHL2) have lasted 7.5x longer than the program (http://tollroadsnews.com/news/new-jerseymajor-highways-i-80-i-287-dehovled). The HOV lanes caused such gridlock that they were totally antithetical to the purpose they served. (http://photos.nj.com/8001122/gallery/the_end_of_i-80_i-287_hov_lanes/index.html#/0)
This press release (http://www.nj.gov/transportation/about/press/1996/093096.shtm) gives you a better idea what the state had in mind.
Its gonna be a cold day in climate change hell before NJDOT uses HOV lanes again. When they studied possible alternatives for the Rt. 42 widening between 55 & 295 (from 3 to 4 lanes) in the 90's, HOV lanes received a lower ranking and were eliminated first, scoring even lower than the 'Do nothing' option.
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
After collecting tolls here in Florida I have heard some of the things that people do when they come to a plaza. Having no money and then blaming us for inventing toll roads or not putting up signs at the ramp, especially since Florida signs its toll roads with TOLL above the route numbers.
I have seen once when traveling in NJ, someone once pulling into the ticket dispensing machine lane and not take a ticket. My dad honked the horn for the driver to get his ticket, but the guy pulled out without his ticket. If some of the morons I get coming through my lanes are passing through those lanes in NJ, I am sure they are doing that one too. Some of these people I am sure would be wondering to themselves, what is this? Then not take the ticket and pay the highest fare on the road and probable bitch to the collector that instructions should come with the automatic lanes upon entry.
I even met one person years ago when the Florida Turnpike used tickets in Orlando, where guests I waited on inside the old Sonesta Resort told me that they got off I-4 to make a u turn at Exit 31, the number for present day exit 77 for the toll road, got the ticket to enter, and then used a cop turn around to get back off at the same plaza they entered. They told me they had to pay over 15 bucks at the time as exiting at the same exit you entered also calls for the highest toll per class just like the lost ticket.
I am sure you will have an idiot do that and use that ramp and exit at 16W or 18W.
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
*grabs his 16W ticket* It says NO U-TURN for both 16E and 16W. I imagine that a newer ticket with 15X would say the same.
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:29:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
*grabs his 16W ticket* It says NO U-TURN for both 16E and 16W. I imagine that a newer ticket with 15X would say the same.
There we go. I've only seen a ticket for any system in person once, and that was on the Ohio Turnpike before E-ZPass.
Quote from: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 06:35:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:29:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
*grabs his 16W ticket* It says NO U-TURN for both 16E and 16W. I imagine that a newer ticket with 15X would say the same.
There we go. I've only seen a ticket for any system in person once, and that was on the Ohio Turnpike before E-ZPass.
The online toll calculator says "no U-turn" only if you enter the same entrance and exit. 15X to 16E says $0.00
Quote from: bzakharin on February 18, 2016, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 06:35:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:29:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
*grabs his 16W ticket* It says NO U-TURN for both 16E and 16W. I imagine that a newer ticket with 15X would say the same.
There we go. I've only seen a ticket for any system in person once, and that was on the Ohio Turnpike before E-ZPass.
The online toll calculator says "no U-turn" only if you enter the same entrance and exit. 15X to 16E says $0.00
There's no legal way to make this connection. Should you use the ramp, you would be travelling on the shoulder, which is illegal.
The online calculator may not have been programmed for such a connection. If you were to exit at 16E after entering at 15X, you would be charged the maximum toll, which in this case would be from Interchange 1.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2016, 10:54:45 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 18, 2016, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 06:35:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:29:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
*grabs his 16W ticket* It says NO U-TURN for both 16E and 16W. I imagine that a newer ticket with 15X would say the same.
There we go. I've only seen a ticket for any system in person once, and that was on the Ohio Turnpike before E-ZPass.
The online toll calculator says "no U-turn" only if you enter the same entrance and exit. 15X to 16E says $0.00
There's no legal way to make this connection. Should you use the ramp, you would be travelling on the shoulder, which is illegal.
The online calculator may not have been programmed for such a connection. If you were to exit at 16E after entering at 15X, you would be charged the maximum toll, which in this case would be from Interchange 1.
Of course 15X to 16E is legal. 15X is Secaucus, 16E is the Lincoln Tunnel. One exit apart on the Eastern Spur.
Quote from: cl94 on February 18, 2016, 11:37:45 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2016, 10:54:45 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 18, 2016, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 06:35:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:29:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
*grabs his 16W ticket* It says NO U-TURN for both 16E and 16W. I imagine that a newer ticket with 15X would say the same.
There we go. I've only seen a ticket for any system in person once, and that was on the Ohio Turnpike before E-ZPass.
The online toll calculator says "no U-turn" only if you enter the same entrance and exit. 15X to 16E says $0.00
There's no legal way to make this connection. Should you use the ramp, you would be travelling on the shoulder, which is illegal.
The online calculator may not have been programmed for such a connection. If you were to exit at 16E after entering at 15X, you would be charged the maximum toll, which in this case would be from Interchange 1.
Of course 15X to 16E is legal. 15X is Secaucus, 16E is the Lincoln Tunnel. One exit apart on the Eastern Spur.
Whoops...Meant 16W.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2016, 10:54:45 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 18, 2016, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 06:35:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:29:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:38:40 PM
Quote from: dgolub on February 16, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 02:47:00 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on February 16, 2016, 02:19:58 PM
Does anybody know what this ramp is for? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7556464,-74.1171611,152m/data=!3m1!1e3
Emergency vehicle access between the spurs.
I wonder if they'd give you a ticket if you used it. I don't see any "Do Not Enter" sign in Street View.
That's a good question. What would they do if you entered at 15X or 16E and exited at 16W? Anyone in the region want to try it?
*grabs his 16W ticket* It says NO U-TURN for both 16E and 16W. I imagine that a newer ticket with 15X would say the same.
There we go. I've only seen a ticket for any system in person once, and that was on the Ohio Turnpike before E-ZPass.
The online toll calculator says "no U-turn" only if you enter the same entrance and exit. 15X to 16E says $0.00
There's no legal way to make this connection. Should you use the ramp, you would be travelling on the shoulder, which is illegal.
The online calculator may not have been programmed for such a connection. If you were to exit at 16E after entering at 15X, you would be charged the maximum toll, which in this case would be from Interchange 1.
It should define those connections specifically as prohibited. Interestingly, 15X to 16W is 10 miles, but 16E to 16W is 0 miles.
One thing that I found at historic aerials was the 1970 aerial view of the current I-80/ US 46 interchange in Parsippany, NJ. Not only is the freeway segment of I-80 not only terminating here, but the freeway stops short of the interchange using a temporary roadway that not only was not a freeway, but had an at grade facility with Edwards Road.
It obviously seemed that NJDOT wanted the two roads to connect with each other despite the fact the freeway did not, but built a temporary fix. However, to me it would have seemed more logical to built the interchange completely at the time. Its one thing to build a road and it stops suddenly where they build a temporary interchange to connect with a local road already that connects it with the parallel arterial to the freeway as that at least offers some relief on the so called old road, but this one makes no sense at all to build the road and stop it short of less than a half a mile.
Also behind the Historic Aerial writing its hard to tell if access to I-80 was from a jughandle or a ramp that went under US 46. Today the entrance to I-80 there is a left side ramp from inside US 46 so that was relocated as well.
Oh, as Columbo used to say, one more thing, how do you get Historic Aerials to get a direct link to a specific view and year? Every time I paste the web address it directs anyone to its main page. The URL above does not give out any other link info and at all places just says http/historicaerials.com
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2016, 01:20:59 PM
One thing that I found at historic aerials was the 1970 aerial view of the current I-80/ US 46 interchange in Parsippany, NJ. Not only is the freeway segment of I-80 not only terminating here, but the freeway stops short of the interchange using a temporary roadway that not only was not a freeway, but had an at grade facility with Edwards Road.
It obviously seemed that NJDOT wanted the two roads to connect with each other despite the fact the freeway did not, but built a temporary fix. However, to me it would have seemed more logical to built the interchange completely at the time. Its one thing to build a road and it stops suddenly where they build a temporary interchange to connect with a local road already that connects it with the parallel arterial to the freeway as that at least offers some relief on the so called old road, but this one makes no sense at all to build the road and stop it short of less than a half a mile.
Also behind the Historic Aerial writing its hard to tell if access to I-80 was from a jughandle or a ramp that went under US 46. Today the entrance to I-80 there is a left side ramp from inside US 46 so that was relocated as well.
Oh, as Columbo used to say, one more thing, how do you get Historic Aerials to get a direct link to a specific view and year? Every time I paste the web address it directs anyone to its main page. The URL above does not give out any other link info and at all places just says http/historicaerials.com
If you click the Twitter bird (to post to Twitter), it will spit out a direct link. It's worked for me in the past.
If you enjoy aerial shots, here's a few pics of a shopping center near me undergoing some changes. Ignore the first page or two; the final two pages show some aerial shots of the area, along with labeling of the nearby important roads. Only minor issue was they mis-labeled I-76 with the route's more commonly-known nickname, Route 42. http://brahinproperties.com/properties/pdfs/Brooklawn.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 26, 2016, 02:45:27 PM
If you enjoy aerial shots, here's a few pics of a shopping center near me undergoing some changes. Ignore the first page or two; the final two pages show some aerial shots of the area, along with labeling of the nearby important roads. Only minor issue was they mis-labeled I-76 with the route's more commonly-known nickname, Route 42. http://brahinproperties.com/properties/pdfs/Brooklawn.pdf
Another failure is on the map they provided they upgraded 30 and 130 to Interstates
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 26, 2016, 02:50:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 26, 2016, 02:45:27 PM
If you enjoy aerial shots, here's a few pics of a shopping center near me undergoing some changes. Ignore the first page or two; the final two pages show some aerial shots of the area, along with labeling of the nearby important roads. Only minor issue was they mis-labeled I-76 with the route's more commonly-known nickname, Route 42. http://brahinproperties.com/properties/pdfs/Brooklawn.pdf
Another failure is on the map they provided they upgraded 30 and 130 to Interstates
So they did!
The KFC/A&W pictured is also just a KFC now.
During a recent trip to Massachusetts (from Greater Philadelphia) this past weekend, I noticed that one of the recent NJ Clearview ground-mounted BGS for Exit 56 along I-295 North was replaced with a match in kind one in Highway Gothic. No other BGS' were replaced. I'm assuming that this was an-accident related replacement.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 29, 2016, 12:45:26 PM
During a recent trip to Massachusetts (from Greater Philadelphia) this past weekend, I noticed that one of the recent NJ Clearview ground-mounted BGS for Exit 56 along I-295 North was replaced with a match in kind one in Highway Gothic. No other BGS' were replaced. I'm assuming that this was an-accident related replacement.
You know...I've been looking at that like there's something diifferent about it, but couldn't figure it out.
Nope, wasn't an accident. The previous sign had no damage. It was just a replacement of a brand new sign.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 12:10:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 29, 2016, 12:45:26 PM
During a recent trip to Massachusetts (from Greater Philadelphia) this past weekend, I noticed that one of the recent NJ Clearview ground-mounted BGS for Exit 56 along I-295 North was replaced with a match in kind one in Highway Gothic. No other BGS' were replaced. I'm assuming that this was an-accident related replacement.
You know...I've been looking at that like there's something diifferent about it, but couldn't figure it out.
Nope, wasn't an accident. The previous sign had no damage. It was just a replacement of a brand new sign.
i actually thought they had just replaced the lettering, since they didn't fix the lack of gutter space.
Quote from: odditude on March 01, 2016, 09:22:17 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 12:10:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 29, 2016, 12:45:26 PM
During a recent trip to Massachusetts (from Greater Philadelphia) this past weekend, I noticed that one of the recent NJ Clearview ground-mounted BGS for Exit 56 along I-295 North was replaced with a match in kind one in Highway Gothic. No other BGS' were replaced. I'm assuming that this was an-accident related replacement.
You know...I've been looking at that like there's something diifferent about it, but couldn't figure it out.
Nope, wasn't an accident. The previous sign had no damage. It was just a replacement of a brand new sign.
i actually thought they had just replaced the lettering, since they didn't fix the lack of gutter space.
The new BGS I saw (in Highway Gothic) did not have any spacing issues that I know of. The lettering was about the same height as the older Highway Gothic BGS (which was why there were no spacing issues).
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 01, 2016, 09:36:32 AM
Quote from: odditude on March 01, 2016, 09:22:17 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 12:10:28 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 29, 2016, 12:45:26 PM
During a recent trip to Massachusetts (from Greater Philadelphia) this past weekend, I noticed that one of the recent NJ Clearview ground-mounted BGS for Exit 56 along I-295 North was replaced with a match in kind one in Highway Gothic. No other BGS' were replaced. I'm assuming that this was an-accident related replacement.
You know...I've been looking at that like there's something diifferent about it, but couldn't figure it out.
Nope, wasn't an accident. The previous sign had no damage. It was just a replacement of a brand new sign.
i actually thought they had just replaced the lettering, since they didn't fix the lack of gutter space.
The new BGS I saw (in Highway Gothic) did not have any spacing issues that I know of. The lettering was about the same height as the older Highway Gothic BGS (which was why there were no spacing issues).
Here's the Clearview sign. https://goo.gl/maps/8gibXjP4PsM2 The spacing issue relates to how close the lettering is to each other, and to the edges of the signs. Going back to the previous sign's destination cities (when the bases were separate entitles) reveals smaller lettering but much a much wider gap between the legend and the side edge.
BTW, for those unfamiliar, 'Joint Base MDL' refers to
McGuire Air Force Base, Fort
Dix, and
Lakehurst Naval Air Station.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 09:57:40 AMHere's the Clearview sign. https://goo.gl/maps/8gibXjP4PsM2 The spacing issue relates to how close the lettering is to each other, and to the edges of the signs. Going back to the previous sign's destination cities (when the bases were separate entitles) reveals smaller lettering but much a much wider gap between the legend and the side edge.
BTW, for those unfamiliar, 'Joint Base MDL' refers to McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Dix, and Lakehurst Naval Air Station.
Actually, the BGS that was recently replaced is the 1/4-mile advance BGS. The Clearview 1-mile advance BGS (shown in the above-GSV-link) was still there as of this past weekend.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 01, 2016, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 09:57:40 AMHere's the Clearview sign. https://goo.gl/maps/8gibXjP4PsM2 The spacing issue relates to how close the lettering is to each other, and to the edges of the signs. Going back to the previous sign's destination cities (when the bases were separate entitles) reveals smaller lettering but much a much wider gap between the legend and the side edge.
BTW, for those unfamiliar, 'Joint Base MDL' refers to McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Dix, and Lakehurst Naval Air Station.
Actually, the BGS that was recently replaced is the 1/4-mile advance BGS. The Clearview 1-mile advance BGS (shown in the above-GSV-link) was still there as of this past weekend.
This one then: https://goo.gl/maps/D4DdenVtFyC2
Not sure how many central New Jerseyans we have on this forum, but since Friday, US 206 is shut (indefinitely) because of repairs to the state's oldest bridge in Princeton.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/02/states_oldest_bridge_now_closed_until_further_noti.html#incart_river_index
There are posted detour signs along the roadway, and those detours are:
Southbound: Turn right onto Georgetown-Franklin Turnpike (CR 518), follow CR 518 until you reach Hopewell-Princeton Road*, and turn left onto that, then take that all the way and make a right back onto US 206
Northbound: Turn left onto Carter Road (CR 569), follow Carter Road and make a right onto Georgetown-Franklin Turnpike (CR 518) and follow CR 518 and make a left back onto US 206
*Do they mean Great Road? Because I can't remember a road named Hopewell-Princeton Road, and I have been up and down CR 518 in this area plenty of times.
According to Google, Hopewell-Princeton Rd. is the same as Carter Rd. The name seems to change at the signal at Cherry Hill Rd./Pennington-Rocky Hill Rd. Great Road meets U.S. 206 still north of the closure.
It is the route between my office in Lawrenceville and my barber in Hopewell.
So . . . the detour route is the same for both directions.
I just call it what most local roadgeeks call it-- The most pothole-ridden county road in Mercer County. Though hopefully not as much come this summer, when I called the county a few weeks ago to read off a laundry list of holes that could swallow my 700x25 tire, the guy on the line said that it's on the list of mill/repaves this year.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 01, 2016, 09:58:15 PM
I just call it what most local roadgeeks call it-- The most pothole-ridden county road in Mercer County. Though hopefully not as much come this summer, when I called the county a few weeks ago to read off a laundry list of holes that could swallow my 700x25 tire, the guy on the line said that it's on the list of mill/repaves this year.
The driveway to the office I work at is known as the "minefield" because one literally has to zig and zag to avoid all the potholes.
However, Mercer County - compared to my county of Somerset - seems to do a poorer job on the county roads overall. I noticed that they barely plowed when the large snowstorm hit New Jersey a month or two back, but Somerset roads in comparison were much more passable. CR 518, the road I take in my work commute, was a shitshow once it got into Hopewell Borough.
Quote from: akotchi on March 01, 2016, 09:12:58 PM
According to Google, Hopewell-Princeton Rd. is the same as Carter Rd. The name seems to change at the signal at Cherry Hill Rd./Pennington-Rocky Hill Rd. Great Road meets U.S. 206 still north of the closure.
Oh. I wasn't aware that Carter Road became a different road past a certain point.
Unrelated, but they also installed street signs on the traffic signals for this intersection:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.2976505,-74.8112665,3a,53.6y,359.5h,89.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7HMYlltwCabl7u20bAqX-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
FWIW, the road's name is American Blvd. I always wondered why it wasn't signed... I thought it had something to do with Capital Health.
It looks like a more local detour would use Lovers Lane between 206 and 583. I had an opportunity to be down in Trenton today, but chose to avoid the whole scene on 31.
The detour has been pretty crazy... especially routing people down 518 to 569. As was mentioned above, 569 (Carter/Pton-Hopewell) is an absolute mess when it comes to potholes. There's a monster one traveling northbound just above Mt Rose, and another further south toward the ETS complex. Its so bad, my preferred route has now been Great->518, instead of Rosedale to 569, which is faster and more direct coming from Princeton. The road had issues before the added traffic, now its only worse.
Closer to town, 206 is blocked off at Lovers Ln with a barrier and police presence. From there drivers are turning left onto Lovers, then right onto Mercer/583 to head south. Because of this Lovers Ln has turned into gridlock near rush hour.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 01, 2016, 10:30:16 PM
However, Mercer County - compared to my county of Somerset - seems to do a poorer job on the county roads overall. I noticed that they barely plowed when the large snowstorm hit New Jersey a month or two back, but Somerset roads in comparison were much more passable. CR 518, the road I take in my work commute, was a shitshow once it got into Hopewell Borough.
I've noticed that as well, driving up Wertsville out of Hopewell onto Rileyville (CR-607) is like night and day as soon as you cross the county line. Snow removal and road condition in general.
Well they could just take I-95 as a detour..... oh wait. :sombrero:
The end of an era?
Take a close look in the pic below. You'll seeing laying on the ground the large flashing arrow that greeted motorists just before they make the sharp left on I-295 South as they entered the infamous Aljo curve. High winds during a recent thunderstorm appears to have been too much for the wooden posts, blowing it over. Construction in the area would've required its removal within the next few years anyway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F0305160739_Burst20.jpg&hash=37eb7132408608fcc759dacd2b400843fe3dedb8) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0305160739_Burst20.jpg.html)
Is there a picture showing the sign flashing?
Also, US 206 has been reopened, albeit to vehicles under 20 tons. Vehicles over that limit are still restricted to the detour route.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/03/njs_oldest_bridge_reopens_on_route_206_in_princeto.html#incart_river_mobile_index
Quote from: Zeffy on March 07, 2016, 03:16:13 PM
Is there a picture showing the sign flashing?
GSV will have to do for now. Note the right-most like doesn't work...hasn't for a few years.
https://goo.gl/maps/EvX1stCWvyL2
https://goo.gl/maps/4NPurTzYnNE2
That sign reminds of one just like it just getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Delaware. I believe it was on the curve to DE 9, but I may be mistaken.
Also, I drove on the new replacement for the US 206 bridge last night in Princeton. There weren't any cops and I saw two trucks drive over the damn thing anyway, so hopefully it doesn't break. Again. The bridge lanes are a bit narrow because the shoulders are mostly covered by Jersey barriers, but hey - it's one of the best segments of road pavement in the state as of now. :sombrero:
Quote from: Zeffy on March 08, 2016, 09:29:59 AM
That sign reminds of one just like it just getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Delaware. I believe it was on the curve to DE 9, but I may be mistaken.
It's on the curve to US 13/40. The sign was needed because the DBRA replaced a perfectly fine ramp with one much too sharp, and cars were flying off it! https://goo.gl/maps/1cdVjaZwDn92
Quote from: Zeffy on March 08, 2016, 09:29:59 AM
That sign reminds of one just like it just getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Delaware. I believe it was on the curve to DE 9, but I may be mistaken.
Also, I drove on the new replacement for the US 206 bridge last night in Princeton. There weren't any cops and I saw two trucks drive over the damn thing anyway, so hopefully it doesn't break. Again. The bridge lanes are a bit narrow because the shoulders are mostly covered by Jersey barriers, but hey - it's one of the best segments of road pavement in the state as of now. :sombrero:
Were new weight limits posted?
Quote from: J Route Z on March 08, 2016, 12:23:26 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 08, 2016, 09:29:59 AM
That sign reminds of one just like it just getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Delaware. I believe it was on the curve to DE 9, but I may be mistaken.
Also, I drove on the new replacement for the US 206 bridge last night in Princeton. There weren't any cops and I saw two trucks drive over the damn thing anyway, so hopefully it doesn't break. Again. The bridge lanes are a bit narrow because the shoulders are mostly covered by Jersey barriers, but hey - it's one of the best segments of road pavement in the state as of now. :sombrero:
Were new weight limits posted?
Yes they are - clearly they need to put some sort of attention-grabbing feature on the sign so trucks don't continue to go over it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2016, 09:49:17 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 08, 2016, 09:29:59 AM
That sign reminds of one just like it just getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Delaware. I believe it was on the curve to DE 9, but I may be mistaken.
It's on the curve to US 13/40. The sign was needed because the DBRA replaced a perfectly fine ramp with one much too sharp, and cars were flying off it! https://goo.gl/maps/1cdVjaZwDn92
Damn it, that was my original guess too!! I wasn't sure if it was right after the bridge or the exit after...
Quote from: Zeffy on March 08, 2016, 04:19:53 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on March 08, 2016, 12:23:26 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 08, 2016, 09:29:59 AM
Also, I drove on the new replacement for the US 206 bridge last night in Princeton. There weren't any cops and I saw two trucks drive over the damn thing anyway, so hopefully it doesn't break. Again. The bridge lanes are a bit narrow because the shoulders are mostly covered by Jersey barriers, but hey - it's one of the best segments of road pavement in the state as of now. :sombrero:
Were new weight limits posted?
Yes they are - clearly they need to put some sort of attention-grabbing feature on the sign so trucks don't continue to go over it.
The only such feature that will work is police.
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 07, 2016, 03:16:13 PM
Is there a picture showing the sign flashing?
When I was a small child, I remember one just like this inside (the long-removed) Freehold Circle facing US-9 NB. I distinctly remember the flash pattern:
- Full arrow on
- Dark
- Full arrow on
- Dark
- One-by-one bulbs light up in line, then the chevron
(Repeat above)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2016, 12:43:58 PM
The end of an era?
Take a close look in the pic below. You'll seeing laying on the ground the large flashing arrow that greeted motorists just before they make the sharp left on I-295 South as they entered the infamous Aljo curve. High winds during a recent thunderstorm appears to have been too much for the wooden posts, blowing it over. Construction in the area would've required its removal within the next few years anyway.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F0305160739_Burst20.jpg&hash=37eb7132408608fcc759dacd2b400843fe3dedb8) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0305160739_Burst20.jpg.html)
Btw, apparently I was wrong (1st time in last 10 minutes...who would've thought!). The arrow board for the Aljo curve was put back into service, with new posts and footors. Yet they didn't bother replacing the bad light!
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
Yikes . . . Do you know what the posted detour route will be? Interestingly, the article does not say.
I did work in that area years ago (along the whole stretch of I-80, while also looking at U.S. 46) and the two possible detour routes (using intersections you alluded to) were not good even then. I cannot imagine they are any better now . . .
Quote from: akotchi on March 23, 2016, 01:17:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
Yikes . . . Do you know what the posted detour route will be? Interestingly, the article does not say.
I did work in that area years ago (along the whole stretch of I-80, while also looking at U.S. 46) and the two possible detour routes (using intersections you alluded to) were not good even then. I cannot imagine they are any better now . . .
Oh, boy. I'm familiar with the area and that won't be pleasant. I'm assuming Beverwyck Road will be the posted detour and I agree that Exit 1 is a PITA. I wonder if NJDOT will retime some of the signals in the area to help with traffic flow.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 07, 2016, 03:16:13 PM
Is there a picture showing the sign flashing?
I found a picture in my old files that I took of the old one going northbound (which is basically the same sign). Only the first three heads were lit when I took the photo.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5CMw1arl.jpg&hash=0bf0483490cb06275870180797aab6650798020d)
I have pics of various lights lit somewhere. I'll try to grab video of it in action.
Quote from: cl94 on March 23, 2016, 04:42:16 PM
Quote from: akotchi on March 23, 2016, 01:17:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
Yikes . . . Do you know what the posted detour route will be? Interestingly, the article does not say.
I did work in that area years ago (along the whole stretch of I-80, while also looking at U.S. 46) and the two possible detour routes (using intersections you alluded to) were not good even then. I cannot imagine they are any better now . . .
Oh, boy. I'm familiar with the area and that won't be pleasant. I'm assuming Beverwyck Road will be the posted detour and I agree that Exit 1 is a PITA. I wonder if NJDOT will retime some of the signals in the area to help with traffic flow.
Route 46 needs three through lanes at Beverwyck even without this closure. I really am clueless how they plan to deal with this. NJDOT used to just do whatever without regard to traffic volumes, but I thought they'd gotten better about that (ramp closures later at night instead of 8 PM for example). I... guess... we'll... see?
Quote from: Alps on March 24, 2016, 12:14:11 AM
Quote from: cl94 on March 23, 2016, 04:42:16 PM
Quote from: akotchi on March 23, 2016, 01:17:18 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
Yikes . . . Do you know what the posted detour route will be? Interestingly, the article does not say.
I did work in that area years ago (along the whole stretch of I-80, while also looking at U.S. 46) and the two possible detour routes (using intersections you alluded to) were not good even then. I cannot imagine they are any better now . . .
Oh, boy. I'm familiar with the area and that won't be pleasant. I'm assuming Beverwyck Road will be the posted detour and I agree that Exit 1 is a PITA. I wonder if NJDOT will retime some of the signals in the area to help with traffic flow.
Route 46 needs three through lanes at Beverwyck even without this closure. I really am clueless how they plan to deal with this. NJDOT used to just do whatever without regard to traffic volumes, but I thought they'd gotten better about that (ramp closures later at night instead of 8 PM for example). I... guess... we'll... see?
I'm trying to figure out why NJDOT isn't using accelerated bridge construction. Yeah, the weekend where they swap out the bridges would be pure hell, but it'll be 5 months of hell as it is. It's like ripping off a Band-Aid versus slowly removing it- both hurt, but one is much faster.
I originally mentioned this public meeting on the Garden State Parkway thread, but I'll move it to the more appropriate thread here now...
I stopped in yesterday at a public meeting in Mt. Laurel, NJ for a project on NJ 73. The primary objective is to improve the intersection of 73 & Church road by grade-separating Church over 73, but the project has expanded to upgrade nearly 1.75 miles of 73 as well. Church has an unusual configuration with 73, as the current intersection doesn't allow for straight-thru traffic but requires motorists to remain on 73 for a very short distance.
A few highlights:
> Church Road will fly over Rt. 73, eliminating a busy intersection and source of congestion for several hours of the day.
> There will be no immediate connection to 73 at Church Rd. Instead, connections will be made via RIRO turns near Church, and via a newly created 4 way signalized intersection about 1/2 mile south of the current intersection (it's currently a signalized T intersection with Atrium Way).
> Rt. 73 will be widened to no fewer than 3 lanes from 295 to near Church Street, with 73 North gaining a 3rd lane south of Church, and 73 South losing a 3rd lane just north of Church.
> Rt. 73 will gain a 4th lane in each direction between 295 & the NJ Turnpike.
> The 73 overpass over 295 will be slightly widened. The entire bridge deck will be replaced.
> The Fellowship Rd. jughandle from 73 South will be reconfigured and extended to Century Parkway, which will allow traffic to circulate back to Fellowship Rd. The current jughandle is an unusual 2 lane jughandle, with both lanes meeting into Fellowship Road's right lane. It works only because every sensible road rule is ignored with this configuration.
> The maps showed a little road work on 295 itself at the interchange, although I'm not sure what that may involve. Maybe slightly lowering 295's profile to increase clearance under the 73 overpass.
> Dual left-turn lanes from Fellowship onto 73. In the case of Fellowship south of 73, the map is showing an usual 6 lane design features a 5 vs 1 lane split...1 Southbound lane vs. 5 Northbound lanes (2 left turn lanes, 2 straight, 1 right). The current width is 5 lanes total. One of our prominent, featured members on this board had mentioned in the past that his firm has looked at this intersection. NJDOT staff who worked on this project mentioned that re-working this intersection was greatly looked at too, and unfortunately due to all the nearby businesses, there were serious issues with trying to grade-separate this intersection. Even putting a jughandle in from 73 North to Fellowship was impractical without taking away some businesses, and the volume of traffic they feel doesn't necessitate such.
From my perspective, this is a pretty good, thorough project. It succeeds in widening 73 at a very major junction of 2 interstate highways, and eliminating the bottleneck that can jam up 73 for quite a distance. While some residential property owners would be affected with the new roadway from Church to 73, best I can tell is no one will lose a house. Some business owners will be affected with reconfigured driveways, and those right next to the overpass may have to contend with a wall to support the new overpass.
Construction, they estimated, is about 5 years away, which IMO is pretty optimistic.
My big concern is signage, especially between 295 & the Turnpike. I talked with the project manager who kinda ho-humed that any improvements were needed, but he did say it's in the Concept Development Stage and signage is looked at later. A few other people I spoke with were very familiar with what I was talking about though, and absolutely agreed that they are pushing for changes to the signage.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2016, 01:17:53 PM
I originally mentioned this public meeting on the Garden State Parkway thread, but I'll move it to the more appropriate thread here now...
I stopped in yesterday at a public meeting in Mt. Laurel, NJ for a project on NJ 73. The primary objective is to improve the intersection of 73 & Church road by grade-separating Church over 73, but the project has expanded to upgrade nearly 1.75 miles of 73 as well. Church has an unusual configuration with 73, as the current intersection doesn't allow for straight-thru traffic but requires motorists to remain on 73 for a very short distance.
A few highlights:
> Church Road will fly over Rt. 73, eliminating a busy intersection and source of congestion for several hours of the day.
> There will be no immediate connection to 73 at Church Rd. Instead, connections will be made via RIRO turns near Church, and via a newly created 4 way signalized intersection about 1/2 mile south of the current intersection (it's currently a signalized T intersection with Atrium Way).
> Rt. 73 will be widened to no fewer than 3 lanes from 295 to near Church Street, with 73 North gaining a 3rd lane south of Church, and 73 South losing a 3rd lane just north of Church.
> Rt. 73 will gain a 4th lane in each direction between 295 & the NJ Turnpike.
> The 73 overpass over 295 will be slightly widened. The entire bridge deck will be replaced.
> The Fellowship Rd. jughandle from 73 South will be reconfigured and extended to Century Parkway, which will allow traffic to circulate back to Fellowship Rd. The current jughandle is an unusual 2 lane jughandle, with both lanes meeting into Fellowship Road's right lane. It works only because every sensible road rule is ignored with this configuration.
> The maps showed a little road work on 295 itself at the interchange, although I'm not sure what that may involve. Maybe slightly lowering 295's profile to increase clearance under the 73 overpass.
> Dual left-turn lanes from Fellowship onto 73. In the case of Fellowship south of 73, the map is showing an usual 6 lane design features a 5 vs 1 lane split...1 Southbound lane vs. 5 Northbound lanes (2 left turn lanes, 2 straight, 1 right). The current width is 5 lanes total. One of our prominent, featured members on this board had mentioned in the past that his firm has looked at this intersection. NJDOT staff who worked on this project mentioned that re-working this intersection was greatly looked at too, and unfortunately due to all the nearby businesses, there were serious issues with trying to grade-separate this intersection. Even putting a jughandle in from 73 North to Fellowship was impractical without taking away some businesses, and the volume of traffic they feel doesn't necessitate such.
From my perspective, this is a pretty good, thorough project. It succeeds in widening 73 at a very major junction of 2 interstate highways, and eliminating the bottleneck that can jam up 73 for quite a distance. While some residential property owners would be affected with the new roadway from Church to 73, best I can tell is no one will lose a house. Some business owners will be affected with reconfigured driveways, and those right next to the overpass may have to contend with a wall to support the new overpass.
Construction, they estimated, is about 5 years away, which IMO is pretty optimistic.
My big concern is signage, especially between 295 & the Turnpike. I talked with the project manager who kinda ho-humed that any improvements were needed, but he did say it's in the Concept Development Stage and signage is looked at later. A few other people I spoke with were very familiar with what I was talking about though, and absolutely agreed that they are pushing for changes to the signage.
I hope the widening of the NJ 73 overpass over 295 will eliminate the weaving that goes on with traffic coming off 295 North to 73 West.
Quote from: ekt8750 on March 24, 2016, 01:55:07 PM
I hope the widening of the NJ 73 overpass over 295 will eliminate the weaving that goes on with traffic coming off 295 North to 73 West North.
While it won't eliminate it, it will clean it up a bit. Currently as you're probably aware, that ramp sorta-kinda becomes its own lane, although it's not really striped as such, which is a condition noted by NJDOT (you would think that would be an easy fix, but as-is is as-is!. As proposed, 73 will have 3 clearly defined lanes thru the interchange, and a 4th lane will be for traffic merging on and off 73.
what's happening to Ramblewood Pkwy?
Oh yes the NJ 73 going N-S thing just like NJ 42 and NJ 168. Considering that PA has its part of the two state route signed as E-W, that NJDOT would have made the exception. I can see both routes 42 and 168 being this way as they run more N-S than E-W, but then again they do not change cardinal direction at a state line like Route 73 does. PA 73 runs more E-W than NJ 73's existence of N-S but for continuity sake NJ would break the rules for this one.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2016, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on March 24, 2016, 01:55:07 PM
I hope the widening of the NJ 73 overpass over 295 will eliminate the weaving that goes on with traffic coming off 295 North to 73 West North.
While it won't eliminate it, it will clean it up a bit. Currently as you're probably aware, that ramp sorta-kinda becomes its own lane, although it's not really striped as such, which is a condition noted by NJDOT (you would think that would be an easy fix, but as-is is as-is!. As proposed, 73 will have 3 clearly defined lanes thru the interchange, and a 4th lane will be for traffic merging on and off 73.
(Forgot 73 is North/South in NJ)
While that ramp from 295 North to 73 North does become its own lane, the ramp from 73 North to 295 South splits off of it almost immediately. I can't tell you how many times I've been cut off coming off of 295 by someone trying to get on it. It also doesn't help that the signage for the interchange is terrible.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 24, 2016, 03:38:31 PM
Oh yes the NJ 73 going N-S thing just like NJ 42 and NJ 168. Considering that PA has its part of the two state route signed as E-W, that NJDOT would have made the exception. I can see both routes 42 and 168 being this way as they run more N-S than E-W, but then again they do not change cardinal direction at a state line like Route 73 does. PA 73 runs more E-W than NJ 73's existence of N-S but for continuity sake NJ would break the rules for this one.
Most 1 and 2 digit state routes in PA follow the direct opposite of the national numbering/direction rules. Odd routes, east/west; even routes, north/south.
Quote from: odditude on March 24, 2016, 03:32:57 PM
what's happening to Ramblewood Pkwy?
The direct connection will be a RIRO with 73 North. Indirectly, a small new road sticking out across from Fairway Terrace will intersect with Church, which will then allow them access over to the South side of 73.
Quote from: ekt8750 on March 24, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2016, 02:04:54 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on March 24, 2016, 01:55:07 PM
I hope the widening of the NJ 73 overpass over 295 will eliminate the weaving that goes on with traffic coming off 295 North to 73 West North.
While it won't eliminate it, it will clean it up a bit. Currently as you're probably aware, that ramp sorta-kinda becomes its own lane, although it's not really striped as such, which is a condition noted by NJDOT (you would think that would be an easy fix, but as-is is as-is!. As proposed, 73 will have 3 clearly defined lanes thru the interchange, and a 4th lane will be for traffic merging on and off 73.
(Forgot 73 is North/South in NJ)
While that ramp from 295 North to 73 North does become its own lane, the ramp from 73 North to 295 South splits off of it almost immediately. I can't tell you how many times I've been cut off coming off of 295 by someone trying to get on it. It also doesn't help that the signage for the interchange is terrible.
Yeah...it's that whole lack of marked lane situation that's present. With any C/D type auxiliary lane, you're still going to have to mix into traffic. But it'll be better defined in the future!
Are the button copy signs on I-280 WB by the NJ Turnpike and the button copy signs on the ramp from the GSP to I-280 still around?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2016, 01:17:53 PM
I originally mentioned this public meeting on the Garden State Parkway thread, but I'll move it to the more appropriate thread here now...
I stopped in yesterday at a public meeting in Mt. Laurel, NJ for a project on NJ 73. The primary objective is to improve the intersection of 73 & Church road by grade-separating Church over 73, but the project has expanded to upgrade nearly 1.75 miles of 73 as well. Church has an unusual configuration with 73, as the current intersection doesn't allow for straight-thru traffic but requires motorists to remain on 73 for a very short distance.
A few highlights:
> Church Road will fly over Rt. 73, eliminating a busy intersection and source of congestion for several hours of the day.
> There will be no immediate connection to 73 at Church Rd. Instead, connections will be made via RIRO turns near Church, and via a newly created 4 way signalized intersection about 1/2 mile south of the current intersection (it's currently a signalized T intersection with Atrium Way).
> Rt. 73 will be widened to no fewer than 3 lanes from 295 to near Church Street, with 73 North gaining a 3rd lane south of Church, and 73 South losing a 3rd lane just north of Church.
> Rt. 73 will gain a 4th lane in each direction between 295 & the NJ Turnpike.
> The 73 overpass over 295 will be slightly widened. The entire bridge deck will be replaced.
> The Fellowship Rd. jughandle from 73 South will be reconfigured and extended to Century Parkway, which will allow traffic to circulate back to Fellowship Rd. The current jughandle is an unusual 2 lane jughandle, with both lanes meeting into Fellowship Road's right lane. It works only because every sensible road rule is ignored with this configuration.
> The maps showed a little road work on 295 itself at the interchange, although I'm not sure what that may involve. Maybe slightly lowering 295's profile to increase clearance under the 73 overpass.
> Dual left-turn lanes from Fellowship onto 73. In the case of Fellowship south of 73, the map is showing an usual 6 lane design features a 5 vs 1 lane split...1 Southbound lane vs. 5 Northbound lanes (2 left turn lanes, 2 straight, 1 right). The current width is 5 lanes total. One of our prominent, featured members on this board had mentioned in the past that his firm has looked at this intersection. NJDOT staff who worked on this project mentioned that re-working this intersection was greatly looked at too, and unfortunately due to all the nearby businesses, there were serious issues with trying to grade-separate this intersection. Even putting a jughandle in from 73 North to Fellowship was impractical without taking away some businesses, and the volume of traffic they feel doesn't necessitate such.
From my perspective, this is a pretty good, thorough project. It succeeds in widening 73 at a very major junction of 2 interstate highways, and eliminating the bottleneck that can jam up 73 for quite a distance. While some residential property owners would be affected with the new roadway from Church to 73, best I can tell is no one will lose a house. Some business owners will be affected with reconfigured driveways, and those right next to the overpass may have to contend with a wall to support the new overpass.
Construction, they estimated, is about 5 years away, which IMO is pretty optimistic.
My big concern is signage, especially between 295 & the Turnpike. I talked with the project manager who kinda ho-humed that any improvements were needed, but he did say it's in the Concept Development Stage and signage is looked at later. A few other people I spoke with were very familiar with what I was talking about though, and absolutely agreed that they are pushing for changes to the signage.
I might be somewhat referenced in the above. It sounds like they have taken the design we were considering and done something similar - I don't think, but I have no way to know, that they used our earlier plans. The jughandle to Century, widening Route 73, and widening Fellowship to a 5/1 with dual left turns are all things we looked at. (Actually, we were thinking a 4/2 was better - 2 lefts, 2 thrus, and a shared right turn NB. But that was dependent on an old project, so projected volumes may have changed.)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 05:33:06 PM
Are the button copy signs on I-280 WB by the NJ Turnpike and the button copy signs on the ramp from the GSP to I-280 still around?
Signs on the GSP ramp are all replaced. I think the signs in both directions of 280 remain at the Turnpike interchange.
Quote from: Alps on March 24, 2016, 07:31:00 PM
I might be somewhat referenced in the above.
Wink. Wink.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/03/love_locked_down_on_nj_scenic_overlook_bridge.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
Want to express your love? Stop at the not-so-scenic overpass on 295 in Bordentown and stick a lock on the fence.
Cheaper than roses, I guess...
NJ.com: Why Coin Only Lanes on the GSP don't accept EZ Pass: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/03/why_cant_drivers_use_e-zpass_in_parkway_exact_chan.html#incart_river_home
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2016, 10:20:14 AM
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/03/love_locked_down_on_nj_scenic_overlook_bridge.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
Want to express your love? Stop at the not-so-scenic overpass on 295 in Bordentown and stick a lock on the fence.
Cheaper than roses, I guess...
In Boston, the Mass Ave. overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3475104,-71.0878829,3a,75y,46.68h,84.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjUPM2BwN3VvqbdJy5tPpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along the Mass Pike (I-90) that has a bunch of padlocks attached to it (the overpass fence, that is). Personally, having such along that stretch of I-295 is a bit tacky.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2016, 08:52:47 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2016, 10:20:14 AM
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/03/love_locked_down_on_nj_scenic_overlook_bridge.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
Want to express your love? Stop at the not-so-scenic overpass on 295 in Bordentown and stick a lock on the fence.
Cheaper than roses, I guess...
In Boston, the Mass Ave. overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3475104,-71.0878829,3a,75y,46.68h,84.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjUPM2BwN3VvqbdJy5tPpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along the Mass Pike (I-90) that has a bunch of padlocks attached to it. Personally, having such along that stretch of I-295 is a bit tacky.
Seems appropriate for New Jersey, which is the Land of Tacky.
Quote from: Rothman on April 01, 2016, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 01, 2016, 08:52:47 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2016, 10:20:14 AM
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/03/love_locked_down_on_nj_scenic_overlook_bridge.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
Want to express your love? Stop at the not-so-scenic overpass on 295 in Bordentown and stick a lock on the fence.
Cheaper than roses, I guess...
In Boston, the Mass Ave. overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3475104,-71.0878829,3a,75y,46.68h,84.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSjUPM2BwN3VvqbdJy5tPpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along the Mass Pike (I-90) that has a bunch of padlocks attached to it. Personally, having such along that stretch of I-295 is a bit tacky.
Seems appropriate for New Jersey, which is the Land of Tacky.
Spackle, whose parent company is based in Bayonne, agrees.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 07, 2016, 03:16:13 PM
Is there a picture showing the sign flashing?
Also, US 206 has been reopened, albeit to vehicles under 20 tons. Vehicles over that limit are still restricted to the detour route.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/03/njs_oldest_bridge_reopens_on_route_206_in_princeto.html#incart_river_mobile_index
Here you go. It was a little bright out but you can see the arrow flash. Note the far right light is out.
https://youtu.be/NpV1F85tQLY
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
I was one of the last ones on the ramp tonight. They had the decel lane blocked off and a guy up in a bucket truck patching over the sign. Looked like the upward/left arrow was already removed. Not sure what will go on the sign. But the ramp was not quite closed yet. By morning it sure will be
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2016, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
I was one of the last ones on the ramp tonight. They had the decel lane blocked off and a guy up in a bucket truck patching over the sign. Looked like the upward/left arrow was already removed. Not sure what will go on the sign. But the ramp was not quite closed yet. By morning it sure will be
Is there a posted detour route?
Quote from: cl94 on April 02, 2016, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2016, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
I was one of the last ones on the ramp tonight. They had the decel lane blocked off and a guy up in a bucket truck patching over the sign. Looked like the upward/left arrow was already removed. Not sure what will go on the sign. But the ramp was not quite closed yet. By morning it sure will be
Is there a posted detour route?
Recommended detour is 46 to 202 to 287 south. Left turn at Beverwyck or jughandle at New Rd. can't handle it.
Quote from: Alps on April 03, 2016, 03:49:58 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 02, 2016, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2016, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
I was one of the last ones on the ramp tonight. They had the decel lane blocked off and a guy up in a bucket truck patching over the sign. Looked like the upward/left arrow was already removed. Not sure what will go on the sign. But the ramp was not quite closed yet. By morning it sure will be
Is there a posted detour route?
Recommended detour is 46 to 202 to 287 south. Left turn at Beverwyck or jughandle at New Rd. can't handle it.
Was the right lane at 202 converted into a turn lane to handle the extra traffic?
Quote from: cl94 on April 03, 2016, 03:57:23 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 03, 2016, 03:49:58 PM
Quote from: cl94 on April 02, 2016, 03:51:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2016, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 22, 2016, 07:01:14 PM
Critical ramp is closing: http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0 (http://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/5-month-rt-80-ramp-closure-begin-next-week-0)
This affects a LOT of people. People use that ramp at all hours. There's no good way around it. Getting to I-280 Exit 1 is inconvenient and sticks you in the long line there. Using Beverwyck Rd. gets very congested. This is going to have broad regional effects.
I was one of the last ones on the ramp tonight. They had the decel lane blocked off and a guy up in a bucket truck patching over the sign. Looked like the upward/left arrow was already removed. Not sure what will go on the sign. But the ramp was not quite closed yet. By morning it sure will be
Is there a posted detour route?
Recommended detour is 46 to 202 to 287 south. Left turn at Beverwyck or jughandle at New Rd. can't handle it.
Was the right lane at 202 converted into a turn lane to handle the extra traffic?
There has always been a turn lane there.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/04/a_70mph_speed_limit_in_nj_not_so_fast_state_says.html#incart_river_index Of course it'll never happen. NJ is stubborn as ever.
I think NJ should raise certain parts of major highways to 70, such as areas of I-80 and I-78.
The problem with the 85th percentile is that it doesn't account for drivers who actually obey the speed limits whatever they might be, or drive X MPH faster than the posted limit. Have the 85th percentile speeds really stayed the same in states that did raise the speed limits?
Quote from: bzakharin on April 07, 2016, 11:52:10 AM
The problem with the 85th percentile is that it doesn't account for drivers who actually obey the speed limits whatever they might be, or drive X MPH faster than the posted limit.
In reality, the 85th percentile has nothing to do with the speed limit. It is simply the speed at which 85% of the drivers are driving at or under. NJDOT does track this via their traffic monitoring system, and it publically available on their website here (latest is for 2014): http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/pdf/wim/14_Classdata_spd.pdf . The 85th % heading is a little cut off, but you can see the first set of columns are Average, Median & 85th % Speeds. If you scroll down to page 36 of the PDF (Route 49, mistakenly labeled US 49), you will see the 85th percentile speed is actually just below the 55 mph speed limit for many months, which actually makes the speed limit appropriate. On the other hand, page 83 for I-295 at MP 15.2 shows the 85th % approaching and over 80 mph in a few cases.
QuoteHave the 85th percentile speeds really stayed the same in states that did raise the speed limits?
In some cases, Yes. Especially when speed limits were increased from 75 to 80 mph.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2016, 12:08:21 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 07, 2016, 11:52:10 AM
The problem with the 85th percentile is that it doesn't account for drivers who actually obey the speed limits whatever they might be, or drive X MPH faster than the posted limit.
In reality, the 85th percentile has nothing to do with the speed limit. It is simply the speed at which 85% of the drivers are driving at or under. NJDOT does track this via their traffic monitoring system, and it publically available on their website here (latest is for 2014): http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/pdf/wim/14_Classdata_spd.pdf . The 85th % heading is a little cut off, but you can see the first set of columns are Average, Median & 85th % Speeds. If you scroll down to page 36 of the PDF (Route 49, mistakenly labeled US 49), you will see the 85th percentile speed is actually just below the 55 mph speed limit for many months, which actually makes the speed limit appropriate. On the other hand, page 83 for I-295 at MP 15.2 shows the 85th % approaching and over 80 mph in a few cases.
I understand that, but the rationale for using the 85th percentile as the target for a speed limit change is that that is really the speed people are going and it will remain the speed after the speed limit is raised, when, in fact, it is more likely to go up (possibly unless it's already below the current speed limit)
Quote
QuoteHave the 85th percentile speeds really stayed the same in states that did raise the speed limits?
In some cases, Yes. Especially when speed limits were increased from 75 to 80 mph.
In other words, in most cases they didn't which undermines the point in using this measurement.
You must believe the people who claims that if the speed limit is raise, everyone will just drive faster by that amount. Actual research has proven this false; people drive the speed they're comfortable with unless a cop is nearby.
Quote from: vdeane on April 07, 2016, 12:22:03 PM
You must believe the people who claims that if the speed limit is raise, everyone will just drive faster by that amount. Actual research has proven this false; people drive the speed they're comfortable with unless a cop is nearby.
That is exactly what I'm trying to ask. I am willing to bet that it's a combination of both, but if the 85th percentile goes up when the speed limit is raised it gives credence to the view that at least *some* people will just drive X MPH above the posted speed limit
Quote from: bzakharin on April 07, 2016, 12:31:32 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 07, 2016, 12:22:03 PM
You must believe the people who claims that if the speed limit is raise, everyone will just drive faster by that amount. Actual research has proven this false; people drive the speed they're comfortable with unless a cop is nearby.
That is exactly what I'm trying to ask. I am willing to bet that it's a combination of both, but if the 85th percentile goes up when the speed limit is raised it gives credence to the view that at least *some* people will just drive X MPH above the posted speed limit
The 85th percentile speed doesn't change much. The 50th percentile speed does. The goal is to keep the 50th percentile (median) speed as close to the 85th percentile speed as possible, as well as to minimize the range of speeds traveled. Large variations in speed are more dangerous than high speeds.
Quote from: cl94 on April 07, 2016, 02:00:45 PM
The 85th percentile speed doesn't change much. The 50th percentile speed does. The goal is to keep the 50th percentile (median) speed as close to the 85th percentile speed as possible, as well as to minimize the range of speeds traveled. Large variations in speed are more dangerous than high speeds.
As Jeremy Clarkson would put it:
Those wanting more roadway / transportation improvements in the Garden State might have to wait a bit longer, because essentially, the Highway Fund is broke. At least we can pay off our debt...
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/04/nj_will_run_out_of_money_for_road_rail_projects_this_summer.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
Has jurisdiction of Hoes Lane in Piscataway been officially turned over to the state? Based on this press release, (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2016/041416c.shtm) it sounds like it's now officially part of Yellow Brick Road* Route 18.
*Very obscure and very-in-joke to me related to my time at Rutgers
I had to read all the way to the end to figure out that the "I-287 extension project" mentioned in the title and the body of the release is actually the route 18 extension project *to* 287. I kept wondering how I-287 could be extended (except onto NJ 440 which is nowhere near NJ 18)
Yes, NJ-18 signs have been up on Hoes Ln. and Centennial Ave. since the fall. The project only took double the estimated time to complete and didn't even involve major interchange construction.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2016, 03:30:41 PM
Yes, NJ-18 signs have been up on Hoes Ln. and Centennial Ave. since the fall. The project only took double the estimated time to complete and didn't even involve major interchange construction.
Although at least as of December, there were no NJ 18 shields on I-287.
Quote from: dgolub on April 18, 2016, 07:06:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2016, 03:30:41 PM
Yes, NJ-18 signs have been up on Hoes Ln. and Centennial Ave. since the fall. The project only took double the estimated time to complete and didn't even involve major interchange construction.
Although at least as of December, there were no NJ 18 shields on I-287.
Yeah, surprising considering all the extra room on the old button copy Exit 8 signs. My guess is those are going to be replaced soon and they didn't want to waste money on the shield (probably around $1000-$2000 to patch all of the signs, based on material and labor, which is truly peanuts).
Quote from: Alps on April 18, 2016, 10:46:08 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 18, 2016, 07:06:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2016, 03:30:41 PM
Yes, NJ-18 signs have been up on Hoes Ln. and Centennial Ave. since the fall. The project only took double the estimated time to complete and didn't even involve major interchange construction.
Although at least as of December, there were no NJ 18 shields on I-287.
Yeah, surprising considering all the extra room on the old button copy Exit 8 signs. My guess is those are going to be replaced soon and they didn't want to waste money on the shield (probably around $1000-$2000 to patch all of the signs, based on material and labor, which is truly peanuts).
I thought when the state erected them (way way back in 1994) that they left the space at the top on purpose for the 18 shields to be added at a later time...
Quote from: storm2k on April 19, 2016, 02:42:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 18, 2016, 10:46:08 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 18, 2016, 07:06:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2016, 03:30:41 PM
Yes, NJ-18 signs have been up on Hoes Ln. and Centennial Ave. since the fall. The project only took double the estimated time to complete and didn't even involve major interchange construction.
Although at least as of December, there were no NJ 18 shields on I-287.
Yeah, surprising considering all the extra room on the old button copy Exit 8 signs. My guess is those are going to be replaced soon and they didn't want to waste money on the shield (probably around $1000-$2000 to patch all of the signs, based on material and labor, which is truly peanuts).
I thought when the state erected them (way way back in 1994) that they left the space at the top on purpose for the 18 shields to be added at a later time...
It seems logical based on all that extra space, but I guess that they're old enough that they'd rather just replace them outright at this point.
Quote from: dgolub on April 19, 2016, 08:32:02 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 19, 2016, 02:42:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 18, 2016, 10:46:08 PM
Quote from: dgolub on April 18, 2016, 07:06:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2016, 03:30:41 PM
Yes, NJ-18 signs have been up on Hoes Ln. and Centennial Ave. since the fall. The project only took double the estimated time to complete and didn't even involve major interchange construction.
Although at least as of December, there were no NJ 18 shields on I-287.
Yeah, surprising considering all the extra room on the old button copy Exit 8 signs. My guess is those are going to be replaced soon and they didn't want to waste money on the shield (probably around $1000-$2000 to patch all of the signs, based on material and labor, which is truly peanuts).
I thought when the state erected them (way way back in 1994) that they left the space at the top on purpose for the 18 shields to be added at a later time...
It seems logical based on all that extra space, but I guess that they're old enough that they'd rather just replace them outright at this point.
I guess they are considering that a one-off as part of this project. The Exit 8 signs are from 1994 when they reconfigured that exit and built the NB ramps to Possumtown Rd, but the rest of the signage went up in 1998 when they got rid of the experimental diagramatic signs and went standard MUTCD from the Turnpike to 22.
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
This has all been discussed, but short answers:
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
There is no direct connection. The route signed "TO I-95" is along I-295 South to I-195 East to the Turnpike. They are building an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95. When that is complete, I-95 will be re-routed onto the PA Turnpike across the bridge onto the NJ Turnpike. The old section of I-95 will become I-295
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
The main reason is to lower the number of lanes you potentially have to switch from the leftmost lane to an exit. Another reason is to separate truck traffic from car traffic.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 20, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
This has all been discussed, but short answers:
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
There is no direct connection. The route signed "TO I-95" is along I-295 South to I-195 East to the Turnpike. They are building an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95. When that is complete, I-95 will be re-routed onto the PA Turnpike across the bridge onto the NJ Turnpike. The old section of I-95 will become I-295
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
The main reason is to lower the number of lanes you potentially have to switch from the leftmost lane to an exit. Another reason is to separate truck traffic from car traffic.
Thank you for your answers.
Looking on Google Maps at the red lines approaching and on the actual DE bound DelMemBr span due to 3 of the 4 lanes being closed for suspender rope maintenence, I noticed NJ 48 is closed from Salem CR 551 to U.S. 40, including where 48 crosses the NJTP. Why?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on April 20, 2016, 08:05:01 PM
Looking on Google Maps at the red lines approaching and on the actual DE bound DelMemBr span due to 3 of the 4 lanes being closed for suspender rope maintenence, I noticed NJ 48 is closed from Salem CR 551 to U.S. 40, including where 48 crosses the NJTP. Why?
ixnay
Flooding in Houston.
Or: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2016/031016.shtm
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 20, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
This has all been discussed, but short answers:
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
There is no direct connection. The route signed "TO I-95" is along I-295 South to I-195 East to the Turnpike. They are building an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95. When that is complete, I-95 will be re-routed onto the PA Turnpike across the bridge onto the NJ Turnpike. The old section of I-95 will become I-295
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
The main reason is to lower the number of lanes you potentially have to switch from the leftmost lane to an exit. Another reason is to separate truck traffic from car traffic.
Thank you for your answers.
.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the NJ Turnpike has relatively few exits compared to other freeways. Most of the 12 lane (or more) stretch is urban/suburban (as opposed to rural), so you would expect exits every mile. But unlike other wide freeways that you may see in CA or TX, the turnpike has exits about every 5-7 miles. If the NJ Turnpike between Newark and Exit 6 had as many exits as a CA freeway, building dual exits would be cost-prohibitive, which is why you don't see too many 3-3-3-3 freeways in other places and 6-6 is more common.
Quote from: mrsman on April 26, 2016, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 20, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
This has all been discussed, but short answers:
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
There is no direct connection. The route signed "TO I-95" is along I-295 South to I-195 East to the Turnpike. They are building an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95. When that is complete, I-95 will be re-routed onto the PA Turnpike across the bridge onto the NJ Turnpike. The old section of I-95 will become I-295
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
The main reason is to lower the number of lanes you potentially have to switch from the leftmost lane to an exit. Another reason is to separate truck traffic from car traffic.
Thank you for your answers.
.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the NJ Turnpike has relatively few exits compared to other freeways. Most of the 12 lane (or more) stretch is urban/suburban (as opposed to rural), so you would expect exits every mile. But unlike other wide freeways that you may see in CA or TX, the turnpike has exits about every 5-7 miles. If the NJ Turnpike between Newark and Exit 6 had as many exits as a CA freeway, building dual exits would be cost-prohibitive, which is why you don't see too many 3-3-3-3 freeways in other places and 6-6 is more common.
It's also a toll highway with a ticket system, and those tend not to have exits every mile.
Quote from: mrsman on April 26, 2016, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 20, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
This has all been discussed, but short answers:
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
There is no direct connection. The route signed "TO I-95" is along I-295 South to I-195 East to the Turnpike. They are building an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95. When that is complete, I-95 will be re-routed onto the PA Turnpike across the bridge onto the NJ Turnpike. The old section of I-95 will become I-295
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
The main reason is to lower the number of lanes you potentially have to switch from the leftmost lane to an exit. Another reason is to separate truck traffic from car traffic.
Thank you for your answers.
.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the NJ Turnpike has relatively few exits compared to other freeways. Most of the 12 lane (or more) stretch is urban/suburban (as opposed to rural), so you would expect exits every mile. But unlike other wide freeways that you may see in CA or TX, the turnpike has exits about every 5-7 miles. If the NJ Turnpike between Newark and Exit 6 had as many exits as a CA freeway, building dual exits would be cost-prohibitive, which is why you don't see too many 3-3-3-3 freeways in other places and 6-6 is more common.
Thanks again, I see the wisdom behind segregating traffic flow going in the same direction. Keeps the guy traveling in the far left lane trying to move over five lanes to reach the next exit two miles down the road. Especially separating the cars from the trucks, I am sure the truckers appreciate that.
Quote from: longhorn on April 26, 2016, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: mrsman on April 26, 2016, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 20, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
This has all been discussed, but short answers:
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
There is no direct connection. The route signed "TO I-95" is along I-295 South to I-195 East to the Turnpike. They are building an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95. When that is complete, I-95 will be re-routed onto the PA Turnpike across the bridge onto the NJ Turnpike. The old section of I-95 will become I-295
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
The main reason is to lower the number of lanes you potentially have to switch from the leftmost lane to an exit. Another reason is to separate truck traffic from car traffic.
Thank you for your answers.
.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the NJ Turnpike has relatively few exits compared to other freeways. Most of the 12 lane (or more) stretch is urban/suburban (as opposed to rural), so you would expect exits every mile. But unlike other wide freeways that you may see in CA or TX, the turnpike has exits about every 5-7 miles. If the NJ Turnpike between Newark and Exit 6 had as many exits as a CA freeway, building dual exits would be cost-prohibitive, which is why you don't see too many 3-3-3-3 freeways in other places and 6-6 is more common.
Thanks again, I see the wisdom behind segregating traffic flow going in the same direction. Keeps the guy traveling in the far left lane trying to move over five lanes to reach the next exit two miles down the road.
Or 1/10th of a mile down the road! :-)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2016, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: longhorn on April 26, 2016, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: mrsman on April 26, 2016, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 20, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
This has all been discussed, but short answers:
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
There is no direct connection. The route signed "TO I-95" is along I-295 South to I-195 East to the Turnpike. They are building an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95. When that is complete, I-95 will be re-routed onto the PA Turnpike across the bridge onto the NJ Turnpike. The old section of I-95 will become I-295
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
The main reason is to lower the number of lanes you potentially have to switch from the leftmost lane to an exit. Another reason is to separate truck traffic from car traffic.
Thank you for your answers.
.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the NJ Turnpike has relatively few exits compared to other freeways. Most of the 12 lane (or more) stretch is urban/suburban (as opposed to rural), so you would expect exits every mile. But unlike other wide freeways that you may see in CA or TX, the turnpike has exits about every 5-7 miles. If the NJ Turnpike between Newark and Exit 6 had as many exits as a CA freeway, building dual exits would be cost-prohibitive, which is why you don't see too many 3-3-3-3 freeways in other places and 6-6 is more common.
Thanks again, I see the wisdom behind segregating traffic flow going in the same direction. Keeps the guy traveling in the far left lane trying to move over five lanes to reach the next exit two miles down the road.
Or 1/10th of a mile down the road! :-)
Mmmhmm, that seems to be Jersey's state sport.
The proposed FY2017 Transportation Capital Program has been posted on NJDOT's website: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp17/sec5/
Eliminating the left exit on the I-78/287 and US 202/206 interchange? Finally.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 28, 2016, 01:45:27 PM
Eliminating the left exit on the I-78/287 and US 202/206 interchange? Finally.
I believe they've started the prep work on that already. Never quite understood the logic behind that one other than to eliminate a loop ramp.
I read that its the merge from I-78 E B to I-287 N B they are working on. It says those exiting at Pluckemin after merging have to cross five lanes to do so.
The left exit from I-287 N B to I-78 W B, from what I have seen, is not a problem as you have that dual carriageway set up. Most traffic in the inner roadway is going for 78 so its more like an equal split in roads then an actual exit.
Actually I think that if they were to move the ramp over to the right is to have it exit from the outer roadway, and at the split prior to the US 202/206 merge is to make that outer roadway a long c/d road and sign it exclusively as an exit for I-78 and have the inner roadway exclusively for through traffic only. In addition eliminate that crossover ramp that now lets US 202/206 traffic access the left I-78 W B exit, as it would no longer be needed.
The southbound Exit 17 ramp from the inside could also be made from using the outside and signing the outside roadway at the split south of the I-78 E B exit as exclusively for US 202/205. The left side I-78 merge would have to be shifted over to the right and merge into the outer roadway as well. The outside ramp to Exit 17 could be widened and the existing bridge that carries the 17 ramp over S B I-287 could be used for a widened SB US 202/206 roadway instead of a single lane sharing the current overpass with the NB US 202/206 lanes across I-287. Of course a NB overpass would need to be added, but then again the new businesses along US 202/206 between Pluckemin and Somerville do warrant a widened highway for the US routes anyway. This would be a start for that.
Quote from: longhorn on April 26, 2016, 10:14:45 AM
Quote from: mrsman on April 26, 2016, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 20, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
This has all been discussed, but short answers:
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 04:06:41 PM
Another question, the map is showing I-95 going around north of Trenton then turns into I-295 as the freeway turns south. How does I-95 connect over the NJT from Trenton? It does not show it on the map.
There is no direct connection. The route signed "TO I-95" is along I-295 South to I-195 East to the Turnpike. They are building an interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95. When that is complete, I-95 will be re-routed onto the PA Turnpike across the bridge onto the NJ Turnpike. The old section of I-95 will become I-295
Quote from: longhorn on April 20, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
The NJT is twelve lanes wide, why is it divided into 2 pairs of three lanes northbound and southbound? I am sure there is a reason.
The main reason is to lower the number of lanes you potentially have to switch from the leftmost lane to an exit. Another reason is to separate truck traffic from car traffic.
Thank you for your answers.
.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the NJ Turnpike has relatively few exits compared to other freeways. Most of the 12 lane (or more) stretch is urban/suburban (as opposed to rural), so you would expect exits every mile. But unlike other wide freeways that you may see in CA or TX, the turnpike has exits about every 5-7 miles. If the NJ Turnpike between Newark and Exit 6 had as many exits as a CA freeway, building dual exits would be cost-prohibitive, which is why you don't see too many 3-3-3-3 freeways in other places and 6-6 is more common.
Thanks again, I see the wisdom behind segregating traffic flow going in the same direction. Keeps the guy traveling in the far left lane trying to move over five lanes to reach the next exit two miles down the road. Especially separating the cars from the trucks, I am sure the truckers appreciate that.
I think in this day and age safety is the issue. I see that wide roads and changing many lanes to get to an exit on the other side of the road is not an issue for most drivers as here in Florida they will just cut across all five lanes like its nothing. Heck, I even see buses and trucks cut across four lanes with stopped traffic on it along John Young Parkway in Orlando. Many charter buses exit JYP SB from FL 528 E B to use it to Taft- Vineland Road E B, however JYP is so congested with many cars and long waiting lines at the Central Florida Parkway intersection that its backed up along SB JYP to north of FL 528. That does not discourage bus drivers as well as some semi drivers as they will move their extra long vehicle across the stopped traffic in the the three lanes of through traffic and get themselves into the left turn lanes for Taft- Vineland Road. This, of course, is all within a tenth of a mile between the 528 interchange and the Taft- Vineland Road intersection.
Quote from: Zeffy on April 28, 2016, 01:45:27 PM
Eliminating the left exit on the I-78/287 and US 202/206 interchange? Finally.
Public meeting about it next week, actually! http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout050216mh.pdf
The project is supposed to go out to bid in May, 2016. The $10 million price tag you see is what NJDOT is funding in FY2017. They are supposed to fund $10 mil in FY '16, and another $12 or so in FY '18.
given the current financial woes, what % of this proposed budget would you expect to get funded?
Quote from: odditude on April 29, 2016, 09:23:23 AM
given the current financial woes, what % of this proposed budget would you expect to get funded?
If we're lucky... 20%. :banghead:
Quote from: odditude on April 29, 2016, 09:23:23 AM
given the current financial woes, what % of this proposed budget would you expect to get funded?
100%.
There's the Transportation Trust Fund...and then there's money out of the general budget. The state's been in this position before - in fact, it seems like it's in this position every year.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 29, 2016, 07:28:04 AM
I read that its the merge from I-78 E B to I-287 N B they are working on. It says those exiting at Pluckemin after merging have to cross five lanes to do so.
Yes it is. The issue is also with the trucks on that ramp that have to weave across a number of lanes just to be in the right mainline lanes upstream.
Quote from: akotchi on April 29, 2016, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 29, 2016, 07:28:04 AM
I read that its the merge from I-78 E B to I-287 N B they are working on. It says those exiting at Pluckemin after merging have to cross five lanes to do so.
Yes it is. The issue is also with the trucks on that ramp that have to weave across a number of lanes just to be in the right mainline lanes upstream.
All they would have to do is reopen the existing loop ramp from 78E to 287N and sign it for 202/206.
They actually have improved already the SB Left US 202/206 exit as before all two lanes went to the exit. Only one lane remained for straight through traffic and that one lane merged with the outside roadway from the left. In the past it was safer to actually exit US 202/206 for Somerville than to stay on 287 as you had to be in the right lane and then have your lane drop in just less than a quarter mile.
At least I-287 maintains at least two lanes all the way through at current.
What always got me is the fact the inner roadway got two exit lanes and the outer road got only a single lane ramp. I am guessing that has to do with I-78 westbound traffic, as most exiting Exit 29 to go south use US 202/206 than stay straight through to Somerset, Piscataway, and ultimately the Edison/ Woodbridge area.
Quote from: Alps on April 29, 2016, 09:39:20 PM
Quote from: akotchi on April 29, 2016, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 29, 2016, 07:28:04 AM
I read that its the merge from I-78 E B to I-287 N B they are working on. It says those exiting at Pluckemin after merging have to cross five lanes to do so.
Yes it is. The issue is also with the trucks on that ramp that have to weave across a number of lanes just to be in the right mainline lanes upstream.
All they would have to do is reopen the existing loop ramp from 78E to 287N and sign it for 202/206.
My office had this project from preliminary engineering, but I did not get involved until final design so the decisions had been made. As memory serves, it was one of the many alternatives considered and only would have solved the I-78 EB to U.S. 202-206 weaving issue. The I-78 EB to I-287 NB truck movements would still have been weaving from the left side of the highway to the right (slowly too up a mild upgrade), and that was viewed as the bigger safety issue. Sending I-287 trucks to this loop ramp was considered to be confusing and difficult to enforce. In addition, use of the loop ramp would also create a short weave section with the SB-to-EB loop ramp.
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 12:49:49 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 29, 2016, 09:39:20 PM
Quote from: akotchi on April 29, 2016, 01:26:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 29, 2016, 07:28:04 AM
I read that its the merge from I-78 E B to I-287 N B they are working on. It says those exiting at Pluckemin after merging have to cross five lanes to do so.
Yes it is. The issue is also with the trucks on that ramp that have to weave across a number of lanes just to be in the right mainline lanes upstream.
All they would have to do is reopen the existing loop ramp from 78E to 287N and sign it for 202/206.
My office had this project from preliminary engineering, but I did not get involved until final design so the decisions had been made. As memory serves, it was one of the many alternatives considered and only would have solved the I-78 EB to U.S. 202-206 weaving issue. The I-78 EB to I-287 NB truck movements would still have been weaving from the left side of the highway to the right (slowly too up a mild upgrade), and that was viewed as the bigger safety issue. Sending I-287 trucks to this loop ramp was considered to be confusing and difficult to enforce. In addition, use of the loop ramp would also create a short weave section with the SB-to-EB loop ramp.
Those are good points, and I'm glad they were at least considered.
NJ-18's new north end is now signed. There is a "BEGIN SOUTH NJ-18" shield on Possumtown Rd. going south at the I-287 overpass. There is also an "END NJ-18" on Centennial Ave. heading west at the I-287 south onramp/Knightsbridge Rd. light
Rutgers University did a study to determine how much it costs plan, construct, operate, and maintain one mile of roadway under NJDOT jurisdiction: $183,757. A recent study by the Reason Foundation stated that NJ roads cost $2 million a mile, that relied heavily on assumptions. No one questions that NJ spend a lot on their roads, but the $2 million figure was ridiculously high.
NJDOT Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2016/051916.shtm
Rutgers study: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/2016studyconopmaint.pdf
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 15, 2016, 07:36:52 PM
NJ-18's new north end is now signed. There is a "BEGIN SOUTH NJ-18" shield on Possumtown Rd. going south at the I-287 overpass. There is also an "END NJ-18" on Centennial Ave. heading west at the I-287 south onramp/Knightsbridge Rd. light
I was through there back in December, and those signs were up at that point. Do they have any signs on I-287 yet?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
Rutgers University did a study to determine how much it costs plan, construct, operate, and maintain one mile of roadway under NJDOT jurisdiction: $183,757. A recent study by the Reason Foundation stated that NJ roads cost $2 million a mile, that relied heavily on assumptions. No one questions that NJ spend a lot on their roads, but the $2 million figure was ridiculously high.
NJDOT Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2016/051916.shtm
Rutgers study: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/2016studyconopmaint.pdf
The $183K number sounds really low to me when you factor in all the costs involved from planning/design to completion and maintenance, especially in this state.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 20, 2016, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
Rutgers University did a study to determine how much it costs plan, construct, operate, and maintain one mile of roadway under NJDOT jurisdiction: $183,757. A recent study by the Reason Foundation stated that NJ roads cost $2 million a mile, that relied heavily on assumptions. No one questions that NJ spend a lot on their roads, but the $2 million figure was ridiculously high.
NJDOT Press Release: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2016/051916.shtm
Rutgers study: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/publicat/2016studyconopmaint.pdf
The $183K number sounds really low to me when you factor in all the costs involved from planning/design to completion and maintenance, especially in this state.
Yeah, it does. But it's also looking at lane miles, rather than highway miles. A 6 lane highway equals $1.1 million. 4 lanes equal $735k. When you start looking at those figures, then it seems to make a bit more sense.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
Rutgers University did a study to determine how much it costs plan, construct, operate, and maintain one mile of roadway under NJDOT jurisdiction: $183,757. A recent study by the Reason Foundation stated that NJ roads cost $2 million a mile, that relied heavily on assumptions. No one questions that NJ spend a lot on their roads, but the $2 million figure was ridiculously high.
Who'd've thought that a libertarian think tank would try to skew numbers on public highway construction/maintenance?
Quote from: Mr. Matté on May 20, 2016, 12:23:38 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2016, 08:35:58 AM
Rutgers University did a study to determine how much it costs plan, construct, operate, and maintain one mile of roadway under NJDOT jurisdiction: $183,757. A recent study by the Reason Foundation stated that NJ roads cost $2 million a mile, that relied heavily on assumptions. No one questions that NJ spend a lot on their roads, but the $2 million figure was ridiculously high.
Who'd've thought that a libertarian think tank would try to skew numbers on public highway construction/maintenance?
I think their report looked at every state. When these groups do such vast comparisons, they tend to find some generic similarity that they believe can be used across all states. However, in some states all roads are state roads, then others are like NJ where some roads are under other jurisdictions. NJ is even more unusual where a majority of the roads in the state aren't state highways. NJ still helps fund those county and municipal road repairs that aren't included in the state road mileage though. Thus, the base methodology these reports use really don't compare apples to apples.
NJDOT quietly rolled out public access to their interactive Straight Line Diagram system: http://www13.state.nj.us/sldweb/sldviewer.aspx
They also rolled out public access to their video log database: http://www13.state.nj.us/sldweb/VideoLog.aspx
Both of the above require Silverlight to be installed.
Even then it's barking at me for it when I have it.
NJ.com: Full reopening of Pulaski Skyway lanes pushed back a year (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/full_reopening_of_pulaski_skyway_lanes_pushed_back_a_year.html)
QuoteOfficials blamed delays in late 2014 and early 2015 on winter storms and the discovery of deteriorated steel beams underneath the roadway. Completion of the bridge deck replacement was to be completed by the end of this year.
(Mind you, originally it was supposed to be done right around now. I always though that timeline was a little too ambitious.)
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/Bergen.pdf
I was trying to reach the SLD for NJ Route 4 and when I was navigating through NJDOT I got the Bergen County Link to give me this.
So far, at least with my computer, that what looks like a billboard shows up with only one page. Should there be more to this? I am just asking to see if my browser is messed up or not, as if any of you get more pages, than just the billboard with a CR 579 shield then I must be needed upgrades then. Or if you all come up with the same, then its the wrong link.
Or better yet, what is the direct link to NJDOT's listing of each individual highway?
Edit: I found out actually how to download the PDF on it, except it only has one for NJ 4 E Bound with the westbound side being considered secondary. I am either to assume that NJDOT only does it from West to East on E-W signed routes, with the blue line WB Lanes being the mirror image way a denoting with a blue line or somewhere there is another PDF on it. If the first assumption is correct then NJ 4 Westbound technically starts from US 9W on its ramp to it and not from I-95 as the download I got shows the WB blue line originating there.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 29, 2016, 08:07:31 AM
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/Bergen.pdf
I was trying to reach the SLD for NJ Route 4 and when I was navigating through NJDOT I got the Bergen County Link to give me this.
The per-county SLD only includes the 600 series county routes for the county. There's a separate statewide SLD PDF for state, interstate, and toll highways at http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/State%20Routes.pdf.
Silverfish? Adobe reader? Bleah, NJDOT really goes out of their way to make this info inaccessible to those of us on Linux systems. Can someone take screenshots of the relevant bits of NJ18?
Edit: So this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5499036,-74.4762721,3a,56.2y,79.49h,85.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spADQfA5QszWGtyC4qbCiEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) would now be for NJ18 proper rather than TO NJ18, then?
Quote from: yakra on June 29, 2016, 12:25:36 PM
Silverfish? Adobe reader? Bleah, NJDOT really goes out of their way to make this info inaccessible to those of us on Linux systems. Can someone take screenshots of the relevant bits of NJ18?
Adobe is a very standard format used by nearly everyone. How is that going out of their way?
Quote from: dgolub on June 29, 2016, 08:52:24 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 29, 2016, 08:07:31 AM
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/Bergen.pdf
I was trying to reach the SLD for NJ Route 4 and when I was navigating through NJDOT I got the Bergen County Link to give me this.
The per-county SLD only includes the 600 series county routes for the county. There's a separate statewide SLD PDF for state, interstate, and toll highways at http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/State%20Routes.pdf.
Thanks on that one.
This in from a friend of mine on Facebook. NJ State Police is supposed to be cracking down on speeders on 9 NJ highways including the Parkway real soon with the deployment of 50 24/7 patrol cars all unmarked of course. I cannot confirm it for sure, so basically this is just a be careful thing.
My friend has a friend who's dad is retired from the NJ State Police, and he confirmed it to him. The ad on FB was handwritten by the son of the retired officer and not a link from a website, otherwise I would share it here. So its just rumor at this point and no need for panic yet.
However, if someone in NJ would research it to see if the info is correct, because if so driving all of New Jersey's interstates would be like driving US 301 in Starke, FL. For those of you unfamiliar with Starke and some of its neighbors, those towns love making revenue off speeders even if its 5 mph over the posted speed zone.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2016, 03:30:40 PM
This in from a friend of mine on Facebook. NJ State Police is supposed to be cracking down on speeders on 9 NJ highways including the Parkway real soon with the deployment of 50 24/7 patrol cars all unmarked of course. I cannot confirm it for sure, so basically this is just a be careful thing.
My friend has a friend who's dad is retired from the NJ State Police, and he confirmed it to him. The ad on FB was handwritten by the son of the retired officer and not a link from a website, otherwise I would share it here. So its just rumor at this point and no need for panic yet.
However, if someone in NJ would research it to see if the info is correct, because if so driving all of New Jersey's interstates would be like driving US 301 in Starke, FL. For those of you unfamiliar with Starke and some of its neighbors, those towns love making revenue off speeders even if its 5 mph over the posted speed zone.
Not this shit again...
It's an email/facebook forward that's been going out for several years now. They simply change the month when it's supposedly going to occur. Also, the email uses funky language...they would never say they're going to target I-95 North & South, for example...why would they target just one direction? They would just say I-95.
Everyone has a friend of a friend who's Mother's Uncle's Sister's Pet Dog is related to someone who could somewhat may have authority somewhere.
Trust me...it's not true.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/speeding.asp
Funny how many state variations include the infamous "1-xx" highways.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 30, 2016, 04:44:04 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/speeding.asp
Funny how many state variations include the infamous "1-xx" highways.
That
Snopes posting and commentary is at least 11 years old.
One line that definitely shows its age is (
emphasis added):
Quote from: Snopes' CommentaryThey have issued 30 brand new unmarked Crown Victoria cruisers
Ford stopped producing its Panther platform (that the Crown Victoria is based on) almost 5 years ago.
N.Y. Times: With No Deal on New Jersey Gas Tax, Christie Orders Shutdown of Road Projects (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/nyregion/new-jersey-gas-tax-chris-christie-shutdown.html)
QuoteGov. Chris Christie has ordered the shutdown of most road work in New Jersey after state lawmakers failed to reach a deal this week on transportation funding.
QuoteMr. Christie issued an executive order late Thursday declaring a state of emergency after negotiations to raise the state's famously low gas tax stalled that day. Without new funding, the state's transportation trust fund is nearly out of money to pay for road, bridge and transit projects.
QuoteThe governor directed the state transportation commissioner and New Jersey Transit's executive director to submit plans for an "immediate and orderly shutdown" of most state-funded work by Saturday night. Any work that is federally funded or necessary for safety reasons could continue, Mr. Christie said.
QuoteEarlier in the week, Mr. Christie, a Republican, reached a deal with the Democrat-led State Assembly to raise the state's gas tax in exchange for lowering the sales tax. But on Thursday, Democratic leaders in the State Senate said they could not support the agreement because it would harm the state budget.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 01, 2016, 08:37:33 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 30, 2016, 04:44:04 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/speeding.asp
Funny how many state variations include the infamous "1-xx" highways.
That Snopes posting and commentary is at least 11 years old.
One line that definitely shows its age is (emphasis added):
Quote from: Snopes' CommentaryThey have issued 30 brand new unmarked Crown Victoria cruisers
Ford stopped producing its Panther platform (that the Crown Victoria is based on) almost 5 years ago.
Here's one story in 2013 regarding this email. At that time, the email had been sent for 9 years in a row. I guess we're up to 12 years now of this same email going around...and amazingly some people still believe it!
http://ramapo.dailyvoice.com/police-fire/new-jersey-state-police-speeding-ticket-frenzy-nope/636121/This is how a real news story reads regarding some sort of crackdown:
www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/03/state_police_set_for_6-day_crackdown_on_nj_turnpike_drivers.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 30, 2016, 03:52:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2016, 03:30:40 PM
This in from a friend of mine on Facebook. NJ State Police is supposed to be cracking down on speeders on 9 NJ highways including the Parkway real soon with the deployment of 50 24/7 patrol cars all unmarked of course. I cannot confirm it for sure, so basically this is just a be careful thing.
My friend has a friend who's dad is retired from the NJ State Police, and he confirmed it to him. The ad on FB was handwritten by the son of the retired officer and not a link from a website, otherwise I would share it here. So its just rumor at this point and no need for panic yet.
However, if someone in NJ would research it to see if the info is correct, because if so driving all of New Jersey's interstates would be like driving US 301 in Starke, FL. For those of you unfamiliar with Starke and some of its neighbors, those towns love making revenue off speeders even if its 5 mph over the posted speed zone.
Not this shit again...
It's an email/facebook forward that's been going out for several years now. They simply change the month when it's supposedly going to occur. Also, the email uses funky language...they would never say they're going to target I-95 North & South, for example...why would they target just one direction? They would just say I-95.
Everyone has a friend of a friend who's Mother's Uncle's Sister's Pet Dog is related to someone who could somewhat may have authority somewhere.
Trust me...it's not true.
Thanks on that one. That is why it did not say it was for sure, as many of my NJ friends think it is. However we have the US 301 towns if Florida who do this everyday for a living. Only Waldo ceased to do this for reasons already discussed here, but they would be out 24/7 when they were and so is Starke.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 02, 2016, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 30, 2016, 03:52:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2016, 03:30:40 PM
This in from a friend of mine on Facebook. NJ State Police is supposed to be cracking down on speeders on 9 NJ highways including the Parkway real soon with the deployment of 50 24/7 patrol cars all unmarked of course. I cannot confirm it for sure, so basically this is just a be careful thing.
My friend has a friend who's dad is retired from the NJ State Police, and he confirmed it to him. The ad on FB was handwritten by the son of the retired officer and not a link from a website, otherwise I would share it here. So its just rumor at this point and no need for panic yet.
However, if someone in NJ would research it to see if the info is correct, because if so driving all of New Jersey's interstates would be like driving US 301 in Starke, FL. For those of you unfamiliar with Starke and some of its neighbors, those towns love making revenue off speeders even if its 5 mph over the posted speed zone.
Not this shit again...
It's an email/facebook forward that's been going out for several years now. They simply change the month when it's supposedly going to occur. Also, the email uses funky language...they would never say they're going to target I-95 North & South, for example...why would they target just one direction? They would just say I-95.
Everyone has a friend of a friend who's Mother's Uncle's Sister's Pet Dog is related to someone who could somewhat may have authority somewhere.
Trust me...it's not true.
Thanks on that one. That is why it did not say it was for sure, as many of my NJ friends think it is. However we have the US 301 towns if Florida who do this everyday for a living. Only Waldo ceased to do this for reasons already discussed here, but they would be out 24/7 when they were and so is Starke.
What's amazing is how many people see this post year-to-year and never remember it, and take it for fact. Tells a lot about people's short-term memory. No wonder how politicans can get re-elected year after year. And when someone doesn't like something, unless the media keeps an issue alive, most people will forget about it within a few days, or at minimum screw up the facts.
Surprisingly, I know 301 pretty well down there in Florida, as we've taken yearly trips to The Villages over the past 5 years or so. I can only recall one time seeing a cop in hiding around Starke, But I have seen the billboard a few times...and yep, I will drive at or below the speed limit in that area! Generally if the limit is 60 or 65 I figure there's some leeway there, but once the speed limit drops in the towns, best just to do that limit.
My friend is believing it as Christie just declared the state broke. He claims that there is a new gas tax being implemented and that some much needed road projects have been put on the back burner for now.
Of course the tone here is that NJ has been broke for a long time in discussions. It was when I lived there many decades ago, hence Jim Florio raising taxes in 1989 exactly about this time in the year because the previous leaders spent us out from what little we had before. Look at how long it took the US 1 & 9 Elizabeth River Viaduct to be replaced as it was needed way back in the Keene Administration, because the money was just not available.
I do not know how tough US 301 cops are, but Flaroads did not take a chance when we came back from Jax on a mini road meet with his right headlight out, but for years it was the talk of the town when I moved to Orlando, and in other talk throughout the years. I always obeyed when I drove it and actually saw Waldo's finest sitting in a school zone while the light was flashing. In Florida our school zones are not 25 mph like in the Garden State and can range from 5 to 20 mph so its tougher to follow. So that one cop could have gotten me for even one over, but I stayed within as I had a feeling that he would be there.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2016, 08:38:00 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 02, 2016, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 30, 2016, 03:52:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 30, 2016, 03:30:40 PM
This in from a friend of mine on Facebook. NJ State Police is supposed to be cracking down on speeders on 9 NJ highways including the Parkway real soon with the deployment of 50 24/7 patrol cars all unmarked of course. I cannot confirm it for sure, so basically this is just a be careful thing.
My friend has a friend who's dad is retired from the NJ State Police, and he confirmed it to him. The ad on FB was handwritten by the son of the retired officer and not a link from a website, otherwise I would share it here. So its just rumor at this point and no need for panic yet.
However, if someone in NJ would research it to see if the info is correct, because if so driving all of New Jersey's interstates would be like driving US 301 in Starke, FL. For those of you unfamiliar with Starke and some of its neighbors, those towns love making revenue off speeders even if its 5 mph over the posted speed zone.
Not this shit again...
It's an email/facebook forward that's been going out for several years now. They simply change the month when it's supposedly going to occur. Also, the email uses funky language...they would never say they're going to target I-95 North & South, for example...why would they target just one direction? They would just say I-95.
Everyone has a friend of a friend who's Mother's Uncle's Sister's Pet Dog is related to someone who could somewhat may have authority somewhere.
Trust me...it's not true.
Thanks on that one. That is why it did not say it was for sure, as many of my NJ friends think it is. However we have the US 301 towns if Florida who do this everyday for a living. Only Waldo ceased to do this for reasons already discussed here, but they would be out 24/7 when they were and so is Starke.
What's amazing is how many people see this post year-to-year and never remember it, and take it for fact. Tells a lot about people's short-term memory. No wonder how politicans can get re-elected year after year. And when someone doesn't like something, unless the media keeps an issue alive, most people will forget about it within a few days, or at minimum screw up the facts.
Surprisingly, I know 301 pretty well down there in Florida, as we've taken yearly trips to The Villages over the past 5 years or so. I can only recall one time seeing a cop in hiding around Starke, But I have seen the billboard a few times...and yep, I will drive at or below the speed limit in that area! Generally if the limit is 60 or 65 I figure there's some leeway there, but once the speed limit drops in the towns, best just to do that limit.
I live about 20 minutes from Starke and rarely see Starke police out on 301, the speed limit of 30 and heavy truck traffic can make it very slow going on have travel weekend or Gator games. So going the speed limit is easy
They are supposed to start on a 301 freeway bypass of Starke next year
Starke is no worse than the myriad of boroughs in New Jersey. At least 301 is 4 lanes and outside town there is a 65 mph speed limit
Yeah well for the longest time it was talk of the town and even AAA wrote about it in travel literature.
Then again I-4 used to have a well established 24/7 speed trap at MM 71. It was well known in the late 80s and early 90s, but vanished. That was just after the speed limit dropped from 65 to 55 just west of Exit 71, that everyone ignored completely. The cops would be there catching eastbound cars who would continue their 65 and up pattern well into the 55 zone.
I can imagine Starke and Lawtley could just be scaring people just like FDOT and their $100 toll violation signs for running tolls which is totally untrue. Unless a rental car company charges near that the sign is false. FDOT allows you ten days to pay the toll at regular rate, and even if you don't the unpaid toll fee is only 3 bucks.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 04, 2016, 08:05:17 AM
Yeah well for the longest time it was talk of the town and even AAA wrote about it in travel literature.
Then again I-4 used to have a well established 24/7 speed trap at MM 71. It was well known in the late 80s and early 90s, but vanished. That was just after the speed limit dropped from 65 to 55 just west of Exit 71, that everyone ignored completely. The cops would be there catching eastbound cars who would continue their 65 and up pattern well into the 55 zone.
I can imagine Starke and Lawtley could just be scaring people just like FDOT and their $100 toll violation signs for running tolls which is totally untrue. Unless a rental car company charges near that the sign is false. FDOT allows you ten days to pay the toll at regular rate, and even if you don't the unpaid toll fee is only 3 bucks.
Of the 3 speed trap towns on 301, Lawtey and Waldo were always worse than Starke.. i guess cuz they are smaller shit hole towns... Starke is the county seat for whatever that is worth
New Jersey's Governor announced $3.5 Billion in projects that will be shut down this Friday due to the Transportation Trust Fund's lack of funding.
The complete list of projects is here: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/roads_closed_list.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
(Note...my original post was edited. The paper's ability to display the full list is very clunky.)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2016, 11:16:58 PM
New Jersey's Governor announced $3.5 Billion in projects that will be shut down this Friday due to the Transportation Trust Fund's lack of funding.
The complete list of projects is here: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/roads_closed_list.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
(Note...my original post was edited. The paper's ability to display the full list is very clunky.)
I find that it helps to highlight the list and hit the down arrow while holding shift. Otherwise it doesn't scroll.
Hard to figure out which, if any, of my design projects are in this list. I guess I'll find out shortly. Hope for me!
Quote from: Alps on July 07, 2016, 12:05:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2016, 11:16:58 PM
New Jersey's Governor announced $3.5 Billion in projects that will be shut down this Friday due to the Transportation Trust Fund's lack of funding.
The complete list of projects is here: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/roads_closed_list.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
(Note...my original post was edited. The paper's ability to display the full list is very clunky.)
I find that it helps to highlight the list and hit the down arrow while holding shift. Otherwise it doesn't scroll.
Hard to figure out which, if any, of my design projects are in this list. I guess I'll find out shortly. Hope for me!
Someone in the comment section (the first really useful comment ever on NJ.com) posted an excel sheet with the projects: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0tXO60a8qKsSkpabHIxdXAyOUE/view
Hopefully this is the same as the chart in the article. Note that there's only one canceled project in Mendham Township...
Other than ongoing tunnel/bridge maintenance funding and the Rt. 322/54 project that replaces overpasses over 322 and a rail line, most of NJDOT's affected projects are fairly small. A repaving project near me, using just state funds, will be shut down for example. Major ones, such as the 295/76/42 project and the Pulaski Skyway, aren't affected (for now).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 07, 2016, 06:47:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 07, 2016, 12:05:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2016, 11:16:58 PM
New Jersey's Governor announced $3.5 Billion in projects that will be shut down this Friday due to the Transportation Trust Fund's lack of funding.
The complete list of projects is here: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/roads_closed_list.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
(Note...my original post was edited. The paper's ability to display the full list is very clunky.)
I find that it helps to highlight the list and hit the down arrow while holding shift. Otherwise it doesn't scroll.
Hard to figure out which, if any, of my design projects are in this list. I guess I'll find out shortly. Hope for me!
Someone in the comment section (the first really useful comment ever on NJ.com) posted an excel sheet with the projects: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0tXO60a8qKsSkpabHIxdXAyOUE/view
Hopefully this is the same as the chart in the article. Note that there's only one canceled project in Mendham Township...
Awesome! Thanks Matt. Ugh, quite a few projects on here that will stall in our office. Good thing there are toll roads :D
Quote from: civilmaher on July 07, 2016, 08:17:33 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 07, 2016, 06:47:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 07, 2016, 12:05:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2016, 11:16:58 PM
New Jersey's Governor announced $3.5 Billion in projects that will be shut down this Friday due to the Transportation Trust Fund's lack of funding.
The complete list of projects is here: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/roads_closed_list.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
(Note...my original post was edited. The paper's ability to display the full list is very clunky.)
I find that it helps to highlight the list and hit the down arrow while holding shift. Otherwise it doesn't scroll.
Hard to figure out which, if any, of my design projects are in this list. I guess I'll find out shortly. Hope for me!
Someone in the comment section (the first really useful comment ever on NJ.com) posted an excel sheet with the projects: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0tXO60a8qKsSkpabHIxdXAyOUE/view
Hopefully this is the same as the chart in the article. Note that there's only one canceled project in Mendham Township...
Awesome! Thanks Matt. Ugh, quite a few projects on here that will stall in our office. Good thing there are toll roads :D
You and me, man. I just got another 3 days worth of non-DOT assignments to tide me over.
Quote from: Alps on July 07, 2016, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 07, 2016, 08:17:33 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 07, 2016, 06:47:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 07, 2016, 12:05:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2016, 11:16:58 PM
New Jersey's Governor announced $3.5 Billion in projects that will be shut down this Friday due to the Transportation Trust Fund's lack of funding.
The complete list of projects is here: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/roads_closed_list.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
(Note...my original post was edited. The paper's ability to display the full list is very clunky.)
I find that it helps to highlight the list and hit the down arrow while holding shift. Otherwise it doesn't scroll.
Hard to figure out which, if any, of my design projects are in this list. I guess I'll find out shortly. Hope for me!
Someone in the comment section (the first really useful comment ever on NJ.com) posted an excel sheet with the projects: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0tXO60a8qKsSkpabHIxdXAyOUE/view
Hopefully this is the same as the chart in the article. Note that there's only one canceled project in Mendham Township...
Awesome! Thanks Matt. Ugh, quite a few projects on here that will stall in our office. Good thing there are toll roads :D
You and me, man. I just got another 3 days worth of non-DOT assignments to tide me over.
Now's the time to take some of those vacation days.
Here's the list from the NJDOT website itself for transportation projects, in PDF form: http://nj.gov/governor/news/news/552016/pdf/20160706a/TTFProjectContractShutdownList.pdf
What's a bit interesting is that at least some of these projects are either completed or nearly completed. And a lot of the projects shown are really local projects that NJDOT has provided some funding for. A repaving project I noticed on the list is all but complete from what I've seen...maybe a few punchlist items are left.
Also interesting is the list of projects in conceptual phases, design/engineering phases, etc. It's hard getting a complete list thru the NJDOT website on a normal basis - you can see a fair amount, but generally not everything (especially when numerous projects may be lumped together). This list is the most detailed list of projects I've seen in a long time!
Turns out only one or two of my projects are affected. Interesting note about how projects are awarded - I think that all of the lump sum projects are safe. Since they've already committed those funds and we just draw down out of them ourselves, they don't have to pay us and therefore no shutdown effect.
This 1950s promotional film for relocating your business to NJ has some nice vintage highway shots:
For the young-ins in the audience, yes, they used to make things in the United States.
Vintage highway shots alright! I see the New Jersey Turnpike northbound at roughly mile marker 90 in Woodbridge. As far as I can tell, these two bridges are still there. Check out the 1 mile advance sign for Exit 11! The Garden State Parkway is placed as a supplemental destination. (Yes, I'm aware the exit was only directly for US Route 9 then.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtesuqH1.jpg&hash=b92795e75160ea02f3e64ac8821db5462cea47a0)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 11, 2016, 10:06:12 AM
Vintage highway shots alright! I see the New Jersey Turnpike northbound at roughly mile marker 90 in Woodbridge. As far as I can tell, these two bridges are still there. Check out the 1 mile advance sign for Exit 11! The Garden State Parkway is placed as a supplemental destination. (Yes, I'm aware the exit was only directly for US Route 9 then.)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtesuqH1.jpg&hash=b92795e75160ea02f3e64ac8821db5462cea47a0)
The two bridges are still there, but the Parkway one has both had extra bridges added and refaced. The Main St (CR 514) overpass looks just like that still, and was recently repainted.
Great shot, hope you have more to share.
Found a video on the NJ Turnpike. The description also has some interesting information. Sorry if this was posted before, but I don't want to have to sift through 57 pages and links to see if it was posted before.
EDIT EDIT: I should TRULY finish the video. I'm a procrastinator! So I'm thinking the video is dated 1954 or 1955 (though it's probable it's dated 1953), because the guy with the fan belt says it's lasted this long, and high compression engines didn't kick off until 1955, but still were moderately popular in 1953-1954.
This channel is pretty good with road related videos. I've found a driver's ed video dating to 1937, and another with the PA Turnpike, probably dating to 1941 (it mentions the Turnpike was new, but it didn't say that it opened).
At the 5:05 mark, this film shows the same tri-level roadway near Exit 11 in Woodbridge like elsewhere. However, the supplemental "Parkway" street blade is not atop the sign! Interesting! :hmmm:
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 11, 2016, 12:40:48 PM
At the 5:05 mark, this film shows the same tri-level roadway near Exit 11 in Woodbridge like elsewhere. However, the supplemental "Parkway" street blade is not atop the sign! Interesting! :hmmm:
Yeah, I think this video predates the Camera Eye on NJ video by a few years.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 11, 2016, 12:40:48 PM
At the 5:05 mark, this film shows the same tri-level roadway near Exit 11 in Woodbridge like elsewhere. However, the supplemental "Parkway" street blade is not atop the sign! Interesting! :hmmm:
I think this is in the period between when the 287 exit opened and became Exit 10 and the dual-dual roadways were built, so listing Exit 11 for the Parkway makes sense.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on July 11, 2016, 12:40:48 PM
At the 5:05 mark, this film shows the same tri-level roadway near Exit 11 in Woodbridge like elsewhere. However, the supplemental "Parkway" street blade is not atop the sign! Interesting! :hmmm:
The Parkway may not have been sufficiently built out by 1953 to warrant mention. What I find interesting is that the Route 9 interchange really only makes sense for the southbound Parkway. Turnpike SB to Parkway NB, and the corresponding movement, really aren't accounted for back then.
I'm not sure if anyone uses the DOT online maintenance form to fix potholes and things, but it doesn't seem to work. I have reported several issues to them and they have not been fixed after months. A while back, I have seen them respond quicker. Also calling dispatch doesn't seem to help much either.
Quote from: J Route Z on July 12, 2016, 01:41:46 PM
I'm not sure if anyone uses the DOT online maintenance form to fix potholes and things, but it doesn't seem to work. I have reported several issues to them and they have not been fixed after months. A while back, I have seen them respond quicker. Also calling dispatch doesn't seem to help much either.
I've used it to report traffic light issues. Pretty much see the same results. Eventually they do get fixed, but after a few months I'm thinking me filling out the form really didn't have much of an effect on the results.
DOT crews & supervisors travel these sections of roads daily, so they should be pretty aware of the conditions and what needs fixing.
I assume they are state highways you are referring to, correct.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2016, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on July 12, 2016, 01:41:46 PM
I'm not sure if anyone uses the DOT online maintenance form to fix potholes and things, but it doesn't seem to work. I have reported several issues to them and they have not been fixed after months. A while back, I have seen them respond quicker. Also calling dispatch doesn't seem to help much either.
I've used it to report traffic light issues. Pretty much see the same results. Eventually they do get fixed, but after a few months I'm thinking me filling out the form really didn't have much of an effect on the results.
DOT crews & supervisors travel these sections of roads daily, so they should be pretty aware of the conditions and what needs fixing.
I assume they are state highways you are referring to, correct.
Yes state highways. Route 33 specifically. I also report traffic and street light problems. I suppose time will tell when they get fixed.
You're not alone with regards to pothole/other road issues. Today, it's probably going to end up being fixed a lot slower due to a certain fat guy but it's been ongoing problem for a while.
I've told my story on here before about how a guiderail was bent onto the sidewalk adjacent to NJ 64, a road that only the state and roadgeeks know about. They took no action after months of me submitting that form over and over, but the day after I wrote my state senator about it, it was fixed.
Don't expect the grass to be cut on any state maintained ROW anytime soon.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 12, 2016, 05:55:28 PM
Don't expect the grass to be cut on any state maintained ROW anytime soon.
Actually, that stuff probably will continue to be done. They're stopping road projects which are often done by consultants and contractors, not routine maintenance done by DOT staff. They aren't getting laid off. In fact, today I saw some mowing getting done on 195 and bridge deck work on the 29/295 ramp by DOT.
From someone's Facebook feed...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FFB_IMG_1468763151171.jpg&hash=d82f9d9f00641fc4ffb213873de622ce52aa1b39) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/FB_IMG_1468763151171.jpg.html)
At least in my opinion, some jughandles are better than trying to turn left directly at a light.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2016, 09:52:00 AM
From someone's Facebook feed...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FFB_IMG_1468763151171.jpg&hash=d82f9d9f00641fc4ffb213873de622ce52aa1b39) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/FB_IMG_1468763151171.jpg.html)
It is not that bad. In the worst case scenario, you make two loops at some intersections.
On NJ 10, there was the intersection of Ridgedale Avenue in Hanover, where you had to go past the actual intersection if you were going WB. Then go around one loop and cross under the highway and the loop again through another loop of a trumpet interchange to return back to NJ 10 EB. Then travel back to the intersection to make the intended turn. That was the worst I have seen, as I once stayed at the Howard Johnson Hotel that required me to use that set up as well as the hotel is to the east of that intersection.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 17, 2016, 08:25:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2016, 09:52:00 AM
From someone's Facebook feed...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FFB_IMG_1468763151171.jpg&hash=d82f9d9f00641fc4ffb213873de622ce52aa1b39) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/FB_IMG_1468763151171.jpg.html)
It is not that bad. In the worst case scenario, you make two loops at some intersections.
On NJ 10, there was the intersection of Ridgedale Avenue in Hanover, where you had to go past the actual intersection if you were going WB. Then go around one loop and cross under the highway and the loop again through another loop of a trumpet interchange to return back to NJ 10 EB. Then travel back to the intersection to make the intended turn. That was the worst I have seen, as I once stayed at the Howard Johnson Hotel that required me to use that set up as well as the hotel is to the east of that intersection.
I DESPISE jughandles, there are some places where they are best. But in my mind, as a non-engineer i am a Chiropractor- --my brother and his wife are civil engineers, my granddaddy's brother and sister were electrical engineers--- a modem incarnation of left turn lane(s) with good signal timing etc work as well or better. And it's more intuitive for drivers
Now the jughandlephiles will chime in how NJ has high population density etc. Places like Los Angeles and Miami have drivers who negotiate even triple left turns and can handle pumping gas
Wolfer and others - I'll use Route 10 at Ridgedale as a perfect example. Right now it is a 2 phase signal. There is heavy traffic during commuter peak periods. Terrible backups at 202 (particularly westbound), and eastbound at 287. But the signal itself does not back up. If there were no jughandle and just a direct left turn here, it would have to be a three phase signal. Moreover, if we assume Ridgedale Avenue southbound also enters the intersection, it conflicts with the NB left turn and may require yet another phase. You wanna bet how quickly this becomes a bigger bottleneck than those other intersections? Jughandles help minimize traffic phases at congested intersections to maximize throughput.
Quote from: Alps on July 18, 2016, 12:12:25 AM
Wolfer and others - I'll use Route 10 at Ridgedale as a perfect example. Right now it is a 2 phase signal. There is heavy traffic during commuter peak periods. Terrible backups at 202 (particularly westbound), and eastbound at 287. But the signal itself does not back up. If there were no jughandle and just a direct left turn here, it would have to be a three phase signal. Moreover, if we assume Ridgedale Avenue southbound also enters the intersection, it conflicts with the NB left turn and may require yet another phase. You wanna bet how quickly this becomes a bigger bottleneck than those other intersections? Jughandles help minimize traffic phases at congested intersections to maximize throughput.
New Jersey also has limited space to add turn lanes and widen intersections. Jughandles are pushed through where space exists and many of them are so old that stuff has filled in the space around them. As a (provisionally) licensed civil engineer with a specialization in transportation, I can say that minimizing phases by adding jughandles is often a cheaper solution as well, even if it makes out-of-towners confused. Jughandles aren't unheard of in New England and eastern New York, either, for the same reason.
California and other places, with much newer infrastructure, have the room to add turn lanes. They also don't know how to navigate complex intersections, as jughandles are a northeast thing.
As far as the gas, that's more of a way to preserve minimum-wage jobs. Heck, until they raise the gas tax, paying 30 cents/gallon less while being able to stay in the car makes getting gas in Jersey more than worth it.
Jughandles take up space as well. If a road was being widened new ROW was purchased/condemned.
As far as jughandles helping traffic flow, if there is enough congestion to make sitting through multiple cycles, there is still congestion with jughandles; Granted it's not on the main higway but on the side street. As I remember Route 37 and 166 in Toms River, had lots of problems not so much on 37 but on 166. It just moves the problem area and creates others.
Other "old" states such as Maryland Delaware and Pennsylvania use left turn lanes in nearly all settings. Yes I know there are a handful of jughandles(there is a jughandle on Riverside Ave, SR 211 near downtown Jacksonville, FL) but it's not the norm.
Route 138 in Wall Township has a wide median .. no reason for jug handles. Route 70 in Brick had plenty of ROW put aside for widening, the portion west of Route 88 ,widened in 1965 if I recall from the plaque on the bridges, even has left turn lanes at Brick Blvd and Chambers Bridge Rd. And yet still the hideous jughandles came with widening in the 1990s
Jughandles need to go the way of the traffic circle!
As you can tell i have probably borderline irrational hatred of jughandles, the vitriol and bile some hold for clearview font or I-99, i reserve for the abomination known as jughandles. I am glad I no longer live in NJ and do not have see jughandles on my daily drive :)
Quote from: cl94 on July 18, 2016, 12:20:06 AM
Quote
As far as the gas, that's more of a way to preserve minimum-wage jobs. Heck, until they raise the gas tax, paying 30 cents/gallon less while being able to stay in the car makes getting gas in Jersey more than worth it.
And the joy of waiting 10 minutes for.the one gas jocky to pump everyone else's gas at 11pm before coming back with your credit card. Because the pump card readers and new fangled pumps are just so complicated to use. There are times when staying in the car would be nice, like when alone with little kids or really stormy, but not to often do I find myself pining for someone else to pump my gas. Pumping gas is pretty damned easy. Having an attendant to pump gas reminds me of.the.bathroom attendants giving out soap in some bathrooms.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2016, 09:52:00 AM
From someone's Facebook feed...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FFB_IMG_1468763151171.jpg&hash=d82f9d9f00641fc4ffb213873de622ce52aa1b39) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/FB_IMG_1468763151171.jpg.html)
Shouldn't it say 48 states? Michigan doesn't make left turns that way. :-D
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20160720_FBI_conducting_search_in_bay_at_Ocean_City.html
For the purposes of this forum, story isn't important. I'm only posting it for the picture! This is on the fishing pier accessed in the middle of the NJ 52 Causeway between Somers Point and Ocean City.
Probably not the best article to have written...
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/07/is_it_illegal_for_motorcycles_to_ride_in_between_l.html#incart_river_home
QuoteQ: Is it legal for motorcycles to "lane split" or ride in between lanes of traffic?
A: The answer is somewhat unclear. While New Jersey doesn't have a law on the books forbidding it, the practice isn't encouraged.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 10:18:44 AM
Probably not the best article to have written...
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/07/is_it_illegal_for_motorcycles_to_ride_in_between_l.html#incart_river_home
QuoteQ: Is it legal for motorcycles to "lane split" or ride in between lanes of traffic?
A: The answer is somewhat unclear. While New Jersey doesn't have a law on the books forbidding it, the practice isn't encouraged.
I'd say it's unclear because couldn't another moving violation be used for this practice? like reckless driving?
Quote from: BrianP on July 21, 2016, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 10:18:44 AM
Probably not the best article to have written...
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/07/is_it_illegal_for_motorcycles_to_ride_in_between_l.html#incart_river_home
QuoteQ: Is it legal for motorcycles to "lane split" or ride in between lanes of traffic?
A: The answer is somewhat unclear. While New Jersey doesn't have a law on the books forbidding it, the practice isn't encouraged.
I'd say it's unclear because couldn't another moving violation be used for this practice? like reckless driving?
Yep. Failing to maintain a lane, etc. (Although technically, in this state, Careless Driving would be another violation. Reckless driving has a very high standard to prove. Lane splitting itself is Careless Driving. Weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds while lane splitting and driving on the shoulder is more along the lines of Reckless Driving in NJ).
I think the article failed in this respect. It's like asking "Can I drive across people's backyards? There's no law on the books forbidding it..." The practice is already illegal based on numerous other laws already on the books.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2016, 10:18:44 AM
Probably not the best article to have written...
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/07/is_it_illegal_for_motorcycles_to_ride_in_between_l.html#incart_river_home
QuoteQ: Is it legal for motorcycles to "lane split" or ride in between lanes of traffic?
A: The answer is somewhat unclear. While New Jersey doesn't have a law on the books forbidding it, the practice isn't encouraged.
I saw that article and thought about posting it, but I didn't want to start another argument...
Apparently the state's political leaders have come to an agreement regarding raising the state's fuel tax. Nothing is concrete though, as they still have to meet next week, and the Governor still has to sign off on it.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/assembly_senate_reach_deal_on_gas_tax_road_funding.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
Still happening: Gas Tax to rise 23 cents, most likely immediately after the Governor signs off on it.
Not happening: Any reduction in the sales tax.
What's happening instead, as reprinted from the article: "The joint proposal would gradually eliminate the estate tax, increase a popular tax credit for the working poor, raise the tax exemption for retirement and pension income, provide a small tax deduction for spending on gas taxes and create a tax exemption for veterans."
One thing that always amazed me is why the Green Street intersection in Iselin does not allow left turns there when the median is wide and both US 1 NB and US 1 SB have separate traffic signals. There is plenty of room for stacking in between the two carriageways and the inside median signals could be timed to turn green later to clear out the area in between to allow for left turn stacking.
The same in Laurence Harbor where left turns onto NJ 35 from Laurence Parkway, where you must continue straight across NJ 35 in both directions, and then go one block and turn left and double back to the highway and turn right. I do not see why that is an issue there. Again there are two separate signals and you must stop at the opposing Laurence Parkway signal anyway.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 22, 2016, 10:21:43 PM
One thing that always amazed me is why the Green Street intersection in Iselin does not allow left turns there when the median is wide and both US 1 NB and US 1 SB have separate traffic signals. There is plenty of room for stacking in between the two carriageways and the inside median signals could be timed to turn green later to clear out the area in between to allow for left turn stacking.
The same in Laurence Harbor where left turns onto NJ 35 from Laurence Parkway, where you must continue straight across NJ 35 in both directions, and then go one block and turn left and double back to the highway and turn right. I do not see why that is an issue there. Again there are two separate signals and you must stop at the opposing Laurence Parkway signal anyway.
Based on the sheer volume of traffic going through that intersection and the backups that already exist on Green Street, this is for the best. To have left hand turns would require protected left turns and another phase on the traffic signals. That would likely just make backups and traffic worse than it already is, which is why the left turn prohibitions exist already.
From Green Street yes, but from US 1 no. There is enough stacking room to handle the left turning traffic. Two lanes each way to handle it plus the clear out delay. Just like with freeway overpasses on The Parkway with the urban service roads. 18th Avenue in Irvington used to have the two lights at Eastern and Western Parkways operate together, however the signals would turn red going EB on 18th Avenue at Western Pky. while the WB 18th Avenue turns red simultaneously first. The signals then would still be green on the opposing sides for a few seconds longer before turning red and let the flow go on the Parkway frontage roads.
This would clear out the inbetween area so that turning vehicles from Eastern and Western Parkways could have plenty of room in between. I am guessing in the road world that is called a clear out phase. We have one on Orange Blossom Trail at the two SR 408 service roads where the permissive arrow is at the end of the cycle so that the area under the underpass could clear out and allow 408 service road vehicles a place to go.
Of course my example is from way back, so if any of you live in Irvington and do not see that at the said intersection in your lifetime, it might of been changed since then as it was back in the early 80's I have been to that specific location, but the point is that many freeway service road intersections still do that which is why the SPUI is being built now to avoid that clear out phase thing and second signal.
This was nice to see on every BGS I passed by this morning (at least on 295):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F0801160713_HDR-1.jpg&hash=3e9276248180cab444a7a58a8474debe0a944802) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0801160713_HDR-1.jpg.html)
NJ likes to stick messages on all VMSs when they are too lazy or otherwise unable to show some real information. Though it's usually on holiday weekends an says "click it or ticket". I wonder if there is a statewide outage of some sort that is preventing travel times from being shown like normal.
I've seen all screens blank some mornings. And I've also seen cases where, say, there was a major accident the day before, they put up some related message the next morning.
But 'Keep Right Except to Pass' is an unusual message for the morning rush hour. Traffic is generally light in August, so the timed signed probably would mainly show the minimum times anyway, which may have something to do with it.
The previous two weeks the signs were related to the truck ban in Philly. It was nice to see the travel times back on Friday!
On the weekends in the summer they've been posted times as well. I wished they would do it 24/7 like many other states.
Seen it on a sign on 95 south right before exit 4 this morning with the same message.
I saw one on U.S. 1 north of Bakers Basin Road on my way in.
I wonder if it is posted on VMS that are over single-lane roadways (if there is such a condition . . .) :-D
Quote from: akotchi on August 01, 2016, 12:30:55 PM
I saw one on U.S. 1 north of Bakers Basin Road on my way in.
I wonder if it is posted on VMS that are over single-lane roadways (if there is such a condition . . .) :-D
I can't think of any in NJ that are permanent. Temporary ones are usually brought in for a very specific reason and show a single message (like "emergency! road closed ahead" on NJ 47 in Malaga yesterday) for the duration of their stay.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 01, 2016, 12:44:15 PM
Quote from: akotchi on August 01, 2016, 12:30:55 PM
I saw one on U.S. 1 north of Bakers Basin Road on my way in.
I wonder if it is posted on VMS that are over single-lane roadways (if there is such a condition . . .) :-D
I can't think of any in NJ that are permanent. Temporary ones are usually brought in for a very specific reason and show a single message (like "emergency! road closed ahead" on NJ 47 in Malaga yesterday) for the duration of their stay.
I glanced at the database on the NJDOT website ( http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/elec/ITS/ITSDB.shtm ) and didn't see any that caught my eye.
That said, I have seen messages that are more of the FYI type, like last week's Philly truck ban on roads leading *away* from Philly (such as on NJ 42 South), and NYC traffic issues on South Jersey VMS signage. So it wouldn't totally be unusual for them to post KRETP on a one lane road VMS sign (if it existed)...but it would certainly look out of place!
Looks like the Atlantic City Expressway put up a 45 MPH speed limit Westbound through the 3 dollar tolls express lanes (and a 15 MPH limit on the local lanes) to match the speed limit on the 75 cent toll plaza. There is no change Eastbound. A 15 MPH ahead sign was posted for the local lanes, but nothing for express lanes. There has not been a noticeable change of speed through the tolls since the change. I wonder what prompted it.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 11, 2016, 10:13:03 AM
Looks like the Atlantic City Expressway put up a 45 MPH speed limit Westbound through the 3 dollar tolls express lanes (and a 15 MPH limit on the local lanes) to match the speed limit on the 75 cent toll plaza. There is no change Eastbound. A 15 MPH ahead sign was posted for the local lanes, but nothing for express lanes. There has not been a noticeable change of speed through the tolls since the change. I wonder what prompted it.
Boo!
I've seen the AC Expressway regs in the past, and they said Express lanes were 45 mph. But as noted, there was no signed speed limit thru the lanes. In a way it was always odd a reduced limit wasn't signed since the area is kinda tight. But it's about the same on the EB side as well, if not more so.
As far as traffic actually slowing down, I always fine it surprising that these motorists have no problem doing 10, 15 mph above the speed limit normally, but feel they must slow down to the limit thru the toll plaza. I guess they think they'll get a ticket for driving thru too fast (they won't).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2016, 10:22:19 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 11, 2016, 10:13:03 AM
Looks like the Atlantic City Expressway put up a 45 MPH speed limit Westbound through the 3 dollar tolls express lanes (and a 15 MPH limit on the local lanes) to match the speed limit on the 75 cent toll plaza. There is no change Eastbound. A 15 MPH ahead sign was posted for the local lanes, but nothing for express lanes. There has not been a noticeable change of speed through the tolls since the change. I wonder what prompted it.
Boo!
I've seen the AC Expressway regs in the past, and they said Express lanes were 45 mph. But as noted, there was no signed speed limit thru the lanes. In a way it was always odd a reduced limit wasn't signed since the area is kinda tight. But it's about the same on the EB side as well, if not more so.
As far as traffic actually slowing down, I always fine it surprising that these motorists have no problem doing 10, 15 mph above the speed limit normally, but feel they must slow down to the limit thru the toll plaza. I guess they think they'll get a ticket for driving thru too fast (they won't).
Some slow down, but not to 45, not even to 55. They slow down to 70 or so, at both plazas, maybe 65 on the 75 cent one.
Why is it they need the 45 mph speed zone? In Florida its the posted speed limit throughout. Heck when they go through the regular lanes with Sunpass, some do 50 mph and shake the hell out of the booth. Heck that we are in it, and most of all heck that we could walk out from behind it while crossing.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 11, 2016, 12:50:19 PM
Why is it they need the 45 mph speed zone?
Most likely because of how narrow the lanes are. 2 lanes, no shoulder whatsoever. The barrier length separating the Express lanes from the traditional toll booth lanes, including people slowing down approaching the toll booths, is only about 700 feet in total: https://goo.gl/maps/bQ8czWQzyZE2 . And that's the longer out of the 2. The Pleasantville Toll Plaza closer to Atlantic City is even tighter!
Compare that to one of your toll plaza examples in Florida: 3 lanes with full shoulders, and a barrier well over 1/2 mile in length: https://goo.gl/maps/Gdc7yGvEM3v
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2016, 10:22:19 AM
I guess they think they'll get a ticket for driving thru too fast (they won't).
NYSTA hands out tickets for going too fast through their toll lanes.
Quote from: Rothman on August 19, 2016, 02:04:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2016, 10:22:19 AM
I guess they think they'll get a ticket for driving thru too fast (they won't).
NYSTA hands out tickets for going too fast through their toll lanes.
Right, but this is in reference to NJ toll roads.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2016, 10:22:19 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 11, 2016, 10:13:03 AM
Looks like the Atlantic City Expressway put up a 45 MPH speed limit Westbound through the 3 dollar tolls express lanes (and a 15 MPH limit on the local lanes) to match the speed limit on the 75 cent toll plaza. There is no change Eastbound. A 15 MPH ahead sign was posted for the local lanes, but nothing for express lanes. There has not been a noticeable change of speed through the tolls since the change. I wonder what prompted it.
Boo!
I've seen the AC Expressway regs in the past, and they said Express lanes were 45 mph. But as noted, there was no signed speed limit thru the lanes. In a way it was always odd a reduced limit wasn't signed since the area is kinda tight. But it's about the same on the EB side as well, if not more so.
A "45 MPH ahead" just went up this morning Eastbound. There is no actual Speed Limit sign yet, but it appears both directions on both toll plazas will be signed 45 MPH now.
Some sign work has happened on I-76 W approaching the 76/676 split. They're replacing the classic button copy diagramic signs that were there. The advanced sign assembly also adds a separate points of interest sign for I-676, listing the Aquarium, the Battleship New Jersey and the "Entertainment Center" (something that venue hasn't been called in almost 20 years now).
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 23, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
Some sign work has happened on I-76 W approaching the 76/676 split. They're replacing the classic button copy diagramic signs that were there. The advanced sign assembly also adds a separate points of interest sign for I-676, listing the Aquarium, the Battleship New Jersey and the "Entertainment Center" (something that venue hasn't been called in almost 20 years now).
How very 1992 of NJDOT. :sombrero:
I would expect PennDOT to make that kind of a mistake moreso than NJDOT.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2016, 01:06:43 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 23, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
Some sign work has happened on I-76 W approaching the 76/676 split. They're replacing the classic button copy diagramic signs that were there. The advanced sign assembly also adds a separate points of interest sign for I-676, listing the Aquarium, the Battleship New Jersey and the "Entertainment Center" (something that venue hasn't been called in almost 20 years now).
How very 1992 of NJDOT. :sombrero:
I would expect PennDOT to make that kind of a mistake moreso than NJDOT.
I think they are limited in their choices. You can't 'advertise' BB&T on the sign as that's a business name. So what else do you call it? Heck, I still call it the Tweeter Center!
What's sad is that there's so few things in Camden that it even gets onto a BGS!
That is a relatively new sign (although we're probably talking 20+ years now), and probably was one of the final button copy signs put into use. They were installed when 76 West was converted from a express/local lane setup at 130 to a 6 lane single carriageway. Previously, the left 2 Express lanes continued up to the Walt Whitman Bridge approach. The left-most local lane merged in as the right lane on that approach.
Personally, while the 'wow' factor was there for the large sign, it was a bit tough to know if you were in the proper lane, especially if you were in the middle two lanes. I always thought they should paint the interstate shield on the highway itself to assist knowing what lane you were in. NJDOT does this a lot for construction projects (using the white outline version, not the full color version), but rarely uses them on a permanent basis.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2016, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2016, 01:06:43 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 23, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
Some sign work has happened on I-76 W approaching the 76/676 split. They're replacing the classic button copy diagramic signs that were there. The advanced sign assembly also adds a separate points of interest sign for I-676, listing the Aquarium, the Battleship New Jersey and the "Entertainment Center" (something that venue hasn't been called in almost 20 years now).
How very 1992 of NJDOT. :sombrero:
I would expect PennDOT to make that kind of a mistake moreso than NJDOT.
I think they are limited in their choices. You can't 'advertise' BB&T on the sign as that's a business name. So what else do you call it? Heck, I still call it the Tweeter Center!
IMHO, that prohibition of a
business name on a guide/information sign might need to be revisited. Given that so many entertainment centers, parks, arenas, etc. are now corporately named (we won't get into merger/acquisition-induced name changes that have occurred); it's getting harder to mention the facility (on a sign)
without using the business name.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2016, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2016, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2016, 01:06:43 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 23, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
Some sign work has happened on I-76 W approaching the 76/676 split. They're replacing the classic button copy diagramic signs that were there. The advanced sign assembly also adds a separate points of interest sign for I-676, listing the Aquarium, the Battleship New Jersey and the "Entertainment Center" (something that venue hasn't been called in almost 20 years now).
How very 1992 of NJDOT. :sombrero:
I would expect PennDOT to make that kind of a mistake moreso than NJDOT.
I think they are limited in their choices. You can't 'advertise' BB&T on the sign as that's a business name. So what else do you call it? Heck, I still call it the Tweeter Center!
IMHO, that prohibition of a business name on a guide/information sign might need to be revisited. Given that so many entertainment centers, parks, arenas, etc. are now corporately named (we won't get into merger/acquisition-induced name changes that have occurred); it's getting harder to mention the facility (on a sign) without using the business name.
Maryland doesn't seem to care. Hell they have a full FedEx Field logo on this BGS: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8771329,-76.843619,3a,20y,352.2h,106.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAOHC56-lTVHMPL5-4TeemQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2016, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2016, 01:06:43 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 23, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
Some sign work has happened on I-76 W approaching the 76/676 split. They're replacing the classic button copy diagramic signs that were there. The advanced sign assembly also adds a separate points of interest sign for I-676, listing the Aquarium, the Battleship New Jersey and the "Entertainment Center" (something that venue hasn't been called in almost 20 years now).
How very 1992 of NJDOT. :sombrero:
I would expect PennDOT to make that kind of a mistake moreso than NJDOT.
I think they are limited in their choices. You can't 'advertise' BB&T on the sign as that's a business name. So what else do you call it? Heck, I still call it the Tweeter Center!
It's not a business name. It's an arena name. It's allowed. It just happens to be the same as a business name.
Here's the new "Entertainment Ctr/State Aquarium/Use 676" sign in the 295/76/42 construction project. They just used a small green sign, rather than the more colorful brown/blue/green sign.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F0824160709a.jpg&hash=e9206262eeb2ae97873082cd230ff6c297c455c1) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0824160709a.jpg.html)
Quote from: Alps on August 23, 2016, 09:42:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2016, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2016, 01:06:43 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 23, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
Some sign work has happened on I-76 W approaching the 76/676 split. They're replacing the classic button copy diagramic signs that were there. The advanced sign assembly also adds a separate points of interest sign for I-676, listing the Aquarium, the Battleship New Jersey and the "Entertainment Center" (something that venue hasn't been called in almost 20 years now).
How very 1992 of NJDOT. :sombrero:
I would expect PennDOT to make that kind of a mistake moreso than NJDOT.
I think they are limited in their choices. You can't 'advertise' BB&T on the sign as that's a business name. So what else do you call it? Heck, I still call it the Tweeter Center!
It's not a business name. It's an arena name. It's allowed. It just happens to be the same as a business name.
I've seen it called a number of things on those signs over the years. It was E-Center for a long time due to some name it had in the late 90s. it stayed around long after the place wasn't called that.
Still, this is pretty standard for NJDOT. Follow signs to the Sports Complex (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.781505,-74.046769,3a,75y,345.48h,92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB5_zK4IrWODqqKcLu4xzWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and Soccer Arena (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7424221,-74.1506789,3a,36.8y,279.35h,82.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9DdKfWTLidKgWXN4_v_HSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)! The Prudential Center at least gets mentioned by name (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7113443,-74.1991846,3a,46.2y,134.59h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT8IcvLi4LZfLKkcKw83lAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on a couple of small LGS's that aren't that easy to read at highway speeds (there are comparable signs on 280 as well). You'll see NJPAC on a few green signs with its logo. In fact, I can only think of one place on the NJDOT network that references a sports or cultural venue witha brown sign and the logo: TD Bank Park (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.562368,-74.550632,3a,23.9y,8.2h,88.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siJNEdn88boLeT_Zm44c6xQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on 287. There's a sign in both directions.
The Turnpike Authority is getting better with this, they have big brown signs for MetLife Stadium, Prudential Center, and RedBull Arena now.
NJ is littered with Camden's State Aquarium signs, mostly with the old logo before it was re-branded "adventure". I'm pretty sure at least a few of them made it to BGSs
The arena in Trenton had logo signs posted on NJ-129 at one point. That might have changed since I was there last due to bank mergers :P.
NJ-18 shields have been added to the signs for Exit 8 on 287. It only took 22 years. i assume that this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5435868,-74.5023302,3a,18.9y,101.18h,94.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIlgCFI2ndGkva3tFxZEjYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) will need to be replaced. it was replaced in the early aughts after the original from 1994 (with space for the shield) was knocked down several times over the years. much like the replacement signs for Exit 9, they spaced out the words on a full sized BGS instead of either a smaller sign or leaving the space.
Quote from: storm2k on August 25, 2016, 10:53:03 PM
NJ-18 shields have been added to the signs for Exit 8 on 287. It only took 22 years. i assume that this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5435868,-74.5023302,3a,18.9y,101.18h,94.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIlgCFI2ndGkva3tFxZEjYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) will need to be replaced. it was replaced in the early aughts after the original from 1994 (with space for the shield) was knocked down several times over the years. much like the replacement signs for Exit 9, they spaced out the words on a full sized BGS instead of either a smaller sign or leaving the space.
Added to the existing signs? I need to see this!!
Quote from: Alps on August 26, 2016, 12:45:38 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 25, 2016, 10:53:03 PM
NJ-18 shields have been added to the signs for Exit 8 on 287. It only took 22 years. i assume that this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5435868,-74.5023302,3a,18.9y,101.18h,94.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIlgCFI2ndGkva3tFxZEjYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) will need to be replaced. it was replaced in the early aughts after the original from 1994 (with space for the shield) was knocked down several times over the years. much like the replacement signs for Exit 9, they spaced out the words on a full sized BGS instead of either a smaller sign or leaving the space.
Added to the existing signs? I need to see this!!
Clinchathon, anyone?
Quote from: Alps on August 26, 2016, 12:45:38 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 25, 2016, 10:53:03 PM
NJ-18 shields have been added to the signs for Exit 8 on 287. It only took 22 years. i assume that this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5435868,-74.5023302,3a,18.9y,101.18h,94.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIlgCFI2ndGkva3tFxZEjYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) will need to be replaced. it was replaced in the early aughts after the original from 1994 (with space for the shield) was knocked down several times over the years. much like the replacement signs for Exit 9, they spaced out the words on a full sized BGS instead of either a smaller sign or leaving the space.
Added to the existing signs? I need to see this!!
are they cutouts or do they have the black background?
So Cenntenial Avenue and Possumtown Road are now signed for NJ 18 from I-287. That is interesting. Too bad they don't replace Highland Park with "New Brunswick" now that NJ 18 provided direct access to that particular city.
Highland Park is useless being you have to exit onto River Road and even before, it was even more complicated before NJ 18 got its freeway defaulted into Hoes Lane. You had to turn onto Meltars Lane and then again at River Road, but first making a left on Cenntenial to access Hoes, all in which there were no follow up signs to further guide you. Even now as you list a smaller city in the shadow of a larger one, where the straight through freeway transits the unmentioned one and does not even directly serve the other.
Quote from: odditude on August 26, 2016, 10:01:55 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 26, 2016, 12:45:38 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 25, 2016, 10:53:03 PM
NJ-18 shields have been added to the signs for Exit 8 on 287. It only took 22 years. i assume that this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5435868,-74.5023302,3a,18.9y,101.18h,94.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIlgCFI2ndGkva3tFxZEjYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) will need to be replaced. it was replaced in the early aughts after the original from 1994 (with space for the shield) was knocked down several times over the years. much like the replacement signs for Exit 9, they spaced out the words on a full sized BGS instead of either a smaller sign or leaving the space.
Added to the existing signs? I need to see this!!
are they cutouts or do they have the black background?
They have the black background.
Took me quite by surprise. If I wasn't driving, I would have grabbed a couple of pictures.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 26, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
So Cenntenial Avenue and Possumtown Road are now signed for NJ 18 from I-287. That is interesting. Too bad they don't replace Highland Park with "New Brunswick" now that NJ 18 provided direct access to that particular city.
Highland Park is useless being you have to exit onto River Road and even before, it was even more complicated before NJ 18 got its freeway defaulted into Hoes Lane. You had to turn onto Meltars Lane and then again at River Road, but first making a left on Cenntenial to access Hoes, all in which there were no follow up signs to further guide you. Even now as you list a smaller city in the shadow of a larger one, where the straight through freeway transits the unmentioned one and does not even directly serve the other.
Hell, even River Rd is not a great way to get to Highland Park (but then again River Rd is not a great way to get anywhere, but that's for another thread). It would make more sense to sign it for Newbie, since both 27 and Easton Ave aren't exactly great ways to get there from 287.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160828%2F5f8653d77b03efacec42317f0efe3fdf.jpg&hash=2930cee45529fdf907cfe74cad2f95d43f5a5fec)
Been waiting since I was 6 for that shield to be there. I had to convince Steve years ago that's what the empty space was for...
SM-G930V
Quote from: _Simon on August 28, 2016, 02:12:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160828%2F5f8653d77b03efacec42317f0efe3fdf.jpg&hash=2930cee45529fdf907cfe74cad2f95d43f5a5fec)
Been waiting since I was 6 for that shield to be there. I had to convince Steve years ago that's what the empty space was for...
SM-G930V
Speaking of this interchange, it looks like there's a space for a suffix. Was this supposed to be the freeway ending of NJ 18 or what?
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 28, 2016, 02:20:41 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 28, 2016, 02:12:48 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160828%2F5f8653d77b03efacec42317f0efe3fdf.jpg&hash=2930cee45529fdf907cfe74cad2f95d43f5a5fec)
Been waiting since I was 6 for that shield to be there. I had to convince Steve years ago that's what the empty space was for...
SM-G930V
Speaking of this interchange, it looks like there's a space for a suffix. Was this supposed to be the freeway ending of NJ 18 or what?
Yes, NJ 18 was supposed to be an interchange. When the reality hit that it never would happen, it's been left like that. However, like Simon, I've waited for a long time for that 18 shield to appear.
There is also a blank space on the bottom too! Looks like they made more provisions or ordered the wrong size sign. Anyway, is this not in violation of the MUTCD with street names and town names on the same sign?
Not that I care as it never bothered me to having that anyway, but you would then either have to leave off the Centennial Avenue or eliminate Middlesex and Highland Park. However I am aware of the grandfather clause, but if NJDOT did have to choose it would be keep the control cities and eliminate the Centennial Avenue.
The exits led to Possumtown Road and Centennial Avenue, so until NJ 18, it seemed reasonable. I personally think there is no issue, but there is the hometown bias on that one.
I would assume the space at the bottom may have been intended for a second arrow had the NJ 18 freeway been completed.
IMO I think it sucks that the feds won't let street names and cities be on the same sign, but that is me. I do not even like that the MUTCD forbids more than 2 control cities, as I always loved the Parkway (and other NJ roads) with having 3 of them unlike many other states. Exit 136 in Cranford always was interesting as well as former Exit 131 that had three as well. Now the new signs on the Parkway only list two as per MUTCD.
Anyway, am glad finally that Route 18 is finished to I-287, even though it will never get to reach Route 22 as originally planned just like its south end ending at Route 138 instead of the former Brielle Circle like intended as well. At least this is a major accomplishment as this is a big help to Middlesex County.
Wonder what the SLD will show as the north "end" of NJ-18 when its updates. Right now its basically a wye. One goes up Possumtown Rd. to the I-287 overpass and the other goes up Centennial to the I-287 south onramp.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 30, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
There is also a blank space on the bottom too! Looks like they made more provisions or ordered the wrong size sign. Anyway, is this not in violation of the MUTCD with street names and town names on the same sign?
Not that I care as it never bothered me to having that anyway, but you would then either have to leave off the Centennial Avenue or eliminate Middlesex and Highland Park. However I am aware of the grandfather clause, but if NJDOT did have to choose it would be keep the control cities and eliminate the Centennial Avenue.
The signs are from 1994. What's on them was perfectly copacetic at the time. They tacked the 18 shields on last week.
I am kind of thinking that. Yes the current one's were added in 1994, as the old diagramical signs were there when I left in 1990 still. Even when Randophville Road was made a complete interchange it for a short while received the diagram panel for SB I-287 until 1994. In fact it was 1994 that the section of I-287 south of Basking Ridge got exit numbers.
For decades it never had them due to the Somerset Freeway debate, as the mileage zero point was near Durham Avenue in South Plainfield. I-95 would have tied in somewhere in the vicinity of the Prudential Building and CR 501, NJ 27, and US 1 would have had I-95's scheme denoting its mileage from Scudder Falls Bridge.
What was very odd was back in 1984 and 1985, when I worked for AT&T in Somerset, I used the route to commute. It had three exits only with Exit numbers on them that struck me odd. River Road, signed as Route 18 at the time, was Exit 5, CR 527 had the Exit 6 tabs, and Weston Canal Road was signed as Exit 7. NJ 28 had no assigned number and so did all the other Piscataway exits and US Route 22. Why NJDOT left some out when they gave those three exits numbers was beyond me.
In addition some other oddities took place. Current Exit 17 was Exit 13 not that the old numbers were odd, but it only got numbers for a sign replacement of the two at exit guides in the late 1970's and was the only ones around for there. I-78 was without number, but nearby former Exit 18 got numbers which is the US 202 & 206 Bedminster interchange. Then CR 525 was left without any exit number and the N. Maple Avenue interchange was half signed. Going NB it had no numbers, but SB it did. That was most likely done because for many years that particular interchange was a freeway terminus, as from N. Maple Avenue to Route 10 was completed after NJDOT made it mandatory to use exit numbers.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I am kind of thinking that. Yes the current one's were added in 1994, as the old diagramical signs were there when I left in 1990 still. Even when Randophville Road was made a complete interchange it for a short while received the diagram panel for SB I-287 until 1994. In fact it was 1994 that the section of I-287 south of Basking Ridge got exit numbers.
For decades it never had them due to the Somerset Freeway debate, as the mileage zero point was near Durham Avenue in South Plainfield. I-95 would have tied in somewhere in the vicinity of the Prudential Building and CR 501, NJ 27, and US 1 would have had I-95's scheme denoting its mileage from Scudder Falls Bridge.
What was very odd was back in 1984 and 1985, when I worked for AT&T in Somerset, I used the route to commute. It had three exits only with Exit numbers on them that struck me odd. River Road, signed as Route 18 at the time, was Exit 5, CR 527 had the Exit 6 tabs, and Weston Canal Road was signed as Exit 7. NJ 28 had no assigned number and so did all the other Piscataway exits and US Route 22. Why NJDOT left some out when they gave those three exits numbers was beyond me.
In addition some other oddities took place. Current Exit 17 was Exit 13 not that the old numbers were odd, but it only got numbers for a sign replacement of the two at exit guides in the late 1970's and was the only ones around for there. I-78 was without number, but nearby former Exit 18 got numbers which is the US 202 & 206 Bedminster interchange. Then CR 525 was left without any exit number and the N. Maple Avenue interchange was half signed. Going NB it had no numbers, but SB it did. That was most likely done because for many years that particular interchange was a freeway terminus, as from N. Maple Avenue to Route 10 was completed after NJDOT made it mandatory to use exit numbers.
Actually, they only put up new signs at 14A SB in 1994 and they were signed for Exit 11 for four or five years. The signs for 202/206 (which were early 80s standard non-reflective button copy showing Exit 13) and 78 (had a couple of the old diagram signs and no exit numbers) happened in 1997 when they rebuilt the dual lanes section. Everything else south of there did not get resigned until 1998-99, at which time they renumbered everything properly to reflect Mile 0 being the Turnpike, not the old Somerset Fwy point.
I am guessing why I-287 waited so long was if you had the real milepost exits at the time the Somerset Freeway was in debate, you would have had Exit 1 at Stelton Road and then would have had to use proposed I-95 mileage for Durham Avenue, CR 501, NJ 27, and US 1 exits. Plus the numbers for both would go opposite too which really would have been confusing. Heck that is why NJDOT never signed the I-95 planned part of I-287 as I-95 to avoid confusion then.
Yes I remember now the gore only exit signs at US 22 just like at US 202/ 206 in Bridgewater. That exit had large diagramical signs with no exit number, and later on at the two SB exits button copy overheads were added with Exit 13 and even US 22 West was added to the sign for lack of WB exit ahead. Even New York was added on the I-287 SB pull through there as I-78 was not yet completed and motorists were directed off of I-78 E Bound at I-287 (only local traffic was signed for straight through to avoid extra traffic being dumped onto the streets of Watchung trying to reach US 22) and to go south to US 22 East. That was why "New York" was always the control city for US 22 East as leftovers from the pre I-78 Watchung completion in 1986.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 31, 2016, 08:31:57 PM
Wonder what the SLD will show as the north "end" of NJ-18 when its updates. Right now its basically a wye. One goes up Possumtown Rd. to the I-287 overpass and the other goes up Centennial to the I-287 south onramp.
I'd guess that one of them will be shown as 18 and the other as 18Z or something along those lines.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 30, 2016, 10:34:00 AM
There is also a blank space on the bottom too!
No, the arrow is just off-center because it's placed over the exit lane, like all of the other signs from the era. It's possible a second exit lane was planned but there's no reason to believe that's the case -- there are and were other signs with similarly placed arrows on other exits.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I am kind of thinking that. Yes the current one's were added in 1994, as the old diagramical signs were there when I left in 1990 still. Even when Randophville Road was made a complete interchange it for a short while received the diagram panel for SB I-287 until 1994. In fact it was 1994 that the section of I-287 south of Basking Ridge got exit numbers.
Any known pics of these? I remember these as a kid and have been trying to find them for years.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I-78 was without number, but nearby former Exit 18 got numbers which is the US 202 & 206 Bedminster interchange.
Don't forget that there used to be an on-ramp from US-202/206 south to I-287 NB, removed due to weaving.
Hey, I'm just wondering now; Does anybody have any pictures of the old toll fare light boxes at the toll plaza of the Palisades Interstate Parkway as it approaches the George Washington Bridge? I know they had fares for other types of vehicles besides cars, and it really didn't seem appropriate on that road, but I'd just like to know if anyone else is familiar with them.
Quote from: _Simon on September 05, 2016, 03:07:00 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I am kind of thinking that. Yes the current one's were added in 1994, as the old diagramical signs were there when I left in 1990 still. Even when Randophville Road was made a complete interchange it for a short while received the diagram panel for SB I-287 until 1994. In fact it was 1994 that the section of I-287 south of Basking Ridge got exit numbers.
Any known pics of these? I remember these as a kid and have been trying to find them for years.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I-78 was without number, but nearby former Exit 18 got numbers which is the US 202 & 206 Bedminster interchange.
Don't forget that there used to be an on-ramp from US-202/206 south to I-287 NB, removed due to weaving.
Thought so about the on ramp there. I was checking out GSV and noticed it was gone. Was wondering about that one. Anyway that ramp was redundant anyhow because a left turn was always allowed at the one roadway that acts as connection to I-287 N Bound.
If I am not mistaken, I believe the NB I-287 to SB US 202 & 206 was added sometime in the 70's as originally it was only a NB only exit using the cloverleaf ramp that is there now. SB always had the ramp it has now, and the NB ramp as is now from US 202 & 206 was there. If my memory is correct then there were missing movements from NB 287 to SB US 202 & 206 and from NB US 202 & 206 to SB 287 in the original form. Of course the NB US 202 & 206 to SB 287 is still missing as the River Road jughandle allows for a u turn to the SB side as well as lets SB 287 access to SB US 202 & 206 as the SB 22 ramp is for NB US 202 & 206.
Yesterday I noticed a large amount of construction going on at the Flemington Circle... I didn't have my dash cam running, but it appears they are building an additional lane heading south on US 202. Does anyone know the exact specifications of the project?
It almost seems like they are finally getting rid of the circle...
Quote from: Zeffy on September 06, 2016, 09:37:30 AM
Yesterday I noticed a large amount of construction going on at the Flemington Circle... I didn't have my dash cam running, but it appears they are building an additional lane heading south on US 202. Does anyone know the exact specifications of the project?
It almost seems like they are finally getting rid of the circle...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10453.msg2121022;topicseen#msg2121022
Quote from: Zeffy on September 06, 2016, 09:37:30 AM
Yesterday I noticed a large amount of construction going on at the Flemington Circle... I didn't have my dash cam running, but it appears they are building an additional lane heading south on US 202. Does anyone know the exact specifications of the project?
It almost seems like they are finally getting rid of the circle...
I heard they are making a through movement on one side of 202 but the circle will remain. Not sure how accurate that information is. As long as they leave up the hamburger/steering wheel "CIRCLE" warning signs, im happy.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2016, 10:44:26 PM
Quote from: _Simon on September 05, 2016, 03:07:00 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I am kind of thinking that. Yes the current one's were added in 1994, as the old diagramical signs were there when I left in 1990 still. Even when Randophville Road was made a complete interchange it for a short while received the diagram panel for SB I-287 until 1994. In fact it was 1994 that the section of I-287 south of Basking Ridge got exit numbers.
Any known pics of these? I remember these as a kid and have been trying to find them for years.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I-78 was without number, but nearby former Exit 18 got numbers which is the US 202 & 206 Bedminster interchange.
Don't forget that there used to be an on-ramp from US-202/206 south to I-287 NB, removed due to weaving.
Thought so about the on ramp there. I was checking out GSV and noticed it was gone. Was wondering about that one. Anyway that ramp was redundant anyhow because a left turn was always allowed at the one roadway that acts as connection to I-287 N Bound.
If I am not mistaken, I believe the NB I-287 to SB US 202 & 206 was added sometime in the 70's as originally it was only a NB only exit using the cloverleaf ramp that is there now. SB always had the ramp it has now, and the NB ramp as is now from US 202 & 206 was there. If my memory is correct then there were missing movements from NB 287 to SB US 202 & 206 and from NB US 202 & 206 to SB 287 in the original form. Of course the NB US 202 & 206 to SB 287 is still missing as the River Road jughandle allows for a u turn to the SB side as well as lets SB 287 access to SB US 202 & 206 as the SB 22 ramp is for NB US 202 & 206.
I never realized there was another ramp there. That has to have been gone since the early 80s then, because I grew up in that area and I've always known Schley Mountain Rd as the way to get to 287NB from 202-206SB.
Sometime after 1991. I recall doing a traffic count on that ramp as part of a study in that area around that time. Almost no volume on that ramp at the time. Not sure when Schley Mountain Rd. started being signed for I-287 from southbound U.S. 202-206, but it was always signed for I-287 from the northbound lanes.
Major fire in toll booth causes absolutely no traffic delays whatsoever... :-D
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/fire-crews-douse-raging-blaze-on-beesleys-point-bridge/article_119cdfe0-7499-11e6-bbd6-1bf023045779.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2016, 08:38:42 AM
Major fire in toll booth causes absolutely no traffic delays whatsoever... :-D
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/fire-crews-douse-raging-blaze-on-beesleys-point-bridge/article_119cdfe0-7499-11e6-bbd6-1bf023045779.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share
Man, I missed out on the Beesley's Point Bridge while I was in Atlantic City! I'm not sure if they started demolition whenever I was there, in June 2015, because I wanted to explore the bridge...ah well, there goes something I'll never see.
Speaking of US 202, part of it was closed requiring a wierd detour today.
1991 or 1994 or 1997, I am only going by what the users on here post in the past. It appears that the current signing south of Morristown was not done all at once. Rather in different projects and the dual carriageway set up south of I-78, seemed to be widened in the late 90's that gave that section its current signage.
Yes I have been away from NJ too long and do not know the exact time line of things so excuse the dates mix up. Plus I am not on here as much as most to spend an hour or so reading all the posts, so I only grasp the posts that are at the near top of the page, or look for the ones I posted on the last time. In fact some times I get to go on here I only have five minutes as I have a busy schedule. I wish I had more time to be able to spend, and also the fact like many of you here, I have social issues out of my control and dealing with others who do not understand or the basic run of the mill trolls. Plus some who know me personally from FB who dislike me for some of the posts I have on there, because they disagree with my personal, religious, and political beliefs, I have to deal with fall out on here.
Anyway, I am only asking that you forgive me for getting the dates of the I-287 signing wrong. I do like talking about NJ roads and I am always fascinated with Route 287 as that was a commute route for me for most of 1984 and 1985. I have seen the diagramical signs, I have seen them changed from button copy to reflective, and saw the 1985 northbound bridge repairs in Somerset and Bound Brook that caused traffic issues the Summer of that year. So that road is a major part of me and it interests me still to this day to converse about it.
New Jersey must have used button copy all the way into the late 90s since some of those signs from the widened part of 287 are button copy.
They used it until production ended in 1998ish.
theres button copy signs on 287 in the northern part where the first letter of each direction is enlarged so that must mean NJ was one of the last to switch over. PLenty of it left all over the state still except the toll roads.
All 523 fatal accidents in NJ in 2015 on a single map... http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/all_523_fatal_crashes_in_nj_last_year_on_a_single_map.html#incart_river_home
Noted further down in the article was the cause of these accidents. Of course, it highlights speeding, but only 20% or so of the accidents involved speeding. "Careless Driving", a catch-all violation in NJ, was the top factor in fatals last year. Distracted Driving and failure to yield at traffic signals resulted in more fatals than speeding (at least according to the story).
I once went Westbound on South Avenue in Westfiled, and saw the yield signs and yielded like the law states! Did you know the damned driver behind me went around me and went through the yield signs with another motorists inside the circle who had the right away approaching the intersection!
At first I thought the guy was stupid for going around another vehicle doing what you are supposed to at a traffic control device and not heeding himself to it. Now, since I have my job at the tolls, I realize it was not stupidity as much as ignorance! Now I see why people call Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando as US 441 or four forty-one despite the US 17 & 92 shields are more noticeable than the US 441 ones. Its the very same reason why motorists ignore the elephant tracks and overhead EXIT ONLY signs at right lane ramp defaults! Ignorance of their surroundings!
Anyway, with all that I can see why the numbers are there as you pointed out! If you read a simple road signs you can get by, but unfortunately the modern person does not do it and there are not enough cops to go around to enforce it! Hey we have a speed trap everyday on Deerfield Blvd in Orlando, and the fear of being ticketed is not there as many will continue to travel at 40 to 45 mph in a residential 30 mph speed zone set there, so I do not even think ticketing every motorists who is careless in some form or the other would even do it either.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 13, 2016, 05:25:32 PM
Now I see why people call Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando as US 441 or four forty-one despite the US 17 & 92 shields are more noticeable than the US 441 ones.
Um...people call it 441 because the entire length of OBT in Orlando (and Orange County) is 441. Only the part south of Colonial is also 17/92.
Quote from: NE2 on September 13, 2016, 06:14:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 13, 2016, 05:25:32 PM
Now I see why people call Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando as US 441 or four forty-one despite the US 17 & 92 shields are more noticeable than the US 441 ones.
Um...people call it 441 because the entire length of OBT in Orlando (and Orange County) is 441. Only the part south of Colonial is also 17/92.
At least he hit upon "ignorance" as a cause of the misunderstanding.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 10, 2016, 04:45:44 PM
theres button copy signs on 287 in the northern part where the first letter of each direction is enlarged so that must mean NJ was one of the last to switch over. PLenty of it left all over the state still except the toll roads.
Anything between was erected in 1994 when they built the HOV lanes. Everything north of 80 was done in 1993 when they finally finished the road to the NY state line.
NJDOT did not start doing reflective non-button copy signage until around 1999 if I'm not mistaken.
Not sure if anyone else noticed this, but they have been doing work on the weigh station on 287 NB between exits 8 and 9. They spruced up the trailer that serves as the office for the state police, and it looks like they're installing the equipment for a prepass-like system to try and speed up processing through the weigh station (i do know when it's open, the line can easily back up to almost Exit 7 with trucks waiting to go through the weigh station).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKqMt67N.jpg&hash=2bba10be8d5210c8cb1323cdd05eb47893fad907)
I am surprised that this weigh station serves the many trucks it does being its very small. I know there is no room for expansion anywhere around there. You might be able to put one up in Bridgewater, but trucks would bypass it on US 22 or US 202 & 206.
The last time I was there in 2012, it looked abandoned then, but after reading this I see it was not.
Quote from: storm2k on September 15, 2016, 12:06:49 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on September 10, 2016, 04:45:44 PM
theres button copy signs on 287 in the northern part where the first letter of each direction is enlarged so that must mean NJ was one of the last to switch over. PLenty of it left all over the state still except the toll roads.
Anything between was erected in 1994 when they built the HOV lanes. Everything north of 80 was done in 1993 when they finally finished the road to the NY state line.
NJDOT did not start doing reflective non-button copy signage until around 1999 if I'm not mistaken.
I believe the official changeover was in 1997. Remaining projects and stocks of button copy were used up, so they were put up even as late as 2000 for at least one project. By 1998 I imagine some of the new fully reflective signs were going in already, with some overlap.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 15, 2016, 07:11:54 PM
I am surprised that this weigh station serves the many trucks it does being its very small. I know there is no room for expansion anywhere around there. You might be able to put one up in Bridgewater, but trucks would bypass it on US 22 or US 202 & 206.
The last time I was there in 2012, it looked abandoned then, but after reading this I see it was not.
It's open more sporadically than some of the ones in western Jersey. I don't know where else you would put one on 287, there is a lot of development very close to the road all along that stretch, even in Bridgewater. There is a lot of truck traffic on this stretch of road, though, so they do use it.
Something that's strange to me is the I-78/I-287 interchange. I'm mostly focusing on I-287.
My question is: why is I-287 set up more like the New Jersey Turnpike here? It's quad carriageway with three lanes, for a total of 12. However, this creates a needlessly complex interchange at US 202. I know this section is busy, but the section to the south is six lanes and has handled traffic fine whenever I was there. I wasn't able to find information about this setup, except for the fact that the outer carriageways were widened from 2 to 3 lanes in the 1990s.
It seems like it's supposed to distribute traffic from US 202/206, and counter weaving, but the next freeway interchange to the north at NJ 24 doesn't have this problem, and the next exits to both directions are only a mile away, while this interchange has the 202/206 exit four miles to the south, and a really primitive interchange at US 206 to the north.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 16, 2016, 06:48:10 PM
Something that's strange to me is the I-78/I-287 interchange. I'm mostly focusing on I-287.
My question is: why is I-287 set up more like the New Jersey Turnpike here? It's quad carriageway with three lanes, for a total of 12. However, this creates a needlessly complex interchange at US 202. I know this section is busy, but the section to the south is six lanes and has handled traffic fine whenever I was there. I wasn't able to find information about this setup, except for the fact that the outer carriageways were widened from 2 to 3 lanes in the 1990s.
It seems like it's supposed to distribute traffic from US 202/206, and counter weaving, but the next freeway interchange to the north at NJ 24 doesn't have this problem, and the next exits to both directions are only a mile away, while this interchange has the 202/206 exit four miles to the south, and a really primitive interchange at US 206 to the north.
It's been that way since the beginning. If you look at this Historic Aerial (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1963&zoom=17&lat=40.64176790841922&lon=-74.64486837387085) from 1963, when they're building, they already have the dual-dual config and the left hand ramp to 78 WB. I imagine the entire thing was to allow for that left hand movement. I never could figure out a better reason.
Also of interest that I never realized before now. There is an unused loop ramp from 78EB to 287NB. I always thought it was a relic from before the more complex ramps were built, but it was built somewhere between 1979 and 1987. Anyone know what the idea for this ramp was supposed to be?
^^ It was a temporary ramp built when the existing left-entry ramp needed to be closed for redecking of the two bridges on the ramp. Left in after that work was done to use for emergency conditions.
Quote from: storm2k on September 16, 2016, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 16, 2016, 06:48:10 PM
Something that's strange to me is the I-78/I-287 interchange. I'm mostly focusing on I-287.
My question is: why is I-287 set up more like the New Jersey Turnpike here? It's quad carriageway with three lanes, for a total of 12. However, this creates a needlessly complex interchange at US 202. I know this section is busy, but the section to the south is six lanes and has handled traffic fine whenever I was there. I wasn't able to find information about this setup, except for the fact that the outer carriageways were widened from 2 to 3 lanes in the 1990s.
It seems like it's supposed to distribute traffic from US 202/206, and counter weaving, but the next freeway interchange to the north at NJ 24 doesn't have this problem, and the next exits to both directions are only a mile away, while this interchange has the 202/206 exit four miles to the south, and a really primitive interchange at US 206 to the north.
It's been that way since the beginning. If you look at this Historic Aerial (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1963&zoom=17&lat=40.64176790841922&lon=-74.64486837387085) from 1963, when they're building, they already have the dual-dual config and the left hand ramp to 78 WB. I imagine the entire thing was to allow for that left hand movement. I never could figure out a better reason.
Also of interest that I never realized before now. There is an unused loop ramp from 78EB to 287NB. I always thought it was a relic from before the more complex ramps were built, but it was built somewhere between 1979 and 1987. Anyone know what the idea for this ramp was supposed to be?
I am only guessing at this, but the two lane left merge coming from I-78 WB to I-287 SB into the center roadway and the left two lane exit for US 202 & 206 SB from that very same carriageway suggests that its to keep traffic separate from those coming from I-78 EB to I-287 SB.
The same is on the NB side with the merge from US 202 & 206 NB to I-287 north to the outer roadway where the two lane NB exit to I-78 EB is. Then on the NB side you have the left exit to I-78 WB from the inner roadway not connected to any of the traffic on the outer roadway except for the crossover ramp that allows US 202 & 206 traffic to access I-78 WB, that now is also signed for straight through traffic as well to cross over.
I believe that NJDOT engineers anticipated that most traffic from I-78 WB to I-287 SB were heading to Somerville and south on the 202 & 206 corridors rather than stay on 287. Remember this was before Piscataway sprawled into what it is now. Piscataway was mostly farms until the mid 1970's and early 80's, so it was thought that no one would want to go that far on SB I-287 from that way. The same going the other way. It was theorized that most traffic entering I-78 EB from I-287 NB would be coming from Somerville, Bridgewater, and from the south and west as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 18, 2016, 10:49:11 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 16, 2016, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 16, 2016, 06:48:10 PM
Something that's strange to me is the I-78/I-287 interchange. I'm mostly focusing on I-287.
My question is: why is I-287 set up more like the New Jersey Turnpike here? It's quad carriageway with three lanes, for a total of 12. However, this creates a needlessly complex interchange at US 202. I know this section is busy, but the section to the south is six lanes and has handled traffic fine whenever I was there. I wasn't able to find information about this setup, except for the fact that the outer carriageways were widened from 2 to 3 lanes in the 1990s.
It seems like it's supposed to distribute traffic from US 202/206, and counter weaving, but the next freeway interchange to the north at NJ 24 doesn't have this problem, and the next exits to both directions are only a mile away, while this interchange has the 202/206 exit four miles to the south, and a really primitive interchange at US 206 to the north.
It's been that way since the beginning. If you look at this Historic Aerial (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1963&zoom=17&lat=40.64176790841922&lon=-74.64486837387085) from 1963, when they're building, they already have the dual-dual config and the left hand ramp to 78 WB. I imagine the entire thing was to allow for that left hand movement. I never could figure out a better reason.
Also of interest that I never realized before now. There is an unused loop ramp from 78EB to 287NB. I always thought it was a relic from before the more complex ramps were built, but it was built somewhere between 1979 and 1987. Anyone know what the idea for this ramp was supposed to be?
I am only guessing at this, but the two lane left merge coming from I-78 WB to I-287 SB into the center roadway and the left two lane exit for US 202 & 206 SB from that very same carriageway suggests that its to keep traffic separate from those coming from I-78 EB to I-287 SB.
The same is on the NB side with the merge from US 202 & 206 NB to I-287 north to the outer roadway where the two lane NB exit to I-78 EB is. Then on the NB side you have the left exit to I-78 WB from the inner roadway not connected to any of the traffic on the outer roadway except for the crossover ramp that allows US 202 & 206 traffic to access I-78 WB, that now is also signed for straight through traffic as well to cross over.
I believe that NJDOT engineers anticipated that most traffic from I-78 WB to I-287 SB were heading to Somerville and south on the 202 & 206 corridors rather than stay on 287. Remember this was before Piscataway sprawled into what it is now. Piscataway was mostly farms until the mid 1970's and early 80's, so it was thought that no one would want to go that far on SB I-287 from that way. The same going the other way. It was theorized that most traffic entering I-78 EB from I-287 NB would be coming from Somerville, Bridgewater, and from the south and west as well.
This similar idea is why I figured 295 and 76 had express ramps to and from south of I-76. Maybe it had to do with the grand scheme of proposed highways and bridges between Philly and NJ, most of which were going to be North of I-76. Obviously, many of those highways and bridges never happened. If the planners realized what would truly happen, we would've seen express connections to and from the north instead.
Quote from: storm2k on September 06, 2016, 10:35:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2016, 10:44:26 PM
Quote from: _Simon on September 05, 2016, 03:07:00 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I am kind of thinking that. Yes the current one's were added in 1994, as the old diagramical signs were there when I left in 1990 still. Even when Randophville Road was made a complete interchange it for a short while received the diagram panel for SB I-287 until 1994. In fact it was 1994 that the section of I-287 south of Basking Ridge got exit numbers.
Any known pics of these? I remember these as a kid and have been trying to find them for years.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
I-78 was without number, but nearby former Exit 18 got numbers which is the US 202 & 206 Bedminster interchange.
Don't forget that there used to be an on-ramp from US-202/206 south to I-287 NB, removed due to weaving.
Thought so about the on ramp there. I was checking out GSV and noticed it was gone. Was wondering about that one. Anyway that ramp was redundant anyhow because a left turn was always allowed at the one roadway that acts as connection to I-287 N Bound.
If I am not mistaken, I believe the NB I-287 to SB US 202 & 206 was added sometime in the 70's as originally it was only a NB only exit using the cloverleaf ramp that is there now. SB always had the ramp it has now, and the NB ramp as is now from US 202 & 206 was there. If my memory is correct then there were missing movements from NB 287 to SB US 202 & 206 and from NB US 202 & 206 to SB 287 in the original form. Of course the NB US 202 & 206 to SB 287 is still missing as the River Road jughandle allows for a u turn to the SB side as well as lets SB 287 access to SB US 202 & 206 as the SB 22 ramp is for NB US 202 & 206.
I never realized there was another ramp there. That has to have been gone since the early 80s then, because I grew up in that area and I've always known Schley Mountain Rd as the way to get to 287NB from 202-206SB.
Speak of the devil; I drove by this tonight and it was in the middle of being re-graded. I assume it's part of the I-287/I-78 interchange project; I'd love to get a map/design of what doing.
Looks like construction on the 287/78/202-206 improvements is going into high gear, as work kicks off tonight (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/traffic/2016/09/22/lanes-closed--78287-interchange/90836254/) to move traffic lanes on both 287 and 202-206 to establish a work zone for the forthcoming interchange improvements.
Here's some weird travels on a weird road.
Cool right? (http://weirdnj.com/weird-news/indian-cabin-road/)
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 23, 2016, 03:06:34 PM
Here's some weird travels on a weird road.
Cool right? (http://weirdnj.com/weird-news/indian-cabin-road/)
There's only one Indian Cabin Road in Sweetwater, and it's fully paved and run by Google Street View. Must have been paved since 2004 (very possible, given the article date).
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2016, 05:14:50 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 23, 2016, 03:06:34 PM
Here's some weird travels on a weird road.
Cool right? (http://weirdnj.com/weird-news/indian-cabin-road/)
There's only one Indian Cabin Road in Sweetwater, and it's fully paved and run by Google Street View. Must have been paved since 2004 (very possible, given the article date).
Based on the article, they didn't start out in Sweetwater. According to Google Maps, the road starts out here, unpaved as of 2009:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5331374,-74.56339,3a,75y,267.55h,74.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5VeOWWJyvbttwywpjKGpzA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5VeOWWJyvbttwywpjKGpzA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D131.70349%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e1
There seems to be a discontinuity before it turns up paved here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5669845,-74.6393298,3a,75y,324.74h,71.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-bizq7bmtjVkIim-s6zDzw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e1
Some random photos from Route 18's extension onto Don Imus's favorite road, Hoes Lane and beyond:
http://imgur.com/a/bqylg
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 25, 2016, 09:07:53 PM
Some random photos from Route 18's extension onto Don Imus's favorite road, Hoes Lane and beyond:
http://imgur.com/a/bqylg
Not 100% sure why they extended the 18 signage onto Possumtown Rd. They could have just done a couple of To NJ 18 South signs off the ramp from 287 and been fine and just had Centennial be the only beginning/end point of the signed highway.
Also, not evident from this is how much improved the roadway was over when Piscataway had maintenance responsibility. Mostly because they didn't do much to maintain it. The roadways beyond NJDOT's work are a real drop off from this nice new pavement and other work.
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2016, 01:50:49 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 25, 2016, 09:07:53 PM
Some random photos from Route 18's extension onto Don Imus's favorite road, Hoes Lane and beyond:
http://imgur.com/a/bqylg
Not 100% sure why they extended the 18 signage onto Possumtown Rd. They could have just done a couple of To NJ 18 South signs off the ramp from 287 and been fine and just had Centennial be the only beginning/end point of the signed highway.
Also, not evident from this is how much improved the roadway was over when Piscataway had maintenance responsibility. Mostly because they didn't do much to maintain it. The roadways beyond NJDOT's work are a real drop off from this nice new pavement and other work.
NY does that same thing in Jefferson County near Watertown Center. NY 232 is signed with and END sign along a frontage road that connects the short NY route with I-81 N Bound. Then the other, if it is signed still, at the SB ramp with I-81 where the state route officially ends.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 24, 2016, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2016, 05:14:50 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 23, 2016, 03:06:34 PM
Here's some weird travels on a weird road.
Cool right? (http://weirdnj.com/weird-news/indian-cabin-road/)
There's only one Indian Cabin Road in Sweetwater, and it's fully paved and run by Google Street View. Must have been paved since 2004 (very possible, given the article date).
Based on the article, they didn't start out in Sweetwater. According to Google Maps, the road starts out here, unpaved as of 2009:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5331374,-74.56339,3a,75y,267.55h,74.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5VeOWWJyvbttwywpjKGpzA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5VeOWWJyvbttwywpjKGpzA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D131.70349%26pitch%3D0!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e1
There seems to be a discontinuity before it turns up paved here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5669845,-74.6393298,3a,75y,324.74h,71.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-bizq7bmtjVkIim-s6zDzw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e1
You're saying Weird NJ exaggerated and took poetic license?!?!!!!!! Never.
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2016, 01:50:49 AM
evident from this is how much improved the roadway was over when Piscataway had maintenance responsibility. Mostly because they didn't do much to maintain it. The roadways beyond NJDOT's work are a real drop off from this nice new pavement and other work.
The rest of Centennial Ave. appears to be getting a fresh pave. I guess that dropoff in condition was enough for them to do something about it!
Quote from: Alps on September 26, 2016, 04:54:01 PM
You're saying Weird NJ exaggerated and took poetic license?!?!!!!!! Never.
That's not what I'm saying (although I'm sure they did). They got onto Indian Cabin Road at its start, where it is indeed unpaved, planning to drive it all the way *to* Sweetwater. They apparently had a map that showed Indian Cabin Road going all the way to Sweetwater. Although Google shows a discontinuity between New York Avenue and Darmstadt Avenue, a close look at Google's aerial view does show some sort of a road that links the two segments:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5632336,-74.6208449,319m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2016, 05:29:47 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2016, 01:50:49 AM
evident from this is how much improved the roadway was over when Piscataway had maintenance responsibility. Mostly because they didn't do much to maintain it. The roadways beyond NJDOT's work are a real drop off from this nice new pavement and other work.
The rest of Centennial Ave. appears to be getting a fresh pave. I guess that dropoff in condition was enough for them to do something about it!
Hang on, I need to pick my jaw up off the floor. I don't remember them doing much other than some basic pothole repair on any part of Centennial since I started at RU back in '99.
Eastbound is paved from South Randolphville to at least South Washington Ave. Westbound was grinded last weekend. I don't know why Centennial Ave. (and Hadley) isn't a county road at this point, its obvious that Piscataway doesn't have the resources to maintain it. They also need to learn how to time traffic lights, that road is horrible. Hoes Ln. used to be just as bad, now traffic flows very smoothly.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/how_to_navigate_the_confusing_new_traffic_signal_popping_up_across_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop
Click on the link to see what the confusing new traffic signal is...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2016, 02:12:50 PM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/how_to_navigate_the_confusing_new_traffic_signal_popping_up_across_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop
Click on the link to see what the confusing new traffic signal is...
It's a pedestrian beacon. Fuck clickbait.
Damn HAWK signals. NYSDOT Region 5 installed one on NY 324 in Tonawanda. You can be stuck at that thing for 5 minutes at a time.
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2016, 02:29:30 PM
Damn HAWK signals. NYSDOT Region 5 installed one on NY 324 in Tonawanda. You can be stuck at that thing for 5 minutes at a time.
Why? Are there that many pedestrians? Or do drivers not go after pedestrians are done crossing?
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2016, 02:37:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2016, 02:29:30 PM
Damn HAWK signals. NYSDOT Region 5 installed one on NY 324 in Tonawanda. You can be stuck at that thing for 5 minutes at a time.
Why? Are there that many pedestrians? Or do drivers not go after pedestrians are done crossing?
That many pedestrians. It's an 8 lane road, so the crossing time is long
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2016, 02:55:08 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2016, 02:37:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2016, 02:29:30 PM
Damn HAWK signals. NYSDOT Region 5 installed one on NY 324 in Tonawanda. You can be stuck at that thing for 5 minutes at a time.
Why? Are there that many pedestrians? Or do drivers not go after pedestrians are done crossing?
That many pedestrians. It's an 8 lane road, so the crossing time is long
So it would be a problem even without the signal if drivers obeyed the law and let them cross.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2016, 04:01:02 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2016, 02:55:08 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2016, 02:37:27 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 04, 2016, 02:29:30 PM
Damn HAWK signals. NYSDOT Region 5 installed one on NY 324 in Tonawanda. You can be stuck at that thing for 5 minutes at a time.
Why? Are there that many pedestrians? Or do drivers not go after pedestrians are done crossing?
That many pedestrians. It's an 8 lane road, so the crossing time is long
So it would be a problem even without the signal if drivers obeyed the law and let them cross.
Yes. They put in a bike path and, instead of building a bridge or having people walk a block to the signalized intersection, they put in a HAWK signal that resets whenever someone pushes the button. Get enough people on there and it'll stop traffic for a while.
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2016, 02:14:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2016, 02:12:50 PM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/how_to_navigate_the_confusing_new_traffic_signal_popping_up_across_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop
Click on the link to see what the confusing new traffic signal is...
It's a pedestrian beacon. Fuck clickbait.
Comments 1 - 216 are going to shock you.
As I stated in the corresponding reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/55tc7a/how_to_navigate_the_confusing_new_traffic_signal/), the light has been there since 2012, why is it new and confusing all of a sudden today?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2016, 02:12:50 PM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/how_to_navigate_the_confusing_new_traffic_signal_popping_up_across_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop
Click on the link to see what the confusing new traffic signal is...
How many of these are out there now? I really only know of 3: The one on 27 by Metropark, the one on Port Reading Ave by St. Anthony of Padua church in Port Reading, and on Central Ave in Westfield.
Quote from: storm2k on October 04, 2016, 09:11:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2016, 02:12:50 PM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/how_to_navigate_the_confusing_new_traffic_signal_popping_up_across_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop
Click on the link to see what the confusing new traffic signal is...
How many of these are out there now? I really only know of 3: The one on 27 by Metropark, the one on Port Reading Ave by St. Anthony of Padua church in Port Reading, and on Central Ave in Westfield.
I believe there's one in the Hamilton, NJ area on 130.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 06, 2016, 03:12:34 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 04, 2016, 09:11:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2016, 02:12:50 PM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/10/how_to_navigate_the_confusing_new_traffic_signal_popping_up_across_nj.html#incart_river_home_pop
Click on the link to see what the confusing new traffic signal is...
How many of these are out there now? I really only know of 3: The one on 27 by Metropark, the one on Port Reading Ave by St. Anthony of Padua church in Port Reading, and on Central Ave in Westfield.
I believe there's one in the Hamilton, NJ area on 130.
Are you referring to this one? It's in use as an emergency vehicle signal for a fire department. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2221287,-74.6122258,3a,48.1y,225.01h,90.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scxob-XeuJbuH17lGnoXSlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-US) Others include Ocean City, (http://patch.com/new-jersey/oceancity/hawk-signal-now-fully-fuctional) Seaside Heights, (http://lavallette-seaside.shorebeat.com/2016/08/pedestrian-crossing-signal-in-seaside-heights-comes-with-unique-rules-for-drivers/) and New Brunswick. (http://www.dailytargum.com/article/2015/10/light-installed-on-george-street-causes-traffic)
Thinking about the drivers' opinions, the most confusion seems to come from the fact that the two lights alternating means you can go after stopping though the intersection, the antithesis of other more commons uses of red alternating lights, railroad crossings and school buses. It's why on the two-light signals where a red light is used to denote a stop sign, alternating lights are technically banned (Burlington County never got this memo, this for example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1425759,-74.6817732,3a,75y,197.9h,87.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMTsbYuVj2xV7qY6ASbSKcA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
Perhaps when the HAWK signals were originally designed, they should have just kept one red light and the signals would still mean the same thing as a normal flashing/steady light: Flashing yellow- blow through the intersection, steady yellow- blow through the intersection, steady red- you can't blow through the intersection, flashing red- Idaho stop.
Glancing around the NJDOT project website, I noticed the bids for Contract 4 of the NJ 72 bridge replacement came in. Interestingly, all 6 bids came in well below projection, with the lowest bid an astounding 40% below the estimated pricetag of $106 million.
It typically takes a month or so to see the winning bid accepted. It'll be wait and see to make sure that there were no errors in the bidding documents that would've accounted for such a wide margin of difference.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 11:10:55 AM
Glancing around the NJDOT project website, I noticed the bids for Contract 4 of the NJ 72 bridge replacement came in. Interestingly, all 6 bids came in well below projection, with the lowest bid an astounding 40% below the estimated pricetag of $106 million.
It typically takes a month or so to see the winning bid accepted. It'll be wait and see to make sure that there were no errors in the bidding documents that would've accounted for such a wide margin of difference.
40% under projection? That seems way way way off. It sounds like any of these bids is going to end up ballooning as the project wears on with change orders.
They have a decent estimate of how much a bridge costs at the site as a parallel span is being built right now.
Hey, I do not know if anyone knows the answer to this as this was back in the mid 80's to mid 90's when some of you were too young or not born yet, but I will ask it despite Alps demanding that I "show the proof" being its so old and other snark.
Back in the mid 1980's the Oak Island viaduct on NB US 1 & 9 was rehabilitated as the old deck was full of pot holes and other stuff. Then after the rehab was done there was a long hiatus to where work was halted on all further work to rehabilitate the rest of US 1 & 9 and its bridges north of Delancey Street and up to the Skyway. For years the NB express lanes were closed and local lanes were only in use to after I left the state in 90. In fact my first visit to home in 1991 after I left was when I finally saw the finished work including the removal of the truss over the defunct CNJ Newark Branch and a new SB span in place then.
Of course that was not the end as the replacement of the SB viaduct over Wilson Avenue, Delancey Street, South Street, and Oak Island Rail yards took years after the original 1932 bridge was torn down. For a period of three years (maybe two), the SB US 1 & 9 used the NB Express lanes and all NB traffic used the local lanes. The now closed NB Express Delancey Street exit was a temporary SB entrance ramp during the missing bridge era as well.
Does anyone know why it took so long and all the halts to get US 1 & 9 completed through Ironbound, Newark? Also why did it take so long for NJDOT to replace the original SB viaduct from Wilson Avenue to I-78 after it was demolished to the time the current one opened to traffic?
I'm looking at Jets postgame traffic on Google Maps right now, and the flyover from NJ 3 east to NJ 495 east is shown as closed. Why?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on October 23, 2016, 04:28:48 PM
I'm looking at Jets postgame traffic on Google Maps right now, and the flyover from NJ 3 east to NJ 495 east is shown as closed. Why?
ixnay
Emergency Repairs on NJ-495 (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2016/101916.shtm). That viaduct is not in good condition. I believe they're working on the engineering to do something to replace it. That will be an unpleasant situation to replace.
Drove through Clifton today to get lunch at the Hot Grill. Notice that Passaic County has put up a bunch of new county route signs up in the area. Lexington Ave now has a bunch of CR-625 signs that were not there earlier in the year.
All posts for the New Jersey Gas Tax increase, and related discussion of self-serve versus full-serve gas, etc., have been split into a new topic:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19137.0
Bill Baroni and Bridget Kelly have been found guilty on all counts in the Bridgegate scandal:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/bridgegate_verdict_bill_baroni_and_bridget_kelly_g.html#incart_big-photo
I just realized that the following sign is a bit of an anachronism - button copy and "Next Exit", but larger first character on the cardinal direction - https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3423181,-74.6248164,3a,75y,46.69h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sibTSvKM2vCRwlqhkp2VG4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
edit: fixed "next exit", thanks bzakharin
Quote from: odditude on November 07, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
I just realized that the following sign is a bit of an anachronism - button copy and "Next Right", but larger first character on the cardinal direction - https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3423181,-74.6248164,3a,75y,46.69h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sibTSvKM2vCRwlqhkp2VG4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It says "Next exit" not "Next right". But really, on a road without exit numbers, what would be the alternative to some form of "next right/exit"? Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing "Next exit" before (as opposed to "next right"). I've seen a "This exit" though: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6396064,-74.862169,3a,75y,331.38h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdh5brmPzVSIQAuZTho6tlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Quote from: bzakharin on November 07, 2016, 01:04:19 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 07, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
I just realized that the following sign is a bit of an anachronism - button copy and "Next Right", but larger first character on the cardinal direction - https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3423181,-74.6248164,3a,75y,46.69h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sibTSvKM2vCRwlqhkp2VG4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It says "Next exit" not "Next right". But really, on a road without exit numbers, what would be the alternative to some form of "next right/exit"? Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing "Next exit" before (as opposed to "next right"). I've seen a "This exit" though: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6396064,-74.862169,3a,75y,331.38h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdh5brmPzVSIQAuZTho6tlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
nowadays, isn't a distance message required?
Just because the MUTCD adopts something doesn't mean it begins then. Different states experiment, and several sometimes agree on an idea before it's implemented. If US 1 was among the last run of button copy signs before (or just after) the switch to full reflective, it's possible there was overlap with NJ's own policy of first initial larger.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4321696,-74.5795363,3a,75y,180h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBYfoodDDBuBOnNiP_OJ2ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I find this sign assembly to be very interesting. Taken at the ACY Airport Circle in Egg Harbor, it directs motorists to US 40 & 322 via Delilah Road W Bound instead of straight through on CR 583 S Bound.
I suppose WB for the two US routes Delilah Road is a good way to go, but E Bound its far from direct and takes you miles of course.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 07, 2016, 01:04:19 PM
Quote from: odditude on November 07, 2016, 11:29:06 AM
I just realized that the following sign is a bit of an anachronism - button copy and "Next Right", but larger first character on the cardinal direction - https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3423181,-74.6248164,3a,75y,46.69h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sibTSvKM2vCRwlqhkp2VG4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It says "Next exit" not "Next right". But really, on a road without exit numbers, what would be the alternative to some form of "next right/exit"? Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing "Next exit" before (as opposed to "next right"). I've seen a "This exit" though: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6396064,-74.862169,3a,75y,331.38h,90.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdh5brmPzVSIQAuZTho6tlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Both the MUTCD and the old AASHO "Interstate Signing Manual" have always specified "Next Right" for service and supplemental signs at non-numbered exits. However, some states and agencies (MassDPW among them) have used "Next Exit" on such signs instead in the past.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2016, 08:59:00 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4321696,-74.5795363,3a,75y,180h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBYfoodDDBuBOnNiP_OJ2ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I find this sign assembly to be very interesting. Taken at the ACY Airport Circle in Egg Harbor, it directs motorists to US 40 & 322 via Delilah Road W Bound instead of straight through on CR 583 S Bound.
I suppose WB for the two US routes Delilah Road is a good way to go, but E Bound its far from direct and takes you miles of course.
That reminds me of a similar sign at Exit 37 on the GS Parkway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.405223,-74.5578998,3a,37.5y,229.47h,85.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4JGsxETRbDsUs9inwCmhQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Why Atlantic City is in the opposite direction from 40/322 I have no idea. And why is the FAA Tech Center listed instead of the ACY airport which it is part of?
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 23, 2016, 01:06:43 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 23, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
Some sign work has happened on I-76 W approaching the 76/676 split. They're replacing the classic button copy diagramic signs that were there. The advanced sign assembly also adds a separate points of interest sign for I-676, listing the Aquarium, the Battleship New Jersey and the "Entertainment Center" (something that venue hasn't been called in almost 20 years now).
How very 1992 of NJDOT. :sombrero:
I would expect PennDOT to make that kind of a mistake moreso than NJDOT.
I've been meaning to get back to this. They have *not* replaced the diagramic signs. They are still there, button copy and all. They simply added a supplemental BGS for those I-676 points of interest on the first overhead gantry.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 17, 2016, 09:32:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2016, 08:59:00 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4321696,-74.5795363,3a,75y,180h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBYfoodDDBuBOnNiP_OJ2ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I find this sign assembly to be very interesting. Taken at the ACY Airport Circle in Egg Harbor, it directs motorists to US 40 & 322 via Delilah Road W Bound instead of straight through on CR 583 S Bound.
I suppose WB for the two US routes Delilah Road is a good way to go, but E Bound its far from direct and takes you miles of course.
That reminds me of a similar sign at Exit 37 on the GS Parkway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.405223,-74.5578998,3a,37.5y,229.47h,85.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4JGsxETRbDsUs9inwCmhQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Why Atlantic City is in the opposite direction from 40/322 I have no idea. And why is the FAA Tech Center listed instead of the ACY airport which it is part of?
Because NJDOT signs the connection to 40/322 in that direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4102331,-74.5653966,3a,75y,356.13h,86.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sX6pAWw7bXjNdNjFiSJyISA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DX6pAWw7bXjNdNjFiSJyISA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D194.5639%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) and not the other.
Quote from: storm2k on November 24, 2016, 04:33:30 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 17, 2016, 09:32:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2016, 08:59:00 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4321696,-74.5795363,3a,75y,180h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBYfoodDDBuBOnNiP_OJ2ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I find this sign assembly to be very interesting. Taken at the ACY Airport Circle in Egg Harbor, it directs motorists to US 40 & 322 via Delilah Road W Bound instead of straight through on CR 583 S Bound.
I suppose WB for the two US routes Delilah Road is a good way to go, but E Bound its far from direct and takes you miles of course.
That reminds me of a similar sign at Exit 37 on the GS Parkway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.405223,-74.5578998,3a,37.5y,229.47h,85.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4JGsxETRbDsUs9inwCmhQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Why Atlantic City is in the opposite direction from 40/322 I have no idea. And why is the FAA Tech Center listed instead of the ACY airport which it is part of?
Because NJDOT signs the connection to 40/322 in that direction (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4102331,-74.5653966,3a,75y,356.13h,86.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sX6pAWw7bXjNdNjFiSJyISA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DX6pAWw7bXjNdNjFiSJyISA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D194.5639%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) and not the other.
Well, yeah, and it's probably the best way to get on it there even Eastbound, but how do you propose to get to Atlantic City following the other arrow? You have to end up either on 40/322 or the AC Expressway at some point.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 17, 2016, 09:32:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2016, 08:59:00 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4321696,-74.5795363,3a,75y,180h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBYfoodDDBuBOnNiP_OJ2ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I find this sign assembly to be very interesting. Taken at the ACY Airport Circle in Egg Harbor, it directs motorists to US 40 & 322 via Delilah Road W Bound instead of straight through on CR 583 S Bound.
I suppose WB for the two US routes Delilah Road is a good way to go, but E Bound its far from direct and takes you miles of course.
That reminds me of a similar sign at Exit 37 on the GS Parkway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.405223,-74.5578998,3a,37.5y,229.47h,85.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4JGsxETRbDsUs9inwCmhQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Why Atlantic City is in the opposite direction from 40/322 I have no idea. And why is the FAA Tech Center listed instead of the ACY airport which it is part of?
EB US 40 & 322 should be east on Washington to Fire Road.
The same goes for I-95 leaving Newark Airport. It directs both directions via I-78, yet the SB Turnpike is directed via US 1 & 9 SB to NJ 81. Both the NJT and I-95 is the same road, but directed differently as well.
The 37 ramp is probably because no one really cares how they get to Atlantic City, long as they get there. Its an oversight like the Newark Airport as many do not consider the NJ Turnpike as I-95. No one stopped to figure it out and they most likely did here on the 37 ramp as well.
Good catch though!
Quote from: roadman65 on November 25, 2016, 01:08:49 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 17, 2016, 09:32:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2016, 08:59:00 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4321696,-74.5795363,3a,75y,180h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBYfoodDDBuBOnNiP_OJ2ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I find this sign assembly to be very interesting. Taken at the ACY Airport Circle in Egg Harbor, it directs motorists to US 40 & 322 via Delilah Road W Bound instead of straight through on CR 583 S Bound.
I suppose WB for the two US routes Delilah Road is a good way to go, but E Bound its far from direct and takes you miles of course.
That reminds me of a similar sign at Exit 37 on the GS Parkway:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.405223,-74.5578998,3a,37.5y,229.47h,85.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4JGsxETRbDsUs9inwCmhQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Why Atlantic City is in the opposite direction from 40/322 I have no idea. And why is the FAA Tech Center listed instead of the ACY airport which it is part of?
EB US 40 & 322 should be east on Washington to Fire Road.
The same goes for I-95 leaving Newark Airport. It directs both directions via I-78, yet the SB Turnpike is directed via US 1 & 9 SB to NJ 81. Both the NJT and I-95 is the same road, but directed differently as well.
The 37 ramp is probably because no one really cares how they get to Atlantic City, long as they get there. Its an oversight like the Newark Airport as many do not consider the NJ Turnpike as I-95. No one stopped to figure it out and they most likely did here on the 37 ramp as well.
Good catch though!
I almost wonder if this is a way to disperse traffic for the otherwise unknowing.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2016, 04:14:09 PM
I almost wonder if this is a way to disperse traffic for the otherwise unknowing.
It would work better if it weren't the case that you must already be in the left turn lane to see this sign (unless you have extremely good eyesight).
The Parkway has a lot to be desired for on ramp signs. As long as I was living there, all sign projects on the Parkway proper never included the ramps. Most ramps were always copied over and if new signs were installed, like Exit 136 for example, it was done by the locals who maintained the connecting roadway.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2016, 08:27:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2016, 04:14:09 PM
I almost wonder if this is a way to disperse traffic for the otherwise unknowing.
It would work better if it weren't the case that you must already be in the left turn lane to see this sign (unless you have extremely good eyesight).
Got a little confusing with the quotes there...I was referring to roadman's comment regarding the NJTPK/95 signage near EWR.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2016, 09:52:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 27, 2016, 08:27:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2016, 04:14:09 PM
I almost wonder if this is a way to disperse traffic for the otherwise unknowing.
It would work better if it weren't the case that you must already be in the left turn lane to see this sign (unless you have extremely good eyesight).
Got a little confusing with the quotes there...I was referring to roadman's comment regarding the NJTPK/95 signage near EWR.
Probably so. Most locals refer to the Turnpike as such and even though only a few know its interstate number it still has enough to know the interstate route to distribute traffic in a more effective manner.
However it is what it is, to me I have no problem with EWR's signing as both ways are to the point. Sure one is slightly longer, but not by much. Also, the tolls are (or were) the same to go points south of Newark whether you enter at 14 or 13A anyway. That was to deter shunpikers when 13A opened in 1983 to charge 14 rates at 13A or 13 rates going SB at 13A as well.
So I rode through the completed work on 18 at Interchange 9 for the first time since they were completely finished today. Restriping in an option lane at the gore point for the Rt 1 NB ramp definitely helps traffic flow because you don't have to weave so badly coming off the Turnpike ramp. I also see they erected an APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.481834,-74.4121651,3a,24.3y,323.39h,95.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN1pzisaFwKhtjb6N95VOjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on approach to this ramp, but did not put a second one at the gore point, for better or worse. Plus they did the arrows backward (arrows for 18NB should be curved since the road curves left while the 1NB ramp goes straight -- MUTCD Fig 2E-5 shows how to do this). Seems to have smoothed out some of the bottlenecks going NB. SB was just the same wall of traffic it has been for my entire life, and I'm not sure how much you can really fix that at this point, although eliminating the Naricon Pl/Tower Center Blvd traffic light would help, but it would mean severing the intersection.
Did you notice the Naricon Place sign attached to the traffic light is incorrectly anchored on the Tower Center Blvd side (above Rt 18 NB)? It should be posted above SB.
Quote from: storm2k on December 24, 2016, 12:27:00 AM
I also see they erected an APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.481834,-74.4121651,3a,24.3y,323.39h,95.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN1pzisaFwKhtjb6N95VOjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on approach to this ramp
*puke*
Quote from: _Simon on December 24, 2016, 09:54:52 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 24, 2016, 12:27:00 AM
I also see they erected an APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.481834,-74.4121651,3a,24.3y,323.39h,95.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN1pzisaFwKhtjb6N95VOjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on approach to this ramp
*puke*
It's actually not a bad APL...except for what the did to the destinations in the left side! The TO seems off as well...although I can't put my finger on why.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 25, 2016, 10:02:48 AM
Quote from: _Simon on December 24, 2016, 09:54:52 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 24, 2016, 12:27:00 AM
I also see they erected an APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.481834,-74.4121651,3a,24.3y,323.39h,95.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN1pzisaFwKhtjb6N95VOjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on approach to this ramp
*puke*
It's actually not a bad APL...except for what the did to the destinations in the left side! The TO seems off as well...although I can't put my finger on why.
Superscripting the cardinal directions and vertically centering the "TO" -- looks weird when both design standards come together on the same sign. I've seen this in Michigan and some other states.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 25, 2016, 10:02:48 AM
Quote from: _Simon on December 24, 2016, 09:54:52 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 24, 2016, 12:27:00 AM
I also see they erected an APL (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.481834,-74.4121651,3a,24.3y,323.39h,95.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN1pzisaFwKhtjb6N95VOjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on approach to this ramp
*puke*
It's actually not a bad APL...except for what the did to the destinations in the left side! The TO seems off as well...although I can't put my finger on why.
Move down the road a frame. It's the stitching of street view, not the sign.
Finally! The Hillsborough Bypass by 2020: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2016/12/28/route-206-bypass-hillsborough-could-completed-2020/95885756/
Quote from: J Route Z on December 28, 2016, 10:52:09 PM
Finally! The Hillsborough Bypass by 2020: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2016/12/28/route-206-bypass-hillsborough-could-completed-2020/95885756/
That date disgusts me. The fact that we can't figure out how to not take that long to finish building something that short makes me fear for the future of our infrastructure. We built entire interstate highways in that type of time scale back in the 60s. Yeah a lot has changed and things aren't as agile, and land is obviously harder to come by, but this is absolutely ridiculous when you look at how much on average NJ spends per mile of that road compared to anywhere else in the continent. We should be doing studies into process improvement, like for example, maybe the cost of acquiring land wouldn't be astronomical if you didn't publish the exact whereabouts of a project half a decade before you intend on building it. Maybe it wouldn't take 4 years to pave a few new miles of roadway if we didn't subcontact everything under the sun. Maybe if njdot actually employed people that build highways instead of people that create corruption, dishonest bidding, and what can only be described as a complete disregard for getting the most out of taxpayers money, then we might be able to shave a few million off the cost and finish it in a timeline shorter than it took to construct the entire mainline of the turnpike.
SM-G930V
Quote from: _Simon on December 28, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on December 28, 2016, 10:52:09 PM
Finally! The Hillsborough Bypass by 2020: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2016/12/28/route-206-bypass-hillsborough-could-completed-2020/95885756/
That date disgusts me. The fact that we can't figure out how to not take that long to finish building something that short makes me fear for the future of our infrastructure. We built entire interstate highways in that type of time scale back in the 60s. Yeah a lot has changed and things aren't as agile, and land is obviously harder to come by, but this is absolutely ridiculous when you look at how much on average NJ spends per mile of that road compared to anywhere else in the continent. We should be doing studies into process improvement, like for example, maybe the cost of acquiring land wouldn't be astronomical if you didn't publish the exact whereabouts of a project half a decade before you intend on building it. Maybe it wouldn't take 4 years to pave a few new miles of roadway if we didn't subcontact everything under the sun. Maybe if njdot actually employed people that build highways instead of people that create corruption, dishonest bidding, and what can only be described as a complete disregard for getting the most out of taxpayers money, then we might be able to shave a few million off the cost and finish it in a timeline shorter than it took to construct the entire mainline of the turnpike.
SM-G930V
Why not throw in how long it took the Empire State Building to be built as well?
Being that your rant doesn't have much to do with this project, or probably no much truth in general, I do agree that they probably should've pushed to get this done at one shot rather than spreading it out over a decade or more. Since there's Billions spent on infrastructure each year, this bypass is relatively small in nature. I'm going to guess that there's something going behind the scenes on as to why NJDOT pushed this project back many years, when it was pretty much ready to go. They could've just as easily pushed other projects back to have the funds available for this project.
As for not disclosing the whereabouts of a project years in advance, but sorry, this isn't Disney World. Land acquisition is actually one of the last phases of the entire engineering and design process, just before final design and actual construction. NJDOT can't secretly buy up land spending taxpayer money, which also takes parcels of land off the township tax roles. You don't think that will escape unnoticed?
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/10/the_12_worst_kinds_of_new_jersey_drivers.html#0
A little humorous article about what New Jersey drivers hate about other drivers.
Remember...a *humorous* article. While some pics are of NJ roads, the cartoon of motorists going clockwise around the circle is intentional.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2016, 08:14:55 AM
Quote from: _Simon on December 28, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on December 28, 2016, 10:52:09 PM
Finally! The Hillsborough Bypass by 2020: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2016/12/28/route-206-bypass-hillsborough-could-completed-2020/95885756/
That date disgusts me. The fact that we can't figure out how to not take that long to finish building something that short makes me fear for the future of our infrastructure. We built entire interstate highways in that type of time scale back in the 60s. Yeah a lot has changed and things aren't as agile, and land is obviously harder to come by, but this is absolutely ridiculous when you look at how much on average NJ spends per mile of that road compared to anywhere else in the continent. We should be doing studies into process improvement, like for example, maybe the cost of acquiring land wouldn't be astronomical if you didn't publish the exact whereabouts of a project half a decade before you intend on building it. Maybe it wouldn't take 4 years to pave a few new miles of roadway if we didn't subcontact everything under the sun. Maybe if njdot actually employed people that build highways instead of people that create corruption, dishonest bidding, and what can only be described as a complete disregard for getting the most out of taxpayers money, then we might be able to shave a few million off the cost and finish it in a timeline shorter than it took to construct the entire mainline of the turnpike.
SM-G930V
Why not throw in how long it took the Empire State Building to be built as well?
Being that your rant doesn't have much to do with this project, or probably no much truth in general, I do agree that they probably should've pushed to get this done at one shot rather than spreading it out over a decade or more. Since there's Billions spent on infrastructure each year, this bypass is relatively small in nature. I'm going to guess that there's something going behind the scenes on as to why NJDOT pushed this project back many years, when it was pretty much ready to go. They could've just as easily pushed other projects back to have the funds available for this project.
As for not disclosing the whereabouts of a project years in advance, but sorry, this isn't Disney World. Land acquisition is actually one of the last phases of the entire engineering and design process, just before final design and actual construction. NJDOT can't secretly buy up land spending taxpayer money, which also takes parcels of land off the township tax roles. You don't think that will escape unnoticed?
Njdot should take some clues from real estate developers. I wouldn't mind talking about how I believe today's technology can overcome this problem by doing land aquisition in parallel with multiple living designs for the project that can change as teams of folks acquire the land under nda or in some less publicized manner. Many of the things I foresee may not be possible until the DOT is privatized, but I totally see a way of doing things that's in the best interest of the tax payer. There are also many types of monetization njdot could be doing to offset costs, like running dark fiber under long haul highways or integrating designs for underground utilities into the roads and then charging utility companies rent for access the vast network of under-road property that can be designed as multi tenant utility space. Blue food-fuel-lodging signs would be VMSs that charged businesses ongoing money in exchange for the ability to update the sign dynamically (wouldn't you love a "BREAKFAST" banner below the McDonald's logo on exit signage when they only sell breakfast, or have gas stations disappear from the sign as they close?).
We don't need a miracle, we just need ideas the private sector.
The reason I ranted at length about this project in particular is because of how small the remaining piece is, and how obvious it is where it must go. If I had cash id be out buying up all the land I can that it looks like njdot might need just to make money on it.. I'm not sure why the whereabouts of a project can't be confidential for security, real estate cost, and "getting taxpayers the best deal" reasons until the land is committed. I wouldn't mind an electronic crowdsourced version of the old Robert Moses approach where you're constantly re-working the highway from the ideal engineering design based on what land you're gotten/can get/cant get. As each small section of land is locked in and purchased, the next sections of the highway can start construction, as long as there are a few sections still uncommitted in between that could be used to reroute the design given a roadblock.
SM-G930V
Quote from: _Simon on December 29, 2016, 09:39:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2016, 08:14:55 AM
Quote from: _Simon on December 28, 2016, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on December 28, 2016, 10:52:09 PM
Finally! The Hillsborough Bypass by 2020: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2016/12/28/route-206-bypass-hillsborough-could-completed-2020/95885756/
That date disgusts me. The fact that we can't figure out how to not take that long to finish building something that short makes me fear for the future of our infrastructure. We built entire interstate highways in that type of time scale back in the 60s. Yeah a lot has changed and things aren't as agile, and land is obviously harder to come by, but this is absolutely ridiculous when you look at how much on average NJ spends per mile of that road compared to anywhere else in the continent. We should be doing studies into process improvement, like for example, maybe the cost of acquiring land wouldn't be astronomical if you didn't publish the exact whereabouts of a project half a decade before you intend on building it. Maybe it wouldn't take 4 years to pave a few new miles of roadway if we didn't subcontact everything under the sun. Maybe if njdot actually employed people that build highways instead of people that create corruption, dishonest bidding, and what can only be described as a complete disregard for getting the most out of taxpayers money, then we might be able to shave a few million off the cost and finish it in a timeline shorter than it took to construct the entire mainline of the turnpike.
SM-G930V
Why not throw in how long it took the Empire State Building to be built as well?
Being that your rant doesn't have much to do with this project, or probably no much truth in general, I do agree that they probably should've pushed to get this done at one shot rather than spreading it out over a decade or more. Since there's Billions spent on infrastructure each year, this bypass is relatively small in nature. I'm going to guess that there's something going behind the scenes on as to why NJDOT pushed this project back many years, when it was pretty much ready to go. They could've just as easily pushed other projects back to have the funds available for this project.
As for not disclosing the whereabouts of a project years in advance, but sorry, this isn't Disney World. Land acquisition is actually one of the last phases of the entire engineering and design process, just before final design and actual construction. NJDOT can't secretly buy up land spending taxpayer money, which also takes parcels of land off the township tax roles. You don't think that will escape unnoticed?
Njdot should take some clues from real estate developers. I wouldn't mind talking about how I believe today's technology can overcome this problem by doing land aquisition in parallel with multiple living designs for the project that can change as teams of folks acquire the land under nda or in some less publicized manner. Many of the things I foresee may not be possible until the DOT is privatized, but I totally see a way of doing things that's in the best interest of the tax payer. There are also many types of monetization njdot could be doing to offset costs, like running dark fiber under long haul highways or integrating designs for underground utilities into the roads and then charging utility companies rent for access the vast network of under-road property that can be designed as multi tenant utility space. Blue food-fuel-lodging signs would be VMSs that charged businesses ongoing money in exchange for the ability to update the sign dynamically (wouldn't you love a "BREAKFAST" banner below the McDonald's logo on exit signage when they only sell breakfast, or have gas stations disappear from the sign as they close?).
We don't need a miracle, we just need ideas the private sector.
The reason I ranted at length about this project in particular is because of how small the remaining piece is, and how obvious it is where it must go. If I had cash id be out buying up all the land I can that it looks like njdot might need just to make money on it.. I'm not sure why the whereabouts of a project can't be confidential for security, real estate cost, and "getting taxpayers the best deal" reasons until the land is committed. I wouldn't mind an electronic crowdsourced version of the old Robert Moses approach where you're constantly re-working the highway from the ideal engineering design based on what land you're gotten/can get/cant get. As each small section of land is locked in and purchased, the next sections of the highway can start construction, as long as there are a few sections still uncommitted in between that could be used to reroute the design given a roadblock.
SM-G930V
Given how well we're seeing other privatized roads working out in other parts of the country (Indiana Toll Road comes to mind, as well as some of the private toll roads in Texas, or the ICC in Maryland), privatizing NJDOT would be one of the absolute worst ideas I've ever heard of.
Right. And if a private company bought NJDOT, how would they make money?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2016, 09:21:27 AM
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/10/the_12_worst_kinds_of_new_jersey_drivers.html#0
A little humorous article about what New Jersey drivers hate about other drivers.
Remember...a *humorous* article. While some pics are of NJ roads, the cartoon of motorists going clockwise around the circle is intentional.
Hahahaha! I feel like most of these apply to New York as well, and the one about traffic circles definitely applies at least as much to Massachusetts, except there they call them rotaries.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2016, 12:45:47 AM
Right. And if a private company bought NJDOT, how would they make money?
Again, we should have this discussion in a different thread -- perhaps when I have more time I'll start a thread in Fictional Highways. I could fill pages with ideas for business plans on ways to monetize the operations of running the state-maintained road network alone, let alone if other modes of transportation were also privatized to the same company. The catch is that you need to look into it from a private sector standpoint. What does a DOT have that no one else can offer? What types of services can a DOT offer to businesses that would garner a pretty nice premium without sacrificing the spirit and nature of the DOT? Not so much as a government-constituent function, but as a business-partner relationship -- what unique assets does a DOT have available to it that could be beneficial to individual citizens, businesses, industries, or even other (less efficiently run) government agencies? That's where you start to come up with all sorts of interesting ideas. Imagine Google was awarded a contract via some imaginary legislation that delegated the function and responsibilities of the DOT to them. Imagine how they would be using an all-reaching, contiguous, uninterrupted network of roads to their monetary advantage...
Quote from: _Simon on December 31, 2016, 01:18:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2016, 12:45:47 AM
Right. And if a private company bought NJDOT, how would they make money?
Again, we should have this discussion in a different thread -- perhaps when I have more time I'll start a thread in Fictional Highways. I could fill pages with ideas for business plans on ways to monetize the operations of running the state-maintained road network alone, let alone if other modes of transportation were also privatized to the same company. The catch is that you need to look into it from a private sector standpoint. What does a DOT have that no one else can offer? What types of services can a DOT offer to businesses that would garner a pretty nice premium without sacrificing the spirit and nature of the DOT? Not so much as a government-constituent function, but as a business-partner relationship -- what unique assets does a DOT have available to it that could be beneficial to individual citizens, businesses, industries, or even other (less efficiently run) government agencies? That's where you start to come up with all sorts of interesting ideas. Imagine Google was awarded a contract via some imaginary legislation that delegated the function and responsibilities of the DOT to them. Imagine how they would be using an all-reaching, contiguous, uninterrupted network of roads to their monetary advantage...
So far...anything you previously mentioned are all prohibited or otherwise run afoul of Federal guidelines. Fictional would be fine for such thoughts though.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2016, 01:23:16 PM
So far...anything you previously mentioned are all prohibited or otherwise run afoul of Federal guidelines. Fictional would be fine for such thoughts though.
Federal guidelines of what? We wouldn't be using federal funding at this point.
Quote from: _Simon on December 31, 2016, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2016, 01:23:16 PM
So far...anything you previously mentioned are all prohibited or otherwise run afoul of Federal guidelines. Fictional would be fine for such thoughts though.
Federal guidelines of what? We wouldn't be using federal funding at this point.
Private roads still follow federal guidelines. It's been mentioned extensively on the NJ Turnpike forum.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2016, 01:30:10 PM
Quote from: _Simon on December 31, 2016, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2016, 01:23:16 PM
So far...anything you previously mentioned are all prohibited or otherwise run afoul of Federal guidelines. Fictional would be fine for such thoughts though.
Federal guidelines of what? We wouldn't be using federal funding at this point.
Private roads still follow federal guidelines. It's been mentioned extensively on the NJ Turnpike forum.
Again -- guidelines of what? Engineering? Design? Environmental impact? Safety? I don't see how the private company I described wouldn't be meeting those requirements. Are you saying there are blanket laws against how states can use roads to make money?
All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it. NY is also now in danger of more mileage being made ineligible for federal funding due to the Taste of NY fiasco.
All I have seen in terms of private operation are companies boosting tolls, not investing proportionally in the road, declaring bankruptcy and then laughing all the way to the bank.
Also, the idea that utilities would rent lines seems amiss to me. I believe utilities usually own their own infrastructure. The one contracted to install the line would own it. There wouldn't be any rent collected.
Ok, last I'm replying here on this because I don't want to derail the topic -- I am planning on making a large post in Fictional Highways later about how this *might* work.
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2017, 12:57:26 PM
All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it. NY is also now in danger of more mileage being made ineligible for federal funding due to the Taste of NY fiasco.
As I already said, privatized state roads in my plan wouldn't be eligible for federal funding anyway. Relying on federal funding is not a valid business plan for a business, it's not a really good contingency plan for a state to not have self-sufficient infrastructure maintenance, and frankly I don't like some aspects of MUTCD-compliance.
QuoteAlso, the idea that utilities would rent lines seems amiss to me. I believe utilities usually own their own infrastructure. The one contracted to install the line would own it. There wouldn't be any rent collected.
That is so far off base it's not funny. I work for a very large national telco and while we do own quite a bit of infrastructure since we are a descendant of the Bell System and have been operating for decades, a huge operating cost is still real estate and expanding fiber to places that don't have it. Leasing real estate along roads to put repeaters, distribution equipment, and diagnostic equipment is a large cost, as well as paying the individual land owners and municipalities for easements and other fees related to using municipal-owned or shared utility poles and space is also costly. The biggest problem, however, is running new lines places where there aren't utility poles or existing telco-owned land. *Roads go everywhere*. Imagine as a cable company, you need to run a line down the street from an existing neighborhood to some newly developed houses on a cul-de-sac, you have three options: 1. Buy enough contiguous land that you own a single span from point A to point B (which is almost never possible and prevents other use of the land), 2. Pay multiple real estate owners or the town for an easement to run the cable through their land (which is infeasible, costly, and prone to lots of politics) 3. The state, for an ongoing fee, runs the cable under the road alongside the network the state already needs to operate for road signage, lights, sensors, etc. Think about it -- roads go everywhere. Power lines, gas pipes, and municipal utility space does not. It is a huge cost to put in underground utilities where there aren't already linear spans of land under single control, but all of the roads in the state are already there, linked, and periodically dug up and rehabilitated. Look up "dark fiber", it's the practice of putting currently-unneeded fiber underground for the future anytime the ground happens to be open just because it's more cost effective to lay a whole bunch of unused fiber now then to put more in later.
QuoteAll I have seen in terms of private operation are companies boosting tolls, not investing proportionally in the road, declaring bankruptcy and then laughing all the way to the bank.
Tolls are not a viable way of monetizing DOT operations because they're not dependable, they're avoidable, and they directly relate to a specific portion of roadway. The legislation that privatizes the DOT should put a cap on tolls and make clear what the company/authority's responsibilities are to ensure the people don't get screwed. My plan would immediately see a huge realization in savings quickly from technological and process efficiency increases alone over the bureaucratic, rigged way we're doing things through subcontractors. Even without my grandiose ideas, other states and jurisdictions pay significantly less than NJ does per mile of road maintained, and that's a pretty commonly accepted fact from talking to folks bitch about the TTF lately.
Still think utilities would rather own than rent. Besides, I'm betting the amount a state could recoup from renting would be pennies on the dollar invested.
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2017, 03:13:04 PM
Still think utilities would rather own than rent. Besides, I'm betting the amount a state could recoup from renting would be pennies on the dollar invested.
Of course they would but it's usually impossible unless the land was already in use for that purpose. Try buying a 45 mile strip of land 20 feet wide in 2016 anywhere in the state between any two points. You think a company like Comcast or centurytel is going to purchase vast plots of land just to connect more subscribers? No.. But if they can rent those lines as necessary from the state they could be able to provide service anywhere it was necessary without needing to charge customers to build utility poles, etc. Do you have any idea how many people in nj still can't get fios for this exact reason? It's not economical for Verizon to run lines out to the middle of nowhere for 12 people, but theres a good chance theres state maintained roads nearby.
SM-G930V
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2017, 12:57:26 PM
All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.
I don't buy that. Fiber optic cables are becoming a necessary component of ITS. Does every road with ITS lose Federal funding? Why is FO treated differently than any other utility running along a state right of way? So please cite your source - yes, I Googled and found nothing.
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2017, 06:08:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2017, 12:57:26 PM
All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.
I don't buy that. Fiber optic cables are becoming a necessary component of ITS. Does every road with ITS lose Federal funding? Why is FO treated differently than any other utility running along a state right of way? So please cite your source - yes, I Googled and found nothing.
ITS installation specifically is eligible for federal aid (not sure if the three-year maintenance period still applies, though), but putting an unassociated fiber optic cable along the Wantagh did indeed mean that it lost its federal-aid eligibility.
Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2017, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2017, 06:08:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2017, 12:57:26 PM
All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.
I don't buy that. Fiber optic cables are becoming a necessary component of ITS. Does every road with ITS lose Federal funding? Why is FO treated differently than any other utility running along a state right of way? So please cite your source - yes, I Googled and found nothing.
ITS installation specifically is eligible for federal aid (not sure if the three-year maintenance period still applies, though), but putting an unassociated fiber optic cable along the Wantagh did indeed mean that it lost its federal-aid eligibility.
Again - what makes FO different than any other utility? Again - source?
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2017, 09:10:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2017, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2017, 06:08:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2017, 12:57:26 PM
All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.
I don't buy that. Fiber optic cables are becoming a necessary component of ITS. Does every road with ITS lose Federal funding? Why is FO treated differently than any other utility running along a state right of way? So please cite your source - yes, I Googled and found nothing.
ITS installation specifically is eligible for federal aid (not sure if the three-year maintenance period still applies, though), but putting an unassociated fiber optic cable along the Wantagh did indeed mean that it lost its federal-aid eligibility.
Again - what makes FO different than any other utility? Again - source?
1) Nothing is different, really. FHWA ruled that the installation of the fiber optic line in the Parkway's right of way in particular was an ineligible expense of federal funding.
2) Feel free to ask NYSDOT or the New York Division of the FHWA. I suppose I might have my facts wrong.
Quote from: _Simon on January 01, 2017, 01:30:31 PM
Ok, last I'm replying here on this because I don't want to derail the topic -- I am planning on making a large post in Fictional Highways later about how this *might* work.
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2017, 12:57:26 PM
All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it. NY is also now in danger of more mileage being made ineligible for federal funding due to the Taste of NY fiasco.
As I already said, privatized state roads in my plan wouldn't be eligible for federal funding anyway. Relying on federal funding is not a valid business plan for a business, it's not a really good contingency plan for a state to not have self-sufficient infrastructure maintenance, and frankly I don't like some aspects of MUTCD-compliance.
QuoteAlso, the idea that utilities would rent lines seems amiss to me. I believe utilities usually own their own infrastructure. The one contracted to install the line would own it. There wouldn't be any rent collected.
That is so far off base it's not funny. I work for a very large national telco and while we do own quite a bit of infrastructure since we are a descendant of the Bell System and have been operating for decades, a huge operating cost is still real estate and expanding fiber to places that don't have it. Leasing real estate along roads to put repeaters, distribution equipment, and diagnostic equipment is a large cost, as well as paying the individual land owners and municipalities for easements and other fees related to using municipal-owned or shared utility poles and space is also costly. The biggest problem, however, is running new lines places where there aren't utility poles or existing telco-owned land. *Roads go everywhere*. Imagine as a cable company, you need to run a line down the street from an existing neighborhood to some newly developed houses on a cul-de-sac, you have three options: 1. Buy enough contiguous land that you own a single span from point A to point B (which is almost never possible and prevents other use of the land), 2. Pay multiple real estate owners or the town for an easement to run the cable through their land (which is infeasible, costly, and prone to lots of politics) 3. The state, for an ongoing fee, runs the cable under the road alongside the network the state already needs to operate for road signage, lights, sensors, etc. Think about it -- roads go everywhere. Power lines, gas pipes, and municipal utility space does not. It is a huge cost to put in underground utilities where there aren't already linear spans of land under single control, but all of the roads in the state are already there, linked, and periodically dug up and rehabilitated. Look up "dark fiber", it's the practice of putting currently-unneeded fiber underground for the future anytime the ground happens to be open just because it's more cost effective to lay a whole bunch of unused fiber now then to put more in later.
QuoteAll I have seen in terms of private operation are companies boosting tolls, not investing proportionally in the road, declaring bankruptcy and then laughing all the way to the bank.
Tolls are not a viable way of monetizing DOT operations because they're not dependable, they're avoidable, and they directly relate to a specific portion of roadway. The legislation that privatizes the DOT should put a cap on tolls and make clear what the company/authority's responsibilities are to ensure the people don't get screwed. My plan would immediately see a huge realization in savings quickly from technological and process efficiency increases alone over the bureaucratic, rigged way we're doing things through subcontractors. Even without my grandiose ideas, other states and jurisdictions pay significantly less than NJ does per mile of road maintained, and that's a pretty commonly accepted fact from talking to folks bitch about the TTF lately.
Transportation expenses in NJ this year for NJDOT and NJ Transit total a little over $3.9 Billion. Do you think underground conduit will bring in $4 Billion in revenue a year?
As far as NJ paying more per mile than other states (why you keep repeating this...I guess you want a response)...while it's true, it depends on the report you read. The report of $2 million per mile was greatly disputed because of their methodology. NJ will still spend more than most other states anyway, simply because things cost more in this state. Land costs are higher, salaries are higher, taxes are higher...nearly everything is higher. Your salary in NJ will probably be higher in comparison to what you would make in most other states...but so is the cost of housing and other expenses. Granted, it doesn't help that Sweeney, a union boss, required union work on every job raising the cost, although much of the work was union labor anyway, which has a very strong attachment to projects in the region anyway.
Was poking around on GSV, and it looks like they've installed a HAWK signal (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5041292,-74.4493069,3a,51.6y,310.64h,89.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUlw7z8RQgjNGcJCu3AN0CA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on George St in New Brunswick on the College Ave Campus. Interesting thing is that it replaced a standard signal that controlled the crossing for years (certainly back in the late 90s when I was on the banks).
Quote from: Rothman on January 03, 2017, 12:00:19 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2017, 09:10:43 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 02, 2017, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2017, 06:08:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2017, 12:57:26 PM
All I know is that the Wantagh State Parkway is now ineligible for federal funding due to NY insisting on running fiber optic lines along it.
I don't buy that. Fiber optic cables are becoming a necessary component of ITS. Does every road with ITS lose Federal funding? Why is FO treated differently than any other utility running along a state right of way? So please cite your source - yes, I Googled and found nothing.
ITS installation specifically is eligible for federal aid (not sure if the three-year maintenance period still applies, though), but putting an unassociated fiber optic cable along the Wantagh did indeed mean that it lost its federal-aid eligibility.
Again - what makes FO different than any other utility? Again - source?
1) Nothing is different, really. FHWA ruled that the installation of the fiber optic line in the Parkway's right of way in particular was an ineligible expense of federal funding.
2) Feel free to ask NYSDOT or the New York Division of the FHWA. I suppose I might have my facts wrong.
Installation of a utility is not for Federal funding, I would agree. But that doesn't mean the entire road can't be funded, only the installation of the FO line. If the FO line was for ITS, I imagine that it could have been Federally funded under a different program.
Looks like a bit of recent discussion here should be partitioned into a separate thread(s).
Anyway, not sure if this had been previously posted about. Recently drove I-80 west from I-95 to I-476, and thought of the old U.S. 611 shield at Columbia (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey001/us-046_eb_ramp_to_pa-611_02.jpg). Did not check it out this go around, but looking at GSV last night, the shield was oddly replaced with a reverse video US 611 shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9239223,-75.0905384,3a,16.5y,197.63h,89.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sK862z-QHKCxO9rwzKNN-Sg!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
Quote from: Alex on January 04, 2017, 10:00:12 AM
Looks like a bit of recent discussion here should be partitioned into a separate thread(s).
Anyway, not sure if this had been previously posted about. Recently drove I-80 west from I-95 to I-476, and thought of the old U.S. 611 shield at Columbia (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey001/us-046_eb_ramp_to_pa-611_02.jpg). Did not check it out this go around, but looking at GSV last night, the shield was oddly replaced with a reverse video US 611 shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9239223,-75.0905384,3a,16.5y,197.63h,89.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sK862z-QHKCxO9rwzKNN-Sg!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
I guess they ran out of "historic" or "old" banners, so they opted for reverse video. I personally would have invoked Sepia tone.
SM-G930V
Quote from: Alex on January 04, 2017, 10:00:12 AM
Looks like a bit of recent discussion here should be partitioned into a separate thread(s).
Anyway, not sure if this had been previously posted about. Recently drove I-80 west from I-95 to I-476, and thought of the old U.S. 611 shield at Columbia (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey001/us-046_eb_ramp_to_pa-611_02.jpg). Did not check it out this go around, but looking at GSV last night, the shield was oddly replaced with a reverse video US 611 shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9239223,-75.0905384,3a,16.5y,197.63h,89.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sK862z-QHKCxO9rwzKNN-Sg!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
That looks like a lovely shield straight out of Florida. I actually like the look.
I kind of wish NJ was more into the idea of the brown "Historic Route" signage that a lot of other states use. In NJ, they could certainly post most of historic NJ-24 along its old route. Hell, most people still call it 24, especially east of Chester, and there are still plenty of old 24 shields that will probably stand until they fall down for good.
There are NEW NJ-24 shields posted on that stretch of roadway.
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2017, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: Alex on January 04, 2017, 10:00:12 AM
Looks like a bit of recent discussion here should be partitioned into a separate thread(s).
Anyway, not sure if this had been previously posted about. Recently drove I-80 west from I-95 to I-476, and thought of the old U.S. 611 shield at Columbia (https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey001/us-046_eb_ramp_to_pa-611_02.jpg). Did not check it out this go around, but looking at GSV last night, the shield was oddly replaced with a reverse video US 611 shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9239223,-75.0905384,3a,16.5y,197.63h,89.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sK862z-QHKCxO9rwzKNN-Sg!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
That looks like a lovely shield straight out of Florida. I actually like the look.
I kind of wish NJ was more into the idea of the brown "Historic Route" signage that a lot of other states use. In NJ, they could certainly post most of historic NJ-24 along its old route. Hell, most people still call it 24, especially east of Chester, and there are still plenty of old 24 shields that will probably stand until they fall down for good.
I agree. I even offered to buy Brown "old" banners for nj-24 if they would put them up. I'm still looking for a state contact that has some level of decision making power.
We sign former exit numbers meticulously, sometimes for decades, even though we still have people and Google maps calling entire networks of roads the wrong thing. It's a shame our prioritiies are so ass backwards.
SM-G930V
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2017, 04:46:48 PM
There are NEW NJ-24 shields posted on that stretch of roadway.
There are not. Having driven the corridor extensively in recent years, the 24 signs are all gone, new and old.
https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2017, 07:48:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.
That shot is from October 2016. You sure the sign hasn't come down since then?
ixnay
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2017, 07:48:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.
That's one double-error shield (being there at all, and being SOUTH). That doesn't indicate they're still signing the route. Nothing "east" of there exists beyond the old yellow diamond hill signs referencing RT. 24
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2017, 10:58:50 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2017, 07:48:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.
That's one double-error shield (being there at all, and being SOUTH). That doesn't indicate they're still signing the route. Nothing "east" of there exists beyond the old yellow diamond hill signs referencing RT. 24
I live down the street from there and that sign assembly with the "South" is only about 10-24 months old. I think I even posted here when it showed up. They are most definitely still actively signing non-24 including new signs that replaced the old peeling ones by the intersection of CR-513.
SM-G930V
Quote from: _Simon on January 04, 2017, 11:01:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2017, 10:58:50 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2017, 07:48:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.
That's one double-error shield (being there at all, and being SOUTH). That doesn't indicate they're still signing the route. Nothing "east" of there exists beyond the old yellow diamond hill signs referencing RT. 24
I live down the street from there and that sign assembly with the "South" is only about 10-24 months old. I think I even posted here when it showed up. They are most definitely still actively signing non-24 including new signs that replaced the old peeling ones by the intersection of CR-513.
The last time I was through there - possibly more than 10-24 months ago - ALL of the signs along CR 513 were gone, both at 510 and 517.
Quote from: Alps on January 05, 2017, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: _Simon on January 04, 2017, 11:01:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2017, 10:58:50 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2017, 07:48:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PTNUHDs77Ly Still there.
That's one double-error shield (being there at all, and being SOUTH). That doesn't indicate they're still signing the route. Nothing "east" of there exists beyond the old yellow diamond hill signs referencing RT. 24
I live down the street from there and that sign assembly with the "South" is only about 10-24 months old. I think I even posted here when it showed up. They are most definitely still actively signing non-24 including new signs that replaced the old peeling ones by the intersection of CR-513.
The last time I was through there - possibly more than 10-24 months ago - ALL of the signs along CR 513 were gone, both at 510 and 517.
I assure you there are others, and it was actually this thread I brought this up in when it showed up:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10453.msg308340.msg#308340
SM-G930V
NJ 24 always was referred to as such west of Morristown. I do remember Mendham signing it on the street signs as "Route 24" before the freeway opening in 1992, and I assume that was a major thing then for locals to use that number for reference to the roadway. Considering that most people still call Route 495 as "Route 3", I would assume that there would be folks being reluctant to removing that, so if they are gone in favor of Morris County routes being signed its surprising despite it really being need to be done.
Edit: Menham Borough removed the overhead blades with Route 24 on them and obviously on Hilltop road only CR 510 is signed.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mendham,+NJ/@40.7752078,-74.6005866,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAn2FGND2gB9uwLLJW2YLQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsAn2FGND2gB9uwLLJW2YLQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.27906%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c3989fad42c315:0xee046946733305b1!8m2!3d40.7870633!4d-74.5765686
Quote from: roadman65 on January 06, 2017, 10:28:23 AM
NJ 24 always was referred to as such west of Morristown. I do remember Mendham signing it on the street signs as "Route 24" before the freeway opening in 1992, and I assume that was a major thing then for locals to use that number for reference to the roadway. Considering that most people still call Route 495 as "Route 3", I would assume that there would be folks being reluctant to removing that, so if they are gone in favor of Morris County routes being signed its surprising despite it really being need to be done.
Edit: Menham Borough removed the overhead blades with Route 24 on them and obviously on Hilltop road only CR 510 is signed.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mendham,+NJ/@40.7752078,-74.6005866,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssAn2FGND2gB9uwLLJW2YLQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DsAn2FGND2gB9uwLLJW2YLQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.27906%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c3989fad42c315:0xee046946733305b1!8m2!3d40.7870633!4d-74.5765686
It was marked as Rt. 24 on the Patriot's Path across 510 from the Lewis Morris park the last time I was there. I can't imagine that one is a high priority on the county's list.
It's time for the bi-annual story about completing Route 55 to the end: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20170108_Will_the__road_to_nowhere_-NJ_s_Route_55-ever_go_somewhere_.html
The headline is a little mis-leading...it was known as the road to nowhere back when it only went from Elmer to Vineland. Since it was completed on its northern end, at least it goes somewhere now.
Quote from: storm2k on January 03, 2017, 10:51:11 PM
Was poking around on GSV, and it looks like they've installed a HAWK signal (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5041292,-74.4493069,3a,51.6y,310.64h,89.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUlw7z8RQgjNGcJCu3AN0CA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on George St in New Brunswick on the College Ave Campus. Interesting thing is that it replaced a standard signal that controlled the crossing for years (certainly back in the late 90s when I was on the banks).
Not the first one I've seen. Ocean City's 9th Street (https://goo.gl/maps/TCWKNwg8ko62) has got them as well.
I got a bit bored and crafted up a Historic NJ 24 sign mockup. Did it in Series C for a more "historic" feel.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIzRn1LW.png&hash=09bf1228494bfc523f12e2702094e8aad0a7442d)
Does anybody knows when the new Goethals Bridge will be completed ? The current Goethals Bridge seems to be too tight in both directions. And I mean tight !!! And how soon will the Bayonne Bridge be done? And Is there any plans for the Outerbridge Crossing to get a face lift?
I think I have noticed some NEW guide signs on Route 3 EASTBOUND just before Rts. 495 and 1-9 for the Lincoln Tunnel and Jersey City splits. Does anybody have any pics of them?
Quote from: EricJV95 on January 22, 2017, 12:23:16 AM
Does anybody knows when the new Goethals Bridge will be completed ? The current Goethals Bridge seems to be too tight in both directions. And I mean tight !!! And how soon will the Bayonne Bridge be done? And Is there any plans for the Outerbridge Crossing to get a face lift?
Use Google.
Why is the ramp from NB 95 to SB U.S. 1 near Quaker Bridge Mall closed?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on January 23, 2017, 07:48:00 AM
Why is the ramp from NB 95 to SB U.S. 1 near Quaker Bridge Mall closed?
ixnay
They've been doing construction on that interchange on Saturdays during the day time; that's probably the intersection of the "lowest cost" and "least impact to communters" curves. Hopefully they're rehabbing the pavement, because it's sucked for a while.
Quote from: ixnay on January 23, 2017, 07:48:00 AM
Why is the ramp from NB 95 to SB U.S. 1 near Quaker Bridge Mall closed?
ixnay
Closed until early March for ramp deck reconstruction. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2017/011017.shtm
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2017, 08:24:53 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 23, 2017, 07:48:00 AM
Why is the ramp from NB 95 to SB U.S. 1 near Quaker Bridge Mall closed?
ixnay
Closed until early March for ramp deck reconstruction. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2017/011017.shtm
This ramp is right outside my office. Very little traffic uses it -- I am part of "very little traffic" in the evening -- so it made sense to close.
The structure is actually on the common part of the ramp (carrying traffic to both directions of U.S. 1) -- only the right half (to SB) is closed off. I am curious to see how the traffic pattern will be handled for the other half of the work (Stage 2). The NB ramp carries the lion's share of traffic exiting I-95.
Longer queues are evident for exiting traffic during both peak periods because of the narrowed width of the ramp at the closure.
Quote from: akotchi on January 23, 2017, 10:18:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2017, 08:24:53 AM
Quote from: ixnay on January 23, 2017, 07:48:00 AM
Why is the ramp from NB 95 to SB U.S. 1 near Quaker Bridge Mall closed?
ixnay
Closed until early March for ramp deck reconstruction. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2017/011017.shtm
This ramp is right outside my office. Very little traffic uses it -- I am part of "very little traffic" in the evening -- so it made sense to close.
The structure is actually on the common part of the ramp (carrying traffic to both directions of U.S. 1) -- only the right half (to SB) is closed off. I am curious to see how the traffic pattern will be handled for the other half of the work (Stage 2). The NB ramp carries the lion's share of traffic exiting I-95.
Longer queues are evident for exiting traffic during both peak periods because of the narrowed width of the ramp at the closure.
There must be some way to shift the NB traffic over so that it can use the other half, is my guess.
^^ My guess would be temporary pavement and ramp nose reconstruction to execute that shift.
A public meeting will be coming up on Feb. 15 regarding the next phase of the Rt. 206 Bypass in Hillsborough.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout021517mh.pdf
It's stated construction should start around Spring, 2018.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 25, 2017, 12:22:01 PM
A public meeting will be coming up on Feb. 15 regarding the next phase of the Rt. 206 Bypass in Hillsborough.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout021517mh.pdf
It's stated construction should start around Spring, 2018.
it's good to see that they're finally moving on this again. would be nice if they had a plan to expand to 4 lanes from old somerville up to brown ave, where they did the 4 laning back in '99. sadly, the csx overpass remains in the way.
In Aug. 2016, the turnaround from EB to WB NJ 72 as you touch down in Ship Bottom looked like this...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6529885,-74.183541,3a,75y,44.13h,86.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKUBT8IOcihBvgllRdWHfhA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Anyone know why? Reconstruction of LBI's welcoming plaza?
ixnay
Spotted some new signage on I-95 around Trenton. All of the signage for exits 8A/8B in both directions have been replaced with new signs that underline "Princeton Pike," omit the CR 583 shield and instead provide a destination.
For example, the exit 8A sign shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2864808,-74.7088466,3a,75y,286.74h,91.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX1SAcoFxR6LUew3Zv30yKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced with:
EXIT 8A |
Princeton Pike |
SOUTH |
Trenton |
1/4 MILE |
Can't say I'm a fan.
Quote from: odditude on February 12, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Spotted some new signage on I-95 around Trenton. All of the signage for exits 8A/8B in both directions have been replaced with new signs that underline "Princeton Pike," omit the CR 583 shield and instead provide a destination.
For example, the exit 8A sign shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2864808,-74.7088466,3a,75y,286.74h,91.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX1SAcoFxR6LUew3Zv30yKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced with:
EXIT 8A |
Princeton Pike |
SOUTH |
Trenton |
1/4 MILE |
Can't say I'm a fan.
That surprises me. I would have figured they would update the signs with the CR-583 shields and a destination and not a road name to be more MUTCD compliant.
So I rode through the Lincoln Tunnel a couple of weeks ago because I needed to drive into the city to go to work on a weekend. A good portion of the fancy new LED lights in all the tubes are already failing. I was a bit perplexed as to why, but I saw this article (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/02/the_reason_the_new_21m_lights_in_the_lincoln_tunnel_are_failing.html) late last week which explores the problem.
Quote"The tunnel was built with light fixtures that are recessed into the concrete, fixtures that must still be used today, to prevent the lights from being hit by buses and trucks," he said. "Unfortunately, heat builds up within the fixtures."
The heat build-up is affecting the LEDs, resulting in flickering lights and burnouts, he said. Heat problems also shortened the lifespan of high-pressure sodium bulbs the LEDs replaced, Buccino said.
I would think their best bet would be to switch to ribbon style lighting like the Holland does. Stays out of the way, doesn't burn out so quickly.
Quote from: storm2k on February 13, 2017, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: odditude on February 12, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Spotted some new signage on I-95 around Trenton. All of the signage for exits 8A/8B in both directions have been replaced with new signs that underline "Princeton Pike," omit the CR 583 shield and instead provide a destination.
For example, the exit 8A sign shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2864808,-74.7088466,3a,75y,286.74h,91.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX1SAcoFxR6LUew3Zv30yKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced with:
EXIT 8A |
Princeton Pike |
SOUTH |
Trenton |
1/4 MILE |
Can't say I'm a fan.
That surprises me. I would have figured they would update the signs with the CR-583 shields and a destination and not a road name to be more MUTCD compliant.
Perhaps they finally realized that CR 583 isn't really a county route. Except for the county-maintained portion between Calhoun Street in/around Trenton and Lawrenceville Road (US 206) (which according to the state is ironically a state road (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000206Z_-.pdf)), it's all Lawrence Township and Princeton's jurisdiction (even dating back to the 1950s (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/MercerCounty_1956.jpg)).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 13, 2017, 12:57:31 PM
Quote from: storm2k on February 13, 2017, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: odditude on February 12, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Spotted some new signage on I-95 around Trenton. All of the signage for exits 8A/8B in both directions have been replaced with new signs that underline "Princeton Pike," omit the CR 583 shield and instead provide a destination.
For example, the exit 8A sign shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2864808,-74.7088466,3a,75y,286.74h,91.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX1SAcoFxR6LUew3Zv30yKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced with:
EXIT 8A |
Princeton Pike |
SOUTH |
Trenton |
1/4 MILE |
Can't say I'm a fan.
That surprises me. I would have figured they would update the signs with the CR-583 shields and a destination and not a road name to be more MUTCD compliant.
Perhaps they finally realized that CR 583 isn't really a county route. Except for the county-maintained portion between Calhoun Street in/around Trenton and Lawrenceville Road (US 206) (which according to the state is ironically a state road (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000206Z_-.pdf)), it's all Lawrence Township and Princeton's jurisdiction (even dating back to the 1950s (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/MercerCounty_1956.jpg)).
Holy shit, never noticed that before. You sure don't notice it from roadside features.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 13, 2017, 12:57:31 PM
Lawrenceville Road (US 206) (which according to the state is ironically a state road (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000206Z_-.pdf))
to NJ, all State, US, and Interstate highways are considered "state roads" and are internally referred to as simply "route x".
Quote from: odditude on February 14, 2017, 10:41:55 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 13, 2017, 12:57:31 PM
Lawrenceville Road (US 206) (which according to the state is ironically a state road (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000206Z_-.pdf))
to NJ, all State, US, and Interstate highways are considered "state roads" and are internally referred to as simply "route x".
Is that true of every state? It's not like there's a separate group of federal maintenance and construction crews that do work for Interstates or US routes in other states. The only differences would be who maintains the road. The feds could technically maintain a US or Interstate if it enters their jurisdiction, but they could also maintain a county route as well. (for Example, NJ 68 and CR 616 in Fort Dix)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 13, 2017, 12:57:31 PM
Quote from: storm2k on February 13, 2017, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: odditude on February 12, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Spotted some new signage on I-95 around Trenton. All of the signage for exits 8A/8B in both directions have been replaced with new signs that underline "Princeton Pike," omit the CR 583 shield and instead provide a destination.
For example, the exit 8A sign shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2864808,-74.7088466,3a,75y,286.74h,91.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX1SAcoFxR6LUew3Zv30yKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced with:
EXIT 8A |
Princeton Pike |
SOUTH |
Trenton |
1/4 MILE |
Can't say I'm a fan.
That surprises me. I would have figured they would update the signs with the CR-583 shields and a destination and not a road name to be more MUTCD compliant.
Perhaps they finally realized that CR 583 isn't really a county route. Except for the county-maintained portion between Calhoun Street in/around Trenton and Lawrenceville Road (US 206) (which according to the state is ironically a state road (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000206Z_-.pdf)), it's all Lawrence Township and Princeton's jurisdiction (even dating back to the 1950s (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/MercerCounty_1956.jpg)).
What difference does it make whether it's "really" a county route? If it's signed with county markers, it's useful to have the shield on signs. A better question would be how many people know the county numbers? In most cases the answer is not many, but then every single county route would have to be removed and replaced by the street name. Clearly they are not doing that.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 14, 2017, 12:38:22 PMIf it's signed with county markers, it's useful to have the shield on signs. A better question would be how many people know the county numbers? In most cases the answer is not many, but then every single county route would have to be removed and replaced by the street name. Clearly they are not doing that.
In general (yes, I'm aware there are exceptions), if the CR route is 5XX; the markers are included on the main signs (including BGS'). If the CR is 6XX or 7XX; such are
usually not included (exceptions depend on the individual county).
The fact that CR 583 shields weren't included on the latest BGS' certainly gives
hint of a potential decommission or truncation of the route.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 13, 2017, 12:57:31 PM
Quote from: storm2k on February 13, 2017, 11:45:31 AM
Quote from: odditude on February 12, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
Spotted some new signage on I-95 around Trenton. All of the signage for exits 8A/8B in both directions have been replaced with new signs that underline "Princeton Pike," omit the CR 583 shield and instead provide a destination.
For example, the exit 8A sign shown here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2864808,-74.7088466,3a,75y,286.74h,91.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX1SAcoFxR6LUew3Zv30yKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced with:
EXIT 8A |
Princeton Pike |
SOUTH |
Trenton |
1/4 MILE |
Can't say I'm a fan.
That surprises me. I would have figured they would update the signs with the CR-583 shields and a destination and not a road name to be more MUTCD compliant.
Perhaps they finally realized that CR 583 isn't really a county route. Except for the county-maintained portion between Calhoun Street in/around Trenton and Lawrenceville Road (US 206) (which according to the state is ironically a state road (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000206Z_-.pdf)), it's all Lawrence Township and Princeton's jurisdiction (even dating back to the 1950s (http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/MERCER_COUNTY/MercerCounty_1956.jpg)).
The state technically considers the 5XX routes to be state secondary highways, but they are county maintained. So it's technically a state road.
The point of my post was that Princeton Pike itself is not a county-maintained road except on a part which is designated a U.S. highway, typically maintained by the state through NJDOT (hence "state route"). Except for a couple of shields between Olden and Calhoun, Mercer County does not post any 583 shields; the ones north of those roads are around state-maintained intersections (206, 95, 27) and are posted by the state.
This board and semantics sometimes...
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 14, 2017, 06:14:25 PM
The point of my post was that Princeton Pike itself is not a county-maintained road except on a part which is designated a U.S. highway, typically maintained by the state through NJDOT (hence "state route"). Except for a couple of shields between Olden and Calhoun, Mercer County does not post any 583 shields; the ones north of those roads are around state-maintained intersections (206, 95, 27) and are posted by the state.
This board and semantics sometimes...
Well now they have just joined Hudson County in their signing on the 95 freeway. Just road names and leave off the route number like in North Bergen/ Union City on Route 495 with keeping CR 501 a secret. Plus does Hudson County even sign themselves any part of JFK as Route 501? Only CR 508 is signed on NJ 7 and I-280.
The only CR-501 markers I've seen in Hudson County are at NJ-495..... placed by NJDOT.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 15, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
The only CR-501 markers I've seen in Hudson County are at NJ-495..... placed by NJDOT.
They're also down in Bayonne - not just at 440 either.
Wow NJDOT finally added shields for JFK Blvd's ramp! That is amazing. Considering that for centuries it was always like this https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7752937,-74.0394143,3a,75y,90.17h,99.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRCWqtx9y4HicyphADtaUmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 and never signed.
Nothing is posted on 495. Just these
https://goo.gl/maps/DmYg9Bu4JNx
https://goo.gl/maps/E84qpk9fevK2
Yet in the same vicinity on the same road they also have this https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7750982,-74.0332381,3a,75y,270h,79.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdx9XXngldIR7kzCKDRifvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I-495 was decommissioned decades ago.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 17, 2017, 01:34:57 AM
Yet in the same vicinity on the same road they also have this https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7750982,-74.0332381,3a,75y,270h,79.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdx9XXngldIR7kzCKDRifvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I-495 was decommissioned decades ago.
Who else thinks that (commisioned and signed) I-495 would be running today from the NJTP to Riverhead if Moses had been able to build the Cross-Midtown Expressway (or whatever it would've been called)?
ixnay
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2017, 09:51:19 PM
Wow NJDOT finally added shields for JFK Blvd's ramp! That is amazing. Considering that for centuries it was always like this https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7752937,-74.0394143,3a,75y,90.17h,99.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRCWqtx9y4HicyphADtaUmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 and never signed.
Centuries? Since when have there been highways for centuries?
Quote from: dgolub on February 17, 2017, 08:19:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2017, 09:51:19 PM
Wow NJDOT finally added shields for JFK Blvd's ramp! That is amazing. Considering that for centuries it was always like this https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7752937,-74.0394143,3a,75y,90.17h,99.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRCWqtx9y4HicyphADtaUmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 and never signed.
Centuries? Since when have there been highways for centuries?
All roads lead to Rome, silly man.
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2017, 08:22:20 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 17, 2017, 08:19:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2017, 09:51:19 PM
Wow NJDOT finally added shields for JFK Blvd's ramp! That is amazing. Considering that for centuries it was always like this https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7752937,-74.0394143,3a,75y,90.17h,99.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRCWqtx9y4HicyphADtaUmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 and never signed.
Centuries? Since when have there been highways for centuries?
All roads lead to Rome, silly man.
You know what I meant.
Quote from: dgolub on February 17, 2017, 06:05:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on February 17, 2017, 08:22:20 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 17, 2017, 08:19:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2017, 09:51:19 PM
Wow NJDOT finally added shields for JFK Blvd's ramp! That is amazing. Considering that for centuries it was always like this https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7752937,-74.0394143,3a,75y,90.17h,99.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRCWqtx9y4HicyphADtaUmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 and never signed.
Centuries? Since when have there been highways for centuries?
All roads lead to Rome, silly man.
You know what I meant.
I think you know what he meant, too. :D
EZ Pass will soon be accepted on the Cape May County toll bridges, which generally link the various barrier islands between Ventnor & Cape May.
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_de452b78-f7a8-11e6-bb0f-cfb08ef29003.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2017, 12:51:11 PM
EZ Pass will soon be accepted on the Cape May County toll bridges, which generally link the various barrier islands between Ventnor & Cape May.
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_de452b78-f7a8-11e6-bb0f-cfb08ef29003.html
Are they doing AET or just E-ZPass?
Just E-ZPass. The bridges aren't setup for AET anyway as the toll booth is at the top of the bridges where the drawbridge operator is. I'm surprised they are spending the money for it. The Cape May County Bridge Commission likes to cry poverty while the Middle Thorofare Bridge is in dire need of replacement (rated 7 out of 100 for condition with a ton of weight restrictions).
https://bridgehunter.com/nj/cape-may/3100006/
http://uglybridges.com/1369060
http://www.shorenewstoday.com/cape_may/news/time-salt-air-takes-its-toll-on-middle-thorofare-bridge/article_e563e4e1-19a8-52bc-bab6-e7d67a06e82f.html
Being a toll taker in the winter there can be a pretty boring experience. I recall waking one up when I crossed the above bridge late one March night.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2017, 12:51:11 PM
EZ Pass will soon be accepted on the Cape May County toll bridges, which generally link the various barrier islands between Ventnor & Cape May.
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_de452b78-f7a8-11e6-bb0f-cfb08ef29003.html
I apparently know (very, very well) the designer of these E-ZPass signs. The world is small.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 21, 2017, 11:01:08 PM
Just E-ZPass. The bridges aren't setup for AET anyway as the toll booth is at the top of the bridges where the drawbridge operator is. I'm surprised they are spending the money for it. The Cape May County Bridge Commission likes to cry poverty while the Middle Thorofare Bridge is in dire need of replacement (rated 7 out of 100 for condition with a ton of weight restrictions).
https://bridgehunter.com/nj/cape-may/3100006/
http://uglybridges.com/1369060
http://www.shorenewstoday.com/cape_may/news/time-salt-air-takes-its-toll-on-middle-thorofare-bridge/article_e563e4e1-19a8-52bc-bab6-e7d67a06e82f.html
Being a toll taker in the winter there can be a pretty boring experience. I recall waking one up when I crossed the above bridge late one March night.
Drove over that stupid bridge last summer when we were staying in Wildwood and were going to Cape May for the evening. I was lucky I had cash on me. Glad I won't have to worry about that. Also, agree that the bridge is in terrible shape.
I see US 9 now has a bypass in Jersey City. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7268099,-74.0984431,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7281575!4d-74.0776417
Plus US 1 on the Skyway is now decommissioned. Boy the goog is sure on the ball.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7317043,-74.099516,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7281575!4d-74.0776417
Quote from: roadman65 on March 05, 2017, 10:28:44 AM
I see US 9 now has a bypass in Jersey City. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7268099,-74.0984431,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7281575!4d-74.0776417
Plus US 1 on the Skyway is now decommissioned. Boy the goog is sure on the ball.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7317043,-74.099516,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7281575!4d-74.0776417
US 1 is still shown, but less frequently than US 9. This has always been the case for the entirety of the multiplex. I don't know why.
Considering that US 1 is more used (as I used to live in Union County and most called it Route 1) and even Rahway would just have US Route 1 on their street blades as well that is very strange to say the least.
I see in Bayonne at Exit 14 the NJTA did not replace the exit guides as of November when 14B and 14C have already. I am guessing they are waiting for the end of the 14A rehablitation project for that.
I do not like the Newark Airport now in white on brown on 13A and 14 as its not a park or historic place. It should be just like any other city in white on the standard green.
I do like this though https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7388815,-74.0617138,3a,75y,180h,90.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sID9WBiC1GMr09NR7e_1mVA!2e0!5s20161101T000000!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 a leftover US 1 shield from when it was Business US 1. I wonder if the current construction there will end up removing it once that whole NJ 139 mess is completed.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 05, 2017, 10:44:16 AM
I do not like the Newark Airport now in white on brown on 13A and 14 as its not a park or historic place. It should be just like any other city in white on the standard green.
I noticed that too on the Turnpike at 13A - Newark Airport now in brown above Elizabeth Seaport with no change, if I recall correctly. I don't get it either.
I'm assuming when the lighting and parapet are redone that the U.S. 1 shield will be removed. I will be up there this week and can check whether the current construction has removed it . . .
As for Newark Airport, I would speculate that the color scheme is consistent with what is shown on other routes around the airport, such as U.S. 1-9, U.S. 22, I-78, Route 21. Missing is the symbol, but I'm not sure all the existing signs have it anyway.
Quote from: akotchi on March 05, 2017, 03:57:08 PM
I'm assuming when the lighting and parapet are redone that the U.S. 1 shield will be removed. I will be up there this week and can check whether the current construction has removed it . . .
As for Newark Airport, I would speculate that the color scheme is consistent with what is shown on other routes around the airport, such as U.S. 1-9, U.S. 22, I-78, Route 21. Missing is the symbol, but I'm not sure all the existing signs have it anyway.
The Newark Airport color scheme is a Port Authority standard that other agencies just pick up and use.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 05, 2017, 10:28:44 AM
Plus US 1 on the Skyway is now decommissioned. Boy the goog is sure on the ball.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7317043,-74.099516,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7281575!4d-74.0776417
Does this mean that US 1 is no longer a contiguous route through this part of New Jersey?
Quote from: PaulRAnderson on March 05, 2017, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 05, 2017, 10:28:44 AM
Plus US 1 on the Skyway is now decommissioned. Boy the goog is sure on the ball.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7317043,-74.099516,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7281575!4d-74.0776417
Does this mean that US 1 is no longer a contiguous route through this part of New Jersey?
No. It means that someone that doesn't know what they are doing enters incorrect information into Google's mapping system.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 05, 2017, 04:58:14 PM
Quote from: PaulRAnderson on March 05, 2017, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 05, 2017, 10:28:44 AM
Plus US 1 on the Skyway is now decommissioned. Boy the goog is sure on the ball.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7317043,-74.099516,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7281575!4d-74.0776417
Does this mean that US 1 is no longer a contiguous route through this part of New Jersey?
No. It means that someone that doesn't know what they are doing enters incorrect information into Google's mapping system.
Shocked.
Quote from: PaulRAnderson on March 05, 2017, 04:50:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 05, 2017, 10:28:44 AM
Plus US 1 on the Skyway is now decommissioned. Boy the goog is sure on the ball.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7317043,-74.099516,16z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7281575!4d-74.0776417
Does this mean that US 1 is no longer a contiguous route through this part of New Jersey?
I was being sarcastic, but the goog is not all there.
I saw an article about the cancelled Driscoll Expressway. http://www.app.com/story/news/history/erik-larsen/2017/03/11/superhighway-toms-river-never/99065928/
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/03/njs_scariest_roads_10_white-knucle_adventures.html#incart_river_home_pop
NJ's most scariest roads, per the article.
2 near me...one, the always enjoyable 295/76/42 Interchange. The other one - most of you have probably never driven, although I was on it every day for 6 years, plus at least once every week for another 10 or so years: Breakneck Road in Mantua/Mullica Hill. While tame compared to other states, in flat South Jersey it's unusual to have a road with so many bumps and hops on it. It was a fun road to try to get some air. Some didn't succeed though, sending their car off the road into the trees mere inches off the roadway.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 13, 2017, 10:12:13 AM
I saw an article about the cancelled Driscoll Expressway. http://www.app.com/story/news/history/erik-larsen/2017/03/11/superhighway-toms-river-never/99065928/
Particularly interesting for me, since if the highway had come through, the house I own now would likely not have been built. Looking at old planning maps, it seems like my living room would roughly occupy some portion of the median.
QuoteGot INNOVATIVE IDEAS that could help improve transportation in New Jersey? Share your IDEAS with us!
Bridges & Structures - Design & Construction Materials - Multimodal - Operations & Maintenance - Planning & Environment - Policy - Project Delivery - Research - Safety Service Delivery - Technology - Training - Transit
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/stic/pdf/innovativeideaflyer.pdf
So we can just give any idea at all? Well I'm going to clutter their inbox full of ideas.
Quote from: J Route Z on March 21, 2017, 05:17:17 PM
So we can just give any idea at all? Well I'm going to clutter their inbox full of ideas.
Go for it.
I'm awaiting for them to say "Well, Tommy in 3rd grade had a great idea to add more bicycle lanes, so we're going with that".
I was noticing that on GSV for the NJ 45 & US 322 intersection in Mullica Hill there are no shields for each of the four approaches to the intersection. If you are on US 322 east or west, only the overhead street sign mention NJ 45's existence as there are no more Junction signs leading into it.
The only good sign is the BGS which lists Woodbury and Mullica Hill as well as the Comm. Barry Bridge- PA going WB and TO NJ 55- Shore Points & Glassboro going EB in addition to the one's on Route 45 which also list the bridge to PA and NJ 55/ Shore Points & Glassboro and the original US 322 to NJ Turnpike Comm. Barry Br. that were present before the bypass and realignment of US 322 was built. Nothing of a JCT shield or even mentioning US 322 EB. Again only the street blade on the Orlando, FL type of traffic signal that is present there.
I must say that with the added signs and LGSes added in the late 90's that NJDOT would be this careless in signing a two route state junction this way.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2017, 09:05:57 PM
I was noticing that on GSV for the NJ 45 & US 322 intersection in Mullica Hill there are no shields for each of the four approaches to the intersection. If you are on US 322 east or west, only the overhead street sign mention NJ 45's existence as there are no more Junction signs leading into it.
The only good sign is the BGS which lists Woodbury and Mullica Hill as well as the Comm. Barry Bridge- PA going WB and TO NJ 55- Shore Points & Glassboro going EB in addition to the one's on Route 45 which also list the bridge to PA and NJ 55/ Shore Points & Glassboro and the original US 322 to NJ Turnpike Comm. Barry Br. that were present before the bypass and realignment of US 322 was built. Nothing of a JCT shield or even mentioning US 322 EB. Again only the street blade on the Orlando, FL type of traffic signal that is present there.
I must say that with the added signs and LGSes added in the late 90's that NJDOT would be this careless in signing a two route state junction this way.
NJ does this frequently, whether it's 2 state roads intersecting, a US and state road, or even a state road and interstate. Sometimes a junction route shield is posted at only one intersection approach which is a pet peeve of mine.
Quote from: J Route Z on April 03, 2017, 04:42:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2017, 09:05:57 PM
I was noticing that on GSV for the NJ 45 & US 322 intersection in Mullica Hill there are no shields for each of the four approaches to the intersection. If you are on US 322 east or west, only the overhead street sign mention NJ 45's existence as there are no more Junction signs leading into it.
The only good sign is the BGS which lists Woodbury and Mullica Hill as well as the Comm. Barry Bridge- PA going WB and TO NJ 55- Shore Points & Glassboro going EB in addition to the one's on Route 45 which also list the bridge to PA and NJ 55/ Shore Points & Glassboro and the original US 322 to NJ Turnpike Comm. Barry Br. that were present before the bypass and realignment of US 322 was built. Nothing of a JCT shield or even mentioning US 322 EB. Again only the street blade on the Orlando, FL type of traffic signal that is present there.
I must say that with the added signs and LGSes added in the late 90's that NJDOT would be this careless in signing a two route state junction this way.
NJ does this frequently, whether it's 2 state roads intersecting, a US and state road, or even a state road and interstate. Sometimes a junction route shield is posted at only one intersection approach which is a pet peeve of mine.
In this case, it is all Gloucester County jurisdiction, as they took over maintenance of 322 from Tomlin Station Rd (to the east) and near Rt. 55 (to the West). The county rebuilt this intersection, the US 322 bypass, and widened 322 approaching Rt. 55.
That all said, usually the county is better in advanced signage. I don't think advanced signage was ever installed around this intersection.
The leftover NJDOT signs are the one on NB Rte. 45 that says US 322 West to NJT and the Comm. Barry Br. when that was a guide when US 322 was concurrent with the state route through the town itself.
I kind of figured that NJDOT did not maintain the intersection hence the FL signal set ups. NJDOT likes their truss arms or monotubes except in some urban areas like Newark with Routes 21 & 27 (and even now they are both getting a signal makeover with monotubes and vertical mount heads) where the horizontal installations are allowed.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 04, 2017, 09:37:44 AM
The leftover NJDOT signs are the one on NB Rte. 45 that says US 322 West to NJT and the Comm. Barry Br. when that was a guide when US 322 was concurrent with the state route through the town itself.
I kind of figured that NJDOT did not maintain the intersection hence the FL signal set ups. NJDOT likes their truss arms or monotubes except in some urban areas like Newark with Routes 21 & 27 (and even now they are both getting a signal makeover with monotubes and vertical mount heads) where the horizontal installations are allowed.
Throughout NJ, NJDOT, Counties and Municipalities generally use the standard trombone style mast arms or steel monotube mast arms. The fact that it was a county install doesn't have anything to do with the specialty mast arm used...these masts was requested by the township and approved by the county and/or state to try to fit in to the historic nature of the area (which isn't exactly doing all that well). Off the top of my head, I can't think of another similar setup done by Gloucester County.
Less than 2 months before the summer shore season begins, the bridge connecting Sea Isle & Avalon is closed (again) due to a crack found in a supporting pier 30 feet below the water's surface. http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/cape_may/townsends-inlet-bridge-closed-for-emergency-repairs/article_03ce497c-8644-5937-b7a2-e34e5330c597.html
Well whether its the county or the township, NJDOT in the past always mostly used Truss arms, and toward the late 80's went monotube as well. Cities like Newark were able to retain their trombone style arms on state routes, and even Burlington County on county maintained signals used span wire up until 88 or 89, but on Route 130 still followed the state installations elsewhere.
Like you said it was about fitting in with the historic nature of the area, which may be why NJDOT approved. In Union County when their roads changed all the signals on Martine Avenue in Fanwood, the one at NJ 28 was not the present day Union County type of arm that was used on other intersections in Fanwood, but the truss arms painted brown instead. I take NJDOT would not allow Union County or the borough of Fanwood use the latest of Union County there and compromised instead to use the Union County brown color but apply it to standard truss style signaling.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 04, 2017, 05:32:58 PM
Well whether its the county or the township, NJDOT in the past always mostly used Truss arms, and toward the late 80's went monotube as well. Cities like Newark were able to retain their trombone style arms on state routes, and even Burlington County on county maintained signals used span wire up until 88 or 89, but on Route 130 still followed the state installations elsewhere.
Like you said it was about fitting in with the historic nature of the area, which may be why NJDOT approved. In Union County when their roads changed all the signals on Martine Avenue in Fanwood, the one at NJ 28 was not the present day Union County type of arm that was used on other intersections in Fanwood, but the truss arms painted brown instead. I take NJDOT would not allow Union County or the borough of Fanwood use the latest of Union County there and compromised instead to use the Union County brown color but apply it to standard truss style signaling.
The monotubes are due to the use of longer masts to comply to stricter federal standards. The longest trombone style mast the state is permitted to use is 25 to 30 feet long. This limits the mast to covering 2 lanes. Now that the state is complying with the 1 light over each lane federal requirement, the mast arms are now upwards of 60 feet in length, necessitating the monotube.
Here's a 60' +/- example on Rt. 38, as a result of a large repaving and traffic light upgrade project: https://goo.gl/maps/9iRVYMtuFgK2
To compare the difference of how basic a Jersey-style traffic light intersection was, this GSV view in the same location from 2012 only had 1 overhead farside traffic light for all 4 lanes...with the post being in the median! https://goo.gl/maps/hUH1S9SNzTP2
US 1 used to have those that got changed in the late 90's. They got rid of the center poles and placed two mast arms on both sides with one head per lane and a third on the left side opposing arm as well. The side roads got the usual truss arms cause the distance over is not that far but for two 10 feet lanes.
Yes, even at Ford Avenue in Woodbridge Township they have one per lane, but the right lane signal is on a near side truss mast arm while the monotube is across with the center and left lane signals with the reverse side signal head.
Apparently that will be changed out if it had not already, but the monotubes used where two to three lanes used as they are best for covering the 24 to 48 feet.
BTW. NJDOT is looking like PennDOT with the brown backplates in your links on Route 38. Interesting to see NYC how they are going to do it with trombone mounts from a diagonal on the opposite corners with the two three and even four way signals. Most likely the will say FU like they still do with signal controllers using the old analogue equipment and the out of date mast arms they use to keep it NYC's own style.
NJDOT has put up some additional traffic cams on their website. I'll point out two of interest (to me)...
US 130 at Delaware Memorial Bridge (it's really I-295 there; not sure why it's not included on that list). The camera appears to generally be zoomed out, providing a nice picture of the bridges.
US 130 at the Brooklawn Circle. It's located within the circle so you can't get a perfect view of the madness, but just watching some of it shows how a Jersey Traffic circle really works (shame there's no audio...just imagine the horn beeping in your head!). Viewing it today, it was facing NJ 47 at the circle. Creek Rd is to the left; the Speedway gas station is to the right.
Unfortunately I can't bring up individual cameras...go to http://www.511nj.org/Cameras.aspx then click on the dropdown menu for the US 130 Tour for the 2 I mentioned above.
In April's 6 month Planned Construction Outlook ( http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ ), this project just popped up!
QuoteUPC #173850
Rt 95, Rt 29 to Rt 1
Redesignation and replacement of signs along I-295 from M.P. 0.20-8.77.
Proposed Advertised Month July, 2017
Project Details
Mercer County/Ewing Twp
MP 0.2-8.77
Estimate Range $1,000,000 - $5,000,000
This appears to finally convert the signage and designation of I-95 to I-295 around Trenton!
Based on the description above...it'll be put out to bid in July (or soon thereafter); it'll take about a month for the bids to come back, another month for the bids to be accepted, and then several months for the project to be completed. Based on the terminology and estimated cost, it appears they'll be replacing all the BGSs, rather than just doing greenouts and overlays.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2017, 10:04:57 AM
In April's 6 month Planned Construction Outlook ( http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ ), this project just popped up!
QuoteUPC #173850
Rt 95, Rt 29 to Rt 1
Redesignation and replacement of signs along I-295 from M.P. 0.20-8.77.
Proposed Advertised Month July, 2017
Project Details
Mercer County/Ewing Twp
MP 0.2-8.77
Estimate Range $1,000,000 - $5,000,000
This appears to finally convert the signage and designation of I-95 to I-295 around Trenton!
Based on the description above...it'll be put out to bid in July (or soon thereafter); it'll take about a month for the bids to come back, another month for the bids to be accepted, and then several months for the project to be completed. Based on the terminology and estimated cost, it appears they'll be replacing all the BGSs, rather than just doing greenouts and overlays.
Assuming that is what they're referring to, isn't this a bit premature? Shouldn't they wait for Penndot to do the redesignation following the completion of phase 1 of the interchange (and who knows if/when that's done)? Is it even approved by the Feds?
Being that 95 kinda disappears in NJ anyway, it shouldn't have much of an impact on the travelling public, other than the stuff that typically comes with renumbering a roadway. When the project is put out to bid, it usually indicates at that time when the project should be completed, which gives clues as to when the signs may be installed. If it's too early, they could use overlays or ground-mounted temporary signage as needed.
It's also possible this is being coordinated with PennDOT, and 95 will simply end at the PA Turnpike prior to the interchange being completed.
Glancing at PennDOT's page, I didn't see anything relating to signage changes, although it could be part of PTC's 95/PA Tpk Project.
For the most part, other than for those aware that 95 and the PA Turnpike will be connected soon, there's been virtually no mention of the fact that 95 and its related exits needs to be renumbered in NJ & PA.
The change in designation is approved by FHWA -- the agencies can post "future interstate" signs alongside the existing ones. Could be part of this.
Pure speculation (I was not the designer on this contract) . . . existing signing is being replaced with signs with ultimate messages. Those ultimate messages are likely to be overlaid with the existing messages. If there are any new sign structures going up (I think the existing ones are fairly old), this will require some lead time before the panels go up.
I suspect NJDOT wants to be ready when PTC finally finishes the ramp connections to unveil the new I-295 designation and remove the overlays. There may also be some "Formerly Exit" panels to go up at that time as well.
My office is along the I-95 (I-295) corridor, so I will keep a look out for what is going on.
Given that I-95 currently vanishes at US 1, I don't think it vanishing at the state line would be an issue. I would think that overlays and stuff would be more labor than its worth.
It would be kind of funny to see "Future 295" signs on existing I-95, effectively advertising an impending downgrade.
I'm pretty sure NJDOT is doing this all at once and final. They specifically are holding off on upgrades to 95-related signs along Route 31, for example.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 06, 2017, 01:54:24 PM
It would be kind of funny to see "Future 295" signs on existing I-95, effectively advertising an impending downgrade.
Or if "Future 295" signs are actually posted, parts of Future 295 were previously 295.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 06, 2017, 11:14:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 06, 2017, 01:54:24 PM
It would be kind of funny to see "Future 295" signs on existing I-95, effectively advertising an impending downgrade.
Or if "Future 295" signs are actually posted, parts of Future 295 were previously 295.
The once and future i295
LGMS428
Quote from: roadman65 on April 05, 2017, 11:49:31 AM
US 1 used to have those that got changed in the late 90's. They got rid of the center poles and placed two mast arms on both sides with one head per lane and a third on the left side opposing arm as well. The side roads got the usual truss arms cause the distance over is not that far but for two 10 feet lanes.
Yes, even at Ford Avenue in Woodbridge Township they have one per lane, but the right lane signal is on a near side truss mast arm while the monotube is across with the center and left lane signals with the reverse side signal head.
Apparently that will be changed out if it had not already, but the monotubes used where two to three lanes used as they are best for covering the 24 to 48 feet.
BTW. NJDOT is looking like PennDOT with the brown backplates in your links on Route 38. Interesting to see NYC how they are going to do it with trombone mounts from a diagonal on the opposite corners with the two three and even four way signals. Most likely the will say FU like they still do with signal controllers using the old analogue equipment and the out of date mast arms they use to keep it NYC's own style.
22 has a ton (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6663142,-74.3834653,3a,75y,37.27h,90.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQHewiXgJ5A9gHHsEm84wXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6022676,-74.6893572,3a,75y,281.87h,78.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIYuOueEnytm8D35ofhjh1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) these (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6220299,-74.7642954,3a,75y,296.7h,84.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjidrOyA_uuSouG4Z62iEmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). they had way more before they did the its/signal upgrade from the east end of bridgewater to mountainside. now all those signals are monotubes with one signal per lane. still, west of 287, there are a lot of the trusses in the median (that was a very 80s thing that njdot did on many of their 4-6 lane divided roads) and a large mix of the older monotubes.
Many of the signals west of US 202 & 206 to Lebanon were added in the 90's. Milltown Road in Bridgewater was turned on from flash mode to permanent the very day I left NJ in August of 1990. The one at Orr Road in Branchburg was being installed as I passed by it on my departure, but no signal heads or arms, just the poles. Only the ones at Ethicon and the office park east of NJ 28 were installed in the 80's as well as both CR 523 signals in 1984. The one at Exxon just east of I-78 was first installed in the early 80's but only worked at shift starts and ends and remained flashing other times until the late 80's when it operated 24/7.
The one at Country Club Road, one of very few with back plates in the 1970s was there as long as I can remember just like the one in Lebanon. Than the Round Valley signal was late 70's as most of 1970's had two working signals between the split from I-78 to Somerville while both CR 523 signals were flashing beacons with two section heads on truss arms from the median.
So it predated the 80's with the all sides and angles thing. Most of US 22 in Watchung had one left, one right and another center. Then CR 529 had a jughandle within a jughandle and allowed for U Turns WB to not have to turn on CR 529 but turn in its own ramp.
Also NJ used mainly 8-8-8 and the 12-12-12 came into play from 1985 onward.
What is up with the bridge to nowhere crossing NJ 24 just east of the JFK Parkway interchange? I see the sound walls along NJ 24 are built across the road leading to both ends of the bridge from NJ 124, thus allowing anyone, including pedestrians to use it.
Is there a structural issue that NJDOT closed it to all people and traffic? Wikipedia points out the bridge, but offers no explanation to its demise only that it is one of many to be built and unused.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 25, 2017, 04:39:38 PM
What is up with the bridge to nowhere crossing NJ 24 just east of the JFK Parkway interchange? I see the sound walls along NJ 24 are built across the road leading to both ends of the bridge from NJ 124, thus allowing anyone, including pedestrians to use it.
Is there a structural issue that NJDOT closed it to all people and traffic? Wikipedia points out the bridge, but offers no explanation to its demise only that it is one of many to be built and unused.
It was the crossing of Brantwood Drive over NJ 24, but by 1987, they bulldozed an extension of Brantwood Drive and blocked it off.
You can see its old ROW in Street View as it used to go straight and now turns left. (https://goo.gl/maps/MTYnBZo42Tk)
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 25, 2017, 05:10:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 25, 2017, 04:39:38 PM
What is up with the bridge to nowhere crossing NJ 24 just east of the JFK Parkway interchange? I see the sound walls along NJ 24 are built across the road leading to both ends of the bridge from NJ 124, thus allowing anyone, including pedestrians to use it.
Is there a structural issue that NJDOT closed it to all people and traffic? Wikipedia points out the bridge, but offers no explanation to its demise only that it is one of many to be built and unused.
It was the crossing of Brantwood Drive over NJ 24, but by 1987, they bulldozed an extension of Brantwood Drive and blocked it off.
You can see its old ROW in Street View as it used to go straight and now turns left. (https://goo.gl/maps/MTYnBZo42Tk)
It could still be useful access to Hobart Ave.
I noticed this when looking for that bridge, but what expressway was meant to cross here (https://goo.gl/maps/Hq7Wx7aDGQD2)?
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 26, 2017, 09:39:22 AM
I noticed this when looking for that bridge, but what expressway was meant to cross here (https://goo.gl/maps/Hq7Wx7aDGQD2)?
This now-empty gantry along westbound 24 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7518231,-74.3754953,3a,75y,306.58h,82.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOxtcnu87ouFlhaml-wvRmQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) once carried a blank BGS panel including exit tab. The BGS was taken down over a decade ago.
Until you posted that aerial view; I wasn't even aware that a full-cloverleaf path was even made. Interesting indeed.
I did some research and apparently it would have been for a southern extension of the Eisenhower Parkway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Parkway#History), which would have extended both north and south from its two current ends. I don't know where it would've gone south of NJ 24, though.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 26, 2017, 11:36:16 AM
I did some research and apparently it would have been for a southern extension of the Eisenhower Parkway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Parkway#History), which would have extended both north and south from its two current ends. I don't know where it would've gone south of NJ 24, though.
To 124, roughly along the power lines.
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 26, 2017, 11:36:16 AM
I did some research and apparently it would have been for a southern extension of the Eisenhower Parkway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Parkway#History), which would have extended both north and south from its two current ends. I don't know where it would've gone south of NJ 24, though.
The planned name for this extension was to be Triborough Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.754506,-74.3811363,3a,15y,300.57h,97.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0ZekgNZZY6pJ_N8Zl2PTlg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It would serve Chatham, Madison (I think?), and Livingston, and the interchange with 24 was built, albeit incomplete (ramps have only been graded). It, like many other highway projects, got blocked thanks to NIMBY opposition, which explains the sudden end at CR 510. There was also a northern extension planned (that you mentioned) that probably would've gone up to US 46. It only had things like drainage work installed. I assume you researched this, but there's nothing wrong with redundancy.
Also, does anyone happen to have pictures of the sign?
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 28, 2017, 06:12:07 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 26, 2017, 11:36:16 AM
I did some research and apparently it would have been for a southern extension of the Eisenhower Parkway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Parkway#History), which would have extended both north and south from its two current ends. I don't know where it would've gone south of NJ 24, though.
The planned name for this extension was to be Triborough Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.754506,-74.3811363,3a,15y,300.57h,97.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0ZekgNZZY6pJ_N8Zl2PTlg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). It would serve Chatham, Madison (I think?), and Livingston, and the interchange with 24 was built, albeit incomplete (ramps have only been graded). It, like many other highway projects, got blocked thanks to NIMBY opposition, which explains the sudden end at CR 510. There was also a northern extension planned (that you mentioned) that probably would've gone up to US 46. It only had things like drainage work installed. I assume you researched this, but there's nothing wrong with redundancy.
Also, does anyone happen to have pictures of the sign?
There is one on Steve Anderson's page (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NJ-24/) about the Route 24 freeway. It was a vintage late 70s/early 80s nonreflective button copy sign with a centered exit tab.
Considering that NJ has lots of traffic and plenty on JFK Parkway, the Triborough would been pushed again for a second attempt. Also the office parks that are in that region are astronomical. Even to go north as far as Bloomfield Avenue would ease traffic in the Roseland corporate office parks and provide another way in and out.
New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.
Quote from: J Route Z on May 04, 2017, 02:57:56 AM
New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.
I saw new mile markers on 9 in Monmouth County (nothing in Middlesex) and on 18 from 9-537. They have been installed in the past week. The markers on 18 are posted every 2/10 of a mile.
Yep...on limited access highways in NJ, they are installing mm every 0.2 miles, but they are front & back of the post so you can see them whether you are in front of it or past it.
Personally, I'd rather have them every 1/10th of a mile. MM posts tend to get hit fairly often and replaced slowly if at all, so if one's missing, that means a 4/10th of a mile gap between MMs at best.
On non-limited access state roads, they are being installed at the .0 and .5 locations. Useful in rural areas; not so much in suburban/urban areas where they blend in with every other sign along the road.
I used to like that one when NJDOT was trying an experiment on Route 27, posting milemarkers on railway an waterway crossings like in Rahway at the Rahway River it would say Rahway River plus its mileage from its zero point in Princeton and in Elizabeth where the NB lanes cross the defunct CNJ tracks at NJ 28 with "Conrail Railroad" plus mileage to the end.
Being other roads never had it later, I assumed it was not a good experiment. I wonder if any of them are still left after 30 plus years?
The signs on NJ-27 are still there. Some have even been replaced with identical markers with the mileage.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 09, 2017, 03:52:50 PM
The signs on NJ-27 are still there. Some have even been replaced with identical markers with the mileage.
Correct. When they replaced the Conrail overpass at the Metuchen/Edison border, they replaced the signs with it. I'm assuming that there was a replace in kind thing in the specs for that project.
If you look here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6103922,-74.2865137,3a,24.4y,68.72h,85.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPAZrV-YZhS4oPNPzCXZ13g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), it looks like there is both the more standard small sign NJDOT puts up for a water crossing, and the aforementioned signed with the mileage at the same spot. Same for its partner (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6664581,-74.2240992,3a,60y,175.71h,87.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8d7RSF-05vo74_6hHwmXnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on Chilton St.
ETA - it looks like the sign on the Cherry St overpass over the former Conrail tracks in Elizabeth is still there (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6665645,-74.2208232,3a,75y,23.68h,103.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syeHTTeF_c20ylyPHkJYIWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), and is still the original sign that has completely faded. Same for its partner (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6664581,-74.2240992,3a,60y,175.71h,87.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8d7RSF-05vo74_6hHwmXnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on Chilton St.
This one does not look old at all.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5361074,-74.373315,3a,37.5y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snPG4jnbeTSEq4AqsQPbbjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (ftp://www.google.com/maps/@40.5361074,-74.373315,3a,37.5y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snPG4jnbeTSEq4AqsQPbbjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Makes me wonder why Route 27 is the only road with these. If they replace them then its not just an experiment then.
Also on the old Reading Railroad bridge they replaced, if they added a replacement sign as part of the project that seems odd too, as nearby on US 1 & 9 when they redid the interchange there there was a mileage sign on SB US 9 for Freehold, Lakewood, and Cape May that was never reinstated. In addition, at the US 1 & 9 and NJ 35 interchange when they replaced the cloverleaf with the diamond they have now they also removed the SB NJ 35 mileage sign for Keyport, Eatontown, and Seaside Heights that was in the project area.
On another note I did see this one though<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1494559597884!6m8!1m7!1sRcMz32ydPqeVZCsERZ-91g!2m2!1d40.42431477988364!2d-74.19792270313431!3f109.74340142530549!4f-6.500796060918887!5f1.9587109090973311" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe> (ftp://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m0!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1494559597884!6m8!1m7!1sRcMz32ydPqeVZCsERZ-91g!2m2!1d40.42431477988364!2d-74.19792270313431!3f109.74340142530549!4f-6.500796060918887!5f1.9587109090973311"%20width="600"%20height="450"%20frameborder="0"%20style="border:0"%20allowfullscreen></iframe>) got to be mixed case considering that NJDOT always used all upper cases on mileage signs.
Quote from: swiftdo on May 09, 2017, 08:58:30 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on May 04, 2017, 02:57:56 AM
New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.
I saw new mile markers on 9 in Monmouth County (nothing in Middlesex) and on 18 from 9-537. They have been installed in the past week. The markers on 18 are posted every 2/10 of a mile.
I have not seen any markings made by the DOT past milepost 121 (north of CR 520). It seems odd they would just stop there.
A lot of railroad crossings are being replaced it looks like, including this one in Allenhurst: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2017/051017a.shtm
Several of them are in awful shape where the rail is sticking up above the pavement which is a death sentence for your tires.
Quote from: J Route Z on May 04, 2017, 02:57:56 AM
New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.
Saw these on 35 in Woodbridge tonight. Every half mile, which is NJDOT's standard for non-freeway grade state routes. Interestingly, the 35 shields do not have black backgrounds. The other ones I've seen, especially on Rt 3, do.
Quote from: storm2k on May 24, 2017, 11:11:05 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on May 04, 2017, 02:57:56 AM
New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.
Saw these on 35 in Woodbridge tonight. Every half mile, which is NJDOT's standard for non-freeway grade state routes. Interestingly, the 35 shields do not have black backgrounds. The other ones I've seen, especially on Rt 3, do.
Any new MM posts I've seen for State and US routes do not have the black background.
Quote from: J Route Z on May 12, 2017, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: swiftdo on May 09, 2017, 08:58:30 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on May 04, 2017, 02:57:56 AM
New milemarkers are being installed on various routes, including Routes 33 and 9 in Central Jersey. They include the route shield and go every 1/2 mile it looks like.
I saw new mile markers on 9 in Monmouth County (nothing in Middlesex) and on 18 from 9-537. They have been installed in the past week. The markers on 18 are posted every 2/10 of a mile.
I have not seen any markings made by the DOT past milepost 121 (north of CR 520). It seems odd they would just stop there.
A lot of railroad crossings are being replaced it looks like, including this one in Allenhurst: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2017/051017a.shtm
Several of them are in awful shape where the rail is sticking up above the pavement which is a death sentence for your tires.
They've been installed on 9 through southern Middlesex County; I've seen them from the 35 split in Sayreville/South Amboy south to the county line.
Saw them today. They must've just installed them.
I saw a bunch of new ones recently including on US 9 near Egg Harbor Twp. The ones I've seen are all full mile and not half, but that may just be an accident since none of the roads I saw them installed on are ones I travel for more than 1/2 mile. I do know that MM 12 on NJ 41 near where I live has not been replaced yet.
NJ-47 got them at the southern end, every half mile. I haven't seen any in Northern NJ yet outside of the interstates. They must be working their way north.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout062917rt.pdf
A public meeting is scheduled for later this month in regards to the US 1 Northbound Bridge over the Raritan River. The current 3 lane structure is proposed to be widened 4 lanes. About half of the needed width will be taken from an inaccessible inner sidewalk over the bridge.
Kinda surprising they would even consider adding a lane there. The bottleneck northbound during rush hour is the Plainfield Ave. light in Edison
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2017, 08:21:22 PM
Kinda surprising they would even consider adding a lane there. The bottleneck northbound during rush hour is the Plainfield Ave. light in Edison
Considering I lived near that light for 20 years, that bottleneck will be there forever. That or they can demolish half the neighborhood, which will never happen.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 14, 2017, 11:14:46 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2017, 08:21:22 PM
Kinda surprising they would even consider adding a lane there. The bottleneck northbound during rush hour is the Plainfield Ave. light in Edison
Considering I lived near that light for 20 years, that bottleneck will be there forever. That or they can demolish half the neighborhood, which will never happen.
Looking at it, I see that you could widen into the Rite Aid parking lot without ruining the business - they have a satellite parcel to the SW they could add parking to to meet requirements, which they would never fill. You would have to close the Exxon driveways, or at least the one in and reconfigure the one out. (Come in off Craig, NBD.) So a NB lane looks feasible in the medium term. The SB side is metered by upstream signals but still gets congested, but I don't see a ready solution on that side. You also can't widen 24' to the east without killing a couple of businesses. Still, a couple of businesses != an entire neighborhood.
Unfortunately, NJDOT never published an updated 5 or 10 year TIP forecast this year, and last year's 10 year TIP forecast doesn't allude to anything in regards to Route 1 - both for this overpass and anything in the immediate area.
The FY18 TIP should be out for review soon.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2017, 08:21:22 PM
Kinda surprising they would even consider adding a lane there. The bottleneck northbound during rush hour is the Plainfield Ave. light in Edison
Plenty of traffic coming in from Rt 18 in that area heading to Edison/Woodbridge/The Malls. Still, without addressing some of the bottlenecks up the road, basically between 514 and nearing 287, it might not help much.
It took years for them to do something about the Ford Avenue bottleneck near the GSP in Woodbridge Twp. I lived near that intersection and I remember the nightmare it was before the highway was finally six laned back in 2009.
The problem with NJ was money. At that time when I was living there in the late 80's the US 1 & 9 Elizabeth River viaduct in Elizabeth, the US 1 & 9 bridge over NJ 35 in Woodbridge, and quite a few other bridges in the state were on the waiting list to be replaced, but even had to wait as look how long those were acted on. Heck, there are many NJ two lane roads that need to be widened twenty years ago that probably never will get widened, because there are other projects that need addressing first.
You may be in for a long wait to see NJDOT act on the said Plainfield Avenue intersection like the Ford Avenue situation when I was there from 87 to 90 and it finally being done 20 years later from that point as that intersection was a nightmare most likely since the early or mid 1970's.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2017, 08:26:13 AM
It took years for them to do something about the Ford Avenue bottleneck near the GSP in Woodbridge Twp. I lived near that intersection and I remember the nightmare it was before the highway was finally six laned back in 2009.
The problem with NJ was money. At that time when I was living there in the late 80's the US 1 & 9 Elizabeth River viaduct in Elizabeth, the US 1 & 9 bridge over NJ 35 in Woodbridge, and quite a few other bridges in the state were on the waiting list to be replaced, but even had to wait as look how long those were acted on. Heck, there are many NJ two lane roads that need to be widened twenty years ago that probably never will get widened, because there are other projects that need addressing first.
You may be in for a long wait to see NJDOT act on the said Plainfield Avenue intersection like the Ford Avenue situation when I was there from 87 to 90 and it finally being done 20 years later from that point as that intersection was a nightmare most likely since the early or mid 1970's.
While the reconstruction at Ford Ave helped, it hasn't fixed the huge line of traffic coming off the Parkway. That can back up almost to 27 some days. Unfortunately, Route 1 isn't really suited for the major commuter corridor it has become over the years.
Olga's diner is being torn down, sad to say. This was a longtime fixture on the southern end of Marlton Circle (NJ-70 and NJ-73, now converted to more of an interchange). Many of NJ's traffic circles had/have a diner on them, or at least nearby.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4225/35300568116_3aa1381380_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VMoD3L)
Olga's Diner Demolition 061617 (https://flic.kr/p/VMoD3L) by John (https://www.flickr.com/photos/42444189@N04/), on Flickr
Quote from: lepidopteran on June 16, 2017, 01:08:52 PM
Olga's diner is being torn down, sad to say. This was a longtime fixture on the southern end of Marlton Circle (NJ-70 and NJ-73, now converted to more of an interchange). Many of NJ's traffic circles had/have a diner on them, or at least nearby.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4225/35300568116_3aa1381380_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VMoD3L)
Olga's Diner Demolition 061617 (https://flic.kr/p/VMoD3L) by John (https://www.flickr.com/photos/42444189@N04/), on Flickr
I remember earing breakfast there on trips from Florida back to Pt Pleasant Beach via Route 70.. My dad would drive overnight. My brother and i were 8 and 9 or so and we thought the name was so funny!
LGMS428
Quote from: lepidopteran on June 16, 2017, 01:08:52 PM
Olga's diner is being torn down, sad to say. This was a longtime fixture on the southern end of Marlton Circle (NJ-70 and NJ-73, now converted to more of an interchange). Many of NJ's traffic circles had/have a diner on them, or at least nearby.
Sad - I was really hoping someone would reopen it.
Quote from: storm2k on June 16, 2017, 12:27:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2017, 08:26:13 AM
It took years for them to do something about the Ford Avenue bottleneck near the GSP in Woodbridge Twp. I lived near that intersection and I remember the nightmare it was before the highway was finally six laned back in 2009.
The problem with NJ was money. At that time when I was living there in the late 80's the US 1 & 9 Elizabeth River viaduct in Elizabeth, the US 1 & 9 bridge over NJ 35 in Woodbridge, and quite a few other bridges in the state were on the waiting list to be replaced, but even had to wait as look how long those were acted on. Heck, there are many NJ two lane roads that need to be widened twenty years ago that probably never will get widened, because there are other projects that need addressing first.
You may be in for a long wait to see NJDOT act on the said Plainfield Avenue intersection like the Ford Avenue situation when I was there from 87 to 90 and it finally being done 20 years later from that point as that intersection was a nightmare most likely since the early or mid 1970's.
While the reconstruction at Ford Ave helped, it hasn't fixed the huge line of traffic coming off the Parkway. That can back up almost to 27 some days. Unfortunately, Route 1 isn't really suited for the major commuter corridor it has become over the years.
No that will always be a mess. Edison has grown over the years. Its a shame that the power lines can't be put underground and a freeway be built next to the existing arterial.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 17, 2017, 12:50:54 PM
Quote from: lepidopteran on June 16, 2017, 01:08:52 PM
Olga's diner is being torn down, sad to say. This was a longtime fixture on the southern end of Marlton Circle (NJ-70 and NJ-73, now converted to more of an interchange). Many of NJ's traffic circles had/have a diner on them, or at least nearby.
Sad - I was really hoping someone would reopen it.
Olgas was great for decades...my cousin's grandmother was a waitress there's for many years. Who knows...she could've even served one of you at some point!
However, it had been in decline for several years, and when the state started getting serious about doing something with the circle, the owner of the diner found a scapegoat...claiming that the meer thought of construction (which was a few years away at minimum) was discouraging customers from going to his diner! He closed down about a year prior to the actual reconstruction of the circle to an interchange.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 18, 2017, 12:33:01 AM
Quote from: storm2k on June 16, 2017, 12:27:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 16, 2017, 08:26:13 AM
It took years for them to do something about the Ford Avenue bottleneck near the GSP in Woodbridge Twp. I lived near that intersection and I remember the nightmare it was before the highway was finally six laned back in 2009.
The problem with NJ was money. At that time when I was living there in the late 80's the US 1 & 9 Elizabeth River viaduct in Elizabeth, the US 1 & 9 bridge over NJ 35 in Woodbridge, and quite a few other bridges in the state were on the waiting list to be replaced, but even had to wait as look how long those were acted on. Heck, there are many NJ two lane roads that need to be widened twenty years ago that probably never will get widened, because there are other projects that need addressing first.
You may be in for a long wait to see NJDOT act on the said Plainfield Avenue intersection like the Ford Avenue situation when I was there from 87 to 90 and it finally being done 20 years later from that point as that intersection was a nightmare most likely since the early or mid 1970's.
While the reconstruction at Ford Ave helped, it hasn't fixed the huge line of traffic coming off the Parkway. That can back up almost to 27 some days. Unfortunately, Route 1 isn't really suited for the major commuter corridor it has become over the years.
No that will always be a mess. Edison has grown over the years. Its a shame that the power lines can't be put underground and a freeway be built next to the existing arterial.
If they were local lines, maybe, but they are the high tension distribution lines coming from the Seawaren generating station. The Conrail overpass on the Parkway right before 130 doesn't help either since they can't build a longer aux lane for traffic trying to get off there. I do feel like doing away with the Ford Ave light would be super helpful, but there isn't room for an overpass and it's not likely they would be willing to wall off the intersection.
Let's be realistic. NJDOT worked their brains off to improve the Ford Avenue (CR 648) light in 2007. The way it is currently designed is probably the way it will be for the next 40 years. The Lafayette Road ramp helped a little bit on the pressure of the light, but it is so underused.
If NJDOT wanted to do something radical that would help traffic flow, raise Route 1 at Parsonage Road and have the ramp go under Route 1, eliminating that traffic light. All you would need to do otherwise is request some of Romano's parking lot for a new ramp to US 1 south.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 19, 2017, 12:14:20 PM
If NJDOT wanted to do something radical that would help traffic flow, raise Route 1 at Parsonage Road and have the ramp go under Route 1, eliminating that traffic light. All you would need to do otherwise is request some of Romano's parking lot for a new ramp to US 1 south.
At that point, might as well cut off access completely here to/from Rt. 1 North. Direct traffic to the existing interchange just south of this intersection, and widen the roadways around and behind the shopping center. That would be fairly similar to what NJDOT did in the Princeton area at Nassau Park Blvd.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 19, 2017, 12:30:29 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 19, 2017, 12:14:20 PM
If NJDOT wanted to do something radical that would help traffic flow, raise Route 1 at Parsonage Road and have the ramp go under Route 1, eliminating that traffic light. All you would need to do otherwise is request some of Romano's parking lot for a new ramp to US 1 south.
At that point, might as well cut off access completely here to/from Rt. 1 North. Direct traffic to the existing interchange just south of this intersection, and widen the roadways around and behind the shopping center. That would be fairly similar to what NJDOT did in the Princeton area at Nassau Park Blvd.
That other interchange is a massive choke point. There would be a lot of eminent domain work needed for that. Parsonage Road serves other purposes besides Menlo Park Mall. I'd rather keep that open. We already have a similar design at Raritan Center.
In 1990 when Simon Malls (if they owned it then) or whoever the landlord was then built the Menlo Park Mall interchange should have sprung for a Parsonage Road interchange with the mall renovation that was happening then. The Macaroni Grill was not there and it was the defunct movie theater that is now inside the mall today. They could have used that to add the ramps SB as LaFayette Avenue would be the SB off ramp as it is now the defacto jughandle anyway.
IMO opinion NJDOT from the GSP to I-287 should have been all upgraded like NJ 17 was from Paramus to the NY State Line with all intersections replaced with interchanges back in the late 70's to mid 80's.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5245386,-74.2990635,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWrhPAqaWmUy_ydw1qVTN2g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWrhPAqaWmUy_ydw1qVTN2g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D118.81082%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
This is unbelievable! Well anyway for a large green sign in NJ, as they never underscored a street name on them. NJDOT always used them on little green signs, but never (except Route 495, only because of PANYNJ influence) on large signs. Not knocking but just amazed that now large signs are being printed out like little ones.
Transportation Capital Program for FY 2018 published
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp18/tcp18.pdf
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9411837,-74.9753059,3a,75y,306.25h,85.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh_mSsVm8W-u-fSnGDJ3ePA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
saw this, never noticed it before. Compliant NJ38 shield there.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 28, 2017, 03:06:31 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9411837,-74.9753059,3a,75y,306.25h,85.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh_mSsVm8W-u-fSnGDJ3ePA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
saw this, never noticed it before. Compliant NJ38 shield there.
Those have been up for a few months now. There's also a new one further up at the 73-90 split with unboxed shields for 73 and 90.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 20, 2017, 09:18:26 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5245386,-74.2990635,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWrhPAqaWmUy_ydw1qVTN2g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWrhPAqaWmUy_ydw1qVTN2g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D118.81082%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
This is unbelievable! Well anyway for a large green sign in NJ, as they never underscored a street name on them. NJDOT always used them on little green signs, but never (except Route 495, only because of PANYNJ influence) on large signs. Not knocking but just amazed that now large signs are being printed out like little ones.
I actually don't mind this. It's a hell of a lot better than R8 does in NY with the street names in a box like it's a street blade. I actually liked how the Parkway used to do this in the NJHA days for some of the Essex County exits, where the street name was in thin all caps and the destinations were in mixed case thicker lettering, like at 147 and 151.
These at the US 30 / NJ 90 interchange have been around as long as I can remember (probably over a decade):
https://goo.gl/nEcEVv
https://goo.gl/WCsELx
I wonder if the NJTA was involved somehow since the Turnpike is on some of them
Quote from: bzakharin on June 29, 2017, 09:37:15 AM
These at the US 30 / NJ 90 interchange have been around as long as I can remember (probably over a decade):
https://goo.gl/nEcEVv
https://goo.gl/WCsELx
I wonder if the NJTA was involved somehow since the Turnpike is on some of them
Those are DRPA signs (as evidenced by the Helvetica control cities). They don't usually box the state and US shields (although there are signs that do have the boxes, mainly on the Walt).
Turnpike has nothing to do with their shield on a sign, just like they would have no impact on Delaware signing the Turnpike, PA signing the Turnpike, etc.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2017, 12:55:04 PM
Turnpike has nothing to do with their shield on a sign, just like they would have no impact on Delaware signing the Turnpike, PA signing the Turnpike, etc.
That is true, but is this interchange in DRPA jurisdiction? How much of NJ 90 is maintained by the DRPA? I've seen NJTA signs close to the turnpike, but outside the turnpike proper. Or at least I think I have.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 09, 2017, 12:21:53 PM
I saw a bunch of new ones recently including on US 9 near Egg Harbor Twp. The ones I've seen are all full mile and not half, but that may just be an accident since none of the roads I saw them installed on are ones I travel for more than 1/2 mile. I do know that MM 12 on NJ 41 near where I live has not been replaced yet.
Update: just saw new mile markers 63.5 and 64 for US 40 in Atlantic City. Kind of surprised that US 322 wasn't also signed as they are always signed together on all signs I've ever seen on the entirety of the multiplex.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 29, 2017, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2017, 12:55:04 PM
Turnpike has nothing to do with their shield on a sign, just like they would have no impact on Delaware signing the Turnpike, PA signing the Turnpike, etc.
That is true, but is this interchange in DRPA jurisdiction? How much of NJ 90 is maintained by the DRPA? I've seen NJTA signs close to the turnpike, but outside the turnpike proper. Or at least I think I have.
It often depends on the interchange. On I-195, the signage is NJDOT signage. On NJ 73, the ground-mounted signage was placed there by NJTA; however, they most likely sought permission from NJDOT to place NJTA signage on NJDOT jurisdiction. At Exit 8, where the NJ Turnpike reconstructed the interchange with 33/133, most of that signage is NJTA signage. Coming off the Delaware Memorial Bridge, this sign: https://goo.gl/maps/euLSyFCnAEU2 appears to be part Turnpike (note the rounded corners), part NJDOT (note the squared corners), on what is probably a DRBA overhead gantry.
Determining the jurisdiction of Rt. 90 is fairly easy: If it's DRPA jurisdiction, the speed limit is 45 mph, because that's what the DRPA uses for all their roadways, regardless if it's appropriate or not. On NJDOT's portion of Rt. 90, it's 50 mph. It could probably be 55 mph if DRPA would agree to their section being 55 mph as well.
RE: DMB signs, its DRBA jurisdiction to the NJ-49/US-130 overpass. The left sign for the NJTP is likely NJTPA, the rest is DRBA.
Meanwhile southbound there is a DRBA gantry and signs for Exit 1 and a NJDOT municipal border sign on NJTPA roadway (fun fact, I-295 is maintained by the NJTPA from the merge to the Exit 1 overpass).
Interchanges like this are where the straight line diagram exploded view comes in handy.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 29, 2017, 09:36:10 PM
RE: DMB signs, its DRBA jurisdiction to the NJ-49/US-130 overpass. The left sign for the NJTP is likely NJTPA, the rest is DRBA.
Meanwhile southbound there is a DRBA gantry and signs for Exit 1 and a NJDOT municipal border sign on NJTPA roadway (fun fact, I-295 is maintained by the NJTPA from the merge to the Exit 1 overpass).
Interchanges like this are where the straight line diagram exploded view comes in handy.
North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority? "Turnpike" is one word.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 29, 2017, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 09, 2017, 12:21:53 PM
I saw a bunch of new ones recently including on US 9 near Egg Harbor Twp. The ones I've seen are all full mile and not half, but that may just be an accident since none of the roads I saw them installed on are ones I travel for more than 1/2 mile. I do know that MM 12 on NJ 41 near where I live has not been replaced yet.
Update: just saw new mile markers 63.5 and 64 for US 40 in Atlantic City. Kind of surprised that US 322 wasn't also signed as they are always signed together on all signs I've ever seen on the entirety of the multiplex.
As a rule, NJDOT only considers the mileage of the "primary" route of a multiplex. For example, 1&9 shows 1's mileage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6026054,-74.2661221,3a,15.5y,60.81h,87.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdMeGgkK2AHEhW88-vSEbGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) from their merger in Woodbridge all the way through to the GWB, and 202-206 shows 202's (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6502153,-74.6434169,3a,81.7y,355.13h,95.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK8HenpP5nOwzM8nywiNp3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) from the Somerville Circle through Bedminster where they part ways and 206 resumes its mile markers through the rest of the state. This also happens when one route piggy backs on another for a short while, like 33 does on 130.
The only place I ever saw it done differently is on the small stretch where 35 is multiplexed with 9 in Sayreville, there used to be a mile marker going southbound with a small 35 shield above it (before this became the norm), but I believe this is now gone, and that multiplex only reflects 9's mileage.
Quote from: storm2k on July 04, 2017, 02:06:16 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 29, 2017, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 09, 2017, 12:21:53 PM
I saw a bunch of new ones recently including on US 9 near Egg Harbor Twp. The ones I've seen are all full mile and not half, but that may just be an accident since none of the roads I saw them installed on are ones I travel for more than 1/2 mile. I do know that MM 12 on NJ 41 near where I live has not been replaced yet.
Update: just saw new mile markers 63.5 and 64 for US 40 in Atlantic City. Kind of surprised that US 322 wasn't also signed as they are always signed together on all signs I've ever seen on the entirety of the multiplex.
As a rule, NJDOT only considers the mileage of the "primary" route of a multiplex. For example, 1&9 shows 1's mileage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6026054,-74.2661221,3a,15.5y,60.81h,87.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdMeGgkK2AHEhW88-vSEbGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) from their merger in Woodbridge all the way through to the GWB, and 202-206 shows 202's (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6502153,-74.6434169,3a,81.7y,355.13h,95.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK8HenpP5nOwzM8nywiNp3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) from the Somerville Circle through Bedminster where they part ways and 206 resumes its mile markers through the rest of the state. This also happens when one route piggy backs on another for a short while, like 33 does on 130.
The only place I ever saw it done differently is on the small stretch where 35 is multiplexed with 9 in Sayreville, there used to be a mile marker going southbound with a small 35 shield above it (before this became the norm), but I believe this is now gone, and that multiplex only reflects 9's mileage.
35/9 and 202/23 both featured that.
Are these relics still there? Outside of the NJ Tpke old signage,these are my favs.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4065/35618217712_ec999cc57b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WgsFcW)Non-reflective button copy from the construction of I-80. Paterson, NJ. (https://flic.kr/p/WgsFcW) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4278/35655699661_1c026034cb.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WjLMhr)Non-reflective button copy on US-46 WB. Clifton, NJ. (https://flic.kr/p/WjLMhr) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4076/35618218182_d94c7e273c.jpg)
Quote from: Alps on June 29, 2017, 11:50:39 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 29, 2017, 09:36:10 PM
RE: DMB signs, its DRBA jurisdiction to the NJ-49/US-130 overpass. The left sign for the NJTP is likely NJTPA, the rest is DRBA.
Meanwhile southbound there is a DRBA gantry and signs for Exit 1 and a NJDOT municipal border sign on NJTPA roadway (fun fact, I-295 is maintained by the NJTPA from the merge to the Exit 1 overpass).
Interchanges like this are where the straight line diagram exploded view comes in handy.
North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority? "Turnpike" is one word.
So is "baseball", so the Baseball Writers Association of America needs an abbreviation lesson, too, though in fairness, in the 19th century, the grand old game's name was indeed spelled as 2 words.
https://bbwaa.com/
ixnay
To add to the signing near the DMB, NJDOT installed mile markers for I-295 along Turnpike jurisdiction.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2017, 10:43:26 PM
To add to the signing near the DMB, NJDOT installed mile markers for I-295 along Turnpike jurisdiction.
There's definitely some sort of 'shared' jurisdiction down there in that small stretch of Turnpike/295. The Blue Food guide sign is another example of NJDOT work on NJTA jurisdiction (which doesn't use blue food signage). I'm inclined to say the SLD may even be wrong in this area (which wouldn't be the first time it's wrong).
NJTP's mile marker zero is clearly at the NJ-48/US-130 overpass (which also looks like it was built for the Turnpike first). The lane striping is also classic Turnpike as well. Given this situation only exists southbound, it doesn't appear to be a big deal.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2017, 03:30:54 PM
NJTP's mile marker zero is clearly at the NJ-48/US-130 overpass (which also looks like it was built for the Turnpike first). The lane striping is also classic Turnpike as well. Given this situation only exists southbound, it doesn't appear to be a big deal.
That 49/130 bridge, as I found out after looking at some historic aerial shots, was originally just over what's now the Northbound lanes. What was the Turnpike SB lanes heading towards the *single* Delaware Memorial Bridge is now the Turnpike NB lanes. What was the Turnpike NB lanes coming off the bridge is now I-295 NB's lanes. The newer overpass, built when the Twin Bridge's second span was built, was built as a single continuous bridge permitting all 4 thru southbound lanes from both 295 & the Turnpike to travel under the bridge. The design of this entire overpass appears to be the main factor in how 295 and the Turnpike merge and diverge just east of the Delaware Memorial Bridges. There was probably a short period of time where 295 still didn't exist after the 2nd Delaware Memorial Bridge was built, but clearly the plans were in place for 295 by that time.
Where is the zero milepost on both NJ 49 and US 130? That may tell the story as I 287 and Rt. 440 have theirs over the Turnpike center between the car lanes.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 01, 2017, 09:12:27 PM
Where is the zero milepost on both NJ 49 and US 130? That may tell the story as I 287 and Rt. 440 have theirs over the Turnpike center between the car lanes.
What story? That factoid doesn't relate to the rest of the conversation.
"Move On Green Only"
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2017/08/this_rare_nj_traffic_sign_is_a_lawbreaker_and_must_go.html#incart_river_home
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2017, 08:50:53 AM
"Move On Green Only"
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2017/08/this_rare_nj_traffic_sign_is_a_lawbreaker_and_must_go.html#incart_river_home
Technically that sign is not illegal. Regulatory signs can have any word message within the white background on a rectangular sign.
We could practically send in the entire state with as many overgrown weeds cover signs along the roads here...
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/08/we_want_your_pictures_of_signs_overgrown_by_trees_and_bushes.html#incart_river_home
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2017, 11:45:53 AM
We could practically send in the entire state with as many overgrown weeds cover signs along the roads here...
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/08/we_want_your_pictures_of_signs_overgrown_by_trees_and_bushes.html#incart_river_home
I see a lot of signage covered by tree branches every day. It's inexcusable.
1: https://goo.gl/maps/H6ZmPCSeoAJ2
2: https://goo.gl/maps/dq8ErM1CVt22
3: https://goo.gl/maps/4YtqJPxCQFz
Here's something also interesting: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Highway-Signs-Missing-New-Jersey-Traffic-Wrong-Way-Crash-Assembly-Bill-511-439249653.html
"Assembly Bill 5111 'requires DOT to inspect traffic signs and establish public awareness campaign concerning traffic signs in need of maintenance.'"
Quote from: J Route Z on August 10, 2017, 12:40:42 AM
"Assembly Bill 5111 'requires DOT to inspect traffic signs and establish public awareness campaign concerning traffic signs in need of maintenance.'"
Why do we need another bill that basically has no teeth to it, because bills written in the past limit the State's liability.
Here's the public awareness, which DOT has promoted in the past. Why didn't the I-Team mention anything about it?
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/potholeform.shtm
I would've loved for them to have addressed it. The link is right on DOT's main page. Does DOT actually review what is submitted? (I ask because I'll submit things on occasion, with lackluster results most of the time)
Don't forget the NJ 49/US 130 interchange is also signed with I-295 exit numbers. 1A is for NJ 49 and 1B is for US 130. So your right about jurisdiction being shared. For a long while you can tell who's signs were which as NJDOT used Trenton (still does on NJ 49 NB) for I-295 and the DRBA used Camden for I-295 coming off the bridge. I do not think that NJTA used Trenton like the DRBA either. Plus NJDOT had their own panels when it used to be button copy anyway.
The classic turnpike signs were darker green than NJDOT's original signs. So you at one time could tell easily.
Also I think the US 40 East Next Exit sign on the NJT where it passes under SB CR 551 is NJDOT as they did have some signs because of Route 40 being a NJ Route hence why the loop ramp WB US 40 follows onto the turnpike (that once had the erroneous NJ 40 shield) was for sure state and not authority as well as its predecessor that had a florescant light on it with NJDOT all caps font for the DEL. MEM. BR. for several years earlier.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 10, 2017, 06:20:07 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on August 10, 2017, 12:40:42 AM
"Assembly Bill 5111 'requires DOT to inspect traffic signs and establish public awareness campaign concerning traffic signs in need of maintenance.'"
Why do we need another bill that basically has no teeth to it, because bills written in the past limit the State's liability.
Here's the public awareness, which DOT has promoted in the past. Why didn't the I-Team mention anything about it?
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/potholeform.shtm
I would've loved for them to have addressed it. The link is right on DOT's main page. Does DOT actually review what is submitted? (I ask because I'll submit things on occasion, with lackluster results most of the time)
I don't think they do because whenever I submit an issue no action has been done. They should update their site and make it similar to DelDOTs site or PennDOTs
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6799304,-75.4929158,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNURuNVSFUaNOz8YXcZJW2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
GSV shows the difference in the concrete in the middle and the bridge over the Northbound lanes looks older. So it was an extension as Jeff pointed out.
It would not be the first time a bridge was lengthened rather then replaced.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6802472,-75.4936078,3a,37.5y,113.78h,100.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syxXrBssBLHTW1GhxKrbIQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Also from underneath look at the double set of piers in the median. I will say that the spacing in the middle was where the typical angle wall that is present on the right side of the roadway here was once located. That both sides of the original bridge before the Delaware Memorial Bridge twinning looked the same. When the new Delaware Bound span was added and the overpass needed widening, they took out the angle wall on the north abutment and just added another pier where the bridge girders ended ( using temporary jacking piers while excavating it all) which also supported the new span over the Delaware Bound lanes.
NJDOT called out by WNNNNNNNNNNNNBC about its sometimes lack of traffic control signage:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Wrong-Way-Road-Crash-Drive-Accident-Danger-New-Jersey-Sign-Missing-Investigation-Police-423827894.html
And as usual, it led to a new bill (note: the bill was missing a possessive name as is SOP in the state legislature)
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Highway-Signs-Missing-New-Jersey-Traffic-Wrong-Way-Crash-Assembly-Bill-511-439249653.html
Quote from: Mr. Matté on August 14, 2017, 08:27:19 AM
NJDOT called out by WNNNNNNNNNNNNBC about its sometimes lack of traffic control signage:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Wrong-Way-Road-Crash-Drive-Accident-Danger-New-Jersey-Sign-Missing-Investigation-Police-423827894.html
And as usual, it led to a new bill (note: the bill was missing a possessive name as is SOP in the state legislature)
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Highway-Signs-Missing-New-Jersey-Traffic-Wrong-Way-Crash-Assembly-Bill-511-439249653.html
If someone sees a sign is missing, they can use this form on the NJDOT website to let them know: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/potholeform.shtm
Whether NJDOT actually does anything about the information received is another issue. However, this form could've easily been included in NBC's story, which they left out either purposely or thru ignorance. The link is available on NJDOT's homepage.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on August 14, 2017, 08:27:19 AM
NJDOT called out by WNNNNNNNNNNNNBC about its sometimes lack of traffic control signage:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Wrong-Way-Road-Crash-Drive-Accident-Danger-New-Jersey-Sign-Missing-Investigation-Police-423827894.html
And as usual, it led to a new bill (note: the bill was missing a possessive name as is SOP in the state legislature)
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Highway-Signs-Missing-New-Jersey-Traffic-Wrong-Way-Crash-Assembly-Bill-511-439249653.html
NJDOT has never been great, by any stretch, of putting up the extra one way signs on most of its divided roads. You usually get that one stop sign with the one way mounted over it, or if the one way sign is on the median, the stop sigh won't have one with it. Is this really a big cause of wrong way driving, though? I feel like NJDOT is pretty good about making sure that interstate on and off ramps are properly signed with Do-Not-Enter or Keep Right and Wrong Way signs. At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure that this feels like making a mountain out of a molehill to make a sensational investigative reporting type of story.
NJDOT is pretty good about signing off freeways. Don't get me wrong interstates in NJ are signed pretty well, but lack mileage signs to upcoming cities (the one's they have for local townships that only NJ residents no do not count) and many interchanges lacked control cities from ramps. I know in many places they have added the necessary control cities. However, the local highways have the proper traffic control devices and have a control city sign on even side roads at signalized intersections. They did lack signing pretty well at state route junctions like in Washington where NJ 31 and NJ 57 meet. Only junction signs are the only indicator (and now the overhead street blades) but never no directional shielding.
I do not know why WNBC would say that unless they once referred to those missing trailblazers at route junctions. Other than that NJ is pretty well.
On NJ 73 between 295 and the NJ Turnpike is Fellowship Road, a notoriously busy intersection in Mt. Laurel. A public meeting was held last year to reconstruct a portion of 73 from approximately 295, thru Fellowship and the NJ Turnpike to Church Road, where an overpass is slated to put Church Rd over 73.
The aerial view is: https://goo.gl/maps/PcmFTJgB37u
In the meantime, a long-planned Walmart is being built between Beaver Ave and Fellowship Rd along 73, next to the Red Roof Inn (See link above to visualize its location).
Driving by for the first time in a while Friday, I noticed that Rt. 73 South is getting widened in front of the Walmart. And the reverse jughandle to Fellowship Rd. North is being rebuilt as well, which will align it alongside the NJ Turnpike ramp and bring it out to a business park street that intersects with Fellowship Rd (this will become one of NJ's infamously long jughandles). These were some of the projects included in the larger project mentioned above, which wasn't due to start for at least 5 years.
Even the current, proposed FY18 Transit Improvement Program documents show this intersection and those above improvements in the Preliminary Engineering phase, which in NJ is usually years before any actual construction is going to take place. Taking a look around the NJDOT website and local news sites, I don't see anything referring to the construction that has obviously been going on for a few months now.
Maybe NJDOT and Mt. Laurel reached an agreement with the Walmart developer to partially or fully fund these improvements. If they did, that's quite an accomplishment. In NJ, it's tough for a developer to pay for a shoulder to be widened sometimes, much less any major traffic relief construction!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2017, 11:02:52 AM
On NJ 73 between 295 and the NJ Turnpike is Fellowship Road, a notoriously busy intersection in Mt. Laurel. A public meeting was held last year to reconstruct a portion of 73 from approximately 295, thru Fellowship and the NJ Turnpike to Church Road, where an overpass is slated to put Church Rd over 73.
The aerial view is: https://goo.gl/maps/PcmFTJgB37u
In the meantime, a long-planned Walmart is being built between Beaver Ave and Fellowship Rd along 73, next to the Red Roof Inn (See link above to visualize its location).
Driving by for the first time in a while Friday, I noticed that Rt. 73 South is getting widened in front of the Walmart. And the reverse jughandle to Fellowship Rd. North is being rebuilt as well, which will align it alongside the NJ Turnpike ramp and bring it out to a business park street that intersects with Fellowship Rd (this will become one of NJ's infamously long jughandles). These were some of the projects included in the larger project mentioned above, which wasn't due to start for at least 5 years.
Even the current, proposed FY18 Transit Improvement Program documents show this intersection and those above improvements in the Preliminary Engineering phase, which in NJ is usually years before any actual construction is going to take place. Taking a look around the NJDOT website and local news sites, I don't see anything referring to the construction that has obviously been going on for a few months now.
Maybe NJDOT and Mt. Laurel reached an agreement with the Walmart developer to partially or fully fund these improvements. If they did, that's quite an accomplishment. In NJ, it's tough for a developer to pay for a shoulder to be widened sometimes, much less any major traffic relief construction!
Yes, the improvements in question are related to the development.
In today's Courier News:
State to finish Hillsborough bypass by 2020 (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2017/08/21/state-finish-hillsborough-bypass-2020/586193001/#_=_)
QuoteThe DOT has a $20 million budget to finish the bypass, which is named for former township Mayor Pete Biondi, who championed the work as a municipal official and a state assemblyman.
Much more important, though:
QuoteAnd, maybe just as important, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) has set aside money to begin the the lengthy process of widening Route 206 to four lanes between Valley Road and Brown Avenue, where the four-lane stretch of highway south of the Raritan River currently ends.
QuoteThat project will replace the railroad bridge over Route 206, the primary roadblock that has delayed the widening project. Also included are relocation of two traffic signals, with the addition of two new jughandles.
I really hope they see this through to the end. Having 206 be 4 lanes from the circle south to Montgomery, with the bypass in place, will be huge.
NJ is proposing a rule change to their Tourist Oriented Directional Signs Program (the Big Blue signs). The major change...apparently there was a long-standing but well overlooked rule that a facility listed on the signs had to have a public phone! They are doing away with that requirement.
If you have an opinion that you must share with them, you can comment until October.
Their site with links: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/rules/proposals.shtm
Quote from: storm2k on August 22, 2017, 01:53:35 PM
In today's Courier News:
State to finish Hillsborough bypass by 2020 (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2017/08/21/state-finish-hillsborough-bypass-2020/586193001/#_=_)
QuoteThe DOT has a $20 million budget to finish the bypass, which is named for former township Mayor Pete Biondi, who championed the work as a municipal official and a state assemblyman.
Much more important, though:
QuoteAnd, maybe just as important, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) has set aside money to begin the the lengthy process of widening Route 206 to four lanes between Valley Road and Brown Avenue, where the four-lane stretch of highway south of the Raritan River currently ends.
QuoteThat project will replace the railroad bridge over Route 206, the primary roadblock that has delayed the widening project. Also included are relocation of two traffic signals, with the addition of two new jughandles.
I really hope they see this through to the end. Having 206 be 4 lanes from the circle south to Montgomery, with the bypass in place, will be huge.
But the bypass ends south of Valley Road. What happens between those points? :confused:
Quote from: Alps on August 23, 2017, 07:28:50 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 22, 2017, 01:53:35 PM
In today's Courier News:
State to finish Hillsborough bypass by 2020 (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2017/08/21/state-finish-hillsborough-bypass-2020/586193001/#_=_)
QuoteThe DOT has a $20 million budget to finish the bypass, which is named for former township Mayor Pete Biondi, who championed the work as a municipal official and a state assemblyman.
Much more important, though:
QuoteAnd, maybe just as important, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) has set aside money to begin the the lengthy process of widening Route 206 to four lanes between Valley Road and Brown Avenue, where the four-lane stretch of highway south of the Raritan River currently ends.
QuoteThat project will replace the railroad bridge over Route 206, the primary roadblock that has delayed the widening project. Also included are relocation of two traffic signals, with the addition of two new jughandles.
I really hope they see this through to the end. Having 206 be 4 lanes from the circle south to Montgomery, with the bypass in place, will be huge.
But the bypass ends south of Valley Road. What happens between those points? :confused:
You could realistically have them extend the 4 laning from Old Somerville up to Triangle. Between Triangle and Valley is problematic, which is why I guess they're only going as far as there. I think they'll require quite a bit of land taking to have enough room to expand.
I'm always a fan of doing what you can when you can, so I'm fine with widening to Valley for now, but this leave two short-sighted bottlenecks - Valley to the north end of the bypass, and the south end of the bypass to Great Road. Both of those sections need to be four-laned.
The widening to Valley Rd looks short enough that it might just get done all in one go with the bypass. Do the plans say anything agreeing or disagreeing with this?
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 24, 2017, 11:00:26 PM
The widening to Valley Rd looks short enough that it might just get done all in one go with the bypass. Do the plans say anything agreeing or disagreeing with this?
If it says Valley, it's Valley.
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
It is future 206, so I don't think there is any reason to go AASHTO with it until it's completed and ready for full rerouting. The old route will be decommissioned, not turned into a Business route.
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
I've never seen rerouted 322 approved by AASHTO either. NJ doesn't care about little things like that! :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 28, 2017, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
I've never seen rerouted 322 approved by AASHTO either. NJ doesn't care about little things like that! :-D
I remember when that parkway first opened, Gloucester County tried to sign it as CR 322 like they were trying to tell everyone who paid for it. :)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 28, 2017, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
I've never seen rerouted 322 approved by AASHTO either. NJ doesn't care about little things like that! :-D
I honestly wonder, AASHTO is supposed to approve every little thing but in the case of such a short reroute does it really matter? It's still entering the same town.
Quote from: ekt8750 on August 28, 2017, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 28, 2017, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
I've never seen rerouted 322 approved by AASHTO either. NJ doesn't care about little things like that! :-D
I remember when that parkway first opened, Gloucester County tried to sign it as CR 322 like they were trying to tell everyone who paid for it. :)
That was the construction signage for when 'old' 322 was closed...for some reason they used county signage. And NJDOT eventually did pay the county for the construction - NJDOT paid Gloucester County about $1.5 a year for 10 years to reimburse them for the roadway. The construction project that resulted in those old signs being posted was a state project as well - rebuilding a dam behind the Old Mill area.
There's 2 very, very old concrete bridge support in that area that I'll love to understand a little more history on - it had to be part of some old train bridge to the Old Mill I would imagine. https://goo.gl/maps/E3az7MtCA582 & https://goo.gl/maps/MaptXGW83w52
I have seen the state refer to old 322 as Business 322, although no signage has ever been posted clarifying for motorists what that roadway's route number now is.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2017, 06:21:02 AM
I have seen the state refer to old 322 as Business 322, although no signage has ever been posted clarifying for motorists what that roadway's route number now is.
That's how it's officially designated in state documents, but the Business US 322 designation is unsigned.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2017, 06:21:02 AM
There's 2 very, very old concrete bridge support in that area that I'll love to understand a little more history on - it had to be part of some old train bridge to the Old Mill I would imagine. https://goo.gl/maps/E3az7MtCA582 & https://goo.gl/maps/MaptXGW83w52
The bridge carried the Mullica Hill branch of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line.
http://www.old-mill-antique-mall.com/old-mill-history.html (http://www.old-mill-antique-mall.com/old-mill-history.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prslhs.com%2FPRSL_Map_files%2Fimage007.jpg&hash=00ad33061f618c1d421f6924659bdd1e2d69185f)
Quote from: civilmaher on August 29, 2017, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2017, 06:21:02 AM
There's 2 very, very old concrete bridge support in that area that I'll love to understand a little more history on - it had to be part of some old train bridge to the Old Mill I would imagine. https://goo.gl/maps/E3az7MtCA582 & https://goo.gl/maps/MaptXGW83w52
The bridge carried the Mullica Hill branch of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line.
http://www.old-mill-antique-mall.com/old-mill-history.html (http://www.old-mill-antique-mall.com/old-mill-history.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prslhs.com%2FPRSL_Map_files%2Fimage007.jpg&hash=00ad33061f618c1d421f6924659bdd1e2d69185f)
Thank you for that! I'll love to see pictures of that railroad that crossed the road that was formerly Rt. 322.
I remember the Old Mill having a pizzeria and video arcade. I haven't been in there probably since I was in high school.
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2017, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
It is future 206, so I don't think there is any reason to go AASHTO with it until it's completed and ready for full rerouting. The old route will be decommissioned, not turned into a Business route.
They won't give it a 3di 1xx state route number as with other bypassed routes (166, 159, 173, etc)?
Quote from: storm2k on August 29, 2017, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2017, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
It is future 206, so I don't think there is any reason to go AASHTO with it until it's completed and ready for full rerouting. The old route will be decommissioned, not turned into a Business route.
They won't give it a 3di 1xx state route number as with other bypassed routes (166, 159, 173, etc)?
That died awhile ago. 185 was the last, then came Business 33 and 133. But no, this is not going to be a state highway in the end. If they weren't able to download it, it would probably be Business 206.
Per NJDOT, the hard shoulder running experiment on US 1 is going well. Per the press release, traffic is getting used to using the shoulder, average speeds are up and accidents are down. They're going to expand the northern boundaries of US 1's southbound shoulder-use zone by about a 1/2 mile.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2017/082517a.shtm
Quote from: Alps on August 29, 2017, 11:49:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 29, 2017, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2017, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
It is future 206, so I don't think there is any reason to go AASHTO with it until it's completed and ready for full rerouting. The old route will be decommissioned, not turned into a Business route.
They won't give it a 3di 1xx state route number as with other bypassed routes (166, 159, 173, etc)?
That died awhile ago. 185 was the last, then came Business 33 and 133. But no, this is not going to be a state highway in the end. If they weren't able to download it, it would probably be Business 206.
Do you mean 183 or 184? 185 doesn't bypass/isn't bypassed by anything lol.
Nearby Tidbit: when 206 bypassed Bridgewater/Somerville just north of Hillsborough, the old alignment over bridge street was assigned nj-177 for a short time. You can see this designation in the topo maps on historic aerials.
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on September 01, 2017, 07:20:59 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 29, 2017, 11:49:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 29, 2017, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2017, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
It is future 206, so I don't think there is any reason to go AASHTO with it until it's completed and ready for full rerouting. The old route will be decommissioned, not turned into a Business route.
They won't give it a 3di 1xx state route number as with other bypassed routes (166, 159, 173, etc)?
That died awhile ago. 185 was the last, then came Business 33 and 133. But no, this is not going to be a state highway in the end. If they weren't able to download it, it would probably be Business 206.
Do you mean 183 or 184? 185 doesn't bypass/isn't bypassed by anything lol.
Nearby Tidbit: when 206 bypassed Bridgewater/Somerville just north of Hillsborough, the old alignment over bridge street was assigned nj-177 for a short time. You can see this designation in the topo maps on historic aerials.
SM-G955U
No lol. I'm referring to route numbering in general.
Im not sure what you're saying... 185 was the last route number? To what, be issued?
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on September 01, 2017, 04:58:58 PM
Im not sure what you're saying... 185 was the last route number? To what, be issued?
SM-G955U
In that sequence from 151-185.
Quote from: _Simon on September 01, 2017, 07:20:59 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 29, 2017, 11:49:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 29, 2017, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2017, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
It is future 206, so I don't think there is any reason to go AASHTO with it until it's completed and ready for full rerouting. The old route will be decommissioned, not turned into a Business route.
They won't give it a 3di 1xx state route number as with other bypassed routes (166, 159, 173, etc)?
That died awhile ago. 185 was the last, then came Business 33 and 133. But no, this is not going to be a state highway in the end. If they weren't able to download it, it would probably be Business 206.
Do you mean 183 or 184? 185 doesn't bypass/isn't bypassed by anything lol.
Nearby Tidbit: when 206 bypassed Bridgewater/Somerville just north of Hillsborough, the old alignment over bridge street was assigned nj-177 for a short time. You can see this designation in the topo maps on historic aerials.
SM-G955U
When was that done? I looked at the Historic Aerials and it looks like 206's current routing from Hillsborough to the circle has been there for a very long time.
The first piece of the 287/78/202-206 interchange improvements is set to open Monday. The new ramp for 22A from 287NB to 202-206SB will open up at the end of this weekend. They will shut down the old ramp tomorrow night (9/15) so they can finish paving and striping. The new ramp will still have giant stop signs at the end until they can knock out the old ramp and finish the accel/deccel lane. Most of the utility work for that looks to be done and you can see the new curb in front of the Exxon station.
Quote from: storm2k on September 15, 2017, 12:16:48 AM
The first piece of the 287/78/202-206 interchange improvements is set to open Monday. The new ramp for 22A from 287NB to 202-206SB will open up at the end of this weekend. They will shut down the old ramp tomorrow night (9/15) so they can finish paving and striping. The new ramp will still have giant stop signs at the end until they can knock out the old ramp and finish the accel/deccel lane. Most of the utility work for that looks to be done and you can see the new curb in front of the Exxon station.
Of course I posted this and then drove up there this weekend to see that the work has been postponed to next weekend.
Quote from: storm2k on September 15, 2017, 12:16:48 AM
The first piece of the 287/78/202-206 interchange improvements is set to open Monday. The new ramp for 22A from 287NB to 202-206SB will open up at the end of this weekend. They will shut down the old ramp tomorrow night (9/15) so they can finish paving and striping. The new ramp will still have giant stop signs at the end until they can knock out the old ramp and finish the accel/deccel lane. Most of the utility work for that looks to be done and you can see the new curb in front of the Exxon station.
Where do you get this information?
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on September 18, 2017, 09:04:49 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 15, 2017, 12:16:48 AM
The first piece of the 287/78/202-206 interchange improvements is set to open Monday. The new ramp for 22A from 287NB to 202-206SB will open up at the end of this weekend. They will shut down the old ramp tomorrow night (9/15) so they can finish paving and striping. The new ramp will still have giant stop signs at the end until they can knock out the old ramp and finish the accel/deccel lane. Most of the utility work for that looks to be done and you can see the new curb in front of the Exxon station.
Where do you get this information?
SM-G955U
My mom lives in the area so I drive up there frequently. They've had message signs up for a while and there was a news release on NJDOT's website as well.
Quote from: storm2k on September 18, 2017, 10:51:53 PM
Quote from: _Simon on September 18, 2017, 09:04:49 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 15, 2017, 12:16:48 AM
The first piece of the 287/78/202-206 interchange improvements is set to open Monday. The new ramp for 22A from 287NB to 202-206SB will open up at the end of this weekend. They will shut down the old ramp tomorrow night (9/15) so they can finish paving and striping. The new ramp will still have giant stop signs at the end until they can knock out the old ramp and finish the accel/deccel lane. Most of the utility work for that looks to be done and you can see the new curb in front of the Exxon station.
Where do you get this information?
SM-G955U
My mom lives in the area so I drive up there frequently. They've had message signs up for a while and there was a news release on NJDOT's website as well.
I drive past it every day and exit at 22b and havent received a single email. They really need to get into the 21st century and put up a temporary sensor nearby so they can email your ezpass account as you drive through. I like lack of transparency (because it's how things get built faster) but if they're trying to make the info public they can do a better job.
SM-G955U
Quote from: storm2k on September 01, 2017, 11:50:05 PM
Quote from: _Simon on September 01, 2017, 07:20:59 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 29, 2017, 11:49:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 29, 2017, 09:15:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2017, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: yakra on August 27, 2017, 02:49:32 PM
TMK this is NJ's only BYPASS bannered US route, and as yet it doesn't connect to the rest of the numbered system. (US/State system, that is; I'm not counting CR514.)
AFAICS it has not yet been approved by AASHTO.
Any ideas as to whether, once complete & open, it will stay US206Byp, or become part of US206 proper?
It is future 206, so I don't think there is any reason to go AASHTO with it until it's completed and ready for full rerouting. The old route will be decommissioned, not turned into a Business route.
They won't give it a 3di 1xx state route number as with other bypassed routes (166, 159, 173, etc)?
That died awhile ago. 185 was the last, then came Business 33 and 133. But no, this is not going to be a state highway in the end. If they weren't able to download it, it would probably be Business 206.
Do you mean 183 or 184? 185 doesn't bypass/isn't bypassed by anything lol.
Nearby Tidbit: when 206 bypassed Bridgewater/Somerville just north of Hillsborough, the old alignment over bridge street was assigned nj-177 for a short time. You can see this designation in the topo maps on historic aerials.
SM-G955U
When was that done? I looked at the Historic Aerials and it looks like 206's current routing from Hillsborough to the circle has been there for a very long time.
http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/log/10.html#177
Bypassed in 1930, route number was cataloged and on public maps between 61 and 70.
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on September 19, 2017, 05:40:48 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 18, 2017, 10:51:53 PM
Quote from: _Simon on September 18, 2017, 09:04:49 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 15, 2017, 12:16:48 AM
The first piece of the 287/78/202-206 interchange improvements is set to open Monday. The new ramp for 22A from 287NB to 202-206SB will open up at the end of this weekend. They will shut down the old ramp tomorrow night (9/15) so they can finish paving and striping. The new ramp will still have giant stop signs at the end until they can knock out the old ramp and finish the accel/deccel lane. Most of the utility work for that looks to be done and you can see the new curb in front of the Exxon station.
Where do you get this information?
SM-G955U
My mom lives in the area so I drive up there frequently. They've had message signs up for a while and there was a news release on NJDOT's website as well.
I drive past it every day and exit at 22b and havent received a single email. They really need to get into the 21st century and put up a temporary sensor nearby so they can email your ezpass account as you drive through. I like lack of transparency (because it's how things get built faster) but if they're trying to make the info public they can do a better job.
SM-G955U
Or you can just read the signs they've put up announcing the change.
NJDOT sign typo directs drivers to Lake "Paris-ppany":
http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/morris-county/2017/09/19/njdot-sign-typo-directs-drivers-lake-paris-ppany/680284001/
Quote from: J Route Z on September 19, 2017, 09:39:59 PM
NJDOT sign typo directs drivers to Lake "Paris-ppany":
http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/morris-county/2017/09/19/njdot-sign-typo-directs-drivers-lake-paris-ppany/680284001/
They're fixing a sign next week that is on my commute route. I think I can make this work.
Quote from: J Route Z on September 19, 2017, 09:39:59 PM
NJDOT sign typo directs drivers to Lake "Paris-ppany":
http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/morris-county/2017/09/19/njdot-sign-typo-directs-drivers-lake-paris-ppany/680284001/
QuoteThe sign, on Route 202 north or Littleton Road, just south of the Route 80 overpass, was installed following work completed in 2015 after more than two years of road construction projects on routes 80 and 287...
(DOT Spokesperson) Schapiro, however, said he believed the sign was installed earlier this year and not 2015 or earlier. He was not immediately able to determine if the current sign is new or a replacement.
Based on the description, I think this is where the sign is located. https://goo.gl/maps/Hb1Q5diZVaT2 . As of October 2016, it was a different sign.
I'm sure Parsippany is hard to spell, but I couldn't help but laugh.
Quote from: J Route Z on September 19, 2017, 09:39:59 PM
NJDOT sign typo directs drivers to Lake "Paris-ppany":
http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/morris-county/2017/09/19/njdot-sign-typo-directs-drivers-lake-paris-ppany/680284001/
On another note, what is with the letter stretching they're doing now that they're doing all mixed case signs? If you look at that W, it looks warped. This isn't isolated, either. I find that a lot of newer signs NJDOT is putting out with mixed case have warped looking W's and some other letters. Here is another example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.59208,-74.2907665,3a,24.1y,32.99h,84.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spwn38mXHBv3e_bXeZshPfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Quote from: storm2k on September 20, 2017, 01:14:27 PMOn another note, what is with the letter stretching they're doing now that they're doing all mixed case signs? If you look at that W, it looks warped. This isn't isolated, either. I find that a lot of newer signs NJDOT is putting out with mixed case have warped looking W's and some other letters. Here is another example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.59208,-74.2907665,3a,24.1y,32.99h,84.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spwn38mXHBv3e_bXeZshPfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
I noticed similar on distance signs along I-295 (for Ewing) as well. The
intended font for these mixed-case signs is either Series D or C (depending on location & number of letters involved); but the lower-case
w is
neither of those (in its purest form).
Quote from: Alps on September 19, 2017, 11:33:43 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 19, 2017, 09:39:59 PM
NJDOT sign typo directs drivers to Lake "Paris-ppany":
http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/local/morris-county/2017/09/19/njdot-sign-typo-directs-drivers-lake-paris-ppany/680284001/
They're fixing a sign next week that is on my commute route. I think I can make this work.
Would you believe they fixed it today?
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 20, 2017, 01:24:19 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 20, 2017, 01:14:27 PMOn another note, what is with the letter stretching they're doing now that they're doing all mixed case signs? If you look at that W, it looks warped. This isn't isolated, either. I find that a lot of newer signs NJDOT is putting out with mixed case have warped looking W's and some other letters. Here is another example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.59208,-74.2907665,3a,24.1y,32.99h,84.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spwn38mXHBv3e_bXeZshPfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
I noticed similar on distance signs along I-295 (for Ewing) as well. The intended font for these mixed-case signs is either Series D or C (depending on location & number of letters involved); but the lower-case w is neither of those (in its purest form).
I feel like they're using series C and stretching it in whatever CADD program they're using to be the proportions they want.
Quote from: storm2k on September 20, 2017, 01:14:27 PM
On another note, what is with the letter stretching they're doing now that they're doing all mixed case signs? If you look at that W, it looks warped. This isn't isolated, either. I find that a lot of newer signs NJDOT is putting out with mixed case have warped looking W's and some other letters. Here is another example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.59208,-74.2907665,3a,24.1y,32.99h,84.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spwn38mXHBv3e_bXeZshPfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
On another note.. you think they have enough signs on that street? Damn Lmao
Saw this sign on Roosevelt Ave in Carteret recently.
(https://i.imgur.com/4JqAunj.jpg)
No one has used an ampersand for a joint 1-9 sign in many, many years. Plus, in Middlesex County, I've only ever seen it as individual shields.
NJDOT has cleared out the brush and overgrown weeds from the former I-295 Northbound Rest Area between Exits 47 & 52. Looks real nice in there now...although I don't know of any permanent plans for them using the area again. On Monday, they did remove the jersey barrier blocking the entrance and used it as a mobile Commercial Motor Vehicle inspection area...which with a State Trooper out front watching for trucks caused a significant morning rush hour jam approaching this area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2017, 11:44:34 AM
NJDOT has cleared out the brush and overgrown weeds from the former I-295 Northbound Rest Area between Exits 47 & 52. Looks real nice in there now...although I don't know of any permanent plans for them using the area again. On Monday, they did remove the jersey barrier blocking the entrance and used it as a mobile Commercial Motor Vehicle inspection area...which with a State Trooper out front watching for trucks caused a significant morning rush hour jam approaching this area.
Wasn't that one the infamous
Howard Stern rest stop that then-Gov. Whitman erected a plaque in his honor during the 90s?
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 04, 2017, 12:22:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2017, 11:44:34 AM
NJDOT has cleared out the brush and overgrown weeds from the former I-295 Northbound Rest Area between Exits 47 & 52. Looks real nice in there now...although I don't know of any permanent plans for them using the area again. On Monday, they did remove the jersey barrier blocking the entrance and used it as a mobile Commercial Motor Vehicle inspection area...which with a State Trooper out front watching for trucks caused a significant morning rush hour jam approaching this area.
Wasn't that one the infamous Howard Stern rest stop that then-Gov. Whitman erected a plaque in his honor during the 90s?
I never knew if it was the NB or SB rest stop.
New Jersey's portion of 'completing I-95' will cost them $1,188,833. This is for the signing work that'll modify or replace the existing signage, generally along NJ's existing portion of I-95 from the Delaware River to US 1.
The work is scheduled to be completed by June, 2018.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs17137.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2017, 11:46:59 AM
New Jersey's portion of 'completing I-95' will cost them $1,188,833. This is for the signing work that'll modify or replace the existing signage, generally along NJ's existing portion of I-95 from the Delaware River to US 1.
The work is scheduled to be completed by June, 2018.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs17137.pdf
I wonder what the cost difference would be had this stretch been redesignated as I-695 instead of an extension of I-295? The former scenario would've kept the mile markers & interchange numbers between the Scudder Falls Bridge & the US 1 interchange as is.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 05, 2017, 11:56:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2017, 11:46:59 AM
New Jersey's portion of 'completing I-95' will cost them $1,188,833. This is for the signing work that'll modify or replace the existing signage, generally along NJ's existing portion of I-95 from the Delaware River to US 1.
The work is scheduled to be completed by June, 2018.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs17137.pdf
I wonder what the cost difference would be had this stretch been redesignated as I-695 instead of an extension of I-295? The former scenario would've kept the mile markers & interchange numbers between the Scudder Falls Bridge & the US 1 interchange as is.
Probably very little. It appears they are using the opportunity to replace all the BGSs, which means the exit number tabs are part of the replacement. I believe some of the lighting and a few sign structures are being replaced as well.
NJ is in the middle of a huge program to upgrade their MMs. I can't tell by the GSV (last taken 2013) if this area of 95 already had theirs upgraded. If not, then they were saving it for the conversion so no cost savings there either.
Other costs may have increased, such as potentially needing "End x95, Begin x95" signage in both directions at the 295/695 dividing line.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2017, 01:04:59 PMOther costs may have increased, such as potentially needing "End x95, Begin x95" signage in both directions at the 295/695 dividing line.
Such could be done by simply placing I-695 shields over the I-95 shields on the existing
END/BEGIN signs that are there today.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 05, 2017, 01:09:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2017, 01:04:59 PMOther costs may have increased, such as potentially needing "End x95, Begin x95" signage in both directions at the 295/695 dividing line.
Such could be done by simply placing I-695 shields over the I-95 shields on the existing END/BEGIN signs that are there today.
That could be done in numerous areas, but like I said this appears to be a full and complete sign replacement program, not just modifications. Even regulatory and advisory signs are going to be replaced throughout the project area as well, per the bidding results.
Curiosity question. As many know, Somerset County used to use a bit of a unique scheme for their county shield assemblies, where the shields themselves were white on blue with black on white arrows/cardinals. My whole childhood growing up this is how they signed stuff. Lately, most replacements are in the standard gold on blue for both shields and arrows/cardinals, with a few exceptions. When did they abandon the Somerset County signature style?
Quote from: storm2k on October 06, 2017, 04:06:49 PM
Curiosity question. As many know, Somerset County used to use a bit of a unique scheme for their county shield assemblies, where the shields themselves were white on blue with black on white arrows/cardinals. My whole childhood growing up this is how they signed stuff. Lately, most replacements are in the standard gold on blue for both shields and arrows/cardinals, with a few exceptions. When did they abandon the Somerset County signature style?
I started seeing the modern style in the mid 2000s, so right around the time all the other counties started signing everything (Essex in particular). Must have been a wave of state money.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 05, 2017, 11:56:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2017, 11:46:59 AM
New Jersey's portion of 'completing I-95' will cost them $1,188,833. This is for the signing work that'll modify or replace the existing signage, generally along NJ's existing portion of I-95 from the Delaware River to US 1.
The work is scheduled to be completed by June, 2018.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs17137.pdf
I wonder what the cost difference would be had this stretch been redesignated as I-695 instead of an extension of I-295? The former scenario would've kept the mile markers & interchange numbers between the Scudder Falls Bridge & the US 1 interchange as is.
I believe in a future where millage can go into the negatives without people committing suicide and driving off cliffs. No millage should ever need to be changed, we have infinite numbers in both directions. People aren't as stupid as we think. Negative numbers transcend all languages. Sorry just ranting.
SM-G955U
Quote from: _Simon on October 06, 2017, 06:26:35 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 05, 2017, 11:56:22 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2017, 11:46:59 AM
New Jersey's portion of 'completing I-95' will cost them $1,188,833. This is for the signing work that'll modify or replace the existing signage, generally along NJ's existing portion of I-95 from the Delaware River to US 1.
The work is scheduled to be completed by June, 2018.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs17137.pdf
I wonder what the cost difference would be had this stretch been redesignated as I-695 instead of an extension of I-295? The former scenario would've kept the mile markers & interchange numbers between the Scudder Falls Bridge & the US 1 interchange as is.
I believe in a future where millage can go into the negatives without people committing suicide and driving off cliffs. No millage should ever need to be changed, we have infinite numbers in both directions. People aren't as stupid as we think. Negative numbers transcend all languages. Sorry just ranting.
SM-G955U
NJ doesn't use millages to build its roads.
This is on US 46. Wtf is SR 200?!(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171021/6223e8cddcf297b49b65307a98e2ef38.jpg)
SM-G955U
I didn't know US-47 went thru South Jersey.
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/traffic/article_a3a1e68e-b41b-11e7-9ebd-830843c0a380.html
Yet another article on finishing NJ-55.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 21, 2017, 09:17:17 PM
I didn't know US-47 went thru South Jersey.
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/traffic/article_a3a1e68e-b41b-11e7-9ebd-830843c0a380.html
Not only went through, but
begins there (which the actual NJ Route 47 doesn't either)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 21, 2017, 09:17:17 PM
Yet another article on finishing NJ-55.
At least there's still a quark's worth of hope of finishing it, unlike a certain other northeast state with a certain half-built expressway that was recently canceled for good.
Quote from: _Simon on October 21, 2017, 02:28:19 PM
This is on US 46. Wtf is SR 200?!(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171021/6223e8cddcf297b49b65307a98e2ef38.jpg)
I'm turning up a complete blank on this, even related to this project. There was an SR 200 signed once upon a time but it ran from Oakland to Alpine.
Probably a typo for 206.
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
Probably a typo for 206.
SR 200 instead of US 206? They only got 2 out of 5 characters correct?
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
Probably a typo for 206.
Why even sign that? If you're going from 46 to 206 north, the detour wouldn't be way out by Naughright Rd. If you're going from 46 to 206 south, why ever go all the way to Netcong? That traffic should already be filtering through these back roads.
If you're going to 206 north from that area, you'd use Waterloo Rd back in Hackettstown and various back roads for 206 south. What the hell is that sign even for?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 21, 2017, 09:17:17 PM
I didn't know US-47 went thru South Jersey.
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/traffic/article_a3a1e68e-b41b-11e7-9ebd-830843c0a380.html
Yet another article on finishing NJ-55.
Looks like the right shield is beyond this crazy assembly.
The FY18 NJ TIP was recently published and the opportunity for public comment occurred, mostly during September. The public comments have been published, and while originally they was a decent list of them, all I can find now is this clickable link that shows the areas of projects and the comments for such:
https://www.dvrpc.org/asp/TIPSearch/2018/NJ/
I can tell you that of the 120 or so comments, nearly half of them were directed in favor of the South Jersey Light Rail line. Most of the comments were generic, with a single sentence or two saying how much the region needs the line and that they support this project. Many, from what I gather, aren't even within DVRPC's region and would never ride the line if it was ever built. For what it's worth, the project is currently unfunded except for a few million dollars for various prelim work, and neither NJ Transit or the DRPA appears to be interested in the project.
I submitted several comments; some related to road projects within the TIP; others were suggestion for projects not listed. Most of my comments, along with many others, were responded with "Your comment has been submitted to NJDOT for review", which means they'll probably never see the light of day again.
The DVRPC meets this morning to basically rubberstamp its approval of the comments.
Burlington County OKs massive Route 530 project (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/2017/10/27/burlington-county-oks-massive-route-530-project/803189001/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
QuoteThe Burlington County Board of Freeholders approved a nearly $20 million contract with Green Construction Inc. of South River on Wednesday night to widen almost three miles of Route 530 from state highway Route 206 in Southampton and through Pemberton Township to Hanover Street in Pemberton Borough.
QuoteThe project has been a complicated one that has taken more than two decades of planning, financing and other preparation. It involved either purchase or condemnation of nearly 90 residential, farm, and business properties on both sides of the roadway and total reconstruction of the Hanover Street intersection, which was completed in 2015.
Quote from: BrianP on November 06, 2017, 01:46:15 PM
Burlington County OKs massive Route 530 project (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/2017/10/27/burlington-county-oks-massive-route-530-project/803189001/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)
QuoteThe Burlington County Board of Freeholders approved a nearly $20 million contract with Green Construction Inc. of South River on Wednesday night to widen almost three miles of Route 530 from state highway Route 206 in Southampton and through Pemberton Township to Hanover Street in Pemberton Borough.
QuoteThe project has been a complicated one that has taken more than two decades of planning, financing and other preparation. It involved either purchase or condemnation of nearly 90 residential, farm, and business properties on both sides of the roadway and total reconstruction of the Hanover Street intersection, which was completed in 2015.
State Highway Route 206? First of all we haven't had that designation for like 50 years now. Second, it's a US route. Third, the other routes (530 and 38) are correctly identified as county and state route respectively.
If US 206 got demoted to State route status, it would not even be noticeable as everything is "route" to NJ residents even I-80 is Route 80. Anyway, considering that the designation is an AASHTO violation it should be done ideally. Even some on here would love to see US 46, US 130, and even US 202 (although it is over the minimum miles a US route can be, but useless) all go including US 192 in FL, US 175 and US 57 in TX among many.
I would not mind seeing US 206 be NJ 206 if it happened. Plus US 130 should really be a northern extension of US 301 as ending at US 1 in North Brunswick would really make it a better child. Considering US 301 originally ended in Baltimore and US 130 to where it ends now was an afterthought, that was never an option in the numbering then, but would have US 301 did reach the Delmarva.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 24, 2017, 07:11:24 PM
If US 206 got demoted to State route status, it would not even be noticeable as everything is "route" to NJ residents even I-80 is Route 80. Anyway, considering that the designation is an AASHTO violation it should be done ideally. Even some on here would love to see US 46, US 130, and even US 202 (although it is over the minimum miles a US route can be, but useless) all go including US 192 in FL, US 175 and US 57 in TX among many.
I would not mind seeing US 206 be NJ 206 if it happened. Plus US 130 should really be a northern extension of US 301 as ending at US 1 in North Brunswick would really make it a better child. Considering US 301 originally ended in Baltimore and US 130 to where it ends now was an afterthought, that was never an option in the numbering then, but would have US 301 did reach the Delmarva.
How would you get 301 to the Delaware Memorial though? Any route you'd pick would involve a some sort of concurrency which would make it hard for the AASHTO to approve being that they seem to be against any new US Route concurrencies. I guess the most direct route would be to continue up US 13 at St Georges to I-295. Once you get to Bear US 40 comes in and you'd have yourself a nice three US Route concurrency going which isn't unheard of.
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 25, 2017, 03:48:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 24, 2017, 07:11:24 PM
If US 206 got demoted to State route status, it would not even be noticeable as everything is "route" to NJ residents even I-80 is Route 80. Anyway, considering that the designation is an AASHTO violation it should be done ideally. Even some on here would love to see US 46, US 130, and even US 202 (although it is over the minimum miles a US route can be, but useless) all go including US 192 in FL, US 175 and US 57 in TX among many.
I would not mind seeing US 206 be NJ 206 if it happened. Plus US 130 should really be a northern extension of US 301 as ending at US 1 in North Brunswick would really make it a better child. Considering US 301 originally ended in Baltimore and US 130 to where it ends now was an afterthought, that was never an option in the numbering then, but would have US 301 did reach the Delmarva.
How would you get 301 to the Delaware Memorial though? Any route you'd pick would involve a some sort of concurrency which would make it hard for the AASHTO to approve being that they seem to be against any new US Route concurrencies. I guess the most direct route would be to continue up US 13 at St Georges to I-295. Once you get to Bear US 40 comes in and you'd have yourself a nice three US Route concurrency going which isn't unheard of.
Or 301 to US 40, concurrent with 40 all the way into NJ, still giving the 13/40/301 concurrency, then the 295/40/301 concurrency.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 06, 2017, 02:30:16 PM
State Highway Route 206? First of all we haven't had that designation for like 50 years now. Second, it's a US route. Third, the other routes (530 and 38) are correctly identified as county and state route respectively.
I'm surprised they even got that correct.
I guess it's been a long time since I've biked through BurlCo, a lot of their county roads now have the centerline rumble strips as seen rolled out on the undivided state highway system. However, they must be shallower as they're definitely not as loud as the state highway ones when cars were passing me. Probably designed so as not to rattle the residents like the one in East Amwell along Route 29. So far none were placed in the shoulder, kudos to Burlington County for that (unlike you, Route 12 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5044407,-74.8974993,3a,75y,280.88h,68.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shBeNriG-Zpm6xG2WKdpR6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
Here's an article describing the contract issuance in May: http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/36870810-3679-11e7-a03b-f35f7333deb5.html
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 25, 2017, 03:48:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 24, 2017, 07:11:24 PM
If US 206 got demoted to State route status, it would not even be noticeable as everything is "route" to NJ residents even I-80 is Route 80. Anyway, considering that the designation is an AASHTO violation it should be done ideally. Even some on here would love to see US 46, US 130, and even US 202 (although it is over the minimum miles a US route can be, but useless) all go including US 192 in FL, US 175 and US 57 in TX among many.
I would not mind seeing US 206 be NJ 206 if it happened. Plus US 130 should really be a northern extension of US 301 as ending at US 1 in North Brunswick would really make it a better child. Considering US 301 originally ended in Baltimore and US 130 to where it ends now was an afterthought, that was never an option in the numbering then, but would have US 301 did reach the Delmarva.
How would you get 301 to the Delaware Memorial though? Any route you'd pick would involve a some sort of concurrency which would make it hard for the AASHTO to approve being that they seem to be against any new US Route concurrencies. I guess the most direct route would be to continue up US 13 at St Georges to I-295. Once you get to Bear US 40 comes in and you'd have yourself a nice three US Route concurrency going which isn't unheard of.
For several years US 301 was concurrent with both US 13 and US 40 to Farnhurst and had its terminus at I-295. So my suggestion was to put it back and route it across the bridge from there to reach US 130.
Looks like NJ wants to redo this intersection. They take all the fun out of driving! https://goo.gl/maps/sfdNKj5MthQ2
The description summary of what they want to do: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout112917.pdf
Seen elsewhere on the internet with no particularly good context: supposedly 1939, "near Newark." This could conceivably be anywhere in North Jersey. Anyone recognize this spot, 78 years later?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4729/38410524844_ae75c2c388_z_d.jpg)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2017, 08:44:45 PM
Seen elsewhere on the internet with no particularly good context: supposedly 1939, "near Newark." This could conceivably be anywhere in North Jersey. Anyone recognize this spot, 78 years later?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4729/38410524844_ae75c2c388_z_d.jpg)
That looks for all the world like US 1 in the Brunswicks, which is not very near Newark.
Quote from: Alps on December 17, 2017, 08:48:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2017, 08:44:45 PM
Seen elsewhere on the internet with no particularly good context: supposedly 1939, "near Newark." This could conceivably be anywhere in North Jersey. Anyone recognize this spot, 78 years later?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4729/38410524844_ae75c2c388_z_d.jpg)
That looks for all the world like US 1 in the Brunswicks, which is not very near Newark.
That's a good guess. Someone also said 17 in Ramsey/USR, but I don't think the sight line is this great there.
Maybe US 22 near Plainfield? I think the median might be too wide though.
Quote from: NE2 on December 17, 2017, 11:51:06 PM
Maybe US 22 near Plainfield? I think the median might be too wide though.
US 22 is flat through that stretch. I like 1 through North and South Brunswick (likely the latter)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2017, 11:45:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 17, 2017, 08:48:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 17, 2017, 08:44:45 PM
Seen elsewhere on the internet with no particularly good context: supposedly 1939, "near Newark." This could conceivably be anywhere in North Jersey. Anyone recognize this spot, 78 years later?
That looks for all the world like US 1 in the Brunswicks, which is not very near Newark.
That's a good guess. Someone also said 17 in Ramsey/USR, but I don't think the sight line is this great there.
Keep in mind 17 in the 1930s had no development. It would be tough to recognize this scene today. But with power lines on both sides, I'm sticking with 1 and that hill at Sand Hills Road.
Present day scene on US 1 at Sand Hills Rd: https://goo.gl/maps/vaZW2vgGf6U2
A glance at Historic Aerials, looking at a 1940's shot, does confirm the wide grassy median (unfortunately they're smart and won't let you link directly to the image, as they'll rather you purchase it instead).
The curb cut shown at left matches what's there now, but not the drainage catch just above it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2017, 08:33:17 AM
A glance at Historic Aerials, looking at a 1940's shot, does confirm the wide grassy median (unfortunately they're smart and won't let you link directly to the image, as they'll rather you purchase it instead).
If you click the twitter logo you can copy a direct link.
Pretty sure it is here: https://goo.gl/maps/AM5c2EGvXX82
Storm drain on left, one on the right slightly ahead and right before the guard rail starts, just like in the 1939 photo.
Historic aerials show a few properties on the east side that are no longer there and would be why the curb cut is not there now...
Elizabeth and Newark do not have the sight lines as in the photo as well as the wavy topography. It has to be in South Brunswick where it is straight.
The ever-delayed 295/42 Missing Moves project appears to have had a little consulting work done in the form of a simulated flyover. This perspective in the link below provides a birds-eye view from 42 North to 295 South. It also shows several improvements that'll be completed elsewhere, including the new entrance/exit from 42 North to Creek Road (actually Benigno Blvd), and a new roundabout traffic will utilize between 42 South and Creek Road.
http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
This simulation appears quite new. The original design had the takeoff/landing points for the ramp on 295 south of the Creek Road overpass. This simulation shows the takeoff/landing points north of the overpass. I had known about this change, but not familiar with why they're doing it. It shortens the ramp a little bit, but threads it between two buildings and requires rebuilding the Creek Road overpass.
So 295 South would be exit 14A and 295 North would be 1B? That's not confusing at all!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2017, 01:48:07 PM
The ever-delayed 295/42 Missing Moves project appears to have had a little consulting work done in the form of a simulated flyover. This perspective in the link below provides a birds-eye view from 42 North to 295 South. It also shows several improvements that'll be completed elsewhere, including the new entrance/exit from 42 North to Creek Road (actually Benigno Blvd), and a new roundabout traffic will utilize between 42 South and Creek Road.
http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
This simulation appears quite new. The original design had the takeoff/landing points for the ramp on 295 south of the Creek Road overpass. This simulation shows the takeoff/landing points north of the overpass. I had known about this change, but not familiar with why they're doing it. It shortens the ramp a little bit, but threads it between two buildings and requires rebuilding the Creek Road overpass.
Probably to free up more of the development land. We looked at both solutions as well back in the day. The roundabout, to me, doesn't make nearly as much sense as what we looked at: a one way pair along Harding and Coolidge.
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2017, 05:40:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2017, 01:48:07 PM
The ever-delayed 295/42 Missing Moves project appears to have had a little consulting work done in the form of a simulated flyover. This perspective in the link below provides a birds-eye view from 42 North to 295 South. It also shows several improvements that'll be completed elsewhere, including the new entrance/exit from 42 North to Creek Road (actually Benigno Blvd), and a new roundabout traffic will utilize between 42 South and Creek Road.
http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
This simulation appears quite new. The original design had the takeoff/landing points for the ramp on 295 south of the Creek Road overpass. This simulation shows the takeoff/landing points north of the overpass. I had known about this change, but not familiar with why they're doing it. It shortens the ramp a little bit, but threads it between two buildings and requires rebuilding the Creek Road overpass.
Probably to free up more of the development land. We looked at both solutions as well back in the day. The roundabout, to me, doesn't make nearly as much sense as what we looked at: a one way pair along Harding and Coolidge.
I recall the days when they said they wouldn't reconstruct the main interchange until these ramps were completed. It's going to be the opposite if they don't quit pushing this project back.
On the east side of the Creek Rd. interchange, that's how I thought they should've treated Wellwood and Edgewood...as a dual pair of one-way roads.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 21, 2017, 02:52:42 PM
So 295 South would be exit 14A and 295 North would be 1B? That's not confusing at all!
Unless 76 gets extended, that's the way it would have to be. Exit 14 for Creek Rd is between those two so it would have to take on 42's exit number.
Quote from: ekt8750 on December 21, 2017, 07:28:17 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 21, 2017, 02:52:42 PM
So 295 South would be exit 14A and 295 North would be 1B? That's not confusing at all!
Unless 76 gets extended, that's the way it would have to be. Exit 14 for Creek Rd is between those two so it would have to take on 42's exit number.
Technically, it should go 1A (for 295 South, matching 76 East's exit numbering, then 14 (Creek Rd) then 1B (295 North).
Not confusing at all either! LOL
Via Transportation.Org: NJDOT News -- I-95 to be redesignated as I-295 in Mercer County starting in 2018 (http://news.transportation.org/Pages/StateDotNewsDetail.aspx?MessageId=55519)
QuoteNew Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) officials today announced the section of what is now I-95 in New Jersey from the Scudder Falls Bridge over the Delaware River to the Route 1 Interchange in Mercer County will be redesignated as I-295 in early 2018.
QuoteThis change is part of a larger project in which a new interchange is being constructed to connect I-95 to I-276/Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bristol Township, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Turnpike connects to the New Jersey Turnpike at Interchange 6 via the New Jersey Turnpike Pearl Harbor Memorial Turnpike Extension in Florence, New Jersey. When the new I-95/Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange is completed in Bristol, these highways will be redesignated as I-95, which will create a continuous I-95 from Pennsylvania through New Jersey.
I-287/I-78 interchange map improvements
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/projectmap.pdf
I see this is like CT, I bet the flyover ramp was complained about so they did a loop right?
Even though it takes up MORE space.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2017, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2017, 05:40:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2017, 01:48:07 PM
The ever-delayed 295/42 Missing Moves project appears to have had a little consulting work done in the form of a simulated flyover. This perspective in the link below provides a birds-eye view from 42 North to 295 South. It also shows several improvements that'll be completed elsewhere, including the new entrance/exit from 42 North to Creek Road (actually Benigno Blvd), and a new roundabout traffic will utilize between 42 South and Creek Road.
http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
This simulation appears quite new. The original design had the takeoff/landing points for the ramp on 295 south of the Creek Road overpass. This simulation shows the takeoff/landing points north of the overpass. I had known about this change, but not familiar with why they're doing it. It shortens the ramp a little bit, but threads it between two buildings and requires rebuilding the Creek Road overpass.
Probably to free up more of the development land. We looked at both solutions as well back in the day. The roundabout, to me, doesn't make nearly as much sense as what we looked at: a one way pair along Harding and Coolidge.
I recall the days when they said they wouldn't reconstruct the main interchange until these ramps were completed. It's going to be the opposite if they don't quit pushing this project back.
On the east side of the Creek Rd. interchange, that's how I thought they should've treated Wellwood and Edgewood...as a dual pair of one-way roads.
We looked at a variety of different scenarios on the east side, and that was certainly one of them. I think there were issues with WB storage on Creek between Wellwood and Edgewood. The preference was to maintain Edgewood as the connection.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2017, 09:20:59 PM
I-287/I-78 interchange map improvements
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/projectmap.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/projectmap.pdf)
I see this is like CT, I bet the flyover ramp was complained about so they did a loop right?
Even though it takes up MORE space.
No no no. I-78 EB to I-287 NB remains the high-speed connection that it is now. Anything other than a loop for I-78 EB to 202/206 would require additional work to fit in the interchange and isn't really necessary.
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2017, 09:32:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2017, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2017, 05:40:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2017, 01:48:07 PM
The ever-delayed 295/42 Missing Moves project appears to have had a little consulting work done in the form of a simulated flyover. This perspective in the link below provides a birds-eye view from 42 North to 295 South. It also shows several improvements that'll be completed elsewhere, including the new entrance/exit from 42 North to Creek Road (actually Benigno Blvd), and a new roundabout traffic will utilize between 42 South and Creek Road.
http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
This simulation appears quite new. The original design had the takeoff/landing points for the ramp on 295 south of the Creek Road overpass. This simulation shows the takeoff/landing points north of the overpass. I had known about this change, but not familiar with why they're doing it. It shortens the ramp a little bit, but threads it between two buildings and requires rebuilding the Creek Road overpass.
Probably to free up more of the development land. We looked at both solutions as well back in the day. The roundabout, to me, doesn't make nearly as much sense as what we looked at: a one way pair along Harding and Coolidge.
I recall the days when they said they wouldn't reconstruct the main interchange until these ramps were completed. It's going to be the opposite if they don't quit pushing this project back.
On the east side of the Creek Rd. interchange, that's how I thought they should've treated Wellwood and Edgewood...as a dual pair of one-way roads.
We looked at a variety of different scenarios on the east side, and that was certainly one of them. I think there were issues with WB storage on Creek between Wellwood and Edgewood. The preference was to maintain Edgewood as the connection.
I want a recount on that preference!
I don't go by here too often especially at rush hour, but the volume of traffic going up Edgewood to Creek was spilling out onto Rt. 42 yesterday. I'll have to go this way a few more times if this is an everyday occurrence or a one-time thing...but based on increasing traffic volumes, this is probably more the norm.
While future planned construction will relocate the Creek Rd. exit, we're looking at 5+ years away.
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2017, 09:32:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2017, 09:20:59 PM
I-287/I-78 interchange map improvements
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/projectmap.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/projectmap.pdf)
I see this is like CT, I bet the flyover ramp was complained about so they did a loop right?
Even though it takes up MORE space.
No no no. I-78 EB to I-287 NB remains the high-speed connection that it is now. Anything other than a loop for I-78 EB to 202/206 would require additional work to fit in the interchange and isn't really necessary.
My understanding was that the whole point of this project was driven by eliminating the left-hand entrance ramp onto 287NB from 78EB and moving it to a right hand ramp so that there would be less weaving both of trucks needing to get out of the left lane and also for traffic trying to fly over to get off at 202-206?? This includes getting rid of the existing ramp and moving it so it flys over 287NB and loops around where that unused ramp exists. Part of why they're moving the 287NB to 78EB ramp to make room for this (and improve its geometry). Or am I wrong?
I-95 in Mercer County to be renamed I-295 in early 2018, several exit numbers to change (https://planetprinceton.com/2017/12/21/i-95-in-mercer-county-to-be-renamed-i-295-in-early-2018-several-exit-numbers-to-change/)
QuoteIn early 2018, the highway between the Scudders Falls Bridge and Route 1 will be redesignated part of I-295.
QuoteSeven interchanges in New Jersey and four interchanges in Pennsylvania will be renumbered as part of the project. Four exits on I-195 in Hamilton will be renumbered to match the I-195 milepost numbering.
Article has a nice graphic showing all the numbering changes on both the NJ and PA sides of the project. Due to the way the road loops, exits will continue to count up on the NJ side (old exit 1 will be 76), but count down in PA. I assume PA will sign the directions as SB from the river to the new PATP interchange.
Also, they're finally fixing one of my pet peeves!!! The 195 ramps to 295 will be signed with proper exit numbers reflecting 195's numbering, not 295! That's bothered me for 20+ years now!
Quote from: storm2k on December 22, 2017, 12:04:06 PM
I-95 in Mercer County to be renamed I-295 in early 2018, several exit numbers to change (https://planetprinceton.com/2017/12/21/i-95-in-mercer-county-to-be-renamed-i-295-in-early-2018-several-exit-numbers-to-change/)
Article has a nice graphic showing all the numbering changes on both the NJ and PA sides of the project. Due to the way the road loops, exits will continue to count up on the NJ side (old exit 1 will be 76), but count down in PA. I assume PA will sign the directions as SB from the river to the new PATP interchange.
The legend in the lower left corner, in orange, shows that 295 in PA will be signed East/West. East will be mostly North; West will be mostly South.
IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south. Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 01:24:50 PM
IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south. Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.
I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.
The I-195 exits for I-295 should be 0A and 0B.
Perhaps this renumbering will inspire NJDOT and DRPA to correct the numbering of I-76's exits here in NJ.
Quote from: storm2k on December 22, 2017, 12:00:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 21, 2017, 09:32:35 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 21, 2017, 09:20:59 PM
I-287/I-78 interchange map improvements
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/projectmap.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/projectmap.pdf)
I see this is like CT, I bet the flyover ramp was complained about so they did a loop right?
Even though it takes up MORE space.
No no no. I-78 EB to I-287 NB remains the high-speed connection that it is now. Anything other than a loop for I-78 EB to 202/206 would require additional work to fit in the interchange and isn't really necessary.
My understanding was that the whole point of this project was driven by eliminating the left-hand entrance ramp onto 287NB from 78EB and moving it to a right hand ramp so that there would be less weaving both of trucks needing to get out of the left lane and also for traffic trying to fly over to get off at 202-206?? This includes getting rid of the existing ramp and moving it so it flys over 287NB and loops around where that unused ramp exists. Part of why they're moving the 287NB to 78EB ramp to make room for this (and improve its geometry). Or am I wrong?
Nopers. They're eliminating the weave by putting in the new ramp, but the existing left entrance shall remain. What, you think a 2-lane high speed roadway is getting replaced by a 1-lane loop?
Quote from: Alps on December 22, 2017, 05:16:22 PM
Nopers. They're eliminating the weave by putting in the new ramp, but the existing left entrance shall remain. What, you think a 2-lane high speed roadway is getting replaced by a 1-lane loop?
The project's website says otherwise: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/
QuoteA new flyover ramp from I-78 eastbound which connects with a right side entry to I-287 northbound by means of a new loop ramp. This new loop ramp will eliminate the existing ramp along with its left side entry to I-287 northbound.
Removal is detailed in this graphic: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/stageIIIB.pdf
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 22, 2017, 05:20:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 22, 2017, 05:16:22 PM
Nopers. They're eliminating the weave by putting in the new ramp, but the existing left entrance shall remain. What, you think a 2-lane high speed roadway is getting replaced by a 1-lane loop?
The project's website says otherwise: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/ (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/)
QuoteA new flyover ramp from I-78 eastbound which connects with a right side entry to I-287 northbound by means of a new loop ramp. This new loop ramp will eliminate the existing ramp along with its left side entry to I-287 northbound.
Removal is detailed in this graphic: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/stageIIIB.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/stageIIIB.pdf)
Shit. I've been in denial. This is terrible. Also it's only a one lane existing ramp. Take away my roadgeek crown.
Quote from: Alps on December 23, 2017, 11:51:03 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 22, 2017, 05:20:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 22, 2017, 05:16:22 PM
Nopers. They're eliminating the weave by putting in the new ramp, but the existing left entrance shall remain. What, you think a 2-lane high speed roadway is getting replaced by a 1-lane loop?
The project's website says otherwise: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/ (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/)
QuoteA new flyover ramp from I-78 eastbound which connects with a right side entry to I-287 northbound by means of a new loop ramp. This new loop ramp will eliminate the existing ramp along with its left side entry to I-287 northbound.
Removal is detailed in this graphic: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/stageIIIB.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/I287I78interchange/pdf/stageIIIB.pdf)
Shit. I've been in denial. This is terrible. Also it's only a one lane existing ramp. Take away my roadgeek crown.
Yeah, the double lane is onto 287SB, not NB.
What's up with the existing loop ramp anyway? Historic Aerials shows it was constructed between `79 & `87, but at no point does it actually appear to be in service...
Quote from: yakra on December 24, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
What's up with the existing loop ramp anyway? Historic Aerials shows it was constructed between `79 & `87, but at no point does it actually appear to be in service...
This was discussed earlier in this thread. You just have to go back and find it.
Haha, I was just about to post about how I didn't find replies #1521 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10453.msg2175339#msg2175339) and #1522 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10453.msg2175345#msg2175345). Just what I was looking for.
Quote from: akotchi on September 16, 2016, 09:16:36 PM
^^ It was a temporary ramp built when the existing left-entry ramp needed to be closed for redecking of the two bridges on the ramp. Left in after that work was done to use for emergency conditions.
This is exactly what I was beginning to suspect.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2017, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 01:24:50 PM
IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south. Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.
I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.
I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver. If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side. PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge. Exit numbers would have to remain as they are now, but you would have 2 sets of numbers for the same highway in the same state, which would be a violation. I know I-495 has 2 sets of numbers in VA on the DC beltway, but since I-495 on the Springfield-Wilson Bridge portion predates I-95, it was retained for continuity on the Beltway, and if you eliminated I-495 on the eastern portion of the beltway, you would have a similar situation as I-295. I-495 numbers, to be conforming, would have to start in Springfield and go up as you headed clockwise up to 30 in Silver Spring, then all of a sudden change to 27 and go down while remaining on the same roadway (not that that sudden change from 30 to 27 while remaining on the same roadway doesn't happen someplace else thanks to NYSDOT and ConnDOT). I suppose you could eliminate I-495 from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge and get away with it as it is now, but why bother?
Long story short, the I-195 designation would have worked because you could retain the North-South designation that PennDOT would have used in NJ from Scudders Falls to US 1, then change to East-West and not have to change mileposts because they would be conforming; going up as you go east. However, PennDOT and NJDOT just felt it was easier not to have I-195 exit itself and pull a modified version of the I-76/I-80 bump, and all of a sudden have the exit numbers and mileposts increasing to 60 with the next milepost being 15 and then start decreasing (vice versa in the opposite direction) while remaining on the thru route.
Using 195 still would've created a wrong way situation, as from Exit 60 to just south of Exit 67 I-295 goes mainly in a NNE direction, but would've been know as 195 West. And likewise, 195 East woulsve been going in a SSW direction.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
Using 195 still would've created a wrong way situation, as from Exit 60 to just south of Exit 67 I-295 goes mainly in a NNE direction, but would've been know as 195 West. And likewise, 195 East woulsve been going in a SSW direction.
It's as much a violation as I-278 over the Queens portion of the Triboro Bridge when you're heading east into Queens on I-278 West and west when you're heading to Randall's Island on I-278 East. Or on I-95 North when you're heading generally SSE just before the GWB. I think you could fudge it for this stretch.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 26, 2017, 10:21:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2017, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 01:24:50 PM
IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south. Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.
I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.
I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver. If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side. PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.
Nope, wrong. If a route has an eastern and a southern terminus in a single state, you pick one to start from and go consistently from there. You don't count back down just because the route changes direction. That has never happened anywhere among all the routes that change direction within a state.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 26, 2017, 10:51:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
Using 195 still would've created a wrong way situation, as from Exit 60 to just south of Exit 67 I-295 goes mainly in a NNE direction, but would've been know as 195 West. And likewise, 195 East woulsve been going in a SSW direction.
It's as much a violation as I-278 over the Queens portion of the Triboro Bridge when you're heading east into Queens on I-278 West and west when you're heading to Randall's Island on I-278 East. Or on I-95 North when you're heading generally SSE just before the GWB. I think you could fudge it for this stretch.
You could. My problems were that doing so would result in renumbering all of the exits along I-195 as well as the 15 affected miles of I-295, and that you're looking at one-lane ramp connections for a through route. Keeping it as 295 minimizes the renumbering of exits and maintains the through route. The floated I-895 would also have worked toward this end.
I actually like the idea of I-895 for this situation. It would be the least confusing for motorists.
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2017, 12:35:01 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 26, 2017, 10:21:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2017, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 01:24:50 PM
IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south. Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.
I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.
I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver. If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side. PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.
Nope, wrong. If a route has an eastern and a southern terminus in a single state, you pick one to start from and go consistently from there. You don't count back down just because the route changes direction. That has never happened anywhere among all the routes that change direction within a state.
Unless the route has distinct EB/WB and NB/SB legs that just happen to use the same number like NJ-7. But yes , those show up in the SLD as a different road segment rather than just the names for the primary and secondary direction changing midway.
I also don't support any of this and would be willing to launch a "how about you just build the missing highway instead of confusing people?" Campaign. It would never happen anytime soon but raising awareness that were still missing a major arterial is the type of subject Vox should do a video on. As a tax payer I feel cheated.
SM-G955U
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2017, 12:35:01 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 26, 2017, 10:21:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2017, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 01:24:50 PM
IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south. Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.
I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.
I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver. If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side. PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.
Nope, wrong. If a route has an eastern and a southern terminus in a single state, you pick one to start from and go consistently from there. You don't count back down just because the route changes direction. That has never happened anywhere among all the routes that change direction within a state.
Beltway's are a special case and have rules with exit numbering. I think they start at the South or west junction with parent and go clockwise( not sure if I am right so don't jump all over me if I am wrong) Jacksonville Florida beltway is counter- clock wise because the west beltway existed first. But there are Wrong way exits on the east belway... Exit number increase going south.
Z981
Quote from: plain on December 27, 2017, 09:55:09 AM
I actually like the idea of I-895 for this situation. It would be the least confusing for motorists.
Do you mean the declining number of motorists that truly pay attention to Exit numbers, or the increasing number of motorists that rely on their GPS and will gladly turn onto train tracks or a boat ramp if their GPS says to turn right?
Talk to most motorists, and they know their exit by either Exit number, route number, city name, or because they always look for a certain sign. Rarely do they know all the info for their exits. It's actually amazing what many motorists don't know...or pay attention to.
I'd rather the directions match the way the road goes in the state rather than get anal about the exit numbers when a road turns the "wrong" way. Beltways do it all the time, the Thruway does it, why can't I-295 in NJ do it? I'd rather the exits go the "wrong" way on an east-west section at the tail end of the road than have a very obviously north-south road get labeled east-west because NJ doesn't want to change directions at US 1 (especially since the only reason any section of the road would be east-west is so the directions don't flip at the state border).
Quote from: jwolfer on December 27, 2017, 10:35:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2017, 12:35:01 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 26, 2017, 10:21:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2017, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 01:24:50 PM
IMO they should have used east-west for the portion in NJ that's presently I-95, with the PA portion remaining north-south. Having PA be east-west where the road doesn't even remotely resemble a diagonal or an east-west route is probably the stupidest part of the whole plan.
I'd like to know the debate that went on and who agreed to the cardinal direction changes.
I think PennDOT labeled it East-West (it kind of moves from SW-NE in an inverse I-89 sort of way) so that at the Scudders Falls Bridge you wouldn't go from 295 North to 295 South and vice versa, and confuse the long distance driver. If actual cardinal directions were followed and it went from North-South in PA to East-West and North-South again, you would have a non-conforming highway on the NJ side. PA would be fine, but to be compliant in NJ, the mileposts would have to remain as they are now, starting at 0 at the state line, going up in number to the directional change, then going down in number to the Delaware Bridge.
Nope, wrong. If a route has an eastern and a southern terminus in a single state, you pick one to start from and go consistently from there. You don't count back down just because the route changes direction. That has never happened anywhere among all the routes that change direction within a state.
Beltway's are a special case and have rules with exit numbering. I think they start at the South or west junction with parent and go clockwise( not sure if I am right so don't jump all over me if I am wrong) Jacksonville Florida beltway is counter- clock wise because the west beltway existed first. But there are Wrong way exits on the east belway... Exit number increase going south.
Z981
The 2 beltway many people think of (DC and Baltimore) are interesting cases. Baltimore uses sequential numbers, but mileposts begin near the southernmost point just east of the Curtis Creek drawbridge; the Southwest junction with I-95 is at MP 7. DC's beltway was affected when I-95 through the city was cancelled. The mileposts from Springfield to the Wilson Bridge are a continuation of I-95 mileposts. The numbers reset to 0 for MD, and the numbers as you go counterclockwise increase, and I-495 retains Beltway mileage past the Silver Spring split and continues back to Springfield. DC is the only one whose exits increase counterclockwise; Indy, Columbus, and Cincinnati all increase clockwise from a southern or southwest junction (the parent in Cincy and Indy, I-71 in Columbus).
You could also do what Virginia does on both I-64 and I-295. Leave off the direction tabs and sign it as its control cities like they already have on the ACE.
It could be Philadelphia bound north of US 1 and Princeton Bound heading on the current I-95 and future SB I-295 in NJ. The exit numbers cannot be perfect as they are not in VA. I-64 have its numbers continuing to climb even after I-264 on the east side of Norfolk where I-64 east goes west to Bowers Hill. The numbers I would imagine have not confused motorists in Hampton Roads.
Heck I would feel that using Richmond from US 17 in Chesapeake going the wrong way on I-64 due to it using I-664 from Bowers Hill to Hampton and back the right way on I-64 would be more confusing then exit numbers going the other way.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 27, 2017, 04:54:53 PM
It could be Philadelphia bound north of US 1 and Princeton Bound heading on the current I-95 and future SB I-295 in NJ. The exit numbers cannot be perfect as they are not in VA.
Philadelphia is the current control city south on I-295 from US 1 (other than the old signs that said "Penna"). What PennDOT needs to do on I-95 from north of Center City is to either add New York as a control city or change Trenton to NYC, and from Woodhaven Rd North, include TO I-295 so as not to confuse the long distance driver when I-95 is shifted onto the Turnpike Extension. Future signage should say I-95 North/New York from Center City to Academy Rd, then I-95 North TO I-295/New York-Trenton from Woodhaven Rd north.
Has anyone noticed this? I drove on 208 this weekend from 4 to Ridgewood and the new mileage signs all show US 208 instead of NJ 208. It was well past sunset, so I couldn't take a good shot, but does anyone know if it's like that the whole way from 4 to 287?
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 27, 2017, 05:16:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 27, 2017, 04:54:53 PM
It could be Philadelphia bound north of US 1 and Princeton Bound heading on the current I-95 and future SB I-295 in NJ. The exit numbers cannot be perfect as they are not in VA.
Philadelphia is the current control city south on I-295 from US 1 (other than the old signs that said "Penna"). What PennDOT needs to do on I-95 from north of Center City is to either add New York as a control city or change Trenton to NYC, and from Woodhaven Rd North, include TO I-295 so as not to confuse the long distance driver when I-95 is shifted onto the Turnpike Extension. Future signage should say I-95 North/New York from Center City to Academy Rd, then I-95 North TO I-295/New York-Trenton from Woodhaven Rd north.
That would be like getting Maryland to replace New York with either Wilmington or Philadelphia or getting PennDOT also to remove Plymouth Meeting for NB I-476 in favor of Allentown. Good luck there.
Also did PennDOT get rid of Trenton as NB I-95 control city from US 1 near Oxford Valley? If they don't it will make I-295 even more awkward then it already is directing you wrong for a city you can get to by the continuing freeway that is the scenario now.
I've mentioned this many pages back & I will state such again: the currently-proposed direction cardinal changes for the stretch of I-95 that will become I-295 makes absolutely no sense; and, mark my words & bet your bottom dollar, once signs start popping up that read "295 NORTH Philadelphia" news organizations will broadcast such to literally embarrass the decision-makers regarding such.
If 295 is to be used: the solution is obvious; keep the PA stretch as north-south and make the NJ stretch between the PA border & US 1 as east-west but continue the mile marker/interchange numbers as if the direction cardinals don't change. Since the road in this area acts like a beltway; there is precedence for to do such.
Otherwise & as others (myself included) have suggested; redesignate the 95 stretch as separate 3di (I-695 would be my choice). Such would actually eliminate any need for NJDOT to alter the mile-markers/interchange numbers along that particular stretch. Since many are already used to the highway changing numbers at the US 1 interchange (since 1994); resigning I-95 south as I-695 west would likely not be a big deal.
Historical side note: prior to the Interstate system, this highway was originally planned as NJ 129 (saw this on an old 1957 layout plan for Trenton-Mercer Airport (TTN)) & such probably would've been signed as an east-west road had the Interstate Highway Act not happened.
It's interesting that NJDOT's including changes to the I-195/295 & US 206 interchange numbers as well. Such are independent of the I-95/295 stretch and IMHO should've been 1A-B-C-D from the get-go.
Maybe it'll make for an interesting piece of fodder for a day, but I'll hardly call it an embarrassment or a story people will remember for any period of time.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 29, 2017, 04:22:18 PM
I've mentioned this many pages back & I will state such again: the currently-proposed direction cardinal changes for the stretch of I-95 that will become I-295 makes absolutely no sense; and, mark my words & bet your bottom dollar, once signs start popping up that read "295 NORTH Philadelphia" news organizations will broadcast such to literally embarrass the decision-makers regarding such.
If 295 is to be used: the solution is obvious; keep the PA stretch as north-south and make the NJ stretch between the PA border & US 1 as east-west but continue the mile marker/interchange numbers as if the direction cardinals don't change. Since the road in this area acts like a beltway; there is precedence for to do such.
Otherwise & as others (myself included) have suggested; redesignate the 95 stretch as separate 3di (I-695 would be my choice). Such would actually eliminate any need for NJDOT to alter the mile-markers/interchange numbers along that particular stretch. Since many are already used to the highway changing numbers at the US 1 interchange (since 1994); resigning I-95 south as I-695 west would likely not be a big deal.
Historical side note: prior to the Interstate system, this highway was originally planned as NJ 129 (saw this on an old 1957 layout plan for Trenton-Mercer Airport (TTN)) & such probably would've been signed as an east-west road had the Interstate Highway Act not happened.
It's interesting that NJDOT's including changes to the I-195/295 & US 206 interchange numbers as well. Such are independent of the I-95/295 stretch and IMHO should've been 1A-B-C-D from the get-go.
Totally agree and I know that I've said similar on some post in a relevant thread several years ago. I also like I-695, since I see this as being very similar tot the situation in the SFO Bay area. I-280 is a N-S interstate on the west side of the Bay (SF-San Jose), that curves around and then at US 101 becomes another N-S interstate on the east side of the Bay area that is numbered I-680 (Cordelia-San Jose).
Here, it would be nice, but not critical if I-95 had a northbound control city of NYC from Philly to I-276. At the PA Tpk interchange, NYC must be the control for I-95 north and Trenton/Princteton should be the control for I-695 north. From US 1, US 1 should have the control of Morrisville/Trenton and I-695 should have the control of Princeton. As the road rounds the corner and continues as I-295 south of US 1, the new control should be Camden as is the current practice.
295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 11:23:14 PM
295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
Should be Camden until Camden, then Wilmington to match NJTP.
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2018, 11:51:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 11:23:14 PM
295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
Should be Camden until Camden, then Wilmington to match NJTP.
The NJ Turnpike should've matched 295 since they were first with the control points, current rules notwithstanding.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 06:14:44 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 01, 2018, 11:51:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 11:23:14 PM
295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
Should be Camden until Camden, then Wilmington to match NJTP.
The NJ Turnpike should've matched 295 since they were first with the control points, current rules notwithstanding.
They did it right, they did it from scratch, and if 295 is breaking the rules, that's NJDOT's problem.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 11:23:14 PM295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
One known exception (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.190341,-74.7195682,3a,75y,202.7h,75.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjp9IaEI246NfO690lc_oMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2018, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 11:23:14 PM295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
One known exception (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.190341,-74.7195682,3a,75y,202.7h,75.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjp9IaEI246NfO690lc_oMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
When they built the missing 295 link, and Route 29, they all specified Camden, as if that would become the new control city. Even the signs on 195 and 29 for 295 South point to Camden as well. Yet, when they did a sign replacement on 295, they maintained Delaware/DMB as the control city/cities on every other pull-thru sign.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2018, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 11:23:14 PM295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
One known exception (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.190341,-74.7195682,3a,75y,202.7h,75.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjp9IaEI246NfO690lc_oMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Last time I was there, Camden was the only control point signed up until Camden. It wasn't signed very frequently (though I could have sworn there was at least one more somewhere). In most places no control point was provided at all. Del Mem Br is signed somewhat more frequently south of Camden.
As for NJTP, I'm not sure why Camden is "right". NJTP is a long-distance road, while Camden is a local destination. 295 is the relatively local route, so Camden is fine there.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 02, 2018, 09:21:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2018, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 11:23:14 PM295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
One known exception (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.190341,-74.7195682,3a,75y,202.7h,75.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjp9IaEI246NfO690lc_oMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Last time I was there, Camden was the only control point signed up until Camden. It wasn't signed very frequently (though I could have sworn there was at least one more somewhere). In most places no control point was provided at all. Del Mem Br is signed somewhat more frequently south of Camden.
As for NJTP, I'm not sure why Camden is "right". NJTP is a long-distance road, while Camden is a local destination. 295 is the relatively local route, so Camden is fine there.
Here's the overhead signage on 295 South approaching Rt. 70. The problem using Camden as a pull-thru to I-76 is cases like there, where Rt. 70's destination cities also include Camden: https://goo.gl/maps/utyyyqyZP4z . The route is definitely shorter. Congestion-wise can be a tossup, as both 70 and 295 are often congested at the same time.
You could also take the 73 exit to 38 or even the 38 exit for Camden, depending on congestion, so not signing Camden on 295 Pull-thrus beginning with Exit 40 is probably a good idea. Kind of like how they switch from Trenton to Princeton Northbound at the NJ 29 exit despite US 1 and US 206 (and I think some other exits in between) go to Trenton as well.
I would say to have the SB control city change from Camden to Wilmington (Delaware, and especially Del Mem Br as control cities aren't MUTCD compliant) for Exit 34 (NJ 70). 70 is the most direct route into Camden, so that would be the best point. NB, it should be Camden/Trenton from the turnpike up to I-76, then Trenton only north of there.
Here is another crude representation on how to make SB signage MUTCD compliant:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4731/38573216355_5ed902b266.jpg)
Quote from: bzakharin on January 02, 2018, 09:58:40 AM
You could also take the 73 exit to 38 or even the 38 exit for Camden, depending on congestion, so not signing Camden on 295 Pull-thrus beginning with Exit 40 is probably a good idea.
While true, the actual difference is NJDOT physically signs Camden for Rt. 70. Exit 38 is simply signed for Moorestown. If Camden was a pull-thru destination, it wouldn't be smart to make it disappear at an interchange where it's not signed for the exit.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2018, 10:13:50 AM
I would say to have the SB control city change from Camden to Wilmington (Delaware, and especially Del Mem Br as control cities aren't MUTCD compliant) for Exit 34 (NJ 70). 70 is the most direct route into Camden, so that would be the best point. NB, it should be Camden/Trenton from the turnpike up to I-76, then Trenton only north of there.
Here is another crude representation on how to make SB signage MUTCD compliant:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4731/38573216355_5ed902b266.jpg)
The Del Mem logo isn't MUTCD compliant.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 09:38:35 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 02, 2018, 09:21:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2018, 09:06:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2018, 11:23:14 PM295 South's control is Delaware and/or Del. Mem. Br., not Camden.
One known exception (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.190341,-74.7195682,3a,75y,202.7h,75.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjp9IaEI246NfO690lc_oMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Last time I was there, Camden was the only control point signed up until Camden. It wasn't signed very frequently (though I could have sworn there was at least one more somewhere). In most places no control point was provided at all. Del Mem Br is signed somewhat more frequently south of Camden.
As for NJTP, I'm not sure why Camden is "right". NJTP is a long-distance road, while Camden is a local destination. 295 is the relatively local route, so Camden is fine there.
Here's the overhead signage on 295 South approaching Rt. 70. The problem using Camden as a pull-thru to I-76 is cases like there, where Rt. 70's destination cities also include Camden: https://goo.gl/maps/utyyyqyZP4z . The route is definitely shorter. Congestion-wise can be a tossup, as both 70 and 295 are often congested at the same time.
An interstate highway does not need to go into the control city, it just needs to get toward the control city, so long as there is adequate signage for the control city.
Here, good controls IMO for I-295 are Camden, Trenton, Princeton. In fact, I-295 goes to none of them. These are well-known mid-sized cities for NJ and are thus good control for I-295. You can use I-295 to get toward Camden, Trenton, and Princeton - but you also have to take another highway to actually reach those cities.
As stated by others, I-295 north to Camden and then take I-76 the rest of the way. I-295 north to Trenton and then take NJ 29 the rest of the way. I-295 north to Princeton and then take US 1 (or US 206) the rest of the way.
At the base of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 295 North is signed for Camden/Trenton. https://goo.gl/maps/dWsNY4oeXSw . However, that should link you to a GSV from a few years ago. For the past year or more, that BGS has gone missing for some unknown reason. The one before it still exists, and still says Camden/Trenton.
After that though, the next pull-thru sign is at Exit 14, where the road is shared by I-295/US 130, with Westville & Trenton as control cities. Westville has a population of 4,200 people. US 130 enters Camden. So go figure...
The next pull-thru sign: At around Exit 21...where it's Camden/Trenton again.
Westville is signed on the Exit 23 for US 130.. Camden is on the pull-thru sign, taking you to Exit 26.
I've ranted my hatred for magic acts when it comes to Control Cities in other threads. NJDOT has it down to an art form though.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 02:36:25 PM
At the base of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 295 North is signed for Camden/Trenton. https://goo.gl/maps/dWsNY4oeXSw . However, that should link you to a GSV from a few years ago. For the past year or more, that BGS has gone missing for some unknown reason. The one before it still exists, and still says Camden/Trenton.
After that though, the next pull-thru sign is at Exit 14, where the road is shared by I-295/US 130, with Westville & Trenton as control cities. Westville has a population of 4,200 people. US 130 enters Camden. So go figure...
The next pull-thru sign: At around Exit 21...where it's Camden/Trenton again.
Westville is signed on the Exit 23 for US 130.. Camden is on the pull-thru sign, taking you to Exit 26.
I've ranted my hatred for magic acts when it comes to Control Cities in other threads. NJDOT has it down to an art form though.
I believe the use of
Westville on that I-295/US 130 North pull-through BGS at Exit 14 is due to such being the next city along US 130 after it exits off I-295 (at Exit 23). IMHO, the use of such along w/Trenton is appropriate since it's treating I-295 & US 130 as two separate routes despite sharing the same corridor for a short distance; granted, one could argue that Westville/Camden combo at this location could also be used.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2018, 03:25:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 02:36:25 PM
At the base of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 295 North is signed for Camden/Trenton. https://goo.gl/maps/dWsNY4oeXSw . However, that should link you to a GSV from a few years ago. For the past year or more, that BGS has gone missing for some unknown reason. The one before it still exists, and still says Camden/Trenton.
After that though, the next pull-thru sign is at Exit 14, where the road is shared by I-295/US 130, with Westville & Trenton as control cities. Westville has a population of 4,200 people. US 130 enters Camden. So go figure...
The next pull-thru sign: At around Exit 21...where it's Camden/Trenton again.
Westville is signed on the Exit 23 for US 130.. Camden is on the pull-thru sign, taking you to Exit 26.
I've ranted my hatred for magic acts when it comes to Control Cities in other threads. NJDOT has it down to an art form though.
I believe the use of Westville on that I-295/US 130 North pull-through BGS at Exit 14 is due to such being the next city along US 130 after it exits off I-295 (at Exit 23). IMHO, the use of such along w/Trenton is appropriate since it's treating I-295 & US 130 as two separate routes despite sharing the same corridor for a short distance; granted, one could argue that Westville/Camden combo at this location could also be used.
Actually, it's a Borough. Sure, it's the next *municipality* on 130 after it splits off from 295, but that's all.
And to note the inconsistency compared to the Southbound direction: When 130 South meets 295 South, the signs on 295 state "295 South TO 130 South", even though it's actually 295/130 South. And the Control Cities: Delaware/Del Mem Br. No mention of a control city for 130 South.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 03:38:37 PMActually, it's a Borough. Sure, it's the next *municipality* on 130 after it splits off from 295, but that's all.
And such is all that's needed. Let's be honest: barring an accident-related closure/jam-up along 295 or needing to make a stop in the Westville area; most heading to Camden from this area
are going to stay on I-295 until I-76 West to pick up US 130 North rather than following it further south.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 03:38:37 PM
And to note the inconsistency compared to the Southbound direction: When 130 South meets 295 South, the signs on 295 state "295 South TO 130 South", even though it's actually 295/130 South. And the Control Cities: Delaware/Del Mem Br. No mention of a control city for 130 South.
I agree & will give you that one. Bridgeport
should've been used for the US 130 southbound control destination where it multiplexes w/I-295.
Big, broad, open ended question: with the recent structural emergency on the Newark Bay Bridge, what's the general consensus about this bridge's lifespan? Lots of other truss bridges in the New York area, some admittedly older, are being scrapped in favor of modern, safer alternatives. Is this even on anyone's radar?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2018, 01:59:36 AM
Big, broad, open ended question: with the recent structural emergency on the Newark Bay Bridge, what's the general consensus about this bridge's lifespan? Lots of other truss bridges in the New York area, some admittedly older, are being scrapped in favor of modern, safer alternatives. Is this even on anyone's radar?
This is a new development, so I don't think there is a consensus. There have been options on the table to rehab this bridge and keep it with a parallel span (or spans), and there have been options to replace it entirely. The fact that rehab is on the table suggests it can continue to have a useful life, but unless major work is done, I don't think anyone would argue, it's at the end of its life just based on age, design parameters, and how often those parameters are exceeded by multiple hundreds of percent (traffic volumes more than triple design, vehicle weights and overweights more than double design, etc.).
How does this development affect things? Short and long answer is, we need to wait and see. Is this getting worse, is it systematic, is it easily curable? This will take months to suss out.
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2018, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2018, 01:59:36 AM
Big, broad, open ended question: with the recent structural emergency on the Newark Bay Bridge, what's the general consensus about this bridge's lifespan? Lots of other truss bridges in the New York area, some admittedly older, are being scrapped in favor of modern, safer alternatives. Is this even on anyone's radar?
This is a new development, so I don't think there is a consensus. There have been options on the table to rehab this bridge and keep it with a parallel span (or spans), and there have been options to replace it entirely. The fact that rehab is on the table suggests it can continue to have a useful life, but unless major work is done, I don't think anyone would argue, it's at the end of its life just based on age, design parameters, and how often those parameters are exceeded by multiple hundreds of percent (traffic volumes more than triple design, vehicle weights and overweights more than double design, etc.).
How does this development affect things? Short and long answer is, we need to wait and see. Is this getting worse, is it systematic, is it easily curable? This will take months to suss out.
I believe this bridge is the same age (1956) and type as the PA Turnpike connector bridge and that bridge was (is?) to be twinned for the completion of I-95, so obviously there is a belief it can last many more years.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2018, 10:18:35 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 02, 2018, 09:58:40 AM
You could also take the 73 exit to 38 or even the 38 exit for Camden, depending on congestion, so not signing Camden on 295 Pull-thrus beginning with Exit 40 is probably a good idea.
While true, the actual difference is NJDOT physically signs Camden for Rt. 70. Exit 38 is simply signed for Moorestown. If Camden was a pull-thru destination, it wouldn't be smart to make it disappear at an interchange where it's not signed for the exit.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 02, 2018, 10:13:50 AM
I would say to have the SB control city change from Camden to Wilmington (Delaware, and especially Del Mem Br as control cities aren't MUTCD compliant) for Exit 34 (NJ 70). 70 is the most direct route into Camden, so that would be the best point. NB, it should be Camden/Trenton from the turnpike up to I-76, then Trenton only north of there.
Here is another crude representation on how to make SB signage MUTCD compliant:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4731/38573216355_5ed902b266.jpg)
The Del Mem logo isn't MUTCD compliant.
Come to Florida and see Miami disappear just south of Melbourne as West Palm becomes the city. Go NB on I-95 and Daytona Beach disappears after Sebastian. So the mileage signs keep you hanging there as Jacksonville takes over. The Daytona Beach 55 sign is gone in Titusville that used to be a follow up to SR 528 and Port St. John Parkway using that location as a control city.
Go to Missouri and see how I-70 changes from Columbia to either Booneville, Wentzville, or some other small city along the way. True it has no pull through signs but the mileage signs change long before you reach Columbia. Also to note St. Louis is used in KC EB, but after you leave the metro Columbia becomes it.
Then Kansas signs Des Moines on I-35 as soon as you reach Olathe going NB, yet Kansas City which is used as far back as Wichita is not reached by a long shot. In fact I-435 at its southern junction with its parent signs I-35 NB heading inside the Beltway as Des Moines too. Considering I-435 is a bypass it should be more local to get motorists to stay on the loop to avoid the big city in between. Even Missouri signs I-435 with other interstate control destinations to keep through traffic out of Downtown KS. Yet KDOT signs not even a control city on their part of the I-435 loop anywhere.
Quote from: Steve D on January 04, 2018, 12:55:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2018, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2018, 01:59:36 AM
Big, broad, open ended question: with the recent structural emergency on the Newark Bay Bridge, what's the general consensus about this bridge's lifespan? Lots of other truss bridges in the New York area, some admittedly older, are being scrapped in favor of modern, safer alternatives. Is this even on anyone's radar?
This is a new development, so I don't think there is a consensus. There have been options on the table to rehab this bridge and keep it with a parallel span (or spans), and there have been options to replace it entirely. The fact that rehab is on the table suggests it can continue to have a useful life, but unless major work is done, I don't think anyone would argue, it's at the end of its life just based on age, design parameters, and how often those parameters are exceeded by multiple hundreds of percent (traffic volumes more than triple design, vehicle weights and overweights more than double design, etc.).
How does this development affect things? Short and long answer is, we need to wait and see. Is this getting worse, is it systematic, is it easily curable? This will take months to suss out.
I believe this bridge is the same age (1956) and type as the PA Turnpike connector bridge and that bridge was (is?) to be twinned for the completion of I-95, so obviously there is a belief it can last many more years.
Night and day. The PA Tpk. bridge sees far less traffic.
Wait, what? A new I-78 overpass misspells Pattenburg Road (http://www.nj.com/hunterdon/index.ssf/2018/01/sign_misspelled_on_i-78.html)
QuoteTake Exit 11 off Interstate 78 in New Jersey, and you might be headed for Pattenburg. That's what the signs say.
But if you continue on by, you pass under "Pattenbug Road." That's what the other, misspelled signs say.
Quality control, am I right?
Complaining about misspelled signs on the side of bridges is silly enough. A news article is even dumber. I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 06, 2018, 02:51:02 PM
Complaining about misspelled signs on the side of bridges is silly enough. A news article is even dumber. I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?
A newspaper has countless numbers of spelling errors on a daily basis. I hope they proofread the article a few times to be certain they're not doing any of their own within the article.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 06, 2018, 02:51:02 PM
I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?
/me checks number of forum members
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 06, 2018, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 06, 2018, 02:51:02 PM
I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?
/me checks number of forum members
:-D
Quote from: storm2k on January 06, 2018, 01:48:35 PM
Wait, what? A new I-78 overpass misspells Pattenburg Road (http://www.nj.com/hunterdon/index.ssf/2018/01/sign_misspelled_on_i-78.html)
QuoteTake Exit 11 off Interstate 78 in New Jersey, and you might be headed for Pattenburg. That's what the signs say.
But if you continue on by, you pass under "Pattenbug Road." That's what the other, misspelled signs say.
Quality control, am I right?
Someone who can't spell is fabricating signs in Region 1.
What are NJDOT's regions anyway?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2018, 04:04:23 PM
What are NJDOT's regions anyway?
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/directory/northregion.shtm
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/directory/centralregion.shtm
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/directory/centralregion.shtm
ixnay
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 06, 2018, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 06, 2018, 02:51:02 PM
I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?
/me checks number of forum members
I meant outside of us. We are a minority. A very loud minority.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 06, 2018, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 06, 2018, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 06, 2018, 02:51:02 PM
I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?
/me checks number of forum members
I meant outside of us. We are a minority. A very loud minority.
Are you sure about that? Anytime I've posted anything 'official' it seems to go completely untouched. I've yet to hear anyone say "Hey, let's all go to a DOT public meeting".
And the people that point out the sign mis-spellings and go to the papers about it? Don't think they have anything to do with this group.
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2018, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2018, 01:59:36 AM
Big, broad, open ended question: with the recent structural emergency on the Newark Bay Bridge, what's the general consensus about this bridge's lifespan? Lots of other truss bridges in the New York area, some admittedly older, are being scrapped in favor of modern, safer alternatives. Is this even on anyone's radar?
This is a new development, so I don't think there is a consensus. There have been options on the table to rehab this bridge and keep it with a parallel span (or spans), and there have been options to replace it entirely. The fact that rehab is on the table suggests it can continue to have a useful life, but unless major work is done, I don't think anyone would argue, it's at the end of its life just based on age, design parameters, and how often those parameters are exceeded by multiple hundreds of percent (traffic volumes more than triple design, vehicle weights and overweights more than double design, etc.).
How does this development affect things? Short and long answer is, we need to wait and see. Is this getting worse, is it systematic, is it easily curable? This will take months to suss out.
A belated thanks for this insightful reply.
I know the Skyway closure has exacerbated things, but with so many modern structures appearing, the Newark Bay Bridge feels almost claustrophobic, regardless of whether the shoulder is in use. I mean this not just in terms of lane capacity–more lanes would ultimately just push the bottleneck into Hudson County–but the spacing of the lanes.
It will be interesting to see how this develops over time.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2018, 05:05:20 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2018, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 04, 2018, 01:59:36 AM
Big, broad, open ended question: with the recent structural emergency on the Newark Bay Bridge, what's the general consensus about this bridge's lifespan? Lots of other truss bridges in the New York area, some admittedly older, are being scrapped in favor of modern, safer alternatives. Is this even on anyone's radar?
This is a new development, so I don't think there is a consensus. There have been options on the table to rehab this bridge and keep it with a parallel span (or spans), and there have been options to replace it entirely. The fact that rehab is on the table suggests it can continue to have a useful life, but unless major work is done, I don't think anyone would argue, it's at the end of its life just based on age, design parameters, and how often those parameters are exceeded by multiple hundreds of percent (traffic volumes more than triple design, vehicle weights and overweights more than double design, etc.).
How does this development affect things? Short and long answer is, we need to wait and see. Is this getting worse, is it systematic, is it easily curable? This will take months to suss out.
A belated thanks for this insightful reply.
I know the Skyway closure has exacerbated things, but with so many modern structures appearing, the Newark Bay Bridge feels almost claustrophobic, regardless of whether the shoulder is in use. I mean this not just in terms of lane capacity–more lanes would ultimately just push the bottleneck into Hudson County–but the spacing of the lanes.
It will be interesting to see how this develops over time.
The lanes are all 12'. It's the lack of shoulders you bemoan. Originally the bridge was 3 lanes each way with minimal if any shoulders, as was the Delaware River Bridge. The NJTA then cut the bridge to 2 lanes each way to provide shoulders.
The Star-Ledger gets into roadgeekery: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/vintage_photos_of_nj_streets_and_roads.html
An example of how traffic engineers care about their own little project, and fail to look out for anything else:
A recent reallocation of lane usage for US 1 near 95/295 and the Quakerbridge Mall was put out to bid, with the bids being opened last week. Included are numerous signage changes. Not included though, on the new signs, was the allowance for the fact that 95 will no longer exist in the area, and it will simply be 295.
Here's the publicly available addenda site for the project: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a4e4b6ca89e420865780e9f . Scroll to pages 39 & 40. The newly designed signs still include 95 South as part of the signage!
Now, I know that this project has been in the design phase for the past few years. But then again, so has the redesignation of I-95 to I-295. How something like this gets thru every step along the way shows that people are in their own little group, and could care less about any other project in the area that may, in some way, impact their project.
Now, are the signage changes going to require a significant deviation from what was bid on? No. But it'll still require another change; another design; another numerous approval sequence, for something that has been known within DOT for a few years now!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 12:37:14 PM
An example of how traffic engineers care about their own little project, and fail to look out for anything else:
A recent reallocation of lane usage for US 1 near 95/295 and the Quakerbridge Mall was put out to bid, with the bids being opened last week. Included are numerous signage changes. Not included though, on the new signs, was the allowance for the fact that 95 will no longer exist in the area, and it will simply be 295.
Here's the publicly available addenda site for the project: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a4e4b6ca89e420865780e9f . Scroll to pages 39 & 40. The newly designed signs still include 95 South as part of the signage!
Now, I know that this project has been in the design phase for the past few years. But then again, so has the redesignation of I-95 to I-295. How something like this gets thru every step along the way shows that people are in their own little group, and could care less about any other project in the area that may, in some way, impact their project.
Now, are the signage changes going to require a significant deviation from what was bid on? No. But it'll still require another change; another design; another numerous approval sequence, for something that has been known within DOT for a few years now!
Bud did they know which project will be completed first? Do they even know now?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 12:37:14 PM
An example of how traffic engineers care about their own little project, and fail to look out for anything else:
A recent reallocation of lane usage for US 1 near 95/295 and the Quakerbridge Mall was put out to bid, with the bids being opened last week. Included are numerous signage changes. Not included though, on the new signs, was the allowance for the fact that 95 will no longer exist in the area, and it will simply be 295.
Here's the publicly available addenda site for the project: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a4e4b6ca89e420865780e9f . Scroll to pages 39 & 40. The newly designed signs still include 95 South as part of the signage!
Now, I know that this project has been in the design phase for the past few years. But then again, so has the redesignation of I-95 to I-295. How something like this gets thru every step along the way shows that people are in their own little group, and could care less about any other project in the area that may, in some way, impact their project.
Now, are the signage changes going to require a significant deviation from what was bid on? No. But it'll still require another change; another design; another numerous approval sequence, for something that has been known within DOT for a few years now!
Your first sentence is completely wrong. The problem is that different project managers don't always communicate effectively. The manager for this project may not have known about the other one. And if he didn't communicate it to the designers, you get what you have here. Not to mention that the whole debate about 195 vs. 295 wasn't settled until relatively recently, so it's possible the designer was told "just put 95 and we'll make an addendum later." I would be very surprised if this gets installed with 95s.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2018, 12:37:14 PM
An example of how traffic engineers care about their own little project, and fail to look out for anything else:
A recent reallocation of lane usage for US 1 near 95/295 and the Quakerbridge Mall was put out to bid, with the bids being opened last week. Included are numerous signage changes. Not included though, on the new signs, was the allowance for the fact that 95 will no longer exist in the area, and it will simply be 295.
Here's the publicly available addenda site for the project: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a4e4b6ca89e420865780e9f . Scroll to pages 39 & 40. The newly designed signs still include 95 South as part of the signage!
Now, I know that this project has been in the design phase for the past few years. But then again, so has the redesignation of I-95 to I-295. How something like this gets thru every step along the way shows that people are in their own little group, and could care less about any other project in the area that may, in some way, impact their project.
Now, are the signage changes going to require a significant deviation from what was bid on? No. But it'll still require another change; another design; another numerous approval sequence, for something that has been known within DOT for a few years now!
There are many folks still holding out on that renumbering. If the road in front of my house is still NJ-24 complete with DOT signage from the state routes (I live in long valley), then that part of 95 will still be "95" (if not in signage than in verbiage) for decades to come.
Obviously there are a large score of people pushing for the Somerset freeway and with major infrastructure funding under trump, you'll see a few route numbers flipping back and forth.
SM-G955U
Well, the Somerset Freeway is officially cancelled, so that's never going to happen.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 18, 2018, 01:50:10 PM
But did they know which project will be completed first? Do they even know now?
Yes - the timeline is part of the project bid notice. On here: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a1857f258e7ba05fc5926f2 , the project's estimated completion date is the year 2020. The 95/295 resigning is to be completed this year.
Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2018, 11:49:49 PM
Your first sentence is completely wrong. The problem is that different project managers don't always communicate effectively. The manager for this project may not have known about the other one. And if he didn't communicate it to the designers, you get what you have here. Not to mention that the whole debate about 195 vs. 295 wasn't settled until relatively recently, so it's possible the designer was told "just put 95 and we'll make an addendum later." I would be very surprised if this gets installed with 95s.
But both projects were in the TIP. So there's clear public knowledge of the two projects. A project manager could easily review the TIP as well just to know what other projects exist. Heck, the TIP narrows projects down to the same county if someone just wanted a brief overview of an area their project is in. And if not the project manager, then someone up the chain. Even putting '195 West' on the plan at least shows there was some knowledge about the route number change, even if it changed again.
One other notable example of this was on I-295. NJDOT was installing numerous VMS boards to the highway, including one about a mile north of NJ 73 in the median. Problem was, this same area was due to be widened (bridge replacement and widened pavement for wider shoulders). The new VMS board was installed in the median, but never got turned on. It was removed about a month after installation because it was in the way of the widening project.
One project had no clue about the widening, the other project had no clue about the signing project. It got all the way past actual construction before the conflict was realized. Both projects were long-planned TIP projects; both projects even involved the same roadway!
I don't know how NJDOT does it, but with NYSDOT, TIP/STIP management is handled by Planning and Program Management rather than Design, and it's surprisingly easy for a group to silo themselves such that knowledge doesn't communicate through.
I hope that Bordentown gets removed as Camden should have always been there even before the final segment got completed. Even US 206 always had Camden long before the completion.
Plus I wonder now if NY will be removed or will it stay and be copied on future sign replacements at the current US 206 at I-95 N Bound ramp (soon to be NB US 206 at SB or EB I-295 ramp, though not the same project that Jeff talks about, but being that New York is no longer a point of interest once I-95 gets removed from this part of Mercer County.
I'm curious about something. Does anyone happen to know why, when NJDOT reconfigured the Exit 33 offramp from 78WB to CR-525 back in the early 90s, they made two left turn lanes and only one right turn lane (from 1 and 1). I take this exit to get to work, and the traffic backs up onto the 78 mainline a lot of mornings. The bulk of the Liberty Corner office buildings are to the north of the ramp (either on 525 itself, or off Allen Rd, a little ways up). I know there's the Warren office complex south of the interchange, but it does seem like one lane would handle the traffic sufficiently. it would make sense, to my untrained eye, to have 2 right turn lanes there (honestly, the best thing would be an acceleration lane on 525 NB, but there isn't enough room). Just wondering if anyone knows.
Quote from: storm2k on February 09, 2018, 05:08:54 PM
I'm curious about something. Does anyone happen to know why, when NJDOT reconfigured the Exit 33 offramp from 78WB to CR-525 back in the early 90s, they made two left turn lanes and only one right turn lane (from 1 and 1). I take this exit to get to work, and the traffic backs up onto the 78 mainline a lot of mornings. The bulk of the Liberty Corner office buildings are to the north of the ramp (either on 525 itself, or off Allen Rd, a little ways up). I know there's the Warren office complex south of the interchange, but it does seem like one lane would handle the traffic sufficiently. it would make sense, to my untrained eye, to have 2 right turn lanes there (honestly, the best thing would be an acceleration lane on 525 NB, but there isn't enough room). Just wondering if anyone knows.
One lane with turns on red (or no light at all) will tend to flow better than two lanes with no turn on red (which is what it would be in NJ).
I was reading up on something interesting about a road in NJ you're not supposed to go on: Normandy Road. This is because it leads to a naval weapons station.
http://weirdnj.com/stories/roads-less-traveled/normandy-road/
I wonder, for a road that you shouldn't go on, ever, that leads to a very important location that should be well guarded, why are none of the access points controlled? This is in a heavily populated area. I also found it interesting that all the intersections this road has with public roads seem to be painfully skewed, and they also have tons of 12-8-8s and 3M M131s.
You can check it out on GSV if you're interested. Normandy road, near its end, goes up to a very long causeway that leads to loading docks.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4379923,-74.0610541,86m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3964712,-74.0845079,127a,35y,189.7h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3
The old causeway was built during WWII, I think, and it's got an interesting setup. It appears there were three reversible lanes, and railroad tracks occupied the two outermost lanes. Perhaps this was so reversible lane signals could be used to direct military traffic out of lanes occupied by trains? Obviously, there's no photos of the road or causeway, because it's likely anyone who tried would be thrown in jail.
Is not Area 91 or whatever north of Las Vegas the same way? It is restricted to all civilians but not fenced off. You accidentally wander in there the MPs arrest you, and of course ignorance of the law is no excuse plus the US military could actually do whatever they want to you so consider it a kangaroo court system.
Of course like Earle the area in the desert may not be for weapons, but it has classified flight vehicles being tested for warfare hence the many UFO sightings in the area around it. For all we know the drones back in the Reagan era were in test phase then and used here until the government decided to use it in action. Plus Lockheed- Martin in Orlando makes some of the government's aircraft prototypes and even some employees I know who worked there on such military projects, had to swear to secrecy including keeping such information classified to their spouses as of course we do not want ISIS or some other nation to learn what new weapons we are testing to up ourselves on defense.
Quote from: index on February 11, 2018, 02:05:48 PM
I was reading up on something interesting about a road in NJ you're not supposed to go on: Normandy Road. This is because it leads to a naval weapons station.
http://weirdnj.com/stories/roads-less-traveled/normandy-road/
I wonder, for a road that you shouldn't go on, ever, that leads to a very important location that should be well guarded, why are none of the access points controlled? This is in a heavily populated area. I also found it interesting that all the intersections this road has with public roads seem to be painfully skewed, and they also have tons of 12-8-8s and 3M M131s.
You can check it out on GSV if you're interested. Normandy road, near its end, goes up to a very long causeway that leads to loading docks.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4379923,-74.0610541,86m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3964712,-74.0845079,127a,35y,189.7h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3
The old causeway was built during WWII, I think, and it's got an interesting setup. It appears there were three reversible lanes, and railroad tracks occupied the two outermost lanes. Perhaps this was so reversible lane signals could be used to direct military traffic out of lanes occupied by trains? Obviously, there's no photos of the road or causeway, because it's likely anyone who tried would be thrown in jail.
It doesn't lead you there. It takes you from one end of Earle to the other. And there are photos of it at various intersections with local roads, including the big signs that tell you not to trespass as it's military property. Buddy of mine got to drive on it once when the company he worked for had to go on base to do some work they were contracted for.
Quote from: storm2k on February 12, 2018, 11:20:18 PM
Quote from: index on February 11, 2018, 02:05:48 PM
I was reading up on something interesting about a road in NJ you're not supposed to go on: Normandy Road. This is because it leads to a naval weapons station.
http://weirdnj.com/stories/roads-less-traveled/normandy-road/
I wonder, for a road that you shouldn't go on, ever, that leads to a very important location that should be well guarded, why are none of the access points controlled? This is in a heavily populated area. I also found it interesting that all the intersections this road has with public roads seem to be painfully skewed, and they also have tons of 12-8-8s and 3M M131s.
You can check it out on GSV if you're interested. Normandy road, near its end, goes up to a very long causeway that leads to loading docks.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4379923,-74.0610541,86m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3964712,-74.0845079,127a,35y,189.7h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3
The old causeway was built during WWII, I think, and it's got an interesting setup. It appears there were three reversible lanes, and railroad tracks occupied the two outermost lanes. Perhaps this was so reversible lane signals could be used to direct military traffic out of lanes occupied by trains? Obviously, there's no photos of the road or causeway, because it's likely anyone who tried would be thrown in jail.
It doesn't lead you there. It takes you from one end of Earle to the other. And there are photos of it at various intersections with local roads, including the big signs that tell you not to trespass as it's military property. Buddy of mine got to drive on it once when the company he worked for had to go on base to do some work they were contracted for.
Huh? It does lead you to the dock. It follows the railroad out of Earle.
Quote from: index on February 11, 2018, 02:05:48 PM
I wonder, for a road that you shouldn't go on, ever, that leads to a very important location that should be well guarded, why are none of the access points controlled?
Oh, they're controlled. If you turn onto that road and you're not supposed to be there, the MPs will know and they'll be on top of you real fast.
I was told once by a railfan that even when the US Navy has a train using the tracks, the MPs guard the train thoroughly and even to get a picture of a locomotive is difficult due to them being at every grade crossing along the way.
My question is why the high fence on the Parkway and Route 18 over Normandy Road?
With the advent of enhanced mile markers throughout the state, there are a couple of neat quirks:
* All of Route 7 is mileposted north-south, even though the part through Kearny is still signed east-west. That leads to "SOUTH 7" milemarker within a few feet of "EAST 7" reassurance. Not confusing at all.
* For some reason, Truck 1-9 is mileposted east-west. Oops.
Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2018, 07:27:42 PM
With the advent of enhanced mile markers throughout the state, there are a couple of neat quirks:
* All of Route 7 is mileposted north-south, even though the part through Kearny is still signed east-west. That leads to "SOUTH 7" milemarker within a few feet of "EAST 7" reassurance. Not confusing at all.
* For some reason, Truck 1-9 is mileposted east-west. Oops.
Never mind the fact that Route 167 is now public.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 10:57:18 AM
The FY18 NJ TIP was recently published and the opportunity for public comment occurred, mostly during September. The public comments have been published, and while originally they was a decent list of them, all I can find now is this clickable link that shows the areas of projects and the comments for such:
https://www.dvrpc.org/asp/TIPSearch/2018/NJ/
I can tell you that of the 120 or so comments, nearly half of them were directed in favor of the South Jersey Light Rail line. Most of the comments were generic, with a single sentence or two saying how much the region needs the line and that they support this project. Many, from what I gather, aren't even within DVRPC's region and would never ride the line if it was ever built. For what it's worth, the project is currently unfunded except for a few million dollars for various prelim work, and neither NJ Transit or the DRPA appears to be interested in the project.
I submitted several comments; some related to road projects within the TIP; others were suggestion for projects not listed. Most of my comments, along with many others, were responded with "Your comment has been submitted to NJDOT for review", which means they'll probably never see the light of day again.
The DVRPC meets this morning to basically rubberstamp its approval of the comments.
Reverting back to this topic I brought up in the past regarding TIP public comments.
The entire packet has been approved and finally posted online. https://www.dvrpc.org/TIP/NJfinal/2018/G.pdf
I'll say, I was actually pleasantly surprised. NJDOT actually provided comments that weren't of the "Yeah, whatever" variety.
The packet is broken up into sections, and with it being 250 pages long, it's a little cumbersome to go thru. Basically, the first section is a summary. The second section is the actual submission. The third section is submissions *after* the comment period. The fourth section resummarizes the comment (poorly), and then finally the DVRPC and NJDOT comments on it.
You'll notice the overwhelming majority of the responses are from members of 2 groups. Clearly, they organize their members to send form-letter type responses. A few actually get creative and write their own thoughts. One group apparently got to a number of their members late, and they all submitted their form letters well after the comment period ended. While the comments were included within the overall packet, the DVRPC and NJDOT did not respond to those responses.
Of the comments I submitted, a few received basic "NJDOT will be looking at options for the area" responses. A few others actually agreed with my position (I think...it was a little hard to tell). And one got a very favorable response when sent from NJDOT to the county, although it was a bit funny the county was looking at it from a pedestrian perspective.
The actual changes to the TIP as a result of this, as seen on the last page of the link above, was basically a few small wording changes for some of the projects. The Circuit Trail - one of the mass form-letter comments - received better wording to allocate $1 million for projects.
In the end, does any of it matter? Maybe, but probably not.
Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2018, 07:27:42 PM
With the advent of enhanced mile markers throughout the state, there are a couple of neat quirks:
* All of Route 7 is mileposted north-south, even though the part through Kearny is still signed east-west. That leads to "SOUTH 7" milemarker within a few feet of "EAST 7" reassurance. Not confusing at all.
* For some reason, Truck 1-9 is mileposted east-west. Oops.
What shield did they put on the 1-9T markers? I think the route is officially US 1 Truck in NJDOT's world and I know they tend to only count the mileage and sign one route of a multiplex (e.g., 1-9 uses 1's mileage and is signed as 1 from the merger in Woodbridge thru the rest of the multiplex).
No photo, since traffic didn't stop, but the "Your tax dollars at work" sign where the 1-9 South ramp splits off 495 has an I-495 shield! I was that very moment reminiscing about the last of those shields right around there, and lo and behold fate sent me a present.
Quote from: storm2k on February 22, 2018, 10:35:26 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2018, 07:27:42 PM
With the advent of enhanced mile markers throughout the state, there are a couple of neat quirks:
* All of Route 7 is mileposted north-south, even though the part through Kearny is still signed east-west. That leads to "SOUTH 7" milemarker within a few feet of "EAST 7" reassurance. Not confusing at all.
* For some reason, Truck 1-9 is mileposted east-west. Oops.
What shield did they put on the 1-9T markers? I think the route is officially US 1 Truck in NJDOT's world and I know they tend to only count the mileage and sign one route of a multiplex (e.g., 1-9 uses 1's mileage and is signed as 1 from the merger in Woodbridge thru the rest of the multiplex).
US 1-9 (hyphen) with the word TRUCK written... I think below, I forget, in tiny letters.
If they are patterned after the U.S. 1 Business markers in the Trenton area, "TRUCK" would be above the shield in very tiny capital letters.
That circle always had poor signage. The entire area did. US 206 N Bound only uses the circle but SB trailblazers put it inside the circle as no shield tells the SB US 206 driver to turn right on MLK where the SLD has it.
I remember just how long it took to change ALT to Business as even in 1988 it was still signed as US 1 ALT in the area. Still some US 1 Business shields are along MLK in Trenton even though its been truncated for decades.
Quote from: cl94 on February 21, 2018, 08:53:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2018, 07:27:42 PM
With the advent of enhanced mile markers throughout the state, there are a couple of neat quirks:
* All of Route 7 is mileposted north-south, even though the part through Kearny is still signed east-west. That leads to "SOUTH 7" milemarker within a few feet of "EAST 7" reassurance. Not confusing at all.
* For some reason, Truck 1-9 is mileposted east-west. Oops.
Never mind the fact that Route 167 is now public.
Damn it, you made me go out and find the markers.
(https://i.imgur.com/CO6GHKP.jpg)
So begins my quest to find out whether other previously hidden routes got the same treatment.
NJ 13 does not have it yet.
NJ 163 does not have them yet.
Those are the only ones I checked
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 23, 2018, 11:44:29 PM
NJ 13 does not have it yet.
NJ 163 does not have them yet.
Those are the only ones I checked
No on 64 as of December
With 167, though, milepost 0.5 looks like it should exist, albeit on the part that's run down or concrete pavers. Is that one posted?
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on February 23, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 21, 2018, 08:53:52 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 20, 2018, 07:27:42 PM
With the advent of enhanced mile markers throughout the state, there are a couple of neat quirks:
* All of Route 7 is mileposted north-south, even though the part through Kearny is still signed east-west. That leads to "SOUTH 7" milemarker within a few feet of "EAST 7" reassurance. Not confusing at all.
* For some reason, Truck 1-9 is mileposted east-west. Oops.
Never mind the fact that Route 167 is now public.
Damn it, you made me go out and find the markers.
(https://i.imgur.com/CO6GHKP.jpg)
So begins my quest to find out whether other previously hidden routes got the same treatment.
I'll have to take a ride to Cranford and see if they put them up for 59, even though that's not as hidden anymore since NJDOT put the 59 shield on the overhead street sign at the intersection with 28.
Also, an interesting note. 4 or 6 lane divided roads that are close enough to freeway class are getting the milemarkers every .2 miles (and signs posted facing both ways). I'm talking about 18 in New Brunswick, 1-9 in Newark north of North Ave, etc. The only road that fit that description that I can think of that used to have milemarkers every tenth of a mile was 21 on the freeway section north of Newark.
Even though many cops have computers in their vehicles, many tickets are written up the old-fashion way...via carbonless copy paper.
Here's one example: https://www.scribd.com/document/366058632/Steinfeld-summons#fullscreen&from_embed . It's not mine, but a picture of a ticket given to someone going 78 in a 50 while speeding to the hospital because his wife was "very" pregnant and ready to give birth. The cop still wrote up a ticket, and offered to get them an ambulance, which they declined.
The couple plea bargained the ticket down to a minor, no point violation, costing them $92 in total. The original ticket, at 27 over, would've been around $250 or so & 4 points.
The story: https://www.app.com/story/news/crime/jersey-mayhem/2018/02/23/new-jersey-man-ticketed-speeding-howell-nj-wife-labor-resolves-case/368558002/
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 24, 2018, 12:12:25 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 23, 2018, 11:44:29 PM
NJ 13 does not have it yet.
NJ 163 does not have them yet.
Those are the only ones I checked
No on 64 as of December
With 167, though, milepost 0.5 looks like it should exist, albeit on the part that's run down or concrete pavers. Is that one posted?
When I went there, I missed NJ 167's northern segment. I also have a shot of the new NJ 167 ones.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 26, 2018, 10:10:52 AM
Even though many cops have computers in their vehicles, many tickets are written up the old-fashion way...via carbonless copy paper.
Here's one example: https://www.scribd.com/document/366058632/Steinfeld-summons#fullscreen&from_embed . It's not mine, but a picture of a ticket given to someone going 78 in a 50 while speeding to the hospital because his wife was "very" pregnant and ready to give birth. The cop still wrote up a ticket, and offered to get them an ambulance, which they declined.
The couple plea bargained the ticket down to a minor, no point violation, costing them $92 in total. The original ticket, at 27 over, would've been around $250 or so & 4 points.
The story: https://www.app.com/story/news/crime/jersey-mayhem/2018/02/23/new-jersey-man-ticketed-speeding-howell-nj-wife-labor-resolves-case/368558002/
It always surprises me that NJ still uses paper tickets for moving violations. I think with the patchwork of municipalities and the like, maybe it's too much effort to move to a fully digital ticket system, but who knows.
Quote from: storm2k on February 27, 2018, 09:40:52 AM
It always surprises me that NJ still uses paper tickets for moving violations. I think with the patchwork of municipalities and the like, maybe it's too much effort to move to a fully digital ticket system, but who knows.
There are places that use exclusively electronic ticketing systems?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on February 27, 2018, 09:48:32 AM
Quote from: storm2k on February 27, 2018, 09:40:52 AM
It always surprises me that NJ still uses paper tickets for moving violations. I think with the patchwork of municipalities and the like, maybe it's too much effort to move to a fully digital ticket system, but who knows.
There are places that use exclusively electronic ticketing systems?
By which I mean the PO types the info into his computer or a handheld and it prints out a ticket for you.
One interesting thing about the new mile markers. Here is the MM7.5 sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5672655,-74.5387848,3a,75y,269.73h,78.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC_yt-qxe63AdUf8l6HK27g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for Route 28 going WB. See the sign on the other side of the road, a bit further down the road? That's the EB sign. 28 doesn't have any parts that don't run together in its western section from Branchburg thru this point (the only ones I know of are in Plainfield and in Elizabeth near the eastern end of the road) but the signs aren't aligned with each other. It's not even the convenience of putting the signs on other posts as they are both new freestanding assemblies. You'll also notice this old MM7 sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5679492,-74.5483058,3a,75y,286.47h,89.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8HE-juVsUjetO4y7ZDUBkg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on the bus stop sign, but you can see that its replacement is fairly further down the road. Incidentally, if you look at the new signs, they're not offset at all at this point. Go figure.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/022618.shtm
The Shoulder Use experiment on US 1 in the area of South Brunswick where it's 2 lanes each way proved to be a success and will remain a permanent change.
There are long-term plans in creating a true 3rd lane in this area, but we're talking many, many years away.
Is the South Jersey Transportation Authority ever going to replace the ACE's substandard signs with more MUTCD compliant signs? I was on GSV looking at the GSP interchange and still the all upper case signs are there along with no overheads there (except for one a half mile back going EB and the bridge signs WB) but for the most part ground signs on a three to four lane freeway that usually is supposed to be more overhead.
You would think that they after all these years would bring the signs up to date and more uniform.
There has been construction on the ACE at the GSP interchange (unrelated to the widening). Wouldn't be surprised if signs are replaced while they are working there.
Signs have been replaced over time with standardized signage.
Curious: what's with the new signal bridges (being installed) at Fire & Roosevelt Avenue near Atlantic City? It seems to be loosely related to the road work ongoing just west with the GSP: https://goo.gl/maps/7tEonsBiwDk
Quote from: seicer on March 07, 2018, 08:23:51 PM
Curious: what's with the new signal bridges (being installed) at Fire & Roosevelt Avenue near Atlantic City? It seems to be loosely related to the road work ongoing just west with the GSP: https://goo.gl/maps/7tEonsBiwDk
Either overhead crossbucks, or new signals for the rail line.
Quote from: seicer on March 07, 2018, 08:23:51 PM
Curious: what's with the new signal bridges (being installed) at Fire & Roosevelt Avenue near Atlantic City? It seems to be loosely related to the road work ongoing just west with the GSP: https://goo.gl/maps/7tEonsBiwDk
It's related to road widening for a new Walmart on 40/322 and Fire Rd. The Walmart opened last year. Based on the story below, the new signals were being installed around October, 2016.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/railroad-lights-moved-back-in-advance-of-eht-wal-mart/article_78442078-f26f-5f63-83c4-50e4bd27db04.html
Gotcha. It's an overhead gantry for signals for Fire Road. I thought at first that it was an overhead gantry for the modern vertical Safetran signals for the railroad - which would be a waste since the line ends just west of Fire Road.
New Jersey has a nifty new Weigh-in-Motion website that details down to the hour what their road sensors have picked up for traffic activity on the roads and highways at the stations around the state.
https://www.njtms.org/njwimsite/
What I found most useful is clicking on the 'Maps' link at the top of the page, then choosing an active WIM site. You can view traffic volumes on a daily basis, and by clicking on a day, you can view the traffic on an hourly basis. For many routes, you'll find interesting patterns for weekdays, when there's 2 clearly defined rush hours, and on the weekends, when traffic builds up towards the afternoon only. There's even a symbol to click on to see the weather for that particular day. The only thing missing that I would like to see is travel speeds during those periods.
Speaking of, their Speed Data tables are also updated for 2017. Of note is the continuing rising of average and 85th percentile speeds, with 85th percentile speeds at or well over 80 mph on some 65 mph highways. On many other roadways, the average/85th percentile speed is in excess of 15 mph over the limit. On US 1T, the average speed is often 20 mph over the noted 30 mph limit, and the 85th percentile limit is nearly DOUBLE the 30 mph limit. Yet, other road data matches up close to the stated speed limit. On US 9 in Bass River, the average, median and 85th percentile speeds are nearly all under the 55 mph limit there.
That all said, I did find at least one stated speed limit that may not be correct for US 40...unless it did rise to 55 from a life-long 50 mph zone. So, there can be some errors within the report.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/speed.shtm
The former Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City will become the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel this summer. The below link is for their outdoor signage plans. On Page 5 it details their directional signage to the various roadways leaving the casino...which is where you can see if the designer knows what he's talking about. You'll see the signage uses proper symbol and generally accepted local lingo, stating "Atlantic City Expy", Route (US)30 and Route (US)40.
https://www.njcrda.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/file-g-2018-02-15-HRAC-Exterior-Sign-Bid-Set-x.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 03:03:25 PM
The former Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City will become the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel this summer. The below link is for their outdoor signage plans. On Page 5 it details their directional signage to the various roadways leaving the casino...which is where you can see if the designer knows what he's talking about. You'll see the signage uses proper symbol and generally accepted local lingo, stating "Atlantic City Expy", Route (US)30 and Route (US)40.
https://www.njcrda.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/file-g-2018-02-15-HRAC-Exterior-Sign-Bid-Set-x.pdf
I'm not sure how widely routes 40 and 30 are known by those numbers (and what happened to 322?). Through most of the state it would be Black Horse Pike and White Horse Pike. Though in ACY it's Albany Ave and Absecon Blvd.
Quote from: bzakharin on March 15, 2018, 05:25:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 03:03:25 PM
The former Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City will become the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel this summer. The below link is for their outdoor signage plans. On Page 5 it details their directional signage to the various roadways leaving the casino...which is where you can see if the designer knows what he's talking about. You'll see the signage uses proper symbol and generally accepted local lingo, stating "Atlantic City Expy", Route (US)30 and Route (US)40.
https://www.njcrda.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/file-g-2018-02-15-HRAC-Exterior-Sign-Bid-Set-x.pdf
I'm not sure how widely routes 40 and 30 are known by those numbers (and what happened to 322?). Through most of the state it would be Black Horse Pike and White Horse Pike. Though in ACY it's Albany Ave and Absecon Blvd.
They're well known by those numbers and fully signed. I agree about 322.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2018, 03:03:25 PM
The former Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City will become the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel this summer. The below link is for their outdoor signage plans. On Page 5 it details their directional signage to the various roadways leaving the casino...which is where you can see if the designer knows what he's talking about. You'll see the signage uses proper symbol and generally accepted local lingo, stating "Atlantic City Expy", Route (US)30 and Route (US)40.
https://www.njcrda.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/file-g-2018-02-15-HRAC-Exterior-Sign-Bid-Set-x.pdf
I'm surprised they're not using Thesis TheSans as the typeface, which Hard Rock uses in all of their promotional materials.
It looks like NJDOT has been busy installing new mile markers on state and US routes in my area of South Jersey as of late. NJ 41 and NJ 38 have been replaced this week. NJ 73 still has the old markers as of yesterday. US 9 and US 40 in the Atlantic City area have had the new ones for months now.
Quote from: bzakharin on March 30, 2018, 05:25:33 PM
It looks like NJDOT has been busy installing new mile markers on state and US routes in my area of South Jersey as of late. NJ 41 and NJ 38 have been replaced this week. NJ 73 still has the old markers as of yesterday. US 9 and US 40 in the Atlantic City area have had the new ones for months now.
They've been doing it in waves across the state. In some places, there are signs for a certain length and then not in other places yet.
More amusing is that they aren't always removing the old mile markers, which are sometimes quite a distance from the equivalent new ones.
I really wish I knew who was the most influential person responsible for approving design choices in New Jersey so I could invest significant time and money swaying their opinion and exerting much more effort and energy then they have in order to project my will onto them and the DOT. I will call people and yell at then daily just for fun.
Here are things I disagree with NJDOT on and would have no problem punching someone in the face over:
1. disappearing black backgrounds on bgs shields
2. destroying the turnpike arrows I grew up with
3. you still haven't bulilt 95
4. why are there still toll booths
5. why does it take you longer than a president's term to build *anything* with the technology we have today? Look at any other state .. Tx is a great example.
6. why do we pay so much for so little?
7. why do you keep outsourcing construction with dirty bidding when most states have state employees on the clock doing road building?
Bonus anger for the PANYNJ:
6. why do 2 toll gates (from local roads no less) being closed cause such congestion at the gwb that it was able to become a sociopolitical scandal? what if they were closed simply because of an accident or malfunction? People died in ambulances.
SM-G955U
I miss the little green square or rectangular markers with just the milepost number (no "Mile") on NJDOT roads.
ixnay
Quote from: _Simon on April 01, 2018, 12:58:53 PM
I really wish I knew who was the most influential person responsible for approving design choices in New Jersey so I could invest significant time and money swaying their opinion and exerting much more effort and energy then they have in order to project my will onto them and the DOT. I will call people and yell at then daily just for fun.
Here are things I disagree with NJDOT on and would have no problem punching someone in the face over:
1. disappearing black backgrounds on bgs shields
2. destroying the turnpike arrows I grew up with
3. you still haven't bulilt 95
4. why are there still toll booths
5. why does it take you longer than a president's term to build *anything* with the technology we have today? Look at any other state .. Tx is a great example.
6. why do we pay so much for so little?
7. why do you keep outsourcing construction with dirty bidding when most states have state employees on the clock doing road building?
Bonus anger for the PANYNJ:
6. why do 2 toll gates (from local roads no less) being closed cause such congestion at the gwb that it was able to become a sociopolitical scandal? what if they were closed simply because of an accident or malfunction? People died in ambulances.
SM-G955U
1 & 2: Talk to the feds. NJ is simply following MUTCD standards.
3. You know that decision was approved by the feds 35 years ago. Again, by the feds.
4. Slightly irritating. It's basically due to unions and a public that doesn't like change.
5. Technology doesn't have much to do with it. Modern work rules do. Comparing Texas to NJ is laughable, because of their population densities. Compare NJ to NYC.
6. Unions. Politicians. And don't be fooled by the internet. Yeah, we pay a lot, but not as much as some badly written stories would lead you to believe.
7. Most states don't have employees building roads. Most states contract out work to the lowest bidder.
6 again: No toll gates were closed. 3 lanes from a local area narrowed down to one lane, going thru 1 toll lane. The 2 toll lanes were still open for motorists coming via I-95. And a person died, not people. Still not acceptable.
Quote from: _Simon on April 01, 2018, 12:58:53 PM
I really wish I knew who was the most influential person responsible for approving design choices in New Jersey so I could invest significant time and money swaying their opinion and exerting much more effort and energy then they have in order to project my will onto them and the DOT. I will call people and yell at then daily just for fun.
Here are things I disagree with NJDOT on and would have no problem punching someone in the face over:
1. disappearing black backgrounds on bgs shields
2. destroying the turnpike arrows I grew up with
3. you still haven't bulilt 95
4. why are there still toll booths
5. why does it take you longer than a president's term to build *anything* with the technology we have today? Look at any other state .. Tx is a great example.
6. why do we pay so much for so little?
7. why do you keep outsourcing construction with dirty bidding when most states have state employees on the clock doing road building?
Bonus anger for the PANYNJ:
6. why do 2 toll gates (from local roads no less) being closed cause such congestion at the gwb that it was able to become a sociopolitical scandal? what if they were closed simply because of an accident or malfunction? People died in ambulances.
Reasons I will disagree and you will lose:
1) not MUTCD standard, as green is already a dark background.
2) not MUTCD standard, already decided
((not responding to trolling))
I'm still waiting for Simon to punch people over Breezewood from several months ago :)
Does anyone have a subscription to this publication: https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation?v=preview ? The preview only allows you to read the first paragraph or two.
And Bellmawr, NJ has transferred 'ownership' of a portion of Benigno Blvd to NJDOT, which was necessary for the 295/42 Missing Moves project: https://southjerseyobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Benigno-Boulevard-Missing-Moves-South-Jersey-Observer.pdf . Specifically, they're talking about the area where, if you exit Rt. 42 North at Exit 14, it's the street to the right that would eventually take you to Rt. 168 by the NJ Turnpike entrance to Interchange 3.
They referred to the 'round bed' and 'bed'. Gotta say I never heard these terms used before about roads in this context. I've heard road bed, but these terms used in this manner seem odd!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2018, 01:37:03 PM
Does anyone have a subscription to this publication: https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation?v=preview (https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation?v=preview) ? The preview only allows you to read the first paragraph or two.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:90zFgGnVe6QJ:https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:90zFgGnVe6QJ:https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
And if it holds - congrats to Ms. Gutierrez-Scacetti. I remember her from years ago and it's nice to see her return.
Quote from: Alps on April 06, 2018, 06:27:33 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2018, 01:37:03 PM
Does anyone have a subscription to this publication: https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation?v=preview (https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation?v=preview) ? The preview only allows you to read the first paragraph or two.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:90zFgGnVe6QJ:https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:90zFgGnVe6QJ:https://www.enr.com/articles/44173-njdot-its-transition-time-in-transportation+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
And if it holds - congrats to Ms. Gutierrez-Scacetti. I remember her from years ago and it's nice to see her return.
Thanks for that! And yes, it'll be nice to have a Transportation Commissioner that has plenty of experience!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2018, 01:45:18 PM
And Bellmawr, NJ has transferred 'ownership' of a portion of Benigno Blvd to NJDOT, which was necessary for the 295/42 Missing Moves project: https://southjerseyobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Benigno-Boulevard-Missing-Moves-South-Jersey-Observer.pdf . Specifically, they're talking about the area where, if you exit Rt. 42 North at Exit 14, it's the street to the right that would eventually take you to Rt. 168 by the NJ Turnpike entrance to Interchange 3.
They referred to the 'round bed' and 'bed'. Gotta say I never heard these terms used before about roads in this context. I've heard road bed, but these terms used in this manner seem odd!
Does this mean it's going to get some state route designation for one block or whatever that's only signed on the traffic light poles?
Does this mean that work on the Missing Moves project is imminent?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on April 07, 2018, 10:32:53 AM
Does this mean that work on the Missing Moves project is imminent?
Not really. It's currently programmed to start in FY 2019, which means anytime after July or October, 2018. It's been pushed back on a yearly basis for over a decade now. But it's as close as it's ever been, IMO. See page 4 of: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip1827/sec3/pdf/routes/rt295.pdf . For projects that are imminent (within 6 months or so), they will appear here: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ .
That said, the developer of the Bellmawr Landfill, which is really the main reason why these ramps haven't been built yet, has published yet another version of his plans. NJDOT wants to put a roundabout in just off the Southbound entrance/exit of Rt. 42 at Exit 14. The developer has his own idea, which pushes access from Creek Rd to Rt. 42 much further away than it is now, in an obvious attempt to try to get traffic to drive past his development. It remains to be seen what NJDOT has to say about it.
(Note: Page 3 in the above TIP link details funding plans for the 295/38 missing moves project. This project was on the books last decade, and after estimates went over $100 million - for 2 ramps - it came off the books. It suddenly re-appeared this year.)
Quote from: dgolub on April 07, 2018, 08:54:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2018, 01:45:18 PM
And Bellmawr, NJ has transferred 'ownership' of a portion of Benigno Blvd to NJDOT, which was necessary for the 295/42 Missing Moves project: https://southjerseyobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Benigno-Boulevard-Missing-Moves-South-Jersey-Observer.pdf . Specifically, they're talking about the area where, if you exit Rt. 42 North at Exit 14, it's the street to the right that would eventually take you to Rt. 168 by the NJ Turnpike entrance to Interchange 3.
They referred to the 'round bed' and 'bed'. Gotta say I never heard these terms used before about roads in this context. I've heard road bed, but these terms used in this manner seem odd!
Does this mean it's going to get some state route designation for one block or whatever that's only signed on the traffic light poles?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends who ultimately has jurisdiction. In this area alone, NJDOT has constructed, worked on and utilizes several municipal roads to get traffic to/from Creek Rd and Rt. 42, and none of them have state routes numbers.
Quote from: dgolub on April 07, 2018, 08:54:34 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2018, 01:45:18 PM
And Bellmawr, NJ has transferred 'ownership' of a portion of Benigno Blvd to NJDOT, which was necessary for the 295/42 Missing Moves project: https://southjerseyobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Benigno-Boulevard-Missing-Moves-South-Jersey-Observer.pdf . Specifically, they're talking about the area where, if you exit Rt. 42 North at Exit 14, it's the street to the right that would eventually take you to Rt. 168 by the NJ Turnpike entrance to Interchange 3.
They referred to the 'round bed' and 'bed'. Gotta say I never heard these terms used before about roads in this context. I've heard road bed, but these terms used in this manner seem odd!
Does this mean it's going to get some state route designation for one block or whatever that's only signed on the traffic light poles?
Doesn't seem like it, but I didn't see the attachment with Areas 2 and 3 highlighted. If there is a continuous ROW from Route 42 to 168, there is a chance, but it would require legislation to add it as a highway. If this is just a block or two piece, then it would count as part of the 42 interchange.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2018, 11:26:33 PM
Quote from: _Simon on April 01, 2018, 12:58:53 PM
I really wish I knew who was the most influential person responsible for approving design choices in New Jersey so I could invest significant time and money swaying their opinion and exerting much more effort and energy then they have in order to project my will onto them and the DOT. I will call people and yell at then daily just for fun.
Here are things I disagree with NJDOT on and would have no problem punching someone in the face over:
1. disappearing black backgrounds on bgs shields
2. destroying the turnpike arrows I grew up with
3. you still haven't bulilt 95
4. why are there still toll booths
5. why does it take you longer than a president's term to build *anything* with the technology we have today? Look at any other state .. Tx is a great example.
6. why do we pay so much for so little?
7. why do you keep outsourcing construction with dirty bidding when most states have state employees on the clock doing road building?
Bonus anger for the PANYNJ:
6. why do 2 toll gates (from local roads no less) being closed cause such congestion at the gwb that it was able to become a sociopolitical scandal? what if they were closed simply because of an accident or malfunction? People died in ambulances.
SM-G955U
6 again: No toll gates were closed. 3 lanes from a local area narrowed down to one lane, going thru 1 toll lane. The 2 toll lanes were still open for motorists coming via I-95. And a person died, not people. Still not acceptable.
I didn't know somebody died as a direct result of that. What exact lanes were closed?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 09, 2018, 04:55:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2018, 11:26:33 PM
Quote from: _Simon on April 01, 2018, 12:58:53 PM
I really wish I knew who was the most influential person responsible for approving design choices in New Jersey so I could invest significant time and money swaying their opinion and exerting much more effort and energy then they have in order to project my will onto them and the DOT. I will call people and yell at then daily just for fun.
Here are things I disagree with NJDOT on and would have no problem punching someone in the face over:
1. disappearing black backgrounds on bgs shields
2. destroying the turnpike arrows I grew up with
3. you still haven't bulilt 95
4. why are there still toll booths
5. why does it take you longer than a president's term to build *anything* with the technology we have today? Look at any other state .. Tx is a great example.
6. why do we pay so much for so little?
7. why do you keep outsourcing construction with dirty bidding when most states have state employees on the clock doing road building?
Bonus anger for the PANYNJ:
6. why do 2 toll gates (from local roads no less) being closed cause such congestion at the gwb that it was able to become a sociopolitical scandal? what if they were closed simply because of an accident or malfunction? People died in ambulances.
SM-G955U
6 again: No toll gates were closed. 3 lanes from a local area narrowed down to one lane, going thru 1 toll lane. The 2 toll lanes were still open for motorists coming via I-95. And a person died, not people. Still not acceptable.
I didn't know somebody died as a direct result of that. What exact lanes were closed?
Somebody died in an accident because of Christie closing down streets? Yes, what *were* the details?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on April 10, 2018, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 09, 2018, 04:55:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2018, 11:26:33 PM
Quote from: _Simon on April 01, 2018, 12:58:53 PM
I really wish I knew who was the most influential person responsible for approving design choices in New Jersey so I could invest significant time and money swaying their opinion and exerting much more effort and energy then they have in order to project my will onto them and the DOT. I will call people and yell at then daily just for fun.
Here are things I disagree with NJDOT on and would have no problem punching someone in the face over:
1. disappearing black backgrounds on bgs shields
2. destroying the turnpike arrows I grew up with
3. you still haven't bulilt 95
4. why are there still toll booths
5. why does it take you longer than a president's term to build *anything* with the technology we have today? Look at any other state .. Tx is a great example.
6. why do we pay so much for so little?
7. why do you keep outsourcing construction with dirty bidding when most states have state employees on the clock doing road building?
Bonus anger for the PANYNJ:
6. why do 2 toll gates (from local roads no less) being closed cause such congestion at the gwb that it was able to become a sociopolitical scandal? what if they were closed simply because of an accident or malfunction? People died in ambulances.
SM-G955U
6 again: No toll gates were closed. 3 lanes from a local area narrowed down to one lane, going thru 1 toll lane. The 2 toll lanes were still open for motorists coming via I-95. And a person died, not people. Still not acceptable.
I didn't know somebody died as a direct result of that. What exact lanes were closed?
Somebody died in an accident because of Christie closing down streets? Yes, what *were* the details?
ixnay
It wasn't a car accident. Both of these were widely reported, but here's a quick synopsis of what happened: Using this aerial view: https://goo.gl/maps/ijf1c3X1KYx, you see 3 lanes coming in off of Bruce Reynolds Blvd in Fort Lee towards the toll plaza. During the morning rush hour, they use cones to allow those 3 lanes to go straight into the right 3 toll booths. You can see the cones here set up on the shoulder and between the 3rd & 4th toll lane: https://goo.gl/maps/wQU5Qf55SCx . Since it's not during the morning rush the lanes are open to those already on 95 as well.
In this incident, the cones were rearranged to force traffic from all 3 lanes to merge into only 1 toll lane. Because of that, it severely congested traffic throughout the city. And within that congestion, an ambulance was trying to get someone to a hospital. The ambulance was stuck in traffic, and ultimately the person died either on the way to the hospital or just after arriving. Now, to be fair, the congestion was never the cause of the person dying - it was simply reported that way by the media, but no one was ever held responsible for the death (because, after all, congestion exists everyday anyway).
But, the issue with the traffic is that people are set in their ways, and people expect certain conditions. Also, the GWB has had this traffic pattern in place during the morning rush for years, because it makes the best of a bad situation. It was widely believed that by changing the traffic pattern unexpectedly and without warning to restrict traffic coming in from Fort Lee to the bridge, it would serve as a 'punishment' to Fort Lee for not supporting the Governor.
Technically, the 2 other toll lanes were never closed - they were simply reallocated to traffic already on I-95.
Quote from: ixnay on April 10, 2018, 08:04:35 AM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on April 09, 2018, 04:55:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2018, 11:26:33 PM
Quote from: _Simon on April 01, 2018, 12:58:53 PM
I really wish I knew who was the most influential person responsible for approving design choices in New Jersey so I could invest significant time and money swaying their opinion and exerting much more effort and energy then they have in order to project my will onto them and the DOT. I will call people and yell at then daily just for fun.
Here are things I disagree with NJDOT on and would have no problem punching someone in the face over:
1. disappearing black backgrounds on bgs shields
2. destroying the turnpike arrows I grew up with
3. you still haven't bulilt 95
4. why are there still toll booths
5. why does it take you longer than a president's term to build *anything* with the technology we have today? Look at any other state .. Tx is a great example.
6. why do we pay so much for so little?
7. why do you keep outsourcing construction with dirty bidding when most states have state employees on the clock doing road building?
Bonus anger for the PANYNJ:
6. why do 2 toll gates (from local roads no less) being closed cause such congestion at the gwb that it was able to become a sociopolitical scandal? what if they were closed simply because of an accident or malfunction? People died in ambulances.
SM-G955U
6 again: No toll gates were closed. 3 lanes from a local area narrowed down to one lane, going thru 1 toll lane. The 2 toll lanes were still open for motorists coming via I-95. And a person died, not people. Still not acceptable.
I didn't know somebody died as a direct result of that. What exact lanes were closed?
Somebody died in an accident because of Christie closing down streets? Yes, what *were* the details?
ixnay
Christie is gone, so no more worries about him as you now have a new governor lol!
In all seriousness though, its like a train crossing an arterial when an ambulance needs to cross the RR Tracks, if a patient dies in transport then,the train then becomes the regular day to day elements and cannot blame the fact the rails are there for the death. The same in regular traffic even in Florida here where greedy developers created 90 percent of today's jams where years ago one could get to the hospital in a few minutes now could take fifteen or twenty.
QuoteIn this incident, the cones were rearranged to force traffic from all 3 lanes to merge into only 1 toll lane. Because of that, it severely congested traffic throughout the city. And within that congestion, an ambulance was trying to get someone to a hospital. The ambulance was stuck in traffic, and ultimately the person died either on the way to the hospital or just after arriving. Now, to be fair, the congestion was never the cause of the person dying - it was simply reported that way by the media, but no one was ever held responsible for the death (because, after all, congestion exists everyday anyway).
Yeah, *now* I remember, jeffandnicole. I'd forgotten about that inconvenienced ambulance. Thanks for jogging my brain.
ixnay
Work on the final portion of the US 206 bypass near Hillsborough will start this weekend. Two other projects to widen another 2.5 mile of 206 north of the bypass are in the pipeline as well.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/041318.shtm
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 13, 2018, 03:03:32 PM
Work on the final portion of the US 206 bypass near Hillsborough will start this weekend. Two other projects to widen another 2.5 mile of 206 north of the bypass are in the pipeline as well.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/041318.shtm
Great, I guess, but until they fix the bottlenecks north of there (especially the Conrail overpass, which is allegedly being addressed in the Valley Rd to Brown Ave segment) and have four divided lanes from the circle to the bypass, it won't do a whole heck of a lot to make traffic better in that area.
Quote from: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 13, 2018, 03:03:32 PM
Work on the final portion of the US 206 bypass near Hillsborough will start this weekend. Two other projects to widen another 2.5 mile of 206 north of the bypass are in the pipeline as well.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/041318.shtm
Great, I guess, but until they fix the bottlenecks north of there (especially the Conrail overpass, which is allegedly being addressed in the Valley Rd to Brown Ave segment) and have four divided lanes from the circle to the bypass, it won't do a whole heck of a lot to make traffic better in that area.
For that matter, they need to extend the four-lane from the south end of the bypass to Great Rd.
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2018, 07:34:49 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 13, 2018, 03:03:32 PM
Work on the final portion of the US 206 bypass near Hillsborough will start this weekend. Two other projects to widen another 2.5 mile of 206 north of the bypass are in the pipeline as well.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/041318.shtm
Great, I guess, but until they fix the bottlenecks north of there (especially the Conrail overpass, which is allegedly being addressed in the Valley Rd to Brown Ave segment) and have four divided lanes from the circle to the bypass, it won't do a whole heck of a lot to make traffic better in that area.
For that matter, they need to extend the four-lane from the south end of the bypass to Great Rd.
Where is Great Rd?
Quote from: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 10:42:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 13, 2018, 07:34:49 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 13, 2018, 03:03:32 PM
Work on the final portion of the US 206 bypass near Hillsborough will start this weekend. Two other projects to widen another 2.5 mile of 206 north of the bypass are in the pipeline as well.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/041318.shtm
Great, I guess, but until they fix the bottlenecks north of there (especially the Conrail overpass, which is allegedly being addressed in the Valley Rd to Brown Ave segment) and have four divided lanes from the circle to the bypass, it won't do a whole heck of a lot to make traffic better in that area.
For that matter, they need to extend the four-lane from the south end of the bypass to Great Rd.
Where is Great Rd?
CR 601 up there. It's the western bypass of Princeton.
I drove US 206 in 09, it was horrible between Raritan and Princeton. Even in the 80's it was bad and talk about that widening was present then as well as the never built NJ 92 where it was suggested to widen US 206 to where the freeway to the turnpike would have departed.
I heard also that Doris Duke was a key player in holding up US 206 from being widened from a coworker of mine who lived off of US 206 back then. I do not know how valid that rumor was as The Star Ledger stated how broke NJ was back then as why it took till early 2000's to replace the US 1 & 9 viaduct in Elizabeth and took this long to replace NJ 72 over Little Egg Harbor and of course NJ 31 never getting its proper widening it should really have to this day.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2018, 03:22:23 PM
I drove US 206 in 09, it was horrible between Raritan and Princeton. Even in the 80's it was bad and talk about that widening was present then as well as the never built NJ 92 where it was suggested to widen US 206 to where the freeway to the turnpike would have departed.
I heard also that Doris Duke was a key player in holding up US 206 from being widened from a coworker of mine who lived off of US 206 back then. I do not know how valid that rumor was as The Star Ledger stated how broke NJ was back then as why it took till early 2000's to replace the US 1 & 9 viaduct in Elizabeth and took this long to replace NJ 72 over Little Egg Harbor and of course NJ 31 never getting its proper widening it should really have to this day.
It was way worse prior to the work between Brown Ave and the Somerville Circle in the late 90s. There was very frequently one long line of standstill traffic starting as far north as S Bridge St or Orlando Dr through Amwell Rd on many days.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2455557,-74.7434165,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxthOoAjNgpVxRijgdMhl4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Is NJDOT ever going to tell motorists the truth and let them know that US 1 Business does not go right here with US 206? Its been years since US 1 Business went into Downtown Trenton (and I believe it was US 1 Alternate when it did) and yet this sign still exists.
Also US 206 does not really enter the circle except the NB lanes from Brunswick Avenue. Yet, NJDOT has no signs either to direct motorists onto Princeton Avenue before the circle! Google maps shows both US 206 North and South on MLK (Princeton Avenue) where it really should be. No need for NB US 206 either to use Brunswick Avenue so it all should be on MLK.
If it were my suggestion, I would eliminate US 206 to travel south of I-295 and just sign it on 295 down to I-195 and then on 195 for that short one exit stretch onto itself from Whitehorse. Just have a 3 digit NJ route number for state maintained portions of US 206 and no number where Trenton maintains it. Being its not a through route anymore and that locals use the street names instead, just let it be a bypass on the interstate.
Is New Jersey's only 800-series county route signed at all? Middlesex County Route 807. From GSV I can't see any but that doesn't mean they dont exist or have never existed.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 20, 2018, 10:46:29 PM
Is New Jersey's only 800-series county route signed at all? Middlesex County Route 807. From GSV I can't see any but that doesn't mean they dont exist or have never existed.
It is not, I've driven the length of it.
Middlesex County's own documents don't note CR-807's existence. NJDOT's SLDs for county 600/700 routes should be taken with a grain of salt since most of them are outdated or otherwise incorrect.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 21, 2018, 12:25:34 AM
Middlesex County's own documents don't note CR-807's existence. NJDOT's SLDs for county 600/700 routes should be taken with a grain of salt since most of them are outdated or otherwise incorrect.
It is a county maintained road though since it goes through the park. I'll also note that all of Middlesex's roads still have an archaic internal numbering system, so I wouldn't necessary go by the county either on this one.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 21, 2018, 12:25:34 AM
Middlesex County's own documents don't note CR-807's existence. NJDOT's SLDs for county 600/700 routes should be taken with a grain of salt since most of them are outdated or otherwise incorrect.
Most of them seem fine, though some nitpicky details might need to be verified. Middlesex County's, though, does have a lot of inaccuracies due to a lot of additions, deletions, and renumberings on their county routes (i.e. no CR 625 in the correct location in the SLD at Perrineville Road in Monroe though 33's signal blade does have it).
I noticed on Thursday that on 9/35 SB in Sayreville, a new overhead sign for the Raritan St exit was installed at the Andrejewski Dr overpass marking the right lane as an Exit Only lane. The only thing they should do now is restripe the lanes with dotted marks instead of normal stripes so people don't clog up that area with more traffic by merging left at the last second to continue on 9/35.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4904735,-74.2981865,3a,75y,174.88h,80.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_qOwW_FifCb8IyB-YeaOsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4904735,-74.2981865,3a,75y,174.88h,80.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_qOwW_FifCb8IyB-YeaOsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Looking at the GSV link, it replaces the white "LANE FOR RIGHT TURN" sign.
Quote from: swiftdo on April 21, 2018, 08:35:47 AM
I noticed on Thursday that on 9/35 SB in Sayreville, a new overhead sign for the Raritan St exit was installed at the Andrejewski Dr overpass marking the right lane as an Exit Only lane. The only thing they should do now is restripe the lanes with dotted marks instead of normal stripes so people don't clog up that area with more traffic by merging left at the last second to continue on 9/35.
Regardless of the striping, they'll still do that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2018, 09:27:38 AM
Quote from: swiftdo on April 21, 2018, 08:35:47 AM
I noticed on Thursday that on 9/35 SB in Sayreville, a new overhead sign for the Raritan St exit was installed at the Andrejewski Dr overpass marking the right lane as an Exit Only lane. The only thing they should do now is restripe the lanes with dotted marks instead of normal stripes so people don't clog up that area with more traffic by merging left at the last second to continue on 9/35.
Regardless of the striping, they'll still do that.
Heck in Orlando people do not even read the LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL and come to the plaza claiming they had no idea they were on a toll road. Plus the dashed lines that block the entrance to the SunPass only lanes at Exit 254 on the Florida Turnpike do not discourage people from listening to their GPS and they enter the lane despite them not having Sunpass causing them to want to pay the toll at the MM 6 plaza on FL 528. Their excuse is that the split is confusing to them that both roads are equal in nature yet the elephant tracks are there to guide them to the cash lanes.
Post a billboard about traffic patterns and people will still not see it. Maybe the GPS needs to tell them verbally that "The Right Lane Ends, move over to the left lane" for people to understand what they do not see with their own eyes.
Got a quick glimpse of a new sign structure on the new 278 overpass over the Turnpike (the WB one that will come off the second Goethals span). 278 exits now have exit numbers. Bayway did not appear to have a NJ-439 shield. I am curious if NJDOT will actually add exit numbers to their signage on the EB (I don't think they have any signs beyond the Turnpike/Bayway exits, which are signed by the PA).
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2018, 01:16:56 AM
Got a quick glimpse of a new sign structure on the new 278 overpass over the Turnpike (the WB one that will come off the second Goethals span). 278 exits now have exit numbers. Bayway did not appear to have a NJ-439 shield. I am curious if NJDOT will actually add exit numbers to their signage on the EB (I don't think they have any signs beyond the Turnpike/Bayway exits, which are signed by the PA).
Got another look at the signage. Did not realize there are two signs for Bayway. One just says Bayway East since I think that's past where 439 ends. The other one still shows 439 to 1/9 with Elizabeth as the control city. Signs look nice, actually.
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2018, 01:16:56 AM
Got a quick glimpse of a new sign structure on the new 278 overpass over the Turnpike (the WB one that will come off the second Goethals span). 278 exits now have exit numbers. Bayway did not appear to have a NJ-439 shield. I am curious if NJDOT will actually add exit numbers to their signage on the EB (I don't think they have any signs beyond the Turnpike/Bayway exits, which are signed by the PA).
What are the exit numbers (if you saw)? 1 and 2? 2A and 2B? Bc it picks up at 3 in NY, I'm assuming because they want NJ to combine with them on "beltway style" exit numbering.
According to miles in NJ and its mileposts EB should be 2A for New Brunswick Avenue and 2B for I-95. WB it should be 2A for the 2 Bayway exits on the right and 2B for the left Turnpike exit.
That would also fit in with NY's sequential exit numbering while maintaining NJ's mile based at the same time.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 27, 2018, 07:34:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2018, 01:16:56 AM
Got a quick glimpse of a new sign structure on the new 278 overpass over the Turnpike (the WB one that will come off the second Goethals span). 278 exits now have exit numbers. Bayway did not appear to have a NJ-439 shield. I am curious if NJDOT will actually add exit numbers to their signage on the EB (I don't think they have any signs beyond the Turnpike/Bayway exits, which are signed by the PA).
What are the exit numbers (if you saw)? 1 and 2? 2A and 2B? Bc it picks up at 3 in NY, I'm assuming because they want NJ to combine with them on "beltway style" exit numbering.
Actually, the first exit in NY is 4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6264284,-74.1799589,3a,75y,114.66h,91.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suN80Uo_CmTJhpBByZuLTjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
The Bayway exits are 3A-B. Turnpike exit looks like 2. I agree with roadman that NJDOT could use 2A-B for the Elizabeth and Turnpike exits heading towards the bridge, and let 1-9 be silent Exit 1.
Quote from: storm2k on April 27, 2018, 11:25:43 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 27, 2018, 07:34:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2018, 01:16:56 AM
Got a quick glimpse of a new sign structure on the new 278 overpass over the Turnpike (the WB one that will come off the second Goethals span). 278 exits now have exit numbers. Bayway did not appear to have a NJ-439 shield. I am curious if NJDOT will actually add exit numbers to their signage on the EB (I don't think they have any signs beyond the Turnpike/Bayway exits, which are signed by the PA).
What are the exit numbers (if you saw)? 1 and 2? 2A and 2B? Bc it picks up at 3 in NY, I’m assuming because they want NJ to combine with them on “beltway style” exit numbering.
Actually, the first exit in NY is 4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6264284,-74.1799589,3a,75y,114.66h,91.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suN80Uo_CmTJhpBByZuLTjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
The Bayway exits are 3A-B. Turnpike exit looks like 2. I agree with roadman that NJDOT could use 2A-B for the Elizabeth and Turnpike exits heading towards the bridge, and let 1-9 be silent Exit 1.
Only eastbound. I meant the first
number in NY is exit 3.
So that means the WB exit sequence is now out of order, and goes 5 - 3 - bridge - 3AB - 2
Unless they changed that exit number to 4 since street view got there. If not, it probably should be changed so it goes 5 - 4 - 3AB - 2
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2018, 09:23:48 PM
According to miles in NJ and its mileposts EB should be 2A for New Brunswick Avenue and 2B for I-95. WB it should be 2A for the 2 Bayway exits on the right and 2B for the left Turnpike exit.
That would also fit in with NY's sequential exit numbering while maintaining NJ's mile based at the same time.
Actually, they would be 1A and 1B EB since they are between MP 0.5 and MP 1.5. Westbound (assuming no use of Exit 0), Bayway would be 1D, the Turnpike 1C, the U-Turn to 278 East 1B, and 1-9 South 1A. If NY goes mileage based, the first (last) exit after (before) the bridge would be 2A, so it would appear seamless.
Been seeing this super compressed number font on a bunch of county shields around Middlesex County. Anyone know what they're using? Like a compressed Series C?
(https://i.imgur.com/faEhd4A.jpg)
They stopped using those, but they were the thing for a few years.
Quote from: storm2k on April 29, 2018, 06:15:13 PM
Been seeing this super compressed number font on a bunch of county shields around Middlesex County. Anyone know what they're using? Like a compressed Series C?
looks like regular Series B to me.
Quote from: odditude on April 29, 2018, 07:24:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 29, 2018, 06:15:13 PM
Been seeing this super compressed number font on a bunch of county shields around Middlesex County. Anyone know what they're using? Like a compressed Series C?
looks like regular Series B to me.
Agreed, but with a thicker stroke for some reason.
Quote from: Alps on April 29, 2018, 08:36:31 PM
Quote from: odditude on April 29, 2018, 07:24:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 29, 2018, 06:15:13 PM
Been seeing this super compressed number font on a bunch of county shields around Middlesex County. Anyone know what they're using? Like a compressed Series C?
looks like regular Series B to me.
Agreed, but with a thicker stroke for some reason.
That's why I was confused. Series B is pretty thin. This is thicker, but not like Series C is.
Quote from: storm2k on April 27, 2018, 11:25:43 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on April 27, 2018, 07:34:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2018, 01:16:56 AM
Got a quick glimpse of a new sign structure on the new 278 overpass over the Turnpike (the WB one that will come off the second Goethals span). 278 exits now have exit numbers. Bayway did not appear to have a NJ-439 shield. I am curious if NJDOT will actually add exit numbers to their signage on the EB (I don't think they have any signs beyond the Turnpike/Bayway exits, which are signed by the PA).
What are the exit numbers (if you saw)? 1 and 2? 2A and 2B? Bc it picks up at 3 in NY, I'm assuming because they want NJ to combine with them on "beltway style" exit numbering.
Actually, the first exit in NY is 4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6264284,-74.1799589,3a,75y,114.66h,91.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suN80Uo_CmTJhpBByZuLTjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
The Bayway exits are 3A-B. Turnpike exit looks like 2. I agree with roadman that NJDOT could use 2A-B for the Elizabeth and Turnpike exits heading towards the bridge, and let 1-9 be silent Exit 1.
OK, I was wrong. The Turnpike exit is 3A. The Bayway exits are 3B-C.
Quote from: storm2k on May 02, 2018, 09:06:19 PM
OK, I was wrong. The Turnpike exit is 3A. The Bayway exits are 3B-C.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000278__-.pdf
Exit 1 = US 1/9. Exit 2 = CR 616. Exit 3 = I-95.
It's definitely sequential. But it makes no sense given that 1/9 is the terminus. It should really be Exits 1A-1C = I-95/CR 616.
Quote from: Alps on May 03, 2018, 12:11:44 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 02, 2018, 09:06:19 PM
OK, I was wrong. The Turnpike exit is 3A. The Bayway exits are 3B-C.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000278__-.pdf
Exit 1 = US 1/9. Exit 2 = CR 616. Exit 3 = I-95.
It's definitely sequential. But it makes no sense given that 1/9 is the terminus. It should really be Exits 1A-1C = I-95/CR 616.
I'm guessing they're keeping it sequential for the sake of NY continuing the mileage. This whole thing of having exit tabs is new, as the signage up to this point never showed them.
Honestly, I'd really like to know what NJDOT is smoking with those numbers. The MUTCD mandates mile-based. NJ converted a long time ago. Even having some kind of continuity with NY doesn't make sense because the lowest number in NY is currently 3 and would a mile-based number for it would likely be 3A if NY were to continue the mileage from NJ (otherwise it would likely be 1A).
I don't see any reason for US 1/9 to be numbered (especially since it's not really an "exit" so much as the lanes merging onto another road), so I'd use 1A for Brunswick Ave/Cole Pl and 1B for the Turnpike. The area is functionally one interchange anyways.
Are they also telling NY to renumber exit 3 to exit 4? Because if not, there are two exit 3s in a row headed WB. In any case, FHWA has said that sequential numbers need to die, and this is a step backwards from that, with numbers that don't make sense no matter what you do. The Turnpike/Brunswick Ave exits are one interchange, so it makes sense for them to have the same number even in sequential, and there is no way that you will ever convince me that the merge with US 1/9 is in any stretch of the imagination an "exit", so no reason to number it. Again, though, even if you did, in a proper sequential scheme than the highest number would still only be 2B, not 3.
I mean, in fairness, this is PANYNJ signage and they tend to do whatever the hell they want to do. This is why there are sequential numbers on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway coming off the GWB even tho NYSDOT is using milage based numbers for the Cross Bronx. You go from 2 for the Harlem River Drive exit to 1C-D for the Deegan exit. That renumbering happened years ago, but the original numbers remain on the roadways managed by the PA. So who knows.
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2018, 02:46:42 PM
I mean, in fairness, this is PANYNJ signage and they tend to do whatever the hell they want to do. This is why there are sequential numbers on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway coming off the GWB even tho NYSDOT is using milage based numbers for the Cross Bronx. You go from 2 for the Harlem River Drive exit to 1C-D for the Deegan exit. That renumbering happened years ago, but the original numbers remain on the roadways managed by the PA. So who knows.
I-95 has been thankfully mostly fixed SB with the correct sequence (2A, 1CD, 1B, 1A) restored, but yeah northbound it's still a complete mess (1, 2, 3/1CD, 2A) because PANYNJ controls most of the northbound signage.
If this is PANYNJ and not NJDoT doing the signage, then yeah this could end up being a real cluster. Have the tarps been taken off the tabs yet or are we just speculating?
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 28, 2018, 01:19:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2018, 09:23:48 PM
According to miles in NJ and its mileposts EB should be 2A for New Brunswick Avenue and 2B for I-95. WB it should be 2A for the 2 Bayway exits on the right and 2B for the left Turnpike exit.
That would also fit in with NY's sequential exit numbering while maintaining NJ's mile based at the same time.
Actually, they would be 1A and 1B EB since they are between MP 0.5 and MP 1.5. Westbound (assuming no use of Exit 0), Bayway would be 1D, the Turnpike 1C, the U-Turn to 278 East 1B, and 1-9 South 1A. If NY goes mileage based, the first (last) exit after (before) the bridge would be 2A, so it would appear seamless.
Sometimes you cannot get em perfect. Look at the Parkway. Exit 138 for CR 509 is at MM 140 2 miles difference with US 22 1 mile away near MM 139 is 140 while Chestnut Street is 139A/B.
If NJDOT ever goes through with making the US 1 & 9 interchange a complete one, it would really get 1A and 1B being NJDOT does not use 0 like WV does.
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2018, 02:46:42 PM
I mean, in fairness, this is PANYNJ signage and they tend to do whatever the hell they want to do. This is why there are sequential numbers on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway coming off the GWB even tho NYSDOT is using milage based numbers for the Cross Bronx. You go from 2 for the Harlem River Drive exit to 1C-D for the Deegan exit. That renumbering happened years ago, but the original numbers remain on the roadways managed by the PA. So who knows.
Technically the mile-based numbers
are the original ones. The road was numbered mile-based in the 70s when NYSDOT was considering ditching sequential numbers. A decade or two ago, it was decided to convert the numbers to sequential (never mind that this would cause a discontinuity with the Thruway portion). The Port Authority and about half the NYSDOT signs changed and then the project quietly was aborted. The NYSDOT signs reverted to mile-based, but the Port Authority kept the sequential numbers. All the southbound signs and some NB signs for 1C/D were reverted during the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project, but the others remain, even the one that had a tab replaced to meet current MUTCD standards.
As for the Port Authority... yeesh. That explains a lot. Though it is conceivable that they might change the NY 3 to 4. Then again, this is PANYNJ... when it comes to signage, both them and the MTA give even less of a **** than Janice from Accounting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8_x2Njn9J0) (warning: NSFW).
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 07:57:41 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2018, 02:46:42 PM
I mean, in fairness, this is PANYNJ signage and they tend to do whatever the hell they want to do. This is why there are sequential numbers on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway coming off the GWB even tho NYSDOT is using milage based numbers for the Cross Bronx. You go from 2 for the Harlem River Drive exit to 1C-D for the Deegan exit. That renumbering happened years ago, but the original numbers remain on the roadways managed by the PA. So who knows.
Technically the mile-based numbers are the original ones. The road was numbered mile-based in the 70s when NYSDOT was considering ditching sequential numbers. A decade or two ago, it was decided to convert the numbers to sequential (never mind that this would cause a discontinuity with the Thruway portion). The Port Authority and about half the NYSDOT signs changed and then the project quietly was aborted. The NYSDOT signs reverted to mile-based, but the Port Authority kept the sequential numbers. All the southbound signs and some NB signs for 1C/D were reverted during the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project, but the others remain, even the one that had a tab replaced to meet current MUTCD standards.
As for the Port Authority... yeesh. That explains a lot. Though it is conceivable that they might change the NY 3 to 4. Then again, this is PANYNJ... when it comes to signage, both them and the MTA give even less of a **** than Janice from Accounting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8_x2Njn9J0) (warning: NSFW).
I do remember when the Deegan exits became 3N-S in the early aughts. The PA could not even get on board with that because they sign the Deegan as just "Exit 3". All the signage on the Trans-Manhattan is theirs, so the exit for the HHP going SB is just Exit 1 even though I think NYSDOT considers it 1A.
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 07:57:41 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2018, 02:46:42 PM
I mean, in fairness, this is PANYNJ signage and they tend to do whatever the hell they want to do. This is why there are sequential numbers on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway coming off the GWB even tho NYSDOT is using milage based numbers for the Cross Bronx. You go from 2 for the Harlem River Drive exit to 1C-D for the Deegan exit. That renumbering happened years ago, but the original numbers remain on the roadways managed by the PA. So who knows.
Technically the mile-based numbers are the original ones. The road was numbered mile-based in the 70s when NYSDOT was considering ditching sequential numbers. A decade or two ago, it was decided to convert the numbers to sequential (never mind that this would cause a discontinuity with the Thruway portion). The Port Authority and about half the NYSDOT signs changed and then the project quietly was aborted. The NYSDOT signs reverted to mile-based, but the Port Authority kept the sequential numbers. All the southbound signs and some NB signs for 1C/D were reverted during the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project, but the others remain, even the one that had a tab replaced to meet current MUTCD standards.
As for the Port Authority... yeesh. That explains a lot. Though it is conceivable that they might change the NY 3 to 4. Then again, this is PANYNJ... when it comes to signage, both them and the MTA give even less of a **** than Janice from Accounting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8_x2Njn9J0) (warning: NSFW).
The Port Authority is one of the most powerful government beauraucracies around. I heard from my dad when he was alive they do not have to publish to the general public how they spend their money and owe no explanation to where they hold it and what their plans are to divide it up or invest it.
Crazy! Anyway at least they got the exit numbers right on the NJ side.
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2018, 10:01:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 07:57:41 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2018, 02:46:42 PM
I mean, in fairness, this is PANYNJ signage and they tend to do whatever the hell they want to do. This is why there are sequential numbers on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway coming off the GWB even tho NYSDOT is using milage based numbers for the Cross Bronx. You go from 2 for the Harlem River Drive exit to 1C-D for the Deegan exit. That renumbering happened years ago, but the original numbers remain on the roadways managed by the PA. So who knows.
Technically the mile-based numbers are the original ones. The road was numbered mile-based in the 70s when NYSDOT was considering ditching sequential numbers. A decade or two ago, it was decided to convert the numbers to sequential (never mind that this would cause a discontinuity with the Thruway portion). The Port Authority and about half the NYSDOT signs changed and then the project quietly was aborted. The NYSDOT signs reverted to mile-based, but the Port Authority kept the sequential numbers. All the southbound signs and some NB signs for 1C/D were reverted during the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project, but the others remain, even the one that had a tab replaced to meet current MUTCD standards.
As for the Port Authority... yeesh. That explains a lot. Though it is conceivable that they might change the NY 3 to 4. Then again, this is PANYNJ... when it comes to signage, both them and the MTA give even less of a **** than Janice from Accounting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8_x2Njn9J0) (warning: NSFW).
I do remember when the Deegan exits became 3N-S in the early aughts. The PA could not even get on board with that because they sign the Deegan as just "Exit 3". All the signage on the Trans-Manhattan is theirs, so the exit for the HHP going SB is just Exit 1 even though I think NYSDOT considers it 1A.
This used to be the case but there are now at least three “1A” advance signs southbound, while there’s only one or two left with “1”. The sequence southbound is essentially correct these days. 2A, then 1CD for the Deegan, 1B for Amsterdam (which splits off the Deegan ramp w/ no HRD access from the southbound side), 1A for Henry Hudson, with a couple signs reading Exit 1 as the exit approaches. There is no tab on the sign at the ramp itself, but 1A is signed well enough SB these days that you could easily give someone instructions to 1A and it would be obvious where to go.
It’s northbound that’s pretty f’ed up, as @vdean mentioned, with there not being a single sign for 1A or 1B (labeled 1 and 2 instead) with 1C having only a few signs after the TME ends. To give someone directions to the Deegan NB you’d have to probably say exit 3, unlike the HHP exit in the other direction.
As for how that applies to New Jersey, well if PANYNJ is signing this, then there can be no level of expectation for matching either NJDoT’s numbers or NYSDoT’s
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 04, 2018, 08:56:47 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2018, 10:01:04 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2018, 07:57:41 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2018, 02:46:42 PM
I mean, in fairness, this is PANYNJ signage and they tend to do whatever the hell they want to do. This is why there are sequential numbers on the Trans-Manhattan Expressway coming off the GWB even tho NYSDOT is using milage based numbers for the Cross Bronx. You go from 2 for the Harlem River Drive exit to 1C-D for the Deegan exit. That renumbering happened years ago, but the original numbers remain on the roadways managed by the PA. So who knows.
Technically the mile-based numbers are the original ones. The road was numbered mile-based in the 70s when NYSDOT was considering ditching sequential numbers. A decade or two ago, it was decided to convert the numbers to sequential (never mind that this would cause a discontinuity with the Thruway portion). The Port Authority and about half the NYSDOT signs changed and then the project quietly was aborted. The NYSDOT signs reverted to mile-based, but the Port Authority kept the sequential numbers. All the southbound signs and some NB signs for 1C/D were reverted during the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project, but the others remain, even the one that had a tab replaced to meet current MUTCD standards.
As for the Port Authority... yeesh. That explains a lot. Though it is conceivable that they might change the NY 3 to 4. Then again, this is PANYNJ... when it comes to signage, both them and the MTA give even less of a **** than Janice from Accounting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8_x2Njn9J0) (warning: NSFW).
I do remember when the Deegan exits became 3N-S in the early aughts. The PA could not even get on board with that because they sign the Deegan as just "Exit 3". All the signage on the Trans-Manhattan is theirs, so the exit for the HHP going SB is just Exit 1 even though I think NYSDOT considers it 1A.
This used to be the case but there are now at least three "1A" advance signs southbound, while there's only one or two left with "1" . The sequence southbound is essentially correct these days. 2A, then 1CD for the Deegan, 1B for Amsterdam (which splits off the Deegan ramp w/ no HRD access from the southbound side), 1A for Henry Hudson, with a couple signs reading Exit 1 as the exit approaches. There is no tab on the sign at the ramp itself, but 1A is signed well enough SB these days that you could easily give someone instructions to 1A and it would be obvious where to go.
It's northbound that's pretty f'ed up, as @vdean mentioned, with there not being a single sign for 1A or 1B (labeled 1 and 2 instead) with 1C having only a few signs after the TME ends. To give someone directions to the Deegan NB you'd have to probably say exit 3, unlike the HHP exit in the other direction.
As for how that applies to New Jersey, well if PANYNJ is signing this, then there can be no level of expectation for matching either NJDoT's numbers or NYSDoT's
All those SB signs that correctly show 1A are from NYSDOT and were replaced as part of the Alexander Hamilton Bridge project a couple of years ago. Once you get under the apartments and past that, it's PA territory and they continue their incorrect signage.
The exit numbers on I-678 leaving JFK are also weird. Southbound it's 1/1E/1W. Northbound signage says 1/1E/1B, with a single sign also identifying 1/1E and 1A.
In my morning emails I see this about the AC Expressway: "Expressway Tolls Could Rise".
So I click on the link to find this headline: "Atlantic City Council wants expressway to raise toll to benefit city". Pretty interesting being that the Atlantic City Council has nothing to do with the Atlantic City Expressway.
Then within the article, it gets more interesting: "The SJTA was unaware of the City Council resolution and declined to comment until the agency had a better understanding of the issue."
Maybe Atlantic City should've, you know, communicated with the actual owner of the road before proposing something that would have an effect on toll collection efforts!
Full article here: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/atlantic_city/atlantic-city-council-wants-expressway-to-raise-toll-to-benefit/article_90a4e55c-20a7-5f39-9959-e55951bcafe5.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=Daily%20Headlines&utm_campaign=DAILY%20HEADLINES%20-%20Thursday
Does Atlantic City get toll revenue from the ACE? That sounds a bit odd for a statewide toll road.
Unless there's some contribution from the Expressway for a specific project, the toll revenue doesn't go AC at all. It sounds like Atlantic City is just looking at all possible income sources, and for some reason figured they could grab what could be over 20% of the Expressway's toll revenue if the council got the Expressway to raise the tolls!
On Thursday, I saw two new signs on I-280 near Exit 4, Eisenhower Parkway. Eastbound the sign says "280 East, to 95, NJTP." Control City is Kearny (skipping over The Oranges, Newark, and Harrison). Westbound at the same place the new sign says "280 West to 80" with control city of Parsippany (for the first time).
I was thrilled to see Parsippany, my home town, on a BGS! It is the appropriate control city as the western terminus of 280. However, I am not sure about the choice of Kearny. Although it is the eastern terminus, skipping over Newark makes no sense. Otherwise, it is good that the sign shows 95 and NJTP.
I wonder if there will be more of these new signs on 280. As it is, many of the BGS assemblies on 280 have signs that show simply "East 280" or "West 280" with no control city at all.
Quote from: artmalk on May 19, 2018, 11:31:17 AM
On Thursday, I saw two new signs on I-280 near Exit 4, Eisenhower Parkway. Eastbound the sign says "280 East, to 95, NJTP." Control City is Kearny (skipping over The Oranges, Newark, and Harrison). Westbound at the same place the new sign says "280 West to 80" with control city of Parsippany (for the first time).
I was thrilled to see Parsippany, my home town, on a BGS! It is the appropriate control city as the western terminus of 280. However, I am not sure about the choice of Kearny. Although it is the eastern terminus, skipping over Newark makes no sense. Otherwise, it is good that the sign shows 95 and NJTP.
I wonder if there will be more of these new signs on 280. As it is, many of the BGS assemblies on 280 have signs that show simply "East 280" or "West 280" with no control city at all.
That is brand spanking new then because I didn't see them a week ago. I'll put it on my to-do list. I hate seeing The Oranges go, but Newark definitely makes the most sense.
E-ZPass appears to be live on the Cape May County Bridge Commission's crossings. Saw the signs when crossing the "Dukes of Hazzard" Middle Thorofare bridge last weekend. Hopefully it will helps with the backups on that bridge during the summer when everyone in the Wildwoods decides to go antiquing in Cape May.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/e-z-pass-set-to-go-live-on-cape-may/article_5c9de051-4b7d-5958-850d-6071fc448ea9.html
http://capemaycountynj.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4777/Frequently-Asked-Questions
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 30, 2018, 08:44:38 PM
E-ZPass appears to be live on the Cape May County Bridge Commission's crossings. Saw the signs when crossing the "Dukes of Hazzard" Middle Thorofare bridge last weekend. Hopefully it will helps with the backups on that bridge during the summer when everyone in the Wildwoods decides to go antiquing in Cape May.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/e-z-pass-set-to-go-live-on-cape-may/article_5c9de051-4b7d-5958-850d-6071fc448ea9.html
http://capemaycountynj.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4777/Frequently-Asked-Questions
Middle Thorofare won't be any better because they'll still collect cash, there's only one lane, and a large amount of people are not from the area and probably don't have EZ-Pass, especially the large amount of tourists from Quebec that visit the Wildwood/Cape May area every summer for vacation.
Quote from: storm2k on May 30, 2018, 10:54:08 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 30, 2018, 08:44:38 PM
E-ZPass appears to be live on the Cape May County Bridge Commission's crossings. Saw the signs when crossing the "Dukes of Hazzard" Middle Thorofare bridge last weekend. Hopefully it will helps with the backups on that bridge during the summer when everyone in the Wildwoods decides to go antiquing in Cape May.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/e-z-pass-set-to-go-live-on-cape-may/article_5c9de051-4b7d-5958-850d-6071fc448ea9.html
http://capemaycountynj.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4777/Frequently-Asked-Questions
Middle Thorofare won't be any better because they'll still collect cash, there's only one lane, and a large amount of people are not from the area and probably don't have EZ-Pass, especially the large amount of tourists from Quebec that visit the Wildwood/Cape May area every summer for vacation.
While it won't be non-stop crossings, everyone with an EZ Pass.Will still decrrease the lines and length of time needed to pay the toll.
NY Times: For New Jersey Commuters, a Sequel to the "˜Summer of Hell' (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/nyregion/nj-turnpike-repairs-lincoln-tunnel.html)
QuoteThe elevated highway that connects the New Jersey Turnpike to the Lincoln Tunnel already is the most traffic-choked stretch of pavement east of Chicago. Now, after decades of patching it up at night and on weekends, the state says the time has come to strip it down and rebuild it.
QuoteMore than 80 years old, the bridge is structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. But unlike many other decrepit bridges and tunnels in the area, Route 495 is finally getting an overhaul, creating a major challenge for travelers between New Jersey and New York.
QuoteThe Port Authority turned Route 495 over to the state of New Jersey about 40 years ago. But the only copies of the plans for the viaduct remained in the Port Authority's offices in the north tower of the World Trade Center. They were lost in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. So when crews prepared to start stripping the girders that support the roadway down to bare steel, they had to do some reverse-engineering of the entire structure. After blasting off layers of paint, they found several sections that had rusted through, leaving holes as big as silver dollars.
Time to pay the piper after ignoring the 495 viaduct for so long...
Speaking of NJ Route 495, is the eastern terminus the toll plaza or the NY state line inside the tunnel?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 05, 2018, 07:36:41 PM
Speaking of NJ Route 495, is the eastern terminus the toll plaza or the NY state line inside the tunnel?
State line.
The bridge will still be functionally obsolete after the work is done. Can't do anything about it though. That classification will never change for many roads in North Jersey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thuHnZ-wcDk
Old timey video from the construction of the Meadowlands stadiums in the early-to-mid 70s including the surrounding roads' construction
They're going to be spending all of this money and time creating these headaches to the most congested road on the East Coast and not add any capacity? At the very least, 2 lanes each way should be added, but 3 would be better.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2018, 01:45:50 AM
They're going to be spending all of this money and time creating these headaches to the most congested road on the East Coast and not add any capacity? At the very least, 2 lanes each way should be added, but 3 would be better.
There's no room to either side of the highway, and capacity is limited at either end of the highway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 09, 2018, 07:21:51 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2018, 01:45:50 AM
They're going to be spending all of this money and time creating these headaches to the most congested road on the East Coast and not add any capacity? At the very least, 2 lanes each way should be added, but 3 would be better.
There's no room to either side of the highway, and capacity is limited at either end of the highway.
Yeah, unless they're planning to add tubes to the Lincoln Tunnel, the most they really need is 3 lanes downhill and 4 up, which is exactly what they have now.
To rebuild an entire viaduct would require lane closures or lane narrowing to accomplish a total rebuild or total rehabilitation. Already the road is built to 1930's traffic counts and needs more lanes as is, but due to sprawl, the topography, and other factors to give Route 495 what it deserves would require lots of planning, requisition, and legal issues plus mainly the cost! I would have to say get used to it if you commute to the City via the Lincoln Tunnel.
Shoulders would be nice. I don't know why the broke state took this from PANYNJ, unlike the Pulaski Skyway, it actually serves one of their crossings!
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 10, 2018, 10:47:51 PM
Shoulders would be nice. I don't know why the broke state took this from PANYNJ, unlike the Pulaski Skyway, it actually serves one of their crossings!
PANYNJ controls the helix, or am I missing something?
Quote from: roadman65 on June 10, 2018, 09:54:32 AM
To rebuild an entire viaduct would require lane closures or lane narrowing to accomplish a total rebuild or total rehabilitation. Already the road is built to 1930's traffic counts and needs more lanes as is, but due to sprawl, the topography, and other factors to give Route 495 what it deserves would require lots of planning, requisition, and legal issues plus mainly the cost! I would have to say get used to it if you commute to the City via the Lincoln Tunnel.
Well, lane narrowing is exactly what they're doing to rehab the existing viaduct. An expanded one is pretty much out of the picture, for so many reasons.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 10, 2018, 10:47:51 PM
Shoulders would be nice. I don't know why the broke state took this from PANYNJ, unlike the Pulaski Skyway, it actually serves one of their crossings!
A "crossing" where it's the opposite instead - the river crosses *it*.
Really, WCBS and TenTen Wins need a more accurate term than "Hudson River 'crossings'" or "East River 'crossings'" when more than one of them (heck, a total of four) has the opposite being true instead, but that's another thread.
ixnay
On I-295NB at Exit 52 (Florence/Columbus - Burlington CR 656), the overhead sign structure was removed during the full-depth reconstruction ~10 years ago and the signs were ground-mounted (with the advance sign for 52B getting greenout to adjust the distance message). Unlike all of the other sign structures within the project zone, this was never reinstalled/replaced. Were there ever any plans to do so, or did it fall off of some punch list?
Quote from: odditude on June 13, 2018, 09:07:57 AM
On I-295NB at Exit 52 (Florence/Columbus - Burlington CR 656), the overhead sign structure was removed during the full-depth reconstruction ~10 years ago and the signs were ground-mounted (with the advance sign for 52B getting greenout to adjust the distance message). Unlike all of the other sign structures within the project zone, this was never reinstalled/replaced. Were there ever any plans to do so, or did it fall off of some punch list?
The southbound structure was hit by a construction truck. That was replaced relatively quickly (and still took a few years). When they fixed the southbound sign, the northbound one was removed and never replaced.
There is/are/will be construction contracts that are replacing numerous sign structures on several roads. I expect this one will be part of those contracts.
I won't be at the I-295/NJ 42 missing moves project open house tonight. Has NJDOT posted any documents online yet? If not, and if they don't post the presentation documents afterwords, can someone who attends post some pictures?
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 13, 2018, 11:49:35 AM
I won't be at the I-295/NJ 42 missing moves project open house tonight. Has NJDOT posted any documents online yet? If not, and if they don't post the presentation documents afterwords, can someone who attends post some pictures?
I haven't seen anything online yet. There's this simulating video that was created by the contractor that gives a good flyover though.
http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
I'll try to get some pics while I'm there.
Quote from: odditude on June 13, 2018, 09:07:57 AM
On I-295NB at Exit 52 (Florence/Columbus - Burlington CR 656), the overhead sign structure was removed during the full-depth reconstruction ~10 years ago and the signs were ground-mounted (with the advance sign for 52B getting greenout to adjust the distance message). Unlike all of the other sign structures within the project zone, this was never reinstalled/replaced. Were there ever any plans to do so, or did it fall off of some punch list?
IIRC, that was in 2003, so we're at 15 years after that, proving that i'm old and time flies like crazy.
I always figured that NJDOT just decided that those signs didn't really need to be on overheads due to traffic volume and seeing the signs far enough away from the ground was sufficient for drivers to make the necessary decisions before they got too close to the exit.
I remember when I-295 where it is concurrent with US 130 was all small signs on ground level until the 1985 widening project. Of course on 2 lanes it really did not matter and in the past exit numbers and such were not a big deal (well off the NJ toll roads anyway).
Being that part of I-295 was an existing segment of US 130 many of the old signs were kept as the MUTCD then was not as it is today. It was so interesting to see the exit at Democrat Road in Swedesboro have the name written out and underscored with the control city of Gibbstown in all upper case lettering as well as advanced guides for the ramps using NEXT RIGHT instead of 1/4 mile when next state over PA was using NEXT RIGHT on their at exit guides on the older freeways at the time.
I wish I had photos of the old signs along NJ Highways as we could all have a museum here in the cyberworld we never thought of back then.
NJ.com: Surprise! Pulaski Skyway reopens 2 days early, delighting holiday drivers (https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/surprise_pulaski_skyway_reopens_2_days_early_delig.html)
QuoteThe New Jersey Department of Transportation had said the spans that make up the Skyway would reopen by Monday, but drivers were overjoyed and even a bit confused Saturday when they found they could again travel on its lanes.
QuoteNew Jersey Department of Transportation officials say while traffic lanes are open, more work on the Skyway will continue and there might be some intermittent closures in the future.
Will have to take a ride on this soon. Looks like all the signage is new.
Quote from: storm2k on July 01, 2018, 03:17:18 AM
NJ.com: Surprise! Pulaski Skyway reopens 2 days early, delighting holiday drivers (https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/surprise_pulaski_skyway_reopens_2_days_early_delig.html)
QuoteThe New Jersey Department of Transportation had said the spans that make up the Skyway would reopen by Monday, but drivers were overjoyed and even a bit confused Saturday when they found they could again travel on its lanes.
QuoteNew Jersey Department of Transportation officials say while traffic lanes are open, more work on the Skyway will continue and there might be some intermittent closures in the future.
Will have to take a ride on this soon. Looks like all the signage is new.
Google Maps wasn't notified of the reopening apparently. Iykwim.
Also, the intermediate ramps to/from surface streets will remain closed for their own rehabs.
ixnay
Quote from: storm2k on July 01, 2018, 03:17:18 AM
NJ.com: Surprise! Pulaski Skyway reopens 2 days early, delighting holiday drivers (https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/surprise_pulaski_skyway_reopens_2_days_early_delig.html)
QuoteThe New Jersey Department of Transportation had said the spans that make up the Skyway would reopen by Monday, but drivers were overjoyed and even a bit confused Saturday when they found they could again travel on its lanes.
QuoteNew Jersey Department of Transportation officials say while traffic lanes are open, more work on the Skyway will continue and there might be some intermittent closures in the future.
Will have to take a ride on this soon. Looks like all the signage is new.
There's a roadmeet for that on the 8th, if you'd like to join. Check out that thread.
Since it came up earlier. I-295's mileposts have been completely reposted from the NJ state line on the Delaware Memorial Bridge complete with milepost 0. All of DRBA's mileposts on the NJ side have been removed for NJDOT's.
Also, NJDOT finally signed which lane is which between I-295 and the NJ Turnpike interchange with an overhead sign on NJ-73. Weaving is still a problem there, but at least traffic making the Breezewood connection isn't confused anymore.
Is the sign at the corner of Fellowship Road? Where one on NJ Route 73 South makes a right hand loop to turn left!
Right after the ramp from I-295 north to NJ-73 south, there is a gantry with little signs over each lane saying which goes where. The Friendship Rd. jughandle and the NJTP ramp get their own lanes now.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 01, 2018, 05:25:36 PM
Right after the ramp from I-295 north to NJ-73 south, there is a gantry with little signs over each lane saying which goes where. The Friendship Rd. jughandle and the NJTP ramp get their own lanes now.
Oh, there's still plenty of weaving and confusion. Just go thru there at rush hour and you'll see plenty of it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 01, 2018, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 01, 2018, 05:25:36 PM
Right after the ramp from I-295 north to NJ-73 south, there is a gantry with little signs over each lane saying which goes where. The Friendship Rd. jughandle and the NJTP ramp get their own lanes now.
Oh, there's still plenty of weaving and confusion. Just go thru there at rush hour and you'll see plenty of it.
I heard of a project to modify Route 73 in this area, to have Church Road as an overpass crossing Route 73 as well as other improvements.
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/capital/tcp19/sec5/route/rt73.pdf
Quote from: Alps on July 01, 2018, 11:27:47 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 01, 2018, 03:17:18 AM
NJ.com: Surprise! Pulaski Skyway reopens 2 days early, delighting holiday drivers (https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/surprise_pulaski_skyway_reopens_2_days_early_delig.html)
QuoteThe New Jersey Department of Transportation had said the spans that make up the Skyway would reopen by Monday, but drivers were overjoyed and even a bit confused Saturday when they found they could again travel on its lanes.
QuoteNew Jersey Department of Transportation officials say while traffic lanes are open, more work on the Skyway will continue and there might be some intermittent closures in the future.
Will have to take a ride on this soon. Looks like all the signage is new.
There's a roadmeet for that on the 8th, if you'd like to join. Check out that thread.
Sadly, I have family plans that day, but everyone else should go check that out.
Quote from: J Route Z on July 02, 2018, 01:05:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 01, 2018, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 01, 2018, 05:25:36 PM
Right after the ramp from I-295 north to NJ-73 south, there is a gantry with little signs over each lane saying which goes where. The Friendship Rd. jughandle and the NJTP ramp get their own lanes now.
Oh, there's still plenty of weaving and confusion. Just go thru there at rush hour and you'll see plenty of it.
I heard of a project to modify Route 73 in this area, to have Church Road as an overpass crossing Route 73 as well as other improvements.
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/capital/tcp19/sec5/route/rt73.pdf
Part of that project was the Fellowship Road intersection, which they already completed as part of the Wal-Mart project.
The Church Road project, sorely needed, won't address the Fellowship Road intersection any further.
Just to update the post the US 1 & 9 Pulaski Skyway Northbound has been open since the evening of June 30th-July 1 2018 due to the VMS signs at I-95 NJ Turnpike exits 14-73 saying Nortbound Pulaski Skyway has reopened to Traffic ending the 4 years 4 months roadwork on the Pulaski Skyway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2018, 01:50:15 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on July 02, 2018, 01:05:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 01, 2018, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 01, 2018, 05:25:36 PM
Right after the ramp from I-295 north to NJ-73 south, there is a gantry with little signs over each lane saying which goes where. The Friendship Rd. jughandle and the NJTP ramp get their own lanes now.
Oh, there's still plenty of weaving and confusion. Just go thru there at rush hour and you'll see plenty of it.
I heard of a project to modify Route 73 in this area, to have Church Road as an overpass crossing Route 73 as well as other improvements.
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/capital/tcp19/sec5/route/rt73.pdf
Part of that project was the Fellowship Road intersection, which they already completed as part of the Wal-Mart project.
The Church Road project, sorely needed, won't address the Fellowship Road intersection any further.
I haven't been in that area for so long. Many residents of that area have protested against a Wal Mart being built on such a busy road and would add even more traffic. Traffic on Church Road can back up for miles going towards Route 73 by the diner. There are also many other safety improvements making way in the near future: http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/20180601/njdot-will-host-public-information-sessions-on-evesham-moorestown-road-work
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on July 03, 2018, 02:12:21 AM
Just to update the post the US 1 & 9 Pulaski Skyway Northbound has been open since the evening of June 30th-July 1 2018 due to the VMS signs at I-95 NJ Turnpike exits 14-73 saying Nortbound Pulaski Skyway has reopened to Traffic ending the 4 years 4 months roadwork on the Pulaski Skyway.
In other words the Skyway NB reopened early because a NJTA employee jumped the gun (deliberately or otherwise) jumped the gun on deploying the message? Do you have a link for this information?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on July 05, 2018, 06:00:23 AM
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on July 03, 2018, 02:12:21 AM
Just to update the post the US 1 & 9 Pulaski Skyway Northbound has been open since the evening of June 30th-July 1 2018 due to the VMS signs at I-95 NJ Turnpike exits 14-73 saying Nortbound Pulaski Skyway has reopened to Traffic ending the 4 years 4 months roadwork on the Pulaski Skyway.
In other words the Skyway NB reopened early because a NJTA employee jumped the gun (deliberately or otherwise) jumped the gun on deploying the message? Do you have a link for this information?
ixnay
I think he just miswrote what he was trying to say. Barricades, barrels and other things would need to be moved first to actually allow access to the roadway.
The Drakes Brook bridge on U.S. 206 in Mt. Olive Twp. (between Chester and I-80) is closed for replacement.
https://morriscountynj.gov/2018/06/route-206-to-be-closed-in-mount-olive-starting-july-6-for-bridge-replacement-project/
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on July 08, 2018, 09:11:03 PM
The Drakes Brook bridge on U.S. 206 in Mt. Olive Twp. (between Chester and I-80) is closed for replacement.
https://morriscountynj.gov/2018/06/route-206-to-be-closed-in-mount-olive-starting-july-6-for-bridge-replacement-project/
ixnay
If this were Florida a temporary bridge would be built long side it. Only local and county roads do they detour you or if its in an urban area where nearby streets can circumnavigate around it real easily or on a rural not so much used road.
However, US 206 type of road would have the temporary bridge next to it.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 08, 2018, 10:57:55 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 08, 2018, 09:11:03 PM
The Drakes Brook bridge on U.S. 206 in Mt. Olive Twp. (between Chester and I-80) is closed for replacement.
https://morriscountynj.gov/2018/06/route-206-to-be-closed-in-mount-olive-starting-july-6-for-bridge-replacement-project/
ixnay
If this were Florida a temporary bridge would be built long side it. Only local and county roads do they detour you or if its in an urban area where nearby streets can circumnavigate around it real easily or on a rural not so much used road.
However, US 206 type of road would have the temporary bridge next to it.
There is no need for a temporary bridge because the local detour is sufficient.
Quote from: Alps on July 08, 2018, 11:04:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 08, 2018, 10:57:55 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 08, 2018, 09:11:03 PM
The Drakes Brook bridge on U.S. 206 in Mt. Olive Twp. (between Chester and I-80) is closed for replacement.
https://morriscountynj.gov/2018/06/route-206-to-be-closed-in-mount-olive-starting-july-6-for-bridge-replacement-project/
ixnay
If this were Florida a temporary bridge would be built long side it. Only local and county roads do they detour you or if its in an urban area where nearby streets can circumnavigate around it real easily or on a rural not so much used road.
However, US 206 type of road would have the temporary bridge next to it.
There is no need for a temporary bridge because the local detour is sufficient.
I would say so, but some engineers do like to do things the hard way unfortunately.
NJ.com used a radar gun to see what actual speeds were on various highways for a period of time.
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/07/nj_speeding_drivers_average_speed_radar_checks_how.html
In most cases, 100% of the traffic was going above the speed limit. Not terribly surprising, although I'm surprised they didn't see a few cars under the limit. If the limit was 55 mph, usually traffic was going way above the limit. Overall, traffic was going in the low-to-mid 70 mph range, regardless of the limit. Usually the fastest vehicles topped out close to 85 mph (about 20 mph faster than the limit). The only road mentioned where some of the traffic was significantly under the limit was on US 1, with a 50 mph limit at the test point and plenty of driveways, parking lots and intersections.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2018, 08:29:54 AM
NJ.com used a radar gun to see what actual speeds were on various highways for a period of time.
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/07/nj_speeding_drivers_average_speed_radar_checks_how.html
In most cases, 100% of the traffic was going above the speed limit. Not terribly surprising, although I'm surprised they didn't see a few cars under the limit. If the limit was 55 mph, usually traffic was going way above the limit. Overall, traffic was going in the low-to-mid 70 mph range, regardless of the limit. Usually the fastest vehicles topped out close to 85 mph (about 20 mph faster than the limit). The only road mentioned where some of the traffic was significantly under the limit was on US 1, with a 50 mph limit at the test point and plenty of driveways, parking lots and intersections.
That's not surprising at all. The Turnpike should be signed for 75 mph, and the remaining 65 mph zones bumped up to 70.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on July 09, 2018, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2018, 08:29:54 AM
NJ.com used a radar gun to see what actual speeds were on various highways for a period of time.
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/07/nj_speeding_drivers_average_speed_radar_checks_how.html
In most cases, 100% of the traffic was going above the speed limit. Not terribly surprising, although I'm surprised they didn't see a few cars under the limit. If the limit was 55 mph, usually traffic was going way above the limit. Overall, traffic was going in the low-to-mid 70 mph range, regardless of the limit. Usually the fastest vehicles topped out close to 85 mph (about 20 mph faster than the limit). The only road mentioned where some of the traffic was significantly under the limit was on US 1, with a 50 mph limit at the test point and plenty of driveways, parking lots and intersections.
That's not surprising at all. The Turnpike should be signed for 75 mph, and the remaining 65 mph zones bumped up to 70.
The speed limit should be signed 85 if that's what most drivers are going, IMO.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 09, 2018, 10:42:51 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on July 09, 2018, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2018, 08:29:54 AM
NJ.com used a radar gun to see what actual speeds were on various highways for a period of time.
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/07/nj_speeding_drivers_average_speed_radar_checks_how.html
In most cases, 100% of the traffic was going above the speed limit. Not terribly surprising, although I'm surprised they didn't see a few cars under the limit. If the limit was 55 mph, usually traffic was going way above the limit. Overall, traffic was going in the low-to-mid 70 mph range, regardless of the limit. Usually the fastest vehicles topped out close to 85 mph (about 20 mph faster than the limit). The only road mentioned where some of the traffic was significantly under the limit was on US 1, with a 50 mph limit at the test point and plenty of driveways, parking lots and intersections.
That's not surprising at all. The Turnpike should be signed for 75 mph, and the remaining 65 mph zones bumped up to 70.
The speed limit should be signed 85 if that's what most drivers are going, IMO.
85 was the high end of measured speeds, so it should be signed at 80.
Quote from: Roadsguy on July 09, 2018, 11:30:16 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 09, 2018, 10:42:51 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on July 09, 2018, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2018, 08:29:54 AM
NJ.com used a radar gun to see what actual speeds were on various highways for a period of time.
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/07/nj_speeding_drivers_average_speed_radar_checks_how.html
In most cases, 100% of the traffic was going above the speed limit. Not terribly surprising, although I'm surprised they didn't see a few cars under the limit. If the limit was 55 mph, usually traffic was going way above the limit. Overall, traffic was going in the low-to-mid 70 mph range, regardless of the limit. Usually the fastest vehicles topped out close to 85 mph (about 20 mph faster than the limit). The only road mentioned where some of the traffic was significantly under the limit was on US 1, with a 50 mph limit at the test point and plenty of driveways, parking lots and intersections.
That's not surprising at all. The Turnpike should be signed for 75 mph, and the remaining 65 mph zones bumped up to 70.
The speed limit should be signed 85 if that’s what most drivers are going, IMO.
85 was the high end of measured speeds, so it should be signed at 80.
It should be signed at the 85th percentile speed, which is probably way beyond the comprehension of the reporters.
And, as noted, the speeds were nothing unusual. Not noted but should be noted: No police department took issue with the speeds of travel.
From my personal observations, the amount of traffic going over 80 mph in 65 zones has increased. 80 appears to have been the quasi-speed limit for many years, but generally few patrols are seen on the highways so speeds are increasing. On the NJ Turnpike & GS Parkway, I'm still not sure what the unofficial limit is on those roads in many areas, but let's say it's probably no less than the fastest speed limit in the nation often times.
...and as we all know, none of the above will happen. The state will give up almost anything, but never its assured revenue stream.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 09, 2018, 12:57:22 PM
...and as we all know, none of the above will happen. The state will give up almost anything, but never its assured revenue stream.
To be fair, I don't think it's about revenue so much. I don't remember the NJSP pulling people over for anything less than 85 mph.
Instead, there's a regional sense that while the rest of the country has gone off the rails with its 80 mph+ limits, the sensible leaders of the Mid-Atlantic and New England have kept things to a prudent 65, only where absolutely necessary.
Of course, this is silly with Europe's 120 and 130 km/h limits in much higher density regions, but there you go.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 09, 2018, 12:57:22 PM
...and as we all know, none of the above will happen. The state will give up almost anything, but never its assured revenue stream.
Then why did every state raise their speed limit after the NMSL was repealed? If what you said was true, we'll all have 55 mph limits still.
Regardless of what the speed limit is, there's still going to be speeders. There's also going to be tailgaters, left lane hogs, turn signal user phobias, drunks, and a whole bunch of other infractions being committed that'll result in people contributing to the revenue stream.
Believe it or not, lots of people are still given warnings rather than tickets. Tickets for serious infractions are reduced to less serious infractions. And a whole lot of people are never stopped for doing something wrong.
In NJ, staties care way more about people weaving in and out of traffic than people speeding, as long as they're going with the flow of traffic. If traffic is moving slower and someone is weaving and speeding, they'll get pulled over almost every time.
So what did the new I-278 exit numbers turn out to be? I dont think it was ever confirmed, there were just rumors. Or have the tarps not been taken off/numbers not confirmed yet?
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 11, 2018, 05:53:05 PM
So what did the new I-278 exit numbers turn out to be? I dont think it was ever confirmed, there were just rumors. Or have the tarps not been taken off/numbers not confirmed yet?
The PA signed the exits right off the bridge as 3 A-B-C. Should be 2 A-B-C, especially since the Western Ave exit in SI is still signed as exit 3.
any of the NON-reflective button copy BGS signs still around in northern jersey? The last "service road" BBS sign at the end of the NJ-17 on Barrows Ave is gone. The Madison Ave signs are still up on I-80 exit ramp.
That's all I know for sure.
US-22 East approaching the GSP still hasn't been replaced. The rest were replaced over 10 years ago at this point.
https://goo.gl/maps/8kBLeX8YZPN2
There may still be some isolated ones on I-78 in Somerset County.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
US-22 East approaching the GSP still hasn't been replaced. The rest were replaced over 10 years ago at this point.
https://goo.gl/maps/8kBLeX8YZPN2
There may still be some isolated ones on I-78 in Somerset County.
I suspect that the upcoming work on the Chestnut Street bridge will bring about the end of this sign after 35+ years.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2018, 03:10:20 PM
any of the NON-reflective button copy BGS signs still around in northern jersey? The last "service road" BBS sign at the end of the NJ-17 on Barrows Ave is gone. The Madison Ave signs are still up on I-80 exit ramp.
That's all I know for sure.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
US-22 East approaching the GSP still hasn't been replaced. The rest were replaced over 10 years ago at this point.
https://goo.gl/maps/8kBLeX8YZPN2
There may still be some isolated ones on I-78 in Somerset County.
WB at exit 40 there is one.
I see NJDOT got rid of the trapezoid gore exit sign for the Garden State Parkway and put a typical exit gore numbered exit guide.
https://goo.gl/maps/rMUDe1GttiP2
https://goo.gl/maps/2zZQ4CCennt
Quote from: roadman65 on July 17, 2018, 09:25:26 PM
I see NJDOT got rid of the trapezoid gore exit sign for the Garden State Parkway and put a typical exit gore numbered exit guide.
https://goo.gl/maps/rMUDe1GttiP2
https://goo.gl/maps/2zZQ4CCennt
I'm actually surprised that didn't happen when they did the 78/Pkwy missing moves construction. Seems to have happened after 2015. NJDOT does not typically put the trapezoid on its freeway exit gores.
Quote from: Alps on July 17, 2018, 07:19:32 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2018, 03:10:20 PM
any of the NON-reflective button copy BGS signs still around in northern jersey? The last "service road" BBS sign at the end of the NJ-17 on Barrows Ave is gone. The Madison Ave signs are still up on I-80 exit ramp.
That's all I know for sure.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
US-22 East approaching the GSP still hasn't been replaced. The rest were replaced over 10 years ago at this point.
https://goo.gl/maps/8kBLeX8YZPN2
There may still be some isolated ones on I-78 in Somerset County.
WB at exit 40 there is one.
That would be this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6528389,-74.4507389,3a,33.5y,247.94h,104.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaxJqs4dpV8zbdbpn12pHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Added bonus, you can still see where the original lettering was. Sign originally referenced only Gillette and Watchung. The Plainfields was added later (one of my favorite things about NJDOT signing practices is the "The" towns -- The Plainfields, the Oranges. Sadly, never used for the Brunswicks).
Quote from: storm2k on July 18, 2018, 04:12:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 17, 2018, 09:25:26 PM
I see NJDOT got rid of the trapezoid gore exit sign for the Garden State Parkway and put a typical exit gore numbered exit guide.
https://goo.gl/maps/rMUDe1GttiP2
https://goo.gl/maps/2zZQ4CCennt
I'm actually surprised that didn't happen when they did the 78/Pkwy missing moves construction. Seems to have happened after 2015. NJDOT does not typically put the trapezoid on its freeway exit gores.
The NJHA probably put that there many years ago!
Quote from: storm2k on July 18, 2018, 04:16:05 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 17, 2018, 07:19:32 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2018, 03:10:20 PM
any of the NON-reflective button copy BGS signs still around in northern jersey? The last "service road" BBS sign at the end of the NJ-17 on Barrows Ave is gone. The Madison Ave signs are still up on I-80 exit ramp.
That's all I know for sure.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
US-22 East approaching the GSP still hasn't been replaced. The rest were replaced over 10 years ago at this point.
https://goo.gl/maps/8kBLeX8YZPN2
There may still be some isolated ones on I-78 in Somerset County.
WB at exit 40 there is one.
That would be this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6528389,-74.4507389,3a,33.5y,247.94h,104.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaxJqs4dpV8zbdbpn12pHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Added bonus, you can still see where the original lettering was. Sign originally referenced only Gillette and Watchung. The Plainfields was added later (one of my favorite things about NJDOT signing practices is the "The" towns -- The Plainfields, the Oranges. Sadly, never used for the Brunswicks).
Eastbound it was always there. Going WB the Exit 40 guide omitted The Plainfields until the day I-78 was finally completed through Watchung Reservation.
However, originally before 1983 when the original 1971 signs were present that had no exit numbers and county route shields (as the name Hilcrest Road was used) it had "The Plainfields" on a tack on sign beneath it in the same manner NCDOT does when adding on an additional control city on their already printed signs. When NJDOT changed all of I-78 in 1983 to feature exit numbers and route numbers they added it to the main signs only EB as they figure no one needed to go to any of the Plainfields considering the cars driving it just began driving the freeway from Drift Road nearby as I-78 had no freeway from NJ 24 to that point. When it finally opened for good, the demand for the Plainfields was needed and NJDOT added to it by moving around the other two existing control cities.
Quote from: storm2k on July 18, 2018, 04:16:05 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 17, 2018, 07:19:32 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 17, 2018, 03:10:20 PM
any of the NON-reflective button copy BGS signs still around in northern jersey? The last "service road" BBS sign at the end of the NJ-17 on Barrows Ave is gone. The Madison Ave signs are still up on I-80 exit ramp.
That's all I know for sure.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 17, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
US-22 East approaching the GSP still hasn't been replaced. The rest were replaced over 10 years ago at this point.
https://goo.gl/maps/8kBLeX8YZPN2
There may still be some isolated ones on I-78 in Somerset County.
WB at exit 40 there is one.
That would be this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6528389,-74.4507389,3a,33.5y,247.94h,104.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYaxJqs4dpV8zbdbpn12pHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Added bonus, you can still see where the original lettering was. Sign originally referenced only Gillette and Watchung. The Plainfields was added later (one of my favorite things about NJDOT signing practices is the "The" towns -- The Plainfields, the Oranges. Sadly, never used for the Brunswicks).
The NJTA does it too and so did the GSP agency before the two agencies merged. No, I've never seen it used for the Brunswicks either (nor for the Cape Mays).
As for the Wildwoods, there's this in Stone Harbor courtesy of the Cape May County roads agency (I think).
https://tinyurl.com/ybapsdj9
ixnay
I think The Wildwoods is slightly different from the others in that it is a brand fostered by the local Greater Wildwoods Tourism Improvement and Development Authority, which also runs "The Wildwoods Convention Center". It also collectively describes a geographic area - an island which includes Diamond Beach (which doesn't have "Wildwood" in its name). The other ones are just convenient ways for people (and traffic agencies) to describe groups of adjacent municipalities with similar names.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 19, 2018, 12:48:43 PM
I think The Wildwoods is slightly different from the others in that it is a brand fostered by the local Greater Wildwoods Tourism Improvement and Development Authority, which also runs "The Wildwoods Convention Center". It also collectively describes a geographic area - an island which includes Diamond Beach (which doesn't have "Wildwood" in its name). The other ones are just convenient ways for people (and traffic agencies) to describe groups of adjacent municipalities with similar names.
In fact North Wildwood is considering changing its name back to its as settled name of "Anglesea".
Quote from: ekt8750 on July 19, 2018, 01:26:04 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 19, 2018, 12:48:43 PM
I think The Wildwoods is slightly different from the others in that it is a brand fostered by the local Greater Wildwoods Tourism Improvement and Development Authority, which also runs "The Wildwoods Convention Center". It also collectively describes a geographic area - an island which includes Diamond Beach (which doesn't have "Wildwood" in its name). The other ones are just convenient ways for people (and traffic agencies) to describe groups of adjacent municipalities with similar names.
In fact North Wildwood is considering changing its name back to its as settled name of "Anglesea".
Again? Voters rejected the idea on election day 2016. Is it back on the ballot this year? If so, the act of putting the name change back on the ballot left no trail on Google.
https://www.nj.com/cape-may-county/index.ssf/2016/11/north_wildwood_rejects_name_change.html
ixnay
Quote from: bzakharin on July 19, 2018, 12:48:43 PM
It also collectively describes a geographic area - an island which includes Diamond Beach (which doesn't have "Wildwood" in its name). The other ones are just convenient ways for people (and traffic agencies) to describe groups of adjacent municipalities with similar names.
Its called "Five-Mile Island".
I love how for US 9 going NB from Freehold both South and Perth Amboys are listed as "The Amboys."
Yet only one has a directional prefix while the other is just "Perth" but nonetheless is an Amboy.
I know also that Route 35 uses "The Amboys" along various points heading north from Asbury Park as well as a few places on Route 34.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2018, 11:20:22 PM
I love how for US 9 going NB from Freehold both South and Perth Amboys are listed as "The Amboys."
Yet only one has a directional prefix while the other is just "Perth" but nonetheless is an Amboy.
I know also that Route 35 uses "The Amboys" along various points heading north from Asbury Park as well as a few places on Route 34.
I forgot the Amboys. It exists on 35 in Woodbridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5575973,-74.2843337,3a,75y,219.82h,89.79t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1snNac8tB_yv4juncGTXjVEA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnNac8tB_yv4juncGTXjVEA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D51.691273%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) as well.
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2018, 12:39:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2018, 11:20:22 PM
I love how for US 9 going NB from Freehold both South and Perth Amboys are listed as "The Amboys."
Yet only one has a directional prefix while the other is just "Perth" but nonetheless is an Amboy.
I know also that Route 35 uses "The Amboys" along various points heading north from Asbury Park as well as a few places on Route 34.
I forgot the Amboys. It exists on 35 in Woodbridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5575973,-74.2843337,3a,75y,219.82h,89.79t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1snNac8tB_yv4juncGTXjVEA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnNac8tB_yv4juncGTXjVEA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D51.691273%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) as well.
Oh yes and even on US 1 & 9 at the new NJ 35 SB Exit where the old cloverleaf was modified back in the mid naughts.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 19, 2018, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 19, 2018, 12:48:43 PM
It also collectively describes a geographic area - an island which includes Diamond Beach (which doesn't have "Wildwood" in its name). The other ones are just convenient ways for people (and traffic agencies) to describe groups of adjacent municipalities with similar names.
Its called "Five-Mile Island".
And Stone Harbor and Avalon are on Seven Mile Island.
When I lived in Cape May County in late 1986/early 1987, I never heard the locals refer to Five Mile and Seven Mile Islands by their names, although the trend regarding Cape May Court House (the county seat; I worked in that town during those months) was to call it simply "Court House".
ixnay
Quote from: storm2k on July 16, 2018, 10:34:41 PM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on July 11, 2018, 05:53:05 PM
So what did the new I-278 exit numbers turn out to be? I dont think it was ever confirmed, there were just rumors. Or have the tarps not been taken off/numbers not confirmed yet?
The PA signed the exits right off the bridge as 3 A-B-C. Should be 2 A-B-C, especially since the Western Ave exit in SI is still signed as exit 3.
Wow that's brutal. So WB, it's 5, 4, 3, 3C, 3B, 3A, end of freeway? Yeah that definitely makes a lot of sense...
Considering NJ uses milebased exits, that is odd for its interstates. If it were mile based, it should be Exit 2A, B, C. Even though I-278 is the shortest interstate out of them all, where sequential would work better, I would think that NJDOT would not consider that one. The only reason why the NJ Turnpike and Palisades Interstate Parkway still have sequential numbering is cause NJDOT has no jurisdiction there on those two freeways.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2018, 11:13:07 PMThe only reason why the NJ Turnpike and Palisades Interstate Parkway still have sequential numbering is cause NJDOT has no jurisdiction there on those two freeways.
Whose jurisdiction does the PIP fall under? And is it the case on the NYS portion too?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on July 25, 2018, 08:58:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2018, 11:13:07 PMThe only reason why the NJ Turnpike and Palisades Interstate Parkway still have sequential numbering is cause NJDOT has no jurisdiction there on those two freeways.
Whose jurisdiction does the PIP fall under? And is the case on the NYS portion too?
ixnay
The Palisades Interstate Park Commission.
Quote from: storm2k on July 18, 2018, 04:16:05 AM
(one of my favorite things about NJDOT signing practices is the "The" towns -- The Plainfields, the Oranges. Sadly, never used for the Brunswicks).
I think the reason the NJTP never used "The Brunswicks" is, while Exit 9 is convenient for Brunswicks prefixed New, East, and North, Exit 8A is the way to go for South Brunswick. This was signed as such on the pike, on an unusual supplementary sign listing (count 'em) 4 control cities. That was removed with the recent MUTCD signing, though I'm not sure if SB is still listed on what's there now.
It's been said that "The Ridgefields" sounds like the name of a 50's sitcom, and "Kearny and The Oranges" could be a rock band. :D
Don't forget those other unique control citites: "Shore Points", and "Shore Resorts".
Quote from: lepidopteran on July 25, 2018, 09:43:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 18, 2018, 04:16:05 AM
(one of my favorite things about NJDOT signing practices is the "The" towns -- The Plainfields, the Oranges. Sadly, never used for the Brunswicks).
I think the reason the NJTP never used "The Brunswicks" is, while Exit 9 is convenient for Brunswicks prefixed New, East, and North, Exit 8A is the way to go for South Brunswick. This was signed as such on the pike, on an unusual supplementary sign listing (count 'em) 4 control cities. That was removed with the recent MUTCD signing, though I'm not sure if SB is still listed on what's there now.
It's been said that "The Ridgefields" sounds like the name of a 50's sitcom, and "Kearny and The Oranges" could be a rock band. :D
Don't forget those other unique control citites: "Shore Points", and "Shore Resorts".
Originally Exit 9 only had one control city which was "New Brunswick." East Brunswick (and US 1) were both added later on. However "Shore Resorts" was on SB signs up until the mid 90's or circa, but that was to promote the NJ 18 freeway extension south of US 9 (as originally NJ 18 ended at Route 9 in Old Bridge) when it opened.
South Brunswick was always on Exit 8A in both directions.
IMO Princeton should be on Exit 9 as a supplemental sign going SB and on Exit 8 going NB. That city never got a mention anyplace despite it being home to Ivy League Princeton University.
Or "To All Maine Points" on I-95 North in Portsmouth, NH. See? It's not just a Jersey thing! :)
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 29, 2018, 10:09:05 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2018, 02:42:45 PM
It appears the 295/42 Missing Moves project is still set to begin construction at some point in the fiscal year.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180731/046e398d71fee0ccd39c8df0bf23a4cb.jpg)
SM-S820L
Quote from: bzakharin on July 30, 2018, 01:32:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 29, 2018, 10:09:05 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 01, 2018, 09:23:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on August 01, 2018, 07:52:22 AM
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.
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
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 (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_27/1.html), 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.
Been meaning to ask this for a while. Does anyone know the details about why NJDOT has jurisdiction over the Port Reading Ave bridges (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5676617,-74.247933,3a,75y,227.89h,79.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxV9qcXxyDivNdbj0VEEAWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) 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 (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/052218a.shtm) 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.
Quote from: storm2k on August 17, 2018, 03:55:07 PM
Been meaning to ask this for a while. Does anyone know the details about why NJDOT has jurisdiction over the Port Reading Ave bridges (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5676617,-74.247933,3a,75y,227.89h,79.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxV9qcXxyDivNdbj0VEEAWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) 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 (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/052218a.shtm) 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.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on August 17, 2018, 12:50:08 PM
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 (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_27/1.html), 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.
Quote
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.)
Quote
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.
NJ-162 and NJ-13 are state maintained due to being a crossing for an intra-coastal waterway canal.
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.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 18, 2018, 12:30:47 PM
inter-coastal waterway canal
That's a long canal. How does it get across the Rockies?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 18, 2018, 12:30:47 PM
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.
CR-520 doesn't cross a canal... or the ICWW for that matter.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 19, 2018, 11:05:37 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Alps on August 19, 2018, 02:00:15 AM
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.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 18, 2018, 07:55:27 PM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on August 19, 2018, 11:46:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 19, 2018, 02:00:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Alps on August 20, 2018, 12:45:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 19, 2018, 11:46:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 19, 2018, 02:00:15 AM
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.
This probably doesn't provide any additional clues because it's dealing with the waterway, but Page 5 of 5 of this: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/6-8-2017.pdf details a state project for fender replacements on this bridge.
Then again, the county has been dealing with the Townsends Inlet Bridge between Sea Isle and Avalon forever since it's their toll bridge, seemingly without any state involvement.
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
Are they really done? My area was only completed in the past month or so, and I'm not sure whether the entirety of the NJ 42 freeway section is complete. The last time I paid attention there was a mix of different size markers there still.
On a semi-related note, DRBA has gotten rid of their own mileage on the part of I-295 it controls, and the numbers on their new mile markers are now consistent with Delaware / NJ mileage, and reset to zero in the right place.
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
As I understand it, Mile 0 is used at the southern/western end of the state highway, which can be pretty clearly defined. Mile End is (obviously) at the other end, but it was used (not everywhere) because it would not be as well defined otherwise. Mile 0 on I-80 is more easily defined through conventional signing means than Mile 68.30 (or wherever it actually ends), for instance. Not sure if Mile End is used with the new enhanced markers.
I tried using this on a project in Utah years ago, and UDOT had no idea what I was proposing . . .
Quote from: akotchi on September 04, 2018, 02:18:40 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
As I understand it, Mile 0 is used at the southern/western end of the state highway, which can be pretty clearly defined. Mile End is (obviously) at the other end, but it was used (not everywhere) because it would not be as well defined otherwise. Mile 0 on I-80 is more easily defined through conventional signing means than Mile 68.30 (or wherever it actually ends), for instance. Not sure if Mile End is used with the new enhanced markers.
Doesn't seem like Mile Ends are being posted with the new posts. Having biked through NJ 79's northern terminus in Matawan this weekend, the rest of the road has the new markers but the old Mile End at NJ 34 still exists. A lot of other state highway ends just don't have them period.
However, it appears that previously unsigned roads are now popping into the public's view:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/2018-08-26_12_21_47_IMG_1022_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/640px-2018-08-26_12_21_47_IMG_1022_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/NJ_167_signage.jpg/640px-NJ_167_signage.jpg)
EDIT: I regret not linking to the pages though I wasn't certainly trying to claim them as my own
User:Famartin (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-08-26_12_21_47_IMG_1022_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg) and Adam Moss (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NJ_167_signage.jpg)
Mr. Matte, IIRC NJ 324 was the last leg of U.S. 322 going towards the Chester-Bridgeport Ferry in the pre-Commodore Barry days.
ixnay
I live in Parsippany where a portion of US 202 is county maintained. There are old mile markers (without shield) on 202 in Morris Plains but they seem to be missing in Parsippany.
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
Mile 0 is the south/west end of the highway and the old Mile ENDs were posted on the east/north end. NJDOT has long since stopped posting Mile END markers (they all date from the 90s or earlier). FWIW, there is no Mile 0 posted for NJ-47 in Wildwood, or even a 0.5 (there used to be one), that section of roadway from Atlantic Ave. to the base of the bridge off the island is maintained by Cape May County as CR-661.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 20, 2018, 09:35:15 AM
Then again, the county has been dealing with the Townsends Inlet Bridge between Sea Isle and Avalon forever since it's their toll bridge, seemingly without any state involvement.
It doesn't cross a man made canal....
Speaking of Cape May County Bridges. More plans for replacing the aging Middle Thorofare Bridge have been released:
https://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/transportation/article_48825402-aac2-11e8-bed4-0313d9059352.html
https://capemaytwomilebridge.com/
That 324 mile marker is new this year. That thing had no markers whatsoever when I drove it in March.
The 167 marker was up last fall when I drove it and US 9. AFAIK, none of the other unsigned routes have EMMs yet. NJ 59 did not as of June.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 04, 2018, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
Mile 0 is the south/west end of the highway and the old Mile ENDs were posted on the east/north end. NJDOT has long since stopped posting Mile END markers (they all date from the 90s or earlier). FWIW, there is no Mile 0 posted for NJ-47 in Wildwood, or even a 0.5 (there used to be one), that section of roadway from Atlantic Ave. to the base of the bridge off the island is maintained by Cape May County as CR-661.
I was down there in August and you are correct that there isn't an EMM on 47 until you're back in Middle Township, on the other side of the drawbridge (this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9915118,-74.8343179,3a,75y,327.45h,75.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3SNNniU5L9jFjCmsK3P3Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the first one). In fact, there really aren't any mentions of Rio Grande Ave being NJ-47 once you're in Wildwood proper. I've never really paid attention to that, but it's just Rio Grand Ave in the city itself all the way down to the ocean.
Quote from: storm2k on September 05, 2018, 12:44:34 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 04, 2018, 06:07:38 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
It looks as if all new mileposts are installed on state highways throughout NJ (haven't been on all of them but I assume they are complete). I don't get the difference between 'mile 0' and 'mile end'. I think the DOT stayed with new mile 0 signs instead.
Mile 0 is the south/west end of the highway and the old Mile ENDs were posted on the east/north end. NJDOT has long since stopped posting Mile END markers (they all date from the 90s or earlier). FWIW, there is no Mile 0 posted for NJ-47 in Wildwood, or even a 0.5 (there used to be one), that section of roadway from Atlantic Ave. to the base of the bridge off the island is maintained by Cape May County as CR-661.
I was down there in August and you are correct that there isn't an EMM on 47 until you're back in Middle Township, on the other side of the drawbridge (this (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9915118,-74.8343179,3a,75y,327.45h,75.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3SNNniU5L9jFjCmsK3P3Zw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the first one). In fact, there really aren't any mentions of Rio Grande Ave being NJ-47 once you're in Wildwood proper. I've never really paid attention to that, but it's just Rio Grand Ave in the city itself all the way down to the ocean.
Even worse, in my opinion, is that when you're on any side street (north/south) street in Wildwood, there's no signage telling you that NJ 47 is coming up. The only prewarning is 'Hurricane Evacuation' signage approaching Rio Grande. This should really be signed much better as NJ 47.
Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2018, 12:48:33 AM
That 324 mile marker is new this year. That thing had no markers whatsoever when I drove it in March.
The 167 marker was up last fall when I drove it and US 9. AFAIK, none of the other unsigned routes have EMMs yet. NJ 59 did not as of June.
I am currently screaming bloody murder with the 324 one because I was right there and knew none of its existence. (I have clinched 324, but before they did that)
Also for future note, Mr. Matte. My photos are not public domain. They may be on Wikimedia Commons, but I still license them under Creative Commons ShareAlike 4.0. Next time, credit me as the source of that 167 photo.
NJ non state maintained state designations never got much attention. Hence, US 206 in Trenton, all of US 202 north of NJ 53 excluding NJ 23 overlap, NJ 27 in Elizabeth and Newark (although Newark does include them on overhead street blades now) and even ALT US 22 (now defunct) in Phillipsburg.
I agree when I visited Wildwood in 1987, I had to ask a cop to direct me to Route 47 as there was no mention of the route from the main beach paralleling arterials. I do remember now how it was signed as a county route which did strike me as odd at the time.
Quote from: cl94 on September 05, 2018, 12:48:33 AM
That 324 mile marker is new this year. That thing had no markers whatsoever when I drove it in March.
The 167 marker was up last fall when I drove it and US 9. AFAIK, none of the other unsigned routes have EMMs yet. NJ 59 did not as of June.
I don't believe 59 has one...
New Jersey never renewed their Red Light Camera program after a 5 year experiment ended in 2014. Technically - NJDOT never issued the report on the effectiveness of the program, and there wasn't enough political will to for NJDOT to issue the report.
Now, New Jersey is looking into prohibiting the Motor Vehicle Commission from providing NJ registration information to other states for red light and speed camera violations.
http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/red-light-camera-fines-new-jersey-law-speed-ppa-20180910.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 10, 2018, 09:37:44 AM
New Jersey never renewed their Red Light Camera program after a 5 year experiment ended in 2014. Technically - NJDOT never issued the report on the effectiveness of the program, and there wasn't enough political will to for NJDOT to issue the report.
Now, New Jersey is looking into prohibiting the Motor Vehicle Commission from providing NJ registration information to other states for red light and speed camera violations.
http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/red-light-camera-fines-new-jersey-law-speed-ppa-20180910.html
Good. The red light camera program was just a legal excuse to take money from motorists. Most places that had the cameras also had their yellow light timings reduced significantly, so they could better catch people in the middle of the intersection on a red and ticket them. The light on Rt 1 at Avanel St in Avanel was definitely affected by this. I know for a fact that they mucked with the timings of the light at Rt 1/Gill Lane in Woodbridge substantially so only a couple of cars could make it thru the light coming from Gill Lane either to make the left onto 1 NB or continue onto Woodbridge Center Dr each cycle. Since the cameras have been gone, the timings are much friendlier and better for traffic.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 10, 2018, 09:37:44 AM
New Jersey never renewed their Red Light Camera program after a 5 year experiment ended in 2014. Technically - NJDOT never issued the report on the effectiveness of the program, and there wasn't enough political will to for NJDOT to issue the report.
Now, New Jersey is looking into prohibiting the Motor Vehicle Commission from providing NJ registration information to other states for red light and speed camera violations.
http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/red-light-camera-fines-new-jersey-law-speed-ppa-20180910.html
Great, an incentive for Jersey drivers to weave around traffic on DC 295 at 80 mph.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2018, 06:25:00 PM
NJ non state maintained state designations never got much attention. Hence, US 206 in Trenton, all of US 202 north of NJ 53 excluding NJ 23 overlap, NJ 27 in Elizabeth and Newark (although Newark does include them on overhead street blades now) and even ALT US 22 (now defunct) in Phillipsburg.
I agree when I visited Wildwood in 1987, I had to ask a cop to direct me to Route 47 as there was no mention of the route from the main beach paralleling arterials. I do remember now how it was signed as a county route which did strike me as odd at the time.
From what I can tell, NJDOT is exclusively mileposting the state maintained portions. It's my main beef with the project, which otherwise is pretty awesome. Also haven't seen any mile ends in the new style. Don't think they are doing them anymore. I'm not sure they are done yet, my hunch is not quite, as some known state maintained portions remain without new markers.
I noticed the ACE has new markers, but they skimped so much they are tiny. There are a few mileposts on the southern NJTP like the new NJDOT ones, namely 0, 10, and 20. They've thrown some parkway shields on some of their mileposts too, but as addons.
Also, not sure the deal with 27 in Newark and Elizabeth previously, but it did get mileposts, so my hunch is that it's now state maintained.
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2018, 08:56:28 PM
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Yes, I took a closer look at that (the ACE mile markers) today. Oddly, the signage on the Brigantine Connector is consistent and NJDOT standard (in fact, it appears to be fully mileposted to every tenth mile)
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 09:16:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2018, 08:56:28 PM
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Yes, I took a closer look at that (the ACE mile markers) today. Oddly, the signage on the Brigantine Connector is consistent and NJDOT standard (in fact, it appears to be fully mileposted to every tenth mile)
495 also has the EMM's every tenth of a mile. I'm assuming this was done to make it easier to pinpoint where a crash or stalled car is on there since it's such a congested road coming to and from the Lincoln Tunnel. I'm not sure who did them, because they're not done the same. The signs don't have the white border around them, and the shields on the signs have the black background, which NJ is moving away from on green signs of all sizes.
Quote from: storm2k on September 12, 2018, 10:38:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 09:16:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2018, 08:56:28 PM
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Yes, I took a closer look at that (the ACE mile markers) today. Oddly, the signage on the Brigantine Connector is consistent and NJDOT standard (in fact, it appears to be fully mileposted to every tenth mile)
495 also has the EMM's every tenth of a mile. I'm assuming this was done to make it easier to pinpoint where a crash or stalled car is on there since it's such a congested road coming to and from the Lincoln Tunnel. I'm not sure who did them, because they're not done the same. The signs don't have the white border around them, and the shields on the signs have the black background, which NJ is moving away from on green signs of all sizes.
Those 495 mile markers are very new, they weren't there back in early July. I also noticed a few 322 markers with black backgrounds. I prefer the black backgrounds as I feel they give the route more emphasis, but that's just me.
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2018, 05:48:10 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 12, 2018, 10:38:18 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 11, 2018, 09:16:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2018, 08:56:28 PM
The ACE has random areas of large tenth mile markers (and even random individual ones), still without shield, and only a few larger whole mile markers thrown in to keep things interesting, I guess. It fits in with their inconsistent exit signage, I suppose.
Yes, I took a closer look at that (the ACE mile markers) today. Oddly, the signage on the Brigantine Connector is consistent and NJDOT standard (in fact, it appears to be fully mileposted to every tenth mile)
495 also has the EMM's every tenth of a mile. I'm assuming this was done to make it easier to pinpoint where a crash or stalled car is on there since it's such a congested road coming to and from the Lincoln Tunnel. I'm not sure who did them, because they're not done the same. The signs don't have the white border around them, and the shields on the signs have the black background, which NJ is moving away from on green signs of all sizes.
Those 495 mile markers are very new, they weren't there back in early July. I also noticed a few 322 markers with black backgrounds. I prefer the black backgrounds as I feel they give the route more emphasis, but that's just me.
I actually prefer the black backgrounds too, especially on big gantry signage.
On another note, the Route 495 viaduct in North Bergen will be a disaster the next 2 years or so. There are some alternative routes for those commuting into the city: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2018/08/17/route-495-construction-alternatives/1022087002/
The state misspelled a town name on a road sign. Good job, Jersey. (https://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2018/09/does_new_jersey_need_a_spell_checker.html)
QuoteIn just the latest of what seems like a rash of misspellings on road signs and other highly visible locations, a green state Department of Transportation sign on the eastbound side of the Route 37 causeway, just short of Pelican Island, left out the third "L" in Lavallette.
I assume they'll just put a greenout with the correct spelling over it. Also interesting that they went with an extruded sign for a LGS. Usually they only do that for BGS's and just use flat panels bolted together for the LGS's. Especially as they've been replacing signs all over the state with mixed cased legends (and all sorts of weird sizing and spacing issues).
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2018, 11:08:43 AM
The letter spacing for both control cities IMHO leaves a lot to be desired as well.
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2018, 11:08:43 AM
The state misspelled a town name on a road sign. Good job, Jersey. (https://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2018/09/does_new_jersey_need_a_spell_checker.html)
QuoteIn just the latest of what seems like a rash of misspellings on road signs and other highly visible locations, a green state Department of Transportation sign on the eastbound side of the Route 37 causeway, just short of Pelican Island, left out the third "L" in Lavallette.
I assume they'll just put a greenout with the correct spelling over it. Also interesting that they went with an extruded sign for a LGS. Usually they only do that for BGS's and just use flat panels bolted together for the LGS's. Especially as they've been replacing signs all over the state with mixed cased legends (and all sorts of weird sizing and spacing issues).
I took a picture of a sign mis-spelling, and it was printed and I was given credit in the paper many years ago (the paper is in the family of nj.com, although this happened so long ago I couldn't find anything regarding it). One of the signs for Gibbstown (Exit 16B) off of I-295 spelled it "Gibbtsown". They somehow took off the two letters and switched them on the sign in the field. The correction was done so precisely that you couldn't tell that there had ever been an error.
Strange they included a mis-spelling by Hard Rock Casino in the article here, as that has absolutely nothing to do with NJDOT.
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2018, 11:08:43 AM
The state misspelled a town name on a road sign. Good job, Jersey. (https://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2018/09/does_new_jersey_need_a_spell_checker.html)
QuoteIn just the latest of what seems like a rash of misspellings on road signs and other highly visible locations, a green state Department of Transportation sign on the eastbound side of the Route 37 causeway, just short of Pelican Island, left out the third "L" in Lavallette.
I assume they'll just put a greenout with the correct spelling over it. Also interesting that they went with an extruded sign for a LGS. Usually they only do that for BGS's and just use flat panels bolted together for the LGS's. Especially as they've been replacing signs all over the state with mixed cased legends (and all sorts of weird sizing and spacing issues).
My guess is that because this is a noted contractor error, he's on the hook to replace the sign. If it was a DOT fabricated sign or not noticed until after the contractor was fully paid, then it would be a greenout.
(EDIT: After staring at the sign, I think we all just have a long way to go to be comfortable with mixed case Series D.)
20 most scenic autumn drives in NJ:
http://s.nj.com/8au5neg (http://s.nj.com/8au5neg)
Quote from: Alps on September 26, 2018, 05:12:11 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2018, 11:08:43 AM
The state misspelled a town name on a road sign. Good job, Jersey. (https://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2018/09/does_new_jersey_need_a_spell_checker.html)
QuoteIn just the latest of what seems like a rash of misspellings on road signs and other highly visible locations, a green state Department of Transportation sign on the eastbound side of the Route 37 causeway, just short of Pelican Island, left out the third "L" in Lavallette.
I assume they'll just put a greenout with the correct spelling over it. Also interesting that they went with an extruded sign for a LGS. Usually they only do that for BGS's and just use flat panels bolted together for the LGS's. Especially as they've been replacing signs all over the state with mixed cased legends (and all sorts of weird sizing and spacing issues).
My guess is that because this is a noted contractor error, he's on the hook to replace the sign. If it was a DOT fabricated sign or not noticed until after the contractor was fully paid, then it would be a greenout.
(EDIT: After staring at the sign, I think we all just have a long way to go to be comfortable with mixed case Series D.)
At least the letters are fairly big. I've found that a lot of the LGS's that the state has been replacing are using a very small sized font that can be difficult to read from a distance.
Electronically thumbing thru the MUTCD for something else, I came upon the I-295/US 130 split at Exit 13 as an example for APL signage. In reality, the interchange doesn't exist as it shows, and in real life, the APL signs don't exist at all. Additionally, well before the 2009 MUTCD edition was ever published, a 4th lane was added for the interchange when they redid Exit 14, and the diagrammatic guide signage was modified to reflect the new conditions. However, when NJDOT replaced all I-295 signage 10+ years ago, they must've used old plans without ever checking out the field conditions, as the current sign depicts 3 lanes.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf, PDF Page 196
In real life: https://goo.gl/maps/edSTiLsqNo42
You'll note there's 4 lanes, not 3. Additionally, in the MUTCD example they use "To 130" after the split, although in reality I don't see why TO would be necessary here as 295/130 are overlapping route numbers on the highway so you're already on 130 as you split off from 295. And again, yes, I know the MUTCD is just an example of what to do, but it's interesting they used this particular interchange, and NJDOT never has actually updated the signage themselves to the new standard!
PS - Deepwater is a stupid control city here.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2018, 08:35:30 AM
Electronically thumbing thru the MUTCD for something else, I came upon the I-295/US 130 split at Exit 13 as an example for APL signage. In reality, the interchange doesn't exist as it shows, and in real life, the APL signs don't exist at all. Additionally, well before the 2009 MUTCD edition was ever published, a 4th lane was added for the interchange when they redid Exit 14, and the diagrammatic guide signage was modified to reflect the new conditions. However, when NJDOT replaced all I-295 signage 10+ years ago, they must've used old plans without ever checking out the field conditions, as the current sign depicts 3 lanes.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf, PDF Page 196
In real life: https://goo.gl/maps/edSTiLsqNo42
You'll note there's 4 lanes, not 3. Additionally, in the MUTCD example they use "To 130" after the split, although in reality I don't see why TO would be necessary here as 295/130 are overlapping route numbers on the highway so you're already on 130 as you split off from 295. And again, yes, I know the MUTCD is just an example of what to do, but it's interesting they used this particular interchange, and NJDOT never has actually updated the signage themselves to the new standard!
PS - Deepwater is a stupid control city here.
Personally, I prefer the current signage out there since many use this stretch of I-295/US 130 as a means to get to the Commodore Barry Bridge (having such on the main panels makes sense here). If a control city (rather than a control point/destination)
has to be used en lieu of
Delaware; I would use
Wilmington instead, per what the NJTP did with their newer signs.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2018, 08:35:30 AM
Electronically thumbing thru the MUTCD for something else, I came upon the I-295/US 130 split at Exit 13 as an example for APL signage. In reality, the interchange doesn't exist as it shows, and in real life, the APL signs don't exist at all. Additionally, well before the 2009 MUTCD edition was ever published, a 4th lane was added for the interchange when they redid Exit 14, and the diagrammatic guide signage was modified to reflect the new conditions. However, when NJDOT replaced all I-295 signage 10+ years ago, they must've used old plans without ever checking out the field conditions, as the current sign depicts 3 lanes.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part2e.pdf, PDF Page 196
In real life: https://goo.gl/maps/edSTiLsqNo42
You'll note there's 4 lanes, not 3. Additionally, in the MUTCD example they use "To 130" after the split, although in reality I don't see why TO would be necessary here as 295/130 are overlapping route numbers on the highway so you're already on 130 as you split off from 295. And again, yes, I know the MUTCD is just an example of what to do, but it's interesting they used this particular interchange, and NJDOT never has actually updated the signage themselves to the new standard!
PS - Deepwater is a stupid control city here.
Plus by the time you get to the actual split, it's more of a "left, left, left/right, right" than a "left, left, left/straight, straight". Even a "straight, straight, straight/right, right" would make more sense.
Depending on which part of Wilmington you're going to and when, it may actually be faster to take the Commodore Barry Bridge and use I-95 and/or I-495 South. But Deepwater is not even incorporated, and NJ recently started removing the few unincorporated communities it uses as control points.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 06:16:44 PM
But Deepwater is not even incorporated, and NJ recently started removing the few unincorporated communities it uses as control points.
I miss when the Parkway exit for NJ 72 said "Manahawkin/Long Beach Island"
I do not know why Manahawkin was removed. Yes its unincorporated, but it was a great point of reference. Also to replace Camden with Pemberton is maybe a MUTCD following, but most of the traffic heading west on Route 72 goes west on Route 70 once the road terminates. It does not continue on the Burlington County route to Pemberton.
Quote from: famartin on October 03, 2018, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 06:16:44 PM
But Deepwater is not even incorporated, and NJ recently started removing the few unincorporated communities it uses as control points.
I miss when the Parkway exit for NJ 72 said "Manahawkin/Long Beach Island"
I believe Manahawkin is now on a supplemental sign. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: J Route Z on October 04, 2018, 01:05:50 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 03, 2018, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 06:16:44 PM
But Deepwater is not even incorporated, and NJ recently started removing the few unincorporated communities it uses as control points.
I miss when the Parkway exit for NJ 72 said "Manahawkin/Long Beach Island"
I believe Manahawkin is now on a supplemental sign. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It is. But it's not the same...
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2018, 10:10:53 PM
I do not know why Manahawkin was removed. Yes its unincorporated, but it was a great point of reference. Also to replace Camden with Pemberton is maybe a MUTCD following, but most of the traffic heading west on Route 72 goes west on Route 70 once the road terminates. It does not continue on the Burlington County route to Pemberton.
According to Google Maps the NJ 72 exit is never the best route to Camden. It's either going south to the Atlantic City Expressway or one of the exits further north that eventually leads to NJ 72. On the other hand, it *is* the best exit to Pemberton from that area.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 04, 2018, 09:26:23 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2018, 10:10:53 PM
I do not know why Manahawkin was removed. Yes its unincorporated, but it was a great point of reference. Also to replace Camden with Pemberton is maybe a MUTCD following, but most of the traffic heading west on Route 72 goes west on Route 70 once the road terminates. It does not continue on the Burlington County route to Pemberton.
According to Google Maps the NJ 72 exit is never the best route to Camden. It's either going south to the Atlantic City Expressway or one of the exits further north that eventually leads to NJ 72. On the other hand, it *is* the best exit to Pemberton from that area.
Even Cherry Hill or Marlton or ANYTHING else would be better than Camden here.
A list of "Jersey freeways" in New Jersey, at least 3-4 interchanges in length:
US 1, US 130 to CR 529
NJ 3 west of NJ 21
NJ 4 east of NJ 208 merge
US 9 from NJ 34 to US 1-9/NJ 35
NJ 17 north of 46
US 22 from US 202/206 through CR 525 interchange
US 22 east of New Providence Rd. in Mountainside
US 30 west of US 130
US 46 from east NJ 159 terminus to Hazel Ave. @ GSP/NJ 19
US 46 from Piaget Ave. split to GSP exit 157
US 46 from Tpk. interchange east
US 202 from CR 567 to I-287
NJ 208
(Defined as having driveways but no intersections/left turns/"at grades")
Did I get them all?
So I just finished this the other day... (I think you'll be able to see the gallery even if you aren't a Facebook user)
https://www.facebook.com/ray.martin/posts/10156542265896605
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2018, 12:07:38 AM
A list of "Jersey freeways" in New Jersey, at least 3-4 interchanges in length:
Did I get them all?
US 1 from I-295 to Carnegie Center.
US 1 through the Forrestal Campus.
US 1-9 Local in Newark (southbound; northbound is a full freeway).
NJ 3 Local in Secaucus.
NJ 7 has a driveway west of Fish House Road. It's currently only 2 interchanges but will be 3 when the new bridge is done.
NJ 23 north of Alps Road (continuation of a full freeway, which provides the remaining interchanges).
NJ 23 from Center Court in Kinnelon to Echo Lake Road.
NJ 38 west of NJ 70.
I-80 in the Delaware Water Gap. :bigass:
US 130 in Yardville.
CR 631 at I-80 exit 28.
US 1-9 Local, 3 "local": I treat those more as frontage roads. I'm more interested in two-way highways with driveways, not one-way glorified frontage roads. But point taken.
NJ 23 (Wayne): Not long enough. It's a freeway and an arterial with a short transition zone.
NJ 38: Packaged with US 30 below.
I-80 DWG: Technically all interchanges are with public roads and all driveways are on the ramps or roads. But it's close for an Interstate.
CR 631: Not long enough. I know your next argument is "but it's 3 interchanges", but it's not even 1/2 mile. It's really just a glorified 46/80 complex.
Updated:
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2018, 12:07:38 AM
A list of "Jersey freeways" in New Jersey, at least 3-4 interchanges in length:
US 1, CR 546 to Carnegie Center Blvd.
US 1, Harrison St. (Penns Neck) through College Rd.
US 1, US 130 to CR 529
NJ 3 west of NJ 21
NJ 4 east of NJ 208 merge
NJ 7 east of CR 508
US 9 from NJ 34 to US 1-9/NJ 35
NJ 17 north of 46
US 22 from US 202/206 through CR 525 interchange
US 22 east of New Providence Rd. in Mountainside
NJ 23 from Center Ct. (Kinnelon) to Echo Lake Rd.
US 30 from PA border to NJ 38 @ 70 split
US 46 from east NJ 159 terminus to Hazel Ave. @ GSP/NJ 19
US 46 from Piaget Ave. split to GSP exit 157
US 46 from Tpk. interchange east
US 130 in Yardville from Groveville Rd. to north NJ 156 terminus
US 202 from CR 567 to I-287
NJ 208
(Defined as having driveways but no intersections/left turns/"at grades")
Did I get them all?
@FAMARTIN: Your link worked. I also commented on your picture with US Route 130. I have a few state shield pics. My home city of New Britain has parts of CT Routes 9, 71, 71A (not signed coming in from Berlin and ends at Buell Street), 72, 174 and 175. I-84 skims the west end. We have no US routes.
Courtesy of the public Facebook page for New Britain mayor Erin Stewart...most of a CT Route 9/72 assembly behind the veterans and police. That's at the beginning of West Main Street, looking east towards Bank Street. Our City Hall is across the street, out of frame to the left.
(https://i.imgur.com/LVeud4d.jpg)
Quote from: bzakharin on October 04, 2018, 09:26:23 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2018, 10:10:53 PM
I do not know why Manahawkin was removed. Yes its unincorporated, but it was a great point of reference. Also to replace Camden with Pemberton is maybe a MUTCD following, but most of the traffic heading west on Route 72 goes west on Route 70 once the road terminates. It does not continue on the Burlington County route to Pemberton.
According to Google Maps the NJ 72 exit is never the best route to Camden. It's either going south to the Atlantic City Expressway or one of the exits further north that eventually leads to NJ 72. On the other hand, it *is* the best exit to Pemberton from that area.
No considering heading South the Turnpike from 129 or NJ 70 from 89 is the best, but still most traffic from NJ 72 at its west terminus continues on NJ 70.
Pemberton? Who goes there?
Also this https://goo.gl/maps/vWJ22zKvj3z using Willingboro and North Brunswick as mileage control points suggests this assembly was created in the late 90's when NJDOT updated the mileage signs to use points directly on the route rather than near it. However, the sign is located on the median which always was a practice that NJDOT did for ages, but if I remember correctly all the new signs of 1998 were all placed to the right side.
This here is an oddity even for NJ.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 05, 2018, 10:25:37 PM
Also this https://goo.gl/maps/vWJ22zKvj3z using Willingboro and North Brunswick as mileage control points suggests this assembly was created in the late 90's when NJDOT updated the mileage signs to use points directly on the route rather than near it. However, the sign is located on the median which always was a practice that NJDOT did for ages, but if I remember correctly all the new signs of 1998 were all placed to the right side.
This here is an oddity even for NJ.
That looks a little bit later to me. Most of the signs done in 1998 were that really dark green for whatever reason.
Then that is even more odd, as if it were a later replacement it would be carbon copied. Therefore Trenton would be the final control city as before 1998, Trenton was used up until Bordentown where then New York became the final control city afterwards and North Brunswick was never used.
Somebody decided to not copy the old and use the newer signs method of using direct control points here.
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2018, 07:32:57 PM
US 1-9 Local, 3 "local": I treat those more as frontage roads. I'm more interested in two-way highways with driveways, not one-way glorified frontage roads. But point taken.
NJ 23 (Wayne): Not long enough. It's a freeway and an arterial with a short transition zone.
NJ 38: Packaged with US 30 below.
I-80 DWG: Technically all interchanges are with public roads and all driveways are on the ramps or roads. But it's close for an Interstate.
CR 631: Not long enough. I know your next argument is "but it's 3 interchanges", but it's not even 1/2 mile. It's really just a glorified 46/80 complex.
Updated:
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2018, 12:07:38 AM
A list of "Jersey freeways" in New Jersey, at least 3-4 interchanges in length:
US 1, CR 546 to Carnegie Center Blvd.
US 1, Harrison St. (Penns Neck) through College Rd.
US 1, US 130 to CR 529
NJ 3 west of NJ 21
NJ 4 east of NJ 208 merge
NJ 7 east of CR 508
US 9 from NJ 34 to US 1-9/NJ 35
NJ 17 north of 46
US 22 from US 202/206 through CR 525 interchange
US 22 east of New Providence Rd. in Mountainside
NJ 23 from Center Ct. (Kinnelon) to Echo Lake Rd.
US 30 from PA border to NJ 38 @ 70 split
US 46 from east NJ 159 terminus to Hazel Ave. @ GSP/NJ 19
US 46 from Piaget Ave. split to GSP exit 157
US 46 from Tpk. interchange east
US 130 in Yardville from Groveville Rd. to north NJ 156 terminus
US 202 from CR 567 to I-287
NJ 208
(Defined as having driveways but no intersections/left turns/"at grades")
Did I get them all?
I thought of 38 and 130, but they didn't meet your 3-4 traffic light requirement. Without that, sections of 70, 73 and 130 West of 295 can be included as well.
What type of bulbs are used on state highway traffic lights? I remember they used to be a lower intensity bulb. Some of these old fashioned bulbs are still used in some areas (non-state highways), including Camden, Monmouth, Hudson, and Mercer counties. Example: https://goo.gl/maps/ookd75WKN2C2 When was the transition made? My guess would be around 1999.
https://goo.gl/maps/wPCH1QiQ4dR2
Are not state routes supposed to have center lines painted down the middle? This is actually US 206 but still as NJ state highway, even though maintained by Trenton. Does not the MUTCD frown upon any of this?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2018, 04:28:09 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/wPCH1QiQ4dR2
Are not state routes supposed to have center lines painted down the middle? This is actually US 206 but still as NJ state highway, even though maintained by Trenton. Does not the MUTCD frown upon any of this?
The fact that it's a US Route isn't relevant. The MUTCD says that centerlines are only required on roads with an AADT of 6000 or more.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 11, 2018, 04:37:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2018, 04:28:09 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/wPCH1QiQ4dR2
Are not state routes supposed to have center lines painted down the middle? This is actually US 206 but still as NJ state highway, even though maintained by Trenton. Does not the MUTCD frown upon any of this?
The fact that it's a US Route isn't relevant. The MUTCD says that centerlines are only required on roads with an AADT of 6000 or more.
Interesting. So only the traffic count determines this. The fact its any kind of route does not matter. Just the traffic count is the guideline.
That traffic light likely has a LED replacement in it, not an incandescent "traffic" bulb.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2018, 04:45:36 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 11, 2018, 04:37:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2018, 04:28:09 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/wPCH1QiQ4dR2
Are not state routes supposed to have center lines painted down the middle? This is actually US 206 but still as NJ state highway, even though maintained by Trenton. Does not the MUTCD frown upon any of this?
The fact that it's a US Route isn't relevant. The MUTCD says that centerlines are only required on roads with an AADT of 6000 or more.
Interesting. So only the traffic count determines this. The fact its any kind of route does not matter. Just the traffic count is the guideline.
Yes, but that's not to say you can't have a double yellow on a road under 6K. I think it makes sense to have a centerline on any paved state highway.
https://goo.gl/maps/8TStV1ZGbPv
I see that NJDOT is keeping the original US 206 as US 206, as the new alignment is signed BYPASS US 206.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2018, 11:50:41 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/8TStV1ZGbPv
I see that NJDOT is keeping the original US 206 as US 206, as the new alignment is signed BYPASS US 206.
For the moment. Since its not complete yet, it would not be wise to sign it as 206. I imagine when it is complete, 206 will revert to BUS 206 or some yet to be determined state route.
206 through Hillsborough proper is going to be locally maintained.
https://goo.gl/maps/U17JMGB92vC2
This is the dumbest set up I have ever seen even for NJ. On NB NJ 109 you can make a left turn to go back south on NJ 109 but in the other direction you cannot make a left turn onto the Garden State Parkway! Really thought of well here. The permissive left turn could also be used on SB 109 to turn left here.
I lived in NJ for 25 years and this is the worst intersection I have ever seen built.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:47:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/U17JMGB92vC2
This is the dumbest set up I have ever seen even for NJ. On NB NJ 109 you can make a left turn to go back south on NJ 109 but in the other direction you cannot make a left turn onto the Garden State Parkway! Really thought of well here. The permissive left turn could also be used on SB 109 to turn left here.
I lived in NJ for 25 years and this is the worst intersection I have ever seen built.
It's not
that bad... And a U-turn movement from NB to SB 109 is needed as that's the best way for traffic from 109 in Cape May and Ocean Drive to reach the houses and businesses immediately west of 109. A U-turn from the GSP southbound to GSP northbound is useless here, and if you really wanted to do that, you could use the specifically designated U-turn just down the road at Ocean Drive, which is necessary for the same reason as the other U-turn.
The loop probably is just NJDOT's obsession with jughandles showing, but it lets the signal stay two-phase (with the exception of the opposite protected left for the U-turn that for some reason isn't a doghouse) while giving that turn some extra stacking space. I don't know how well a plain permissive turn would work there.
I'd rather see it grade-separated, but this is better than nothing.
For some odd reason, it appears that NJDOT has installed tenth mile markers on Paterson Plank Rd. between NJ-3 and US-1&9. Its a rare sight to see a Hudson County route marker, let alone mileposts! I'm guessing its part of the NJ-495 construction project for accident response as the August 2018 GSV coverage doesn't show them and Paterson Plank Rd/CR-681 is a major detour route in the area.
Come to think of it, will this (https://goo.gl/maps/vjqKAE4pQkm) be the only APL in NJ with the black-background route shields?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:47:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/U17JMGB92vC2
This is the dumbest set up I have ever seen even for NJ. On NB NJ 109 you can make a left turn to go back south on NJ 109 but in the other direction you cannot make a left turn onto the Garden State Parkway! Really thought of well here. The permissive left turn could also be used on SB 109 to turn left here.
I lived in NJ for 25 years and this is the worst intersection I have ever seen built.
You lived in NJ 25 years ago. Have you even travelled thru this intersection?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 14, 2018, 01:17:01 AM
For some odd reason, it appears that NJDOT has installed tenth mile markers on Paterson Plank Rd. between NJ-3 and US-1&9. Its a rare sight to see a Hudson County route marker, let alone mileposts! I'm guessing its part of the NJ-495 construction project for accident response as the August 2018 GSV coverage doesn't show them and Paterson Plank Rd/CR-681 is a major detour route in the area.
I would love to see a photo.
It'll be tough with the amount of traffic going every which way in that area, but I'll try.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 14, 2018, 08:12:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:47:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/U17JMGB92vC2
This is the dumbest set up I have ever seen even for NJ. On NB NJ 109 you can make a left turn to go back south on NJ 109 but in the other direction you cannot make a left turn onto the Garden State Parkway! Really thought of well here. The permissive left turn could also be used on SB 109 to turn left here.
I lived in NJ for 25 years and this is the worst intersection I have ever seen built.
You lived in NJ 25 years ago. Have you even travelled thru this intersection?
No for 25 years. I am aware that it was troublesome over the years. I am actually away from it 28 years and been through there in person last in 96 coming from the ferry.
Not to say that the former intersection needed upgrade, but considering they allow left turns going one way and not the other is odd even for NJ. When I lived there I accepted the odd we had especially full serve gas, but this at grade loop is even strange from the NJ I knew (and still see on this forum and from relatives). I can see the logic and keeping the signal in 2 movements, but still the other way adds really a third, but is traffic really that bad on NB 109 that cars turning left onto the Parkway cannot just simply yield or just add the third movement to turn left fully protected when NB NJ 109 is given the permissive?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:47:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/U17JMGB92vC2
This is the dumbest set up I have ever seen even for NJ. On NB NJ 109 you can make a left turn to go back south on NJ 109 but in the other direction you cannot make a left turn onto the Garden State Parkway! Really thought of well here. The permissive left turn could also be used on SB 109 to turn left here.
I lived in NJ for 25 years and this is the worst intersection I have ever seen built.
I think it's a rather smart setup. Right-of-way was available for the jug, and not having to grade separate saves millions. A permissive left turn would NOT have worked for the 109 SB to GSP NB movement.
Quote from: civilmaher on October 16, 2018, 01:45:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:47:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/U17JMGB92vC2
This is the dumbest set up I have ever seen even for NJ. On NB NJ 109 you can make a left turn to go back south on NJ 109 but in the other direction you cannot make a left turn onto the Garden State Parkway! Really thought of well here. The permissive left turn could also be used on SB 109 to turn left here.
I lived in NJ for 25 years and this is the worst intersection I have ever seen built.
I think it's a rather smart setup. Right-of-way was available for the jug, and not having to grade separate saves millions. A permissive left turn would NOT have worked for the 109 SB to GSP NB movement.
I've lived in NJ for 35 years and I can offhand name several dozen other intersections that are not built as well. Start with every traffic circle that still exists.
The NJ Circles were mostly built way before the problems now they impose on motorists. At the time they were revolutionary for handling traffic. This double loop, I feel, is not really necessary. Yes some of the leftover circles are now dumb designs, but this one is the most not thought of.
Any other state would not create a loop from SB 109 to the Parkway. Florida would make a T intersection with NJ 109 from the north ending at the intersection while the Parkway to NJ 109 from the south would default into each other. To me personally I do not think adding a third phase to this light would not be that much of an imposition considering a permissive turn phase takes place going the other direction. Heck if a loop was built even to make a u turn on NB Route 109 instead of the direct left turn it would not be so bad. I know that in Eatontown before NJDOT redid the NJ 35 & 36 intersection again, they allowed a direct left turn from NB to WB but from SB to EB a loop turn was required, and that was basically the same concept here, but at the time I thought it was strange too but not beyond that.
Here I just think that the loop and passing through the intersection could have been thought of more carefully
Quote from: Alps on October 16, 2018, 06:11:23 PM
Quote from: civilmaher on October 16, 2018, 01:45:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:47:22 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/U17JMGB92vC2
This is the dumbest set up I have ever seen even for NJ. On NB NJ 109 you can make a left turn to go back south on NJ 109 but in the other direction you cannot make a left turn onto the Garden State Parkway! Really thought of well here. The permissive left turn could also be used on SB 109 to turn left here.
I lived in NJ for 25 years and this is the worst intersection I have ever seen built.
I think it's a rather smart setup. Right-of-way was available for the jug, and not having to grade separate saves millions. A permissive left turn would NOT have worked for the 109 SB to GSP NB movement.
I've lived in NJ for 35 years and I can offhand name several dozen other intersections that are not built as well. Start with every traffic circle that still exists.
25 years later and I still don't understand why they didn't do more reconfiguration of the Somerville Death Trap when they built the 202 flyover.
From what my aunt once told me, the addition of the flyover caused more accidents. That is why the yield signs were added to help with that, but only helped a little.
To me that made some sense when they created the flyover, but it obviously failed. It should be redone again, but in a previous discussion many mentioned its a tough challenge to do it. You would have to acquire land from the nearby plazas to do it, which is probably why they did it this way. However, with the accidents that have since happened you think NJDOT would have acted on another alternative.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 10:44:22 PM
From what my aunt once told me, the addition of the flyover caused more accidents. That is why the yield signs were added to help with that, but only helped a little.
To me that made some sense when they created the flyover, but it obviously failed. It should be redone again, but in a previous discussion many mentioned its a tough challenge to do it. You would have to acquire land from the nearby plazas to do it, which is probably why they did it this way. However, with the accidents that have since happened you think NJDOT would have acted on another alternative.
The flyover has been good to direct a decent amount of traffic, especially as traffic coming to and from PA has increased on 202, but it doesn't fix the issues within the circle itself.
You're right though, any attempts to fix it would require quite a bit of property takings, as there are businesses along all sides of the circle itself, including the QuickChek they're building with gas, which will just make more issues.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:48:52 PM
Any other state would not create a loop from SB 109 to the Parkway. Florida would make a T intersection with NJ 109 from the north ending at the intersection while the Parkway to NJ 109 from the south would default into each other.
(https://i4beyond.com/wp-content/gallery/s-r-535/3216-Echelon-Interchanges-on-SR-535-with-ponds.jpg)
Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2018, 04:38:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:48:52 PM
Any other state would not create a loop from SB 109 to the Parkway. Florida would make a T intersection with NJ 109 from the north ending at the intersection while the Parkway to NJ 109 from the south would default into each other.
(https://i4beyond.com/wp-content/gallery/s-r-535/3216-Echelon-Interchanges-on-SR-535-with-ponds.jpg)
Is that... an exit ramp... with a direct ramp... to an entrance ramp in the same direction? My brain bleeds.
Quote from: Alps on October 17, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
Is that... an exit ramp... with a direct ramp... to an entrance ramp in the same direction? My brain bleeds.
That's a rendering fuckup. http://i4beyond.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/interchanges/south/segment-5/242484-8_Line-and_Grade_Plans.pdf (p. 5)
Quote from: Alps on October 17, 2018, 06:10:56 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2018, 04:38:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:48:52 PM
Any other state would not create a loop from SB 109 to the Parkway. Florida would make a T intersection with NJ 109 from the north ending at the intersection while the Parkway to NJ 109 from the south would default into each other.
(https://i4beyond.com/wp-content/gallery/s-r-535/3216-Echelon-Interchanges-on-SR-535-with-ponds.jpg)
Is that... an exit ramp... with a direct ramp... to an entrance ramp in the same direction? My brain bleeds.
Maybe its for the state troopers to camp it. Because you definitely cant make such a move on the main highway like that.
iPhone
Public meeting tonight in regards to replacing the NJ 73 overpass over US 130 in Pennsauken, NJ.
The public meeting notice is here: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout101818rt73.docx . What caught my eye is Rt. 73's "posted speed limit of 65 mph". While that would be nice, and no doubt some people travel that fast, that's far from the actual posted speed of 50 mph in the area! Rt. 73 maxes out at 55 mph much further south, but is never signed 65 mph.
The current overpass is actually made up of 3 different design types. Shown here https://goo.gl/maps/QSEseQgeV9G2 is the original design to the left (now US 130 South) and one expansion to the right (US 130 North; note the curved beams on the right). The 2nd is a GSV underneath - https://goo.gl/maps/UqdcUCj2vq52 - the original bridge (near the GSV, now NJ 73 South) has additional supports; the expansion (NJ 73 North) used longer beams.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 10:22:02 AMThe 2nd is a GSV underneath - https://goo.gl/maps/UqdcUCj2vq52 the original bridge (near the GSV, now NJ 73 South) has additional supports; the expansion (NJ 73 North) used longer beams.
GSV link fixed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 18, 2018, 11:54:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 10:22:02 AMThe 2nd is a GSV underneath - https://goo.gl/maps/UqdcUCj2vq52 the original bridge (near the GSV, now NJ 73 South) has additional supports; the expansion (NJ 73 North) used longer beams.
GSV link fixed.
Thanks. Original post is fixed as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 10:22:02 AM
Public meeting tonight in regards to replacing the NJ 73 overpass over US 130 in Pennsauken, NJ.
The public meeting notice is here: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout101818rt73.docx . What caught my eye is Rt. 73's "posted speed limit of 65 mph". While that would be nice, and no doubt some people travel that fast, that's far from the actual posted speed of 50 mph in the area! Rt. 73 maxes out at 55 mph much further south, but is never signed 65 mph.
Let's find out who that consultant is and hire them a roadgeek.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2018, 10:22:02 AM
Public meeting tonight in regards to replacing the NJ 73 overpass over US 130 in Pennsauken, NJ.
The public meeting notice is here: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout101818rt73.docx . What caught my eye is Rt. 73's "posted speed limit of 65 mph". While that would be nice, and no doubt some people travel that fast, that's far from the actual posted speed of 50 mph in the area! Rt. 73 maxes out at 55 mph much further south, but is never signed 65 mph.
The current overpass is actually made up of 3 different design types. Shown here https://goo.gl/maps/QSEseQgeV9G2 is the original design to the left (now US 130 South) and one expansion to the right (US 130 North; note the curved beams on the right). The 2nd is a GSV underneath - https://goo.gl/maps/UqdcUCj2vq52 - the original bridge (near the GSV, now NJ 73 South) has additional supports; the expansion (NJ 73 North) used longer beams.
We have many overpasses in FL that have been added 3 times and looking at it you see different piers or supports. Never like the one where two different bridge types on both sides of the road on top as well as two completely different types over the roads on the bottom.
Obviously US 130 was widened before NJ 73 was.
Has anyone come across this before? I noticed remnants of the old route from Pleasantville to Atlantic City. There's a dead end road out of Pleasantville called Old Turnpike which not only predates the AC Expressway but also the Blackhorse Pike.
https://goo.gl/maps/pLvkiTRLT122
Also you can see a remnant on the other end in AC which is Turnpike Road.
https://goo.gl/maps/qXTeEhRKaBT2
Also here is where it looks like you can see an opening where the ROW was across from AC. It's above the boat:
https://goo.gl/maps/7quphWs11kS2
From the historical aerial image it looks like it may have been a swing bridge like the railroad bridge north of it. That's since it looks like it has a similar structure at water level than these swing bridges:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7574677,-75.9972273,221m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4313338,-77.5498774,241m/data=!3m1!1e3
I would say various examples of that exist. Here's one near me: https://goo.gl/maps/DW7cBfmqq912 . If you remove the line, you'll see a straight road under that, that probably got cut off numerous times over the years. And when I say years, I'm talking nearly a century ago when it was a horse-and-buggy road!
The 'Old Turnpike' in your link is probably similar to it being a stagecoach road well before modern roads were built.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2018, 04:10:07 PM
I would say various examples of that exist. Here's one near me: https://goo.gl/maps/DW7cBfmqq912 . If you remove the line, you'll see a straight road under that, that probably got cut off numerous times over the years. And when I say years, I'm talking nearly a century ago when it was a horse-and-buggy road!
The 'Old Turnpike' in your link is probably similar to it being a stagecoach road well before modern roads were built.
I've traced it back and we're talking 19th century. Black Horse Pike and White Horse Pike superseded it.
Just out of curiousity, when was NJ 23 converted to a pair of one way streets in Sussex, NJ?
Also is this sign for mileages to Hamburg, Franklin, and Newark a leftover of when NJ 23 Southbound used Hamburg Avenue hence it being in the middle of the island?
https://goo.gl/maps/goEcpJQs12m
Quote from: roadman65 on October 28, 2018, 12:29:33 AM
Just out of curiousity, when was NJ 23 converted to a pair of one way streets in Sussex, NJ?
Also is this sign for mileages to Hamburg, Franklin, and Newark a leftover of when NJ 23 Southbound used Hamburg Avenue hence it being in the middle of the island?
https://goo.gl/maps/goEcpJQs12m
Converted about 2-3 years ago, but had been planned for awhile before that. It took construction of the southern tie-in to make it happen - the northern end was already there but needed to be resurfaced.
Quote from: Alps on October 26, 2018, 04:45:55 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2018, 04:10:07 PM
I would say various examples of that exist. Here's one near me: https://goo.gl/maps/DW7cBfmqq912 . If you remove the line, you'll see a straight road under that, that probably got cut off numerous times over the years. And when I say years, I'm talking nearly a century ago when it was a horse-and-buggy road!
The 'Old Turnpike' in your link is probably similar to it being a stagecoach road well before modern roads were built.
I've traced it back and we're talking 19th century. Black Horse Pike and White Horse Pike superseded it.
For some reason, Atlantic County still maintains the westernmost portion as CR 697. It now serves the Atlantic County Animal Shelter.
Sussex did right creating the two one way pairs on Route 23. That is a great idea being that NJDOT will never bypass the borough with a proper freeway or arterial.
On another subject, did NJDOT and the NJTA finally change out all VMSes to this style?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8499637709/in/photolist-eSNhVa-dX5SaK
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2018, 12:07:39 PM
Sussex did right creating the two one way pairs on Route 23. That is a great idea being that NJDOT will never bypass the borough with a proper freeway or arterial.
On another subject, did NJDOT and the NJTA finally change out all VMSes to this style?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8499637709/in/photolist-eSNhVa-dX5SaK
Only the NJTA has adopted the full color VMS's. NJDOT still uses the orange LED ones. Most of them were installed within the last 10 years so they won't be replaced for a while.
Quote from: storm2k on November 09, 2018, 06:40:37 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2018, 12:07:39 PM
Sussex did right creating the two one way pairs on Route 23. That is a great idea being that NJDOT will never bypass the borough with a proper freeway or arterial.
On another subject, did NJDOT and the NJTA finally change out all VMSes to this style?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8499637709/in/photolist-eSNhVa-dX5SaK
Only the NJTA has adopted the full color VMS's. NJDOT still uses the orange LED ones. Most of them were installed within the last 10 years so they won't be replaced for a while.
NJDOT does have full color led signs, but I've only seen them operated in bland orange. The ones on 29 near 295 South of Trenton are the full color VMSs.
The NJ Supreme Court ruled that many (many, meaning 787,764 to be exact) low-level municipal traffic cases over 15 years old have been dismissed.
http://www.philly.com/news/new-jersey/nj-old-municipal-court-cases-dismissed-supreme-court-20190117.html
Many of these involve parking tickets and minor violations; stuff that many people have long forgotten about, yet a traffic stop may reveal a long-unresolved violation that may find someone being put in handcuffs and their car impounded.
To see if you're on the list, and for more info: https://njcourts.gov/courts/mcs/dismissals.html#casesinvolving
More serious violations aren't subject to dismissal, including driving without a license, DUI/DWI cases, passing a school bus, and speeding in excess of 35 mph over the limit.
The Supreme Court is now going to review if cases 10 years and older should be vacated as well.
Alternative 3 has been selected as the preferred design for the long obsolete Middle Thoroughfare Bridge.
https://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_aef7ea6c-3456-11e9-8271-5f66c4d7278f.html
Now they just have to figure out how to pay for it!
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 24, 2019, 11:22:49 PM
Alternative 3 has been selected as the preferred design for the long obsolete Middle Thoroughfare Bridge.
https://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_aef7ea6c-3456-11e9-8271-5f66c4d7278f.html
Now they just have to figure out how to pay for it!
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/capemaycountyherald.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/fa/ffa3d73c-3456-11e9-9b44-c3561d0a0fef/5c6c1a00aad26.pdf.pdf
[You can rotate the image]
These bridges link Diamond Beach south of Wildwood Crest with NJ 109 approaching Cape May city.
ixnay
There is a dedicated website as well: https://capemaytwomilebridge.com/
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 25, 2019, 09:49:19 PM
There is a dedicated website as well: https://capemaytwomilebridge.com/
A nice, thorough website, complete with everyone's comments at the public meeting.
Shows a nice little glimpse of what engineers struggle with to make everyone happy. One or two wanted the speed limit reduced...apparently from 50 or 40 to 25 mph. From what I can tell, they wanted the limit reduced in an area with wide shoulders and no cross traffic, as if traffic would ever obey such a limit. Others seem to disagree on what's causing congestion. Someone wanted the construction to only be overnight...no doubt homeowners nearby would disagree with that one. Another doesn't want the high bridges built elsewhere along Ocean Drive...although without them, they'll need to build a drawbridge which they county doesn't want to do. And so on...
It appears the selected alternative will be built significantly on a completely different footprint, which may limit the time the current bridge will be closed, but will still require a significant time of closure.
If you look at the page with all the alternatives on one page, you'll see the aerial picture used uses the old GSP/109 interchange.
Does anyone know anything about the "temporary" fencing being installed along Route 70 in western Manchester Twp & Pemberton Twp? I'm not sure if it's just a barrier for prescribed burns, or some precursor to construction. It's going up starting (driving westbound) just west of Whiting/Jct 539, and goes past the Four Mile Circle, but not quite to 206.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 26, 2019, 08:32:59 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 25, 2019, 09:49:19 PM
There is a dedicated website as well: https://capemaytwomilebridge.com/
A nice, thorough website, complete with everyone's comments at the public meeting.
Shows a nice little glimpse of what engineers struggle with to make everyone happy. One or two wanted the speed limit reduced...apparently from 50 or 40 to 25 mph. From what I can tell, they wanted the limit reduced in an area with wide shoulders and no cross traffic, as if traffic would ever obey such a limit. Others seem to disagree on what's causing congestion. Someone wanted the construction to only be overnight...no doubt homeowners nearby would disagree with that one. Another doesn't want the high bridges built elsewhere along Ocean Drive...although without them, they'll need to build a drawbridge which they county doesn't want to do. And so on...
It appears the selected alternative will be built significantly on a completely different footprint, which may limit the time the current bridge will be closed, but will still require a significant time of closure.
If you look at the page with all the alternatives on one page, you'll see the aerial picture used uses the old GSP/109 interchange.
The request to lower the limit appears to be due to Lower Township having a speed limit of 25 already posted coming off the bridge, since it could create a speed trap for ticket issuance.
Quote from: swiftdo on March 07, 2019, 07:35:32 PM
Does anyone know anything about the "temporary" fencing being installed along Route 70 in western Manchester Twp & Pemberton Twp? I'm not sure if it's just a barrier for prescribed burns, or some precursor to construction. It's going up starting (driving westbound) just west of Whiting/Jct 539, and goes past the Four Mile Circle, but not quite to 206.
Last time I was up that way, it looked like they may have been prepping for a widening but I doubt it.
Quote from: swiftdo on March 07, 2019, 07:35:32 PM
Does anyone know anything about the "temporary" fencing being installed along Route 70 in western Manchester Twp & Pemberton Twp? I'm not sure if it's just a barrier for prescribed burns, or some precursor to construction. It's going up starting (driving westbound) just west of Whiting/Jct 539, and goes past the Four Mile Circle, but not quite to 206.
There is a project (https://www.nj.gov/transportation/capital/tcp19/sec5/route/rt70.pdf) in this year's capital program for a bridge on Rt 70 in that area, but it's just a study, not active construction. May be tied to that?
While snooping around the NJDOT's website, there's an ArcGIS map showing soil boring logs taken throughout the state by DOT.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/DOT_GDMS/
Boring you say? Yes but they also reveal what some of the cancelled freeways (e.g. I-95, I-895, northern extension to Route 31) would've looked like if you click on the purple boxes and look under boring plans.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 10, 2019, 11:00:50 PM
While snooping around the NJDOT's website, there's an ArcGIS map showing soil boring logs taken throughout the state by DOT.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/DOT_GDMS/
Boring you say? Yes but they also reveal what some of the cancelled freeways (e.g. I-95, I-895, northern extension to Route 31) would've looked like if you click on the purple boxes and look under boring plans.
Northern extension to Route 31? Boring is the opposite of this.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 10, 2019, 11:00:50 PM
While snooping around the NJDOT's website, there's an ArcGIS map showing soil boring logs taken throughout the state by DOT.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/DOT_GDMS/
Boring you say? Yes but they also reveal what some of the cancelled freeways (e.g. I-95, I-895, northern extension to Route 31) would've looked like if you click on the purple boxes and look under boring plans.
I don't find that map boring at all (pun intended). Though apparently they didn't do any boring along the Somerset Fwy. ROW north of CR 514.
ixnay
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 10, 2019, 11:00:50 PM
While snooping around the NJDOT's website, there's an ArcGIS map showing soil boring logs taken throughout the state by DOT.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/DOT_GDMS/
Boring you say? Yes but they also reveal what some of the cancelled freeways (e.g. I-95, I-895, northern extension to Route 31) would've looked like if you click on the purple boxes and look under boring plans.
Wow! This is a treasure trove! I was always curious about the Route 92 and Route 895 freeway alignments and interchange layouts. Good stuff!
Ok so yesterday I drove the full length of the NJTP for the first time.
May I assume that all of the BGSs along the 95 duplex have been brought up to proper MUTCD standards due to pressure from the Feds now that 95 has a clear and defined route through central NJ? It seems like the only old school signs left are south of 95 along the old 4-lane section.
Quote from: wriddle082 on March 27, 2019, 12:45:35 AM
Ok so yesterday I drove the full length of the NJTP for the first time.
May I assume that all of the BGSs along the 95 duplex have been brought up to proper MUTCD standards due to pressure from the Feds now that 95 has a clear and defined route through central NJ? It seems like the only old school signs left are south of 95 along the old 4-lane section.
That would actually be news. Last fall, several pull throughs south of Exit 9 were still missing 95 shields and some still said "thru traffic, next exit xx miles" ...
Quote from: famartin on March 27, 2019, 12:59:40 AMLast fall Christmas, several pull throughs south of Exit 9 were still missing 95 shields and some still said "thru traffic, next exit xx miles" ...
FTFY.
Those newer
95* NJTP SOUTH THRU TRAFFIC NEXT EXIT XX MILES predated NJTA's changeover to more MUTCD-style signage. Such are allowed to remain until the next sign replacement project
way down the road (no pun intended).
*Such signage was designed to accommodate I-95 shields that
should've long since been added by now.
I will be using that stretch this coming weekend so I will be able to verify if such sign retrofits have since taken place.
I was up that way a couple weeks ago. I noticed more than a few TO I-95 shields on the right shoulders approaching Exit 6 that looked like they were recently installed.
Quote from: ekt8750 on March 27, 2019, 10:37:51 AM
Most here are more interested any I-95 related signage updates/mods between Exits 7 & 8A.
The split-ramp signage beyond the Turnpike Connector/US 130 tollbooths may still not have I-95 shields added on yet either.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 27, 2019, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on March 27, 2019, 10:37:51 AM
Most here are more interested any I-95 related signage updates/mods between Exits 7 & 8A.
The split-ramp signage beyond the Turnpike Connector/US 130 tollbooths may still not have I-95 shields added on yet either.
I saw a few of those NB as well.
Quote from: wriddle082 on March 27, 2019, 12:45:35 AM
Ok so yesterday I drove the full length of the NJTP for the first time.
May I assume that all of the BGSs along the 95 duplex have been brought up to proper MUTCD standards due to pressure from the Feds now that 95 has a clear and defined route through central NJ? It seems like the only old school signs left are south of 95 along the old 4-lane section.
No pressure from feds. A desire to maximize conformance now so that the feds never come to NJDOT and say "you better get your sibling in line or else."
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2019, 11:53:33 AM
Quote from: wriddle082 on March 27, 2019, 12:45:35 AM
Ok so yesterday I drove the full length of the NJTP for the first time.
May I assume that all of the BGSs along the 95 duplex have been brought up to proper MUTCD standards due to pressure from the Feds now that 95 has a clear and defined route through central NJ? It seems like the only old school signs left are south of 95 along the old 4-lane section.
No pressure from feds. A desire to maximize conformance now so that the feds never come to NJDOT and say "you better get your sibling in line or else."
Is the Turnpike Authority doing this on their own in an effort to be proactive, or is there some pressure from NJDOT?
Quote from: civilmaher on March 12, 2019, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 10, 2019, 11:00:50 PM
While snooping around the NJDOT's website, there's an ArcGIS map showing soil boring logs taken throughout the state by DOT.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/DOT_GDMS/
Boring you say? Yes but they also reveal what some of the cancelled freeways (e.g. I-95, I-895, northern extension to Route 31) would've looked like if you click on the purple boxes and look under boring plans.
Wow! This is a treasure trove! I was always curious about the Route 92 and Route 895 freeway alignments and interchange layouts. Good stuff!
That does sound interesting, to see how the freeways would've looked like had they been built.
NJ-related info. cross-posted from the I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.2500).
During a recent weekend trip to/from Massachusetts, I noticed the following sign changes/additions:
1. The US 13 shield on this BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1075982,-74.801316,3a,75y,298.53h,85.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgh-9fU1UMC4o4uGJ_rT1ZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is already peeling at the top. A sliver of the upper-right portion is now missing.
2. Along the I-95/NJ Turnpike mainline; a new, stacked SOUTH 95 NJTP reassurance marker assembly has been erected to the right of the outer/truck lanes around MM 65... north of Exit 7A (I-195) & roughly 6 miles north of the Richard Stockton Service Area.
No other I-95 shields have been added to NJTP BGS' since.
Does anyone know why NJDOT closed the SB I-287 on ramp from Smith Road in Parsippany- Troy Hills? To me I saw it as no safety issue as it merged quite well with the WB I-80 to SB I-287 ramp and of course now its replacement is the US 202 entrance to I-287 SB just north of US 46 which makes it more difficult for those on EB US 46 to access I-287 S Bound as now they have to use the reverse jughandle to US 202 NB and then cross over US 46 at grade and loop around from 202 to cross back over US 46 on the freeway itself. The Smith Road entrance allowed Route 46 access to I-287 SB that was pretty straight forward.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2019, 10:25:07 PM
Does anyone know why NJDOT closed the SB I-287 on ramp from Smith Road in Parsippany- Troy Hills? To me I saw it as no safety issue.
And to engineers and the public, a left-hand entrance with very little merging room is a safety issue. I mean, to each his own.
I kind of figured that but I thought they would have at least extended that merge when the ramps were redone into that long left side road to prevent the weaving at CR 511. To me I had no problems then, but the average person does not drive as careful as most of us here on the forum. It could be me not having a problem too with short merges and not thinking about it being an issue too.
Then again we both know NJ is got a problem with money in the budget for roads hence US 9 not being widened as it should in South Jersey and NJ 31 being two lanes still where it needs at least 4. Not arguing that one out, as I know they are doing the best they can, unless you know they are not.
The space where that ramp was has since be taken up by a reconstructed loop ramp.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2019, 11:20:43 PM
I kind of figured that but I thought they would have at least extended that merge when the ramps were redone into that long left side road to prevent the weaving at CR 511. To me I had no problems then, but the average person does not drive as careful as most of us here on the forum. It could be me not having a problem too with short merges and not thinking about it being an issue too.
Then again we both know NJ is got a problem with money in the budget for roads hence US 9 not being widened as it should in South Jersey and NJ 31 being two lanes still where it needs at least 4. Not arguing that one out, as I know they are doing the best they can, unless you know they are not.
Generally speaking, many towns simply don't want roads widened that need to be widened. NJDOT's budget is well over $2 Billion, so it's not that there's no money; it's just allocated to other projects worth pursuing.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 10:27:06 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2019, 11:20:43 PM
I kind of figured that but I thought they would have at least extended that merge when the ramps were redone into that long left side road to prevent the weaving at CR 511. To me I had no problems then, but the average person does not drive as careful as most of us here on the forum. It could be me not having a problem too with short merges and not thinking about it being an issue too.
Then again we both know NJ is got a problem with money in the budget for roads hence US 9 not being widened as it should in South Jersey and NJ 31 being two lanes still where it needs at least 4. Not arguing that one out, as I know they are doing the best they can, unless you know they are not.
Generally speaking, many towns simply don't want roads widened that need to be widened. NJDOT's budget is well over $2 Billion, so it's not that there's no money; it's just allocated to other projects worth pursuing.
Even $5 billion wouldn't be enough for the projects that are out there.
There is a God.
15 years overdue from the original planned date...this finally appears in NJDOT's 6 Month Advanced Construction Schedule: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/
Quote
UPC #950541
Rt 295 & 42 Study A (Missing Moves)
This project will provide the missing moves of Rt. 42 NB to I-295 SB and I-295 NB to Rt. 42 SB. The preferred alternative (providing the missing moves through the construction of direct ramps connecting I-295 and Rt. 42) has been shifted northerly to eliminate impacts to a proposed development.
Proposed Advertised Month August, 2019
Project Details
Camden, Gloucester Counties/Bellmawr Boro, Westville Boro, Deptford Twp
MP 25.07-26.35
12.57-13.90
Estimate Range over $100,000,000
Fixed :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2019, 03:13:07 PM
There is a God.
15 60 years overdue from the original planned date when they should've done it in the first place...this finally appears in NJDOT's 6 Month Advanced Construction Schedule: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/
Quote
UPC #950541
Rt 295 & 42 Study A (Missing Moves)
This project will provide the missing moves of Rt. 42 NB to I-295 SB and I-295 NB to Rt. 42 SB. The preferred alternative (providing the missing moves through the construction of direct ramps connecting I-295 and Rt. 42) has been shifted northerly to eliminate impacts to a proposed development.
Proposed Advertised Month August, 2019
Project Details
Camden, Gloucester Counties/Bellmawr Boro, Westville Boro, Deptford Twp
MP 25.07-26.35
12.57-13.90
Estimate Range over $100,000,000
Quote from: famartin on April 04, 2019, 03:30:23 PM
Fixed :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2019, 03:13:07 PM
There is a God.
15 60 years overdue from the original planned date when they should've done it in the first place...this finally appears in NJDOT's 6 Month Advanced Construction Schedule: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/
Quote
UPC #950541
Rt 295 & 42 Study A (Missing Moves)
This project will provide the missing moves of Rt. 42 NB to I-295 SB and I-295 NB to Rt. 42 SB. The preferred alternative (providing the missing moves through the construction of direct ramps connecting I-295 and Rt. 42) has been shifted northerly to eliminate impacts to a proposed development.
Proposed Advertised Month August, 2019
Project Details
Camden, Gloucester Counties/Bellmawr Boro, Westville Boro, Deptford Twp
MP 25.07-26.35
12.57-13.90
Estimate Range over $100,000,000
I wonder if NJ 60 would have served the purpose instead.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 03, 2019, 06:26:54 PM
The space where that ramp was has since be taken up by a reconstructed loop ramp.
Yeah I saw that, so at least something of good use. Plus I would have to guess not really that big a deal of traffic heading to I-287 S Bound anyway from Smith Road or US 46, so that reconfiguration is a better deal for motorists as going from I-80 W Bound to I-287 S Bound has far more use.
Quote from: Alps on April 04, 2019, 06:00:05 PM
I wonder if NJ 60 would have served the purpose instead.
NJ 60 would have served only a fraction of the purpose. That route would not work for people who are destined for some place along I-295 or NJ 42/ACE. Like I use the Blackwood exit off of NJ 42 to get to my parents house. So NJ 60 wouldn't work for me when I'm going between there and the Del Mem Br.
Quote from: BrianP on April 05, 2019, 10:31:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 04, 2019, 06:00:05 PM
I wonder if NJ 60 would have served the purpose instead.
NJ 60 would have served only a fraction of the purpose. That route would not work for people who are destined for some place along I-295 or NJ 42/ACE. Like I use the Blackwood exit off of NJ 42 to get to my parents house. So NJ 60 wouldn't work for me when I'm going between there and the Del Mem Br.
Agreed. That road might've been useful for people going to/from Delaware and points south, but this new ramp will prove extremely useful for those already in the region near 295 and 42.
Heck, where I live along 295, I can get to many areas along Route 42 faster via 295 (compared to taking the local roads) by taking 295 North to 76 West, making the U-turn at Market Street and taking 76 East to 42 South. This new ramp will cut out about 5 minutes of that drive alone, making the local drives much, much quicker for me!
With all the road diets, bicycle lanes, and broken traffic light sensors in the area, it would seem that they are trying to push traffic to the highways rather than using the local roads.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2019, 12:24:34 PM
Heck, where I live along 295, I can get to many areas along Route 42 faster via 295 (compared to taking the local roads) by taking 295 North to 76 West, making the U-turn at Market Street and taking 76 East to 42 South. This new ramp will cut out about 5 minutes of that drive alone, making the local drives much, much quicker for me!
I hate having to basically weave all the way across 76 East to get to 295 South. What I do is I'll get off at Market and take 130 to Westville where it merges with 295. That too has its pains with the double traffic circle in Brooklawn (really NJ?) but it beats the demolition derby on 76.
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 05, 2019, 12:45:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2019, 12:24:34 PM
Heck, where I live along 295, I can get to many areas along Route 42 faster via 295 (compared to taking the local roads) by taking 295 North to 76 West, making the U-turn at Market Street and taking 76 East to 42 South. This new ramp will cut out about 5 minutes of that drive alone, making the local drives much, much quicker for me!
I hate having to basically weave all the way across 76 East to get to 295 South. What I do is I'll get off at Market and take 130 to Westville where it merges with 295. That too has its pains with the double traffic circle in Brooklawn (really NJ?) but it beats the demolition derby on 76.
Crossing 6 lanes in 3/4 of a mile. What's not to love about it? LOL
The ol' Jersey Slide.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2019, 09:34:47 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 05, 2019, 12:45:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 05, 2019, 12:24:34 PM
Heck, where I live along 295, I can get to many areas along Route 42 faster via 295 (compared to taking the local roads) by taking 295 North to 76 West, making the U-turn at Market Street and taking 76 East to 42 South. This new ramp will cut out about 5 minutes of that drive alone, making the local drives much, much quicker for me!
I hate having to basically weave all the way across 76 East to get to 295 South. What I do is I'll get off at Market and take 130 to Westville where it merges with 295. That too has its pains with the double traffic circle in Brooklawn (really NJ?) but it beats the demolition derby on 76.
Crossing 6 lanes in 3/4 of a mile. What's not to love about it? LOL
*110 in Los Angeles has joined the chat
Some work on CR 511 in Boonton Twp. has resulted in a pair of detours being posted - east via Taylortown Rd. and west via several roads. All of the shields are NJ 511, the first time I've seen a CR/SR error like this. I created a FB gallery (visibile without an account) to show off the shields and some bonus finds along the way.
http://tinyurl.com/sr511
One of the few sections of implied 55 MPH on a two-lane road in NJ is gone. This morning I drove the two-lane section of NJ 73 (from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Black Horse Pike) for the first time in a year or so, and sure enough, there are now a bunch of new "Speed Limit 50" signs starting around here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6473236,-74.8730232,3a,75y,174.85h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soLUEo4NSOks2x-wfeo0ztw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Previously that area had no speed limit signs posted until Folsom, where it was, and still is, posted at 40 MPH.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 08, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
One of the few sections of implied 55 MPH on a two-lane road in NJ is gone. This morning I drove the two-lane section of NJ 73 (from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Black Horse Pike) for the first time in a year or so, and sure enough, there are now a bunch of new "Speed Limit 50" signs starting around here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6473236,-74.8730232,3a,75y,174.85h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soLUEo4NSOks2x-wfeo0ztw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Previously that area had no speed limit signs posted until Folsom, where it was, and still is, posted at 40 MPH.
Implied as in the last sign was 55 mph...or implied as there were no signs whatsoever? In NJ, the speed limit for rural roads is 50 mph unless otherwise noted.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2019, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 08, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
One of the few sections of implied 55 MPH on a two-lane road in NJ is gone. This morning I drove the two-lane section of NJ 73 (from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Black Horse Pike) for the first time in a year or so, and sure enough, there are now a bunch of new "Speed Limit 50" signs starting around here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6473236,-74.8730232,3a,75y,174.85h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soLUEo4NSOks2x-wfeo0ztw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Previously that area had no speed limit signs posted until Folsom, where it was, and still is, posted at 40 MPH.
Implied as in the last sign was 55 mph...or implied as there were no signs whatsoever? In NJ, the speed limit for rural roads is 50 mph unless otherwise noted.
The last sign was 55, while there are still two lanes per direction
Quote from: bzakharin on April 08, 2019, 05:06:32 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2019, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 08, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
One of the few sections of implied 55 MPH on a two-lane road in NJ is gone. This morning I drove the two-lane section of NJ 73 (from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Black Horse Pike) for the first time in a year or so, and sure enough, there are now a bunch of new "Speed Limit 50" signs starting around here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6473236,-74.8730232,3a,75y,174.85h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soLUEo4NSOks2x-wfeo0ztw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Previously that area had no speed limit signs posted until Folsom, where it was, and still is, posted at 40 MPH.
Implied as in the last sign was 55 mph...or implied as there were no signs whatsoever? In NJ, the speed limit for rural roads is 50 mph unless otherwise noted.
The last sign was 55, while there are still two lanes per direction
A missing 50 mph speed limit sign on 130 South of the Commodore Barry Bridge creates a 55 mph section of 2 lane 130 for about a mile or so.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 08, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
One of the few sections of implied 55 MPH on a two-lane road in NJ is gone. This morning I drove the two-lane section of NJ 73 (from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Black Horse Pike) for the first time in a year or so, and sure enough, there are now a bunch of new "Speed Limit 50" signs starting around here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6473236,-74.8730232,3a,75y,174.85h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soLUEo4NSOks2x-wfeo0ztw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Previously that area had no speed limit signs posted until Folsom, where it was, and still is, posted at 40 MPH.
Isn't that portion of the road considered CR 561 spur, a county-owned roadway?
Quote from: J Route Z on April 09, 2019, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 08, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
One of the few sections of implied 55 MPH on a two-lane road in NJ is gone. This morning I drove the two-lane section of NJ 73 (from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Black Horse Pike) for the first time in a year or so, and sure enough, there are now a bunch of new "Speed Limit 50" signs starting around here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6473236,-74.8730232,3a,75y,174.85h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soLUEo4NSOks2x-wfeo0ztw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Previously that area had no speed limit signs posted until Folsom, where it was, and still is, posted at 40 MPH.
Isn't that portion of the road considered CR 561 spur, a county-owned roadway?
NJDOT has it logged in the SLDIAG's as Route 73, but its signed CR 561 spur and "TO 73".
Quote from: J Route Z on April 09, 2019, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 08, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
One of the few sections of implied 55 MPH on a two-lane road in NJ is gone. This morning I drove the two-lane section of NJ 73 (from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Black Horse Pike) for the first time in a year or so, and sure enough, there are now a bunch of new "Speed Limit 50" signs starting around here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6473236,-74.8730232,3a,75y,174.85h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soLUEo4NSOks2x-wfeo0ztw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Previously that area had no speed limit signs posted until Folsom, where it was, and still is, posted at 40 MPH.
Isn't that portion of the road considered CR 561 spur, a county-owned roadway?
County maintained yes. Not sure who sets the speed limit.
Quote from: Alps on April 09, 2019, 11:34:03 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on April 09, 2019, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 08, 2019, 10:28:15 AM
One of the few sections of implied 55 MPH on a two-lane road in NJ is gone. This morning I drove the two-lane section of NJ 73 (from the Atlantic City Expressway to the Black Horse Pike) for the first time in a year or so, and sure enough, there are now a bunch of new "Speed Limit 50" signs starting around here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6473236,-74.8730232,3a,75y,174.85h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soLUEo4NSOks2x-wfeo0ztw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Previously that area had no speed limit signs posted until Folsom, where it was, and still is, posted at 40 MPH.
Isn't that portion of the road considered CR 561 spur, a county-owned roadway?
County maintained yes. Not sure who sets the speed limit.
True. I remember seeing on the southern end of the "real/official/signed Route 73" just south of the AC Expressway entrance, near 2 billboards, there was an "End Speed Limit 55" sign. It's kind of interesting they allegedly posted new speed limit signs on this stretch.
On a separate note: 537 NJ municipalities will receive $161.25 million for local road projects from the Murphy Administration. Which project are you happy to see come to fruition in your town?
https://patch.com/new-jersey/manasquan/537-nj-towns-get-lots-money-may-benefit-you-heres-what
Quote from: J Route Z on April 10, 2019, 03:08:30 AM
On a separate note: 537 NJ municipalities will receive $161.25 million for local road projects from the Murphy Administration. Which project are you happy to see come to fruition in your town?
https://patch.com/new-jersey/manasquan/537-nj-towns-get-lots-money-may-benefit-you-heres-what
I'm super excited about Page 17 of 25.
Quote from: NE2 on April 10, 2019, 01:12:58 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on April 10, 2019, 03:08:30 AM
On a separate note: 537 NJ municipalities will receive $161.25 million for local road projects from the Murphy Administration. Which project are you happy to see come to fruition in your town?
https://patch.com/new-jersey/manasquan/537-nj-towns-get-lots-money-may-benefit-you-heres-what
I'm super excited about Page 17 of 25.
their editor deserves a raise.
Temporary Construction signs on NJ 29 at I-295 show the WEST direction heading into PA.
https://goo.gl/maps/m3Q3jtR5t1p
Also found this showing what both interchanges on both sides of the Scudder Falls Bridge will look like upon completion.
http://www.scudderfallsbridge.com/construction/#map
Quote from: roadman65 on April 12, 2019, 11:56:58 PM
Temporary Construction signs on NJ 29 at I-295 show the WEST direction heading into PA.
https://goo.gl/maps/m3Q3jtR5t1p
Also found this showing what both interchanges on both sides of the Scudder Falls Bridge will look like upon completion.
http://www.scudderfallsbridge.com/construction/#map
Yup, and signs on the PA side show WEST toward Philly and SOUTH toward Princeton. It's so dumb.
You probably shouldn't give the finger to other motorists.
Especially when you're driving a state vehicle.
With the phone number to lodge a complaint clearly shown on the bumper!
https://www.nj.com/politics/2019/04/when-you-drive-a-state-car-its-not-a-good-idea-to-give-people-the-finger-but-thats-exactly-what-happened-at-least-3-times.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2019, 02:14:38 PM
With the phone number to lodge a complaint clearly shown on the bumper!
I called one of those numbers once, just for shits 'n giggles. They picked up after a few rings, said nothing for a few seconds, then hung up on me.
Seemed fitting.
Some new signs up around Exits 21-22 on 287NB with the interchange reconfiguration projects there advancing. Will need to try and nab some pictures of the new signs for 78 on both inner and outer roadways, but did get this one of a new sign for 22A and 22B:
(https://i.imgur.com/fSNaRMy.jpg)
Thrilled that they fixed a thing that has bugged me since the previous signs went up in 1994 (did not have an Exit Only panel for the 22A sign), but annoyed that the contractor aligned the 22B exit tab incorrectly. Also, I know that NJDOT has finally moved away from the black background on state and US shields, but the signs still feel naked without them.
Quote from: storm2k on April 22, 2019, 12:57:32 AM
Some new signs up around Exits 21-22 on 287NB with the interchange reconfiguration projects there advancing. Will need to try and nab some pictures of the new signs for 78 on both inner and outer roadways, but did get this one of a new sign for 22A and 22B:
(https://i.imgur.com/fSNaRMy.jpg)
Thrilled that they fixed a thing that has bugged me since the previous signs went up in 1994 (did not have an Exit Only panel for the 22A sign), but annoyed that the contractor aligned the 22B exit tab incorrectly. Also, I know that NJDOT has finally moved away from the black background on state and US shields, but the signs still feel naked without them.
I've been gone long enough such that if I didn't know that was in NJ, I wouldn't notice. I will miss the black back-plates, though.
Yes NJ was the state for black border shields minus the Parkway and Turnpike.
Quote from: famartin on April 22, 2019, 08:05:26 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 22, 2019, 12:57:32 AM
Also, I know that NJDOT has finally moved away from the black background on state and US shields, but the signs still feel naked without them.
I've been gone long enough such that if I didn't know that was in NJ, I wouldn't notice. I will miss the black back-plates, though.
For me, it's about what I'm so used to seeing. The black background US and state route shields are something that would look out of place (and in my opinion, ugly) in other states, but normal in New Jersey. I'll miss this NJDOT practice.
Yeah here in Florida it seems weird to see black border US route shields, but in NJ it was not that weird. I guess you get used to things you do not realize it.
How are highways with concurrent routes, such as US 1/9 being signed with new mileposts? I've noticed on Google Maps only US 1 mileage. Same deal with US 130/NJ 33, US 322/40, etc.
Quote from: J Route Z on April 25, 2019, 12:53:47 AM
How are highways with concurrent routes, such as US 1/9 being signed with new mileposts? I've noticed on Google Maps only US 1 mileage. Same deal with US 130/NJ 33, US 322/40, etc.
NJ has always traditionally gone with whatever the "primary route" is for its mileposting. So, for example, 1-9 uses 1's mileage after they merge in Woodbridge and the mileposts just show a 1 shield. However, I came home from the City on the Skyway tonight for the first time in a while, and noticed that on the section in Newark between 78 and the Skyway, the mileposts are actually signed with the same 1-9 shields that are used on signs from Linden northward (for whatever reason, in Middlesex County, they sign 1-9 with two separate shields, but it changes once you get into Union County).
202-206 in Bridgewater and Bedminster still only shows 202's shield on the mileposts. Same for 202-31 south of the Flemington Circle.
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2019, 01:04:39 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on April 25, 2019, 12:53:47 AM
How are highways with concurrent routes, such as US 1/9 being signed with new mileposts? I've noticed on Google Maps only US 1 mileage. Same deal with US 130/NJ 33, US 322/40, etc.
NJ has always traditionally gone with whatever the "primary route" is for its mileposting. So, for example, 1-9 uses 1's mileage after they merge in Woodbridge and the mileposts just show a 1 shield. However, I came home from the City on the Skyway tonight for the first time in a while, and noticed that on the section in Newark between 78 and the Skyway, the mileposts are actually signed with the same 1-9 shields that are used on signs from Linden northward (for whatever reason, in Middlesex County, they sign 1-9 with two separate shields, but it changes once you get into Union County).
202-206 in Bridgewater and Bedminster still only shows 202's shield on the mileposts. Same for 202-31 south of the Flemington Circle.
Not always. NJ 23 and US 202 shared mileposts back in the day, if not now. There was a little shield to tell you which route's milepost it was.
The ACX welcome center is departing for the boards.
https://kywnewsradio.radio.com/articles/news/atlantic-city-expressway-visitor-welcome-center-closing
QuoteATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (KYW Newsradio) – There is a sudden change of venue for an information hub housed inside a visual staple on the Atlantic City Expressway.
For years, Joseph Polillo says he ran a postcard stand at the Atlantic City Visitor Welcome Center.
...
Polillo says he was pretty surprised when he heard just a few days ago the visitor's center, right on the expressway, was closing down.
"I just happened to come across it on a Facebook page. They didn't even call me or tell me or anything or ask me to come and get my stuff out there, we're closing. Nah," he said.
...
He says the center's location could have been a lot better than the expressway.
"Drivers going 70 miles an hour are not going to stop for something they're going to go see anyway," he said.
The closure of the rest stop even came as a surprise to New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, who stopped by center Monday morning.
A sign on the door of the center says it's been relocated to Boardwalk Hall.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on April 30, 2019, 09:59:30 AM
The ACX welcome center is departing for the boards.
https://kywnewsradio.radio.com/articles/news/atlantic-city-expressway-visitor-welcome-center-closing
QuoteATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (KYW Newsradio) — There is a sudden change of venue for an information hub housed inside a visual staple on the Atlantic City Expressway.
For years, Joseph Polillo says he ran a postcard stand at the Atlantic City Visitor Welcome Center.
...
Polillo says he was pretty surprised when he heard just a few days ago the visitor's center, right on the expressway, was closing down.
"I just happened to come across it on a Facebook page. They didn't even call me or tell me or anything or ask me to come and get my stuff out there, we're closing. Nah," he said.
...
He says the center's location could have been a lot better than the expressway.
"Drivers going 70 miles an hour are not going to stop for something they're going to go see anyway," he said.
The closure of the rest stop even came as a surprise to New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, who stopped by center Monday morning.
A sign on the door of the center says it's been relocated to Boardwalk Hall.
ixnay
Many did stop there...back before the internet was a thing. Today, most people going have already done their research.
I think this is a complete list of 3+ level crossings in NJ. Did I miss any?
PIP/9W/67
PIP/95U/505/95L
46E/95/exit 72
exit 69/95S/80E
flyovers/17/4
46E ramp/46/GSP
exit 17/95/Paterson Plank Rd
501/ramps/495
495/Blvd East/495
95W/1&9/1&9T
Raymond Blvd ramp/1&9T/Raymond Blvd
Port St ramp/exit 58A/78
81N ramp/81S/1&9
78 Express/EB entrance/EB exit
WB entrance/78W/EB entrance
78W/WB exit/EB exit
GSP ramp/280/exit 12A
exit 145/GSP/280 ramp
MLK Blvd/GSP+Oraton/280
exit 142B/78 ramp/GSP
GSP ramp/exit 52/78
78/exit 48/24E
287S/80/287N
514/GSP/95
440/exit 127/9S
GSP/9S/440 ramp
exit 13B/18N/Hope Rd
I think there's a three-level stack somewhat near NJ Turnpike Exit 11 and MM 90?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 11, 2019, 10:40:52 PM
I think there's a three-level stack somewhat near NJ Turnpike Exit 11 and MM 90?
514/GSP/95
Thank you! I forget about NJ's county routes sometimes!
You might as well add the coming attraction: I-76/CR 659 Browning Road/I-295.
Quote from: BrianP on May 13, 2019, 05:02:16 PM
You might as well add the coming attraction: I-76/CR 659 Browning Road/I-295.
That's gonna be a 4 stack, or very close to it. The ramp from 295 South to 42 South will be under Rt. 42 very close to the vicinity of the Browning Road overpass.
Does anyone know what NJ regulations are on a municipality setting local speed limits at 15mph or 20mph?
Quote from: jamess on May 14, 2019, 04:29:25 PM
Does anyone know what NJ regulations are on a municipality setting local speed limits at 15mph or 20mph?
Specifics?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 05:00:51 PM
Quote from: jamess on May 14, 2019, 04:29:25 PM
Does anyone know what NJ regulations are on a municipality setting local speed limits at 15mph or 20mph?
Specifics?
Can a municipality pass an ordinance setting a speed limit along a road they maintain to 15mph or 20mph? is there any state level prohibition from doing so?
I cant find anything explicitly allowing it or explicitly barring it in Title 39.
4-98 specifically allows it. Without a signed limit, the speed limit can be 25, 35, 50 or 65.
I think the state has a policy of no limits under 25 mph on regular roadways. I think I've seen lower in some developments with a lot of parking and shopping centers though
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 05:37:23 PM
4-98 specifically allows it. Without a signed limit, the speed limit can be 25, 35, 50 or 65.
I think the state has a policy of no limits under 25 mph on regular roadways. I think I've seen lower in some developments with a lot of parking and shopping centers though
I'm not sure if I've seen under 25 on a publicly maintained road, though.
Is this sign blade new? I'd swear it wasn't there in 2017. NJ 64 remains un-mileposted (at least, not in the new style).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/2019-05-15_16_12_54_Traffic_light_sign_blade_for_New_Jersey_State_Route_64_at_its_intersection_with_Mercer_County_Route_526_and_Mercer_County_Route_571%2C_Mercer_County_Route_615_and_Wallace_Road_in_West_Windsor_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/450px-thumbnail.jpg)
Since at least 2011 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3172961,-74.6199972,3a,56y,301.51h,85.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMOJMMoEA12peACzSu3pfHw!2e0!5s20110801T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Yes NJDOT loves to sign blades with directions even if a turn prohibition is in place like in Union where from Stuyvesant Avenue NB has a no left turn sign right next to a NJ 82 W Blade sign telling you to turn left.
https://www.nj.com/traffic/2019/05/lane-pain-starts-monday-a-fond-farewell-to-an-extra-turnpike-lane-thats-shutting-down.html
This involves the Newark Bay Extension (I-78) from the New Jersey Turnpike. A shoulder used as a travel lane is no more.
https://goo.gl/maps/vMJXtSM1zq7YKi4NA
What was greened out on this Exit 11 supplemental sign beneath the Shore Points header?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 24, 2019, 11:59:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/vMJXtSM1zq7YKi4NA
What was greened out on this Exit 11 supplemental sign beneath the Shore Points header?
Zooming in as much as I can, I can't see evidence of any green out. Maybe they were thinking of adding something and never did.
Quote from: famartin on May 25, 2019, 12:01:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 24, 2019, 11:59:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/vMJXtSM1zq7YKi4NA
What was greened out on this Exit 11 supplemental sign beneath the Shore Points header?
Zooming in as much as I can, I can't see evidence of any green out. Maybe they were thinking of adding something and never did.
Well I see on the other guides there is no follow ups to Shore Points. After the Exit 11 tolls the Parkway South is signed with the text of the Garden State Parkway as control city, and US 9 is just signed with Woodbridge- Perth Amboy.
In addition exit the GSP service road at New Brunswick Avenue and at the end of the ramp you will also find no follow up signs for Perth Amboy or NJ 440 N Bound either. When I lived in NJ there never was until in 1987 one of the ramps to New Brunswick Avenue was briefly signed for Fords and Perth Amboy and that was it.
Classic case of carbon copy as NJ 440 does not need to be there being NJ 184 is signed for it. When they added that current gantry the engineers should have eliminated that, but they just copied it over minus the old EAST direction as they did update it to NB as that was done in the Mid 80's the changeover.
Quote from: Alps on May 14, 2019, 09:18:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2019, 05:37:23 PM
4-98 specifically allows it. Without a signed limit, the speed limit can be 25, 35, 50 or 65.
I think the state has a policy of no limits under 25 mph on regular roadways. I think I've seen lower in some developments with a lot of parking and shopping centers though
I'm not sure if I've seen under 25 on a publicly maintained road, though.
Brigantine has Lincoln Drive, Vardon Road, and alleyways posted at 15 mph. All are maintained by the city as public streets.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 25, 2019, 12:14:52 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 25, 2019, 12:01:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 24, 2019, 11:59:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/vMJXtSM1zq7YKi4NA
What was greened out on this Exit 11 supplemental sign beneath the Shore Points header?
Zooming in as much as I can, I can't see evidence of any green out. Maybe they were thinking of adding something and never did.
Well I see on the other guides there is no follow ups to Shore Points. After the Exit 11 tolls the Parkway South is signed with the text of the Garden State Parkway as control city, and US 9 is just signed with Woodbridge- Perth Amboy.
In addition exit the GSP service road at New Brunswick Avenue and at the end of the ramp you will also find no follow up signs for Perth Amboy or NJ 440 N Bound either. When I lived in NJ there never was until in 1987 one of the ramps to New Brunswick Avenue was briefly signed for Fords and Perth Amboy and that was it.
Classic case of carbon copy as NJ 440 does not need to be there being NJ 184 is signed for it. When they added that current gantry the engineers should have eliminated that, but they just copied it over minus the old EAST direction as they did update it to NB as that was done in the Mid 80's the changeover.
Pretty sure that it was supposed to be "The Amboys", to more or less match what was on the sign it replaced (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5521728,-74.2727977,3a,75y,278.3h,91.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sV5MRL7P2OUQ2MxnZIRVg4g!2e0!5s20120601T000000!7i13312!8i6656). At the very least, they should have included Perth Amboy, since signage post toll plaza (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5398079,-74.302631,3a,75y,289.97h,116.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYXXQ-vRhFhGc6M_x_eTybA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) refers to it.
As a curiosity, does the Garden State Parkway have control cities? I know of ones at the Local-Express split, but I'm unsure of any at major interchanges, with the GSP merely signed as "Parkway North" or "Parkway South". I'm not even sure if control cities are used at the entrances. For what it's worth, here's what I think control cities could look like:
South of Exit 38: Atlantic City (NB), Cape May (SB)
38 - 80: Toms River (NB), Atlantic City (SB)
80 - MP 104 (Local - Express split): Wall (maybe Asbury Park?) (NB), Toms River (SB)
Local - Express: New York or NJ Turnpike (NB Express), Middletown (NB Local, 104-114), The Amboys (114-125); Wall (SB Express), Middletown (SB Local, 125-114), Asbury Park (114-105)
125 - 145: Newark or The Oranges (NB), NJ Turnpike or New York (SB)
145 - NY Line (172): Albany or NY Thruway (NB), Newark or The Oranges (SB)
No reason to sign the Thruway for New York, so I chose Albany. I could probably have better choice for Local - Express, as the Parkway doesn't go through some of these cities (namely Asbury Park). Finally, I wasn't sure if I-195 or Wall was more recognizable, but Wall won in the end; it felt more recognizable than just I-195. I'm aware the Turnpike is I-95, but it's recognizable enough that it does make sense as a destination instead of I-195.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 02, 2019, 12:21:19 AM
As a curiosity, does the Garden State Parkway have control cities? I know of ones at the Local-Express split, but I'm unsure of any at major interchanges, with the GSP merely signed as "Parkway North" or "Parkway South". I'm not even sure if control cities are used at the entrances. For what it's worth, here's what I think control cities could look like:
South of Exit 38: Atlantic City (NB), Cape May (SB)
38 - 80: Toms River (NB), Atlantic City (SB)
80 - MP 104 (Local - Express split): Wall (maybe Asbury Park?) (NB), Toms River (SB)
Local - Express: New York or NJ Turnpike (NB Express), Middletown (NB Local, 104-114), The Amboys (114-125); Wall (SB Express), Middletown (SB Local, 125-114), Asbury Park (114-105)
125 - 145: Newark or The Oranges (NB), NJ Turnpike or New York (SB)
145 - NY Line (172): Albany or NY Thruway (NB), Newark or The Oranges (SB)
No reason to sign the Thruway for New York, so I chose Albany. I could probably have better choice for Local - Express, as the Parkway doesn't go through some of these cities (namely Asbury Park). Finally, I wasn't sure if I-195 or Wall was more recognizable, but Wall won in the end; it felt more recognizable than just I-195. I'm aware the Turnpike is I-95, but it's recognizable enough that it does make sense as a destination instead of I-195.
Not sure about if any cities are signed on interchanging roads (except the AC Expressway, see first photo below), but on the mainline, a variety of cities are indeed used:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/2018-09-11_13_26_04_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_446_%28Atlantic_City_Expressway%29_just_east_of_Exit_7_in_Egg_Harbor_Township%2C_Atlantic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/2018-09-11_13_51_59_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_48_%28U.S._Route_9_SOUTH%2C_Port_Republic%2C_Smithville%29_in_Port_Republic%2C_Atlantic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/2018-09-11_14_06_55_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_38A_%28Atlantic_City_Expressway_EAST%2C_Atlantic_City%29_in_Egg_Harbor_Township%2C_Atlantic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/2018-09-11_14_34_56_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_38B_%28Atlantic_City_Expressway_WEST%2C_Camden%29_in_Egg_Harbor_Township%2C_Atlantic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/2018-05-22_07_16_39_View_north_along_U.S._Route_9_and_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_50_%28U.S._Route_9_NORTH%2C_New_Gretna%2C_Tuckerton%29_in_Bass_River_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/2018-09-12_14_57_56_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_89_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_70%2C_Ocean_County_Route_528%2C_Lakehurst%2C_Brick%29_in_Lakewood_Township%2C_Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/2018-05-26_08_03_18_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_105_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_36_NORTH%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_18_NORTH%2C_Eatontown%2C_Long_Branch%2C_New_Brunswick%29_in_Tinton_Falls%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/2018-05-26_08_53_44_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_105_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_36_NORTH%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_18%2C_Eatontown%2C_Long_Branch%2C_Tinton_Falls%29_in_Tinton_Falls%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/2018-05-26_09_09_55_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_just_north_of_Exit_98_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_138_EAST%2C_Interstate_195_WEST%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_34%2C_Belmar%2C_Trenton%29_in_Wall%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/2018-05-20_09_55_28_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_just_north_of_Exit_129_%28Interstate_95-New_Jersey_Turnpike%2C_U.S._Route_9%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_440%2C_Interstate_287%29_in_Woodbridge%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/2018-05-20_10_05_40_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_123_%28U.S._Route_9_SOUTH%2C_Sayreville%2C_Old_Bridge%29_in_Sayreville%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/2018-06-20_19_00_16_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_139B_%28Union%29_in_Union_Township%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2018-06-20_19_00_16_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_at_Exit_139B_%28Union%29_in_Union_Township%2C_Union_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/2018-07-17_08_13_27_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_just_south_of_Exit_145_%28Interstate_280%2C_Essex_County_Route_508%2C_Newark%2C_The_Oranges%29_on_the_border_of_Newark_and_East_Orange_in_Essex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
The last one with Paramus was already taken down and replaced with a full width BGS using Paterson and 3 down arrows (like at 105), likely for the construction at Exit 145. Using Paramus was a suggestion I made years ago here because the GSP actually goes there and have major junctions with other roadways...... unlike Paterson. Somebody clearly listened.
Apparently north of there the GSP can use Albany, but it hasn't been signed yet.
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2019, 09:46:37 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/2018-05-26_09_09_55_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_just_north_of_Exit_98_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_138_EAST%2C_Interstate_195_WEST%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_34%2C_Belmar%2C_Trenton%29_in_Wall%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Is it me or does the control city lettering on that Exit 98 BGS appear to be Series E rather than E-Modified? If so, such would be a better choice than E-Modified IMHO. Such addresses any readability issues with mixed-case E-Modified
without using Clearview.
I know, different topic for a different thread. :)
Old sign in East Orange hangs on. This could date to when I-280 opened thru here.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47995969037_175de3e5c4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g8eTrx)
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 03, 2019, 10:11:36 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2019, 09:46:37 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/2018-05-26_09_09_55_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_just_north_of_Exit_98_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_138_EAST%2C_Interstate_195_WEST%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_34%2C_Belmar%2C_Trenton%29_in_Wall%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Is it me or does the control city lettering on that Exit 98 BGS appear to be Series E rather than E-Modified? If so, such would be a better choice than E-Modified IMHO. Such addresses any readability issues with mixed-case E-Modified without using Clearview.
I know, different topic for a different thread. :)
No, that's E(M).
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 03, 2019, 04:24:45 PM
Old sign in East Orange hangs on. This coulddoes date to when I-280 opened thru here.
Quote from: Alps on June 04, 2019, 12:27:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 03, 2019, 10:11:36 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2019, 09:46:37 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/2018-05-26_09_09_55_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_just_north_of_Exit_98_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_138_EAST%2C_Interstate_195_WEST%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_34%2C_Belmar%2C_Trenton%29_in_Wall%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Is it me or does the control city lettering on that Exit 98 BGS appear to be Series E rather than E-Modified? If so, such would be a better choice than E-Modified IMHO. Such addresses any readability issues with mixed-case E-Modified without using Clearview.
I know, different topic for a different thread. :)
No, that's E(M).
Using the lower-case
os for comparison among those two panels; why does the stroke-width on the pull-through BGS for
Toms River appear wider than the stroke-width for the
o for the
Trenton legend?
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 04, 2019, 10:22:24 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 04, 2019, 12:27:38 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 03, 2019, 10:11:36 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2019, 09:46:37 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/2018-05-26_09_09_55_View_south_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_444_%28Garden_State_Parkway%29_just_north_of_Exit_98_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_138_EAST%2C_Interstate_195_WEST%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_34%2C_Belmar%2C_Trenton%29_in_Wall%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Is it me or does the control city lettering on that Exit 98 BGS appear to be Series E rather than E-Modified? If so, such would be a better choice than E-Modified IMHO. Such addresses any readability issues with mixed-case E-Modified without using Clearview.
I know, different topic for a different thread. :)
No, that's E(M).
Using the lower-case os for comparison among those two panels; why does the stroke-width on the pull-through BGS for Toms River appear wider than the stroke-width for the o for the Trenton legend?
They look the same to me. Could be the angle playing tricks on your eyes.
Quote from: ekt8750 on June 04, 2019, 10:34:12 AMThey look the same to me. Could be the angle playing tricks on your eyes.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm only asking because such
wouldn't be the first time a different FHWA font was selected/fabricated for control city listings on NJ highway signage... regardless of what the plans spec'd.
Some of the first post-button-copy signs (90s vintage) along I-295 between Exits 28 and 56 used Series E lettering and some of the newly-installed signs along the NJ Turnpike between Exits 8A and 6 alternate between using E-Modified and Series F (?). Heck, one even sees two identical signs in terms of messages/legends near each other but using different fonts.
Exhibit A along northbound I-95/NJ Turnpike at Exit 7 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1204366,-74.704544,3a,75y,39.2h,73.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY2TQqpE7S4YomOwvDxJ-5Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Exhibit B along southbound I-95/NJ Turnpike at Exit 7 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1315498,-74.6911857,3a,75y,255.4h,80.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szIWToQPZeCBQOQINLi0BIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192); note that one will need to zoom in on the individual gantries to compare.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 02, 2019, 10:48:13 AM
The last one with Paramus was already taken down and replaced with a full width BGS using Paterson and 3 down arrows (like at 105), likely for the construction at Exit 145. Using Paramus was a suggestion I made years ago here because the GSP actually goes there and have major junctions with other roadways...... unlike Paterson. Somebody clearly listened.
Apparently north of there the GSP can use Albany, but it hasn't been signed yet.
And I think the gantry it's on dates back to the 1970s. I wonder if they'll finally replace it with one of the newer pre-rusted box gantries they are so fond of now as part of the Exit 145 roadwork.
New I-78 eastbound ramp to I-287 northbound to open this weekend in Somerset County (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2019/060619a.shtm)
The main piece of this project finally opens this weekend. No more lefthand merge for all the traffic coming from 78 EB to 287 NB. No more trucks having to merge over when traffic is heavy. No more Jersey sweeps for traffic trying to get from 78 to 202-206 in Pluckemin.
I have to be up this way later today so I will try to grab a couple of pictures if I can.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 03, 2019, 04:24:45 PM
Old sign in East Orange hangs on. This could date to when I-280 opened thru here.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47995969037_175de3e5c4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g8eTrx)
And given that NJDOT replaced most of the signage here back in 2011 and didn't touch this one, it will probably hang on for a lot longer.
The rate of speeding is staggering :-D
https://expo.nj.com/news/g66l-2019/06/f847f653978638/we-know-youre-speeding-jersey-so-we-bought-a-radar-gun-to-see-just-how-fast.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=nj_facebook_njcom&utm_campaign=njcom_sf&fbclid=IwAR2VM1BPcfwZ5sQxs9ceEr0Bf6f9LWftNpfPMF1dLrN11gnKv-7-YvhUi_M
I'm surprised they didn't see anyone going over 100.
I was going to say they did the same thing last year...only to see it's simply a reprint of last year's story! Lol
NJDOT is pretty open about actual speeds anyway...they still publish yearly reports showing speeds at monitoring locations on their roads. Currently it's updated thru 2017: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/speed.shtm
as promised, i drove on the new 78 to 287 ramp. some new pictures here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mero/albums/72157708995328783). also includes new signs on 287 nb at exits 21 a-b.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 08, 2019, 08:07:40 PM
I'm surprised they didn't see anyone going over 100.
Im shocked, did they go on a bad day? When you hit that 3-3-3-3 Config you can easily go 100MPH for short bursts. 85 is the max speed they found? Must have been calibrated wrong.
iPhone
NJDOT going with borderlesss shields is odd to see. Did they yet remove the left exit for US 202/206 going SB in Bridgewater yet?
Nope. It is still there.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 09, 2019, 10:11:15 PM
NJDOT going with borderlesss shields is odd to see. Did they yet remove the left exit for US 202/206 going SB in Bridgewater yet?
That's likely never going to be replaced. It's not so bad over there because it's at the bottom of the dual-dual stretch where the traffic from 78WB feeds into the inner roadway and the traffic from 78EB feeds into the outer roadway and there are exits to 202-206 from both roadways. There isn't room to rebuild the two lane ramp and overpass to realign it to be a righthand exit without a massive undertaking to fix something that doesn't entirely need to be fixed.
The lefthand exit that could really stand to be changed is Exit 14A to 22WB. Both having the exit and entrance ramps be on the lefthand side causes problems on both 287 and 22. I almost got into a serious accident turning onto 22 from the Finderne exit once because of some ahole flying off that ramp and doing the ole Jersey Sweep over to the right lane as I was trying to merge in coming off that turn without even thinking about looking but again, there's no real place to put a proper two lane ramp to have a RH to RH connection there.
The left ramp for 202 & 206 needs to not steel all the through lanes (or is that changed at least?) as two lanes for the exit and only a single lane for the main line. A lot of folks who drove that for the first time got confused and thought it was unusual to say the least.
The right exit for I-287 SB to US 22 EB can be done as both roads run parallel to each other there and before Foothill Road just have it depart cross over US 22 WB and its wide median to cross the EB lanes and merge from the right into a c/d roadway for the Finderne Avenue exit to stop weaving. Though the overpass over US 22 EB for the SB I-287 would need to be widened and replaced as like you said that left EB US 22 exit for I-287 is a problem and needs a lot to fix it to put it on the right.
The big thing is now the weave to Chimney Rock Road as the ramp departs US 22 EB right after the merge from 287 SB there. IMO it should have a curb on both sides of US 22 there to defer it.
So now we have the first signs in NJ besides the Parkway and Turnpike without the black backplate. Anyone know if this is an aberration or if all new signs going forward will omit the backplate? Is this done to confirm to MUTCD mandates? Will NJ be replacing more BGS's?
I don't know why the MUTCD bans black/all backplates, but that's the case. No more. (Backplateless shields look incredibly tacky)
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 10, 2019, 01:50:41 PM
I don't know why the MUTCD bans black/all backplates, but that's the case. No more. (Backplateless shields look incredibly tacky)
It doesn't. That paragraph of the MUTCD is only guidance, meaning that it is not mandatory.
Quote from: artmalk on June 10, 2019, 01:30:30 PM
So now we have the first signs in NJ besides the Parkway and Turnpike without the black backplate. Anyone know if this is an aberration or if all new signs going forward will omit the backplate? Is this done to confirm to MUTCD mandates? Will NJ be replacing more BGS's?
Actually, NJDOT has gone backplate-less for a few years now on nearly all BGSs, as evidenced by this GSV from 2016. https://goo.gl/maps/1VMMZxTD3cdEnVt58 . They've done a state-wide milepost installation on state roads, and they are without backplates as well.
All new signs are backplate-less, and the trend will continue. There was a small green sign near me I noticed was replaced in this same manner just within the past month.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 10, 2019, 01:50:41 PM
I don't know why the MUTCD bans black/all backplates, but that's the case. No more. (Backplateless shields look incredibly tacky)
Meanwhile, I feel the opposite (at least with respect to guide signs).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 10, 2019, 07:44:05 PM
Quote from: artmalk on June 10, 2019, 01:30:30 PM
So now we have the first signs in NJ besides the Parkway and Turnpike without the black backplate. Anyone know if this is an aberration or if all new signs going forward will omit the backplate? Is this done to confirm to MUTCD mandates? Will NJ be replacing more BGS's?
Actually, NJDOT has gone backplate-less for a few years now on nearly all BGSs, as evidenced by this GSV from 2016. https://goo.gl/maps/1VMMZxTD3cdEnVt58 . They've done a state-wide milepost installation on state roads, and they are without backplates as well.
All new signs are backplate-less, and the trend will continue. There was a small green sign near me I noticed was replaced in this same manner just within the past month.
There were a handful of road sections where the new mileposts DID have backplates. I believe NJ 495's mileposts have backplates, and a portion of 322's do too. Here's one of the 322 ones.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/2018-08-26_14_26_52_View_west_along_U.S._Route_322_and_Gloucester_County_Route_536_%28High_Street%29_just_east_of_Reading_Street_in_Glassboro%2C_Gloucester_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on June 10, 2019, 12:40:19 PM
The left ramp for 202 & 206 needs to not steel all the through lanes (or is that changed at least?) as two lanes for the exit and only a single lane for the main line. A lot of folks who drove that for the first time got confused and thought it was unusual to say the least.
The right exit for I-287 SB to US 22 EB can be done as both roads run parallel to each other there and before Foothill Road just have it depart cross over US 22 WB and its wide median to cross the EB lanes and merge from the right into a c/d roadway for the Finderne Avenue exit to stop weaving. Though the overpass over US 22 EB for the SB I-287 would need to be widened and replaced as like you said that left EB US 22 exit for I-287 is a problem and needs a lot to fix it to put it on the right.
The big thing is now the weave to Chimney Rock Road as the ramp departs US 22 EB right after the merge from 287 SB there. IMO it should have a curb on both sides of US 22 there to defer it.
Actually I was referring to the NB exit from 287 to 22WB. I meant to say 14B instead of A. My mistake.
The 22 entrance ramp is mostly fine. The right lane of it flows into the exit only lane at 13 there. The middle lanes merge kind of awkwardly, but it's not the absolute worst. It starts on the left from 22, but does merge on the right onto 287 and there's usually enough room to speed up and merge in without much issue.
Here's a random thought that has been on my mind. Why does NJDOT continue to do signs to both the Parkway and Turnpike entrances by using either "GS Parkway", "Garden State Pkwy" or "NJ Turnpike" as the "control cities" on those signs, instead of just relying on their shields to do the job? The NJTA has moved onto doing that, for the most part (even if the TA is weird about not just putting "New York" on all their NB signs at various places, or most pullthrus at exits). I also know that having some official control cities for the Parkway is a newer thing, but I still would like to see them sign exits to both with the standard practice of the route shield and actual control cities instead of what they do now. Just a thought on my part.
Quote from: storm2k on June 13, 2019, 10:39:26 AM
Here's a random thought that has been on my mind. Why does NJDOT continue to do signs to both the Parkway and Turnpike entrances by using either "GS Parkway", "Garden State Pkwy" or "NJ Turnpike" as the "control cities" on those signs, instead of just relying on their shields to do the job? The NJTA has moved onto doing that, for the most part (even if the TA is weird about not just putting "New York" on all their NB signs at various places, or most pullthrus at exits). I also know that having some official control cities for the Parkway is a newer thing, but I still would like to see them sign exits to both with the standard practice of the route shield and actual control cities instead of what they do now. Just a thought on my part.
Depends on whether the sign was done in-house, in which case it's likely to just copy the old legend blindly, or done as part of a contract, in which case it's up to the competency of the consultant and the engineer who reviews the plans.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 02, 2019, 10:48:13 AM
The last one with Paramus was already taken down and replaced with a full width BGS using Paterson and 3 down arrows (like at 105), likely for the construction at Exit 145. Using Paramus was a suggestion I made years ago here because the GSP actually goes there and have major junctions with other roadways...... unlike Paterson. Somebody clearly listened.
Apparently north of there the GSP can use Albany, but it hasn't been signed yet.
(https://i.imgur.com/GhDbniD.jpg)
Drove up the Parkway to 145 the other day, so I got a picture of the replacement pullthru showing Paterson and not Paramus.
Also, the only place I've seen Albany is on a distance mileage sign that's near Exit 166 or so NB.
Quote from: storm2k on June 21, 2019, 01:47:28 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/GhDbniD.jpg)
Is there a reason why that
GSP NORTH legend isn't properly aligned with the
Paterson legend, let alone not centered with respect to the panel?
Because this is New Jersey!
To answer your question it most likely has to do with carbon copying of when the Parkway first opened. It was a road unique from the rest so being tolled they did not want to be accused of suckering people to use the new freeways of the time. That is why in Keyport the places like The Amboys and New York are still signed on NJ 35 rather than the Parkway to this day (unless it changed since the last time I was there which jeff and alps will lecture me on posting things that are no longer true) .
Anyway, yes the Parkway in Woodbridge has side by side signs for the Turnpike and Parkway from US 9 and the Turnpike now has real cities over the "NJ Turnpike" signs while the Parkway North signs still have the redundant "GS Parkway" signs. Its odd that the Parkway waited till now to finally go with the flow and even started to sign mileage signs which in the past never have done except for the ACE at the Raritan Toll Plaza and at 50 miles out in Brick Township.
From US 9 in Woodbridge it should be "Newark" for the Parkway North and also with that aspect, "Newark" should be removed from Exit 130 and replaced with "Woodbridge" instead as you left that city just a while ago. Ditto on I-287 nearby as posting Newark and Trenton in the shadow of the Turnpike there is crazy nowadays as well. Though Trenton is iffy being the Turnpike really does not go there, but indirectly via I-195 and NJ 29.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2019, 09:35:20 AM
To answer your question it most likely has to do with carbon copying of when the Parkway first opened.
No offense but your
carbon-copy/match-in-kind reasoning reply doesn't seem to apply for this particular application.
That pull-through BGS is very recent. This Nov. 2018 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7488056,-74.212482,3a,75y,14.28h,80.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saGlPocZJYv7jR9Ub_-HR1w!2e0!5s20181101T000000!7i16384!8i8192) shows a properly arranged pull-through BGS (w/out down-arrows) listing Paramus as its control city. This Paramus BGS was erected sometime in 2016.
Going further back to a Oct 2013 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7488859,-74.2124311,3a,75y,348.12h,84.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soibJfMGGwDln4EgmbmD8SQ!2e0!5s20151001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) shows an old-school yellow
THRU TRAFFIC pull-through sign with three down-arrows.
Very odd.
Just saw a new ground-mounted reassurance assembly westbound on the Atlantic City Expressway around MP 14. It says WEST (white on blue) / TOLL (black on yellow) / [ACE logo]. I don't think I've seen anything like it on the ACE before.
Quote from: bzakharin on June 21, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
Just saw a new ground-mounted reassurance assembly westbound on the Atlantic City Expressway around MP 14. It says WEST (white on blue) / TOLL (black on yellow) / [ACE logo]. I don't think I've seen anything like it on the ACE before.
Like this: https://goo.gl/maps/fUCHhAo1i7QE79eU8 ? This is the only one I've seen, for direction *to* the Expressway, but haven't seen one *on* the Expressway!
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2019, 09:35:20 AM
Because this is New Jersey!
To answer your question it most likely has to do with carbon copying of when the Parkway first opened. It was a road unique from the rest so being tolled they did not want to be accused of suckering people to use the new freeways of the time. That is why in Keyport the places like The Amboys and New York are still signed on NJ 35 rather than the Parkway to this day (unless it changed since the last time I was there which jeff and alps will lecture me on posting things that are no longer true) .
Anyway, yes the Parkway in Woodbridge has side by side signs for the Turnpike and Parkway from US 9 and the Turnpike now has real cities over the "NJ Turnpike" signs while the Parkway North signs still have the redundant "GS Parkway" signs. Its odd that the Parkway waited till now to finally go with the flow and even started to sign mileage signs which in the past never have done except for the ACE at the Raritan Toll Plaza and at 50 miles out in Brick Township.
From US 9 in Woodbridge it should be "Newark" for the Parkway North and also with that aspect, "Newark" should be removed from Exit 130 and replaced with "Woodbridge" instead as you left that city just a while ago. Ditto on I-287 nearby as posting Newark and Trenton in the shadow of the Turnpike there is crazy nowadays as well. Though Trenton is iffy being the Turnpike really does not go there, but indirectly via I-195 and NJ 29.
It's the Turnpike Authority is the better answer for this situation. It's why you still see Metuchen signed as the control city for 287 NB at Exit 10, even though NJDOT has had Morristown and Mahwah as 287's control cities since the early 90s. It's a relic of when the current Exit 10 was built in the 60s and 287 didn't extend past 27 at that time. The TA has very little desire to update some of those things. Having actual control cities for the Turnpike and Parkway was almost as big of a change as actual MUTCD-like signage on the Turnpike.
Yes Metuchen is also an odd pick, but Somerville was never even considered later on as that was the main control up till the early 90's when Morristown and Mahwah were both made the primary cities.
You figure being I-287 is the truck bypass of NYC from I-95 to I-87 it would be signed better. Even the Parkway at 127 should really use Morristown (as Mahwah is better served by staying on the Parkway there) instead of Raritan Center (formerly Industrial Avenue) or even no control cities.
Yes the MUTCD forced the NJTA to conform to many standards hence the change in old large on sign exit numbers that made sort of a trademark. However some of it is welcome like finally realizing the existence of NJ 495 at 16E and even signing I-95 with NJ Turnpike shields in many places.
I grew up in New Jersey and was always fascinated why the Turnpike and Parkway had their own signs, but made me more into roads as I always dreamed about what control cities should really be. Even on free interstates which NJDOT never really signed them on ramps, but I have been seeing more and more of actual cities being used now since I left NJ in 1990. I-78 has signs in Watchung on CR 531 at the parclo with I-78 showing Clinton and Newark finally.
I guess I got more into roads because of NJDOT's lack of what other states have been doing as it gave me a chance to dream about what such changes would be made. Though one still, as NJ Interstate mileage signs are signed like local highways with township names instead of familiar names {Hence Ewing over Trenton on I-295} where I would use (if I were an engineer assigned to handling that) larger freeway types of signs and would sign Camden and Trenton instead of Bellmawr and Ewing from its southern end. Where north of the Del. Mem. Br. I would first use Bridgeport (where US 322 meets is better than Paulsboro as the sign there first lists), Camden, and Trenton. Then follow up after US 322 with Paulsboro as next first city with Camden and Trenton and then after Paulsboro use Westville with Camden and Trenton. I basically would have more signs and more first listed places along the way including Cherry Hill north of the current I-295 construction at NJ 42/ I-76 project.
Even the owner of this forum chuckled on how NJDOT used little green all caps signs for mileages along the way when he photographed I-295. NJ, IMO had its own unique way of doing things I liked while ironically liked to see it conform to the other 49 states ( I assumed at that time all 49 were doing) way of doing it.
Some South Jersey notes. NJ-55 is getting new gantries and overheads installed, so if you like button copy, you only got about a week until its gone. The new signs on the side of the road awaiting install are sans backplated shields too. Was NJDOT running some kind of signing test when they originally built NJ-55? Just about every interchange features "JCT" text next to the shield on the signs. Not something you usually see elsewhere. NJ-347 didn't receive upgraded mile markers, no surprise as its county maintained.
Traffic patterns on a weekday morning in the Philly suburbs are opposite of what I expect. I-295 was backed up northbound in the morning (at least from NJ-73 down to I-76). I was expecting more southbound traffic.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 22, 2019, 03:34:52 PM
Some South Jersey notes. NJ-55 is getting new gantries and overheads installed, so if you like button copy, you only got about a week until its gone. The new signs on the side of the road awaiting install are sans backplated shields too. Was NJDOT running some kind of signing test when they originally built NJ-55? Just about every interchange features "JCT" text next to the shield on the signs. Not something you usually see elsewhere. NJ-347 didn't receive upgraded mile markers, no surprise as its county maintained.
Traffic patterns on a weekday morning in the Philly suburbs are opposite of what I expect. I-295 was backed up northbound in the morning (at least from NJ-73 down to I-76). I was expecting more southbound traffic.
NJDOT has a large signing project going on where they're replacing numerous signs and gantries on 55, 295 and other highways.
The JCT was just part of how they signed interchanges at the time.
295 traffic...and the region in general...has a lot of county-county commuting. On 295 traffic jams northbound going away from Philly in the morning, and is heavily congested going Southbound in the afternoon. However, the opposite direction is usually just a minor accident away from congestion every day. And the congested period is longer than one may expect for a suburban area. On days like Friday, I hit the afternoon rush hour congestion on 295 South at 42 at 1pm...and it probably began closer to noon.
Rt. 55 Northbound has increasingly seen congestion approaching Rt. 42 every weekday afternoon as well.
Sorry for the garbage dash-cam photos, but I saw these lying around heading into PA on the Scudders Falls Bridge. They've actually made a fair amount of work in the past couple of months.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D973aQpW4AAGL08.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D973aQqWwAAfve6.jpg)
I don't like the North 295 to West 295 thing. Leave that off and just use the To South 95, or just 295 North Philadelphia.
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2019, 07:26:43 PM
I don't like the North 295 to West 295 thing. Leave that off and just use the To South 95, or just 295 North Philadelphia.
Nice idea, but a directional change is something that should be pointed out on any BGS.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 25, 2019, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2019, 07:26:43 PM
I don't like the North 295 to West 295 thing. Leave that off and just use the To South 95, or just 295 North Philadelphia.
Nice idea, but a directional change is something that should be pointed out on any BGS.
Just say West I-295 To South I-95.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2019, 08:43:18 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 25, 2019, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2019, 07:26:43 PM
I don't like the North 295 to West 295 thing. Leave that off and just use the To South 95, or just 295 North Philadelphia.
Nice idea, but a directional change is something that should be pointed out on any BGS.
Just say West I-295 To South I-95.
Yeah, that's a fair compromise.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 25, 2019, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2019, 07:26:43 PM
I don't like the North 295 to West 295 thing. Leave that off and just use the To South 95, or just 295 North Philadelphia.
Nice idea, but a directional change is something that should be pointed out on any BGS.
Really? I've never seen such signed anywhere.
Quote from: famartin on June 25, 2019, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 25, 2019, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2019, 07:26:43 PM
I don't like the North 295 to West 295 thing. Leave that off and just use the To South 95, or just 295 North Philadelphia.
Nice idea, but a directional change is something that should be pointed out on any BGS.
Really? I've never seen such signed anywhere.
It's quite rare, but it can work should the need arise.
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 25, 2019, 08:45:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2019, 08:43:18 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 25, 2019, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2019, 07:26:43 PM
I don't like the North 295 to West 295 thing. Leave that off and just use the To South 95, or just 295 North Philadelphia.
Nice idea, but a directional change is something that should be pointed out on any BGS.
Just say West I-295 To South I-95.
Yeah, that's a fair compromise.
But you're not on 295 West at this point. You're on 295 North, with at least 1 or 2 exits to go.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2019, 09:50:21 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 25, 2019, 08:45:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 25, 2019, 08:43:18 PM
Quote from: kevinb1994 on June 25, 2019, 07:55:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2019, 07:26:43 PM
I don't like the North 295 to West 295 thing. Leave that off and just use the To South 95, or just 295 North Philadelphia.
Nice idea, but a directional change is something that should be pointed out on any BGS.
Just say West I-295 To South I-95.
Yeah, that's a fair compromise.
But you're not on 295 West at this point. You're on 295 North, with at least 1 or 2 exits to go.
If they had built the Somerset Freeway, this wouldn't have even been an issue in the first place.
I don't see why the direction change needs to be pointed out on the BGS. They don't point it out for any other road with such a change, why this one?
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2019, 09:53:58 PM
I don't see why the direction change needs to be pointed out on the BGS. They don't point it out for any other road with such a change, why this one?
Only reason it needs pointing out is because, thanks to NJDOT, the direction change happens in a completely illogical place, but I digress...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 22, 2019, 08:57:02 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 21, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
Just saw a new ground-mounted reassurance assembly westbound on the Atlantic City Expressway around MP 14. It says WEST (white on blue) / TOLL (black on yellow) / [ACE logo]. I don't think I've seen anything like it on the ACE before.
Like this: https://goo.gl/maps/fUCHhAo1i7QE79eU8 ? This is the only one I've seen, for direction *to* the Expressway, but haven't seen one *on* the Expressway!
Yes, very similar. Saw another one today, also Westbound, near Exit 28. No "TOLL" banner on this one, which makes sense, I suppose, since all the tolls will have been paid by that point.
Quote from: famartin on June 25, 2019, 10:19:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2019, 09:53:58 PM
I don't see why the direction change needs to be pointed out on the BGS. They don't point it out for any other road with such a change, why this one?
Only reason it needs pointing out is because, thanks to NJDOT, the direction change happens in a completely illogical place, but I digress...
Yes considering I-465 in Indiana and both I-410 and 610 in Texas change directions at every corner of their beltways and no mention unless you religiously follow the pull through overheads and notice that the current one is different from the last one.
NJ should have gone E-W between US 1 and Scudder Falls and made the change at US 1, but they did not so it changes like this in this location.
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2019, 04:57:27 PM
Sorry for the garbage dash-cam photos, but I saw these lying around heading into PA on the Scudders Falls Bridge. They've actually made a fair amount of work in the past couple of months.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D973aQpW4AAGL08.jpg)
What is this aversion sign designers seem to have to properly insetting the border on black on yellow tabs like the 'PAY TOLL 2 MILES" shown here?
Quote from: roadman on June 26, 2019, 04:12:46 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2019, 04:57:27 PM
Sorry for the garbage dash-cam photos, but I saw these lying around heading into PA on the Scudders Falls Bridge. They've actually made a fair amount of work in the past couple of months.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D973aQpW4AAGL08.jpg)
What is this aversion sign designers seem to have to properly insetting the border on black on yellow tabs like the 'PAY TOLL 2 MILES" shown here?
I'm not seeing it. What's the issue there? IMHO & based on the discussion of that sign in the Scudder Falls Bridge Replacement thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2146.75); that's the least of that sign's issues.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2019, 04:28:10 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 26, 2019, 04:12:46 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 25, 2019, 04:57:27 PM
Sorry for the garbage dash-cam photos, but I saw these lying around heading into PA on the Scudders Falls Bridge. They've actually made a fair amount of work in the past couple of months.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D973aQpW4AAGL08.jpg)
What is this aversion sign designers seem to have to properly insetting the border on black on yellow tabs like the 'PAY TOLL 2 MILES" shown here?
I'm not seeing it. What's the issue there? IMHO & based on the discussion of that sign in the Scudder Falls Bridge Replacement thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2146.75); that's the least of that sign's issues.
Agreed. Was just pointing out that this panel has an all-to common flaw I see with signs in many places, and is totally avoidable.
Quote from: roadman on June 26, 2019, 04:43:58 PMWas just pointing out that this panel has an all-to common flaw I see with signs in many places, and is totally avoidable.
What exactly is the flaw? And what's an example of one properly done? I checked the MUTCD and didn't see anything about it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 26, 2019, 04:43:58 PMWas just pointing out that this panel has an all-to common flaw I see with signs in many places, and is totally avoidable.
What exactly is the flaw? And what's an example of one properly done? I checked the MUTCD and didn't see anything about it.
Black border is required to have a yellow colored inset so that it's visible at night.
Quote from: Alps on June 26, 2019, 07:28:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 26, 2019, 04:43:58 PMWas just pointing out that this panel has an all-to common flaw I see with signs in many places, and is totally avoidable.
What exactly is the flaw? And what's an example of one properly done? I checked the MUTCD and didn't see anything about it.
Black border is required to have a yellow colored inset so that it's visible at night.
Okay. However, I am going to ask again for an example of one that was
properly done. This is a case where 1 picture = 1000 words.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2019, 08:21:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 26, 2019, 07:28:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 26, 2019, 04:43:58 PMWas just pointing out that this panel has an all-to common flaw I see with signs in many places, and is totally avoidable.
What exactly is the flaw? And what's an example of one properly done? I checked the MUTCD and didn't see anything about it.
Black border is required to have a yellow colored inset so that it's visible at night.
Okay. However, I am going to ask again for an example of one that was properly done. This is a case where 1 picture = 1000 words.
zooming in on the picture shows the inset present. is it undersized, or was did roadman just not see it?
Quote from: odditude on June 27, 2019, 01:34:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2019, 08:21:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 26, 2019, 07:28:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 26, 2019, 04:43:58 PMWas just pointing out that this panel has an all-to common flaw I see with signs in many places, and is totally avoidable.
What exactly is the flaw? And what's an example of one properly done? I checked the MUTCD and didn't see anything about it.
Black border is required to have a yellow colored inset so that it's visible at night.
Okay. However, I am going to ask again for an example of one that was properly done. This is a case where 1 picture = 1000 words.
zooming in on the picture shows the inset present. is it undersized, or was did roadman just not see it?
The latter is very possible.
So far, other than on the new mile markers, I have seen very few new BGS's without New Jersey's distinctive black backplate in North Jersey. So far the ones I saw anywhere near where I live in Parsippany are on I-287 for 202/206 near Pluckemin, and brand new signs near the Flemington Circle. Am I correct that although all new signs will be without backplate, that NJDOT is not undertaking a massive sign replacement project right now? Many signs in North Jersey are not that old so I assume they would not be replaced anytime soon.
Quote from: artmalk on June 30, 2019, 05:37:30 PM
So far, other than on the new mike markers, I have seen very few new BGS's without New Jersey's distinctive black backplate in North Jersey. So far the ones I saw anywhere near where I live in Parsippany are on I-287 for 202/206 near Pluckemin, and brand new signs near the Flemington Circle. Am I correct that although all new signs will be without backplate, that NJDOT is not undertaking a massive sign replacement project right now? Many signs in North Jersey are not that old so I assume they would not be replaced anytime soon.
Correct, it's only as they get replaced going forward.
NJ is not new totally to borderless shields on signs as some NJ 24 signs near Short Hills Mall had them even in the 70's and of course the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway always had them.
I will miss them as they were something that was New Jersey, but progress and new things.
Is there an AASHTO guideline which states that route shields should lack the black backgrounds on BGS's? Just wondering what would prompt NJDOT to change to non-backplated route shields, other than conformity with surrounding states.
If there is such a guideline, is there some reasoning behind it?
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2019, 11:50:19 PM
Is there an AASHTO guideline which states that route shields should lack the black backgrounds on BGS's? Just wondering what would prompt NJDOT to change to non-backplated route shields, other than conformity with surrounding states.
If there is such a guideline, is there some reasoning behind it?
Just doing what the MUTCD tells them to do. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_17_longdesc.htm
It definitely wouldn't be trying to match nearby states. Hell, PA and NJ differed on how they were signing the 95/295 redesignation!
It's just weird that NJDOT is suddenly phasing out the backplates now! Someome from AASHTO must have told NJDOT you have been doing it wrong for 50 years!
Quote from: artmalk on July 02, 2019, 01:26:26 PM
It's just weird that NJDOT is suddenly phasing out the backplates now! Someome from AASHTO must have told NJDOT you have been doing it wrong for 50 years!
Jersey is a latecomer to a number of MUTCD guidelines. The larger first letter in the cardinal direction and the dotted vs. dashed line for accel/decel lanes are relatively recent NJ trends that nearly every other state had commonly used for years.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2019, 11:05:26 AM
NJ isn't that great for signing ramps leading into the highway...If they sign them at all! Long time missing signage here gives no notification that by continuing straight, you are heading onto I-295 North here. https://goo.gl/maps/wn1ox4ZWJVGwY3WHA Back up a little and at least there's a sign stating to turn left to (eventually) get to I-295 South.
That is why maybe they should look into CA/ NV type of Freeway Entrance signs for this entrance ramp.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 02, 2019, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2019, 11:05:26 AM
NJ isn't that great for signing ramps leading into the highway...If they sign them at all! Long time missing signage here gives no notification that by continuing straight, you are heading onto I-295 North here. https://goo.gl/maps/wn1ox4ZWJVGwY3WHA Back up a little and at least there's a sign stating to turn left to (eventually) get to I-295 South.
That is why maybe they should look into CA/ NV type of Freeway Entrance signs for this entrance ramp.
The sign fell or got hit and went missing. Same thing would happen if it was any other sign. NJDOT just never replaced the sign.
Quote from: artmalk on July 02, 2019, 01:26:26 PM
It's just weird that NJDOT is suddenly phasing out the backplates now! Someome from AASHTO must have told NJDOT you have been doing it wrong for 50 years!
The explanation I got from NJDOT when I inquired as to why the change was part MUTCD, another part due to higher costs of demountable copy production. My only reservation is that the policy also applies to the County route marker as well, which poses a lousy contrast between the blue and green.
Quote from: odditude on June 27, 2019, 01:34:13 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2019, 08:21:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 26, 2019, 07:28:14 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 26, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 26, 2019, 04:43:58 PMWas just pointing out that this panel has an all-to common flaw I see with signs in many places, and is totally avoidable.
What exactly is the flaw? And what's an example of one properly done? I checked the MUTCD and didn't see anything about it.
Black border is required to have a yellow colored inset so that it's visible at night.
Okay. However, I am going to ask again for an example of one that was properly done. This is a case where 1 picture = 1000 words.
zooming in on the picture shows the inset present. is it undersized, or was did roadman just not see it?
After a closer look, I do see there is an inset on the banner. However, it is undersized. Commonly accepted practice is that, for overhead signs, the width of the inset should match the width of the border on the inset. However, these widths can be less than the border width on the main sign panel. Massachusetts standard practice is to use a 1.5 inch border with a 1.5 inch inset for black on yellow banners on overhead signs where the main panel has 2 inch borders.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2019, 11:47:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 02, 2019, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2019, 11:05:26 AM
NJ isn't that great for signing ramps leading into the highway...If they sign them at all! Long time missing signage here gives no notification that by continuing straight, you are heading onto I-295 North here. https://goo.gl/maps/wn1ox4ZWJVGwY3WHA Back up a little and at least there's a sign stating to turn left to (eventually) get to I-295 South.
That is why maybe they should look into CA/ NV type of Freeway Entrance signs for this entrance ramp.
The sign fell or got hit and went missing. Same thing would happen if it was any other sign. NJDOT just never replaced the sign.
Yeah NJDOT does have that trait of waiting, however I ideally all states should mark freeway entrances like Caltrans of NVDOT does. At least NJDOT is getting somewhat better and since I left more entrances with destinations posted at them, plus mileage signs on freeways. Yes, I-295 needs work on that one as they use Paulsboro, Bellmawr, Burlington, Ewing, and Yardley but no mention of Trenton and Camden going North. SB is okay, but the frequency of the mileage signs could be more often instead of after the next destination is reached before it gets followed up on. Plus the type of panel should be a larger freeway exit type of assembly and not the local highway little signs.
https://goo.gl/maps/8Kj6pWzo8m4WRw9v5
I noticed that NJDOT still continues to use "Pt Pleasant' as a control city on NJ 18 in Colts Neck. Considering that this is remints of when NJ 18 originally ended here and soon afterwards ended at Wayside Road, to get to Point Pleasant this was the most direct route to go from here.
However, between this cloverleaf and the beachside community on the sign there really is no other place to use as well, so in reality there really is no other place to use as SB control city for Route 34 here either.
This is one oddity that really has no remedy to fix. Also to note using Route 34 over staying on Route 18 really saves you any time as NJ 34 does have only a few lights on it and cuts the distance as NJ 18 goes east and then south where the other goes south and east at the same time.
The Tinton Falls destination though on NJ 34 for SB NJ 18 needs to go as Asbury Park would work fine in its place. Again copied over from when Route 18 ended at Wayside Road.
Quote from: akotchi on July 03, 2019, 09:16:32 AM
Quote from: artmalk on July 02, 2019, 01:26:26 PM
It's just weird that NJDOT is suddenly phasing out the backplates now! Someome from AASHTO must have told NJDOT you have been doing it wrong for 50 years!
The explanation I got from NJDOT when I inquired as to why the change was part MUTCD, another part due to higher costs of demountable copy production. My only reservation is that the policy also applies to the County route marker as well, which poses a lousy contrast between the blue and green.
The FHWA is at fault here. The county shield border on guide signs should be thick yellow with no inset - in fact, all shields should be that way because the border is a light color. The next MUTCD hopefully fixes that. In the meantime I've tried to get NJDOT to do it right but they stick to the square...
Quote from: Alps on July 03, 2019, 05:39:37 PM
Quote from: akotchi on July 03, 2019, 09:16:32 AM
Quote from: artmalk on July 02, 2019, 01:26:26 PM
It's just weird that NJDOT is suddenly phasing out the backplates now! Someome from AASHTO must have told NJDOT you have been doing it wrong for 50 years!
The explanation I got from NJDOT when I inquired as to why the change was part MUTCD, another part due to higher costs of demountable copy production. My only reservation is that the policy also applies to the County route marker as well, which poses a lousy contrast between the blue and green.
The FHWA is at fault here. The county shield border on guide signs should be thick yellow with no inset - in fact, all shields should be that way because the border is a light color. The next MUTCD hopefully fixes that. In the meantime I've tried to get NJDOT to do it right but they stick to the square...
Not always...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/2017-10-06_15_51_26_View_north_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_2_%28Mercer_County_Route_579%2C_West_Trenton%2C_Trenton-Mercer_Airport%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
On another subject, but definitely NJ, the City of Easton in PA is been a control city for a number of years on US 22 westbound from Somerville and westward. Now its NJDOT's chosen destination from I-287 as all new signs erected in the 90's replace "Clinton" with that, however being the best route into that particular city from I-78 is from Exit 3 at Still Valley and to use US 22 through Phillipsburg to reach it. Yet, no signs there nor is it a control city for the exit.
NJDOT uses both Phillipsburg and Alpha instead. IMO, I think Alpha should be replaced with Easton and another sign approaching Exit 3 should read "Easton Next 2 Exits" giving drivers a choice of having two exits instead of given only one option as currently is with the exit just beyond the Delaware River Bridge Toll Plaza which brings you to Easton in sort of a roundabout way.
Should Easton really be added to Exit 3 in addition to the current only signed exit for that city located in PA?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 06, 2019, 12:47:45 AM
On another subject, but definitely NJ, the City of Easton in PA is been a control city for a number of years on US 22 westbound from Somerville and westward. Now its NJDOT's chosen destination from I-287 as all new signs erected in the 90's replace "Clinton" with that, however being the best route into that particular city from I-78 is from Exit 3 at Still Valley and to use US 22 through Phillipsburg to reach it. Yet, no signs there nor is it a control city for the exit.
NJDOT uses both Phillipsburg and Alpha instead. IMO, I think Alpha should be replaced with Easton and another sign approaching Exit 3 should read "Easton Next 2 Exits" giving drivers a choice of having two exits instead of given only one option as currently is with the exit just beyond the Delaware River Bridge Toll Plaza which brings you to Easton in sort of a roundabout way.
Should Easton really be added to Exit 3 in addition to the current only signed exit for that city located in PA?
Are you talking about 78 and not 287? The signs for 21B (287 NB to 78 WB) have used Easton as the control city since 1997. Thru signs on 78WB through the 287 interchange still use P'Burg, though. I do kind of wish that (1) NJDOT would standardize on control cities like the NJTA did, and (2) just sign 22 and 78 EB as Newark and New York consistently. 22 ends in Newark, and 78 is a major route in and out of there. This isn't even accounting for the baffling choice to use Kearney (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8275221,-74.3249831,3a,75y,134.67h,96.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0L3a-uncN1_QxNqznaEo2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as the control city on the replaced overhead pullthru on 280 EB at Eisenhower Pkwy.
Quote from: storm2k on July 06, 2019, 01:18:17 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 06, 2019, 12:47:45 AM
On another subject, but definitely NJ, the City of Easton in PA is been a control city for a number of years on US 22 westbound from Somerville and westward. Now its NJDOT's chosen destination from I-287 as all new signs erected in the 90's replace "Clinton" with that, however being the best route into that particular city from I-78 is from Exit 3 at Still Valley and to use US 22 through Phillipsburg to reach it. Yet, no signs there nor is it a control city for the exit.
NJDOT uses both Phillipsburg and Alpha instead. IMO, I think Alpha should be replaced with Easton and another sign approaching Exit 3 should read "Easton Next 2 Exits" giving drivers a choice of having two exits instead of given only one option as currently is with the exit just beyond the Delaware River Bridge Toll Plaza which brings you to Easton in sort of a roundabout way.
Should Easton really be added to Exit 3 in addition to the current only signed exit for that city located in PA?
Are you talking about 78 and not 287? The signs for 21B (287 NB to 78 WB) have used Easton as the control city since 1997. Thru signs on 78WB through the 287 interchange still use P'Burg, though. I do kind of wish that (1) NJDOT would standardize on control cities like the NJTA did, and (2) just sign 22 and 78 EB as Newark and New York consistently. 22 ends in Newark, and 78 is a major route in and out of there. This isn't even accounting for the baffling choice to use Kearney (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8275221,-74.3249831,3a,75y,134.67h,96.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0L3a-uncN1_QxNqznaEo2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as the control city on the replaced overhead pullthru on 280 EB at Eisenhower Pkwy.
I think he's saying that 287 to 22w is signed Easton now. I agree with Clinton for this case. Easton makes more sense for 78 which is looking for the next sizable town.
Quote from: storm2k on July 06, 2019, 01:18:17 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 06, 2019, 12:47:45 AM
On another subject, but definitely NJ, the City of Easton in PA is been a control city for a number of years on US 22 westbound from Somerville and westward. Now its NJDOT's chosen destination from I-287 as all new signs erected in the 90's replace "Clinton" with that, however being the best route into that particular city from I-78 is from Exit 3 at Still Valley and to use US 22 through Phillipsburg to reach it. Yet, no signs there nor is it a control city for the exit.
NJDOT uses both Phillipsburg and Alpha instead. IMO, I think Alpha should be replaced with Easton and another sign approaching Exit 3 should read "Easton Next 2 Exits" giving drivers a choice of having two exits instead of given only one option as currently is with the exit just beyond the Delaware River Bridge Toll Plaza which brings you to Easton in sort of a roundabout way.
Should Easton really be added to Exit 3 in addition to the current only signed exit for that city located in PA?
Are you talking about 78 and not 287? The signs for 21B (287 NB to 78 WB) have used Easton as the control city since 1997. Thru signs on 78WB through the 287 interchange still use P'Burg, though. I do kind of wish that (1) NJDOT would standardize on control cities like the NJTA did, and (2) just sign 22 and 78 EB as Newark and New York consistently. 22 ends in Newark, and 78 is a major route in and out of there. This isn't even accounting for the baffling choice to use Kearney (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8275221,-74.3249831,3a,75y,134.67h,96.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0L3a-uncN1_QxNqznaEo2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as the control city on the replaced overhead pullthru on 280 EB at Eisenhower Pkwy.
No Exit 3 exit guide in Still Valley I am referring to. Just replace Alpha with Easton and give that city two WB exits instead of the one.
Also saw a 1962 map of NJ from Esso. Noticed that I-95 was once considered to be the Trenton Freeway and have another chosen alignment then that would be east of US 1 and end at the Turnpike south of Exit 9 in East Brunswick.
In addition found out why US 206 NB is on Brunswick Avenue instead of Princeton Avenue like SB US 206 is in Trenton. In 1962 US 206 SB was also aligned on Brunswick Avenue as Broad Street was two ways back then. So when the city decided to turn to make Broad and Warren a one way couplet it then created the awkward situation at NJ 31 making SB US 206 a dead end, so NJ asked to have it moved signed in current Princeton which was US 1 Alternate then. US 1 Alternate had its alignment there always as that was US 1 pre Trenton Freeway so NB US 1A continued as it was as it still could be continuous at NJ 31 where Broad meets Princeton Avenue.
I know that is an oddity that was in some minds even though not top priority to know the answer but when seeing that map it sure was interesting and to see other things come clear like that. Apparently all things have a good reason despite appearances.
This isn't even accounting for the baffling choice to use Kearney (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8275221,-74.3249831,3a,75y,134.67h,96.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0L3a-uncN1_QxNqznaEo2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as the control city on the replaced overhead pullthru on 280 EB at Eisenhower Pkwy.
[/quote]
Otherwise, it's a good sign, using the NJTP and 95 shields together. But even though Kearney is the eastern terminus of 280 it makes no sense to skip over The Oranges and Newark, especially because they are on every other sign. On the westbound side, I was very happy that NJDOT chose my hometown of Parsippany, the western terminus of 280, as a control city. It's the first time Parsippany appeared as a control city for 280 West. West of Newark, there are a lot of small BGS's just showing 280 West with no control city at all. So far, the signs at Eisenhower Parkway are the only new ones showing Kearney and Parsippany.
Yes Kearny is like CT using Newark for SB I-95 from New Haven. Newark should be EB and yes Parsippany is okay for the west direction as the road ends there. Because I-80 itself has no real big places from I-280 to Youngstown, OH, to just use Parsippany is wise.
Quote from: artmalk on July 06, 2019, 12:15:02 PM
This isn't even accounting for the baffling choice to use Kearney (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8275221,-74.3249831,3a,75y,134.67h,96.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0L3a-uncN1_QxNqznaEo2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) as the control city on the replaced overhead pullthru on 280 EB at Eisenhower Pkwy.
Otherwise, it's a good sign, using the NJTP and 95 shields together. But even though Kearney is the eastern terminus of 280 it makes no sense to skip over The Oranges and Newark, especially because they are on every other sign. On the westbound side, I was very happy that NJDOT chose my hometown of Parsippany, the western terminus of 280, as a control city. It's the first time Parsippany appeared as a control city for 280 West. West of Newark, there are a lot of small BGS's just showing 280 West with no control city at all. So far, the signs at Eisenhower Parkway are the only new ones showing Kearney and Parsippany.
[/quote]
Yes, they are the only replaced signs. I don't think NJDOT is in a rush to replace the overhead structures at any other exit thru that stretch. The signs themselves were all replaced in the late 90s or early aughts in that area, and most of the signs from the Oranges on eastward were replaced in 2011. Parsippany is a good control city for 280 WB after getting out of the Oranges. It's a major commuter city these days with so many office buildings and the like over there.
Most interstate junctions these days make good control cities and Kearney is where I-95 and I-280 meet, but Newark (even though outside the city limits) is close enough to be considered the actual meeting place of the two. Its obvious some engineer or contractor did not see the whole picture and thought out only the final destination of the road. However, in Newark on NJ 21 for decades Kearney was not even used as Harrison and Jersey City always graced the ramp EB. Now with the NJ 21 interchange revamped, I am not sure what the new signs say for those ramps, so it too might be Kearney.
Newark, as the largest location along the route, should definitely be listed as the control city for whatever direction on I-280 gets you there. I'm cool with including Kearney in addition to Newark.
However, NJDOT seems to enjoy using the final municipal destination along the roadway in NJ. Hence "Perth Amboy" and "Mahwah" on I-287, even though I-287 changes to NJ 440 before reaching Perth Amboy, and even though very few people are likely actually going to Mahwah. That said, usually NJDOT substitutes "Morristown" where it makes sense, and they should use the same standard on I-280 to substitute "Newark".
NYSDOT changed New England for Rye on their part of I-287 too. Even though New England is not a city and forbidden by MUTCD, New Haven (being most traffic heads north on I-95 once it ends) should really be used. However, I-287 terminates in Rye so it gets Rye instead.
I think Albany should be used for I-287 N Bound instead of Mahwah. Morristown is fine and so is Perth Amboy even though it does not officially go there, but NJ 440 does.
Right Kearney should be used if it is with Newark. The signs on I-80 at Exit 47 do state "The Oranges, Newark" and that is why also Kearney surprises me there as well.
On I-78 I have no real issue with Easton being used going WB from NYC, but being Allentown is PA's third largest city, and the largest of the region it should be used now as Easton was only picked because US 22 used that destination as it was most fitting for it. Remember up until Spring 1990, I-78 ended at Exit 3 and defaulted onto US 22, so the few guides I-78 did have used Easton as well. Though I-287 up until 1997 used Clinton for it as that also was the control for US 22 west of Somerville, so a lot of I-78 was influenced by US 22 in signing. I only wish all freeway ramps for interstates would include control cities as NJDOT has no problem signing them on other roads especially at grade intersections or expressway interchanges like Route 4 etc.
This is fantasy somewhat, but if I was in charge of NJDOT control cities, this is what I'd use.
76: Walt Whitman Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
78: Allentown, Newark, Holland Tunnel/New York City
80: Scranton, Paterson, G W Bridge/New York City
95: Philadelphia, Newark, G W Bridge/New York City
195: Trenton, Belmar
278: Linden, Elizabeth, Goethals Bridge/Staten Island
280: Piscataway, Newark, Kearney
287: Perth Amboy, Morristown, Suffern
295: Wilmington, Camden, Trenton, Princeton, Philadelphia
676: Ben Franklin Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
It's Kearny. Kearny not Kearney. The one with the extra e is Keasbey.
[/former NJ resident who wants to move back and is watching his brain bleed with this typo]
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 08, 2019, 02:13:37 PM
It's Kearny. Kearny not Kearney. The one with the extra e is Keasbey.
[/former NJ resident who wants to move back and is watching his brain bleed with this typo]
Sorry, always mix that up
(Otherwise, likewise)
Quote from: famartin on July 08, 2019, 03:11:06 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 08, 2019, 02:13:37 PM
It's Kearny. Kearny not Kearney. The one with the extra e is Keasbey.
[/former NJ resident who wants to move back and is watching his brain bleed with this typo]
Sorry, always mix that up
(Otherwise, likewise)
Named after Phillip Kearny a Civil War general. However in Nebraska you could spell it that way as I am sure its not named for Phillip like the Town in Hudson County, NJ.
Quote from: famartin on July 08, 2019, 12:49:28 PM
This is fantasy somewhat, but if I was in charge of NJDOT control cities, this is what I'd use.
76: Walt Whitman Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
78: Allentown, Newark, Holland Tunnel/New York City
80: Scranton, Paterson, G W Bridge/New York City
95: Philadelphia, Newark, G W Bridge/New York City
195: Trenton, Belmar
278: Linden, Elizabeth, Goethals Bridge/Staten Island
280: Piscataway, Newark, Kearney
287: Perth Amboy, Morristown, Suffern
295: Wilmington, Camden, Trenton, Princeton, Philadelphia
676: Ben Franklin Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
For 280, do you mean Parsippany instead of Piscataway?
Del Water Gap is fine for 80's western end. Been that way for a while.
Easton's a big enough city right over the bridge from NJ that it makes better sense for 78 even if it skirts just south of the city itself.
Quote from: famartin on July 08, 2019, 12:49:28 PM
This is fantasy somewhat, but if I was in charge of NJDOT control cities, this is what I'd use.
76: Walt Whitman Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
95: Philadelphia, Newark, G W Bridge/New York City
195: Trenton, Belmar
295: Wilmington, Camden, Trenton, Princeton, Philadelphia
676: Ben Franklin Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
Where's the fantasy? Everything bolded is used as a control city.
Quote from: storm2k on July 09, 2019, 01:48:51 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 08, 2019, 12:49:28 PM
This is fantasy somewhat, but if I was in charge of NJDOT control cities, this is what I'd use.
76: Walt Whitman Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
78: Allentown, Newark, Holland Tunnel/New York City
80: Scranton, Paterson, G W Bridge/New York City
95: Philadelphia, Newark, G W Bridge/New York City
195: Trenton, Belmar
278: Linden, Elizabeth, Goethals Bridge/Staten Island
280: Piscataway, Newark, Kearney
287: Perth Amboy, Morristown, Suffern
295: Wilmington, Camden, Trenton, Princeton, Philadelphia
676: Ben Franklin Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
For 280, do you mean Parsippany instead of Piscataway?
Del Water Gap is fine for 80's western end. Been that way for a while.
Easton's a big enough city right over the bridge from NJ that it makes better sense for 78 even if it skirts just south of the city itself.
Lol yes Parsippany.
Del Water Gap isn't a city, so I disagree as to it being fine... Allentown is much more important than Easton. Let's use destinations people actually live at.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2019, 06:16:46 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 08, 2019, 12:49:28 PM
This is fantasy somewhat, but if I was in charge of NJDOT control cities, this is what I'd use.
76: Walt Whitman Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
95: Philadelphia, Newark (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.804475,-74.0701704,3a,75y,218.36h,76.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBKqgGsG75KZaLEx3GAO_vQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), G W Bridge/New York City
195: Trenton, Belmar
295: Wilmington, Camden, Trenton, Princeton, Philadelphia (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2878063,-74.6910216,3a,75y,232.11h,85.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk5p8uCpvAWm35vsZgEhT7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
676: Ben Franklin Bridge/Philadelphia, Camden, Atlantic City
Where's the fantasy? Everything bolded is used as a control city.
FTFY
Easton is fine, but being Allentown is more of population center it now should be the place. In fact if US 22 never existed and I-78 was built from scratch Allentown would more likely to have been signs. Easton being signed for I-78 really ahs nothing to do with Easton being also a role in the Lehigh Valley's population, but cause it was used on US 22 for decades before the interstate highway was built.
The same happens in Las Vegas for I-15 using Los Angeles as a control city over San Diego where the road actually goes. NVDOT basically copied over from the old US 91 that actually went to the LA area over San Diego as it was US 395 that went there which I-15 took over as at Riverside the new interstate deviated from its follower north of there.
I do not mind Easton overall but I think its time to move on with the times and Allentown is a better choice.
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 06:58:57 AM
Del Water Gap isn't a city, so I disagree as to it being fine... Allentown is much more important than Easton. Let's use destinations people actually live at.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Delaware+Water+Gap,+PA/@40.9771736,-75.1583514,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c487c211bef2e9:0x5285c21524fd251c!8m2!3d40.9792619!4d-75.1429563!5m1!1e1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Water_Gap,_Pennsylvania
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.984496,-75.1380233,3a,75y,342.99h,101.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6D65XD6AsFxY4GTEE6CRlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 06:58:57 AMAllentown is much more important than Easton.
Allentown stops being an I-78 eastbound control city once one reaches Exit 51 (the US 22 split); three interchanges east of that split serve the Allentown area. Easton isn't used as an I-78 eastbound control city until one is just south of Bethlehem (PA 412/Exit 67).
On the NJ-side, Easton isn't even used on any of the I-78 westbound signage. It's Phillipsburg up until one reaches Exit 3 (US 22/NJ 122/173). At that location; Pennsylvania is used.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 09, 2019, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 06:58:57 AM
Del Water Gap isn't a city, so I disagree as to it being fine... Allentown is much more important than Easton. Let's use destinations people actually live at.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Delaware+Water+Gap,+PA/@40.9771736,-75.1583514,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c487c211bef2e9:0x5285c21524fd251c!8m2!3d40.9792619!4d-75.1429563!5m1!1e1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Water_Gap,_Pennsylvania
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.984496,-75.1380233,3a,75y,342.99h,101.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6D65XD6AsFxY4GTEE6CRlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
I mean, more than 5. And that said, I'm 1000% sure NJDOT is not talking about the borough of Delaware Water Gap on their signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 09, 2019, 04:53:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 06:58:57 AMAllentown is much more important than Easton.
Allentown stops being an I-78 eastbound control city once one reaches Exit 51 (the US 22 split); three interchanges east of that split serve the Allentown area. Easton isn't used as an I-78 eastbound control city until one is just south of Bethlehem (PA 412/Exit 67).
On the NJ-side, Easton isn't even used on any of the I-78 westbound signage. It's Phillipsburg up until one reaches Exit 3 (US 22/NJ 122/173). At that location; Pennsylvania is used.
I-287 uses Easton and there is the ramp from CR 527 in Summit. Plus Diamond Hill Road in Berkeley Heights had Easton since 1884.
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 09, 2019, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 06:58:57 AM
Del Water Gap isn't a city, so I disagree as to it being fine... Allentown is much more important than Easton. Let's use destinations people actually live at.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Delaware+Water+Gap,+PA/@40.9771736,-75.1583514,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c487c211bef2e9:0x5285c21524fd251c!8m2!3d40.9792619!4d-75.1429563!5m1!1e1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Water_Gap,_Pennsylvania
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.984496,-75.1380233,3a,75y,342.99h,101.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6D65XD6AsFxY4GTEE6CRlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
I mean, more than 5. And that said, I'm 1000% sure NJDOT is not talking about the borough of Delaware Water Gap on their signs.
Stroudsburg would seem to make more sense.
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
In fairness, there are places where NJ does likewise (Some examples which come to mind include I-78 beyond Exit 3 and the former I-95 southbound between old Exit 7 and old Exit 1).
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 09:47:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
Edits below in bold blue:
In fairness, there are places where NJ does likewise (Some examples which come to mind include I-78 beyond Exit 3 and the former I-95 southbound between old Exit 7 and old Exit 1).
Actually, NJDOT changed
all several of those
Pennsylvania or Penna listings on those then-I-95 southbound signs to either
Philadelphia or even Phila. well over 15(?) years ago. Signage along NJ 29 was
one of the
last remaining
place locations where
Pennsylvania was used for then-I-95 southbound ramp signage; but such has also since changed to
Philadelphia during the recent interchange reconfiguration project. Today, as I-295 northbound, most of the pull-through signs up to Exit 73 (old Exit 3) don't list any city/state/destination at all. Any ramp signs that list such; only list
Philadelphia with a
TO SOUTH 95 legend above it.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 10, 2019, 08:35:39 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 09:47:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
In fairness, there are places where NJ does likewise (Some examples which come to mind include I-78 beyond Exit 3 and the former I-95 southbound between old Exit 7 and old Exit 1).
Actually, NJDOT changed all those Pennsylvania or Penna listings on those then-I-95 southbound signs to either Philadelphia or even Phila. well over 15(?) years ago. Signage along NJ 29 was the last remaining place where Pennsylvania was used for then-I-95 southbound ramp signage; but such has also since changed to Philadelphia during the recent interchange reconfiguration project. Today, as I-295 northbound, most of the pull-through signs up to Exit 73 (old Exit 3) don't list any city/state/destination at all. Any ramp signs that list such; only list Philadelphia with a TO SOUTH 95 legend above it.
Fake news
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/2015-05-13_16_32_18_Signs_along_northbound_Pennington_Road_%28New_Jersey_Route_31%29_at_the_junction_with_Interstate_95_in_Hopewell_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/2017-10-06_10_31_52_View_south_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_5B_%28Federal_City_Road_NORTH%29_in_Lawrence_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2017-10-06_10_31_52_View_south_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_5B_%28Federal_City_Road_NORTH%29_in_Lawrence_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Good for NJ. Too bad New York does have the same name for the city and the state as its hard to use the state name for New York because of its largest city. Hence New York City irks me as they were the biggest ones to use "New Jersey" as a control city.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
To be fair to NY, what would use use for Thruway exit 15? I-287 doesn't go to Newark, and most people in NY wouldn't be terribly familiar with NJ's towns. It also emphasizes that there is NO access to NY from exit 15; you go straight from the exit ramp to crossing the state line.
I-278 uses Elizabeth. NY 440 and the Korean War Veterans Parkway could probably use Perth Amboy and Bayonne. I-95 has at least one sign for Newark.
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2019, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
To be fair to NY, what would use use for Thruway exit 15? I-287 doesn't go to Newark, and most people in NY wouldn't be terribly familiar with NJ's towns. It also emphasizes that there is NO access to NY from exit 15; you go straight from the exit ramp to crossing the state line.
I-278 uses Elizabeth. NY 440 and the Korean War Veterans Parkway could probably use Perth Amboy and Bayonne. I-95 has at least one sign for Newark.
I've seen both Newark and Trenton for ramps to the Cross Bronx/Trans Manhattan, depending on where they are and their age. Newer signs use Newark to match what the Turnpike Authority is doing on the northern end of 95 and the Turnpike itself.
I thought I've seen 440 using Perth Amboy in a few replacements. It is definitely what the West Shore Expwy should be using, which matches what NJDOT does for 440 in NJ.
That was done rather recently and when I say recently post 2000. When you get above 40 the decades seem like years and years months and weeks days.
Staten Island began recognizing Perth Amboy and Jersey City at the same time but then went back to the two bridge names Outerbridge Crossing and Bayonne Bridge on those signs that were on NY 440 for a short while.
Quote from: famartin on July 10, 2019, 12:21:29 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 10, 2019, 08:35:39 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 09:47:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
In fairness, there are places where NJ does likewise (Some examples which come to mind include I-78 beyond Exit 3 and the former I-95 southbound between old Exit 7 and old Exit 1).
Actually, NJDOT changed all several of those Pennsylvania or Penna listings on those then-I-95 southbound signs to either Philadelphia or even Phila. well over 15(?) years ago. Signage along NJ 29 was one of the last remaining place locations where Pennsylvania was used for then-I-95 southbound ramp signage; but such has also since changed to Philadelphia during the recent interchange reconfiguration project. Today, as I-295 northbound, most of the pull-through signs up to Exit 73 (old Exit 3) don't list any city/state/destination at all. Any ramp signs that list such; only list Philadelphia with a TO SOUTH 95 legend above it.
Fake news
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/2015-05-13_16_32_18_Signs_along_northbound_Pennington_Road_%28New_Jersey_Route_31%29_at_the_junction_with_Interstate_95_in_Hopewell_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/2017-10-06_10_31_52_View_south_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_5B_%28Federal_City_Road_NORTH%29_in_Lawrence_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2017-10-06_10_31_52_View_south_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_5B_%28Federal_City_Road_NORTH%29_in_Lawrence_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
I have since edited my earlier-post per the above. While I appreciate the corrected information, thank you; I can very well do without the earlier
Fake news comment. Especially since several (but not all) of the signs were indeed changed.
Here's a listing of some of those signs that listed Philadelphia for years but their predecessor signs listed Pennsylvania (pre-GSV).
US 1 South at interchange circa Aug. 2009 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2877345,-74.6911737,3a,75y,206.42h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4KUKYCRVBFumkR3OMNXVA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)
I-295 northbound approaching US 1 circa Sept. 2008 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2804476,-74.6926426,3a,75y,311.9h,79.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtqxtwWQRdjkSsKZFSzDmg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)
Scotch Rd. southbound approaching interchange circa Aug. 2013 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2923242,-74.8112141,3a,75y,185.12h,68.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLXzVuW1rmeQ3-w2Ugexnnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Aug. 2009 GSV shows the same exact sign but the image is too blurry.
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2019, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
To be fair to NY, what would use use for Thruway exit 15? I-287 doesn't go to Newark, and most people in NY wouldn't be terribly familiar with NJ's towns. It also emphasizes that there is NO access to NY from exit 15; you go straight from the exit ramp to crossing the state line.
Morristown.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 10, 2019, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 10, 2019, 12:21:29 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 10, 2019, 08:35:39 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 09, 2019, 09:47:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
In fairness, there are places where NJ does likewise (Some examples which come to mind include I-78 beyond Exit 3 and the former I-95 southbound between old Exit 7 and old Exit 1).
Actually, NJDOT changed all several of those Pennsylvania or Penna listings on those then-I-95 southbound signs to either Philadelphia or even Phila. well over 15(?) years ago. Signage along NJ 29 was one of the last remaining place locations where Pennsylvania was used for then-I-95 southbound ramp signage; but such has also since changed to Philadelphia during the recent interchange reconfiguration project. Today, as I-295 northbound, most of the pull-through signs up to Exit 73 (old Exit 3) don't list any city/state/destination at all. Any ramp signs that list such; only list Philadelphia with a TO SOUTH 95 legend above it.
Fake news
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/2015-05-13_16_32_18_Signs_along_northbound_Pennington_Road_%28New_Jersey_Route_31%29_at_the_junction_with_Interstate_95_in_Hopewell_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/2017-10-06_10_31_52_View_south_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_5B_%28Federal_City_Road_NORTH%29_in_Lawrence_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2017-10-06_10_31_52_View_south_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_5B_%28Federal_City_Road_NORTH%29_in_Lawrence_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
I have since edited my earlier-post per the above. While I appreciate the corrected information, thank you; I can very well do without the earlier Fake news comment. Especially since several (but not all) of the signs were indeed changed.
Here's a listing of some of those signs that listed Philadelphia for years but their predecessor signs listed Pennsylvania (pre-GSV).
US 1 South at interchange circa Aug. 2009 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2877345,-74.6911737,3a,75y,206.42h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4KUKYCRVBFumkR3OMNXVA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)
I-295 northbound approaching US 1 circa Sept. 2008 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2804476,-74.6926426,3a,75y,311.9h,79.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtqxtwWQRdjkSsKZFSzDmg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)
Scotch Rd. southbound approaching interchange circa Aug. 2013 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2923242,-74.8112141,3a,75y,185.12h,68.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLXzVuW1rmeQ3-w2Ugexnnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Aug. 2009 GSV shows the same exact sign but the image is too blurry.
:-D :popcorn:
Quote from: Alps on July 10, 2019, 02:07:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2019, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
To be fair to NY, what would use use for Thruway exit 15? I-287 doesn't go to Newark, and most people in NY wouldn't be terribly familiar with NJ's towns. It also emphasizes that there is NO access to NY from exit 15; you go straight from the exit ramp to crossing the state line.
Morristown.
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2019, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
To be fair to NY, what would use use for Thruway exit 15? I-287 doesn't go to Newark, and most people in NY wouldn't be terribly familiar with NJ's towns. It also emphasizes that there is NO access to NY from exit 15; you go straight from the exit ramp to crossing the state line.
I-278 uses Elizabeth. NY 440 and the Korean War Veterans Parkway could probably use Perth Amboy and Bayonne. I-95 has at least one sign for Newark.
No one ever heard of Fort Chiswell in VA, but NCDOT uses it as NB I-77 control city north of Statesville.
Control cities are to be used not because they are familiar with to motorists as much as it satisfies a destination. If one is available it is great, and Morristown is somewhat a place of familiarity to an extent. Plus its near I-80 and makes a good place.
Now Exit 14A on the Thruway should use Newark being the Parkway heads there. Exit 13 at the PIP now, that is more complicated as New York is the first major city SB, but the straight through Thruway goes there as well. Fort Lee could work, and even New York (look at MD at the BW Parkway and I-95/495 signs in MD) where two roads both use the same control cities for each other and it works out. Baltimore is used on the BW Parkway for I-95 N Bound while I-95 N Bound also uses Baltimore for the BW Parkway as both routes go there equally.
Quote from: famartin on July 10, 2019, 03:00:07 PM
FWIW, here's a vintage 1993 photo of the original/old button-copy
BEGIN 95 SOUTH Pennsylvania sign that was replaced by the time this fore-mentioned Sept. 2008 GSV along I-295 northbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2804476,-74.6926426,3a,75y,311.9h,79.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtqxtwWQRdjkSsKZFSzDmg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664) was taken:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Froutes%2F295%2Fi-295-n-at-i-095-us-001-1993.jpg&hash=606d35d4b1a01f17e4bcaf30274aec2b9988d91a)
Needless to say, your earlier-posted examples were changed nearly a year ago when this stretch of I-95 became I-295.
Current signage along NJ 31 northbound approaching I-295 interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2894193,-74.7849457,3a,75y,11.78h,90.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXdN_Z-2ZgAJ-P5gB1ek0UA!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
Current signage along I-295 northbound approaching Exits 71A-B (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2871562,-74.7562211,3a,75y,276.77h,81.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC8KrXjJIzfSWO_ZRNNiWuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)*
*Prior to the 1993 shifting of the I-95/295 hand-off location from the would-be Somerset Freeway interchange location to the US 1 interchange; the
new interchange numbers are actually the original numbers.
I.e. there are presently no longer
any known signs that list Pennsylvania as a southbound I-95 control destination.
No signs on the mainline, that is . . .
There are still a couple of small signs at a couple of the interchange crossroads. One on northbound Princeton Pike; two on southbound U.S. 206, that I am aware of. There may be others at interchange crossroads closer to the Scudder Falls Bridge that I have not passed by lately.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2019, 04:22:42 PM
No one ever heard of Fort Chiswell in VA, but NCDOT uses it as NB I-77 control city north of Statesville.
It is well enough known in Virginia, being the closest town to the easterly I-81/I-77 interchange.
Quote from: akotchi on July 10, 2019, 07:46:47 PM
No signs on the mainline, that is . . .
There are still a couple of small signs at a couple of the interchange crossroads. One on northbound Princeton Pike; two on southbound U.S. 206, that I am aware of. There may be others at interchange crossroads closer to the Scudder Falls Bridge that I have not passed by lately.
Thanks for the info.
Surprisingly, the one along southbound US 206 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2887619,-74.7334488,3a,75y,177.52h,71.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbyiiBsfEY-sAXqPHREM9sg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was still there as of Aug. 2018...
after the conversion to I-295. Given its location, it's very easy to see why NJDOT overlooked removing/revising it. Then again, since that advance LGS has no supporting trailblazer signage near it; it's not really unorthodox with respect to MUTCD and the information is still correct/accurate. The LGS at the ramp itself was indeed taken down and replaced with just I-295 trailblazer signage.
The GSV showing the signage along northbound Princeton Pike (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2869185,-74.7123452,3a,75y,48.27h,68.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjYDtf1vPiZ6s_4BS7dfP6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is from Aug. 2017... just prior to the change from I-95 to I-295. Given the location of this LGS, it was either revised or removed a year later.
That's right, it's approaching the one-year anniversary of NJDOT converting their old stretch of I-95 to I-295.
At other interchange ramp locations w/LGS panels; such were simply taken down and replaced with just I-295 trailblazer signs.
NJ always for some reason never gave destinations nor interstates originally. They never had those LGS like on US and state routes. Even NJ 18 got LGS at ramps for New Brunswick going WB, and either Asbury Park, Shore Points (US 9 and I think CR 520), Point Pleasant, and Tinton Falls from NJ 34 because for years the freeway had a gap from Wayside Road to Deal Road so the freeway ended there before the Parkway in Tinton Falls after opening from NJ 34 southward. That is also why Point Pleasant is and always was the control city for NJ 34 SB at Colts Neck as the second segment of Route 18 ended there for a period so it trailblazed Point Pleasant from the ramps at NJ 79 and CR 537.
As far as PA, NY and DE using "New Jersey" as a control city, I think I would rather have the state be acknowledged than be skipped altogether, like most of the I-95 NB signage north of Philadelphia.
Just change the term control city in the next MUTCD update to either control destination or control point, and "the listing of such-and-such isn't an actual city or municipality" issue goes completely away.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on July 11, 2019, 01:48:54 PM
As far as PA, NY and DE using "New Jersey" as a control city, I think I would rather have the state be acknowledged than be skipped altogether, like most of the I-95 NB signage north of Philadelphia.
PA hates listing destinations in other states. To get back at them, OH skips over them on I-80 and NJ signs Del Water Gap or just Penna. You reap what you sow.
Quote from: Alps on July 11, 2019, 04:07:18 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on July 11, 2019, 01:48:54 PM
As far as PA, NY and DE using "New Jersey" as a control city, I think I would rather have the state be acknowledged than be skipped altogether, like most of the I-95 NB signage north of Philadelphia.
PA hates listing destinations in other states. To get back at them, OH skips over them on I-80 and NJ signs Del Water Gap or just Penna. You reap what you sow.
This might explain why MSHA/MDTA ignores Philadelphia on I-95.
Then Pennsylvania on the Exit 3 I-78 pull through also.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2019, 04:22:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 10, 2019, 02:07:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2019, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
To be fair to NY, what would use use for Thruway exit 15? I-287 doesn't go to Newark, and most people in NY wouldn't be terribly familiar with NJ's towns. It also emphasizes that there is NO access to NY from exit 15; you go straight from the exit ramp to crossing the state line.
Morristown.
Quote from: vdeane on July 10, 2019, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
Some pull throughs mention both Del Water Gap and Stroudsburg, Pa. Its better than PennDOT using New Jersey in East Stroudsburg, as NY and PA love to consider the Garden State a city.
To be fair to NY, what would use use for Thruway exit 15? I-287 doesn't go to Newark, and most people in NY wouldn't be terribly familiar with NJ's towns. It also emphasizes that there is NO access to NY from exit 15; you go straight from the exit ramp to crossing the state line.
I-278 uses Elizabeth. NY 440 and the Korean War Veterans Parkway could probably use Perth Amboy and Bayonne. I-95 has at least one sign for Newark.
No one ever heard of Fort Chiswell in VA, but NCDOT uses it as NB I-77 control city north of Statesville.
Control cities are to be used not because they are familiar with to motorists as much as it satisfies a destination. If one is available it is great, and Morristown is somewhat a place of familiarity to an extent. Plus its near I-80 and makes a good place.
Now Exit 14A on the Thruway should use Newark being the Parkway heads there. Exit 13 at the PIP now, that is more complicated as New York is the first major city SB, but the straight through Thruway goes there as well. Fort Lee could work, and even New York (look at MD at the BW Parkway and I-95/495 signs in MD) where two roads both use the same control cities for each other and it works out. Baltimore is used on the BW Parkway for I-95 N Bound while I-95 N Bound also uses Baltimore for the BW Parkway as both routes go there equally.
I've always been in favor of listing two control cities (to the extent possible) when there are two routes that go to the same place.
Ex.: I-5 and CA-170 juntion in Los Angeles area. Both routes lead to Downtown L.A., Yet only I-5 is signed to L.A. and 170 to Hollywood. My preference: I-5: Burbank, Los Angeles; 170: Hollywood, Los Angeles. This shows that both routes go to L.A., but go through different cities to get there.
With the example of Thruway/PIP, this would lead to: PIP: Fort Lee NJ, New York City. Thruway: Yonkers*, New York City.
Then again, even though the PIP does lead to the GWB which of course goes to NYC, I don't think that any highway authority wants to encourage more traffic on this routing. Traffic north of the Tappan Zee (whether on the thruway or on PIP) should use the TZ if they are going to NYC and not use the PIP to GWB (or Lincoln or Holland). Since the Thruway is a far better routing, the PIP is not, we should only put NYC as the control for the Thurway and Fort Lee as teh control for PIP.
*This could be replaced with White Plains to give a shoutout to the control city for 287 after the 87/287 split in Westchester County. While 87 itself doesn't hit WP, it does come close enough at least from the perseprctive of the PIP/Thwy interchange to let you know that if you want to go through Wetschester County take the Thruway.
New Jersey is appropriate in many places where there is a single crossing to access the entire state. This is true on the one and only crossing from Delaware (forget the ferry) and the GWB and both tunnels from Manhattan. Not so much from PA, Staten Island, or the land border with New York State. If I had to pick one crossing from PA to be signed "New Jersey" it would be the Turnpike bridge, from I-276 only (not I-95), at least until access from 276 East to 295 East is available, and even then, 276 can have "New Jersey" as the destination to its terminus at 95/295.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 12, 2019, 01:15:07 PM
New Jersey is appropriate in many places where there is a single crossing to access the entire state. This is true on the one and only crossing from Delaware (forget the ferry) and the GWB and both tunnels from Manhattan. Not so much from PA, Staten Island, or the land border with New York State. If I had to pick one crossing from PA to be signed "New Jersey" it would be the Turnpike bridge, from I-276 only (not I-95), at least until access from 276 East to 295 East is available, and even then, 276 can have "New Jersey" as the destination to its terminus at 95/295.
It's never appropriate because states are not to be used as control cities. Also, you could always continue on another route and find an alternate crossing. NJ's not THAT small. :)
Quote from: Alps on July 12, 2019, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 12, 2019, 01:15:07 PM
New Jersey is appropriate in many places where there is a single crossing to access the entire state. This is true on the one and only crossing from Delaware (forget the ferry) and the GWB and both tunnels from Manhattan. Not so much from PA, Staten Island, or the land border with New York State. If I had to pick one crossing from PA to be signed "New Jersey" it would be the Turnpike bridge, from I-276 only (not I-95), at least until access from 276 East to 295 East is available, and even then, 276 can have "New Jersey" as the destination to its terminus at 95/295.
It's never appropriate because states are not to be used as control cities. Also, you could always continue on another route and find an alternate crossing. NJ's not THAT small. :)
That's an arbitrary rule. Just because a rule exists doesn't mean it makes sense. At the locations I mentioned, finding another way into New Jersey is not feasible (or desirable). Assuming regular traffic patterns, the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the only route no matter which part of NJ you're going to. If you're in Manhattan bound for New Jersey, you first priority is to leave the city by the shortest route possible. Only then do you decide how to get to wherever you're going.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 12, 2019, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 12, 2019, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 12, 2019, 01:15:07 PM
New Jersey is appropriate in many places where there is a single crossing to access the entire state. This is true on the one and only crossing from Delaware (forget the ferry) and the GWB and both tunnels from Manhattan. Not so much from PA, Staten Island, or the land border with New York State. If I had to pick one crossing from PA to be signed "New Jersey" it would be the Turnpike bridge, from I-276 only (not I-95), at least until access from 276 East to 295 East is available, and even then, 276 can have "New Jersey" as the destination to its terminus at 95/295.
It's never appropriate because states are not to be used as control cities. Also, you could always continue on another route and find an alternate crossing. NJ's not THAT small. :)
That's an arbitrary rule. Just because a rule exists doesn't mean it makes sense. At the locations I mentioned, finding another way into New Jersey is not feasible (or desirable). Assuming regular traffic patterns, the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the only route no matter which part of NJ you're going to. If you're in Manhattan bound for New Jersey, you first priority is to leave the city by the shortest route possible. Only then do you decide how to get to wherever you're going.
While what you say is true, it is not hard to sign the appropriate control cities for most of them. My picks:
NY 440 south (Outerbridge Crossing) - Perth Amboy
I-278 west (Goethals Br) - Elizabeth
NY 440 north (Bayonne Bridge) - Bayonne, Jersey City
I-78 west (Holland Tunnel) - Jersey City/Newark
NY/NJ 495 west (Lincoln Tunnel) - Secaucus
I-95 south (GWB) - Newark (could include Paterson if you signed "to I-80" as well, which would be appropriate seeing as many people still think of NYC as I-80's terminus)
I-295 north/US 40 east/to NJ Turnpike (Del Mem Br) - Camden, Atlantic City, New York City
US 322 east (Comm Barry Br) - Atlantic City
I-76 east (Walt Whitman Br) - Camden, Atlantic City
I-676 east/south (Ben Franklin Br) - Camden, Atlantic City
NJ 90 east (Betsy Ross Br) - Pennsauken, Cherry Hill
Quote from: bzakharin on July 12, 2019, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 12, 2019, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 12, 2019, 01:15:07 PM
New Jersey is appropriate in many places where there is a single crossing to access the entire state. This is true on the one and only crossing from Delaware (forget the ferry) and the GWB and both tunnels from Manhattan. Not so much from PA, Staten Island, or the land border with New York State. If I had to pick one crossing from PA to be signed "New Jersey" it would be the Turnpike bridge, from I-276 only (not I-95), at least until access from 276 East to 295 East is available, and even then, 276 can have "New Jersey" as the destination to its terminus at 95/295.
It's never appropriate because states are not to be used as control cities. Also, you could always continue on another route and find an alternate crossing. NJ's not THAT small. :)
That's an arbitrary rule. Just because a rule exists doesn't mean it makes sense. At the locations I mentioned, finding another way into New Jersey is not feasible (or desirable). Assuming regular traffic patterns, the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the only route no matter which part of NJ you're going to. If you're in Manhattan bound for New Jersey, you first priority is to leave the city by the shortest route possible. Only then do you decide how to get to wherever you're going.
More of the rationale is that states are large, so it is more helpful to know which part of the state you are going to. From Staten Island, say "Elizabeth, NJ" at the Goethals, or "Woodbridge, NJ" at the Outerbridge. Now you still know you're going to New Jersey, plus you have a city for reference!
Quote from: famartin on July 12, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 12, 2019, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 12, 2019, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 12, 2019, 01:15:07 PM
New Jersey is appropriate in many places where there is a single crossing to access the entire state. This is true on the one and only crossing from Delaware (forget the ferry) and the GWB and both tunnels from Manhattan. Not so much from PA, Staten Island, or the land border with New York State. If I had to pick one crossing from PA to be signed "New Jersey" it would be the Turnpike bridge, from I-276 only (not I-95), at least until access from 276 East to 295 East is available, and even then, 276 can have "New Jersey" as the destination to its terminus at 95/295.
It's never appropriate because states are not to be used as control cities. Also, you could always continue on another route and find an alternate crossing. NJ's not THAT small. :)
That's an arbitrary rule. Just because a rule exists doesn't mean it makes sense. At the locations I mentioned, finding another way into New Jersey is not feasible (or desirable). Assuming regular traffic patterns, the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the only route no matter which part of NJ you're going to. If you're in Manhattan bound for New Jersey, you first priority is to leave the city by the shortest route possible. Only then do you decide how to get to wherever you're going.
While what you say is true, it is not hard to sign the appropriate control cities for most of them. My picks:
NY 440 south (Outerbridge Crossing) - Perth Amboy
I-278 west (Goethals Br) - Elizabeth
NY 440 north (Bayonne Bridge) - Bayonne, Jersey City
I-78 west (Holland Tunnel) - Jersey City/Newark
NY/NJ 495 west (Lincoln Tunnel) - Secaucus
I-95 south (GWB) - Newark (could include Paterson if you signed "to I-80" as well, which would be appropriate seeing as many people still think of NYC as I-80's terminus)
I-295 north/US 40 east/to NJ Turnpike (Del Mem Br) - Camden, Atlantic City, New York City
US 322 east (Comm Barry Br) - Atlantic City
I-76 east (Walt Whitman Br) - Camden, Atlantic City
I-676 east/south (Ben Franklin Br) - Camden, Atlantic City
NJ 90 east (Betsy Ross Br) - Pennsauken, Cherry Hill
Agree with all these choices except US 322. Since it is more of a local route, Swedesboro or Glassboro would be more appropriate.
In the days of old signing states (as well as border cities) were a good point of reference for the older two lane highways. Florida still has it for US 1 north as Hilliard (the last city before the US highway leaves FL for GA) is used on mileage signs from Jacksonville (originally St. Augustine) as the primary control after Jacksonville or Callahan. You only saw Folkston (the first city in GA, not the largest though along US 1 or 301)at Callahan where Hilliard becomes the first city on the sign and the next city is in Georgia which is Folkston.
Easton too was used over Allentown along US 22 in the early days cause it told people leaving NYC area a place that is where you enter the next state and in the old days of traveling state lines were a great point of reference. Even Virginia uses the NC State Line on a few signs. VA 189 used it for years until it got absorbed into the new US 58 alignment around Franklin.
Delaware Memorial Bridge was always used because it was a place that originally linked highways. The NJ Turnpike to both US 13 and the Delaware Turnpike (pre I-95) which was a crossroads really. Add US 40 to the mix well and you had like a mega interchange sort of. Folks leaving NYC would go south on the NJ Turnpike and then pick from US 13 and later I-95, but the toll roads to Baltimore Washington to go further south. It actually was treated like a city in a crazy kind of way.
Quote from: famartin on July 12, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
I-95 south (GWB) - Newark (could include Paterson if you signed "to I-80" as well, which would be appropriate seeing as many people still think of NYC as I-80's terminus)
There are, in fact, some new signs on the Cross Bronx that use "Newark NJ" as the control city for I-95 southbound. I find this a bit awkward though due to the fact that once you get to the NJ side of the GWB you can in short order branch off in a number of directions that span a full 180 degrees on the compass, and no majority of the traffic goes in any single direction. This is a case where "Geo Washington Br" - the traditional control 'city' for I-95 south, by the way - objectively makes sense even if guidance regarding control city selection frowns upon it.
I mean I get the concern that "people not from the area may not be familiar with bridge names", but the GWB is widely known enough that this isn't really an issue. Someone from Wyoming or wherever is just as if not more likely to have never heard of Newark as to have never heard of the George Washington Bridge.
Yes the bridge is important but they are looking for through traffic on the numbered route now. Actually both could be used really, or maybe just Fort Lee. That is the issue of a bridge connecting many major highways on both ends.
That is what I said about the Delaware Memorial Bridge as people in the past now have not all stayed on the 95 corridor, but many used to use US 13 to Norfolk, and US 301 to Annapolis as well. Some even used US 40 to shunpike the toll roads, and for the longest time "Balt" was used at the Farnhurst Split. Now DelDOT signs that split for US 13 and 40 as just the Airport and for over two decades left out Baltimore, Annapolis, and Norfolk for the more local destinations. That may be due to DE 1 opening up to I-95, but its not the same there either
I like how the Palisades Interstate Parkway used to sign its unnumbered last exit before the Bridge as "All NJ Highways" covering all bases as southbound PIP traffic distributed itself evenly along all the routes leading away from that road. Now it ( I think) is redone with new replaced signs pointing mainly to I-95 South as well. Have not checked GSV in some time but the last check was just I-95 and I-80, NJ 4, and US 46. At least too, that is less ambiguous, but pointing out all the only options as "NJ Highways was way to broad."
BTW, on the US 206 Hillsborough Bypass, I see work has resumed on it from Google Satellite images. I also see on GSV that part of it is divided with only a single lane each way not four lanes or two with a double yellow line either.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2019, 09:10:53 AM
That is what I said about the Delaware Memorial Bridge as people in the past now have not all stayed on the 95 corridor, but many used to use US 13 to Norfolk, and US 301 to Annapolis as well. Some even used US 40 to shunpike the toll roads, and for the longest time "Balt" was used at the Farnhurst Split. Now DelDOT signs that split for US 13 and 40 as just the Airport and for over two decades left out Baltimore, Annapolis, and Norfolk for the more local destinations. That may be due to DE 1 opening up to I-95, but its not the same there either
You mean this split, now signed for Dover & Wilmington? https://goo.gl/maps/fLYAcsMPUEn2fRMq9
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2019, 09:10:53 AM
BTW, on the US 206 Hillsborough Bypass, I see work has resumed on it from Google Satellite images. I also see on GSV that part of it is divided with only a single lane each way not four lanes or two with a double yellow line either.
Currently the southern end of it is a divided super 2. This is a lot like the eastern end of the 33 bypass in Freehold that was built in the early aughts which was designed to be expandable to 4 divided lanes when traffic loads warranted it. I believe that once the Hillsborough bypass is completed in full and becomes actual 206 it will be restriped as a 4 lane divided roadway. Hopefully without any super poorly designed exit ramps that can't ever be allowed to open unlike the 33 bypass.
Quote from: storm2k on July 16, 2019, 06:13:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2019, 09:10:53 AM
BTW, on the US 206 Hillsborough Bypass, I see work has resumed on it from Google Satellite images. I also see on GSV that part of it is divided with only a single lane each way not four lanes or two with a double yellow line either.
Currently the southern end of it is a divided super 2. This is a lot like the eastern end of the 33 bypass in Freehold that was built in the early aughts which was designed to be expandable to 4 divided lanes when traffic loads warranted it. I believe that once the Hillsborough bypass is completed in full and becomes actual 206 it will be restriped as a 4 lane divided roadway. Hopefully without any super poorly designed exit ramps that can't ever be allowed to open unlike the 33 bypass.
Parts of the new 206 won't be wide enough for 4 lanes, so don't go expecting any restripes.
Quote from: Alps on July 16, 2019, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 16, 2019, 06:13:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2019, 09:10:53 AM
BTW, on the US 206 Hillsborough Bypass, I see work has resumed on it from Google Satellite images. I also see on GSV that part of it is divided with only a single lane each way not four lanes or two with a double yellow line either.
Currently the southern end of it is a divided super 2. This is a lot like the eastern end of the 33 bypass in Freehold that was built in the early aughts which was designed to be expandable to 4 divided lanes when traffic loads warranted it. I believe that once the Hillsborough bypass is completed in full and becomes actual 206 it will be restriped as a 4 lane divided roadway. Hopefully without any super poorly designed exit ramps that can't ever be allowed to open unlike the 33 bypass.
Parts of the new 206 won't be wide enough for 4 lanes, so don't go expecting any restripes.
Really? I thought the whole point of this thing was to have a 4 lane divided bypass of the Hillsborough CBD, and that this combined with the widening of the road from Brown Ave to the northern end of the bypass was going to finally get the 4 lane roadway from the Somerville Circle to Belle Meade that was in the works for like 25 years now.
Someone posted this glorious image of downtown Cranford from 1930 on the /r/newjersey Reddit today, back when Route 22 ran through town and was signed alongside Route 28. Check out those awesome old school shields.
(https://i.redd.it/159xxpaj0ha31.jpg)
Yes agreed US 206 needs to be widened as I drove it in 2012 and it was horrific. When I lived there before 1990 it was bad then, and the ultimate plan in the 70's and 80's was to have it four lanes from the Somerville Circle into never built NJ 92. NJ 92 was to originally tie into Exit 8 hence the present NJ 133 ROW. Then it was moved to align with NJ 32 in South Brunswick and first as a NJDOT project and then a NJTA project. Sadly it never got built as that would be a great route from the Bridgewater- Somerville area to South Jersey and connect US 206 to the turnpike better.
The late 90s widening from Bridge St to Brown Ave definitely helped a lot. I know the need to reconstruct the Conrail overpass was a big dampener to them doing something for a long time, so I was glad to see they are finally tackling that. Hopefully that last bit of widening combined with the Hillsborough bypass will help make traffic more manageable along the entire stretch.
Quote from: storm2k on July 16, 2019, 11:32:21 PM
Someone posted this glorious image of downtown Cranford from 1930 on the /r/newjersey Reddit today, back when Route 22 ran through town and was signed alongside Route 28. Check out those awesome old school shields.
(https://i.redd.it/159xxpaj0ha31.jpg)
Not to mention the equally old school no parking signs.
ixnay
Quote from: storm2k on July 17, 2019, 06:57:31 PM
The late 90s widening from Bridge St to Brown Ave definitely helped a lot. I know the need to reconstruct the Conrail overpass was a big dampener to them doing something for a long time, so I was glad to see they are finally tackling that. Hopefully that last bit of widening combined with the Hillsborough bypass will help make traffic more manageable along the entire stretch.
So that overpass where the former LVRR crossed is being redone? Wow, I am impressed. I know NJ had it issues as look how long it took for NJDOT to replace the Elizabeth River viaduct in Elizabeth on US 1 & 9. Things for decades got pushed back including Route 31, which still needs more widening than is been done already, due to resources not that easily available. Projects go on a first need basis for safety rather than other volume relief projects.
I also heard a rumor back in the 1980's too that the late Doris Duke did not help US 206 getting widened as she played JR Ewing games with the state. I heard if NJDOT attempted to four lane any part of US 206 south of Raritan, she was going to build an AIDS hospital on her estate which fronts the highway south of the Raritan River. Being that the widening took place after her death, I wonder if she really could have issued a stumbling block being people were very homophobic back in the 1980's.
I-80 Rockfall Mitigation Project
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/rockfall/
Between I-80's MP 1.04 & 1.45, NJDOT is going to undergo a project to reduce the number of occasions where rocks are falling on the roadway. Some accidents have resulted, including 1 death, and NJDOT reports weekly cleanup of smaller rocks that have landed on the roadway.
Should you wish to provide an opinion of the 7 alternatives ( https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/rockfall/pdf/Alternatives.pdf ), which range from fencing to excavation to a covered roadway, and ranging from $37 million to $200 million in cost, you have till Aug 1 to respond.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2019, 09:30:49 AM
which range from fencing to evacuation to a covered roadway
excavation, not evacuation.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2019, 02:17:48 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 19, 2019, 12:21:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2019, 09:30:49 AM
which range from fencing to evacuation to a covered roadway
excavation, not evacuation.
Ha! Thanks.
my first reaction was a mental image of rocks being told to keep calm while being escorted away in an orderly fashion :p
Quote from: odditude on July 19, 2019, 03:56:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2019, 02:17:48 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 19, 2019, 12:21:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2019, 09:30:49 AM
which range from fencing to evacuation to a covered roadway
excavation, not evacuation.
Ha! Thanks.
my first reaction was a mental image of rocks being told to keep calm while being escorted away in an orderly fashion :p
We would love to escort them away in an orderly fashion, as opposed to blasting them out.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8501125029/in/album-72157632833956641/
Are all the jug handle signs now like this with the ALL TURNS inside the green guide? I noticed this back in 2012 along Route 36 in Middletown, NJ. NJ always had the street name or control cities (or both usually with the street usually underlined) on one sign and beneath it on another would be another white sign with ALL TURNS in black letters on them.
Is this a rare case of use of one sign for all, or is NJDOT changing all jug handle signing to resemble this format?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 23, 2019, 10:34:55 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8501125029/in/album-72157632833956641/
Are all the jug handle signs now like this with the ALL TURNS inside the green guide? I noticed this back in 2012 along Route 36 in Middletown, NJ. NJ always had the street name or control cities (or both usually with the street usually underlined) on one sign and beneath it on another would be another white sign with ALL TURNS in black letters on them.
Is this a rare case of use of one sign for all, or is NJDOT changing all jug handle signing to resemble this format?
One-off, or case by case basis.
A new jughandle near me didn't receive this treatment.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GdJUqFFRn3EBfNGg8
Glad to see the mixed case though. Even though I grew up with the all caps its nice to see mixed case. I even grew used to street blades being now all mixed in Florida despite they did not bother me when all upper in the early 90's.
Wonder if the new MUTCD signs will keep the underscored road names? Or is the names of roads and towns not going to be used like in the freeway signs that the MUTCD frowns upon?
Addition: I see NJDOT is going with the route number on mileposts.
https://goo.gl/maps/L886FPT8ZNLjzBrY8
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 23, 2019, 11:16:37 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 23, 2019, 10:34:55 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8501125029/in/album-72157632833956641/
Are all the jug handle signs now like this with the ALL TURNS inside the green guide? I noticed this back in 2012 along Route 36 in Middletown, NJ. NJ always had the street name or control cities (or both usually with the street usually underlined) on one sign and beneath it on another would be another white sign with ALL TURNS in black letters on them.
Is this a rare case of use of one sign for all, or is NJDOT changing all jug handle signing to resemble this format?
One-off, or case by case basis.
A new jughandle near me didn't receive this treatment.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GdJUqFFRn3EBfNGg8
Yup. NJDOT signs made it into the MUTCD, so we'll keep on using them.
Its a nice change I must say. I do miss the old, but life goes on and the way NJ is doing it is so cool!
They're even replacing these:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47996105986_27c02ce7ac_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g8fA9J)
I see Exit 2 on the Turnpike uses typical NJDOT sign for US 322 after the toll. The format with the US 322 shield on top with the two directions long side of it with arrows pointing either way. Then beneath it is features the control cities for both left and right in individual boxes.
Quote from: storm2k on July 16, 2019, 11:32:21 PM
Someone posted this glorious image of downtown Cranford from 1930 on the /r/newjersey Reddit today, back when Route 22 ran through town and was signed alongside Route 28. Check out those awesome old school shields.
(https://i.redd.it/159xxpaj0ha31.jpg)
You know, every so often nj.com posts photos like this one. My favorite vintage photo gallery is, of course, the photos and roads one! Check these out - they're fantastic! https://www.nj.com/news/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html (https://www.nj.com/news/2016/01/vintage_photos_of_streets_and_roads_in_nj.html)
Great shot of the original Cranford Train Station. It originally did not have a platform, and was one where the steps under the door had to come down and you had to climb up to reach the train. Most likely the old blue coach cars without AC were in use at the time of the photo.
CNJ used navy blue with gold trim as their official color as I remember as a kid and from the old photos.
Signage was orange though. Equipment was Blue/Gold
New Jersey published their 2018 speed monitoring data last month: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/pdf/wim/18_Classdata_spd.pdf
Of the 65 mph highways, the highest 85 percentile speed shown is 83 mph on a few occasions, such as on I-80. I-295 near Exit 15 wins the award for the consistently highest 85th percentile speed, at 81 or 82 mph for much of the year. This monitoring station also had the highest percentage at 10+ over the limit, with consistently 40% or more of traffic driving in excess of 10 mph over the limit.
There was one outlier on I-287, which gave a 93 mph 85th percentile speed. Based on the other data presented, this was just a reporting error as only 3% of the traffic was reported to be going over 75 mph (which in of itself appears to be lower than what it should be compared to most other months).
Some of the speed monitoring data is missing, usually due to operational issues. On I-295, two monitoring stations show no data for much of the year, but I believe a repaving project probably took those stations out.
And I have a question. In New Jersey why does the people work at gas stations fill your car and you can't do it? Is it to prevent carjackings or some idiot trying to play around with them? I don't know. I don't live there but I find it interesting that this state only has this law on the gas stations.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
And I have a question. In New Jersey why does the people work at gas stations fill your car and you can't do it? Is it to prevent carjackings or some idiot trying to play around with them? I don't know. I don't live there but I find it interesting that this state only has this law on the gas stations.
It's been the law for decades. Lot of people think it's just to keep jobs for people. I don't know if there's any one true answer. Oregon had a similar law, although thry recently reduced it and there is some self-serve stations out there now.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2019, 05:58:38 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
And I have a question. In New Jersey why does the people work at gas stations fill your car and you can't do it? Is it to prevent carjackings or some idiot trying to play around with them? I don't know. I don't live there but I find it interesting that this state only has this law on the gas stations.
It's been the law for decades. Lot of people think it's just to keep jobs for people. I don't know if there's any one true answer. Oregon had a similar law, although thry recently reduced it and there is some self-serve stations out there now.
So not all of Oregon is self serve? Just some? I find that interesting.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/new-jersey/jersey-shore-townsends-inlet-bridge-sea-isle-city-avalon-cape-may-county-20190726.html
The Townsends Inlet Bridge between Sea Isle and Avalon, closed since September to fully replace parts of the bridge, reopened yesterday.
Entire pieces of the structure were replaced on the Avalon side.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 06:05:55 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2019, 05:58:38 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
And I have a question. In New Jersey why does the people work at gas stations fill your car and you can't do it? Is it to prevent carjackings or some idiot trying to play around with them? I don't know. I don't live there but I find it interesting that this state only has this law on the gas stations.
It's been the law for decades. Lot of people think it's just to keep jobs for people. I don't know if there's any one true answer. Oregon had a similar law, although thry recently reduced it and there is some self-serve stations out there now.
So not all of Oregon is self serve? Just some? I find that interesting.
Up until recently (a few years ago), Oregon was very much like NJ in terms of not allowing self-service.
Generally, efforts to bring self-service into NJ do periodically come up every now & then; but such legislation either dies while in committee or, should such survive that hurdle, doesn't receive enough votes to pass/get approved.
NJ's ban on patrons pumping their own gas dates back to 1949. Self-service, as we know it, didn't come about until the 1970s.
IIRC, the original reasoning behind NJ's (I can't speak for Oregon) long-standing ban was
initially for safety reasons due to gasoline being flammable.
Guess on my part: since a much higher percentage of the adult population smoked when the law first took effect; the
possibility of a non-employee with a lit cigarette in one's mouth being in close proximity to the gas pumps, despite any smoking prohibition signage posted, was real.
The energy crisis of the 1070's (the very one the auto makers forgot that happened when they made the SUV and Minivan) created the self serve system. It was all the states adopted it but NJ never did just like all the states adopted the RTOR law except the section of New York State known as the Five Boroughs which keeps the old way of stopping at red lights as it was before.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2019, 11:39:29 AM
The energy crisis of the 1070's (the very one the auto makers forgot that happened when they made the SUV and Minivan) created the self serve system. It was all the states adopted it but NJ never did just like all the states adopted the RTOR law except the section of New York State known as the Five Boroughs which keeps the old way of stopping at red lights as it was before.
Ah yes, I see that the Battle of Hastings truly had dire consequences on the events of human history. I'm sure that the English preferred the sedan, if I recall correctly.
^^Noelbotevera, you beat me to it.
Nonetheless:
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2019, 11:39:29 AM
The energy crisis of the 1070's
1070s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1070s)? :rofl:
I knew you meant
1970s; but IMHO, that typo was begging for light-hearted rebuttals.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2019, 11:39:29 AM(the very one the auto makers forgot that happened when they made the SUV and Minivan)
Yes & no.
Not to hijack/derail this thread; but one reason why the minivan, SUV, then later CUV & 4-door pick-ups were/are aggressively marketed to the buying public was due to the CAFE standards (initially enacted as a result of the 1973-74 gas price spikes & related-long pump lines) making such cost prohibitive for automakers to produce larger
cars that could
actually hold passengers comfortably for long trips and/or do heavy-duty towing. Most of today's sedans, even the larger ones, skimp on headroom for rear-seat passengers due to their more aerodynamic rooflines (as a means of improving fuel efficiency). Additionally, most if not of them are also too narrow to offer
realisticly three-across seating per row for the second row/rear seat.
That said, yes I do believe that the manufacturers who are phasing out/discontinuing their car lines in favor of offereing more SUV/CUV/truck lines are being penny-wise/dollar-foolish ; but, playing devil's advocate here, what else are they going to do to offer what the majority of their customers are asking/demanding for?
Hate to further derail the previous discussion, but I recall seeing this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1016219,-74.1690707,3a,45y,10.5h,112.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_81n_hM_z4ufm6tSo-hNJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when traveling up to Boston last month.
I don't even understand the point of it for several reasons: for one, it's wrong; NJ 17 North merges beyond the Exit 66 ramp, and it's definitely less than a mile away. For two, if this is referring to NY 17...well, that's slightly more understandable, since the NY state line and thus NY 17 are a mile away. But really, if it's guiding motorists to the NY 17 freeway or even NY 17 on its own, then those destinations are definitely more than a mile away, and really it should say something like "NY 17 NORTH USE I-87" or "KEEP LEFT".
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 26, 2019, 12:29:57 PM
Hate to further derail the previous discussion, but I recall seeing this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1016219,-74.1690707,3a,45y,10.5h,112.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_81n_hM_z4ufm6tSo-hNJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when traveling up to Boston last month.
I don't even understand the point of it for several reasons: for one, it's wrong; NJ 17 North merges beyond the Exit 66 ramp, and it's definitely less than a mile away. For two, if this is referring to NY 17...well, that's slightly more understandable, since the NY state line and thus NY 17 are a mile away. But really, if it's guiding motorists to the NY 17 freeway or even NY 17 on its own, then those destinations are definitely more than a mile away, and really it should say something like "NY 17 NORTH USE I-87" or "KEEP LEFT".
The better option would be to combine it with the pull-thru sign, to read:
NORTH TO
287 (NY)17 87 (thruway)
ALBANY
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 26, 2019, 12:29:57 PM
Not that I condone such, but it's not unusual for states to use their own shield for a route that's not in their state. What makes this location/scenario more interesting/unique is that the state route in question merges with the main highway (I-287 in this case), runs concurrent w/I-287 into the adjacent state (NY) & then runs concurrent w/I-87 northbound prior to exiting.
I do agree that J&N's suggested pull-through revision would clear things up a bit. If NJDOT can not find nor doesn't want to use a NY State route shield; they could always go old-school with
NY 17 wording but MUTCD would, no doubt, frown on such practice.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2019, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 26, 2019, 12:29:57 PM
Hate to further derail the previous discussion, but I recall seeing this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1016219,-74.1690707,3a,45y,10.5h,112.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_81n_hM_z4ufm6tSo-hNJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when traveling up to Boston last month.
I don't even understand the point of it for several reasons: for one, it's wrong; NJ 17 North merges beyond the Exit 66 ramp, and it's definitely less than a mile away. For two, if this is referring to NY 17...well, that's slightly more understandable, since the NY state line and thus NY 17 are a mile away. But really, if it's guiding motorists to the NY 17 freeway or even NY 17 on its own, then those destinations are definitely more than a mile away, and really it should say something like "NY 17 NORTH USE I-87" or "KEEP LEFT".
The better option would be to combine it with the pull-thru sign, to read:
NORTH TO
287 (NY)17 87 (thruway)
ALBANY
Technically its NJ 17 for a short stretch, so I think it would be fine to sign it with the NJ shield there. And maybe use
Westchester White Plains or Rye in addition to Albany (for the 287 east control city), but otherwise agree.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 01:55:43 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 26, 2019, 12:29:57 PM
Not that I condone such, but it's not unusual for states to use their own shield for a route that's not in their state. What makes this location/scenario more interesting/unique is that the state route in question merges with the main highway (I-287 in this case), runs concurrent w/I-287 into the adjacent state (NY) & then runs concurrent w/I-87 northbound prior to exiting.
I do agree that J&N's suggested pull-through revision would clear things up a bit. If NJDOT can not find nor doesn't want to use a NY State route shield; they could always go old-school with NY 17 wording but MUTCD would, no doubt, frown on such practice.
The old NJDOT would have likely used a backplated NY route shield, but now, I'm sure it would be normal. I think they could just use the NJ route shield though since technically they merge before the state line.
I recall that PennDOT uses an NJ 90 shield on I-95, complete with backplate. I'm guessing they got it from NJDOT.
https://goo.gl/maps/QwhS5RmRLhw733Sq5
They also used NJ 29 on I-295, but no backplate. That could be DRJTBC signage, though...
Shields are custom made for each job. They just specify in the contractor bid papers what they want, and how it should be designed, including lettering type, size, space, etc. PA or the contractor for their construction projects can easily create a NJ, NY, MD or Ohio shield just by knowing the shield measurements.
And, to repeat, NJ is not using backplates anymore. Most signs installed over the past few years do not have backplates. The I-95 NJ 90 sign was probably installed in the 1990's: The Exit tab has a greenover for the new exit number when PennDOT changed to mileage based exit numbers in the early 2000's.
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2019, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 26, 2019, 12:29:57 PM
Hate to further derail the previous discussion, but I recall seeing this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1016219,-74.1690707,3a,45y,10.5h,112.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_81n_hM_z4ufm6tSo-hNJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when traveling up to Boston last month.
I don't even understand the point of it for several reasons: for one, it's wrong; NJ 17 North merges beyond the Exit 66 ramp, and it's definitely less than a mile away. For two, if this is referring to NY 17...well, that's slightly more understandable, since the NY state line and thus NY 17 are a mile away. But really, if it's guiding motorists to the NY 17 freeway or even NY 17 on its own, then those destinations are definitely more than a mile away, and really it should say something like "NY 17 NORTH USE I-87" or "KEEP LEFT".
The better option would be to combine it with the pull-thru sign, to read:
NORTH TO
287 (NY)17 87 (thruway)
ALBANY
Technically its NJ 17 for a short stretch, so I think it would be fine to sign it with the NJ shield there. And maybe use Westchester White Plains or Rye in addition to Albany (for the 287 east control city), but otherwise agree.
Agree regarding just using the NJ 17 shield for J&N's pull-through. Since White Plains is an approved/used I-287 control city and is closer to this location than Rye; I would use the former over the latter. Either that or just use the current
N Y Thruway listing since such covers all three routes (I-87/287 & SR 17). Heck, one could just use the same panel and move the I-287 shield and place the NJ 17 shield right next to it. FWIW, the NJ 17 northbound exit (15A) off I-87 northbound is at least 2 miles from Exit 66.
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 02:27:31 PM
I recall that PennDOT uses an NJ 90 shield on I-95, complete with backplate. I'm guessing they got it from NJDOT.
https://goo.gl/maps/QwhS5RmRLhw733Sq5
Either that or, since it's also generic MUTCD state route shield, such was probably fabricated per MUTCD specs. That particular panel dates back to 2000 (prior to NJDOT using shields without black backplates on sign panels) when the Aramingo Ave. ramps were added to the interchange. The exit number was changed not too long after these panels were erected. Prior signage gave no reference to NJ 90.
Later signs feature round shields w/no black backplates but w/Clearview numerals, like this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Such is beyond DRPA's jurisdiction, so it's clearly a PennDOT install. Not sure what happened there.
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 02:27:31 PMThey also used NJ 29 on I-295, but no backplate. That could be DRJTBC signage, though...
If you're referring to this long-gone sign & gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2559513,-74.8518819,3a,75y,40.09h,99.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skGE-yod8UgHhpQdtugZqgQ!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656) along then-I-95; that's a PennDOT install. Such is clearly outside of DRJTBC's jurisdiction. The adjacent 2-mile advance BGS for then-Exit 2 is a NJDOT spec'd sign that was added years later, note the absence of lights for such.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2019, 05:58:38 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 25, 2019, 05:37:42 PM
And I have a question. In New Jersey why does the people work at gas stations fill your car and you can't do it? Is it to prevent carjackings or some idiot trying to play around with them? I don't know. I don't live there but I find it interesting that this state only has this law on the gas stations.
It's been the law for decades. Lot of people think it's just to keep jobs for people. I don't know if there's any one true answer. Oregon had a similar law, although thry recently reduced it and there is some self-serve stations out there now.
It was politics, plain and simple. I think I first saw the link on this very forum somewhere, but can't be sure
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2014/02/the_real_reason_self-service_gas_was_banned_in_nj_corruption_not_safety.html
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2019, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 26, 2019, 12:29:57 PM
Hate to further derail the previous discussion, but I recall seeing this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1016219,-74.1690707,3a,45y,10.5h,112.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_81n_hM_z4ufm6tSo-hNJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) when traveling up to Boston last month.
I don't even understand the point of it for several reasons: for one, it's wrong; NJ 17 North merges beyond the Exit 66 ramp, and it's definitely less than a mile away. For two, if this is referring to NY 17...well, that's slightly more understandable, since the NY state line and thus NY 17 are a mile away. But really, if it's guiding motorists to the NY 17 freeway or even NY 17 on its own, then those destinations are definitely more than a mile away, and really it should say something like "NY 17 NORTH USE I-87" or "KEEP LEFT".
The better option would be to combine it with the pull-thru sign, to read:
NORTH TO
287 (NY)17 87 (thruway)
ALBANY
Technically its NJ 17 for a short stretch, so I think it would be fine to sign it with the NJ shield there. And maybe use Westchester White Plains or Rye in addition to Albany (for the 287 east control city), but otherwise agree.
Agree regarding just using the NJ 17 shield for J&N's pull-through. Since White Plains is an approved/used I-287 control city and is closer to this location than Rye; I would use the former over the latter. Either that or just use the current N Y Thruway listing since such covers all three routes (I-87/287 & SR 17). Heck, one could just use the same panel and move the I-287 shield and place the NJ 17 shield right next to it. FWIW, the NJ 17 northbound exit (15A) off I-87 northbound is at least 2 miles from Exit 66.
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 02:27:31 PM
I recall that PennDOT uses an NJ 90 shield on I-95, complete with backplate. I'm guessing they got it from NJDOT.
https://goo.gl/maps/QwhS5RmRLhw733Sq5
Either that or, since it's also generic MUTCD state route shield, such was probably fabricated per MUTCD specs. That particular panel dates back to 2000 (prior to NJDOT using shields without black backplates on sign panels) when the Aramingo Ave. ramps were added to the interchange. The exit number was changed not too long after these panels were erected. Prior signage gave no reference to NJ 90.
Later signs feature round shields w/no black backplates but w/Clearview numerals, like this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Such is beyond DRPA's jurisdiction, so it's clearly a PennDOT install. Not sure what happened there.
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 02:27:31 PMThey also used NJ 29 on I-295, but no backplate. That could be DRJTBC signage, though...
If you're referring to this long-gone sign & gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2559513,-74.8518819,3a,75y,40.09h,99.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skGE-yod8UgHhpQdtugZqgQ!2e0!5s20170801T000000!7i13312!8i6656) along then-I-95; that's a PennDOT install. Such is clearly outside of DRJTBC's jurisdiction. The adjacent 2-mile advance BGS for then-Exit 2 is a NJDOT spec'd sign that was added years later, note the absence of lights for such.
Yup that's the one.
They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff's idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp since that's what MUTCD prefers now.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
oh god my eyes
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
oh god my eyes
So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2019, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
oh god my eyes
So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.
"To NJ 90" makes the most sense to me - reinforcing that the circle is not an error.
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 04:28:23 PM
They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff'’s idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp. since that’'s what MUTCD prefers now.
Prefers, yes; but given the location and how the routes (I-87/287 & SR 17) intermingle, using
N Y Thruway per the current BGS makes for a simple
catch-all as it were & is
still MUTCD compliant (see recent NJ Turnpike Exit 6 signage as examples). Further into NY at the I-87/NY Thruway junction;
Albany &
Tappan Zee Bridge/New York City are what's currently listed on the ramp signs.
Bottom line & Noel had a point; the only BGS on that I-287 gantry at Exit 66 that's the bone of contention & somewhat inaccurate is that centrally-positioned
17 NORTH 1 MILE. The I-87/NY Thruway junction is one mile from that location; as earlier-mentioned, Exit 15A (off I-87) for SR (NY) 17 northbound is over 2 miles.
Quote from: Alps on July 26, 2019, 11:00:29 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2019, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
oh god my eyes
So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.
"To NJ 90" makes the most sense to me - reinforcing that the circle is not an error.
Personally, I would've went with either the circle
or just
NJ 90 in text form.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 29, 2019, 08:30:15 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 04:28:23 PM
They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff''s idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp. since that''s what MUTCD prefers now.
Prefers, yes; but given the location and how the routes (I-87/287 & SR 17) intermingle, using N Y Thruway per the current BGS makes for a simple catch-all as it were & is still MUTCD compliant (see recent NJ Turnpike Exit 6 signage as examples). Further into NY at the I-87/NY Thruway junction; Albany & Tappan Zee Bridge/New York City are what's currently listed on the ramp signs.
Bottom line & Noel had a point; the only BGS on that I-287 gantry at Exit 66 that's the bone of contention & somewhat inaccurate is that centrally-positioned 17 NORTH 1 MILE. The I-87/NY Thruway junction is one mile from that location; as earlier-mentioned, Exit 15A (off I-87) for SR (NY) 17 northbound is over 2 miles.
It may be a good "catch all" to use NY Thruway, but probably isn't helpful if you aren't familiar with the region.
Also, I know others have mentioned this, but the current wording at Exit 6 isn't ideal, either. It ideally should have "To 276/(PATP) (instead of just 276), and below that list Philadelphia and Harrisburg.
Quote from: famartin on July 29, 2019, 11:06:49 AM
It may be a good "catch all" to use NY Thruway, but probably isn't helpful if you aren't familiar with the region.
That's where the signs approaching the I-87/NY Thruway interchange; here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1089058,-74.1648862,3a,75y,23.5h,85.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHRw3NFiy2NHKZColLHfEKA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1121882,-74.1629499,3a,75y,33.5h,82.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF0EWZ3uOVSiYhbc2Z_FqKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1149622,-74.1613527,3a,75y,12.97h,82.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLZgrsDtCBHOpi4iskkDjaA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), come into play.
Additionally, there's nothing in the MUTCD I'm aware of that mandates all pull-through signs must have control city legends in them. Many pull-through signs simply list the direction cardinal(s) & route number(s). Such would work at the Exit 66 gantry as well.
Quote from: famartin on July 29, 2019, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 29, 2019, 08:30:15 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 04:28:23 PM
They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff''s idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp. since that''s what MUTCD prefers now.
Prefers, yes; but given the location and how the routes (I-87/287 & SR 17) intermingle, using N Y Thruway per the current BGS makes for a simple catch-all as it were & is still MUTCD compliant (see recent NJ Turnpike Exit 6 signage as examples). Further into NY at the I-87/NY Thruway junction; Albany & Tappan Zee Bridge/New York City are what's currently listed on the ramp signs.
Bottom line & Noel had a point; the only BGS on that I-287 gantry at Exit 66 that's the bone of contention & somewhat inaccurate is that centrally-positioned 17 NORTH 1 MILE. The I-87/NY Thruway junction is one mile from that location; as earlier-mentioned, Exit 15A (off I-87) for SR (NY) 17 northbound is over 2 miles.
It may be a good "catch all" to use NY Thruway, but probably isn't helpful if you aren't familiar with the region.
Also, I know others have mentioned this, but the current wording at Exit 6 isn't ideal, either. It ideally should have "To 276/(PATP) (instead of just 276), and below that list Philadelphia and Harrisburg.
Having designed those panels as part of one of the widening contracts, I can state that your suggested layout was proposed, but the Turnpike wanted to go with the wording that is currently shown.
Quote from: akotchi on July 29, 2019, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 29, 2019, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 29, 2019, 08:30:15 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 04:28:23 PM
They could just say NY Thruway on the 287 sign discussed above, but I like Jeff''s idea of using the trailblazer for the thruway and actual cities, esp. since that''s what MUTCD prefers now.
Prefers, yes; but given the location and how the routes (I-87/287 & SR 17) intermingle, using N Y Thruway per the current BGS makes for a simple catch-all as it were & is still MUTCD compliant (see recent NJ Turnpike Exit 6 signage as examples). Further into NY at the I-87/NY Thruway junction; Albany & Tappan Zee Bridge/New York City are what's currently listed on the ramp signs.
Bottom line & Noel had a point; the only BGS on that I-287 gantry at Exit 66 that's the bone of contention & somewhat inaccurate is that centrally-positioned 17 NORTH 1 MILE. The I-87/NY Thruway junction is one mile from that location; as earlier-mentioned, Exit 15A (off I-87) for SR (NY) 17 northbound is over 2 miles.
It may be a good "catch all" to use NY Thruway, but probably isn't helpful if you aren't familiar with the region.
Also, I know others have mentioned this, but the current wording at Exit 6 isn't ideal, either. It ideally should have "To 276/(PATP) (instead of just 276), and below that list Philadelphia and Harrisburg.
Having designed those panels as part of one of the widening contracts, I can state that your suggested layout was proposed, but the Turnpike wanted to go with the wording that is currently shown.
At least someone thought it was a good idea...
The signage going NB on Route 17 approaching I-287 is probably what should have been done on the NB I-287 approach (or at least similar signage):
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1019837,-74.1665669,3a,75y,300.08h,88.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srGMFsNJXihQc7FwRNt9MIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 02:27:31 PM
I recall that PennDOT uses an NJ 90 shield on I-95, complete with backplate. I'm guessing they got it from NJDOT.
https://goo.gl/maps/QwhS5RmRLhw733Sq5
That sign was replaced with a 100% flatscreened sign. It too utilizes a shield on a black background.
Quote from: ekt8750 on July 29, 2019, 01:38:05 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 26, 2019, 02:27:31 PM
I recall that PennDOT uses an NJ 90 shield on I-95, complete with backplate. I'm guessing they got it from NJDOT.
https://goo.gl/maps/QwhS5RmRLhw733Sq5
That sign was replaced with a 100% flatscreened sign. It too utilizes a shield on a black background.
Must've been replaced very recently because that above-GSV is dated Nov. 2018.
https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2019/08/dont-follow-this-nj-highway-sign-half-of-it-is-wrong.html
I reported on this elsewhere too...during the current sign replacement program, both exits from NJ 55 onto US 40 were labeled 'West'. The 1st exit in this direction should be 'East'.
https://morristowngreen.com/2019/08/16/video-how-that-m-station-roundabout-is-supposed-to-work-in-morristown/
Local new roundabout. I'm not a fan of removing the exit from the parking lot at the south leg, which forces everyone onto a back street to filter out at other congested traffic lights. Would be far better to keep the exit here. Also, how well will lane dividers work with shared bike/car lanes? Where are the sharrows in the circle?
On the plus side, this is a dangerous intersection for pedestrians right now, so cleaning up vehicle movements and getting rid of the nearly free-flow WB-NB movement is a step in the right direction. I just think it could be done even better.
(P.S. - who's maintaining the center island?)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2019, 08:47:23 AM
https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2019/08/dont-follow-this-nj-highway-sign-half-of-it-is-wrong.html
I reported on this elsewhere too...during the current sign replacement program, both exits from NJ 55 onto US 40 were labeled 'West'. The 1st exit in this direction should be 'East'.
More interesting to me is that those signs look like single piece assemblies with a line to separate the main part of the sign from the exit "tab". Not something really seen in NJ all that much, if at all. Also, I know those signs aren't super wide, but the exit "tab" legends look center aligned rather than right aligned.
Ugh those signs..... the only good thing about them is that NJDOT installed lighting on them for some reason. Those are brand new gantries with sign lighting, not recycled! There are single piece signs elsewhere in the state, but they are all on the small side.
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2019, 06:52:02 PM
Also, how well will lane dividers work with shared bike/car lanes? Where are the sharrows in the circle?
It's just lazy design. I don't think sharrows have been shown to have any meaningful safety impact, and abandoning bicycle facilities at the intersection is just standard practice for most agencies.
The use of in-roadway lighting at the crosswalk is interesting. Has a similar treatment managed to survive anywhere else in the snowbelt?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 16, 2019, 10:54:11 PM
Ugh those signs..... the only good thing about them is that NJDOT installed lighting on them for some reason. Those are brand new gantries with sign lighting, not recycled! There are single piece signs elsewhere in the state, but they are all on the small side.
They're doing odd lighted assemblies here and there in a very inconsistent fashion. The new gantries on 280 at Eisenhower Pkwy are also lighted even though they don't need to be.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on August 17, 2019, 12:49:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2019, 06:52:02 PM
Also, how well will lane dividers work with shared bike/car lanes? Where are the sharrows in the circle?
It's just lazy design. I don't think sharrows have been shown to have any meaningful safety impact, and abandoning bicycle facilities at the intersection is just standard practice for most agencies.
The use of in-roadway lighting at the crosswalk is interesting. Has a similar treatment managed to survive anywhere else in the snowbelt?
No, NJDOT tried it on US 46 WB at Riverview Dr. in Totowa and abandoned it within months.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2019, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
oh god my eyes
So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.
At least it's better than the TO CONN NY 124 sign (should be TO CT 124).
Quote from: Alps on July 26, 2019, 11:00:29 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2019, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
oh god my eyes
So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.
"To NJ 90" makes the most sense to me - reinforcing that the circle is not an error.
More interesting to me is (on the sign for the Betsy) the use of Clearview for "90" and MUTCD on the rest of the sign.
ixnay
Quote from: dgolub on August 17, 2019, 09:25:30 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2019, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: odditude on July 26, 2019, 04:39:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 26, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0002554,-75.0803404,3a,75y,218.79h,86.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7n03THm5EOGQkWmXHnSKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
oh god my eyes
So does the "To NJ" mean "to New Jersey" or is it meant to be read "To NJ 90"? Neither makes much sense. I suppose someone might think it's DE 90 or something.
At least it's better than the TO CONN NY 124 sign (should be TO CT 124).
Is that similar to the TO MASS 102 sign on NY 22 just south of Exit B3?
Quote from: Alps on August 17, 2019, 02:33:25 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on August 17, 2019, 12:49:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 16, 2019, 06:52:02 PM
Also, how well will lane dividers work with shared bike/car lanes? Where are the sharrows in the circle?
It's just lazy design. I don't think sharrows have been shown to have any meaningful safety impact, and abandoning bicycle facilities at the intersection is just standard practice for most agencies.
The use of in-roadway lighting at the crosswalk is interesting. Has a similar treatment managed to survive anywhere else in the snowbelt?
No, NJDOT tried it on US 46 WB at Riverview Dr. in Totowa and abandoned it within months.
I guess the trucks on Morris Street will have to use the left approach lane to the roundabout (and some of the mountable island) to avoid those raised lane dividers. As long as entering + conflicting volumes is <1500 vehicles on approaches, it should work.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt495/schedule.shtm
I see NJDOT is rehabilitating the NJ 495 viaduct over US 1 & 9 and Paterson Plank Road.
Does anyone know how far the work progressed? I see it will be at least till 2020 for the work to be done as they aim to keep six lanes of Route 495 open at peak hours.
Then GSV shows NJ 3 at US 46 the same as it ever was https://goo.gl/maps/njEyWuM2AkNR5tfg6 but the NJDOT website say this https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/.
I guess they hit snags on it.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 21, 2019, 07:05:37 PM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt495/schedule.shtm
I see NJDOT is rehabilitating the NJ 495 viaduct over US 1 & 9 and Paterson Plank Road.
Does anyone know how far the work progressed? I see it will be at least till 2020 for the work to be done as they aim to keep six lanes of Route 495 open at peak hours.
Then GSV shows NJ 3 at US 46 the same as it ever was https://goo.gl/maps/njEyWuM2AkNR5tfg6 but the NJDOT website say this https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/.
I guess they hit snags on it.
Not sure what you mean as the main portion isn't part of contract A. That's contract B.
Yeah I moved in around the site and saw, but it does not answer why the land is not upset in the last Google image it shows no work has yet started. Its obviously behind in schedule if they want to make it done in the time slated which I think is 2022. Yes it can be done, but usually to redo some interchanges like this one in a four season environment would take four years to complete. The deadline here is 3 years from now.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2019, 11:49:23 AM
Yeah I moved in around the site and saw, but it does not answer why the land is not upset in the last Google image it shows no work has yet started. Its obviously behind in schedule if they want to make it done in the time slated which I think is 2022. Yes it can be done, but usually to redo some interchanges like this one in a four season environment would take four years to complete. The deadline here is 3 years from now.
I went thru there last year, plenty of construction along nearby 46. I think it was this project.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/2018-07-24_15_21_11_View_east_along_U.S._Route_46_at_Passaic_County_Route_620_%28Clove_Road%29_along_the_border_of_Woodland_Park_and_Little_Falls_Township_in_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2018-07-24_14_20_41_View_west_along_U.S._Route_46_between_Passaic_County_Route_709_%28Notch_Road%29_and_Passaic_County_Route_633_%28Rifle_Camp_Road%29_along_the_border_of_Woodland_Park_and_Little_Falls_Township_in_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2019, 11:49:23 AM
Yeah I moved in around the site and saw, but it does not answer why the land is not upset in the last Google image it shows no work has yet started. Its obviously behind in schedule if they want to make it done in the time slated which I think is 2022. Yes it can be done, but usually to redo some interchanges like this one in a four season environment would take four years to complete. The deadline here is 3 years from now.
If Google is behind, it must mean progress is behind. 🤦
Quote from: famartin on August 22, 2019, 12:34:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2019, 11:49:23 AM
Yeah I moved in around the site and saw, but it does not answer why the land is not upset in the last Google image it shows no work has yet started. Its obviously behind in schedule if they want to make it done in the time slated which I think is 2022. Yes it can be done, but usually to redo some interchanges like this one in a four season environment would take four years to complete. The deadline here is 3 years from now.
I went thru there last year, plenty of construction along nearby 46. I think it was this project.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/2018-07-24_15_21_11_View_east_along_U.S._Route_46_at_Passaic_County_Route_620_%28Clove_Road%29_along_the_border_of_Woodland_Park_and_Little_Falls_Township_in_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2018-07-24_14_20_41_View_west_along_U.S._Route_46_between_Passaic_County_Route_709_%28Notch_Road%29_and_Passaic_County_Route_633_%28Rifle_Camp_Road%29_along_the_border_of_Woodland_Park_and_Little_Falls_Township_in_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
The Google Maps aerial view of the area appears to be two years or more old.
The new service road (CR 709/Great Notch Rd.) paralleling US 46 WB has been paved, striped and signed, but is not yet connected to Valley Rd. or Rifle Camp Rd. The new exit ramp from US 46 WB, which will allow US 46 traffic access to Valley, Clove and Rifle Camp Rds. is in place, as is the companion entrance ramp; neither has yet been connected.
I went by this afternoon and noticed that they have removed the pavement from the current ramp from US 46 WB to Rifle Camp Rd. (the Great Notch/Cedar Grove exit shown in the second picture), apparently preparatory to extending CR 709 to Rifle Camp Rd. Traffic signals are in place at the intersection of CR 709 and the US 46 WB exit ramp and at the intersection of Valley Rd. and the current US 46 WB exit ramps. The latter are supposed to be temporary until a roundabout is constructed, but there is suspicion they may be permanent.
The Rifle Camp Rd. bridge has been demolished and replaced. It is open to traffic, but appears still to need some work. The new Clove Rd. bridge (abutments shown in the first picture beyond the BGS) is in place, but not yet open. A roundabout has been constructed at the south end of the bridge to serve Clove Rd., the ramps to and from US 46 EB and the Overlook complex. Construction has also been ongoing realigning the utility infrastructure that is being affected.
The project was delayed several months due to funding problems in the Christie Administration. I think Contract B will be let early next year, but I am skeptical that construction will be finished by 2022. Whatever happens, it will be a major headache.
Looks like there's finally been an update in the Straight Line Diagrams for 2019:
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/_Booklet.pdf
The piece of info that gives this away is Route 18's extension to I-287 (with the Possumtown Road branch being "18 Spur"). Even Middlesex County's previous hodgepodge of incorrect information has been (at least partially) corrected. Parsonage and Perrineville (630 and 625 respectively) are now correct.
They corrected a ton of Union County 600 series routes as well. There are still some errors, mostly showing routes that were truncated years ago.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 05, 2019, 05:11:31 PM
Looks like there's finally been an update in the Straight Line Diagrams for 2019:
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/_Booklet.pdf
The piece of info that gives this away is Route 18's extension to I-287 (with the Possumtown Road branch being "18 Spur"). Even Middlesex County's previous hodgepodge of incorrect information has been (at least partially) corrected. Parsonage and Perrineville (630 and 625 respectively) are now correct.
That solves the mystery of the two 18s, then. Is there still a Middlesex 807? (On my phone at the moment so can't easily check.)
Quote from: Alps on September 05, 2019, 10:10:39 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 05, 2019, 05:11:31 PM
Looks like there's finally been an update in the Straight Line Diagrams for 2019:
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/_Booklet.pdf
The piece of info that gives this away is Route 18's extension to I-287 (with the Possumtown Road branch being "18 Spur"). Even Middlesex County's previous hodgepodge of incorrect information has been (at least partially) corrected. Parsonage and Perrineville (630 and 625 respectively) are now correct.
That solves the mystery of the two 18s, then. Is there still a Middlesex 807? (On my phone at the moment so can't easily check.)
No. But there are a bunch of four digit county routes. I'm guessing secret unsigned designations for random roads that still fall under county purview.
Middlesex County's actual route log doesn't give route numbers for most of the roads within county parks. Somehow they came over to the SLD with 4-digit route numbers.
You know why there's no CR 807?
Because it's now CR 632.
Those 4 digit ones in the 1600s are the ones in Donaldson Park in Highland Park, where I grew up. They appear to be county park roads which explains why the CR 657s have blown up. Roosevelt Park has a ton of roads.
4-digit state route listings? I thought that was just in PA? CT has so-called "secret" or S.R. routes. I've seen "S.R. 911" on an I-84 overpass by the Bethel/Danbury city line. Our highest signed route is 372, which runs from near the Plainville/Bristol city line east-southeast to Cromwell (going through New Britain and Berlin on the way)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 05, 2019, 05:11:31 PM
Looks like there's finally been an update in the Straight Line Diagrams for 2019:
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/_Booklet.pdf
The piece of info that gives this away is Route 18's extension to I-287 (with the Possumtown Road branch being "18 Spur"). Even Middlesex County's previous hodgepodge of incorrect information has been (at least partially) corrected. Parsonage and Perrineville (630 and 625 respectively) are now correct.
Even though it's dated March, 2019, Enlarged View 49 is out of date. In 2018 the intersection lane distribution was modified and jughandle from 73 South to Fellowship Road was greatly lengthened. The imagery is much older; older than summer of 2017, when a Walmart was being built on the SW corner of 73 & Fellowship. That Walmart opened last year.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
4-digit state route listings? I thought that was just in PA? CT has so-called "secret" or S.R. routes. I've seen "S.R. 911" on an I-84 overpass by the Bethel/Danbury city line. Our highest signed route is 372, which runs from near the Plainville/Bristol city line east-southeast to Cromwell (going through New Britain and Berlin on the way)
CT has the secret routes from 400-900.
And no, Jersey doesn't have any of those, it's just Middlesex County's entries all of a sudden have 4-digit CR listings.
Also, Middlesex 700-702 are gone.
It's definitely "S.R. 911". The Newtown Road overpass on I-84, in Danbury, soon after the city line, heading west.
(https://i.imgur.com/3sQ5Wfp.jpg)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
4-digit state route listings? I thought that was just in PA? CT has so-called "secret" or S.R. routes. I've seen "S.R. 911" on an I-84 overpass by the Bethel/Danbury city line. Our highest signed route is 372, which runs from near the Plainville/Bristol city line east-southeast to Cromwell (going through New Britain and Berlin on the way)
You haven't been to VA much, have you? Lots of 4 digit routes, a few 5 digits. Of course, outside of legal cities and some towns, nearly every road is a state route.
I've only been in Arlington and Alexandria for the whole state. Alexandria was 30 years ago. Last visit to Arlington was in May of 2015.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2019, 04:19:54 PM
I've only been in Arlington and Alexandria for the whole state. Alexandria was 30 years ago. Last visit to Arlington was in May of 2015.
Oh, and Arlington is an odd exception to that rule. But if you wander just over to Fairfax, you'll see almost every street has a number.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 06, 2019, 01:32:41 AM
You know why there's no CR 807?
Because it's now CR 632.
Those 4 digit ones in the 1600s are the ones in Donaldson Park in Highland Park, where I grew up. They appear to be county park roads which explains why the CR 657s have blown up. Roosevelt Park has a ton of roads.
I didn't know the Roosevelt Park roadways had actual county route designations. There are several roads there that are used more as through roads than anything else.
Also interesting to me how Middlesex County has two different 602's and several 675's. You don't usually see counties doubling up on county routes.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
4-digit state route listings? I thought that was just in PA? CT has so-called "secret" or S.R. routes. I've seen "S.R. 911" on an I-84 overpass by the Bethel/Danbury city line. Our highest signed route is 372, which runs from near the Plainville/Bristol city line east-southeast to Cromwell (going through New Britain and Berlin on the way)
I've seen 4 digit state routes in North Dakota. Pretty sure there's a Route 1804 and 1806.
The highest SR in CT is SR 921, which is relatively new, and is a part of the newer Exit 50 offramp from I-95 North created with the Q-bridge reconstruction.
I think this thread is derailed. We are now out of state, though with everyone's opinion of NJ these days being that it changed to the average citizen there to want to leave lol, this thread should not leave there. :-D
Yes, I know you can get distracted with someone else bringing up a point as it has all happened to each one of us at times, but remember this is New Jersey here and anything roads with that.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 06, 2019, 12:59:59 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
4-digit state route listings? I thought that was just in PA? CT has so-called "secret" or S.R. routes. I've seen "S.R. 911" on an I-84 overpass by the Bethel/Danbury city line. Our highest signed route is 372, which runs from near the Plainville/Bristol city line east-southeast to Cromwell (going through New Britain and Berlin on the way)
And no, Jersey doesn't have any of those, it's just Middlesex County's entries all of a sudden have 4-digit CR listings.
Also, Middlesex 700-702 are gone.
CR 700 (Marlboro Road) has been rechristened CR 631 though only on a portion of the road; the part between the southerly Route 18 intersection and near Maple Street is not part of the county route though I think either late last year or early this year the county resurfaced that portion. 701 and 702 were just random roads on Rutgers Livingston Campus that weren't county-maintained anyway so no real loss (except for the time in my New Jersey Geography elective course I took there, we were asked to name the closest interstate, US, state, and county route to you, I said "701" and the course instructor, the State Climatologist David Robinson, looked at me like I had three heads).
Checking all of the state and 500 county routes this past weekend (par-tay!), the only major state route change was the elimination of 171 in New Brunswick. Some state roads that were previously listed as municipal or county jurisdiction (28 in Plainfield, 12 & 29 in Frenchtown) are now listed as NJDOT but I bet these are just errors. A couple of 500 routes were extended (533, 535, 539, 577), the 537/547 swap around Eatontown/Long Branch is sort of codified, and some random spur/alternate routes were added. While Middlesex and Somerset's 600 series appear to be corrected, Burlington seems to still have some errors (no Stage Road CR 655 in Bass River Twp., CR 693 is still Cedar Lane Extension between 543 and 660 per state while the county's map show it within the nearby landfill).
Middlesex 692 was also extended.
Regardless, yes, I grew up in Highland Park, I know what 701 and 702 were. Not that they were all that important.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 09, 2019, 11:20:44 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 06, 2019, 12:59:59 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 06, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
4-digit state route listings? I thought that was just in PA? CT has so-called "secret" or S.R. routes. I've seen "S.R. 911" on an I-84 overpass by the Bethel/Danbury city line. Our highest signed route is 372, which runs from near the Plainville/Bristol city line east-southeast to Cromwell (going through New Britain and Berlin on the way)
And no, Jersey doesn't have any of those, it's just Middlesex County's entries all of a sudden have 4-digit CR listings.
Also, Middlesex 700-702 are gone.
CR 700 (Marlboro Road) has been rechristened CR 631 though only on a portion of the road; the part between the southerly Route 18 intersection and near Maple Street is not part of the county route though I think either late last year or early this year the county resurfaced that portion. 701 and 702 were just random roads on Rutgers Livingston Campus that weren't county-maintained anyway so no real loss (except for the time in my New Jersey Geography elective course I took there, we were asked to name the closest interstate, US, state, and county route to you, I said "701" and the course instructor, the State Climatologist David Robinson, looked at me like I had three heads).
Checking all of the state and 500 county routes this past weekend (par-tay!), the only major state route change was the elimination of 171 in New Brunswick. Some state roads that were previously listed as municipal or county jurisdiction (28 in Plainfield, 12 & 29 in Frenchtown) are now listed as NJDOT but I bet these are just errors. A couple of 500 routes were extended (533, 535, 539, 577), the 537/547 swap around Eatontown/Long Branch is sort of codified, and some random spur/alternate routes were added. While Middlesex and Somerset's 600 series appear to be corrected, Burlington seems to still have some errors (no Stage Road CR 655 in Bass River Twp., CR 693 is still Cedar Lane Extension between 543 and 660 per state while the county's map show it within the nearby landfill).
Curious why they extended 533 past the 527 junction in Bound Brook just to have it break and have it come back after the circle where 527 heads off to South Bound Brook to just end unceremoniously at the bridge to Middlesex, aka the county line. If that's county maintained, not sure why they didn't just assign it a 6xx number instead.
Its likely that 533 extended past 527 and Somerset County never renumbered the segment. Remember that CR-622 in Middlesex County used to be 514 SPUR, a somewhat logical endpoint for 535 in the past. The same thing happened with CR-509. Part of its old alignment in Edison has reappeared on the SLDs, an error from Middlesex County's records (NJDOT long truncated it to Westfield). The 535 extention up Raritan Ave. is also from Middlesex's records.
The construction for the NEW improved split interchange with Rt. 46 and Rt. 3 in Clifton is a bumpy one. However, It's getting a huge makeover. Hopefully it will make the split with 46 and 3 much better for drivers to use by 2022. I drove EAST on 46 from Wayne to the Lincoln Tunnel via Rt 3 EAST. That split can be tricky for those who are not used to it. Just follow the signs.
That interchange in Clifton is long overdue.
Another weird thing I just noticed, when did US-130 in Cranbury get renamed to "Jersey Girls State Highway"?
I did not know it was changed to a Bruce Springsteen song. Considering Highway 9 goes through his neck of the woods, the old historic Georges Road should remain as Georges Road.
I once read an article on the original Georges Road, but Google won't pull it up anymore. It was a an old road that went from Cranbury to New Brunswick sort of like the Old York Road which went from Philly to New York in another part of the state. Both were transport routes, but this one was more localized than the other which took two days to travel what now takes a few hours. That is why Centerville is along US 202 in Readington, as that was the original road's halfway point and had an inn there for stagecoach patrons traveling between the two.
I'm in Southern NJ for two weeks for work, staying in Vineland. Last night, I drove all the way up NJ 55 to its connection with....NJ 42. Does I-76 start at the state line to PA? Was it ever proposed to continue down NJ 55?
I'm just curious as a road geek from NC. Thanks!
Quote from: jcarte29 on September 11, 2019, 11:58:13 AM
I'm in Southern NJ for two weeks for work, staying in Vineland. Last night, I drove all the way up NJ 55 to its connection with....NJ 42. Does I-76 start at the state line to PA? Was it ever proposed to continue down NJ 55?
I'm just curious as a road geek from NC. Thanks!
I-76 starts/ends at I-295 in Bellmawr, NJ. There's about 3 miles of I-76 within NJ's borders before PA. If you listen to the traffic reports though, you'll never notice it, as most locals call I-76 Route 42 in this area.
The 2nd question is often-discussed on these roadgroup circles (to my annoyance! lol). I believe it was always designed that I-76 would end at another interstate; in this case 295. Often, we have brought up extending I-76 down Rt. 42 to the Atlantic City Expressway to Atlantic City, and Route 55 could become I-176 or similar.
New Jersey and its toll authorities have never to my knowledge ever discussed it, and the state and its authorities have absolutely no interest in claiming an interstate number just to do it. Motorists - both everyday car drivers and commercial vehicle drivers - appear to have no issues in finding their way around, which is often cited as a benefit to having an interstate route. Another benefit cited by some is that interstate routes can generate traffic, which generates residential housing and commercial businesses to come to the area, generating tax revenue. The area certainly isn't lacking in this department either.
So there's never really been a need to redesignate our state highways with interstate numbers.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2019, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on September 11, 2019, 11:58:13 AM
I'm in Southern NJ for two weeks for work, staying in Vineland. Last night, I drove all the way up NJ 55 to its connection with....NJ 42. Does I-76 start at the state line to PA? Was it ever proposed to continue down NJ 55?
I'm just curious as a road geek from NC. Thanks!
I-76 starts/ends at I-295 in Bellmawr, NJ. There's about 3 miles of I-76 within NJ's borders before PA. If you listen to the traffic reports though, you'll never notice it, as most locals call I-76 Route 42 in this area.
The 2nd question is often-discussed on these roadgroup circles (to my annoyance! lol). I believe it was always designed that I-76 would end at another interstate; in this case 295. Often, we have brought up extending I-76 down Rt. 42 to the Atlantic City Expressway to Atlantic City, and Route 55 could become I-176 or similar.
New Jersey and its toll authorities have never to my knowledge ever discussed it, and the state and its authorities have absolutely no interest in claiming an interstate number just to do it. Motorists - both everyday car drivers and commercial vehicle drivers - appear to have no issues in finding their way around, which is often cited as a benefit to having an interstate route. Another benefit cited by some is that interstate routes can generate traffic, which generates residential housing and commercial businesses to come to the area, generating tax revenue. The area certainly isn't lacking in this department either.
So there's never really been a need to redesignate our state highways with interstate numbers.
Awesome. I flew in to Newark and rented a vehicle, which gave me opportunity to drive through and around NJ for the first time. NJ 55 is very very nice, and smooth, interstate quality. I can see how most locals are just fine with its utility. A blue shield doesn't and wouldn't change that.
I did read that there were intentions to build the last 20 miles of it, but either funding, or just lack of interest?
Quote from: jcarte29 on September 11, 2019, 01:36:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2019, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on September 11, 2019, 11:58:13 AM
I'm in Southern NJ for two weeks for work, staying in Vineland. Last night, I drove all the way up NJ 55 to its connection with....NJ 42. Does I-76 start at the state line to PA? Was it ever proposed to continue down NJ 55?
I'm just curious as a road geek from NC. Thanks!
I-76 starts/ends at I-295 in Bellmawr, NJ. There's about 3 miles of I-76 within NJ's borders before PA. If you listen to the traffic reports though, you'll never notice it, as most locals call I-76 Route 42 in this area.
The 2nd question is often-discussed on these roadgroup circles (to my annoyance! lol). I believe it was always designed that I-76 would end at another interstate; in this case 295. Often, we have brought up extending I-76 down Rt. 42 to the Atlantic City Expressway to Atlantic City, and Route 55 could become I-176 or similar.
New Jersey and its toll authorities have never to my knowledge ever discussed it, and the state and its authorities have absolutely no interest in claiming an interstate number just to do it. Motorists - both everyday car drivers and commercial vehicle drivers - appear to have no issues in finding their way around, which is often cited as a benefit to having an interstate route. Another benefit cited by some is that interstate routes can generate traffic, which generates residential housing and commercial businesses to come to the area, generating tax revenue. The area certainly isn't lacking in this department either.
So there's never really been a need to redesignate our state highways with interstate numbers.
Awesome. I flew in to Newark and rented a vehicle, which gave me opportunity to drive through and around NJ for the first time. NJ 55 is very very nice, and smooth, interstate quality. I can see how most locals are just fine with its utility. A blue shield doesn't and wouldn't change that.
I did read that there were intentions to build the last 20 miles of it, but either funding, or just lack of interest?
environmental concerns which further exacerbate the cost (besides the usual community opposition).
The other question I have is about the toll collections. Are all of the booths/gantries *Cash Only* or EZPass? Do the booths take credit cards too? I've been too nervous to get up there and ask last second with a line behind me ha. I hardly carry cash anymore and I don't have the comfort of loose change in my own vehicle, which is back in NC garaged while I'm away lol.
Quote from: jcarte29 on September 11, 2019, 01:36:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2019, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on September 11, 2019, 11:58:13 AM
I'm in Southern NJ for two weeks for work, staying in Vineland. Last night, I drove all the way up NJ 55 to its connection with....NJ 42. Does I-76 start at the state line to PA? Was it ever proposed to continue down NJ 55?
I'm just curious as a road geek from NC. Thanks!
I-76 starts/ends at I-295 in Bellmawr, NJ. There's about 3 miles of I-76 within NJ's borders before PA. If you listen to the traffic reports though, you'll never notice it, as most locals call I-76 Route 42 in this area.
The 2nd question is often-discussed on these roadgroup circles (to my annoyance! lol). I believe it was always designed that I-76 would end at another interstate; in this case 295. Often, we have brought up extending I-76 down Rt. 42 to the Atlantic City Expressway to Atlantic City, and Route 55 could become I-176 or similar.
New Jersey and its toll authorities have never to my knowledge ever discussed it, and the state and its authorities have absolutely no interest in claiming an interstate number just to do it. Motorists - both everyday car drivers and commercial vehicle drivers - appear to have no issues in finding their way around, which is often cited as a benefit to having an interstate route. Another benefit cited by some is that interstate routes can generate traffic, which generates residential housing and commercial businesses to come to the area, generating tax revenue. The area certainly isn't lacking in this department either.
So there's never really been a need to redesignate our state highways with interstate numbers.
Awesome. I flew in to Newark and rented a vehicle, which gave me opportunity to drive through and around NJ for the first time. NJ 55 is very very nice, and smooth, interstate quality. I can see how most locals are just fine with its utility. A blue shield doesn't and wouldn't change that.
I did read that there were intentions to build the last 20 miles of it, but either funding, or just lack of interest?
This is a thing that I don't entirely understand about other states. This incessant need to grab interstate numbers. North Carolina seems to covet them like candy, and it's why we now have a southern I-87. NJ has a number of interstate grade state routes (the southern section of 18, all of modern 24--which, to be fair, I believe was supposed to be the western part of 278 but still, and the Middlesex portion of 440 from the Turnpike to the OBX come to mind) which would not benefit anyone from getting a red, white, and blue shield. I don't get the obsession with it. Do states still think they'll attract more business if they can advertise that their town is on the interstate? Is that still a thing in 2019?
Quote from: jcarte29 on September 11, 2019, 01:51:55 PM
The other question I have is about the toll collections. Are all of the booths/gantries *Cash Only* or EZPass? Do the booths take credit cards too? I've been too nervous to get up there and ask last second with a line behind me ha. I hardly carry cash anymore and I don't have the comfort of loose change in my own vehicle, which is back in NC garaged while I'm away lol.
None of NJ's toll authorities take credit cards. All of the lanes on the Parkway main line and the Turnpike take EZ-Pass regardless of if they also take cash (they're moving to calling those lanes "full service" little by little). I'm not sure about the Atlantic City Expressway. None of the bridge or tunnel authorities take credit cards either, but some either are already cashless "bill by plate" already. All of the PANYNJ crossings are moving to this model. Not sure about the DRBA, DRPA, although DRJTBC got their first toll-by-plate facility with the Scudders Fall Bridge, and I'm sure we'll eventually see them move their other facilities to this model as well.
Quote from: storm2k on September 11, 2019, 01:55:28 PMThis is a thing that I don't entirely understand about other states. This incessant need to grab interstate numbers. North Carolina seems to covet them like candy, and it's why we now have a southern I-87. NJ has a number of interstate grade state routes (the southern section of 18, all of modern 24--which, to be fair, I believe was supposed to be the western part of 278 but still, and the Middlesex portion of 440 from the Turnpike to the OBX come to mind) which would not benefit anyone from getting a red, white, and blue shield. I don't get the obsession with it. Do states still think they'll attract more business if they can advertise that their town is on the interstate? Is that still a thing in 2019?
Initially, the intent to designate an existing highway as an Interstate was due to the fact that Interstates usually had a higher federal funding contribution. Prior to 1991, Interstates (excluding grandfathered toll roads) had a 90/10 federal/state funding mix in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades. Not sure there's still a higher federal funding contribution today; but I do know it's no longer 90/10.
Another reason may be that some states may still have speed limit laws that only allow Interstates to receive higher speed limits. Such was initially the case in ME during the post-1987 NSL era; a section of then-unnumbered Maine Turnpike received an Interstate designation so that the maximum speed limit could increase from 55 to 65 mph.
Not sure whether NC has a similar speed limit restriction for their non-Interstate freeways or if there's still a funding difference.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 11, 2019, 02:46:28 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 11, 2019, 01:55:28 PMThis is a thing that I don't entirely understand about other states. This incessant need to grab interstate numbers. North Carolina seems to covet them like candy, and it's why we now have a southern I-87. NJ has a number of interstate grade state routes (the southern section of 18, all of modern 24--which, to be fair, I believe was supposed to be the western part of 278 but still, and the Middlesex portion of 440 from the Turnpike to the OBX come to mind) which would not benefit anyone from getting a red, white, and blue shield. I don't get the obsession with it. Do states still think they'll attract more business if they can advertise that their town is on the interstate? Is that still a thing in 2019?
Initially, the intent to designate an existing highway as an Interstate was due to the fact that Interstates usually had a higher federal funding contribution. Prior to 1991, Interstates (excluding grandfathered toll roads) had a 90/10 federal/state funding mix in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades. Not sure there's still a higher federal funding contribution today; but I do know it's no longer 90/10.
Another reason may be that some states may still have speed limit laws that only allow Interstates to receive higher speed limits. Such was initially the case in ME during the post-1987 NSL era; a section of then-unnumbered Maine Turnpike received an Interstate designation so that the maximum speed limit could increase from 55 to 65 mph.
Not sure whether NC has a similar speed limit restriction for their non-Interstate freeways or if there's still a funding difference.
AFIAK, there hasn't been any increased federal money for building interstates in a long time. That's my point about states going gaga for the shield.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 11, 2019, 02:46:28 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 11, 2019, 01:55:28 PMThis is a thing that I don't entirely understand about other states. This incessant need to grab interstate numbers. North Carolina seems to covet them like candy, and it's why we now have a southern I-87. NJ has a number of interstate grade state routes (the southern section of 18, all of modern 24--which, to be fair, I believe was supposed to be the western part of 278 but still, and the Middlesex portion of 440 from the Turnpike to the OBX come to mind) which would not benefit anyone from getting a red, white, and blue shield. I don't get the obsession with it. Do states still think they'll attract more business if they can advertise that their town is on the interstate? Is that still a thing in 2019?
Initially, the intent to designate an existing highway as an Interstate was due to the fact that Interstates usually had a higher federal funding contribution. Prior to 1991, Interstates (excluding grandfathered toll roads) had a 90/10 federal/state funding mix in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades. Not sure there's still a higher federal funding contribution today; but I do know it's no longer 90/10.
Another reason may be that some states may still have speed limit laws that only allow Interstates to receive higher speed limits. Such was initially the case in ME during the post-1987 NSL era; a section of then-unnumbered Maine Turnpike received an Interstate designation so that the maximum speed limit could increase from 55 to 65 mph.
Not sure whether NC has a similar speed limit restriction for their non-Interstate freeways or if there's still a funding difference.
Outstanding insight, thank you for that. I can shed a little light on NC roads, but only by my long time daily travel experiences on them, not by the proper laws, or policies, or formulas for funding.
The highest speed limit on any divided freeway in the state is 70mph, and while typically reserved for our proper Interstate mainlines and belts (85, 40, 26, 95, 77, 73, 74, 485, etc...), it doesn't have to be to get a 70mph designation.
For example, the US 74 By-Pass around south side of Rockingham, NC (home of a former NASCAR sanctioned track) is interstate standard and has a 70mph speed limit currently, even without a blue shield.
US 52 south of Winston-Salem is another good example that comes to mind. It has since been designated I-285, new shields going up this month.
Another example was "NC 44" (temp designation for US 70 By-Pass, future I-42) around Goldsboro, NC. It was built to Interstate Standard and given a 70mph pretty quickly a few years back. It was recently approved to get I-42 shields as soon as NCDOT wants to.
There might be a benefit to extending I-76 to Atlantic City. It's the next logical city after Philadelphia, and is already signed as a control point on existing I-76 in NJ, I believe. It may make things more clear for non-locals traveling a long distance on I-76 to Atlantic City. As it is, I-76 ends in the middle of nowhere (from a destination perspective, obviously it's a major interchange with multiple freeways), which might be why locals are still calling it route 42. After all, if it doesn't go anywhere, it might as well be truncated to I-95 in Philadelphia.
As has been stated many times on here, the cost of converting the ACE to I-76 would be considerable for not much more benefit than is being attained currently.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2019, 07:57:55 PM
There might be a benefit to extending I-76 to Atlantic City. It's the next logical city after Philadelphia, and is already signed as a control point on existing I-76 in NJ, I believe. It may make things more clear for non-locals traveling a long distance on I-76 to Atlantic City. As it is, I-76 ends in the middle of nowhere (from a destination perspective, obviously it's a major interchange with multiple freeways), which might be why locals are still calling it route 42. After all, if it doesn't go anywhere, it might as well be truncated to I-95 in Philadelphia.
What's the difference about it ending at one interstate highway vs. another interstate highway?
How are non-locals having a difficult time understanding the highway scheme? Are they driving down the road, see signs for the Atlantic City Expressway, and suddenly get all flustered and wind up at the TGI Friday's crying to the bartender how they can't figure our what road takes them to Atlantic City?
Quote from: storm2k on September 11, 2019, 01:58:50 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on September 11, 2019, 01:51:55 PM
The other question I have is about the toll collections. Are all of the booths/gantries *Cash Only* or EZPass? Do the booths take credit cards too? I've been too nervous to get up there and ask last second with a line behind me ha. I hardly carry cash anymore and I don't have the comfort of loose change in my own vehicle, which is back in NC garaged while I'm away lol.
None of NJ's toll authorities take credit cards. All of the lanes on the Parkway main line and the Turnpike take EZ-Pass regardless of if they also take cash (they're moving to calling those lanes "full service" little by little). I'm not sure about the Atlantic City Expressway. None of the bridge or tunnel authorities take credit cards either, but some either are already cashless "bill by plate" already. All of the PANYNJ crossings are moving to this model. Not sure about the DRBA, DRPA, although DRJTBC got their first toll-by-plate facility with the Scudders Fall Bridge, and I'm sure we'll eventually see them move their other facilities to this model as well.
All ACX toll lanes takes EZ Pass, including on the ramps. The DRBA also takes EZ Pass in all lanes.
The DRPA is the dinosaur...still only accepting EZ Pass in EZ Pass only lanes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2019, 09:54:56 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2019, 07:57:55 PM
There might be a benefit to extending I-76 to Atlantic City. It's the next logical city after Philadelphia, and is already signed as a control point on existing I-76 in NJ, I believe. It may make things more clear for non-locals traveling a long distance on I-76 to Atlantic City. As it is, I-76 ends in the middle of nowhere (from a destination perspective, obviously it's a major interchange with multiple freeways), which might be why locals are still calling it route 42. After all, if it doesn't go anywhere, it might as well be truncated to I-95 in Philadelphia.
What's the difference about it ending at one interstate highway vs. another interstate highway?
How are non-locals having a difficult time understanding the highway scheme? Are they driving down the road, see signs for the Atlantic City Expressway, and suddenly get all flustered and wind up at the TGI Friday's crying to the bartender how they can't figure our what road takes them to Atlantic City?
No, but they can map out their route. "I'll take I-76 to Atlantic City via Youngstown, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia". They'll know to get back on I-76 if they need to get off the highway for food, lodging, whatever.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 12, 2019, 03:14:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2019, 09:54:56 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 11, 2019, 07:57:55 PM
There might be a benefit to extending I-76 to Atlantic City. It's the next logical city after Philadelphia, and is already signed as a control point on existing I-76 in NJ, I believe. It may make things more clear for non-locals traveling a long distance on I-76 to Atlantic City. As it is, I-76 ends in the middle of nowhere (from a destination perspective, obviously it's a major interchange with multiple freeways), which might be why locals are still calling it route 42. After all, if it doesn't go anywhere, it might as well be truncated to I-95 in Philadelphia.
What's the difference about it ending at one interstate highway vs. another interstate highway?
How are non-locals having a difficult time understanding the highway scheme? Are they driving down the road, see signs for the Atlantic City Expressway, and suddenly get all flustered and wind up at the TGI Friday's crying to the bartender how they can't figure our what road takes them to Atlantic City?
No, but they can map out their route. "I'll take I-76 to Atlantic City via Youngstown, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia". They'll know to get back on I-76 if they need to get off the highway for food, lodging, whatever.
First off, as has been noted upthread and perhaps elsewhere on the forum, the ACX is not going to become I-76. The cost to benefit ratio is just not there. I honestly don't think there are any navigation issues accessing AC via the current roads and their respective numbers/names. There may have been a stronger argument for converting NJ 42 and the ACX many years ago. Nowadays, AC just isn't the destination that it once was. That ship has sailed.
This is not North Carolina where every existing freeway must get interstate funding. Yes it is an idea with merit, but NJ is not just interested in going all out to convert existing highways to interstate standards for the red, white, and blue shield. Otherwise the NJ Turnpike would be I-895 and NJ 24 would have an x78 number.
Kansas only converted their unnumbered part of their turnpike because of the 65 max stipulation back before the national speed limit cap was repelled so it can get raised to 65 mph at the time. The part of I-335 is a rural stretch with only one interchange in 50 miles which was dumb to have it at 55 mph. So KTA asked KDOT to ask AASHTO to designate it into the system.
Also keep in mind that NJ won't ask the Feds either to truncate I-78 either (which it needs to be as 12th Street and Boyle Plaza in Jersey City both are not freeways) because of the same effort needed to hold public hearings, apply to AASHTO, and the other tape. Though its not signed that well anyway and from NY one can take the I-78 signs there as TO meaning.
Nice thing to do with a lot of merit, but NJ controls their roads.
Federal, State and Local funding is also easily confused. For most states, the majority of the funding is from the feds. That federal money can be used on any roadway in the state, as long as it meets federal guidelines. So while it was well known the 90/10 Fed/State split existed for initial interstate highway construction, federal money can also be utilized to repave Main Street Alleyway in Little Town, Anywhere.
MyCentralJersey.com: Route 31 in Hunterdon County will be widened to four lanes by 2025 (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2019/10/01/route-31-hunterdon-county-nj-widened-four-lanes-2025/3828887002/)
QuoteThe project will widen the two-lane sections of the main north-south highway in Hunterdon County to four lanes. A lane in each direction will be added to Route 31 from HealthQuest Boulevard to River Road north of Hunterdon Medical Center and from Church Street to East Main Street/Flemington Junction Road by Hunterdon Central Regional High School.
QuoteOnce the project is completed, Route 31 will be four lanes from the Flemington Circle to near Spruce Run Reservoir in Clinton Township.
Given how much the population has grown in the Flemington to Clinton corridor in the last 25-30 years, this will probably be an extremely welcome development for a lot of people in that area. There aren't too many other N-S arterials between those two towns.
Quote from: storm2k on October 01, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
MyCentralJersey.com: Route 31 in Hunterdon County will be widened to four lanes by 2025 (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2019/10/01/route-31-hunterdon-county-nj-widened-four-lanes-2025/3828887002/)
QuoteThe project will widen the two-lane sections of the main north-south highway in Hunterdon County to four lanes. A lane in each direction will be added to Route 31 from HealthQuest Boulevard to River Road north of Hunterdon Medical Center and from Church Street to East Main Street/Flemington Junction Road by Hunterdon Central Regional High School.
QuoteOnce the project is completed, Route 31 will be four lanes from the Flemington Circle to near Spruce Run Reservoir in Clinton Township.
Given how much the population has grown in the Flemington to Clinton corridor in the last 25-30 years, this will probably be an extremely welcome development for a lot of people in that area. There aren't too many other N-S arterials between those two towns.
Here's the Meeting notice that story came from...
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/Handout1010.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2019, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 01, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
MyCentralJersey.com: Route 31 in Hunterdon County will be widened to four lanes by 2025 (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2019/10/01/route-31-hunterdon-county-nj-widened-four-lanes-2025/3828887002/)
QuoteThe project will widen the two-lane sections of the main north-south highway in Hunterdon County to four lanes. A lane in each direction will be added to Route 31 from HealthQuest Boulevard to River Road north of Hunterdon Medical Center and from Church Street to East Main Street/Flemington Junction Road by Hunterdon Central Regional High School.
QuoteOnce the project is completed, Route 31 will be four lanes from the Flemington Circle to near Spruce Run Reservoir in Clinton Township.
Given how much the population has grown in the Flemington to Clinton corridor in the last 25-30 years, this will probably be an extremely welcome development for a lot of people in that area. There aren't too many other N-S arterials between those two towns.
Here's the Meeting notice that story came from...
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/Handout1010.pdf
I notice they still refer to I-295 as "I-95" in that handout...
Quote from: famartin on October 01, 2019, 03:51:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2019, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 01, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
MyCentralJersey.com: Route 31 in Hunterdon County will be widened to four lanes by 2025 (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2019/10/01/route-31-hunterdon-county-nj-widened-four-lanes-2025/3828887002/)
QuoteThe project will widen the two-lane sections of the main north-south highway in Hunterdon County to four lanes. A lane in each direction will be added to Route 31 from HealthQuest Boulevard to River Road north of Hunterdon Medical Center and from Church Street to East Main Street/Flemington Junction Road by Hunterdon Central Regional High School.
QuoteOnce the project is completed, Route 31 will be four lanes from the Flemington Circle to near Spruce Run Reservoir in Clinton Township.
Given how much the population has grown in the Flemington to Clinton corridor in the last 25-30 years, this will probably be an extremely welcome development for a lot of people in that area. There aren't too many other N-S arterials between those two towns.
Here's the Meeting notice that story came from...
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/Handout1010.pdf
I notice they still refer to I-295 as "I-95" in that handout...
This project's engineer is probably completely unaware of that change! Lol
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2019, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on October 01, 2019, 03:51:23 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2019, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 01, 2019, 03:17:08 PM
MyCentralJersey.com: Route 31 in Hunterdon County will be widened to four lanes by 2025 (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2019/10/01/route-31-hunterdon-county-nj-widened-four-lanes-2025/3828887002/)
QuoteThe project will widen the two-lane sections of the main north-south highway in Hunterdon County to four lanes. A lane in each direction will be added to Route 31 from HealthQuest Boulevard to River Road north of Hunterdon Medical Center and from Church Street to East Main Street/Flemington Junction Road by Hunterdon Central Regional High School.
QuoteOnce the project is completed, Route 31 will be four lanes from the Flemington Circle to near Spruce Run Reservoir in Clinton Township.
Given how much the population has grown in the Flemington to Clinton corridor in the last 25-30 years, this will probably be an extremely welcome development for a lot of people in that area. There aren't too many other N-S arterials between those two towns.
Here's the Meeting notice that story came from...
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/Handout1010.pdf
I notice they still refer to I-295 as "I-95" in that handout...
This project's engineer is probably completely unaware of that change! Lol
:-D
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 08:30:48 PM
As has been stated many times on here, the cost of converting the ACE to I-76 would be considerable for not much more benefit than is being attained currently.
I can imagine that upgrading the ACE to interstate standards would also have significant environmental impact, considering it goes straight through the Pinelands. Regardless of cost, there may also be some protected land involved.
Quote from: J3ebrules on October 02, 2019, 08:28:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 08:30:48 PM
As has been stated many times on here, the cost of converting the ACE to I-76 would be considerable for not much more benefit than is being attained currently.
I can imagine that upgrading the ACE to interstate standards would also have significant environmental impact, considering it goes straight through the Pinelands. Regardless of cost, there may also be some protected land involved.
The relatively-recent widening of the Expressway Eastbound took a few extra years in planning due to additional environmental research, even though the majority of the widening occurred in the median of the roadway.
As for an 'interstate standard' Expressway, honestly there isn't much to do. The most significant issues would be raising of the bridge overpasses. Otherwise, lanes, signage, lighting, shoulders, protection, etc are pretty much standard. The intercept lot, gas stations and former visitors center in the median have proper ingress/egress. Any substandard issues should be approved without much issue, or at worst a timeline of when it could be completed.
There's more issues with NJ 42 than with the Expressway in terms of interstate quality.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2019, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on October 02, 2019, 08:28:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 08:30:48 PM
As has been stated many times on here, the cost of converting the ACE to I-76 would be considerable for not much more benefit than is being attained currently.
I can imagine that upgrading the ACE to interstate standards would also have significant environmental impact, considering it goes straight through the Pinelands. Regardless of cost, there may also be some protected land involved.
The relatively-recent widening of the Expressway Eastbound took a few extra years in planning due to additional environmental research, even though the majority of the widening occurred in the median of the roadway.
As for an 'interstate standard' Expressway, honestly there isn't much to do. The most significant issues would be raising of the bridge overpasses. Otherwise, lanes, signage, lighting, shoulders, protection, etc are pretty much standard. The intercept lot, gas stations and former visitors center in the median have proper ingress/egress. Any substandard issues should be approved without much issue, or at worst a timeline of when it could be completed.
There's more issues with NJ 42 than with the Expressway in terms of interstate quality.
There are some underpass bridges with insufficient shoulders on the ACE. (NJ 50,
NJ 54, rail crossing between NJ 73 & 54, Albertson Rd / Rail, NJ 73, and here (https://goo.gl/maps/VNE1jBbV5UU7T1Lp6), and the west end at NJ 42). So I would consider that significant work needed that the SJTA is very unlikely to want to do.
I think NJ 42 is closer to interstate standard than the ACE. I am not aware of it having insufficient shoulders or clearance issues.
Quote from: BrianP on October 02, 2019, 12:25:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2019, 11:43:33 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on October 02, 2019, 08:28:33 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 08:30:48 PM
As has been stated many times on here, the cost of converting the ACE to I-76 would be considerable for not much more benefit than is being attained currently.
I can imagine that upgrading the ACE to interstate standards would also have significant environmental impact, considering it goes straight through the Pinelands. Regardless of cost, there may also be some protected land involved.
The relatively-recent widening of the Expressway Eastbound took a few extra years in planning due to additional environmental research, even though the majority of the widening occurred in the median of the roadway.
As for an 'interstate standard' Expressway, honestly there isn't much to do. The most significant issues would be raising of the bridge overpasses. Otherwise, lanes, signage, lighting, shoulders, protection, etc are pretty much standard. The intercept lot, gas stations and former visitors center in the median have proper ingress/egress. Any substandard issues should be approved without much issue, or at worst a timeline of when it could be completed.
There's more issues with NJ 42 than with the Expressway in terms of interstate quality.
There are some underpass bridges with insufficient shoulders on the ACE. (NJ 50,
NJ 54, rail crossing between NJ 73 & 54, Albertson Rd / Rail, NJ 73, and here (https://goo.gl/maps/VNE1jBbV5UU7T1Lp6), and the west end at NJ 42). So I would consider that significant work needed that the SJTA is very unlikely to want to do.
I think NJ 42 is closer to interstate standard than the ACE. I am not aware of it having insufficient shoulders or clearance issues.
There's some ramp issues, such as very substandard turning radii and accel/decal lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/rhhLecbueFjLgc5z7
https://goo.gl/maps/Ui2azjNCvYeyfpjeA
Some of the older accel/decal lanes are just the width of the shoulder, so they're only 10' wide, including overpasses.
Some of the regular lanes are only 11' wide in places.
The Creek Rd interchange is a right-in/right-out on both sides. Big no no.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 02, 2019, 02:43:39 PM
The Creek Rd interchange is a right-in/right-out on both sides. Big no no.
I think that problem could get rectified by the missing moves project.
http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
The project goes to bid next month.
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/NOTICETOCONTRACTORS_DP19144.pdf
I'm guessing that this is not a design-build contract so the final design of the project is complete. Wish I could see that.
Quote from: BrianP on October 02, 2019, 03:20:35 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 02, 2019, 02:43:39 PM
The Creek Rd interchange is a right-in/right-out on both sides. Big no no.
I think that problem could get rectified by the missing moves project.
http://www.rdvsystems.com/portfolio/i295-missing-moves-nj/
The project goes to bid next month.
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/NOTICETOCONTRACTORS_DP19144.pdf
I'm guessing that this is not a design-build contract so the final design of the project is complete. Wish I could see that.
What do you mean you wish you could see that? You posted the link to it.
Now, I think there were some changes...I don't think the roundabout is part of the final design. But otherwise it's pretty much as shown I believe.
That's what I meant. That probably isn't the final design since that video is four years old. That's more like an intermediate design. The initial design or idea had the ramps more SW of where they propose them to be now. I think it gives a good idea of what it will look like. But they may have made changes due to local feedback. So seeing the final design plans would be nice to see if anything has changed.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 02, 2019, 02:43:39 PM
The Creek Rd interchange is a right-in/right-out on both sides. Big no no.
I-80 has Hainesville Road a RIRO in Knowlton Township. The feds have not said anything yet. That one was left over from when US 611 entered NJ for a brief moment which maybe why it was allowed out of grandfather clause rule.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2019, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 02, 2019, 02:43:39 PM
The Creek Rd interchange is a right-in/right-out on both sides. Big no no.
I-80 has Hainesville Road a RIRO in Knowlton Township. The feds have not said anything yet. That one was left over from when US 611 entered NJ for a brief moment which maybe why it was allowed out of grandfather clause rule.
I-295's Exit 15, 16A & 16B are RIROs as well. Several others from Exits 17 - 22 were eliminated.
Quote from: BrianP on October 03, 2019, 10:34:18 AM
That's what I meant. That probably isn't the final design since that video is four years old. That's more like an intermediate design. The initial design or idea had the ramps more SW of where they propose them to be now. I think it gives a good idea of what it will look like. But they may have made changes due to local feedback. So seeing the final design plans would be nice to see if anything has changed.
Looking back in my pics, on 6/13/18 there was a public meeting where I took pics. If I knew how to load them on here I would! But basically, the only thing I can see different is the roundabout is removed. It appears the RIRO ramps along 42 South are basically the same; if anything, the radii may have been increased ever so slightly.
Since then, I recall seeing somewhere that they are still working with the developer on improving access to the shopping center (that may or may not ever happen). Basically, they would close off the current access from Creek Road to/from 42 South, and extend Leaf Ave to meet further south on Creek Road (closer to where the Lawnmower Parts Store is located along Creek Rd). I don't think I have any pictures of that, and I don't think that's going to be part of this current project.
If you keep an eye on the www.bidx.com website, while the main plans aren't available for public viewing, they will often post updated design plans viewable to the public. However, these are construction plans, not overall designs of the area, so they're a bit hard to read and figure out on occasion!
Quote from: BrianP on October 03, 2019, 10:34:18 AM
That's what I meant. That probably isn't the final design since that video is four years old. That's more like an intermediate design. The initial design or idea had the ramps more SW of where they propose them to be now. I think it gives a good idea of what it will look like. But they may have made changes due to local feedback. So seeing the final design plans would be nice to see if anything has changed.
Figured it out...at least the best you'll find now. www.bidx.com . Go to New Jersey Department of Transportation. Look up Proposal 19144 (find a link to it...any one will do). Look at the Geotech Report and Boring Logs. It's a big file, but downloaded fast for me. If you look and zoom in on page 257, that will probably be the best look at the actual design. Many pages before that contain interesting info, although you will probably need a good idea of the area to understand exactly where they're referring to.
someone in the /r/newjersey reddit posted this beautiful image of the western end of 80 in nj in the water gap from 1965. look at the font on that sign:
(https://preview.redd.it/h5yhzjrcn6t31.jpg?width=1024&auto=webp&s=97e864e5c76104716f99386ebfaaf4ad15afe8d3)
All of those advertisements on the hillside!
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 18, 2019, 04:15:23 PM
All of those advertisements on the hillside!
Exactly my thought! That's a National Recreation Area.
Quote from: Alps on October 20, 2019, 01:23:55 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 18, 2019, 04:15:23 PM
All of those advertisements on the hillside!
Exactly my thought! That's a National Recreation Area.
It is now. It wasn't then, not until after the Tocks Island Dam project was canceled in the '70s. Google "Tocks Island".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Water_Gap_National_Recreation_Area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocks_Island_Dam_controversy
ixnay
Quote from: storm2k on October 18, 2019, 12:55:07 PM
someone in the /r/newjersey reddit posted this beautiful image of the western end of 80 in nj in the water gap from 1965. look at the font on that sign:
(https://preview.redd.it/h5yhzjrcn6t31.jpg?width=1024&auto=webp&s=97e864e5c76104716f99386ebfaaf4ad15afe8d3)
A funky font. Too bad the sign right at the beginning of the deceleration lane is to distant to read.
ixnay
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/12002165__-.pdf
So this is Middlesex CR 2165, one of the new county routes that made it into the Straight Line Diagrams. Apparently the roads in Merrill Park, a county-run park, are now county highways in their own right.
However, the aforementioned route is just a car park (https://goo.gl/maps/Eu8PwJbmfUpARr2K9).
Seems that numbers were randomly assigned to most of those park roads. Middlesex County doesn't appear to keep an actual inventory of park roads with route numbers. Union County by contrast does, they are all 700 series routes. At the end of the day, using the SLDs as a primary data source for county route information shouldn't be trusted. There is still a ton of outdated and incorrect information found within them.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 27, 2019, 10:06:25 PM
Seems that numbers were randomly assigned to most of those park roads. Middlesex County doesn't appear to keep an actual inventory of park roads with route numbers. Union County by contrast does, they are all 700 series routes. At the end of the day, using the SLDs as a primary data source for county route information shouldn't be trusted. There is still a ton of outdated and incorrect information found within them.
WM. Tracey Drive in Mountainside is a 600 series number which is a park road in Union County. Its the main N-S route in the Reservation linking New Providence Road with Glenside Ave. (CR 527).
WR Tracy Dr. (CR-645) and Summit Ln. (CR-642) are both part of longer thru routes that extend beyond the park.
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on October 27, 2019, 08:34:05 PM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/12002165__-.pdf
So this is Middlesex CR 2165, one of the new county routes that made it into the Straight Line Diagrams. Apparently the roads in Merrill Park, a county-run park, are now county highways in their own right.
However, the aforementioned route is just a car park (https://goo.gl/maps/Eu8PwJbmfUpARr2K9).
I see a host of 2100 routes on that SLD that I know are not 2100 routes.
For all of you who are interested, here's a list of all county routes in Bergen County signed with pentagons:
CR 4 (W Oakland Ave) and I-287 NB exit/entrance ramp
CR 7 (Sheridan Ave) and E Prospect St
CR 12 (Market St) and CR 507 (River Rd)
CR 17 (River Rd) and Northumberland Rd
CR 17 (River Rd) and NJ-4 EB exit/entrance ramp
CR 29 (Linwood Ave) and US-9W
CR 48 (Fairview Ave) and US-1-9
CR 55 (Polifly Rd) and I-80 WB exit ramp
CR 62 (Paramus Rd) and Red Mill Rd
CR 65 (Terrace Ave) and NJ-17 SB entrance ramp
CR 65 (Westminster Pl) and US-46
CR 67 (Midland Ave) and NJ-4 (Broadway)
CR 75 (E Saddle River Rd) and E Glen Ave
CR 76 (Fair Lawn Ave) and NJ-208 EB exit ramp
CR 79 (Saddle River Rd) and Red Mill Rd
CR 82 (E Glen Ave) and E Saddle River Rd
CR 124 (Bergen Tpk) and US-46
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 22, 2019, 03:37:18 PM
For all of you who are interested, here's a list of all county routes in Bergen County signed with pentagons:
CR 4 (W Oakland Ave) and I-287 NB exit/entrance ramp
CR 7 (Sheridan Ave) and E Prospect St
CR 12 (Market St) and CR 507 (River Rd)
CR 17 (River Rd) and Northumberland Rd
CR 17 (River Rd) and NJ-4 EB exit/entrance ramp
CR 29 (Linwood Ave) and US-9W
CR 48 (Fairview Ave) and US-1-9
CR 55 (Polifly Rd) and I-80 WB exit ramp
CR 62 (Paramus Rd) and Red Mill Rd
CR 65 (Terrace Ave) and NJ-17 SB entrance ramp
CR 65 (Westminster Pl) and US-46
CR 67 (Midland Ave) and NJ-4 (Broadway)
CR 75 (E Saddle River Rd) and E Glen Ave
CR 76 (Fair Lawn Ave) and NJ-208 EB exit ramp
CR 79 (Saddle River Rd) and Red Mill Rd
CR 82 (E Glen Ave) and E Saddle River Rd
CR 124 (Bergen Tpk) and US-46
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_60/wpent.jpg)
CR 5/69 signed as CR 5 by Passaic County on the Bergen/Passaic line in Glen Rock (https://goo.gl/maps/yMLxpsPh7Xi5B5v39).
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 05:46:18 AM
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Nah. I know Camden County has numerous white shields. On some roads they may be combined with 5 sided shields, but they still have a lot of the older shields down there.
Somewhat random question with no major urgency: Which route is better between I-78 west of Newark Airport and the Holland Tunnel, or vice versa–the Turnpike Extension or the Pulaski Skyway? At some point I want to use the Turnpike Extension to complete the clinch of I-78 (all I'm missing is east of Exit 14A to the route's end in New York), but other than that I was wondering which is better or "less bad" in terms of travel time on a typical day.
I was driving on NJ 173 EB between I-78 Exit 7 and NJ 31 on Friday night. I've clinched 173 several times before, so I know it joins I-78 between exits 13 and 15. But I second-guessed myself because I am more familiar with WB -- the East 173 signs actually take you to the Clinton Station Diner. The right turn before the Diner that East 173 should use to cross over I-78 is not signed for 173 East, just I-78. Once you turn onto the bridge, there is a 173 East sign directing you to take I-78 East.
Why does the signage for East 173 continue to the Clinton Station Diner?
I'm also assuming this has something to do with why Google is very confused and thinks 173 uses Village Rd (a private road) instead of I-78.
Quote from: sbeaver44 on December 23, 2019, 09:02:32 AM
I was driving on NJ 173 EB between I-78 Exit 7 and NJ 31 on Friday night. I've clinched 173 several times before, so I know it joins I-78 between exits 13 and 15. But I second-guessed myself because I am more familiar with WB -- the East 173 signs actually take you to the Clinton Station Diner. The right turn before the Diner that East 173 should use to cross over I-78 is not signed for 173 East, just I-78. Once you turn onto the bridge, there is a 173 East sign directing you to take I-78 East.
Why does the signage for East 173 continue to the Clinton Station Diner?
I'm also assuming this has something to do with why Google is very confused and thinks 173 uses Village Rd (a private road) instead of I-78.
Probably for the same reason why US 58 is hardly signed in Virginia Beach and why US 64 is not signed in AR along I-49 in the NW AR metro area. People overlook and if no one complains, engineers will not fix the issue.
Try writing to NJDOT as I have in the past and received responses and action done like the NJ 94 North mileage sign on NJ 94 on the curve above I-80 in Columbia. I got them to move that sign to a safer place.
With email now, you should have no problem.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 23, 2019, 07:53:40 AM
Somewhat random question with no major urgency: Which route is better between I-78 west of Newark Airport and the Holland Tunnel, or vice versa–the Turnpike Extension or the Pulaski Skyway? At some point I want to use the Turnpike Extension to complete the clinch of I-78 (all I'm missing is east of Exit 14A to the route's end in New York), but other than that I was wondering which is better or "less bad" in terms of travel time on a typical day.
Depends on the day, honestly. If there's an accident on one, but not the other, volume on Tonnelle Ave which will back up the Skyway, issues near the toll plaza at 14C, volume exiting at 14A which is a major cause of NBHCE backups, all of it can make one route or the other vastly faster to get to the Holland. I generally stick with the Skyway when I can, I've always found better luck in terms of fewer backups and it saves a toll to boot.
Quote from: storm2k on December 23, 2019, 10:35:45 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 23, 2019, 07:53:40 AM
Somewhat random question with no major urgency: Which route is better between I-78 west of Newark Airport and the Holland Tunnel, or vice versa—the Turnpike Extension or the Pulaski Skyway? At some point I want to use the Turnpike Extension to complete the clinch of I-78 (all I’m missing is east of Exit 14A to the route’s end in New York), but other than that I was wondering which is better or “less bad” in terms of travel time on a typical day.
Depends on the day, honestly. If there's an accident on one, but not the other, volume on Tonnelle Ave which will back up the Skyway, issues near the toll plaza at 14C, volume exiting at 14A which is a major cause of NBHCE backups, all of it can make one route or the other vastly faster to get to the Holland. I generally stick with the Skyway when I can, I've always found better luck in terms of fewer backups and it saves a toll to boot.
To note both have the same number of signals after they end. I think Waze might tell you at the time which is the better route to take as conditions do prevail and change like the weather and time of day.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2019, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 05:46:18 AM
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Nah. I know Camden County has numerous white shields. On some roads they may be combined with 5 sided shields, but they still have a lot of the older shields down there.
Can you link for us an example from GSV?
ixnay
Quote from: sbeaver44 on December 23, 2019, 09:02:32 AM
I was driving on NJ 173 EB between I-78 Exit 7 and NJ 31 on Friday night. I've clinched 173 several times before, so I know it joins I-78 between exits 13 and 15. But I second-guessed myself because I am more familiar with WB -- the East 173 signs actually take you to the Clinton Station Diner. The right turn before the Diner that East 173 should use to cross over I-78 is not signed for 173 East, just I-78. Once you turn onto the bridge, there is a 173 East sign directing you to take I-78 East.
Why does the signage for East 173 continue to the Clinton Station Diner?
I'm also assuming this has something to do with why Google is very confused and thinks 173 uses Village Rd (a private road) instead of I-78.
Checked the Straight Line Diagrams... but it appears that the piece that continues on the north side of 78 is actually 173Z (WB only). So signage is incorrect. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000173Z_-.pdf https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000173__-.pdf
Quote from: storm2k on December 23, 2019, 10:35:45 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 23, 2019, 07:53:40 AM
Somewhat random question with no major urgency: Which route is better between I-78 west of Newark Airport and the Holland Tunnel, or vice versa–the Turnpike Extension or the Pulaski Skyway? At some point I want to use the Turnpike Extension to complete the clinch of I-78 (all I'm missing is east of Exit 14A to the route's end in New York), but other than that I was wondering which is better or "less bad" in terms of travel time on a typical day.
Depends on the day, honestly. If there's an accident on one, but not the other, volume on Tonnelle Ave which will back up the Skyway, issues near the toll plaza at 14C, volume exiting at 14A which is a major cause of NBHCE backups, all of it can make one route or the other vastly faster to get to the Holland. I generally stick with the Skyway when I can, I've always found better luck in terms of fewer backups and it saves a toll to boot.
During morning rush hour, Turnpike is usually better based on traffic reports. Otherwise, it's
generally better due to construction along the general 1&9/139 corridor, but not always.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2019, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 05:46:18 AM
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Nah. I know Camden County has numerous white shields. On some roads they may be combined with 5 sided shields, but they still have a lot of the older shields down there.
Bergen has more left than you'd think, actually. I've seen a lot of Camden's disappearing but Bergen's are hanging on longer. Just drove CR 6 and it had a solid half dozen.
PSA to visitors to Bergen County, NJ:
Don't go pentagon hunting for 600 routes. You won't find any. (OK, you might find some mounted overhead on or near state routes, but that's all.)
PSA for visitors to Hudson County, NJ:
Don't go pentagon hunting at all. You won't find a single one.
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 02, 2019, 02:43:39 PM
The Creek Rd interchange is a right-in/right-out on both sides. Big no no.
Exit 16B and 18 on I-295
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 02, 2019, 02:43:39 PM
The Creek Rd interchange is a right-in/right-out on both sides. Big no no.
Certainly not up to modern interstate standards, but it's also not an interstate. Also, they're relocating the RIRO on 42 North; it'll still be similar to a RIRO but with much longer approach/storage areas.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 24, 2019, 08:10:05 AM
Exit 16B and 18 on I-295
Exit 18 is a regular interchange. There's a RIRO on the Northbound ramp for Exit 18, but that's on/off the ramp so no issues there.
Exits 15, 16A and 16B are the remaining RIROs on 295 in that area. During a reconstruction project several years ago, they at least lengthened the acceleration/deceleration lanes.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 24, 2019, 08:07:54 AM
PSA for visitors to Hudson County, NJ:
Don't go pentagon hunting at all. You won't find a single one.
Wrong. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7468208,-74.0961545,3a,32.8y,286.91h,97.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-ZaMnzcDlzIPX4BgdyqwbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: Alps on December 24, 2019, 12:45:25 AM
Quote from: sbeaver44 on December 23, 2019, 09:02:32 AM
I was driving on NJ 173 EB between I-78 Exit 7 and NJ 31 on Friday night. I've clinched 173 several times before, so I know it joins I-78 between exits 13 and 15. But I second-guessed myself because I am more familiar with WB -- the East 173 signs actually take you to the Clinton Station Diner. The right turn before the Diner that East 173 should use to cross over I-78 is not signed for 173 East, just I-78. Once you turn onto the bridge, there is a 173 East sign directing you to take I-78 East.
Why does the signage for East 173 continue to the Clinton Station Diner?
I'm also assuming this has something to do with why Google is very confused and thinks 173 uses Village Rd (a private road) instead of I-78.
Checked the Straight Line Diagrams... but it appears that the piece that continues on the north side of 78 is actually 173Z (WB only). So signage is incorrect. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000173Z_-.pdf https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000173__-.pdf
Thanks! Very interesting. I forgot NJ has great SLDs.
Why is Exit 1 on I-280 signed for Edwards Road. Being that road only dumps you out on Route 46 EB where New Road is more direct (and quicker) to US 46. Plus Edwards is the side road as the ramp leads to New Road.
Another thing that Ridgedale Avenue never got mentioned ever for that. New Road was added when ( I presume when NJDOT made that interchange a full access) but not Ridgedale which is a major road as it heads into East Hanover and Florham Park.
Not that I am nit picking, but that sign on I-280 even in the 80's was always striking me odd then, but not enough to warrant a major complaint like some on here, but always curious.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 24, 2019, 05:10:22 PM
Why is Exit 1 on I-280 signed for Edwards Road. Being that road only dumps you out on Route 46 EB where New Road is more direct (and quicker) to US 46. Plus Edwards is the side road as the ramp leads to New Road.
Another thing that Ridgedale Avenue never got mentioned ever for that. New Road was added when ( I presume when NJDOT made that interchange a full access) but not Ridgedale which is a major road as it heads into East Hanover and Florham Park.
Not that I am nit picking, but that sign on I-280 even in the 80's was always striking me odd then, but not enough to warrant a major complaint like some on here, but always curious.
I have lived in Parsippany all my life! The old sign was replaced years ago. Going west the sign reads "To 46 Edwards Road New Road." Eastbound signs say the same but omit the "To 46.". I agree that the old sign for New Road only was incorrect and I even said so on my website since my old office was right on New Road. I think the signs are OK as is, but how about a supplemental BGS "Ridgedale Ave. East Hanover, Florham Park - Use Exit 1."
Quote from: artmalk on December 24, 2019, 07:28:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 24, 2019, 05:10:22 PM
Why is Exit 1 on I-280 signed for Edwards Road. Being that road only dumps you out on Route 46 EB where New Road is more direct (and quicker) to US 46. Plus Edwards is the side road as the ramp leads to New Road.
Another thing that Ridgedale Avenue never got mentioned ever for that. New Road was added when ( I presume when NJDOT made that interchange a full access) but not Ridgedale which is a major road as it heads into East Hanover and Florham Park.
Not that I am nit picking, but that sign on I-280 even in the 80's was always striking me odd then, but not enough to warrant a major complaint like some on here, but always curious.
Yes that would work too.
I have lived in Parsippany all my life! The old sign was replaced years ago. Going west the sign reads "To 46 Edwards Road New Road." Eastbound signs say the same but omit the "To 46.". I agree that the old sign for New Road only was incorrect and I even said so on my website since my old office was right on New Road. I think the signs are OK as is, but how about a supplemental BGS "Ridgedale Ave. East Hanover, Florham Park - Use Exit 1."
Yes that would work well as Rigdedale is a busy road and worthy of being published.
Also does anybody here remember when Ocean Grove in Monmouth County did not allow cars to be driven on Sunday? I am guessing that had to with the religious group that ran the community from Neptune who is the municipal government for that which is located in its township limits.
Ocean Grove and the religious group (The Ocean Grove Campmeeting Association) that ran it had incredible power back then. The New York and Long Branch Railroad, now the North Jersey Coast Line, would not allow Sunday service within the Asbury Park limits. (Asbury Park station was Asbury Park-Ocean Grove for a long time.) First the railroad got them to relent to stop at North Asbury Park station then finally in 1911, they released power to stopping at AP-OG station. They owned the land the station was on until 1912 when they gave it up.
The Ocean Grove Campmeeting Association, which had that ban, lost a court ruling in the State Supreme Court that they'd have to allow driving on their roads as of June 24, 1979. Despite that, Neptune would enforce an ordinance banning parking anywhere on Sundays. A year later, that was killed in a court of law. Of course, the Campmeetings Association claimed that they were doing it to prevent people doing mechanical work in the street.
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2019, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 05:46:18 AM
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Nah. I know Camden County has numerous white shields. On some roads they may be combined with 5 sided shields, but they still have a lot of the older shields down there.
Can you link for us an example from GSV?
ixnay
CR 543 / Kings Highway (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8980667,-75.0319493,3a,75y,284.14h,64.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQJfCReuqi_tmm3gBbGY_DQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Haddonfield, for one.
Quote from: odditude on December 25, 2019, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2019, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 05:46:18 AM
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Nah. I know Camden County has numerous white shields. On some roads they may be combined with 5 sided shields, but they still have a lot of the older shields down there.
Can you link for us an example from GSV?
ixnay
CR 543 / Kings Highway (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8980667,-75.0319493,3a,75y,284.14h,64.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQJfCReuqi_tmm3gBbGY_DQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Haddonfield, for one.
Wow. And if you rotate 180 degrees, you'll see the nice white blade for Haddon Ave/CR 561.
Multiplexed in that stretch with "Temporary" NJ 41, at least in July 2018. Did this signage have anything to do with the conversion of the Ellisburg Circle into jughandles (with NJDOT forgetting to retrieve the NJ 41 markings)?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on December 25, 2019, 07:01:13 PM
Quote from: odditude on December 25, 2019, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2019, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 05:46:18 AM
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Nah. I know Camden County has numerous white shields. On some roads they may be combined with 5 sided shields, but they still have a lot of the older shields down there.
Can you link for us an example from GSV?
ixnay
CR 543 / Kings Highway (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8980667,-75.0319493,3a,75y,284.14h,64.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQJfCReuqi_tmm3gBbGY_DQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Haddonfield, for one.
Wow. And if you rotate 180 degrees, you'll see the nice white blade for Haddon Ave/CR 561.
Multiplexed in that stretch with "Temporary" NJ 41, at least in July 2018. Did this signage have anything to do with the conversion of the Ellisburg Circle into jughandles (with NJDOT forgetting to retrieve the NJ 41 markings)?
ixnay
Temporary 41? It was signed that way when they were starting to build what's now 154 (Brace Rd.). Once they realized that would never be completed, they left Temporary 41 on CR 573 and gradually turned it into regular 41. (You won't even find 573 in the SLDs anymore.)
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2019, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 05:46:18 AM
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Nah. I know Camden County has numerous white shields. On some roads they may be combined with 5 sided shields, but they still have a lot of the older shields down there.
Can you link for us an example from GSV?
ixnay
Apologies for the delay.
A few more:
https://goo.gl/maps/UUwzQcTSFn17xYd56
https://goo.gl/maps/prACudgqk7JdZrMX7
https://goo.gl/maps/Rw2NYSvYbxMVWpx68
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2019, 10:47:14 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2019, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 05:46:18 AM
I imagine you can count the number of white, (almost) square NJ county road shields still deployed on one's hands. I vaguely remember them.
ixnay
Nah. I know Camden County has numerous white shields. On some roads they may be combined with 5 sided shields, but they still have a lot of the older shields down there.
Can you link for us an example from GSV?
ixnay
Apologies for the delay.
A few more:
https://goo.gl/maps/UUwzQcTSFn17xYd56
https://goo.gl/maps/prACudgqk7JdZrMX7
https://goo.gl/maps/Rw2NYSvYbxMVWpx68
No problem.
As for the old gen shields, as long as we can read them, more power to the signing authorities. :)
ixnay
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20191223_151200_2019-12-23_NJDOT_Announces_511NJConnect_Stranded_Motorist_Alert_System.pdf
NJDOT will send text alerts to anyone in a specific area in which the roadway they are on is closed ahead and may not open for a period of time. Per the press-release, the initial message is automatic; after that to continue receiving messages they can opt-in. This is a per-incident service; once the incident is cleared they won't receive additional text messages. This appears to pertain to extended closures; motorists standing still due to expected short closures related to construction or crash where the roadway will open up relatively quickly probably won't receive any notifications.
Quote from: Alps on December 24, 2019, 12:46:05 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 23, 2019, 10:35:45 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 23, 2019, 07:53:40 AM
Somewhat random question with no major urgency: Which route is better between I-78 west of Newark Airport and the Holland Tunnel, or vice versa–the Turnpike Extension or the Pulaski Skyway? At some point I want to use the Turnpike Extension to complete the clinch of I-78 (all I'm missing is east of Exit 14A to the route's end in New York), but other than that I was wondering which is better or "less bad" in terms of travel time on a typical day.
Depends on the day, honestly. If there's an accident on one, but not the other, volume on Tonnelle Ave which will back up the Skyway, issues near the toll plaza at 14C, volume exiting at 14A which is a major cause of NBHCE backups, all of it can make one route or the other vastly faster to get to the Holland. I generally stick with the Skyway when I can, I've always found better luck in terms of fewer backups and it saves a toll to boot.
During morning rush hour, Turnpike is usually better based on traffic reports. Otherwise, it's generally better due to construction along the general 1&9/139 corridor, but not always.
It sometimes seems that every NYC traffic report ends with "Turnpike Extension better than 1&9"
Another neat old road-related photo from the annals of Reddit:
(https://i.redd.it/kt7mjosk8a941.jpg)
source (https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/el64u9/albany_street_new_brunswick_circa_1974/)
Oh yes I remember the East and West signing of Route 18. Plus the floressant lights on Albany Street.
Ok, I was super proud of myself for recognizing New Brunswick (even though it's 18 and super obvious), but did the poster mention the year?
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 07, 2020, 09:07:07 PM
Another neat old road-related photo from the annals of Reddit:
(https://i.redd.it/kt7mjosk8a941.jpg)
source (https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/el64u9/albany_street_new_brunswick_circa_1974/)
So that was a weird circle like thing the predates the northern part of Rt 18 that was built in the late 50s looking at historic aerials. Very interesting.
Coming up in a little more than a week from today will be the next installment in my new "Virtual Tour" series. We're back in the Garden State, this time focusing on a more leisurely-paced guide to Ocean Drive, one of the state's most scenic coastal routes.
Coverage kicks off on 1/18 at 5 PM ET - we certainly hope to see you there; just like last time, there will be several members of the AARoads.com forum community on hand to co-host this event with me and take your questions along the way!
A link to the Live Stream location is provided here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUfLZMIj15I
Visiting the classic Rosemont Raven Rock Bridge, a truss bridge built in 1878 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. It still allows vehicular traffic today.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/rosemont-raven-rock-bridge-over.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/rosemont-raven-rock-bridge-over.html)
Quote from: Dougtone on January 10, 2020, 06:22:49 AM
Visiting the classic Rosemont Raven Rock Bridge, a truss bridge built in 1878 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. It still allows vehicular traffic today.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/rosemont-raven-rock-bridge-over.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/01/rosemont-raven-rock-bridge-over.html)
I've never heard the word Rosemont used with that bridge.
Is it just me or does Google Maps butcher the directions at the New NJTP exit 8 interchange with Rt 33 and Rt 133?
When coming Westbound on NJ 33 to enter the turnpike GM tells motorists to use the left 2 lanes to the entrance ramp to New Jersey 133 West. Only problem is even though it is technically NJ 133, it is signed only as the NJ Turnpike because this is the only place you can go when entering NJ 133 West from NJ 33. Shouldn't directions reference the Turnpike, either outright or reference NJ 133 West toward the NJ Turnpike.
And the directions for accessing Rt 33 from NJ 133 West say "Take the Milford Rd West exit toward Twin Rivers East/East Windsor West" The sign on NJ 133 West does mention Milford road "NJ 33 to Milford Road" neither Twin Rivers or East Windsor gets mentioned (Freehold and Hightstown are the control cities). It is a bit of a odd tongue twister the Milford Road West exit to Twin Rivers East/East Winsdor West, interesting but confusing not as bad as the NJTP/NJ133 West issue but at best sloppy.
I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, but I go Rt 33 West to the NJ Turnpike North atleast every week and it is constantly reminding me how bad Google maps can be.
Quote from: jerseyguy on January 21, 2020, 05:00:10 AM
Is it just me or does Google Maps butcher the directions at the New NJTP exit 8 interchange with Rt 33 and Rt 133?
When coming Westbound on NJ 33 to enter the turnpike GM tells motorists to use the left 2 lanes to the entrance ramp to New Jersey 133 West. Only problem is even though it is technically NJ 133, it is signed only as the NJ Turnpike because this is the only place you can go when entering NJ 133 West from NJ 33. Shouldn't directions reference the Turnpike, either outright or reference NJ 133 West toward the NJ Turnpike.
And the directions for accessing Rt 33 from NJ 133 West say "Take the Milford Rd West exit toward Twin Rivers East/East Windsor West" The sign on NJ 133 West does mention Milford road "NJ 33 to Milford Road" neither Twin Rivers or East Windsor gets mentioned (Freehold and Hightstown are the control cities). It is a bit of a odd tongue twister the Milford Road West exit to Twin Rivers East/East Winsdor West, interesting but confusing not as bad as the NJTP/NJ133 West issue but at best sloppy.
I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, but I go Rt 33 West to the NJ Turnpike North atleast every week and it is constantly reminding me how bad Google maps can be.
Have you clicked on "Send Feedback" to Google Maps? The app is only as good as the users that notify them of issues.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 21, 2020, 07:02:01 AM
Have you clicked on "Send Feedback" to Google Maps? The app is only as good as the users that notify them of issues.
Yes, I have and 2 months later, I havent heard anything (well except the automated email that happens 3 seconds after the submission) I fixed another problem where a section of a road didn't exist by reporting it in Waze, Waze fixed it within 10 days and at some point Google Maps was fixed too. Google owns Waze. Guess I'll have to see if I can fix this that way
I wonder any photos survive of eastern I-280 when it was still signed as NJ-58.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 22, 2020, 07:10:44 AM
I wonder any photos survive of eastern I-280 when it was still signed as NJ-58.
I do not know that one, but I do know that the Broad Street ramp to I-280 E Bound for a long period into the mid 80's was still signed in text "NJ 58 EAST- HARRISON- JERSEY CITY". I do not know when the signs were updated, but I think the NJ 58 mention was eliminated. Probably the same time NJDOT finally put I-280 shields on NJ 21 which took into the 90's to accomplish when that part was open as I-280 back in the mid 70's.
Quote from: Alps on December 23, 2019, 12:20:28 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 22, 2019, 03:37:18 PM
For all of you who are interested, here's a list of all county routes in Bergen County signed with pentagons:
CR 4 (W Oakland Ave) and I-287 NB exit/entrance ramp
CR 7 (Sheridan Ave) and E Prospect St
CR 12 (Market St) and CR 507 (River Rd)
CR 17 (River Rd) and Northumberland Rd
CR 17 (River Rd) and NJ-4 EB exit/entrance ramp
CR 29 (Linwood Ave) and US-9W
CR 48 (Fairview Ave) and US-1-9
CR 55 (Polifly Rd) and I-80 WB exit ramp
CR 62 (Paramus Rd) and Red Mill Rd
CR 65 (Terrace Ave) and NJ-17 SB entrance ramp
CR 65 (Westminster Pl) and US-46
CR 67 (Midland Ave) and NJ-4 (Broadway)
CR 75 (E Saddle River Rd) and E Glen Ave
CR 76 (Fair Lawn Ave) and NJ-208 EB exit ramp
CR 79 (Saddle River Rd) and Red Mill Rd
CR 82 (E Glen Ave) and E Saddle River Rd
CR 124 (Bergen Tpk) and US-46
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_60/wpent.jpg)
Well, well, well. Look what we have here. (This used to be a state route, by the way.) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8027324,-74.1229154,3a,75y,251.46h,120.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sd3pCaLkHXKk-bRidE59pGw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dd3pCaLkHXKk-bRidE59pGw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D165.74763%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656)
And here. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7979907,-74.1264107,3a,75y,227.5h,100.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1elbD2cnmUnJ_IOC-AOVPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Traffic light overhead signs posted by NJDOT don't count. Find one besides that CR-60 shield that Bergen County DPW posted elsewhere in the county.
So I've noticed that NJDOT has spread the use of shields with no backplates to LGS's and also to the street sign name blades they use on NJDOT issue traffic lights.
This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5811165,-74.6187484,3a,50.4y,24.73h,87.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0DvPoh1rqrNCOgHUw3Yg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the entrance to 22EB from Mountain Ave in Somerville was replaced recently and has a shield with no backplate. Also, this traffic light (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5536354,-74.2822637,3a,75y,66.43h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNFtPFODs7CfsLZVWMptOaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the intersection of 35 and CR514 in Woodbridge got a new street sign blade and the 35 shield does not have a backplate, even though the light across the street (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5536079,-74.2827114,3a,46.2y,53.74h,95.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRSgi6gWFBMgSlmwj-R1UDQ!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) does (that sign was installed in the 2011-12 timeframe).
Quote from: storm2k on February 04, 2020, 04:40:55 PM
So I've noticed that NJDOT has spread the use of shields with no backplates to LGS's and also to the street sign name blades they use on NJDOT issue traffic lights.
This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5811165,-74.6187484,3a,50.4y,24.73h,87.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0DvPoh1rqrNCOgHUw3Yg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the entrance to 22EB from Mountain Ave in Somerville was replaced recently and has a shield with no backplate. Also, this traffic light (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5536354,-74.2822637,3a,75y,66.43h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNFtPFODs7CfsLZVWMptOaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the intersection of 35 and CR514 in Woodbridge got a new street sign blade and the 35 shield does not have a backplate, even though the light across the street (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5536079,-74.2827114,3a,46.2y,53.74h,95.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRSgi6gWFBMgSlmwj-R1UDQ!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) does (that sign was installed in the 2011-12 timeframe).
Ideally every new sign will have it. That is the new standard.
Quote from: storm2k on February 04, 2020, 04:40:55 PM
So I've noticed that NJDOT has spread the use of shields with no backplates to LGS's and also to the street sign name blades they use on NJDOT issue traffic lights.
This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5811165,-74.6187484,3a,50.4y,24.73h,87.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sby0DvPoh1rqrNCOgHUw3Yg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the entrance to 22EB from Mountain Ave in Somerville was replaced recently and has a shield with no backplate. Also, this traffic light (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5536354,-74.2822637,3a,75y,66.43h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNFtPFODs7CfsLZVWMptOaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at the intersection of 35 and CR514 in Woodbridge got a new street sign blade and the 35 shield does not have a backplate, even though the light across the street (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5536079,-74.2827114,3a,46.2y,53.74h,95.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRSgi6gWFBMgSlmwj-R1UDQ!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) does (that sign was installed in the 2011-12 timeframe).
You mean those black squares behind US and state route shields that began disappearing from BGSes a few years ago?
What is up with the underlying that NJDOT used to do on guide signs for street names? Remember how all streets were underlined in text while the control cities were beneath them? I noticed that was a jersey thing, however Michigan underlines cardinal directions on some freeway guides, but no place else I have ever seen proper street names underscored outside the Garden State.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2020, 09:16:19 PM
What is up with the underlying that NJDOT used to do on guide signs for street names? Remember how all streets were underlined in text while the control cities were beneath them? I noticed that was a jersey thing, however Michigan underlines cardinal directions on some freeway guides, but no place else I have ever seen proper street names underscored outside the Garden State.
I have only ever seen that in isolated locations on 17 and 4.
Probably just the relatively randomness of NJDOT. I'm sure I've seen some myself, but I guess most of them simply show the street name displayed above a destination municipality. In the 3rd example below, Market Street should be separated from the two towns shown as it's Market Street for both directions.
https://goo.gl/maps/kg4EHKDN8b7p4Ut49
https://goo.gl/maps/VSWRtHf4pLt5WDj9A
https://goo.gl/maps/MySzsZo1wK1Jx9jq7
Hey guys, I've never been to New Jersey/New York area but I will be traveling through there here in a few weeks and was wondering if there were any roads I should avoid currently? I am traveling from Indiana to the South of Brooklyn.
Quote from: royo6022 on February 13, 2020, 08:50:16 AM
Hey guys, I've never been to New Jersey/New York area but I will be traveling through there here in a few weeks and was wondering if there were any roads I should avoid currently? I am traveling from Indiana to the South of Brooklyn.
What route you planning on taking? It would appear I-80 would be your most likely option.
No real issues. Time of day and/or weather may be a factor regarding congestion. Google Maps/Waze or your GPS unit will be your friend in case something pops up.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2020, 08:31:45 AM
Probably just the relatively randomness of NJDOT. I'm sure I've seen some myself, but I guess most of them simply show the street name displayed above a destination municipality. In the 3rd example below, Market Street should be separated from the two towns shown as it's Market Street for both directions.
https://goo.gl/maps/kg4EHKDN8b7p4Ut49
https://goo.gl/maps/VSWRtHf4pLt5WDj9A
https://goo.gl/maps/MySzsZo1wK1Jx9jq7
https://goo.gl/maps/fpSvfA1U4XPYY54WA
These here on US 22 in North Jersey are one of many all about NJ at one time.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 17, 2020, 11:46:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2020, 08:31:45 AM
Probably just the relatively randomness of NJDOT. I'm sure I've seen some myself, but I guess most of them simply show the street name displayed above a destination municipality. In the 3rd example below, Market Street should be separated from the two towns shown as it's Market Street for both directions.
https://goo.gl/maps/kg4EHKDN8b7p4Ut49
https://goo.gl/maps/VSWRtHf4pLt5WDj9A
https://goo.gl/maps/MySzsZo1wK1Jx9jq7
https://goo.gl/maps/fpSvfA1U4XPYY54WA
These here on US 22 in North Jersey are one of many all about NJ at one time.
I personally like this style and wish the state would use it more. I wish they would have put the CR529 shield on the sign properly. I feel that this matters in a lot of places within NJ, because plenty of roads are more known by their local names and not their route numbers. I would bet most people would never know Easton Ave's route number if you asked them. It's always been referred to as Easton Ave, even though it's clearly signed as CR527 throughout.
Do people yet call Route 495 as such or do they still refer to it as Route 3?
NJ folks are as funny as those in MA who won't accept MA 128 as I-95 at times. Even traffic reports were calling Route 139 as One and Nine and if the tunnel backed up it would be "The One and Nine approach to the Holland Tunnel is a mess" and that was long after the Business routes got cancelled. I heard it changed now since I left, but I bet many still thing I-78 ends at the Turnpike and have no clue it goes with the Newark Bay Extension and through the Tunnel into Manhattan.
Yes the underscore I like and yes CR 529 should be in the sign itself. I wish too that I-78 would have more shields from Route 22 though as many roads between the two exist and if Route 78 were the Parkway and Turnpike it would be signed too well along Route 22. Seems toll roads get shields everywhere for some reason, but nearby interstates do not.
In Springfield along NJ 124 lacks a ramp to I-78 E Bound due to the cancelled I-278 that would have tied in there, but at Vauxhall Road you think that NJDOT would sign a TO I-78 East shield there to compensate. No! If it were me I would sign a TO I-78 Shield on EB NJ 124 at the ramp to WB I-78 and again at Vauxhall. Going WB I-78 East would have a TO shield at Vauxhall as well. I would even sign a TO I-78 EAST assembly along NJ 82 at Liberty Avenue to direct motorists to EB 78 from NJ 124 where I-78 WEST is plentiful signed.
NJ has many good signing practices even though many places could see improvement like regular mileage signs on its interstates instead of small all caps signs denoting townships not on the map as the control cities. Ewing for I-295 N Bound sucks as well as Solebury, PA on US 202 SB in Raritan. I think New Hope would better fit in the latter as more people heard of New Hope as no one has ever heard of Solebury, PA including map publishers.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 18, 2020, 01:02:32 PM
Do people yet call Route 495 as such or do they still refer to it as Route 3?
NJ folks are as funny as those in MA who won't accept MA 128 as I-95 at times. Even traffic reports were calling Route 139 as One and Nine and if the tunnel backed up it would be "The One and Nine approach to the Holland Tunnel is a mess" and that was long after the Business routes got cancelled. I heard it changed now since I left, but I bet many still thing I-78 ends at the Turnpike and have no clue it goes with the Newark Bay Extension and through the Tunnel into Manhattan.
Yes the underscore I like and yes CR 529 should be in the sign itself. I wish too that I-78 would have more shields from Route 22 though as many roads between the two exist and if Route 78 were the Parkway and Turnpike it would be signed too well along Route 22. Seems toll roads get shields everywhere for some reason, but nearby interstates do not.
In Springfield along NJ 124 lacks a ramp to I-78 E Bound due to the cancelled I-278 that would have tied in there, but at Vauxhall Road you think that NJDOT would sign a TO I-78 East shield there to compensate. No! If it were me I would sign a TO I-78 Shield on EB NJ 124 at the ramp to WB I-78 and again at Vauxhall. Going WB I-78 East would have a TO shield at Vauxhall as well. I would even sign a TO I-78 EAST assembly along NJ 82 at Liberty Avenue to direct motorists to EB 78 from NJ 124 where I-78 WEST is plentiful signed.
NJ has many good signing practices even though many places could see improvement like regular mileage signs on its interstates instead of small all caps signs denoting townships not on the map as the control cities. Ewing for I-295 N Bound sucks as well as Solebury, PA on US 202 SB in Raritan. I think New Hope would better fit in the latter as more people heard of New Hope as no one has ever heard of Solebury, PA including map publishers.
They're better at actually signing NJ139 these days, but you'll still hear the traffic shorthand as "the 1-9 approach". For the Lincoln, I think most people think of it as 495 at this point but there are always going to be old heads who call it the Route 3 approach.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 18, 2020, 01:02:32 PM
Do people yet call Route 495 as such or do they still refer to it as Route 3?
Yeah in my experience people typically call that stretch either "495" or "the Lincoln Tunnel Approach" (or just "the Helix" for the immediate tunnel approach). Never heard it called "3".
Well I am now glad that under the new signage the NJTA finally got it right and is now signed NJ 495 at 16E and 17 on the Turnpike after 5 decades of just using NJ 3 on the guides for those exits.
Quote from: royo6022 on February 13, 2020, 08:50:16 AM
Hey guys, I've never been to New Jersey/New York area but I will be traveling through there here in a few weeks and was wondering if there were any roads I should avoid currently? I am traveling from Indiana to the South of Brooklyn.
Avoid 80/95 into the GWB. Also, 80/95 doesn't really exist but people believe it has. Stay off the Cross Bronx, but don't *get off* the Cross Bronx. The Holland Tunnel backs up at all hours. The Lincoln dumps you into uncountable traffic points afterward. The Staten Island Expressway was horrible due to years of construction, which fortunately ended. This has allowed the construction to start over. It's a good idea to avoid it, except that there are no alternatives. The BQE is great, other than weekdays, and weekends when it's not 5 to 7 am. From there the Prospect Expressway would be your best route except it ends before it ever gets anywhere. Hope this helps.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2020, 12:16:43 AM
Quote from: royo6022 on February 13, 2020, 08:50:16 AM
Hey guys, I've never been to New Jersey/New York area but I will be traveling through there here in a few weeks and was wondering if there were any roads I should avoid currently? I am traveling from Indiana to the South of Brooklyn.
Avoid 80/95 into the GWB. Also, 80/95 doesn't really exist but people believe it has. Stay off the Cross Bronx, but don't *get off* the Cross Bronx. The Holland Tunnel backs up at all hours. The Lincoln dumps you into uncountable traffic points afterward. The Staten Island Expressway was horrible due to years of construction, which fortunately ended. This has allowed the construction to start over. It's a good idea to avoid it, except that there are no alternatives. The BQE is great, other than weekdays, and weekends when it's not 5 to 7 am. From there the Prospect Expressway would be your best route except it ends before it ever gets anywhere. Hope this helps.
so, more realistically, to get from PA to Brooklyn, take 78 into the Holland Tunnel. (From I-80: 287 south to 24 east) Do not do this from 6 AM-9:30 AM weekdays. Take the exit that points toward NY 9A. Get to the West Side Highway, make a left onto West Street. Make another left at Exit 1 (I think) into the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. That will take you straight into Brooklyn relatively stress-free. Go straight onto I-278 South, then take the Prospect Expressway/27 exit and head straight down Ocean Parkway to your destination.
Quote from: Alps on February 25, 2020, 12:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2020, 12:16:43 AM
Quote from: royo6022 on February 13, 2020, 08:50:16 AM
Hey guys, I've never been to New Jersey/New York area but I will be traveling through there here in a few weeks and was wondering if there were any roads I should avoid currently? I am traveling from Indiana to the South of Brooklyn.
Avoid 80/95 into the GWB. Also, 80/95 doesn't really exist but people believe it has. Stay off the Cross Bronx, but don't *get off* the Cross Bronx. The Holland Tunnel backs up at all hours. The Lincoln dumps you into uncountable traffic points afterward. The Staten Island Expressway was horrible due to years of construction, which fortunately ended. This has allowed the construction to start over. It's a good idea to avoid it, except that there are no alternatives. The BQE is great, other than weekdays, and weekends when it's not 5 to 7 am. From there the Prospect Expressway would be your best route except it ends before it ever gets anywhere. Hope this helps.
so, more realistically, to get from PA to Brooklyn, take 78 into the Holland Tunnel. (From I-80: 287 south to 24 east) Do not do this from 6 AM-9:30 AM weekdays. Take the exit that points toward NY 9A. Get to the West Side Highway, make a left onto West Street. Make another left at Exit 1 (I think) into the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. That will take you straight into Brooklyn relatively stress-free. Go straight onto I-278 South, then take the Prospect Expressway/27 exit and head straight down Ocean Parkway to your destination.
In fairness, most of what I said is painfully realistic, but also in fairness, Alps's advice is much more useful.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2020, 01:46:53 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 25, 2020, 12:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2020, 12:16:43 AM
Quote from: royo6022 on February 13, 2020, 08:50:16 AM
Hey guys, I've never been to New Jersey/New York area but I will be traveling through there here in a few weeks and was wondering if there were any roads I should avoid currently? I am traveling from Indiana to the South of Brooklyn.
Avoid 80/95 into the GWB. Also, 80/95 doesn't really exist but people believe it has. Stay off the Cross Bronx, but don't *get off* the Cross Bronx. The Holland Tunnel backs up at all hours. The Lincoln dumps you into uncountable traffic points afterward. The Staten Island Expressway was horrible due to years of construction, which fortunately ended. This has allowed the construction to start over. It's a good idea to avoid it, except that there are no alternatives. The BQE is great, other than weekdays, and weekends when it's not 5 to 7 am. From there the Prospect Expressway would be your best route except it ends before it ever gets anywhere. Hope this helps.
so, more realistically, to get from PA to Brooklyn, take 78 into the Holland Tunnel. (From I-80: 287 south to 24 east) Do not do this from 6 AM-9:30 AM weekdays. Take the exit that points toward NY 9A. Get to the West Side Highway, make a left onto West Street. Make another left at Exit 1 (I think) into the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. That will take you straight into Brooklyn relatively stress-free. Go straight onto I-278 South, then take the Prospect Expressway/27 exit and head straight down Ocean Parkway to your destination.
In fairness, most of what I said is painfully realistic, but also in fairness, Alps's advice is much more useful.
Don't trust a guy with Boston in his name to discuss NY fairly. :D Traffic is not that bad on my described route for most hours of the day, but "not that bad" from the perspective of a lifer
Quote from: Alps on February 25, 2020, 07:00:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2020, 01:46:53 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 25, 2020, 12:33:37 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 25, 2020, 12:16:43 AM
Quote from: royo6022 on February 13, 2020, 08:50:16 AM
Hey guys, I've never been to New Jersey/New York area but I will be traveling through there here in a few weeks and was wondering if there were any roads I should avoid currently? I am traveling from Indiana to the South of Brooklyn.
Avoid 80/95 into the GWB. Also, 80/95 doesn't really exist but people believe it has. Stay off the Cross Bronx, but don't *get off* the Cross Bronx. The Holland Tunnel backs up at all hours. The Lincoln dumps you into uncountable traffic points afterward. The Staten Island Expressway was horrible due to years of construction, which fortunately ended. This has allowed the construction to start over. It's a good idea to avoid it, except that there are no alternatives. The BQE is great, other than weekdays, and weekends when it's not 5 to 7 am. From there the Prospect Expressway would be your best route except it ends before it ever gets anywhere. Hope this helps.
so, more realistically, to get from PA to Brooklyn, take 78 into the Holland Tunnel. (From I-80: 287 south to 24 east) Do not do this from 6 AM-9:30 AM weekdays. Take the exit that points toward NY 9A. Get to the West Side Highway, make a left onto West Street. Make another left at Exit 1 (I think) into the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. That will take you straight into Brooklyn relatively stress-free. Go straight onto I-278 South, then take the Prospect Expressway/27 exit and head straight down Ocean Parkway to your destination.
In fairness, most of what I said is painfully realistic, but also in fairness, Alps's advice is much more useful.
Don't trust a guy with Boston in his name to discuss NY fairly. :D Traffic is not that bad on my described route for most hours of the day, but "not that bad" from the perspective of a lifer
Fair conclusion, but I am an exiled Jersey boy that has never in my life had the luxury of not having to drive regularly to New York.
I am pleased to announce the next installment in my ongoing "Online Road Meet" series, which will take place on Saturday March 14, with the live stream kicking off at 1 PM ET. Yours truly will be joined by forum members "Alps", "Ian", and "dgolub" as we give you folks a tour of many notable road-related landmarks in the Atlantic City/Ocean City, NJ vicinity. We are looking forward to having you join us!
A copy of the meet itinerary we'll be following can be found here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u4tv1wcevh1zx0i/Atlantic%20City%20Road%20Meet%20Itinerary.docx?dl=0
A link to our live stream location can be found here:
Update on Routes 3&46: Clearing is well underway along the Valley Road/3/46 ramps and 3 median. Phase 2 is going forward.
I was in Jersey City yesterday for photography (worm moon over Manhattan) and Liberty State Park was fairly barren for a warm Monday evening. The ferries from Manhattan were also not packed - some were running half empty or nearly empty. Likewise, traffic along the Turnpike - while crowded, was not a disaster for rush hour.
I'm sorry if someone's noticed this before... but...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9239225,-75.0906845,3a,20.6y,177.47h,89.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simhTiY_dS0QJhg5b1zV-Sg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Not only is the US-611 shield back, but it's inverted.
Quote from: simon on March 14, 2020, 03:23:34 AM
I'm sorry if someone's noticed this before... but...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9239225,-75.0906845,3a,20.6y,177.47h,89.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simhTiY_dS0QJhg5b1zV-Sg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Not only is the US-611 shield back, but it's inverted.
I noticed.
Quote from: simon on March 14, 2020, 03:23:34 AM
I'm sorry if someone's noticed this before... but...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9239225,-75.0906845,3a,20.6y,177.47h,89.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1simhTiY_dS0QJhg5b1zV-Sg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Not only is the US-611 shield back, but it's inverted.
First time I drove by there I stopped to take a pic of that 611 sign. Would have been during the final game of the 2015 World Series as I was listening on the radio.
Quote from: seicer on March 10, 2020, 11:10:55 AM
I was in Jersey City yesterday for photography (worm moon over Manhattan) and Liberty State Park was fairly barren for a warm Monday evening. The ferries from Manhattan were also not packed - some were running half empty or nearly empty. Likewise, traffic along the Turnpike - while crowded, was not a disaster for rush hour.
Think that's because of schools and businesses shutting down and folks social distancing?
Honestly, this would be the prime perfect time to get some serious roadwork done in these high-volume areas.
Heh. One issue facing DOTs is that engineers may not be able to get PS&E packages done at home due to the system requirements. A tremendous slowing of project development could be a result of the virus if it gets that bad and the effects to the public may not be recognized until those lettings do not occur a year or two down the road.
Quote from: Rothman on March 15, 2020, 01:23:17 AM
Heh. One issue facing DOTs is that engineers may not be able to get PS&E packages done at home due to the system requirements. A tremendous slowing of project development could be a result of the virus if it gets that bad and the effects to the public may not be recognized until those lettings do not occur a year or two down the road.
I think IT might be working on some form of remote desktop after the VDI fiasco Wednesday night. I noticed my computer now has the computer name/user name/IP address/etc. display on the top right that the VDI instances have.
Quote from: vdeane on March 15, 2020, 09:17:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 15, 2020, 01:23:17 AM
Heh. One issue facing DOTs is that engineers may not be able to get PS&E packages done at home due to the system requirements. A tremendous slowing of project development could be a result of the virus if it gets that bad and the effects to the public may not be recognized until those lettings do not occur a year or two down the road.
I think IT might be working on some form of remote desktop after the VDI fiasco Wednesday night. I noticed my computer now has the computer name/user name/IP address/etc. display on the top right that the VDI instances have.
Yes, you can remote into your desktop, but engineers are still saying their local processing power is inadequate.
And heck, I doubt design document sign-offs have even been totally worked out. :D
I've been driving past this every day since I moved and I finally got a picture of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nVuUAHi.jpg)
A very rare non-reflective button copy sign. On the Exit 26 offramp from 287 SB. Dunno how this has survived for this long.
Quote from: storm2k on March 18, 2020, 06:45:44 PM
I've been driving past this every day since I moved and I finally got a picture of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nVuUAHi.jpg)
A very rare non-reflective button copy sign. On the Exit 26 offramp from 287 SB. Dunno how this has survived for this long.
Exit ramps don't exist. Check out I-280 EB Exit 11.
Quote from: Alps on March 19, 2020, 12:49:37 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 18, 2020, 06:45:44 PM
I've been driving past this every day since I moved and I finally got a picture of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/nVuUAHi.jpg)
A very rare non-reflective button copy sign. On the Exit 26 offramp from 287 SB. Dunno how this has survived for this long.
Exit ramps don't exist. Check out I-280 EB Exit 11.
It's actually weird because most of the other signs on that ramp are of relatively new vintage. The sign at the gore point to go either right or left at the bottom of this ramp has a very recent LGS with retroflectivity and mixed case lettering. Yet, this guy wasn't touched. And I do know the Central Ave sign off the 280 ramp, which I suppose will be there until it falls down and then never be replaced with anything.
(https://i.imgur.com/fTcMP5y.png)
I-78 circa 1961, 2 lanes and sans US-22.
Screencapped from
13:09. You're welcome.
And I don't get the "sans US-22" part.
On NJ.com today: No traffic in N.J due to coronavirus shutdown? Time for some roadwork, state officials say. (https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/no-traffic-in-nj-due-to-coronavirus-shutdown-time-for-some-roadwork-state-officials-say.html)
QuoteNew Jersey is one of several states taking advantage of reduced commuter traffic due to coronavirus non-essential travel bans by starting highway construction projects earlier in the day and doing work longer.
QuoteDuring the day, roadwork on state highways can start as early as 8 a.m. and end at 4 p.m., rather than the regular 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. time period he said.
"Overnight work may start an hour earlier and end an hour later as well, and those times vary depending on the project location," Schapiro said. "This will hopefully allow our construction contractors to stay on their construction schedules and perhaps get ahead."
Not surprising to me. I've seen crews on both 287 and 80 doing guardrail replacement all week on my way to and from work. Might as well get the extra time in because traffic volumes are extremely low even in peak rush hours. It also looks like they're starting some mill and overlay work on 287 in the Morristown area. That is usually a congestion nightmare, so may as well get it done now while it's easier to close lanes.
Yep - it appears they can take advantage of better timing and longer working environments, although it's important to note that the article indicated that this will allow for longer working periods during the day, but not 24 hour lane closures in many cases. I noticed at the 295/76/42 project, they're going to close a ramp from 5am to 10am on Saturday. Usually that would've been an overnight closure.
It's also important to note what a lot of people don't understand or get, even here in the roadgeek community. The current crisis doesn't mean Transportation Departments can go hog-wild and suddenly pave or widen entire highways. There's still an entire process that is undertaken to get a project from concept to construction, and that takes years. It also takes money. Guess what - state revenues are down. Guess what - gas tax revenues are down. In the long run, this is probably going to mean, country-wide, fewer projects getting constructed, not more projects and faster timelines.
If a project has already been funded and started, the lighter traffic should help them. But also, there's a whole network of goods and services that contractors supply to those doing the work. Let's say there's a bridge construction project going on. If a steel plant is closed due to the crisis, they can't make the I beams needed for the new bridge, so that project ain't gonna move any faster anyway.
It's great for the rest of us if and when the crisis is over, but the construction crews are risking their lives by showing up to work. I understand that they are considered essential workers, but I'm not sure how ethical making them work longer hours is. Penndot, for example, is doing the opposite by limiting road work to "essential" projects only. Of course, I have no idea what the financial situation of an average road construction worker is. For all I know they live paycheck to paycheck and can use every extra hour of work they could get.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 02, 2020, 07:58:45 PM
It's great for the rest of us if and when the crisis is over, but the construction crews are risking their lives by showing up to work. I understand that they are considered essential workers, but I'm not sure how ethical making them work longer hours is. Penndot, for example, is doing the opposite by limiting road work to "essential" projects only. Of course, I have no idea what the financial situation of an average road construction worker is. For all I know they live paycheck to paycheck and can use every extra hour of work they could get.
I am going to assume that a lot of workers love working during this because it is actually safer with less traffic. Makes their job less stressful.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 07:33:40 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 02, 2020, 07:58:45 PM
It's great for the rest of us if and when the crisis is over, but the construction crews are risking their lives by showing up to work. I understand that they are considered essential workers, but I'm not sure how ethical making them work longer hours is. Penndot, for example, is doing the opposite by limiting road work to "essential" projects only. Of course, I have no idea what the financial situation of an average road construction worker is. For all I know they live paycheck to paycheck and can use every extra hour of work they could get.
I am going to assume that a lot of workers love working during this because it is actually safer with less traffic. Makes their job less stressful.
I'm talking about the danger of getting infected, not getting hit by traffic.
As part of a roadgeeking trip to North Jersey yesterday, I happened to pass through Columbia, NJ. The "Old Florida US 98" US 611 shield is still there.
(https://i.imgur.com/rzYHexq.png)
Washington Street (old Route 8/94/46 and still maintained by the state as evidenced by this regulation (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/washington_street.shtm) and the standard NJDOT "No stopping or standing" signs with complimenting NJDOT stickers on such signs) which used to have a double white center line recently had a yellow paint overlay and some asphalt speed humps installed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Washington_Street%2C_Columbia%2C_NJ.jpg/640px-Washington_Street%2C_Columbia%2C_NJ.jpg)
(Edit: Steve is right, no 46 here)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 26, 2020, 02:12:00 PM
Washington Street (old Route 8/94/46 and still maintained by the state as evidenced by this regulation (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/washington_street.shtm) and the standard NJDOT "No stopping or standing" signs with complimenting NJDOT stickers on such signs) which used to have a double white center line recently had a yellow paint overlay and some asphalt speed humps installed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Washington_Street%2C_Columbia%2C_NJ.jpg/640px-Washington_Street%2C_Columbia%2C_NJ.jpg)
Had no idea that was still NJDOT jurisdiction. That explains some things. Sad to see the white stripes go. I would correct you though: This was never US 46 to my knowledge. By the time the Delaware Bridge died, 611 already came across the river and the current 46/94 interchange was in place to some degree, so Columbia was already bypassed.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 26, 2020, 02:12:00 PM
As part of a roadgeeking trip to North Jersey yesterday, I happened to pass through Columbia, NJ. The "Old Florida US 98" US 611 shield is still there.
(https://i.imgur.com/rzYHexq.png)
Washington Street (old Route 8/94/46 and still maintained by the state as evidenced by this regulation (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/washington_street.shtm) and the standard NJDOT "No stopping or standing" signs with complimenting NJDOT stickers on such signs) which used to have a double white center line recently had a yellow paint overlay and some asphalt speed humps installed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Washington_Street%2C_Columbia%2C_NJ.jpg/640px-Washington_Street%2C_Columbia%2C_NJ.jpg)
(Edit: Steve is right, no 46 here)
I never realized NJDOT had this site (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/index_local.shtm)! Time to start digging for those orphaned state highway segments.
The StreetView of that area (from August 2019) appears to still show the double solid white line. The yellow must have been a pretty recent restriping.
Quote from: civilmaher on April 27, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
I never realized NJDOT had this site (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/index_local.shtm)! Time to start digging for those orphaned state highway segments.
Morris County is all pieces of interchanges (or roads connecting state highways - Taylor Rd. at NJ 15). In fact, the above is much the same - a short piece of connection from Columbia onto a state highway. It happened to be state maintained previously just like, say, Smith Road at 287/46/80, but I think any significant length of road away from an interchange would still have a number.
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2020, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: civilmaher on April 27, 2020, 02:48:21 PM
I never realized NJDOT had this site (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/index_local.shtm)! Time to start digging for those orphaned state highway segments.
Morris County is all pieces of interchanges (or roads connecting state highways - Taylor Rd. at NJ 15). In fact, the above is much the same - a short piece of connection from Columbia onto a state highway. It happened to be state maintained previously just like, say, Smith Road at 287/46/80, but I think any significant length of road away from an interchange would still have a number.
I did not realize that the piece of Schley Mountain Road from 202-206 to the 287 NB ramp was actually NJDOT maintained. Was that done when they took out the old ramp to 287 NB from 202-206 SB and put the slip ramp in? Also, someone should remind the Hills Village North Master Association that this road is indeed NOT Ramp Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6580326,-74.641824,3a,28y,235.68h,89.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sspYo9DJTY5a1sQk9wto_HQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
New Jersey bill would set "˜fact-based' speed limits (https://landline.media/new-jersey-bill-would-set-fact-based-speed-limits/)
QuoteOne New Jersey Senate bill calls for overhauling how speed limits are set on the state's busiest roadways.
Sen. Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth, has renewed his pursuit to change the formula for setting speed limits. Specifically, he wants limits on limited-access highways that include the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to be set using the 85th percentile formula.
The formula bases speed limits on the rate at or below which 85% of drivers are traveling.
"Right now virtually 100% of drivers on our underposted limited-access highways are breaking the law," O'Scanlon said in previous remarks. "Either they/we are all reckless, homicidal maniacs, or our method of setting speed limits is seriously flawed."
If approved, the New Jersey Department of Transportation and other state traffic agencies would use 85th percentile studies to set speed limits. State agencies would reevaluate speed limits at least every decade, or when a road is substantially changed.
O'Scanlon says adopting the formula is a better option for setting top speeds than relying on politicians and officials to make the correct decision.
"My position is that we need to remove legislators and bureaucrats from the speed limit setting process and empower highway traffic safety engineers to do their jobs unencumbered by political influence," O'Scanlon has stated.
Critics say drivers face multiple distractions while behind the wheel. They voice concerns that decreased reaction times due to distractions and possible faster speeds would make wrecks more devastating.
O'Scanlon says he is not looking to change how fast people drive.
"We are talking about having speed limits reflect the speeds people are already driving so that we have a better, more uniform flow of traffic."
He adds that the change would result in "the smoothest, safest level of traffic flow and inflict the least amount of arbitrary punishment on people behaving reasonably."
Also included in the bill is a provision to limit fines for speeding violations. Citations handed out for speeding on a roadway where a traffic study has not been completed would be limited to $20.
The bill, S608, awaits consideration in the Senate Transportation Committee. O'Scanlon offered the same bill during the previous two-year session, but it did not come up for a vote.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 12:50:53 AM
New Jersey bill would set "˜fact-based' speed limits (https://landline.media/new-jersey-bill-would-set-fact-based-speed-limits/)
QuoteOne New Jersey Senate bill calls for overhauling how speed limits are set on the state's busiest roadways.
Sen. Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth, has renewed his pursuit to change the formula for setting speed limits. Specifically, he wants limits on limited-access highways that include the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to be set using the 85th percentile formula.
The formula bases speed limits on the rate at or below which 85% of drivers are traveling.
"Right now virtually 100% of drivers on our underposted limited-access highways are breaking the law," O'Scanlon said in previous remarks. "Either they/we are all reckless, homicidal maniacs, or our method of setting speed limits is seriously flawed."
If approved, the New Jersey Department of Transportation and other state traffic agencies would use 85th percentile studies to set speed limits. State agencies would reevaluate speed limits at least every decade, or when a road is substantially changed.
O'Scanlon says adopting the formula is a better option for setting top speeds than relying on politicians and officials to make the correct decision.
"My position is that we need to remove legislators and bureaucrats from the speed limit setting process and empower highway traffic safety engineers to do their jobs unencumbered by political influence," O'Scanlon has stated.
Critics say drivers face multiple distractions while behind the wheel. They voice concerns that decreased reaction times due to distractions and possible faster speeds would make wrecks more devastating.
O'Scanlon says he is not looking to change how fast people drive.
"We are talking about having speed limits reflect the speeds people are already driving so that we have a better, more uniform flow of traffic."
He adds that the change would result in "the smoothest, safest level of traffic flow and inflict the least amount of arbitrary punishment on people behaving reasonably."
Also included in the bill is a provision to limit fines for speeding violations. Citations handed out for speeding on a roadway where a traffic study has not been completed would be limited to $20.
The bill, S608, awaits consideration in the Senate Transportation Committee. O'Scanlon offered the same bill during the previous two-year session, but it did not come up for a vote.
Woah, Nice job New Jersey. If this all goes well. This can cause this same thing to happen nationwide.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on May 10, 2020, 01:01:18 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 12:50:53 AM
New Jersey bill would set "˜fact-based' speed limits (https://landline.media/new-jersey-bill-would-set-fact-based-speed-limits/)
QuoteOne New Jersey Senate bill calls for overhauling how speed limits are set on the state's busiest roadways.
Sen. Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth, has renewed his pursuit to change the formula for setting speed limits. Specifically, he wants limits on limited-access highways that include the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to be set using the 85th percentile formula.
The formula bases speed limits on the rate at or below which 85% of drivers are traveling.
"Right now virtually 100% of drivers on our underposted limited-access highways are breaking the law," O'Scanlon said in previous remarks. "Either they/we are all reckless, homicidal maniacs, or our method of setting speed limits is seriously flawed."
If approved, the New Jersey Department of Transportation and other state traffic agencies would use 85th percentile studies to set speed limits. State agencies would reevaluate speed limits at least every decade, or when a road is substantially changed.
O'Scanlon says adopting the formula is a better option for setting top speeds than relying on politicians and officials to make the correct decision.
"My position is that we need to remove legislators and bureaucrats from the speed limit setting process and empower highway traffic safety engineers to do their jobs unencumbered by political influence," O'Scanlon has stated.
Critics say drivers face multiple distractions while behind the wheel. They voice concerns that decreased reaction times due to distractions and possible faster speeds would make wrecks more devastating.
O'Scanlon says he is not looking to change how fast people drive.
"We are talking about having speed limits reflect the speeds people are already driving so that we have a better, more uniform flow of traffic."
He adds that the change would result in "the smoothest, safest level of traffic flow and inflict the least amount of arbitrary punishment on people behaving reasonably."
Also included in the bill is a provision to limit fines for speeding violations. Citations handed out for speeding on a roadway where a traffic study has not been completed would be limited to $20.
The bill, S608, awaits consideration in the Senate Transportation Committee. O'Scanlon offered the same bill during the previous two-year session, but it did not come up for a vote.
Woah, Nice job New Jersey. If this all goes well. This can cause this same thing to happen nationwide.
I don't travel frequently on the NJTP, but from the times I have, I can safely say it's very rare to find someone in a passenger vehicle going below 75 or 80 mph. I usually cruise around 80 mph, and get passed frequently.
I cannot say anything for the Garden State since I've never driven it, though the NJTP should be posted at least 75 mph, maybe even 80 mph. Unfortunately, this won't happen due to its location in the Northeast, but if we were setting 85th percentile speeds, this would be it.
Quote from: Tonytone on May 10, 2020, 01:01:18 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 12:50:53 AM
New Jersey bill would set "˜fact-based' speed limits (https://landline.media/new-jersey-bill-would-set-fact-based-speed-limits/)
QuoteOne New Jersey Senate bill calls for overhauling how speed limits are set on the state's busiest roadways.
Sen. Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth, has renewed his pursuit to change the formula for setting speed limits. Specifically, he wants limits on limited-access highways that include the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to be set using the 85th percentile formula...........................
Woah, Nice job New Jersey. If this all goes well. This can cause this same thing to happen nationwide.
It will never happen here - Revenue enhancement based artificially low limits are here to stay. The Garden State Parkway just added mandatory court appearances for all speeding violations too.
O'Scanlon was however instrumental in getting rid of our red light cameras, so I appreciate his efforts.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
It will never happen here - Revenue enhancement based artificially low limits are here to stay. The Garden State Parkway just added mandatory court appearances for all speeding violations too.
O'Scanlon was however instrumental in getting rid of our red light cameras, so I appreciate his efforts.
Police traps are for safety --- until speed limits are going to get raised to what most people travel and the road is reasonable designed for --- then they cry it will be unsafe! It's nothing but revenue generation.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 01:15:57 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
It will never happen here - Revenue enhancement based artificially low limits are here to stay. The Garden State Parkway just added mandatory court appearances for all speeding violations too.
O'Scanlon was however instrumental in getting rid of our red light cameras, so I appreciate his efforts.
Police traps are for safety --- until speed limits are going to get raised to what most people travel and the road is reasonable designed for --- then they cry it will be unsafe! It's nothing but revenue generation.
Yes people do 100Mph on the NJTP it's literally designed & striped for those speeds.
And New jersey purposely puts under cover tinted out Chargers on NJTP to catch speeders when clearly everyone is going 80+ it should be illegal for them to do that.
Maybe Jersey will pass it. Maybe they wont. But I know if they do it will create good progress in the setting of speed limits. Jersey of course would be a good test state. As well as texas.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on May 10, 2020, 01:24:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 01:15:57 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
It will never happen here - Revenue enhancement based artificially low limits are here to stay. The Garden State Parkway just added mandatory court appearances for all speeding violations too.
O'Scanlon was however instrumental in getting rid of our red light cameras, so I appreciate his efforts.
Police traps are for safety --- until speed limits are going to get raised to what most people travel and the road is reasonable designed for --- then they cry it will be unsafe! It's nothing but revenue generation.
Yes people do 100Mph on the NJTP it's literally designed & striped for those speeds.
And New jersey purposely puts under cover tinted out Chargers on NJTP to catch speeders when clearly everyone is going 80+ it should be illegal for them to do that.
Maybe Jersey will pass it. Maybe they wont. But I know if they do it will create good progress in the setting of speed limits. Jersey of course would be a good test state. As well as texas.
iPhone
They won't. Period. End of story. O'Scanlon loves to throw stuff like this out there from time to time, especially to contrast himself to the Democrats in Trenton. It's a dead issue, everyone knows it including him, that's not why he put it out there. Drop it. It. Is. Not. Happening. We could barely get the state to agree to 65MPH zones in 1998 and that was only with agreeing to double fines for those zones.
Quote from: storm2k on May 10, 2020, 01:26:58 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 10, 2020, 01:24:41 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 01:15:57 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
It will never happen here - Revenue enhancement based artificially low limits are here to stay. The Garden State Parkway just added mandatory court appearances for all speeding violations too.
O'Scanlon was however instrumental in getting rid of our red light cameras, so I appreciate his efforts.
Police traps are for safety --- until speed limits are going to get raised to what most people travel and the road is reasonable designed for --- then they cry it will be unsafe! It's nothing but revenue generation.
Yes people do 100Mph on the NJTP it's literally designed & striped for those speeds.
And New jersey purposely puts under cover tinted out Chargers on NJTP to catch speeders when clearly everyone is going 80+ it should be illegal for them to do that.
Maybe Jersey will pass it. Maybe they wont. But I know if they do it will create good progress in the setting of speed limits. Jersey of course would be a good test state. As well as texas.
iPhone
They won't. Period. End of story. O'Scanlon loves to throw stuff like this out there from time to time, especially to contrast himself to the Democrats in Trenton. It's a dead issue, everyone knows it including him, that's not why he put it out there. Drop it. It. Is. Not. Happening. We could barely get the state to agree to 65MPH zones in 1998 and that was only with agreeing to double fines for those zones.
Sheesh. You're right. I forgot what state we are talking about here.
New Jersey.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on May 10, 2020, 01:24:41 AM
As well as texas.
Of the thousands of miles I've driven in that state, I'd say with the exception of the "green" zone around Houston, speed limits are appropriately set in that state. Most two lane roads built to higher quality are 70 mph or 75 mph, with 60 or 65 mph on lower quality (narrower shoulders, etc), interstates are mostly 75 mph with 65 - 75 mph in urban areas, 60 mph in core zones, and over 500 miles of I-10 and I-20 are 80 mph. Additionally, the TX-130 toll bypass that completely avoids I-35 through Austin (similar to NJTP with I-95 through Philadelphia) is posted at 80 mph on its northern portion, and 85 mph on the southern portion.
The only thing I could say is there's certainly dozens of more stretches of rural interstate highway that could be 80 mph, and also that the "green" zones near Houston need to go and are unrealistic. I-10, I-45, I-69, and US-290 remain 65 mph for dozens of miles outside the metro, and interstates inside only reach 60 mph, toll roads 65 mph, and the SH-99 loop 70 mph. Dallas had a similar system, but was eliminated years ago. Interstates are mostly 70 mph in the urban area with 60 mph near the Downtowns and 65 mph on some stretches.
Don't know why that's popping up now but that bill dated back to 2018 and it went nowhere. (https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/new-jersey/2018/08/07/nj-speed-limits-too-slow-lawmaker-wants-overhaul-system/896152002/)
That's a shame that bill wasn't passed. California has something similar but as expected liberal lawmakers are trying to do away with that law and they are even calling it backwards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 01:13:35 AM
I don't travel frequently on the NJTP, but from the times I have, I can safely say it's very rare to find someone in a passenger vehicle going below 75 or 80 mph. I usually cruise around 80 mph, and get passed frequently.
Happens more often than you realize. While you probably focus on those going faster than you when you're already going 80, you are probably passing plenty of people going slower than you. I've slowed down my speed somewhat, usually topping out at 75 mph, and I'm still passing a lot of people.
Remember also, the 85th percentage is the speed at when 85% are going at or below that speed. If the minimum speed most people were traveling was 75 or 80 mph, that would make the 85th percentile closer to 85 or 90, which even on a road as fast as the Turnpike or Parkway, isn't realistic across the entire roadway.
There are a few areas where the 85th percentile does approach 85 mph or so, which considering how heavily travelled the Turnpike and Parkway are, shows how little enforcement truly occurs, which means opinions like the below aren't true.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
It will never happen here - Revenue enhancement based artificially low limits are here to stay. The Garden State Parkway just added mandatory court appearances for all speeding violations too.
That was a scare-tactic sign on the GSP. The GSP, part of the overall NJTA, can't unilaterally change rules on how speeding tickets violations work. and if you want to continue the beat of 'Revenue enhancement', it wouldn't make sense. Courts aren't holding court right now, so if there was a mandatory court appearance, that appearance wouldn't be held for many months, meaning the state would be missing out on that money for quite a while. The courts would be overloaded with people getting tickets, which goes against social distancing guidelines. The majority of the ticket revenue from any ticket goes to the state, not the Parkway; not even the town if it's a municipal ticket. And being that it's nearly impossible to get stopped for going within 15 mph of the limit on a highway, that also goes against revenue enhancement, as it would be more profitable to stop nearly everyone regardless of their speed.[/quote]
Quote from: storm2k on May 10, 2020, 01:26:58 AM
They won't. Period. End of story. O'Scanlon loves to throw stuff like this out there from time to time, especially to contrast himself to the Democrats in Trenton. It's a dead issue, everyone knows it including him, that's not why he put it out there. Drop it. It. Is. Not. Happening.
I pretty much agree with this. If he left the bill to "raise highways to 85th percentile speeds", it may have a better change of succeeding...or at least being heard. Considering there's been many recent bills that passed that gave municipalities more rights and leeway into how they can change speed limits without going thru Trenton, this bill would throw away those leeways, which ain't gonna happen.
QuoteWe could barely get the state to agree to 65MPH zones in 1998 and that was only with agreeing to double fines for those zones.
At least it's doubling fines for those going 10mph and more over the limit, which has helped actually provide cops with the ability to reduce violations to 9 over, saving people money. I which I had more concrete evidence on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the most common speeding violation motorists are actually written up for was for going 74 in a 65 zone, which is one of the lower cost speeding violations in the country (about $85 or so, I believe).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2020, 12:39:20 PM
Happens more often than you realize. While you probably focus on those going faster than you when you're already going 80, you are probably passing plenty of people going slower than you. I've slowed down my speed somewhat, usually topping out at 75 mph, and I'm still passing a lot of people.
I suppose that's a fair assessment. And that's the main concern - those doing around the artificial speed limit (65 - 70 mph) not wanting to risk the sole chance of a ticket vs. those driving an appropriate speed (75 - 80 mph) for the roadway. If an appropriate speed limit such as realistically 70 mph, preferably 75 mph or even 80 mph was set, the difference would be minimal. People wouldn't drive 90 or 100 mph like some advocates think raising limits does. This has been proven on other rural highway stretches that are posted at 80 mph or the one 85 mph stretch in Texas. I can agree with that, I've driven on those 80 mph and 85 mph stretches, and people rarely do above 85 mph or 90 mph on the 85 mph stretch - because the speed limit is posted appropriately.
Meanwhile, go into Houston where the speed limit is artificially 60 mph due to their "green" zone, and most people easily do 70 - 80 mph. Speed limit used to be 70 mph IIRC in those areas.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2020, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
It will never happen here - Revenue enhancement based artificially low limits are here to stay. The Garden State Parkway just added mandatory court appearances for all speeding violations too.
That was a scare-tactic sign on the GSP. The GSP, part of the overall NJTA, can't unilaterally change rules on how speeding tickets violations work. and if you want to continue the beat of 'Revenue enhancement', it wouldn't make sense. Courts aren't holding court right now, so if there was a mandatory court appearance, that appearance wouldn't be held for many months, meaning the state would be missing out on that money for quite a while. The courts would be overloaded with people getting tickets, which goes against social distancing guidelines. The majority of the ticket revenue from any ticket goes to the state, not the Parkway; not even the town if it's a municipal ticket. And being that it's nearly impossible to get stopped for going within 15 mph of the limit on a highway, that also goes against revenue enhancement, as it would be more profitable to stop nearly everyone regardless of their speed.
Regardless of how much revenue is actually enhanced (at least on the freeways this bill is intended for), that thought will definitely cross the legislature's and governor's mind and the perception of that will be an important reason it well get shot down, even if they only claim it's for safety. The NJSP definitely do give alot of buffer above the speed limit depending on the road although not equally to the conditions - From personal experience, above 80 is the cut-off on the southern GSP, while the buffer on the equally rural 195 is lower with more police presence. Although I don't think the NJSP abuse it (at least on the GSP which I use the most often), the low speed limit does give them the ability to cite almost everyone on the highway if they chose to do so.
There's very little information out there (other than the signs) on the mandatory court appearances on the GSP. I had read an article about a change in policy, but I don't know how much discretion the troopers have in checking that box for a speeding ticket alone (unless they added in reckless driving, etc.). There's certainly a scare tactic element, because the NJSP don't want to be face to face with you in the current conditions anymore than you would want that at any time. But they may be more likely now to not cut breaks and drop the charge below that check box level if you force them into pulling you over and creating that interaction...
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 03:01:24 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 10, 2020, 01:24:41 AM
As well as texas.
Of the thousands of miles I've driven in that state, I'd say with the exception of the "green" zone around Houston, speed limits are appropriately set in that state. Most two lane roads built to higher quality are 70 mph or 75 mph, with 60 or 65 mph on lower quality (narrower shoulders, etc), interstates are mostly 75 mph with 65 - 75 mph in urban areas, 60 mph in core zones, and over 500 miles of I-10 and I-20 are 80 mph. Additionally, the TX-130 toll bypass that completely avoids I-35 through Austin (similar to NJTP with I-95 through Philadelphia) is posted at 80 mph on its northern portion, and 85 mph on the southern portion.
The only thing I could say is there's certainly dozens of more stretches of rural interstate highway that could be 80 mph, and also that the "green" zones near Houston need to go and are unrealistic. I-10, I-45, I-69, and US-290 remain 65 mph for dozens of miles outside the metro, and interstates inside only reach 60 mph, toll roads 65 mph, and the SH-99 loop 70 mph. Dallas had a similar system, but was eliminated years ago. Interstates are mostly 70 mph in the urban area with 60 mph near the Downtowns and 65 mph on some stretches.
Are you saying that Texas is the only state with correctly signed speed limits on their roads.
(I do know that Texas is relatively flat so that helps as well)
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on May 11, 2020, 09:31:49 AM
Are you saying that Texas is the only state with correctly signed speed limits on their roads.
(I do know that Texas is relatively flat so that helps as well)
As far as urban areas and non-freeway roads go, from my experience, generally yes. Other western states may also have higher, more appropriate limits like Texas, but I've never personally driven them so cannot say. Texas is one of only a few states to allow 75 mph on non-limited-access divided highways, and IIRC the only state to allow 75 mph on two-lane roadways. I rarely find myself going more than 3 or 5 mph over the limit when driving there, whereas I may go somewhere else with artificial limits and easily go 10 or more over (like NJTP).
Even in the more mountainous terrains of Texas (they do exist), speed limits of up to 65 mph are used on two-lane roads.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:23:33 PM
There's very little information out there (other than the signs) on the mandatory court appearances on the GSP. I had read an article about a change in policy, but I don't know how much discretion the troopers have in checking that box for a speeding ticket alone (unless they added in reckless driving, etc.). There's certainly a scare tactic element, because the NJSP don't want to be face to face with you in the current conditions anymore than you would want that at any time. But they may be more likely now to not cut breaks and drop the charge below that check box level if you force them into pulling you over and creating that interaction...
They are likely tacking on a violation of executive order. Speeding under title 39 normally isn't a court appearance unless you are going well above the limit or charged with other offenses. Either way, the threshold seems to be pretty high to actually get pulled over at the moment based on observation. Makes me wonder whats happening in Virginia with all these empty roads, cause they don't tolerate the same amount of speeding NJ does normally.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2020, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:23:33 PM
There's very little information out there (other than the signs) on the mandatory court appearances on the GSP. I had read an article about a change in policy, but I don't know how much discretion the troopers have in checking that box for a speeding ticket alone (unless they added in reckless driving, etc.). There's certainly a scare tactic element, because the NJSP don't want to be face to face with you in the current conditions anymore than you would want that at any time. But they may be more likely now to not cut breaks and drop the charge below that check box level if you force them into pulling you over and creating that interaction...
They are likely tacking on a violation of executive order. Speeding under title 39 normally isn't a court appearance unless you are going well above the limit or charged with other offenses. Either way, the threshold seems to be pretty high to actually get pulled over at the moment based on observation. Makes me wonder whats happening in Virginia with all these empty roads, cause they don't tolerate the same amount of speeding NJ does normally.
There's another angle that may be at play: Officers' reluctance to face potentially infected speeders. They're guaranteeing a mandatory court appearance because, if you were driving fast enough to cause a policeman to pull you over, you were likely doing something that would draw a mandatory court appearance under normal circumstances. (Note that the signs don't mention *what* infractions you're likely to get pulled over for; they just say "if you get pulled over".)
Quote from: hubcity on May 12, 2020, 11:11:35 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2020, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2020, 01:23:33 PM
There's very little information out there (other than the signs) on the mandatory court appearances on the GSP. I had read an article about a change in policy, but I don't know how much discretion the troopers have in checking that box for a speeding ticket alone (unless they added in reckless driving, etc.). There's certainly a scare tactic element, because the NJSP don't want to be face to face with you in the current conditions anymore than you would want that at any time. But they may be more likely now to not cut breaks and drop the charge below that check box level if you force them into pulling you over and creating that interaction...
They are likely tacking on a violation of executive order. Speeding under title 39 normally isn't a court appearance unless you are going well above the limit or charged with other offenses. Either way, the threshold seems to be pretty high to actually get pulled over at the moment based on observation. Makes me wonder whats happening in Virginia with all these empty roads, cause they don't tolerate the same amount of speeding NJ does normally.
There's another angle that may be at play: Officers' reluctance to face potentially infected speeders. They're guaranteeing a mandatory court appearance because, if you were driving fast enough to cause a policeman to pull you over, you were likely doing something that would draw a mandatory court appearance under normal circumstances. (Note that the signs don't mention *what* infractions you're likely to get pulled over for; they just say "if you get pulled over".)
Yes, that's what I was saying in that they don't want to be face to face with drivers right now and you are not going to get a break if you force them into doing so. The signs on the GSP do specifically mention speeding for the court appearance, though. Here's a link to one article with a photo:
https://www.tapinto.net/towns/middletown/sections/law-and-justice/articles/missed-it-mandatory-court-appearance-by-state-police-for-speeding-on-gsp (https://www.tapinto.net/towns/middletown/sections/law-and-justice/articles/missed-it-mandatory-court-appearance-by-state-police-for-speeding-on-gsp)
My memory failed - thought they said "Pulled over?" Even so, "Caught Speeding" <> "Speeding".
Drove up 206 through Hillsborough yesterday for the first time in a while. Looks like both ends of the bypass are pretty far along. Northern end was turned into a T with a loop jughandle from the northbound bypass onto southbound 206 so for now traffic has to slow down to about 10mph to make the turn to continue on their trips.
Couple of questions:
1. What's the state's plan for routing once the bypass is complete? In olden times, they would move the US Route off of the bypassed roads and give it a 1xx state route number (e.g., 159, 166, 183, etc.) but I've heard that isn't their procedure anymore? Will they move 206 onto the bypass and then just hand the old road over to Somerset county to sign it as a 6xx county road or nothing at all?
2. Is the southern end of the bypass south of Amwell Road still going to be a divided super 2? That's such a not-Jersey thing. Only other place I know of them really doing that is part of the 33 bypass of Freehold, which always felt like a project wrought with some poorly thought out design choices (as evidenced by it having an exit that was so poorly designed that it never was allowed to open).
Quote from: storm2k on June 01, 2020, 07:21:31 AM
Drove up 206 through Hillsborough yesterday for the first time in a while. Looks like both ends of the bypass are pretty far along. Northern end was turned into a T with a loop jughandle from the northbound bypass onto southbound 206 so for now traffic has to slow down to about 10mph to make the turn to continue on their trips.
Couple of questions:
1. What's the state's plan for routing once the bypass is complete? In olden times, they would move the US Route off of the bypassed roads and give it a 1xx state route number (e.g., 159, 166, 183, etc.) but I've heard that isn't their procedure anymore? Will they move 206 onto the bypass and then just hand the old road over to Somerset county to sign it as a 6xx county road or nothing at all?
2. Is the southern end of the bypass south of Amwell Road still going to be a divided super 2? That's such a not-Jersey thing. Only other place I know of them really doing that is part of the 33 bypass of Freehold, which always felt like a project wrought with some poorly thought out design choices (as evidenced by it having an exit that was so poorly designed that it never was allowed to open).
1. Going back to town maintenance.
2. The whole thing is a 2 to 4 lane divided expressway, not really a super 2.
Drove the Atlantic City Expressway end to end in both directions today for the first time in a few months. There are two new ACE reassurance assemblies, one Eastbound near MM 31 to match the Westbound one, but with a TOLL banner, and the other Westbound around MM 41 without a TOLL banner. The other thing is the process of upgrading mile markers to the new large-sized ones. Eastbound I didn't notice any old 1/10 mile markers still standing, though about half of the whole mile ones are still the old ones. Westbound the same holds true for the first 20 miles or so (19.2 was the only exception I spotted), but after that it's still hit or miss, though more than half of the markers have been replaced even there.
Quote from: odditude on October 20, 2014, 07:01:16 PM
Some nonstandard 3di-sized shields using Series D were installed as part of the replacement overhead signage at exit 47A (CR 541) on I-295 northbound after the full-depth reconstruction a few years back (GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0417753,-74.8363588,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sBQK4AWZE5JenJZRqpw54oQ!2e0)); while driving through on Saturday I noticed those shields have been replaced with standard shields using Series B. I didn't notice any other changes - although fixing the abysmal lack of padding would require either new signage or going back to the previous text size.
back in the area for the week, and I noticed that the shields on these signs have been replaced again - this time, as cutouts without the backplate. again, the signs themselves were not touched.
i'm surprised NJDOT would go to the expense to replace them - can anyone shed any light on this, and whether it's also happening elsewhere in the state?
NJDOT finally got around to replacing the missing Exit 52 BGS last year. That was missing for.... quite a long time.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2020, 08:47:32 PM
NJDOT finally got around to replacing the missing Exit 52 BGS last year. That was missing for.... quite a long time.
The entire structure was replaced as part of a much larger project to replace numerous overhead sign structures.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2020, 01:11:03 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2020, 08:47:32 PM
NJDOT finally got around to replacing the missing Exit 52 BGS last year. That was missing for.... quite a long time.
The entire structure was replaced as part of a much larger project to replace numerous overhead sign structures.
I noticed they did that in quite a few places on I-195 already. They don't seem to have done many on I-295 yet.
Quote from: famartin on July 11, 2020, 07:41:16 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2020, 01:11:03 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2020, 08:47:32 PM
NJDOT finally got around to replacing the missing Exit 52 BGS last year. That was missing for.... quite a long time.
The entire structure was replaced as part of a much larger project to replace numerous overhead sign structures.
I noticed they did that in quite a few places on I-195 already. They don't seem to have done many on I-295 yet.
Depends which ones needed them. A number of structures don't show any metal fatigue, or are newer and don't need to be replaced. Overhead sign structures for interchanges 43, 45, 47 & 52 were the oldest in the system up thru Exit 60 and were recently replaced. A structure on Rt. 55 in Deptford was also replaced as part of this contract, and other sign contracts are replacing other older structures as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2020, 01:11:03 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2020, 08:47:32 PM
NJDOT finally got around to replacing the missing Exit 52 BGS last year. That was missing for.... quite a long time.
The entire structure was replaced as part of a much larger project to replace numerous overhead sign structures.
Any info on where they were replacing said structures and what routes we can expect it on? For example, will they finally replace the overhead at 5B on 280 WB?
This structure on 78WB (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6463699,-74.5593913,3a,75y,270.43h,85.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saDhq3tk21NeT9gxM3s5aaA!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192) got replaced recently. The 525 shield is now backless as is the newer standard. Using wooden signposts instead of metal. Guessing this was a replacement of a strike that knocked this sign down? If it was, surprised NJDOT didn't just put the original one back up, like the 1 1/2 mile approach for Exit 10 on 287 that's been knocked down at least three or four times that I can think of since it was erected in 1998 (it's not in great shape and they haven't bothered to put the exit tab back onto it). All of the other signage for this interchange remains the same, including a rare remaining "Next Right" approach sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.646424,-74.5650662,3a,24.1y,317.59h,93.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ7DT4GTpGFYtHPNhmA-2hA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Also, is this classic gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1627267,-74.2379948,3a,75y,40.67h,100.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHolobezxIjW2xYtXjZnvDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) still up? This is, what, 1975-80 vintage?
Quote from: storm2k on July 12, 2020, 11:43:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2020, 01:11:03 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 10, 2020, 08:47:32 PM
NJDOT finally got around to replacing the missing Exit 52 BGS last year. That was missing for.... quite a long time.
The entire structure was replaced as part of a much larger project to replace numerous overhead sign structures.
Any info on where they were replacing said structures and what routes we can expect it on? For example, will they finally replace the overhead at 5B on 280 WB?
If you look thru here, https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/awards20.shtm , you can find project descriptions that begin with 'Sign Structure Replacement...', which will give a general description of the locations. Some of these reports are better than others - some may clearly pinpoint the location; others may send you on a mission to figure it out. Clicking on the Bid Tabulations and scrolling down will give the structure numbers, but you may need to know the structure coding or look it up in the Straight Line Diagrams to figure out the exact locations.
Other areas of the NJDOT website will tell you upcoming projects or projects out to bid, some of which may include signage projects.
Quote from: storm2k on July 13, 2020, 02:47:15 PM
Also, is this classic gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1627267,-74.2379948,3a,75y,40.67h,100.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHolobezxIjW2xYtXjZnvDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) still up? This is, what, 1975-80 vintage?
The one heading WB is gone. I'm gonna head EB thru there at some point in the next few days.
Speaking of signs on I-295 and the ones on NJ 55 as part of that particular project, does Millville still have the non freeway guides on Route 55 that are the small one's on the slotted poles and the same designs as off freeway routes?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 13, 2020, 11:08:12 PM
Speaking of signs on I-295 and the ones on NJ 55 as part of that particular project, does Millville still have the non freeway guides on Route 55 that are the small one's on the slotted poles and the same designs as off freeway routes?
Yup.
Quote from: famartin on July 13, 2020, 07:09:53 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 13, 2020, 02:47:15 PM
Also, is this classic gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1627267,-74.2379948,3a,75y,40.67h,100.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHolobezxIjW2xYtXjZnvDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) still up? This is, what, 1975-80 vintage?
The one heading WB is gone. I'm gonna head EB thru there at some point in the next few days.
That's a bummer. That style of non-reflective button copy is like quintessential NJDOT signage to me. Large shields, clear messaging, big dimensions on signs. I get that the structures they're on have likely reached the end of service life being 40-45 years old, but it really represents the end of an era.
Quote from: famartin on July 13, 2020, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 13, 2020, 11:08:12 PM
Speaking of signs on I-295 and the ones on NJ 55 as part of that particular project, does Millville still have the non freeway guides on Route 55 that are the small one's on the slotted poles and the same designs as off freeway routes?
Yup.
Figures.
Most likely when these signs wear out no doubt they will replace them with new ones exactly like these.
They replaced Exit 26 with mixed case versions already.
Moved from NJ Turnpike thread (had a brain fart and put this there first)
Well, I suppose I should share some of this years round of photos, tho it's far from over... adding more as we speak. My new ones are in the main cat here so scroll down past the subcats (format of my new ones is date-time-placeholder for now)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roads_in_New_Jersey
I have many more I plan to take... a welcome distraction from real life right now
Quote from: storm2k on July 13, 2020, 02:47:15 PM
Also, is this classic gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1627267,-74.2379948,3a,75y,40.67h,100.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHolobezxIjW2xYtXjZnvDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) still up? This is, what, 1975-80 vintage?
Drove thru today, it is indeed gone. Will upload photo of the replacement in a few hours.
I wonder if we'll start seeing structure replacements on 287 in the next couple of years. Most everything north of 80 is from when it opened in 1993 (the Boonton to Mahwah missing section). From 80 southward to Exit 14 (at least SB) was replaced between 1994 and 1997 (mostly when they built the HOV lanes) and south of there in 1998-99 (replaced the experimental diagramatic signage and other random signage that was erected over the years). Plus there's 440, which got new signs in the early 90s, but they went on existing structures from when the road opened in the 70s with few exceptions. These have to be starting to near the end of their service lives.
Quote from: storm2k on July 17, 2020, 03:07:18 PM
I wonder if we'll start seeing structure replacements on 287 in the next couple of years. Most everything north of 80 is from when it opened in 1993 (the Boonton to Mahwah missing section). From 80 southward to Exit 14 (at least SB) was replaced between 1994 and 1997 (mostly when they built the HOV lanes) and south of there in 1998-99 (replaced the experimental diagramatic signage and other random signage that was erected over the years). Plus there's 440, which got new signs in the early 90s, but they went on existing structures from when the road opened in the 70s with few exceptions. These have to be starting to near the end of their service lives.
Sign structure typically last quite a long time without incident. The structure being replaced are generally from the early 60's and 70's, and are mostly being replaced due to an issue with the materials used at that time. Other structures that are being replaced have been hit and were probably already taken out of service. I don't think I've seen any structures as new as the 1990's being replaced.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2020, 03:39:47 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 17, 2020, 03:07:18 PM
I wonder if we'll start seeing structure replacements on 287 in the next couple of years. Most everything north of 80 is from when it opened in 1993 (the Boonton to Mahwah missing section). From 80 southward to Exit 14 (at least SB) was replaced between 1994 and 1997 (mostly when they built the HOV lanes) and south of there in 1998-99 (replaced the experimental diagramatic signage and other random signage that was erected over the years). Plus there's 440, which got new signs in the early 90s, but they went on existing structures from when the road opened in the 70s with few exceptions. These have to be starting to near the end of their service lives.
Sign structure typically last quite a long time without incident. The structure being replaced are generally from the early 60's and 70's, and are mostly being replaced due to an issue with the materials used at that time. Other structures that are being replaced have been hit and were probably already taken out of service. I don't think I've seen any structures as new as the 1990's being replaced.
Then keep in mind that I-295 had its structures between US 130 at Depford to NJ 38 in Moorestown in the early 80s to replace signs the same age as the ones north of NJ 38 that they kept and when I left in 1990 they were still there. So it goes by what is at the time, as I have found NJ will only replace a failing structure as a lone project keeping the others in the area that are still good.
One way to identify the early 70's signs are that they have the light above it ( originally tube lighting later replaced by mercury lights) and the ones in that late 70's early 80's featured the lights below the panel.
Then in the late 80's the signs were made of the reflective green as before 1985 NJDOT was exclusively button copy. Still though later on some button copies still made it just like on the late 80's Pulaski Skyway overhead sign installations (as before LGSes or backlit signs on older gantries were used) were all button copy signs.
Sometimes an overhead structure won't have a replacement right away like on US 1 & 9 at Wilson Avenue in Ironbound Newark as it had a classic green gantry like on US 130 at NJ 168 with all text for straight through US 1 & 9 with an erroneous US 22 added to it as there was or never been a concurrency with US 1 & 9 with US 22 always ending where it still ends today.
One thing I noticed Friday is that it appears NJDOT is dualizing 322 between 130 and 295. Kinda surprised they aren't going all the way to the Turnpike with that, but then again, they probably don't want to encourage shunpiking? Or maybe not enuf money?
Quote from: famartin on July 20, 2020, 10:45:46 AM
One thing I noticed Friday is that it appears NJDOT is dualizing 322 between 130 and 295. Kinda surprised they aren't going all the way to the Turnpike with that, but then again, they probably don't want to encourage shunpiking? Or maybe not enuf money?
Seems kind of like that setup
would encourage shunpiking.
Quote from: famartin on July 20, 2020, 10:45:46 AM
One thing I noticed Friday is that it appears NJDOT is dualizing 322 between 130 and 295. Kinda surprised they aren't going all the way to the Turnpike with that, but then again, they probably don't want to encourage shunpiking? Or maybe not enuf money?
It looks like they will, and this may just be a phase 1/2 scenario.
https://www.dvrpc.org/RegionallySignificantProjects/
US 322 Widening
US 322 is a major route for shore-bound traffic. This project will widen US 322 between US 130 and the New Jersey Turnpike. This improvement will support the development of Woolwich Town Center.
Yeah I have to think they broke it into two projects to manage costs and schedules and the like. Widening it to 295 and not continuing it to the Turnpike doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 01:38:04 PM
Yeah I have to think they broke it into two projects to manage costs and schedules and the like. Widening it to 295 and not continuing it to the Turnpike doesn't make a lot of sense.
The thing that made me think they aren't going all the way is that there are obvious, fairly recent intersection improvements (which look fairly permanent) between I-295 and the turnpike. But perhaps they were just temporary mitigation.
Quote from: famartin on July 20, 2020, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 01:38:04 PM
Yeah I have to think they broke it into two projects to manage costs and schedules and the like. Widening it to 295 and not continuing it to the Turnpike doesn't make a lot of sense.
The thing that made me think they aren't going all the way is that there are obvious, fairly recent intersection improvements (which look fairly permanent) between I-295 and the turnpike. But perhaps they were just temporary mitigation.
Based on GSV, it looks like they were dualizing through some intersections, at least making 2 lanes in each direction. That should make things easier, not harder, I would think. Would doubt that they'd need to grade separate or otherwise drastically improve too many other intersections in that stretch.
Quote from: famartin on July 20, 2020, 10:45:46 AM
One thing I noticed Friday is that it appears NJDOT is dualizing 322 between 130 and 295. Kinda surprised they aren't going all the way to the Turnpike with that, but then again, they probably don't want to encourage shunpiking? Or maybe not enuf money?
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 01:38:04 PM
Yeah I have to think they broke it into two projects to manage costs and schedules and the like. Widening it to 295 and not continuing it to the Turnpike doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2020, 01:34:13 PM
It looks like they will, and this may just be a phase 1/2 scenario...
This isn't a NJDOT project. There's a huge, 3.2 million square foot warehouse development being built between 130 and 295. The Developer is fully funding the widening between 130 and 295. It'll include 2 traffic-lighted intersections.
Here's the website and brochure for the project. It gives a little hint of how 322 will look when completed.
https://www.logannorth.com/
https://jll.app.box.com/v/Logan-North-Industrial-Park
Last time I was thru here they hadn't started any 322 construction yet, so if you noticed that happening, then that's started within the last 2 months or so.
Also, don't get caught up in all the 'shunpiking' talk. 295 is a major interstate highway. It's not a shunpike.
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2020, 01:34:13 PM
...It looks like they will, and this may just be a phase 1/2 scenario.
https://www.dvrpc.org/RegionallySignificantProjects/
US 322 Widening
US 322 is a major route for shore-bound traffic. This project will widen US 322 between US 130 and the New Jersey Turnpike. This improvement will support the development of Woolwich Town Center.
Quote from: famartin on July 20, 2020, 01:43:19 PM
The thing that made me think they aren't going all the way is that there are obvious, fairly recent intersection improvements (which look fairly permanent) between I-295 and the turnpike. But perhaps they were just temporary mitigation.
Any widening from 295 to the Turnpike is a *long* way off. As noticed in the DVRPC page above, there's not even a link on the heading for that project, and NJDOT doesn't include any reference of it in their 10 year STIP forecast.
To further the point of its timeline, there is a current NJDOT project that is updating intersections and other areas of the roadway for general traffic light upgrades, ADA access compatibility and other minor improvements. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabs19120.pdf
A recently completed intersection revamp project on 322 and Kings Highway (CR 551) widened 322 from 2 lanes to 5 lanes thru here (although they also installed an unnecessary protected-only left turn light on 322, when sightlines and traffic flow appears protected-permissive lights would've been just fine). There's some significance to this project: The original description online and at a public meeting only widened 322 to 3 lanes (1 thru/right turn lane and a left turn lane per direction). At the last public meeting, it was revealed 322 would be widened to 5 lanes at the intersection, which was greatly appreciated.
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 02:41:51 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 20, 2020, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 01:38:04 PM
Yeah I have to think they broke it into two projects to manage costs and schedules and the like. Widening it to 295 and not continuing it to the Turnpike doesn't make a lot of sense.
The thing that made me think they aren't going all the way is that there are obvious, fairly recent intersection improvements (which look fairly permanent) between I-295 and the turnpike. But perhaps they were just temporary mitigation.
Based on GSV, it looks like they were dualizing through some intersections, at least making 2 lanes in each direction. That should make things easier, not harder, I would think. Would doubt that they'd need to grade separate or otherwise drastically improve too many other intersections in that stretch.
Of the major intersections from 295 to the NJ Turnpike, going West to East:
The first major one: Berkley Drive, was widened as part of the overall curve straightening project 20+ years ago. Within the curve itself, there was an area for a RIRO on 322 East that was initiated during the curve straightening project but ran into a grassy field. A few years ago, it was finally completed during that expansion.
After this point, 322 narrows down to 2 lanes, goes thru a 'gully' area. From personal experience: That is a pain in the ass to plow snow from in the winter, where it's narrow with trees and poles near the roadway, and when there's snow on the ground you're just waiting to hit something.
Next is an offset intersection just up the hill (Locke Ave) from here which is fairly busy, controlled by stop signs on the side roads. Then comes Swedesboro-Paulsboro Road, which has a dedicated right turn lane EB but no Left turn lanes. After that is a CSX RR crossing, constructed for only 2 lanes in its present configuration. I believe that line is still in use. Next is Garwin Ave, which again is controlled by stop signs on Garwin. This was about the limit of the construction project with Kings Highway, but overall is still just built for 2 lanes on 322. And next is the Kings Highway intersection, which received the substantial upgrade mentioned in my previous post.
After that, the trees and brush were cleared from the south side of 322, which gave the appearance there was a widening project underway, but it was only for a sewer and/or water main project. And then finally we're at the NJ Turnpike intersection, which was built only for 1 lane per direction and a left turn lane. In theory, this intersection could remain as is, if a future widening project were to go to the Turnpike. I always felt this should've been made wider though, if nothing more for the opportunity to get more traffic thru this intersection and to pass a slower moving vehicle, which is how the 322/Kings Hwy intersection was built.
So of the above, the current GSV will reveal the one intersection with Kings Hwy that was widened, and that project is finished. But no other area along this stretch of 322 has been widened, and that other intersection project I mentioned also includes some drainage repairs, which are being done only with the current 2 lane roadway in mind.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2020, 03:12:21 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 20, 2020, 10:45:46 AM
One thing I noticed Friday is that it appears NJDOT is dualizing 322 between 130 and 295. Kinda surprised they aren't going all the way to the Turnpike with that, but then again, they probably don't want to encourage shunpiking? Or maybe not enuf money?
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 01:38:04 PM
Yeah I have to think they broke it into two projects to manage costs and schedules and the like. Widening it to 295 and not continuing it to the Turnpike doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote from: Alps on July 20, 2020, 01:34:13 PM
It looks like they will, and this may just be a phase 1/2 scenario...
This isn't a NJDOT project. There's a huge, 3.2 million square foot warehouse development being built between 130 and 295. The Developer is fully funding the widening between 130 and 295. It'll include 2 traffic-lighted intersections.
Here's the website and brochure for the project. It gives a little hint of how 322 will look when completed.
https://www.logannorth.com/
https://jll.app.box.com/v/Logan-North-Industrial-Park
Last time I was thru here they hadn't started any 322 construction yet, so if you noticed that happening, then that's started within the last 2 months or so.
Ah, OK this all makes much more sense. And yes, the whole section from 130 to 295 is now torn up. The new roadway looks like it will be south of the existing one.
Quote from: famartin on July 20, 2020, 05:13:54 PM
Ah, OK this all makes much more sense. And yes, the whole section from 130 to 295 is now torn up. The new roadway looks like it will be south of the existing one.
Great to hear, and thanks for that update. Glad they're not waiting for the warehouses to be built first! If I were to imagine this, they'll build the new EB lanes, then go back to rebuild the existing roadway which will become the WB lanes, or widen it slightly to incorporate a full shoulder.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/2020-07-09_11_54_10_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_41.jpg/800px-2020-07-09_11_54_10_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_41.jpg)
Meant to point out, I did not realize that NJDOT was starting to take some signing cues from ISTHA these days.
What's with the six mile notification???
Quote from: seicer on July 21, 2020, 09:48:26 AM
What's with the six mile notification???
I also wonder why Route 29 is signed 27 miles from its beginning.
All the new gantries seem to have distance to the "next" exit (whether, 2, 3 or 6 miles away) and are using "To 29" (westbound) or "To 138" (eastbound).
Quote from: famartin on July 21, 2020, 11:51:50 AM
All the new gantries seem to have distance to the "next" exit (whether, 2, 3 or 6 miles away) and are using "To 29" (westbound) or "To 138" (eastbound).
:-D :ded:
Quote from: famartin on July 21, 2020, 11:51:50 AM
All the new gantries seem to have distance to the "next" exit (whether, 2, 3 or 6 miles away) and are using "To 29" (westbound) or "To 138" (eastbound).
The "To 29" part I kinda get, since that's the main road into Trenton from 195's western end. Still, I would probably not start to sign that until around the Turnpike. The "To 138" seems pointless to me. I doubt there are many who realize that 195 continues on as 138 nor do they care since it's just a connector to 35 near Seaside. And the far advance signs regardless of distance is a
very un-NJDOT thing to do. They usually don't like posting anything more than a mile out, sometimes 2 miles for major interchanges. Jackson Mills Rd is a very minor road that serves little more than local traffic, so this seems superfluous.
NJ will not have a post interchange mileage sign which would address the 6 mile thing. They did the same on I-287 post NJ 208 for NJ 17. NJ likes to do things its way or no way, which got me into roads growing up.
In the 1960's there were plans to have post exit mileage signs as the CR 577 mileage for Berkley Heights 5 - I-287 18- Clinton 32 were part of that. Berkley Heights is the next exit. I-287 is an added feature. Then Clinto is the next (or was before the sprawl, but mainly copying US 22) control point.
Same on I-287 as at CR 525 was a Bedminster 3 - Metuchen 20 as that was to say Bedminster the next exit is 3 miles and Metuchen was the planned control city for that part of I-287 which was final on the sign.
To me it would make most sense to have TO I-95 and a Turnpike Shield rather than Route 29 and the other way a Parkway shield.
Oh boy this is the lowest NJDOT has gotten.
Trying to figure out just what these ubiquitous signs are. Environmental stations?
https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6
Quote from: Alps on July 22, 2020, 11:30:13 PM
Trying to figure out just what these ubiquitous signs are. Environmental stations?
https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6
Look like some sort of groundwater monitoring thing. Can't tell if it's a NJDEP thing or from one of the private water companies. Maybe both, who knows.
Quote from: storm2k on July 23, 2020, 09:08:19 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 22, 2020, 11:30:13 PM
Trying to figure out just what these ubiquitous signs are. Environmental stations?
https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6 (https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6)
Look like some sort of groundwater monitoring thing. Can't tell if it's a NJDEP thing or from one of the private water companies. Maybe both, who knows.
I've seen them in a lot of places, mainly in north Jersey around Morris County.
Quote from: Alps on July 23, 2020, 12:14:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 23, 2020, 09:08:19 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 22, 2020, 11:30:13 PM
Trying to figure out just what these ubiquitous signs are. Environmental stations?
https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6 (https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6)
Look like some sort of groundwater monitoring thing. Can't tell if it's a NJDEP thing or from one of the private water companies. Maybe both, who knows.
I've seen them in a lot of places, mainly in north Jersey around Morris County.
The sign with the numbered "hat?" I think those are underground telephone lines (One with a similar style outside of a Verizon building, maybe a vestige of Bell (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2077793,-74.6853083,3a,43y,321.73h,92.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svMS2rKaV2u55gBAutJr2jA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), similar style for AT&T (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8990774,-74.3818713,3a,51.6y,204.73h,84.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1zQfTgIBSovxnwOsiDOwZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 23, 2020, 01:15:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 23, 2020, 12:14:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 23, 2020, 09:08:19 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 22, 2020, 11:30:13 PM
Trying to figure out just what these ubiquitous signs are. Environmental stations?
https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6 (https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6)
Look like some sort of groundwater monitoring thing. Can't tell if it's a NJDEP thing or from one of the private water companies. Maybe both, who knows.
I've seen them in a lot of places, mainly in north Jersey around Morris County.
The sign with the numbered "hat?" I think those are underground telephone lines (One with a similar style outside of a Verizon building, maybe a vestige of Bell (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2077793,-74.6853083,3a,43y,321.73h,92.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svMS2rKaV2u55gBAutJr2jA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), similar style for AT&T (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8990774,-74.3818713,3a,51.6y,204.73h,84.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1zQfTgIBSovxnwOsiDOwZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).
That last one clearly has an ATT logo on it, so Mr. Matte may be correct.
If you're familiar with US 322 out near Hamilton, Atlantic County, NJ, you've probably seen the kiddie version of the Jersey Barrier. https://goo.gl/maps/VrdW1kZajJAXuZbQ8 Per NJDOT, it only measures 13" high. And per this Press Release for an upcoming virtual public meeting, it's going to be removed and a standard 32" jersey barrier put in its place. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/pubmeet/details/Handbook_20200714_111148_FINAL_Virtual_PIC_Bulletin_NJ_Rt_322_Flyer.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 23, 2020, 03:34:47 PM
If you're familiar with US 322 out near Hamilton, Atlantic County, NJ, you've probably seen the kiddie version of the Jersey Barrier. https://goo.gl/maps/VrdW1kZajJAXuZbQ8 Per NJDOT, it only measures 13" high. And per this Press Release for an upcoming virtual public meeting, it's going to be removed and a standard 32" jersey barrier put in its place. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/pubmeet/details/Handbook_20200714_111148_FINAL_Virtual_PIC_Bulletin_NJ_Rt_322_Flyer.pdf
Any idea why the kiddie barrier was installed? (Sorry if it's in the link, didn't click yet)
Quote from: famartin on July 23, 2020, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 23, 2020, 03:34:47 PM
If you're familiar with US 322 out near Hamilton, Atlantic County, NJ, you've probably seen the kiddie version of the Jersey Barrier. https://goo.gl/maps/VrdW1kZajJAXuZbQ8 Per NJDOT, it only measures 13" high. And per this Press Release for an upcoming virtual public meeting, it's going to be removed and a standard 32" jersey barrier put in its place. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/pubmeet/details/Handbook_20200714_111148_FINAL_Virtual_PIC_Bulletin_NJ_Rt_322_Flyer.pdf
Any idea why the kiddie barrier was installed? (Sorry if it's in the link, didn't click yet)
It was one of the original test subjects for barrier. I made the case to NJDOT to save a piece of it for posterity, since I believe it's the last remaining pre-standardization barrier left, and as far as I know they will.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 23, 2020, 01:15:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 23, 2020, 12:14:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 23, 2020, 09:08:19 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 22, 2020, 11:30:13 PM
Trying to figure out just what these ubiquitous signs are. Environmental stations?
https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6 (https://goo.gl/maps/bdhbybEFcpzUeYbk6)
Look like some sort of groundwater monitoring thing. Can't tell if it's a NJDEP thing or from one of the private water companies. Maybe both, who knows.
I've seen them in a lot of places, mainly in north Jersey around Morris County.
The sign with the numbered "hat?" I think those are underground telephone lines (One with a similar style outside of a Verizon building, maybe a vestige of Bell (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2077793,-74.6853083,3a,43y,321.73h,92.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svMS2rKaV2u55gBAutJr2jA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), similar style for AT&T (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8990774,-74.3818713,3a,51.6y,204.73h,84.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1zQfTgIBSovxnwOsiDOwZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).
Thanks!
Drove to Hillsborough the other night. Saw some more signs as they get ready for the 206 bypass to open. I'm confused. Are they going to move 206 to the bypass and turn the old road over to the county or give it another route number or something? It looked like there were very new signs that continued to call the bypass 206 bypass and made it look like actual 206 would continue on its original path. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose a bit?
Quote from: storm2k on July 27, 2020, 02:29:53 AM
Drove to Hillsborough the other night. Saw some more signs as they get ready for the 206 bypass to open. I'm confused. Are they going to move 206 to the bypass and turn the old road over to the county or give it another route number or something? It looked like there were very new signs that continued to call the bypass 206 bypass and made it look like actual 206 would continue on its original path. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose a bit?
In this age of GPS, not likely.
Quote from: storm2k on July 27, 2020, 02:29:53 AM
Drove to Hillsborough the other night. Saw some more signs as they get ready for the 206 bypass to open. I'm confused. Are they going to move 206 to the bypass and turn the old road over to the county or give it another route number or something? It looked like there were very new signs that continued to call the bypass 206 bypass and made it look like actual 206 would continue on its original path. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose a bit?
Steve already answered the question the first time you asked it. :)
Quote from: Alps on June 01, 2020, 10:11:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on June 01, 2020, 07:21:31 AM
Drove up 206 through Hillsborough yesterday for the first time in a while. Looks like both ends of the bypass are pretty far along. Northern end was turned into a T with a loop jughandle from the northbound bypass onto southbound 206 so for now traffic has to slow down to about 10mph to make the turn to continue on their trips.
Couple of questions:
1. What's the state's plan for routing once the bypass is complete? In olden times, they would move the US Route off of the bypassed roads and give it a 1xx state route number (e.g., 159, 166, 183, etc.) but I've heard that isn't their procedure anymore? Will they move 206 onto the bypass and then just hand the old road over to Somerset county to sign it as a 6xx county road or nothing at all?
2. Is the southern end of the bypass south of Amwell Road still going to be a divided super 2? That's such a not-Jersey thing. Only other place I know of them really doing that is part of the 33 bypass of Freehold, which always felt like a project wrought with some poorly thought out design choices (as evidenced by it having an exit that was so poorly designed that it never was allowed to open).
1. Going back to town maintenance.
2. The whole thing is a 2 to 4 lane divided expressway, not really a super 2.
In terms of signage, the only ones that would really have to be scrapped are the traffic signal blades and the mileposts. I bet the old road isn't going to be turned over to Hillsborough right away once it fully opens, they can just uncover the greenouts on the directional signs and give them a little bit more use. With the mileposts though, the ones that are currently installed appear to also have a greenout with "Business" [sic] tacked on (kinda can see it here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4935792,-74.6374463,3a,26.4y,60.53h,85.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh7Qs5OChtm-DB-WCpuYn0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)) but if the southern section opens, I wonder if they are going to move all the mileposts down (thus making "Business" US 206 mile 0 at Mountainview Road).
Quote from: famartin on July 27, 2020, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 27, 2020, 02:29:53 AM
Drove to Hillsborough the other night. Saw some more signs as they get ready for the 206 bypass to open. I'm confused. Are they going to move 206 to the bypass and turn the old road over to the county or give it another route number or something? It looked like there were very new signs that continued to call the bypass 206 bypass and made it look like actual 206 would continue on its original path. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose a bit?
In this age of GPS, not likely.
Route numbers are still changed when necessary. DE does it all the time. NJ and PA did it with 95/295. It's not a transportation department's problem to worry about how a 3rd party program works.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2020, 08:18:44 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 27, 2020, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 27, 2020, 02:29:53 AM
Drove to Hillsborough the other night. Saw some more signs as they get ready for the 206 bypass to open. I'm confused. Are they going to move 206 to the bypass and turn the old road over to the county or give it another route number or something? It looked like there were very new signs that continued to call the bypass 206 bypass and made it look like actual 206 would continue on its original path. Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose a bit?
In this age of GPS, not likely.
Route numbers are still changed when necessary. DE does it all the time. NJ and PA did it with 95/295. It's not a transportation department's problem to worry about how a 3rd party program works.
What I mean, is that using "Bypass 206" on the new alignment and keeping regular 206 on the old one is not likely to affect travel decisions significantly.
The bypass most likely will get the mainline as not many places have a specific bypass with a mainline. NJ is one that even does not like to designate many business routes hence NJ 183, NJ 166, and NJ 179 as many states do like to.
I think it was mentioned on here that it was to be local control once done and no state route for Old US 206.
I am though disappointed that its only two lanes as for decades they were always talking about four laning US 206 through there. Instead it drops from four to two lanes just south of Duke Gardens Estate as if NJ 92 was ever to be built, NJDOT would have had it four lanes from the proposed ending of the never built freeway to the Somerville Circle (or just south of it as US 206 was always four lanes to the intersection south of the NJ Transit Raritan Valley Line overpass) as part of a shortcut to the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2020, 10:13:08 AM
The bypass most likely will get the mainline as not many places have a specific bypass with a mainline. NJ is one that even does not like to designate many business routes hence NJ 183, NJ 166, and NJ 179 as many states do like to.
I think it was mentioned on here that it was to be local control once done and no state route for Old US 206.
I am though disappointed that its only two lanes as for decades they were always talking about four laning US 206 through there. Instead it drops from four to two lanes just south of Duke Gardens Estate as if NJ 92 was ever to be built, NJDOT would have had it four lanes from the proposed ending of the never built freeway to the Somerville Circle (or just south of it as US 206 was always four lanes to the intersection south of the NJ Transit Raritan Valley Line overpass) as part of a shortcut to the NJ Turnpike.
There are actually plans in the latest STIP (https://nj.gov/transportation/capital/stip2029/sec3/pdf/routes/rt206.pdf) for them to upgrade the roadway from Brown Ave to the bypass to four lanes. IIRC, the biggest holdup was the money to rebuild the Conrail overpass so it could have four lanes pass underneath, and it looks like they've worked that out. When done, they'll finally have a full four lane roadway from the circle to the southern end of Hillsborough (where the current bypass goes down to a divided two lane roadway). I would imagine that there'd be a love to eventually upgrade the roadway to four lanes all the way to Princeton, but I'm pretty sure both cost and wealthy NIMBY's will keep that in fictional territory for all time.
Quote from: storm2k on July 28, 2020, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2020, 10:13:08 AM
The bypass most likely will get the mainline as not many places have a specific bypass with a mainline. NJ is one that even does not like to designate many business routes hence NJ 183, NJ 166, and NJ 179 as many states do like to.
I think it was mentioned on here that it was to be local control once done and no state route for Old US 206.
I am though disappointed that its only two lanes as for decades they were always talking about four laning US 206 through there. Instead it drops from four to two lanes just south of Duke Gardens Estate as if NJ 92 was ever to be built, NJDOT would have had it four lanes from the proposed ending of the never built freeway to the Somerville Circle (or just south of it as US 206 was always four lanes to the intersection south of the NJ Transit Raritan Valley Line overpass) as part of a shortcut to the NJ Turnpike.
There are actually plans in the latest STIP (https://nj.gov/transportation/capital/stip2029/sec3/pdf/routes/rt206.pdf) for them to upgrade the roadway from Brown Ave to the bypass to four lanes. IIRC, the biggest holdup was the money to rebuild the Conrail overpass so it could have four lanes pass underneath, and it looks like they've worked that out. When done, they'll finally have a full four lane roadway from the circle to the southern end of Hillsborough (where the current bypass goes down to a divided two lane roadway). I would imagine that there'd be a love to eventually upgrade the roadway to four lanes all the way to Princeton, but I'm pretty sure both cost and wealthy NIMBY's will keep that in fictional territory for all time.
Having driven through there enough times, it seems like the mix of local and thru traffic should be eliminated, so perhaps only 2 lanes will suffice for now.
Quote from: storm2k on July 28, 2020, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2020, 10:13:08 AM
The bypass most likely will get the mainline as not many places have a specific bypass with a mainline. NJ is one that even does not like to designate many business routes hence NJ 183, NJ 166, and NJ 179 as many states do like to.
I think it was mentioned on here that it was to be local control once done and no state route for Old US 206.
I am though disappointed that its only two lanes as for decades they were always talking about four laning US 206 through there. Instead it drops from four to two lanes just south of Duke Gardens Estate as if NJ 92 was ever to be built, NJDOT would have had it four lanes from the proposed ending of the never built freeway to the Somerville Circle (or just south of it as US 206 was always four lanes to the intersection south of the NJ Transit Raritan Valley Line overpass) as part of a shortcut to the NJ Turnpike.
There are actually plans in the latest STIP (https://nj.gov/transportation/capital/stip2029/sec3/pdf/routes/rt206.pdf) for them to upgrade the roadway from Brown Ave to the bypass to four lanes. IIRC, the biggest holdup was the money to rebuild the Conrail overpass so it could have four lanes pass underneath, and it looks like they've worked that out. When done, they'll finally have a full four lane roadway from the circle to the southern end of Hillsborough (where the current bypass goes down to a divided two lane roadway). I would imagine that there'd be a love to eventually upgrade the roadway to four lanes all the way to Princeton, but I'm pretty sure both cost and wealthy NIMBY's will keep that in fictional territory for all time.
This leaves a half mile before you get to the next overpass and Great Rd. It would be tremendous if they could four-lane that half mile.
Looks like the north end of the bypass will provide a seam less link between existing US 206 and the new bypass with current 206 as a T at the end in the north.
https://goo.gl/maps/6W5PR7DPhq4WE7jN6
Also I thought that the bypass would remain east of the former Reading Railroad, but I see it crosses back over to the west and will intersect existing US 206 at the Belle Meade Hospital.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2020, 10:15:37 PM
Looks like the north end of the bypass will provide a seam less link between existing US 206 and the new bypass with current 206 as a T at the end in the north.
https://goo.gl/maps/6W5PR7DPhq4WE7jN6
Also I thought that the bypass would remain east of the former Reading Railroad, but I see it crosses back over to the west and will intersect existing US 206 at the Belle Meade Hospital.
That's correct. Currently, you have to make an awkward 90 degree right turn through the construction zone to continue southbound on 206 with a 10mph speed restriction. I believe there will be a second turn lane and maybe some kind of slip ramp once they're done with all the work so traffic continuing straight through onto the bypass won't get stuck behind people slowing down to make the turn.
RE: the southern end, the original plans were to have the bypass run all the way down to the area of Township Line Rd/Pike Run way back when they were developing the bypass, but I believe local opposition and logistics both served to torpedo that idea, so they moved the end of the bypass to where it is now.
Quote from: Alps on July 28, 2020, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 28, 2020, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2020, 10:13:08 AM
The bypass most likely will get the mainline as not many places have a specific bypass with a mainline. NJ is one that even does not like to designate many business routes hence NJ 183, NJ 166, and NJ 179 as many states do like to.
I think it was mentioned on here that it was to be local control once done and no state route for Old US 206.
I am though disappointed that its only two lanes as for decades they were always talking about four laning US 206 through there. Instead it drops from four to two lanes just south of Duke Gardens Estate as if NJ 92 was ever to be built, NJDOT would have had it four lanes from the proposed ending of the never built freeway to the Somerville Circle (or just south of it as US 206 was always four lanes to the intersection south of the NJ Transit Raritan Valley Line overpass) as part of a shortcut to the NJ Turnpike.
There are actually plans in the latest STIP (https://nj.gov/transportation/capital/stip2029/sec3/pdf/routes/rt206.pdf) for them to upgrade the roadway from Brown Ave to the bypass to four lanes. IIRC, the biggest holdup was the money to rebuild the Conrail overpass so it could have four lanes pass underneath, and it looks like they've worked that out. When done, they'll finally have a full four lane roadway from the circle to the southern end of Hillsborough (where the current bypass goes down to a divided two lane roadway). I would imagine that there'd be a love to eventually upgrade the roadway to four lanes all the way to Princeton, but I'm pretty sure both cost and wealthy NIMBY's will keep that in fictional territory for all time.
This leaves a half mile before you get to the next overpass and Great Rd. It would be tremendous if they could four-lane that half mile.
Are you referring to the southern bit from where the bypass ends to the rebuilt bridge over the Conrail line that finally eliminated the Z turn the road used to have to take? I've never heard of Great Rd in either Hillsborough or Montgomery.
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2020, 08:51:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2020, 10:15:37 PM
Looks like the north end of the bypass will provide a seam less link between existing US 206 and the new bypass with current 206 as a T at the end in the north.
https://goo.gl/maps/6W5PR7DPhq4WE7jN6
Also I thought that the bypass would remain east of the former Reading Railroad, but I see it crosses back over to the west and will intersect existing US 206 at the Belle Meade Hospital.
That's correct. Currently, you have to make an awkward 90 degree right turn through the construction zone to continue southbound on 206 with a 10mph speed restriction. I believe there will be a second turn lane and maybe some kind of slip ramp once they're done with all the work so traffic continuing straight through onto the bypass won't get stuck behind people slowing down to make the turn.
RE: the southern end, the original plans were to have the bypass run all the way down to the area of Township Line Rd/Pike Run way back when they were developing the bypass, but I believe local opposition and logistics both served to torpedo that idea, so they moved the end of the bypass to where it is now.
The same NIMBYs who killed the Somerset Freeway and also is whytook so long to even get US 206 its current 4 lanes south of Raritan. My former boss from 1988, who lived in Hillsborough at the time, said Doris Duke once used her influence to stop US 206 from being the country road in front of her estate by threatening the area with an AIDS hospital on her estate where as at the time people were paranoid of people with that immune disease, so locals stood forward and Doris Duke got her way.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 29, 2020, 09:14:21 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2020, 08:51:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2020, 10:15:37 PM
Looks like the north end of the bypass will provide a seam less link between existing US 206 and the new bypass with current 206 as a T at the end in the north.
https://goo.gl/maps/6W5PR7DPhq4WE7jN6
Also I thought that the bypass would remain east of the former Reading Railroad, but I see it crosses back over to the west and will intersect existing US 206 at the Belle Meade Hospital.
That's correct. Currently, you have to make an awkward 90 degree right turn through the construction zone to continue southbound on 206 with a 10mph speed restriction. I believe there will be a second turn lane and maybe some kind of slip ramp once they're done with all the work so traffic continuing straight through onto the bypass won't get stuck behind people slowing down to make the turn.
RE: the southern end, the original plans were to have the bypass run all the way down to the area of Township Line Rd/Pike Run way back when they were developing the bypass, but I believe local opposition and logistics both served to torpedo that idea, so they moved the end of the bypass to where it is now.
The same NIMBYs who killed the Somerset Freeway and also is whytook so long to even get US 206 its current 4 lanes south of Raritan. My former boss from 1988, who lived in Hillsborough at the time, said Doris Duke once used her influence to stop US 206 from being the country road in front of her estate by threatening the area with an AIDS hospital on her estate where as at the time people were paranoid of people with that immune disease, so locals stood forward and Doris Duke got her way.
Yes, I believe her death was one of the main things that allowed the project to get restarted in the mid 90s, as the expansion to Brown Road was finally built in 1999.
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2020, 08:51:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2020, 10:15:37 PM
Looks like the north end of the bypass will provide a seam less link between existing US 206 and the new bypass with current 206 as a T at the end in the north.
https://goo.gl/maps/6W5PR7DPhq4WE7jN6
Also I thought that the bypass would remain east of the former Reading Railroad, but I see it crosses back over to the west and will intersect existing US 206 at the Belle Meade Hospital.
That's correct. Currently, you have to make an awkward 90 degree right turn through the construction zone to continue southbound on 206 with a 10mph speed restriction. I believe there will be a second turn lane and maybe some kind of slip ramp once they're done with all the work so traffic continuing straight through onto the bypass won't get stuck behind people slowing down to make the turn.
RE: the southern end, the original plans were to have the bypass run all the way down to the area of Township Line Rd/Pike Run way back when they were developing the bypass, but I believe local opposition and logistics both served to torpedo that idea, so they moved the end of the bypass to where it is now.
Did a "virtual drive-thru" of this since I haven't been down US 206 towards Princeton in a while. Didn't realize that there's a pre-1927 renumbering bridge on this stretch: https://goo.gl/maps/X7uQN2xQsm5RGa5i9 (https://goo.gl/maps/X7uQN2xQsm5RGa5i9)
So the section of US 206 being bypassed will have changed four times in numbering: NJ 16 --> NJ 31 --> US 206 --> unnumbered Township roadway?
Breaking away from one project on the end of Central Jersey to the other side: Two traffic circles' yield signs locations were converted to be more like modern roundabouts: NJ 34 and CR 524 and NJ 35 and CR 524 Spur (https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2020/07/nj-just-reversed-the-yields-on-2-major-traffic-circles-along-jersey-shore.html)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 29, 2020, 02:34:32 PM
Breaking away from one project on the end of Central Jersey to the other side: Two traffic circles' yield signs locations were converted to be more like modern roundabouts: NJ 34 and CR 524 and NJ 35 and CR 524 Spur (https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2020/07/nj-just-reversed-the-yields-on-2-major-traffic-circles-along-jersey-shore.html)
That's what happens when you try to sign and stripe a traffic circle like a roundabout. :-D
Let's see if drivers get used to it.
Quote from: civilmaher on July 29, 2020, 03:29:50 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 29, 2020, 02:34:32 PM
Breaking away from one project on the end of Central Jersey to the other side: Two traffic circles' yield signs locations were converted to be more like modern roundabouts: NJ 34 and CR 524 and NJ 35 and CR 524 Spur (https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2020/07/nj-just-reversed-the-yields-on-2-major-traffic-circles-along-jersey-shore.html)
That's what happens when you try to sign and stripe a traffic circle like a roundabout. :-D
Let's see if drivers get used to it.
I saw that done in one instance near me. It's been a few years now, and some drivers still aren't used to it. The ones that seem to have the biggest issue are those already in the circle, who want to stop for those entering the circle. They have the right of way now, and should continue going.
I kinda wish there was a camera pointed at the circle on NJ-34 right now. The "old" rules had folks in the circle yielding to mainline traffic on NJ-34 (a 55MPH divided highway). It might get a bit ugly out there.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 29, 2020, 07:16:06 PM
I kinda wish there was a camera pointed at the circle on NJ-34 right now. The "old" rules had folks in the circle yielding to mainline traffic on NJ-34 (a 55MPH divided highway). It might get a bit ugly out there.
Yes it will. I work not far from there and go through that circle all the time. One of my coworkers almost got taken out by northbound 34 traffic running the new yield. That circle has always been horrible and needs to just be completely replaced with a light. Crossing 34 on 524 could take forever at times pre-change. It also gets very heavy shore traffic coming and going from the Parkway and backed up on the approaches even before the yield (due to traffic stacking to make a left in the circle). The Wall police need to park some patrol cars in the circle for awhile (which they already occasionally did on the nearby 35/Atlantic Ave. circle pre-change...)
I'm not really sure why NJDOT hasn't tried to remove either of those circles after all these years. Especially after undoing the Brielle Circle years ago. I'm hard pressed to think that a light and some jughandles wouldn't be better options at this point.
I was trying to figure out where to post this shot of the lovely button copy signs from Airport Circle - and then I realized that the newer-looking street tag was technically incorrect and had to have been wrong when it was posted. Bridge Boulevard was renamed to Admiral Wilson Boulevard as far back as the 20's although this site ( http://www.dvrbs.com/camden-streets/CamdenNJ-Streets-AdmWilsonBlvd.htm (http://www.dvrbs.com/camden-streets/CamdenNJ-Streets-AdmWilsonBlvd.htm)) explains how it didn't officially change til 1937. Still, the street name sign looks considerably newer than those button-copy signs behind it and has to be contemporary - right? Correct me if I'm way off base.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNrFg89y/D8885-AB3-6-FAF-4-D60-BE52-F0-B781-DD51-B5.jpg)
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 23, 2020, 07:16:15 PM
I was trying to figure out where to post this shot of the lovely button copy signs from Airport Circle - and then I realized that the newer-looking street tag was technically incorrect and had to have been wrong when it was posted. Bridge Boulevard was renamed to Admiral Wilson Boulevard as far back as the 20's although this site ( http://www.dvrbs.com/camden-streets/CamdenNJ-Streets-AdmWilsonBlvd.htm (http://www.dvrbs.com/camden-streets/CamdenNJ-Streets-AdmWilsonBlvd.htm)) explains how it didn't officially change til 1937. Still, the street name sign looks considerably newer than those button-copy signs behind it and has to be contemporary - right? Correct me if I'm way off base.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNrFg89y/D8885-AB3-6-FAF-4-D60-BE52-F0-B781-DD51-B5.jpg)
Much newer. I noticed that oddity a few weeks back too and was also scratching my head about it.
Edit: I just checked, and the SLD is correct, so not sure how that could've ended up saying that. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000030__-.pdf
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2020, 07:42:19 PM
Quote from: J3ebrules on August 23, 2020, 07:16:15 PM
I was trying to figure out where to post this shot of the lovely button copy signs from Airport Circle - and then I realized that the newer-looking street tag was technically incorrect and had to have been wrong when it was posted. Bridge Boulevard was renamed to Admiral Wilson Boulevard as far back as the 20's although this site ( http://www.dvrbs.com/camden-streets/CamdenNJ-Streets-AdmWilsonBlvd.htm (http://www.dvrbs.com/camden-streets/CamdenNJ-Streets-AdmWilsonBlvd.htm)) explains how it didn't officially change til 1937. Still, the street name sign looks considerably newer than those button-copy signs behind it and has to be contemporary - right? Correct me if I'm way off base.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bNrFg89y/D8885-AB3-6-FAF-4-D60-BE52-F0-B781-DD51-B5.jpg)
Much newer. I noticed that oddity a few weeks back too and was also scratching my head about it.
Edit: I just checked, and the SLD is correct, so not sure how that could've ended up saying that. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000030__-.pdf
They erected similarly wrong signs at US-202 and Chubb Way in branchburg a few years ago that said "west county blvd" even though that hadn't been the roads name in several decades. I sent a few emails and it got corrected real fast but they left off the fact that it's CR-646.
SM-G965U
Quote from: storm2k on July 29, 2020, 09:41:05 PM
I'm not really sure why NJDOT hasn't tried to remove either of those circles after all these years. Especially after undoing the Brielle Circle years ago. I'm hard pressed to think that a light and some jughandles wouldn't be better options at this point.
Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
You don't see any new circles because they take up oodles of costly land, but once it's in place, a circle will always have drastically lower operating expenses, accidents, and injuries than any type of signalized intersection. It's only downfall is capacity.
SM-G965U
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2020, 07:42:19 PM
Edit: I just checked, and the SLD is correct, so not sure how that could've ended up saying that. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000030__-.pdf
The SLDs are basically a reference document put out there for the publix to use. NJDOT generally will use original documents and plans when developing their projects.
It also doesn't help that engineers are assigned projects randomly, and often may not have any knowledge of the area, and apparently don't even visit the site themselves.. To this point, I was trying to discuss the Creek Road exit off Rt. 42 at a public meeting with someone from NJDOT for the 295/76/42 project. He kept trying to correct me saying that the ramp leads to Leaf Ave, not Creek Road. I learned he had no idea the exit was signed Creek Rd.
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
[Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
None of this is true. Even the airport circle isn't really a circle, but still referenced as such. Over half the traditional circles, closing in on 75% have been replaced, including heavily used ones near the shore
The Airport Circle here has been drastically modified in the past. Nothing really represents a circle. Other than Kaighn Ave, each entry point is controlled by traffic lights. 38 West to 130 South goes thru a light, then is a triple left at another light.
The Collingswood Circle hasn't existed for 10 years and was converted to a regular intersection, yet the traffic camera name is still "Collingswood Circle"
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2020, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
[Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
None of this is true. Even the airport circle isn't really a circle, but still referenced as such. Over half the traditional circles, closing in on 75% have been replaced, including heavily used ones near the shore
The Airport Circle here has been drastically modified in the past. Nothing really represents a circle. Other than Kaighn Ave, each entry point is controlled by traffic lights. 38 West to 130 South goes thru a light, then is a triple left at another light.
The Collingswood Circle hasn't existed for 10 years and was converted to a regular intersection, yet the traffic camera name is still "Collingswood Circle"
So basically, NJDOT will attack circles as needed, but they have an ultimate goal of zero circles. They'll either replace it with a regular intersection, add traffic signals, or convert it to a roundabout.
Quote from: Alps on August 24, 2020, 12:59:54 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2020, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
[Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
None of this is true. Even the airport circle isn't really a circle, but still referenced as such. Over half the traditional circles, closing in on 75% have been replaced, including heavily used ones near the shore
The Airport Circle here has been drastically modified in the past. Nothing really represents a circle. Other than Kaighn Ave, each entry point is controlled by traffic lights. 38 West to 130 South goes thru a light, then is a triple left at another light.
The Collingswood Circle hasn't existed for 10 years and was converted to a regular intersection, yet the traffic camera name is still "Collingswood Circle"
So basically, NJDOT will attack circles as needed, but they have an ultimate goal of zero circles. They'll either replace it with a regular intersection, add traffic signals, or convert it to a roundabout.
One of the more interesting set ups is the Brunswick Circle area (Bus 1 and 206) which now has a roundabout just up the road (Bus 1 at Whitehead Road). Having driven both today, I realize that it's a bit confusing using circle rules and then roundabout rules in short succession. I wonder if that might lead to increased accidents at both.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2020, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2020, 07:42:19 PM
Edit: I just checked, and the SLD is correct, so not sure how that could've ended up saying that. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000030__-.pdf
The SLDs are basically a reference document put out there for the publix to use. NJDOT generally will use original documents and plans when developing their projects.
It also doesn't help that engineers are assigned projects randomly, and often may not have any knowledge of the area, and apparently don't even visit the site themselves.. To this point, I was trying to discuss the Creek Road exit off Rt. 42 at a public meeting with someone from NJDOT for the 295/76/42 project. He kept trying to correct me saying that the ramp leads to Leaf Ave, not Creek Road. I learned he had no idea the exit was signed Creek Rd.
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
[Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
None of this is true. Even the airport circle isn't really a circle, but still referenced as such. Over half the traditional circles, closing in on 75% have been replaced, including heavily used ones near the shore
The Airport Circle here has been drastically modified in the past. Nothing really represents a circle. Other than Kaighn Ave, each entry point is controlled by traffic lights. 38 West to 130 South goes thru a light, then is a triple left at another light.
The Collingswood Circle hasn't existed for 10 years and was converted to a regular intersection, yet the traffic camera name is still "Collingswood Circle"
What do you mean "none of this is true"? Circles are (one of) the only at-grade crossings with full movements (besides stop signs alone) that require no signals or electricity, and the possible angle of impact in an accident is much shallower than any orthogonal crossing. And whether or not they are a part of NJ life is a subjective opinion, so I'm not sure what specifically I said about traffic circles that you disagree with.
SM-G965U
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
By your reckoning, we should have stuck with two lane roads, or express roads that were undivided or just divided by a small median, because that's a historic part of life. Roadway engineering and the knowledge of the best ways to move large amounts of traffic through areas and intersections has changed a lot over the last number of decades. You make it sound like we should all put our heads in the sand and ignore everything, simply because it should be the way "we've always done it".
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
You don't see any new circles because they take up oodles of costly land, but once it's in place, a circle will always have drastically lower operating expenses, accidents, and injuries than any type of signalized intersection. It's only downfall is capacity.
Right, which is why NJDOT has spent untold millions of dollars over the last 30 years to slowly eliminate a large number of circles. Modern roundabouts have been shown in studies to be as safe or safer than signalized intersections in some places depending on volume, which is why you see more of them. But you're confusing two different things here. The traditional "Jersey Circle" is an outmoded concept that causes more accidents, driver confusion, and often backups, which is why so many have been eliminated.
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
By your reckoning, we should have stuck with two lane roads, or express roads that were undivided or just divided by a small median, because that's a historic part of life. Roadway engineering and the knowledge of the best ways to move large amounts of traffic through areas and intersections has changed a lot over the last number of decades. You make it sound like we should all put our heads in the sand and ignore everything, simply because it should be the way "we've always done it".
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
You don't see any new circles because they take up oodles of costly land, but once it's in place, a circle will always have drastically lower operating expenses, accidents, and injuries than any type of signalized intersection. It's only downfall is capacity.
Right, which is why NJDOT has spent untold millions of dollars over the last 30 years to slowly eliminate a large number of circles. Modern roundabouts have been shown in studies to be as safe or safer than signalized intersections in some places depending on volume, which is why you see more of them. But you're confusing two different things here. The traditional "Jersey Circle" is an outmoded concept that causes more accidents, driver confusion, and often backups, which is why so many have been eliminated.
Well maybe with your state-specific insight on circle conversion, you could tell me why all the circles I navigate that are clearly at capacity, such as Somerville's, were not at the top of the list to be replaced, and why others like Flemington get reworked time and time again but never removed.
And yes I'm specifically talking about NJ traffic circles (compete with the CIRCLE warning sign), not roundabouts. Roundabouts don't typically allow any movements to go through at full speed when the circle is empty, and the geometry usually explicitly prevents this, while Jersey circles are often elongated in one direction to minimize curves on the "through" movement (like 202/31 NB onto 202 NB).
SM-G965U
Quote from: _Simon on August 24, 2020, 02:08:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
By your reckoning, we should have stuck with two lane roads, or express roads that were undivided or just divided by a small median, because that's a historic part of life. Roadway engineering and the knowledge of the best ways to move large amounts of traffic through areas and intersections has changed a lot over the last number of decades. You make it sound like we should all put our heads in the sand and ignore everything, simply because it should be the way "we've always done it".
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
You don't see any new circles because they take up oodles of costly land, but once it's in place, a circle will always have drastically lower operating expenses, accidents, and injuries than any type of signalized intersection. It's only downfall is capacity.
Right, which is why NJDOT has spent untold millions of dollars over the last 30 years to slowly eliminate a large number of circles. Modern roundabouts have been shown in studies to be as safe or safer than signalized intersections in some places depending on volume, which is why you see more of them. But you're confusing two different things here. The traditional "Jersey Circle" is an outmoded concept that causes more accidents, driver confusion, and often backups, which is why so many have been eliminated.
Well maybe with your state-specific insight on circle conversion, you could tell me why all the circles I navigate that are clearly at capacity, such as Somerville's, were not at the top of the list to be replaced, and why others like Flemington get reworked time and time again but never removed.
And yes I'm specifically talking about NJ traffic circles (compete with the CIRCLE warning sign), not roundabouts. Roundabouts don't typically allow any movements to go through at full speed when the circle is empty, and the geometry usually explicitly prevents this, while Jersey circles are often elongated in one direction to minimize curves on the "through" movement (like 202/31 NB onto 202 NB).
SM-G965U
Because the state is doing what it can with the money it has, that's why.
Quote from: Alps on August 24, 2020, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 24, 2020, 02:08:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
By your reckoning, we should have stuck with two lane roads, or express roads that were undivided or just divided by a small median, because that's a historic part of life. Roadway engineering and the knowledge of the best ways to move large amounts of traffic through areas and intersections has changed a lot over the last number of decades. You make it sound like we should all put our heads in the sand and ignore everything, simply because it should be the way "we've always done it".
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
You don't see any new circles because they take up oodles of costly land, but once it's in place, a circle will always have drastically lower operating expenses, accidents, and injuries than any type of signalized intersection. It's only downfall is capacity.
Right, which is why NJDOT has spent untold millions of dollars over the last 30 years to slowly eliminate a large number of circles. Modern roundabouts have been shown in studies to be as safe or safer than signalized intersections in some places depending on volume, which is why you see more of them. But you're confusing two different things here. The traditional "Jersey Circle" is an outmoded concept that causes more accidents, driver confusion, and often backups, which is why so many have been eliminated.
Well maybe with your state-specific insight on circle conversion, you could tell me why all the circles I navigate that are clearly at capacity, such as Somerville's, were not at the top of the list to be replaced, and why others like Flemington get reworked time and time again but never removed.
And yes I'm specifically talking about NJ traffic circles (compete with the CIRCLE warning sign), not roundabouts. Roundabouts don't typically allow any movements to go through at full speed when the circle is empty, and the geometry usually explicitly prevents this, while Jersey circles are often elongated in one direction to minimize curves on the "through" movement (like 202/31 NB onto 202 NB).
SM-G965U
Because the state is doing what it can with the money it has, that's why.
Does the state earmark funds for specific projects or is their a prioritized list of projects that get funded from a general pool of dollars? Just curious.
SM-G965U
Quote from: _Simon on August 24, 2020, 02:08:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
By your reckoning, we should have stuck with two lane roads, or express roads that were undivided or just divided by a small median, because that's a historic part of life. Roadway engineering and the knowledge of the best ways to move large amounts of traffic through areas and intersections has changed a lot over the last number of decades. You make it sound like we should all put our heads in the sand and ignore everything, simply because it should be the way "we've always done it".
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
You don't see any new circles because they take up oodles of costly land, but once it's in place, a circle will always have drastically lower operating expenses, accidents, and injuries than any type of signalized intersection. It's only downfall is capacity.
Right, which is why NJDOT has spent untold millions of dollars over the last 30 years to slowly eliminate a large number of circles. Modern roundabouts have been shown in studies to be as safe or safer than signalized intersections in some places depending on volume, which is why you see more of them. But you're confusing two different things here. The traditional "Jersey Circle" is an outmoded concept that causes more accidents, driver confusion, and often backups, which is why so many have been eliminated.
Well maybe with your state-specific insight on circle conversion, you could tell me why all the circles I navigate that are clearly at capacity, such as Somerville's, were not at the top of the list to be replaced, and why others like Flemington get reworked time and time again but never removed.
And yes I'm specifically talking about NJ traffic circles (compete with the CIRCLE warning sign), not roundabouts. Roundabouts don't typically allow any movements to go through at full speed when the circle is empty, and the geometry usually explicitly prevents this, while Jersey circles are often elongated in one direction to minimize curves on the "through" movement (like 202/31 NB onto 202 NB).
For Somerville, specifically, the state spent $26 million in the early 90s to build the 202 flyover, which did help some, but not enough. Also, given the geometry of 206's entry into the circle, you'd probably be looking at a sizable amount of property takings to work out a safe high volume interchange of these roadways without major compromises. Accidents are still pretty common in the death trap, and I expect that at some point, there will be enough political will to dedicate the money to fully eliminate that circle once and for all.
Flemington is in pretty much the same boat. That circle is also smack in the middle of a ton of commercial development and costs just for the land to make a proper interchange there are probably beyond prohibitive.
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 24, 2020, 02:08:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
By your reckoning, we should have stuck with two lane roads, or express roads that were undivided or just divided by a small median, because that's a historic part of life. Roadway engineering and the knowledge of the best ways to move large amounts of traffic through areas and intersections has changed a lot over the last number of decades. You make it sound like we should all put our heads in the sand and ignore everything, simply because it should be the way "we've always done it".
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
You don't see any new circles because they take up oodles of costly land, but once it's in place, a circle will always have drastically lower operating expenses, accidents, and injuries than any type of signalized intersection. It's only downfall is capacity.
Right, which is why NJDOT has spent untold millions of dollars over the last 30 years to slowly eliminate a large number of circles. Modern roundabouts have been shown in studies to be as safe or safer than signalized intersections in some places depending on volume, which is why you see more of them. But you're confusing two different things here. The traditional "Jersey Circle" is an outmoded concept that causes more accidents, driver confusion, and often backups, which is why so many have been eliminated.
Well maybe with your state-specific insight on circle conversion, you could tell me why all the circles I navigate that are clearly at capacity, such as Somerville's, were not at the top of the list to be replaced, and why others like Flemington get reworked time and time again but never removed.
And yes I'm specifically talking about NJ traffic circles (compete with the CIRCLE warning sign), not roundabouts. Roundabouts don't typically allow any movements to go through at full speed when the circle is empty, and the geometry usually explicitly prevents this, while Jersey circles are often elongated in one direction to minimize curves on the "through" movement (like 202/31 NB onto 202 NB).
For Somerville, specifically, the state spent $26 million in the early 90s to build the 202 flyover, which did help some, but not enough. Also, given the geometry of 206's entry into the circle, you'd probably be looking at a sizable amount of property takings to work out a safe high volume interchange of these roadways without major compromises. Accidents are still pretty common in the death trap, and I expect that at some point, there will be enough political will to dedicate the money to fully eliminate that circle once and for all.
Flemington is in pretty much the same boat. That circle is also smack in the middle of a ton of commercial development and costs just for the land to make a proper interchange there are probably beyond prohibitive.
Help me understand how a signal requires more space than the existing circles footprints.
In Flemington there is adequate room to have the routes meet at a signal, complete with channelized right turns. The only caveat is that traffic to/from 202 to the north needs to make a turn to stay on the route.
And there should be more than enough room under 202 in Somerville to just bring all the legs to a single signal under the flyover. If you took the land from the Mavis you'd be able to T 206 up to 28 and then have 28 cross the ramps from 202 in a pair of coordinated signals.
SM-G965U
Quote from: _Simon on August 24, 2020, 03:07:49 PMDoes the state earmark funds for specific projects or is their a prioritized list of projects that get funded from a general pool of dollars? Just curious.
SM-G965U
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp20/pdf/tcp20.pdf
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp20/sec7/njdot5year.pdf
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/stip2029/pdf/stip.pdf
Quote from: _Simon on August 24, 2020, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2020, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2020, 07:42:19 PM
Edit: I just checked, and the SLD is correct, so not sure how that could've ended up saying that. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000030__-.pdf
The SLDs are basically a reference document put out there for the publix to use. NJDOT generally will use original documents and plans when developing their projects.
It also doesn't help that engineers are assigned projects randomly, and often may not have any knowledge of the area, and apparently don't even visit the site themselves.. To this point, I was trying to discuss the Creek Road exit off Rt. 42 at a public meeting with someone from NJDOT for the 295/76/42 project. He kept trying to correct me saying that the ramp leads to Leaf Ave, not Creek Road. I learned he had no idea the exit was signed Creek Rd.
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
[Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
None of this is true. Even the airport circle isn't really a circle, but still referenced as such. Over half the traditional circles, closing in on 75% have been replaced, including heavily used ones near the shore
The Airport Circle here has been drastically modified in the past. Nothing really represents a circle. Other than Kaighn Ave, each entry point is controlled by traffic lights. 38 West to 130 South goes thru a light, then is a triple left at another light.
The Collingswood Circle hasn't existed for 10 years and was converted to a regular intersection, yet the traffic camera name is still "Collingswood Circle"
What do you mean "none of this is true"? Circles are (one of) the only at-grade crossings with full movements (besides stop signs alone) that require no signals or electricity, and the possible angle of impact in an accident is much shallower than any orthogonal crossing. And whether or not they are a part of NJ life is a subjective opinion, so I'm not sure what specifically I said about traffic circles that you disagree with.
SM-G965U
Because as I said, more than half of the circles have been replaced already.
Most circles that have been replaced havent suffered any backlash, and when there's been gripes, its more about the future plans, not that the circle is being removed.
Electricity isn't much of a factor in deciding to upgrade an intersection. If it was, transportation departments would claim that one light per direction is good enough, and there would be no street lighting.
When they've been replaced, not only do they replace them with lights, some like the 73/70 circle was replaced with a costly grade separated interchange! Even the 202 circle you cited had one installed.
Every circle is different, so theres are many reasons why some are replaced, some are modified, and some are left alone.
Quote from: _Simon on August 24, 2020, 03:19:07 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 24, 2020, 02:08:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2020, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Because navigating circles are a historic part of NJ life (esp near the shore) and there's no reason to replace them and face public backlash unless people are dying left and right, which typically is not a thing that happens with circles.
By your reckoning, we should have stuck with two lane roads, or express roads that were undivided or just divided by a small median, because that's a historic part of life. Roadway engineering and the knowledge of the best ways to move large amounts of traffic through areas and intersections has changed a lot over the last number of decades. You make it sound like we should all put our heads in the sand and ignore everything, simply because it should be the way "we've always done it".
Quote from: _Simon on August 23, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
You don't see any new circles because they take up oodles of costly land, but once it's in place, a circle will always have drastically lower operating expenses, accidents, and injuries than any type of signalized intersection. It's only downfall is capacity.
Right, which is why NJDOT has spent untold millions of dollars over the last 30 years to slowly eliminate a large number of circles. Modern roundabouts have been shown in studies to be as safe or safer than signalized intersections in some places depending on volume, which is why you see more of them. But you're confusing two different things here. The traditional "Jersey Circle" is an outmoded concept that causes more accidents, driver confusion, and often backups, which is why so many have been eliminated.
Well maybe with your state-specific insight on circle conversion, you could tell me why all the circles I navigate that are clearly at capacity, such as Somerville's, were not at the top of the list to be replaced, and why others like Flemington get reworked time and time again but never removed.
And yes I'm specifically talking about NJ traffic circles (compete with the CIRCLE warning sign), not roundabouts. Roundabouts don't typically allow any movements to go through at full speed when the circle is empty, and the geometry usually explicitly prevents this, while Jersey circles are often elongated in one direction to minimize curves on the "through" movement (like 202/31 NB onto 202 NB).
For Somerville, specifically, the state spent $26 million in the early 90s to build the 202 flyover, which did help some, but not enough. Also, given the geometry of 206's entry into the circle, you'd probably be looking at a sizable amount of property takings to work out a safe high volume interchange of these roadways without major compromises. Accidents are still pretty common in the death trap, and I expect that at some point, there will be enough political will to dedicate the money to fully eliminate that circle once and for all.
Flemington is in pretty much the same boat. That circle is also smack in the middle of a ton of commercial development and costs just for the land to make a proper interchange there are probably beyond prohibitive.
Help me understand how a signal requires more space than the existing circles footprints.
In Flemington there is adequate room to have the routes meet at a signal, complete with channelized right turns. The only caveat is that traffic to/from 202 to the north needs to make a turn to stay on the route.
And there should be more than enough room under 202 in Somerville to just bring all the legs to a single signal under the flyover. If you took the land from the Mavis you'd be able to T 206 up to 28 and then have 28 cross the ramps from 202 in a pair of coordinated signals.
I doubt a signal, even with some double laned exclusive turn lanes and other enhancements, would sufficiently handle the traffic at Somervillle. If it were, I'm pretty sure NJDOT would have elected for that over a very expensive flyover when they tackled improving the circle in the 1990s. Clearly their engineering studies concluded that the flyover ramp offered the best improvement for traffic. The heaviest moves are still 202-206SB onto 206 and 206 NB continuing onto 202-206. You would need some sort of ramp system to let that traffic flow more easily between those points. Then you could just send 28 straight across under the flyover (which they probably should have just done in the first place, but I guess the engineers didn't think it was warranted). I just think that the flyover was seen as the best option that didn't involve major land takings, since I think they just ate into the parking lots of a few places (the old Denny's and motel on the south side of 202, and the entryways to Bridgewater Doors and E&B on the northbound side). These are the many things that need to be considered as part of a plan to improve an intersection.
In other news, the 495 viaduct project is advancing to a new stage. New traffic pattern will be in place by this Saturday, 8/29. NJDOT has published a map of the new traffic pattern (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20200824_152543_Route_495_-_Stage_9_traffic_pattern.pdf) for this stage of construction.
Quote from: storm2k on August 26, 2020, 10:20:38 AM
In other news, the 495 viaduct project is advancing to a new stage. New traffic pattern will be in place by this Saturday, 8/29. NJDOT has published a map of the new traffic pattern (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20200824_152543_Route_495_-_Stage_9_traffic_pattern.pdf) for this stage of construction.
That is going to be one tight, accident-prone cattleshute.
I would be avoiding it as much as possible if I had to go that way on a daily basis!!
New Jersey's gas tax is getting even closer to PA's...moving up to 4th highest!
https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/08/nj-gas-tax-to-rise-93-cents-a-gallon-on-oct-1.html
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 28, 2020, 07:25:37 PM
New Jersey's gas tax is getting even closer to PA's...moving up to 4th highest!
https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/08/nj-gas-tax-to-rise-93-cents-a-gallon-on-oct-1.html
Right now, our prices are midpack (they used to be on the low end). Now they'll be getting up there... still cheaper than PA and downstate NY though.
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2020, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 28, 2020, 07:25:37 PM
New Jersey's gas tax is getting even closer to PA's...moving up to 4th highest!
https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/08/nj-gas-tax-to-rise-93-cents-a-gallon-on-oct-1.html
Right now, our prices are midpack (they used to be on the low end). Now they'll be getting up there... still cheaper than PA and downstate NY though.
If I understand NJ's law regarding gas taxes correctly, since it has a target for total revenue generated, there's the possibility that next year, after the pandemic is over and the economy recovers, the gas tax could decrease. I could be wrong on that though...
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 29, 2020, 05:01:30 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2020, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 28, 2020, 07:25:37 PM
New Jersey's gas tax is getting even closer to PA's...moving up to 4th highest!
https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/08/nj-gas-tax-to-rise-93-cents-a-gallon-on-oct-1.html
Right now, our prices are midpack (they used to be on the low end). Now they'll be getting up there... still cheaper than PA and downstate NY though.
If I understand NJ's law regarding gas taxes correctly, since it has a target for total revenue generated, there's the possibility that next year, after the pandemic is over and the economy recovers, the gas tax could decrease. I could be wrong on that though...
Aw. That's precious that you think taxes could decrease in NJ. :D
Quote from: Rothman on August 29, 2020, 02:57:04 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 29, 2020, 05:01:30 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2020, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 28, 2020, 07:25:37 PM
New Jersey's gas tax is getting even closer to PA's...moving up to 4th highest!
https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/08/nj-gas-tax-to-rise-93-cents-a-gallon-on-oct-1.html
Right now, our prices are midpack (they used to be on the low end). Now they'll be getting up there... still cheaper than PA and downstate NY though.
If I understand NJ's law regarding gas taxes correctly, since it has a target for total revenue generated, there's the possibility that next year, after the pandemic is over and the economy recovers, the gas tax could decrease. I could be wrong on that though...
Aw. That's precious that you think taxes could decrease in NJ. :D
Remember, I said they COULD. I would be just as shocked as everyone else if they did. Most likely a way will be found to keep raising them more.
Quote from: Rothman on August 29, 2020, 02:57:04 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 29, 2020, 05:01:30 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2020, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 28, 2020, 07:25:37 PM
New Jersey's gas tax is getting even closer to PA's...moving up to 4th highest!
https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/08/nj-gas-tax-to-rise-93-cents-a-gallon-on-oct-1.html
Right now, our prices are midpack (they used to be on the low end). Now they'll be getting up there... still cheaper than PA and downstate NY though.
If I understand NJ's law regarding gas taxes correctly, since it has a target for total revenue generated, there's the possibility that next year, after the pandemic is over and the economy recovers, the gas tax could decrease. I could be wrong on that though...
Aw. That's precious that you think taxes could decrease in NJ. :D
Hey, our Sales Tax went down!
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 29, 2020, 05:01:30 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2020, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Crown Victoria on August 28, 2020, 07:25:37 PM
New Jersey's gas tax is getting even closer to PA's...moving up to 4th highest!
https://www.nj.com/politics/2020/08/nj-gas-tax-to-rise-93-cents-a-gallon-on-oct-1.html
Right now, our prices are midpack (they used to be on the low end). Now they'll be getting up there... still cheaper than PA and downstate NY though.
If I understand NJ's law regarding gas taxes correctly, since it has a target for total revenue generated, there's the possibility that next year, after the pandemic is over and the economy recovers, the gas tax could decrease. I could be wrong on that though...
No down, only up
Last year's gas tax announcement clearly states that NJ's gas tax will be raised OR lowered to meet the target revenue:
https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562019/20190828b.shtml
Also, jeffandnicole is correct in stating that NJ did indeed LOWER sales taxes as part of the gas tax increase.
I am of course aware of reality regarding taxation in New Jersey and will remain surprised if gas taxes actually do decrease next year, or ever.
"Cape freeholders approve plan to spend millions to rebuild bridges"
"Last week, with little fanfare, the Cape May County Board of Freeholders approved a plan to address the county's bridges, outlining hundreds of millions of dollars in spending over the next 15 years.
The state of the county's bridges has long been a concern, with some designated as being in poor condition and functionally obsolete. A few date from the 1930s.
The plan, approved Tuesday, outlines massive spending, with the local cost estimated between $603 million and $890 million. Even with that, the plan assumes as much or more money coming from state and federal sources, putting the total cost of implementing the plan at over $1 billion."
https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/cape-freeholders-approve-plan-to-spend-millions-to-rebuild-bridges/article_50d0a879-fe96-507f-80f0-1ca71547c82a.html
The state has begun reconstruction of the Milltown Road overpass on Rt 1 in North Brunswick (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20200831_111307_Milltown_Road_North_Main_Street_lane_closures_begin_tomorrow_as_bridge_deck_replacement_project_begins_in_North_Brunswick.pdf). Standard stuff, but the press release notes that they will be erecting new overhead sign structures. I'm guessing that the only one they really need to do is this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4649255,-74.447638,3a,43.2y,254.32h,99.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWuSopDsOsYnsAcU4Umg7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that's still attached to the overpass itself. The sign on there was replaced in the mid aughts when they built the 1 to 130 flyover, but the supports are from the late 70s/early 80s (used to be a non-reflective button copy sign consistent with that era). There isn't a Milltown Rd exit from 1 northbound anymore, Milltown Rd itself has never had overhead structures (unless they're adding them but that seems unlikely), and the rest of the structures are less than 20 years old and should be in fine condition, so I don't see what other ones they'd be replacing.
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2020, 08:00:40 AM
The state has begun reconstruction of the Milltown Road overpass on Rt 1 in North Brunswick (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20200831_111307_Milltown_Road_North_Main_Street_lane_closures_begin_tomorrow_as_bridge_deck_replacement_project_begins_in_North_Brunswick.pdf). Standard stuff, but the press release notes that they will be erecting new overhead sign structures. I'm guessing that the only one they really need to do is this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4649255,-74.447638,3a,43.2y,254.32h,99.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWuSopDsOsYnsAcU4Umg7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that's still attached to the overpass itself. The sign on there was replaced in the mid aughts when they built the 1 to 130 flyover, but the supports are from the late 70s/early 80s (used to be a non-reflective button copy sign consistent with that era). There isn't a Milltown Rd exit from 1 northbound anymore, Milltown Rd itself has never had overhead structures (unless they're adding them but that seems unlikely), and the rest of the structures are less than 20 years old and should be in fine condition, so I don't see what other ones they'd be replacing.
I think it's likely they would add overhead signs - all the exits below South Brunswick have them.
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2020, 08:00:40 AM
The state has begun reconstruction of the Milltown Road overpass on Rt 1 in North Brunswick (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20200831_111307_Milltown_Road_North_Main_Street_lane_closures_begin_tomorrow_as_bridge_deck_replacement_project_begins_in_North_Brunswick.pdf). Standard stuff, but the press release notes that they will be erecting new overhead sign structures. I'm guessing that the only one they really need to do is this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4649255,-74.447638,3a,43.2y,254.32h,99.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWuSopDsOsYnsAcU4Umg7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that's still attached to the overpass itself. The sign on there was replaced in the mid aughts when they built the 1 to 130 flyover, but the supports are from the late 70s/early 80s (used to be a non-reflective button copy sign consistent with that era). There isn't a Milltown Rd exit from 1 northbound anymore, Milltown Rd itself has never had overhead structures (unless they're adding them but that seems unlikely), and the rest of the structures are less than 20 years old and should be in fine condition, so I don't see what other ones they'd be replacing.
Page 36 of the bid tallies https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/contribute/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabsDP20120.pdf reveals there's only one overhead sign structure that will be built here.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2020, 03:54:01 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2020, 08:00:40 AM
The state has begun reconstruction of the Milltown Road overpass on Rt 1 in North Brunswick (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20200831_111307_Milltown_Road_North_Main_Street_lane_closures_begin_tomorrow_as_bridge_deck_replacement_project_begins_in_North_Brunswick.pdf). Standard stuff, but the press release notes that they will be erecting new overhead sign structures. I'm guessing that the only one they really need to do is this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4649255,-74.447638,3a,43.2y,254.32h,99.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWuSopDsOsYnsAcU4Umg7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that's still attached to the overpass itself. The sign on there was replaced in the mid aughts when they built the 1 to 130 flyover, but the supports are from the late 70s/early 80s (used to be a non-reflective button copy sign consistent with that era). There isn't a Milltown Rd exit from 1 northbound anymore, Milltown Rd itself has never had overhead structures (unless they're adding them but that seems unlikely), and the rest of the structures are less than 20 years old and should be in fine condition, so I don't see what other ones they'd be replacing.
Page 36 of the bid tallies https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/contribute/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabsDP20120.pdf reveals there's only one overhead sign structure that will be built here.
Before you posted this I was thinking it would be a possibility they might implement overhead structures along Milltown Road at the US 1 ramps, just like they have ones further south in the Princeton area: specifically at Quakerbridge Road, Alexander Road, Meadow Road, etc.
Quote from: Alps on September 02, 2020, 02:57:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2020, 08:00:40 AM
The state has begun reconstruction of the Milltown Road overpass on Rt 1 in North Brunswick (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20200831_111307_Milltown_Road_North_Main_Street_lane_closures_begin_tomorrow_as_bridge_deck_replacement_project_begins_in_North_Brunswick.pdf). Standard stuff, but the press release notes that they will be erecting new overhead sign structures. I'm guessing that the only one they really need to do is this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4649255,-74.447638,3a,43.2y,254.32h,99.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWuSopDsOsYnsAcU4Umg7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that's still attached to the overpass itself. The sign on there was replaced in the mid aughts when they built the 1 to 130 flyover, but the supports are from the late 70s/early 80s (used to be a non-reflective button copy sign consistent with that era). There isn't a Milltown Rd exit from 1 northbound anymore, Milltown Rd itself has never had overhead structures (unless they're adding them but that seems unlikely), and the rest of the structures are less than 20 years old and should be in fine condition, so I don't see what other ones they'd be replacing.
I think it's likely they would add overhead signs - all the exits below South Brunswick have them.
If that was going to happen, I would have thought they would have added them when they did the 1-130 flyover, since a part of that project was to tie in Carolier Lane to Milltown and reconstruct various ramps to and from 1. I don't see a real need for overhead structures on Milltown Road here.
Quote from: storm2k on September 08, 2020, 07:58:05 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 02, 2020, 02:57:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2020, 08:00:40 AM
The state has begun reconstruction of the Milltown Road overpass on Rt 1 in North Brunswick (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20200831_111307_Milltown_Road_North_Main_Street_lane_closures_begin_tomorrow_as_bridge_deck_replacement_project_begins_in_North_Brunswick.pdf). Standard stuff, but the press release notes that they will be erecting new overhead sign structures. I'm guessing that the only one they really need to do is this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4649255,-74.447638,3a,43.2y,254.32h,99.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suWuSopDsOsYnsAcU4Umg7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that's still attached to the overpass itself. The sign on there was replaced in the mid aughts when they built the 1 to 130 flyover, but the supports are from the late 70s/early 80s (used to be a non-reflective button copy sign consistent with that era). There isn't a Milltown Rd exit from 1 northbound anymore, Milltown Rd itself has never had overhead structures (unless they're adding them but that seems unlikely), and the rest of the structures are less than 20 years old and should be in fine condition, so I don't see what other ones they'd be replacing.
I think it's likely they would add overhead signs - all the exits below South Brunswick have them.
If that was going to happen, I would have thought they would have added them when they did the 1-130 flyover, since a part of that project was to tie in Carolier Lane to Milltown and reconstruct various ramps to and from 1. I don't see a real need for overhead structures on Milltown Road here.
I mean... there is at least one SB overhead for Milltown Rd. I will admit that I'm not going through the rigmarole of viewing the plans to see where they are proposing one.
Found a gantry which more or less nails down to within a month when NJDOT switched from back plates to no back plates...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/2020-09-07_11_33_52_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg
Zooming in, the right gantry, with a back plate on the Route 38 shield, is dated 1/2016. The left gantry, without back plates, is dated 3/2016.
QA was a bit lacking when they made the left sign...I mean they really could have tried centered that shield.
Is the Cumberland County section of 347 now NJDOT? SLD lists it being County, but all signage looks like NJDOT including the new series of mileposts, which NJDOT seems to only install on roads they maintain (vs, for example, 56 in Vineland or 206 in Trenton, which among other roads were skipped).
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2020, 09:06:27 AM
Is the Cumberland County section of 347 now NJDOT? SLD lists it being County, but all signage looks like NJDOT including the new series of mileposts, which NJDOT seems to only install on roads they maintain (vs, for example, 56 in Vineland or 206 in Trenton, which among other roads were skipped).
I think there's some sort of mutual jurisdiction on 347. I think (could be wrong) the counties repaved their sections of 347 a number of years back, but NJDOT has a lot to do with other improvements (including signage).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2020, 09:24:11 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 12, 2020, 09:06:27 AM
Is the Cumberland County section of 347 now NJDOT? SLD lists it being County, but all signage looks like NJDOT including the new series of mileposts, which NJDOT seems to only install on roads they maintain (vs, for example, 56 in Vineland or 206 in Trenton, which among other roads were skipped).
I think there's some sort of mutual jurisdiction on 347. I think (could be wrong) the counties repaved their sections of 347 a number of years back, but NJDOT has a lot to do with other improvements (including signage).
Interesting. Reason I mention Cumberland specifically here is because the Cape May section didn't get the new mileposts. Maybe a different agreement with each county?
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 29, 2020, 08:17:47 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 29, 2020, 07:16:06 PM
I kinda wish there was a camera pointed at the circle on NJ-34 right now. The "old" rules had folks in the circle yielding to mainline traffic on NJ-34 (a 55MPH divided highway). It might get a bit ugly out there.
Yes it will. I work not far from there and go through that circle all the time. One of my coworkers almost got taken out by northbound 34 traffic running the new yield. That circle has always been horrible and needs to just be completely replaced with a light. Crossing 34 on 524 could take forever at times pre-change. It also gets very heavy shore traffic coming and going from the Parkway and backed up on the approaches even before the yield (due to traffic stacking to make a left in the circle). The Wall police need to park some patrol cars in the circle for awhile (which they already occasionally did on the nearby 35/Atlantic Ave. circle pre-change...)
Just watched traffic at the circle, and definitely plenty of traffic still following the old rules... entering from 34 without yielding and stopping in the segments between NB and SB 34 to allow thru traffic to enter.
This should put Vailsburg & Woodbridge Oaks on the map...
https://www.nj.com/news/2020/09/monorail-in-the-median-a-possible-alternative-to-widening-the-parkway-officials-say.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_content=nj_facebook_njcom&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=njcom_sf&fbclid=IwAR01uDGF0Kc5hg0gyby40684nCRi_xKBoTNtozntQ78L2Lm2GLos754fzdY
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2020, 06:22:32 PM
This should put Vailsburg & Woodbridge Oaks on the map...
https://www.nj.com/news/2020/09/monorail-in-the-median-a-possible-alternative-to-widening-the-parkway-officials-say.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_content=nj_facebook_njcom&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=njcom_sf&fbclid=IwAR01uDGF0Kc5hg0gyby40684nCRi_xKBoTNtozntQ78L2Lm2GLos754fzdY
I don't think a monorail is happening. Exactly what does happen... we shall see.
Quote from: Alps on September 17, 2020, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2020, 06:22:32 PM
This should put Vailsburg & Woodbridge Oaks on the map...
https://www.nj.com/news/2020/09/monorail-in-the-median-a-possible-alternative-to-widening-the-parkway-officials-say.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_content=nj_facebook_njcom&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=njcom_sf&fbclid=IwAR01uDGF0Kc5hg0gyby40684nCRi_xKBoTNtozntQ78L2Lm2GLos754fzdY
I don't think a monorail is happening. Exactly what does happen... we shall see.
I posted the below text on the FreewayJim Facebook page in response to the article above, and I repeat it here verbatim:
No, no, NO, a THOUSAND TIMES NO.
Monorail is a solution in search of a problem, and will not work as a replacement to widening the GSP. The inflexibility of monorail (much more difficult to switch between tracks as compared to conventional rail) renders them unfit outside of places like the Disney theme parks. Fixed guideway transit (including monorail) has a dismal record when it comes to de-congesting highways in the United States.
Then there's the matter of emergency response on a monorail train if there is a problem (fire, sick passenger or disabled train) between station stops. It will require a large response by local firefighters for ANY sort of emergency, with one or two ladder trucks required to reach the train and (with difficulty) evacuate patrons to ground level, since there is no trackbed to for responders or patrons to walk on. If the monorail is over the GSP itself, then the responders will need to block lanes on the parkway to protect themselves and their vehicles. I mentioned that it is difficult for monorail trains to switch tracks. So when an incident happens, then trains will just queue up and wait behind the stopped train until it can move along. This is due to the lack of crossovers for trains to run "wrong way" on the opposite side.
NO to monorail - in New Jersey or anywhere else.
If NJTA wants to reduce or manage congestion on certain parts of the Garden State Parkway, they have an excellent tool that works well (unlike monorail). It is called congestion pricing, and can be implemented as part of the transition to cashless toll collection. It involves higher tolls when demand is high, and lower tolls when demand is low. Some electronic toll collection gantries over the Parkway are several orders of magnitude cheaper than a monorail line or some other kind of elevated train line. If transit is desired to serve persons that do not wish to pay the higher tolls, then that can be provided on the Parkway in the form of buses - again, at much lower cost than a train line or a monorail line.
Yeah, I don't foresee a monorail coming either. While some issues aren't any worse than a train line in the middle of a highway: Trains don't stop between stops for a general medical emergency due to the inhered difficultly of getting to the patient (trains just continue on to the next stop...or even several stops down the line), and a fire would cause just as much of a jam on, say, I-66 because of the need to stage trucks on the highway and access hydrants that may be across the highway. Subways can even be worse, as there's a need to get into several entry areas to be on either side of the train.
However, there are other considerations too: Would a fire cause a potential structural issue? What would the cost be? And a big one in NJ: The view. NJ tends to stay low to the ground, to reduce some vision clutter. Some options for the 295/76/42 interchange were rejected because of their height, which nearby residents would need to contend with. In regards to the Parkway, the referenced area is heavily residential with at least one cemetery in the area, and they will surely be against any sort of rail line that will need to float above not only the Parkway, but every overpass, meaning a large part of this monorail would be at minimum 40 feet off the ground.
It was mentioned that this could be an ultra-light rail, with speeds that top out at 65 mph. Would motorists that routinely drive 75 - 80 mph and greater (especially outside of rush hours) be willing to give up their car and extend their commuting time? How many stops will there be? The more stops means the potential for more passengers, but the more stops mean the potential that motorists won't find it fast enough to bother with.
And, a big one - where would the exact line go? I think some people are reading into the location too much as if it'll just be a back-and-forth, 14 mile line. It can easily tie into the Metropark Station at Exit 132 of the Parkway, and Garden State Plaza at Exit 161. Does the line even need to follow the Parkway? And if not, would another type system be just as good? But since the area is so incredibly developed, that brings its own issues: The area is perfect for a good mass transit solution, but where do you put it that doesn't tear out homes and businesses...which is the exact same issue widening the Parkway would cause.
I don't foresee the Monorail happening either, and the fact it was even brought up is a bit of a head scratcher. But it at least shows how that single Simpsons episode was so well done, and is ingrained in so many people's memory. I referenced it, many others referenced it, and thousands more no doubt thought about it!
Cue that guy on "The Simpsons!"
The monorail option is the token "see! we studied mass transit!" checkbox on a EIS, nothing more. It doesn't actually have to make sense, it just has to be there to complete the paperwork.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2020, 09:24:40 AM
Yeah, I don't foresee a monorail coming either. While some issues aren't any worse than a train line in the middle of a highway: Trains don't stop between stops for a general medical emergency due to the inhered difficultly of getting to the patient (trains just continue on to the next stop...or even several stops down the line), and a fire would cause just as much of a jam on, say, I-66 because of the need to stage trucks on the highway and access hydrants that may be across the highway. Subways can even be worse, as there's a need to get into several entry areas to be on either side of the train.
However, there are other considerations too: Would a fire cause a potential structural issue? What would the cost be? And a big one in NJ: The view. NJ tends to stay low to the ground, to reduce some vision clutter. Some options for the 295/76/42 interchange were rejected because of their height, which nearby residents would need to contend with. In regards to the Parkway, the referenced area is heavily residential with at least one cemetery in the area, and they will surely be against any sort of rail line that will need to float above not only the Parkway, but every overpass, meaning a large part of this monorail would be at minimum 40 feet off the ground.
It was mentioned that this could be an ultra-light rail, with speeds that top out at 65 mph. Would motorists that routinely drive 75 - 80 mph and greater (especially outside of rush hours) be willing to give up their car and extend their commuting time? How many stops will there be? The more stops means the potential for more passengers, but the more stops mean the potential that motorists won't find it fast enough to bother with.
And, a big one - where would the exact line go? I think some people are reading into the location too much as if it'll just be a back-and-forth, 14 mile line. It can easily tie into the Metropark Station at Exit 132 of the Parkway, and Garden State Plaza at Exit 161. Does the line even need to follow the Parkway? And if not, would another type system be just as good? But since the area is so incredibly developed, that brings its own issues: The area is perfect for a good mass transit solution, but where do you put it that doesn't tear out homes and businesses...which is the exact same issue widening the Parkway would cause.
I don't foresee the Monorail happening either, and the fact it was even brought up is a bit of a head scratcher. But it at least shows how that single Simpsons episode was so well done, and is ingrained in so many people's memory. I referenced it, many others referenced it, and thousands more no doubt thought about it!
One point re: a rail line: most people are probably using the Parkway as a middle segment from home to work and back. (Disclaimer: I am referencing no O/D studies, just going by intuition. Feel free to prove me wrong.) Very few people either live or work by the Parkway (except for those using Metropark), and a vanishingly small number would do both. (Same disclaimer.) The overall corridor that the Parkway follows (eastern Essex/Union/Passaic Counties) offers plenty of opportunities, but the exact ROW is going to put a limit on solutions.
Quote from: famartin on July 14, 2020, 08:19:24 PM
Moved from NJ Turnpike thread (had a brain fart and put this there first)
Well, I suppose I should share some of this years round of photos, tho it's far from over... adding more as we speak. My new ones are in the main cat here so scroll down past the subcats (format of my new ones is date-time-placeholder for now)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roads_in_New_Jersey
I have many more I plan to take... a welcome distraction from real life right now
Since I originally posted this back on 7/14 I've added A LOT of pictures... almost 2,000 more, in fact. If you checked back then, you can start here, if not, just go to the original link, scroll down and then proceed. (If you are bored :-D )
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Roads_in_New_Jersey&filefrom=2020-07-15#mw-category-media
New version of the NJDOT Video Log (https://njsld.org/NJDOT/SLD/VideoLog/) is out, this time Silverlight doesn't appear to be required (or if it is, it's not showing up as required ever after you download it).
State highways are from after the enhanced mileposts came out, checking my notes from old bike rides as to when they were repaved, county roads appear to be from 2016, no toll/authority roads appear to be available.
So, the SLD still shows CR 583 along its present alignment (at least, last I looked), but this snippet suggests Mercer has essentially removed it, and NJDOT has certainly removed signage for it as requested.
https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/R_2015_d_127_(47_NJR_1979(a)).pdf
Quote from: famartin on September 30, 2020, 10:50:37 PM
So, the SLD still shows CR 583 along its present alignment (at least, last I looked), but this snippet suggests Mercer has essentially removed it, and NJDOT has certainly removed signage for it as requested.
https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/R_2015_d_127_(47_NJR_1979(a)).pdf
I believe 583 is town-maintained but it doesn't surprise me as still being on the books.
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2020, 12:05:05 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 30, 2020, 10:50:37 PM
So, the SLD still shows CR 583 along its present alignment (at least, last I looked), but this snippet suggests Mercer has essentially removed it, and NJDOT has certainly removed signage for it as requested.
https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/R_2015_d_127_(47_NJR_1979(a)).pdf
I believe 583 is town-maintained but it doesn't surprise me as still being on the books.
The county still maintains the part along Princeton Ave. (ironically actually what should be state highway- US 206 southbound) and designates it as such (http://www.mercercounty.org/departments/transportation-and-infrastructure/highway-division/county-routes-and-roadways) and even their own signal blades have them. They really should just extend up 653 from Calhoun St. to Lawrenceville Road (actual state-maintained 206) and be done with it.
But then again, I'm just a lowly county committeeperson for a certain party there, not the county executive nor the transportation director (both of whom are directly related to other major politicians, who says nepotism runs rampant in Mercer County?).
There is still a stray County Route marker on the north side of the I-295 interchange which has never been removed.
New variation on NJ installation of police "respect muh authoritay" (and non-compliant (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_41.htm#:~:text=05%20of%20the%20MUTCD%2C%20the,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20MUTCD)) blue road striping I spotted on my bike ride through Hunterdon County on Saturday: in front of the NJSP station on Route 12 in Kingwood (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PUfE9dG4dG2SrUcf7) some of the single yellow dashed lines were painted over with blue. How did this happen on a state highway? I've also spotted the original variation on 71 in Belmar and 23 in Cedar Grove.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 04, 2020, 12:31:20 AM
New variation on NJ installation of police "respect muh authoritay" (and non-compliant (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_41.htm#:~:text=05%20of%20the%20MUTCD%2C%20the,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20MUTCD)) blue road striping I spotted on my bike ride through Hunterdon County on Saturday: in front of the NJSP station on Route 12 in Kingwood (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PUfE9dG4dG2SrUcf7) some of the single yellow dashed lines were painted over with blue. How did this happen on a state highway? I've also spotted the original variation on 71 in Belmar and 23 in Cedar Grove.
Guarantee it was done locally without state input. Let's see if the state does anything about it.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 04, 2020, 12:31:20 AM
New variation on NJ installation of police "respect muh authoritay" (and non-compliant (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_41.htm#:~:text=05%20of%20the%20MUTCD%2C%20the,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20MUTCD)) blue road striping I spotted on my bike ride through Hunterdon County on Saturday: in front of the NJSP station on Route 12 in Kingwood (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PUfE9dG4dG2SrUcf7) some of the single yellow dashed lines were painted over with blue. How did this happen on a state highway? I've also spotted the original variation on 71 in Belmar and 23 in Cedar Grove.
Saw this on CR 523 in Hunterdon too, not far from where you saw it on 12.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 04, 2020, 12:31:20 AM
New variation on NJ installation of police "respect muh authoritay" (and non-compliant (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_41.htm#:~:text=05%20of%20the%20MUTCD%2C%20the,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20MUTCD)) blue road striping I spotted on my bike ride through Hunterdon County on Saturday: in front of the NJSP station on Route 12 in Kingwood (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PUfE9dG4dG2SrUcf7) some of the single yellow dashed lines were painted over with blue. How did this happen on a state highway? I've also spotted the original variation on 71 in Belmar and 23 in Cedar Grove.
who cares
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 05, 2020, 12:40:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 04, 2020, 12:31:20 AM
New variation on NJ installation of police "respect muh authoritay" (and non-compliant (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_41.htm#:~:text=05%20of%20the%20MUTCD%2C%20the,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20MUTCD)) blue road striping I spotted on my bike ride through Hunterdon County on Saturday: in front of the NJSP station on Route 12 in Kingwood (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PUfE9dG4dG2SrUcf7) some of the single yellow dashed lines were painted over with blue. How did this happen on a state highway? I've also spotted the original variation on 71 in Belmar and 23 in Cedar Grove.
who cares
It's not compliant with the MUTCD. A budding lawyer who say takes the case of someone involved in an accident there might be able to sue the state, even if they didn't apply the improper marking, for having improper lane markings. Also, the feds might be able to make a case for not funding transportation improvements to the state if they allow it to remain à la Florida's multicolored US shields (though unlikely considering right now the fed is run by someone who constantly screams out "LAW AND ORDER").
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 05, 2020, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 05, 2020, 12:40:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 04, 2020, 12:31:20 AM
New variation on NJ installation of police "respect muh authoritay" (and non-compliant (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_41.htm#:~:text=05%20of%20the%20MUTCD%2C%20the,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20MUTCD)) blue road striping I spotted on my bike ride through Hunterdon County on Saturday: in front of the NJSP station on Route 12 in Kingwood (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PUfE9dG4dG2SrUcf7) some of the single yellow dashed lines were painted over with blue. How did this happen on a state highway? I've also spotted the original variation on 71 in Belmar and 23 in Cedar Grove.
who cares
It's not compliant with the MUTCD. A budding lawyer who say takes the case of someone involved in an accident there might be able to sue the state, even if they didn't apply the improper marking, for having improper lane markings. Also, the feds might be able to make a case for not funding transportation improvements to the state if they allow it to remain à la Florida's multicolored US shields (though unlikely considering right now the fed is run by someone who constantly screams out "LAW AND ORDER").
You're seething over the color blue.
Also the person who runs the fed lives in you're head rent free
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 05, 2020, 12:59:41 PM
Quote from: TheDon102 on October 05, 2020, 12:40:03 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 04, 2020, 12:31:20 AM
New variation on NJ installation of police "respect muh authoritay" (and non-compliant (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/3_09_41.htm#:~:text=05%20of%20the%20MUTCD%2C%20the,the%20provisions%20of%20the%20MUTCD)) blue road striping I spotted on my bike ride through Hunterdon County on Saturday: in front of the NJSP station on Route 12 in Kingwood (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PUfE9dG4dG2SrUcf7) some of the single yellow dashed lines were painted over with blue. How did this happen on a state highway? I've also spotted the original variation on 71 in Belmar and 23 in Cedar Grove.
who cares
It's not compliant with the MUTCD. A budding lawyer who say takes the case of someone involved in an accident there might be able to sue the state, even if they didn't apply the improper marking, for having improper lane markings. Also, the feds might be able to make a case for not funding transportation improvements to the state if they allow it to remain à la Florida's multicolored US shields (though unlikely considering right now the fed is run by someone who constantly screams out "LAW AND ORDER").
Convince some friends with physical disabilities to just park in the middle of the road with their placards properly displayed. Short of a gross misunderstanding over what the lines mean such as that, no one is going to change it. I could list MUTCD violations for days from many states; you'd probably have more traction citing how nonreflective the lines are than citing MUTCD requirements.
SM-G965U
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6794633,-74.0948189,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spyHgw-gT2Eu1cdMLwbspRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Like the circular arrows on the I-78 and I-95 shields here. Obviously a NJTA install and not NJDOt.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2020, 12:13:40 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6794633,-74.0948189,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spyHgw-gT2Eu1cdMLwbspRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Like the circular arrows on the I-78 and I-95 shields here. Obviously a NJTA install and not NJDOt.
They've been posted all over lately. I think the nicest touch was that they used Interstate shield blue instead of NJTP trailblazer green, like they had done until recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4849107,-74.4372335,3a,75y,26.71h,75.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szRIknTYwD0XN8nlPBDmyQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: famartin on October 06, 2020, 12:20:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2020, 12:13:40 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6794633,-74.0948189,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spyHgw-gT2Eu1cdMLwbspRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Like the circular arrows on the I-78 and I-95 shields here. Obviously a NJTA install and not NJDOt.
I actually like these. They are so cool. Glad to see I-78 is finally getting mentioned and also noticed the NJ 440 and I-78 connection looks like it was redone recently as the flyovers and bridge over NJ 440 and the Light Rail line look very new.
They've been posted all over lately. I think the nicest touch was that they used Interstate shield blue instead of NJTP trailblazer green, like they had done until recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4849107,-74.4372335,3a,75y,26.71h,75.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szRIknTYwD0XN8nlPBDmyQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: famartin on October 06, 2020, 12:20:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2020, 12:13:40 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6794633,-74.0948189,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spyHgw-gT2Eu1cdMLwbspRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Like the circular arrows on the I-78 and I-95 shields here. Obviously a NJTA install and not NJDOt.
They've been posted all over lately. I think the nicest touch was that they used Interstate shield blue instead of NJTP trailblazer green, like they had done until recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4849107,-74.4372335,3a,75y,26.71h,75.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szRIknTYwD0XN8nlPBDmyQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
They've been popping up for a while, including the 95 shields (Turnpike Authority finally wants to own that 95 runs over a large part of their roadway!). They started popping up in Woodbridge and Carteret (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5664292,-74.2515513,3a,20.3y,100.59h,94.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0EROSwGcOIzfiqf5c1ZYyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) for the past 18 months or so.
https://goo.gl/maps/dU4qG2sCMUXgdMJcA
What kind of stunt is this? The guide sign is not only awful, but not MUTCD compliant as well.
What happened to the original guides that were large and normal freeway style that once stood here for decades?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 10, 2020, 08:31:50 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/dU4qG2sCMUXgdMJcA
What kind of stunt is this? The guide sign is not only awful, but not MUTCD compliant as well.
What happened to the original guides that were large and normal freeway style that once stood here for decades?
Like many overhead sign structures, "decades old" probably means they need to be replaced. Some are replaced faster than others. Using GSV, it appears these butterfly structures have been missing for about a decade now!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 10, 2020, 03:42:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 10, 2020, 08:31:50 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/dU4qG2sCMUXgdMJcA
What kind of stunt is this? The guide sign is not only awful, but not MUTCD compliant as well.
What happened to the original guides that were large and normal freeway style that once stood here for decades?
Like many overhead sign structures, "decades old" probably means they need to be replaced. Some are replaced faster than others. Using GSV, it appears these butterfly structures have been missing for about a decade now!
The sign itself is generally MUTCD compliant, just undersized.
Quote from: Alps on October 10, 2020, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 10, 2020, 03:42:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 10, 2020, 08:31:50 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/dU4qG2sCMUXgdMJcA
What kind of stunt is this? The guide sign is not only awful, but not MUTCD compliant as well.
What happened to the original guides that were large and normal freeway style that once stood here for decades?
Like many overhead sign structures, "decades old" probably means they need to be replaced. Some are replaced faster than others. Using GSV, it appears these butterfly structures have been missing for about a decade now!
The sign itself is generally MUTCD compliant, just undersized.
I think I drove by that sign, completely missed it, took the exit, went back and then drove by again, and almost missed it the second time, when I was taking pictures along 280 back in July.
It's funny how they actually sign the Turnpike with its proper (IMHO) control cities near a popular attraction for out-of-staters (Six Flags)...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg/800px-2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg)
Quote from: famartin on October 11, 2020, 12:56:52 AM
It’s funny how they actually sign the Turnpike with its proper (IMHO) control cities near a popular attraction for out-of-staters (Six Flags)...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg/800px-2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg)
That is a welcome change to update these signs including adding I-95 as well. Older signs (from the 80's) had only the NJ Turnpike. Though I would still use Shore Points for east as many visitors to Six Flags are heading to many resorts along the coast, in this case the rule can be ignored, or do what NYSDOT does on the LIE and use Eastern LI with Riverhead to satisfy both the Feds and locals.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2020, 11:41:45 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 11, 2020, 12:56:52 AM
It's funny how they actually sign the Turnpike with its proper (IMHO) control cities near a popular attraction for out-of-staters (Six Flags)...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg/800px-2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg)
That is a welcome change to update these signs including adding I-95 as well. Older signs (from the 80's) had only the NJ Turnpike. Though I would still use Shore Points for east as many visitors to Six Flags are heading to many resorts along the coast, in this case the rule can be ignored, or do what NYSDOT does on the LIE and use Eastern LI with Riverhead to satisfy both the Feds and locals.
"Shore Points" hasn't been the official control city used for about 10-15 years now.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2020, 11:41:45 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 11, 2020, 12:56:52 AM
It's funny how they actually sign the Turnpike with its proper (IMHO) control cities near a popular attraction for out-of-staters (Six Flags)...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg/800px-2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg)
That is a welcome change to update these signs including adding I-95 as well. Older signs (from the 80's) had only the NJ Turnpike. Though I would still use Shore Points for east as many visitors to Six Flags are heading to many resorts along the coast, in this case the rule can be ignored, or do what NYSDOT does on the LIE and use Eastern LI with Riverhead to satisfy both the Feds and locals.
This was the only sign I saw like this. The sign at the actual exit for I-195 EB still says "shore points". An additional sign included near that one says only "Trenton" for I-195 WB, and then at the actual ramp, it just had "West 195 TO 95/NJTP" with no cities.
Quote from: famartin on October 11, 2020, 10:24:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2020, 11:41:45 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 11, 2020, 12:56:52 AM
It's funny how they actually sign the Turnpike with its proper (IMHO) control cities near a popular attraction for out-of-staters (Six Flags)...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg/800px-2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg)
That is a welcome change to update these signs including adding I-95 as well. Older signs (from the 80's) had only the NJ Turnpike. Though I would still use Shore Points for east as many visitors to Six Flags are heading to many resorts along the coast, in this case the rule can be ignored, or do what NYSDOT does on the LIE and use Eastern LI with Riverhead to satisfy both the Feds and locals.
This was the only sign I saw like this. The sign at the actual exit for I-195 EB still says "shore points". An additional sign included near that one says only "Trenton" for I-195 WB, and then at the actual ramp, it just had "West 195 TO 95/NJTP" with no cities.
There was a discussion on here a while back, but this sign came about as part of the signage modifications due to 95 becoming 295.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2020, 11:12:42 PM
There was a discussion on here a while back, but this sign came about as part of the signage modifications due to 95 becoming 295.
I assumed as much. Its interesting though that on the actual sign for 95/NJTP on I-195, it says "New York/Camden" instead of the "New York/Philadelphia" used here. It would be nice... (I know I'm asking a lot for the NJTA to change cities)
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2020, 06:23:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2020, 11:12:42 PM
There was a discussion on here a while back, but this sign came about as part of the signage modifications due to 95 becoming 295.
I assumed as much. Its interesting though that on the actual sign for 95/NJTP on I-195, it says "New York/Camden" instead of the "New York/Philadelphia" used here. It would be nice... (I know I'm asking a lot for the NJTA to change cities)
Remember, this is a sign to help guide people from Great Adventure. You're thinking of it in terms of a NJ Turnpike destination sign. The 95/NJ Tpk shields and the destination cities shown aren't exactly mean to be fully related here. One can easily take 295 or 29 to get to Philly also.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2020, 09:17:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2020, 06:23:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2020, 11:12:42 PM
There was a discussion on here a while back, but this sign came about as part of the signage modifications due to 95 becoming 295.
I assumed as much. Its interesting though that on the actual sign for 95/NJTP on I-195, it says "New York/Camden" instead of the "New York/Philadelphia" used here. It would be nice... (I know I'm asking a lot for the NJTA to change cities)
Remember, this is a sign to help guide people from Great Adventure. You're thinking of it in terms of a NJ Turnpike destination sign. The 95/NJ Tpk shields and the destination cities shown aren't exactly mean to be fully related here. One can easily take 295 or 29 to get to Philly also.
They *can* but 95 is the most direct route (and as I've mentioned a zillion times, the control cities SHOULD be Philly/NYC)
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2020, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2020, 09:17:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2020, 06:23:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2020, 11:12:42 PM
There was a discussion on here a while back, but this sign came about as part of the signage modifications due to 95 becoming 295.
I assumed as much. Its interesting though that on the actual sign for 95/NJTP on I-195, it says "New York/Camden" instead of the "New York/Philadelphia" used here. It would be nice... (I know I'm asking a lot for the NJTA to change cities)
Remember, this is a sign to help guide people from Great Adventure. You're thinking of it in terms of a NJ Turnpike destination sign. The 95/NJ Tpk shields and the destination cities shown aren't exactly mean to be fully related here. One can easily take 295 or 29 to get to Philly also.
They *can* but 95 is the most direct route (and as I've mentioned a zillion times, the control cities SHOULD be Philly/NYC)
Control cities need not be limited to the most direct route.
The control city opinion you present for the NJ Turnpike isn't relevant to this particular sign. This sign is simply guiding motorists towards areas, assisting them where they need to go. If the control cities were true to the actual route you're using here, it would be "Trenton", not NY/Philly, as you are getting on 195 West.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2020, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2020, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2020, 09:17:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2020, 06:23:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2020, 11:12:42 PM
There was a discussion on here a while back, but this sign came about as part of the signage modifications due to 95 becoming 295.
I assumed as much. Its interesting though that on the actual sign for 95/NJTP on I-195, it says "New York/Camden" instead of the "New York/Philadelphia" used here. It would be nice... (I know I'm asking a lot for the NJTA to change cities)
Remember, this is a sign to help guide people from Great Adventure. You're thinking of it in terms of a NJ Turnpike destination sign. The 95/NJ Tpk shields and the destination cities shown aren't exactly mean to be fully related here. One can easily take 295 or 29 to get to Philly also.
They *can* but 95 is the most direct route (and as I've mentioned a zillion times, the control cities SHOULD be Philly/NYC)
Control cities need not be limited to the most direct route.
The control city opinion you present for the NJ Turnpike isn't relevant to this particular sign. This sign is simply guiding motorists towards areas, assisting them where they need to go. If the control cities were true to the actual route you're using here, it would be "Trenton", not NY/Philly, as you are getting on 195 West.
Its somewhat relevant when the sign on I-195 heading in that direction then says this... (also, there are other ways to reach NYC, like staying straight on 537 to US 9, which is shorter, but not quite the fastest way (I-95 is only a little faster)).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/2020-07-09_12_21_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg/800px-2020-07-09_12_21_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg)
A bit disconnected in messaging there...
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2020, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 11, 2020, 11:41:45 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 11, 2020, 12:56:52 AM
It's funny how they actually sign the Turnpike with its proper (IMHO) control cities near a popular attraction for out-of-staters (Six Flags)...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg/800px-2020-10-10_16_04_58_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_47.jpg)
That is a welcome change to update these signs including adding I-95 as well. Older signs (from the 80's) had only the NJ Turnpike. Though I would still use Shore Points for east as many visitors to Six Flags are heading to many resorts along the coast, in this case the rule can be ignored, or do what NYSDOT does on the LIE and use Eastern LI with Riverhead to satisfy both the Feds and locals.
"Shore Points" hasn't been the official control city used for about 10-15 years now.
Whether its 15 years or 20 years. for the perspective of the motorist visiting Six Flags, they can bring it back just for them here anyway.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 10, 2020, 08:31:50 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/dU4qG2sCMUXgdMJcA
What kind of stunt is this? The guide sign is not only awful, but not MUTCD compliant as well.
What happened to the original guides that were large and normal freeway style that once stood here for decades?
At least they have a sign there, unlike at 5B further on up the road.
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
I think NJDOT got away with this sign because its far enough away from the turnpike so that they could ignore what the turnpike considers its official controls to be. At actual entrances, I don't think NJDOT has contradicted NJTA's official cities in any way, and I'm sure that's deliberate. That said, I think with this sign, NJDOT is kinda trying to lead NJTA in the right direction with a hint-hint/nudge-nudge.
Quote from: famartin on October 14, 2020, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
I think NJDOT got away with this sign because its far enough away from the turnpike so that they could ignore what the turnpike considers its official controls to be. At actual entrances, I don't think NJDOT has contradicted NJTA's official cities in any way, and I'm sure that's deliberate. That said, I think with this sign, NJDOT is kinda trying to lead NJTA in the right direction with a hint-hint/nudge-nudge.
No. You're thinking wrong. NJDOT isn't trying to lead NJTA anywhere. And the NJTA isn't going to hold them to the fire for signing Philadelphia on this sign. For travelers exiting Great Adventure, this sign makes perfect sense, and that's as far as that goes.
Quote from: famartin on October 14, 2020, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
I think NJDOT got away with this sign because its far enough away from the turnpike so that they could ignore what the turnpike considers its official controls to be. At actual entrances, I don't think NJDOT has contradicted NJTA's official cities in any way, and I'm sure that's deliberate. That said, I think with this sign, NJDOT is kinda trying to lead NJTA in the right direction with a hint-hint/nudge-nudge.
Again, and you're not accepting this reasoning for whatever reason, but this sign has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike or NJ Turnpike control cities. It is simply a sign to help guide motorists towards various locations where they may have come from. You are reading into the meaning of this sign way too much.
It should really be signed "Trenton" as that's the proper control city for 195 West, but it was decided to go a different route as Trenton probably wouldn't be as helpful. If you think they are somehow trying to encourage the NJTA towards what you believe should be control cities, you are sadly mistaken. NJDOT could've listed GSP Control cities as well, but went with Belmar for 195 East.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2020, 06:55:50 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 14, 2020, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
I think NJDOT got away with this sign because its far enough away from the turnpike so that they could ignore what the turnpike considers its official controls to be. At actual entrances, I don't think NJDOT has contradicted NJTA's official cities in any way, and I'm sure that's deliberate. That said, I think with this sign, NJDOT is kinda trying to lead NJTA in the right direction with a hint-hint/nudge-nudge.
Again, and you're not accepting this reasoning for whatever reason, but this sign has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike or NJ Turnpike control cities.
You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2020, 06:55:50 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 14, 2020, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
I think NJDOT got away with this sign because its far enough away from the turnpike so that they could ignore what the turnpike considers its official controls to be. At actual entrances, I don't think NJDOT has contradicted NJTA's official cities in any way, and I'm sure that's deliberate. That said, I think with this sign, NJDOT is kinda trying to lead NJTA in the right direction with a hint-hint/nudge-nudge.
Again, and you're not accepting this reasoning for whatever reason, but this sign has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike or NJ Turnpike control cities. It is simply a sign to help guide motorists towards various locations where they may have come from. You are reading into the meaning of this sign way too much.
It should really be signed "Trenton" as that's the proper control city for 195 West, but it was decided to go a different route as Trenton probably wouldn't be as helpful. If you think they are somehow trying to encourage the NJTA towards what you believe should be control cities, you are sadly mistaken. NJDOT could've listed GSP Control cities as well, but went with Belmar for 195 East.
BTW Jeff, you seemed so much nicer 20 years ago on MTR than you are now. These days you seem like an old grumpy curmudgeon much of the time. Out of curiosity, do you even remember our interactions back then? They seemed decidedly more pleasant than now.
Quote from: famartin on October 15, 2020, 08:06:31 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2020, 06:55:50 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 14, 2020, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
I think NJDOT got away with this sign because its far enough away from the turnpike so that they could ignore what the turnpike considers its official controls to be. At actual entrances, I don't think NJDOT has contradicted NJTA's official cities in any way, and I'm sure that's deliberate. That said, I think with this sign, NJDOT is kinda trying to lead NJTA in the right direction with a hint-hint/nudge-nudge.
Again, and you're not accepting this reasoning for whatever reason, but this sign has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike or NJ Turnpike control cities. It is simply a sign to help guide motorists towards various locations where they may have come from. You are reading into the meaning of this sign way too much.
It should really be signed "Trenton" as that's the proper control city for 195 West, but it was decided to go a different route as Trenton probably wouldn't be as helpful. If you think they are somehow trying to encourage the NJTA towards what you believe should be control cities, you are sadly mistaken. NJDOT could've listed GSP Control cities as well, but went with Belmar for 195 East.
BTW Jeff, you seemed so much nicer 20 years ago on MTR than you are now. These days you seem like an old grumpy curmudgeon much of the time. Out of curiosity, do you even remember our interactions back then? They seemed decidedly more pleasant than now.
I'm just an old fuddy-duddy now. I blame it on being around too many other grumpy people.
And my memory has sucked since about the 3rd grade. I'm amazed at what people remember from MTR. I don't remember anything from those days. Heck - I don't remember what I post here half the time. If there's something I want to mention that I think I may have posted, I'll often look back to see if I discussed it already.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2020, 11:23:48 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 15, 2020, 08:06:31 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2020, 06:55:50 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 14, 2020, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
I think NJDOT got away with this sign because its far enough away from the turnpike so that they could ignore what the turnpike considers its official controls to be. At actual entrances, I don't think NJDOT has contradicted NJTA's official cities in any way, and I'm sure that's deliberate. That said, I think with this sign, NJDOT is kinda trying to lead NJTA in the right direction with a hint-hint/nudge-nudge.
Again, and you're not accepting this reasoning for whatever reason, but this sign has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike or NJ Turnpike control cities. It is simply a sign to help guide motorists towards various locations where they may have come from. You are reading into the meaning of this sign way too much.
It should really be signed "Trenton" as that's the proper control city for 195 West, but it was decided to go a different route as Trenton probably wouldn't be as helpful. If you think they are somehow trying to encourage the NJTA towards what you believe should be control cities, you are sadly mistaken. NJDOT could've listed GSP Control cities as well, but went with Belmar for 195 East.
BTW Jeff, you seemed so much nicer 20 years ago on MTR than you are now. These days you seem like an old grumpy curmudgeon much of the time. Out of curiosity, do you even remember our interactions back then? They seemed decidedly more pleasant than now.
I'm just an old fuddy-duddy now. I blame it on being around too many other grumpy people.
And my memory has sucked since about the 3rd grade. I'm amazed at what people remember from MTR. I don't remember anything from those days. Heck - I don't remember what I post here half the time. If there's something I want to mention that I think I may have posted, I'll often look back to see if I discussed it already.
Wow, really. Sorry to hear that. I remember we even e-mailed back and forth sometimes, when you had the I-295 guide and I was setting up my own NJFreeways site. I still have a ghost of it and I just checked - It still credits you with helping on the exit guide graphics! http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/NJI-295SouthJerseyExits.html (also, please no laughing at the quality, this has probably gone unchanged for about 20 years :-D )
Quote from: famartin on October 15, 2020, 12:12:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2020, 11:23:48 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 15, 2020, 08:06:31 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2020, 06:55:50 AM
Quote from: famartin on October 14, 2020, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
I agree there needs to be better guidance to Philadelphia. In general, this was not addressed with the Turnpike connection, since the signs in question are not on NJTA roads. NJDOT needs to think about this as they re-sign, and it looks like they might be, but over the period of sign replacement, instead of putting out patches sooner.
I think NJDOT got away with this sign because its far enough away from the turnpike so that they could ignore what the turnpike considers its official controls to be. At actual entrances, I don't think NJDOT has contradicted NJTA's official cities in any way, and I'm sure that's deliberate. That said, I think with this sign, NJDOT is kinda trying to lead NJTA in the right direction with a hint-hint/nudge-nudge.
Again, and you're not accepting this reasoning for whatever reason, but this sign has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike or NJ Turnpike control cities. It is simply a sign to help guide motorists towards various locations where they may have come from. You are reading into the meaning of this sign way too much.
It should really be signed "Trenton" as that's the proper control city for 195 West, but it was decided to go a different route as Trenton probably wouldn't be as helpful. If you think they are somehow trying to encourage the NJTA towards what you believe should be control cities, you are sadly mistaken. NJDOT could've listed GSP Control cities as well, but went with Belmar for 195 East.
BTW Jeff, you seemed so much nicer 20 years ago on MTR than you are now. These days you seem like an old grumpy curmudgeon much of the time. Out of curiosity, do you even remember our interactions back then? They seemed decidedly more pleasant than now.
I'm just an old fuddy-duddy now. I blame it on being around too many other grumpy people.
And my memory has sucked since about the 3rd grade. I'm amazed at what people remember from MTR. I don't remember anything from those days. Heck - I don't remember what I post here half the time. If there's something I want to mention that I think I may have posted, I'll often look back to see if I discussed it already.
Wow, really. Sorry to hear that. I remember we even e-mailed back and forth sometimes, when you had the I-295 guide and I was setting up my own NJFreeways site. I still have a ghost of it and I just checked - It still credits you with helping on the exit guide graphics! http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/NJI-295SouthJerseyExits.html (also, please no laughing at the quality, this has probably gone unchanged for about 20 years :-D )
Nah, I actually do remember that, and in some varying internet searches, I still come across some of the old pages. Even though there's been vast improvements over the years, what worked back then still works now!
NJDOT finally updated their 6 month forecast: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ (they're usually very good doing it every month; it hadn't been updated since August though). Of interest to me at least - there are a few overpasses on I-76 right between the Walt Whitman Bridge and 295 that need replacement: Definitely this one:
https://goo.gl/maps/wVhks8Jvktnrh59w6 , and possibly this one: https://goo.gl/maps/KBiz16eDyn5HyLiP8 (I can't remember what this specific project entails; there may be two similar projects in the area with different timelines).
I went to a public meeting about this project a few years ago; I believe they are going to try to replace enter sections in a single weekend sections - 1 or 2 lanes at a time - to minimize traffic disruptions. There's also the matter of the 295/76/42 Interchange project going on too in the same vicinity that they'll have to work around.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2020, 05:09:52 PM
NJDOT finally updated their 6 month forecast: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ (they're usually very good doing it every month; it hadn't been updated since August though). Of interest to me at least - there are a few overpasses on I-76 right between the Walt Whitman Bridge and 295 that need replacement: Definitely this one:
https://goo.gl/maps/wVhks8Jvktnrh59w6 , and possibly this one: https://goo.gl/maps/KBiz16eDyn5HyLiP8 (I can't remember what this specific project entails; there may be two similar projects in the area with different timelines).
I went to a public meeting about this project a few years ago; I believe they are going to try to replace enter sections in a single weekend sections - 1 or 2 lanes at a time - to minimize traffic disruptions. There's also the matter of the 295/76/42 Interchange project going on too in the same vicinity that they'll have to work around.
For me it still says updated February 3, 2020 at the very bottom.
Quote from: J Route Z on October 25, 2020, 08:22:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2020, 05:09:52 PM
NJDOT finally updated their 6 month forecast: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ (they're usually very good doing it every month; it hadn't been updated since August though). Of interest to me at least - there are a few overpasses on I-76 right between the Walt Whitman Bridge and 295 that need replacement: Definitely this one:
https://goo.gl/maps/wVhks8Jvktnrh59w6 , and possibly this one: https://goo.gl/maps/KBiz16eDyn5HyLiP8 (I can't remember what this specific project entails; there may be two similar projects in the area with different timelines).
I went to a public meeting about this project a few years ago; I believe they are going to try to replace enter sections in a single weekend sections - 1 or 2 lanes at a time - to minimize traffic disruptions. There's also the matter of the 295/76/42 Interchange project going on too in the same vicinity that they'll have to work around.
For me it still says updated February 3, 2020 at the very bottom.
If the list of projects you see starts with November, then it's updated. That date may be manually entered, so they may not update *that*! Lol
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2020, 09:05:27 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on October 25, 2020, 08:22:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2020, 05:09:52 PM
NJDOT finally updated their 6 month forecast: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/ (they're usually very good doing it every month; it hadn't been updated since August though). Of interest to me at least - there are a few overpasses on I-76 right between the Walt Whitman Bridge and 295 that need replacement: Definitely this one:
https://goo.gl/maps/wVhks8Jvktnrh59w6 , and possibly this one: https://goo.gl/maps/KBiz16eDyn5HyLiP8 (I can't remember what this specific project entails; there may be two similar projects in the area with different timelines).
I went to a public meeting about this project a few years ago; I believe they are going to try to replace enter sections in a single weekend sections - 1 or 2 lanes at a time - to minimize traffic disruptions. There's also the matter of the 295/76/42 Interchange project going on too in the same vicinity that they'll have to work around.
For me it still says updated February 3, 2020 at the very bottom.
If the list of projects you see starts with November, then it's updated. That date may be manually entered, so they may not update *that*! Lol
I see it now. Talk about ironic :-D
Something else I noticed which made me happy was that they updated the pothole reporting page. https://www.njdotproblemreporting.com/ They now include a map where you can pinpoint the location of any type of road issue. Unlike the older format, this one has a drop down menu with various, rather specific road hazards to report, such as flooding, fires, different types of tree hazards, problems with maintenance vehicles, etc. The real test is how quickly they respond to whatever is reported.
Not sure the best place to talk about this, but did note that with the ongoing construction of the new Terminal One at Newark Airport (and it will continue to annoy me that they don't just keep the Terminal A name since the plan is to demolish the existing Terminal A once the new building opens) but it looks like the PA is going to use the same gantry style for overhead signage as used on the NJ Turnpike and also by the PA on the new Goethals Bridge. I'm curious if they'll be doing some sort of hybrid signage that includes VMS elements to make it easier to route traffic on the roadways to the new terminal building. I will try to grab a picture the next time I'm at the airport and it's not 6am and dark out. It's not on GSV yet.
It seems as if the DOT made a mistake with a milepost on US 22 in Newark, where it says mile 59.5 eastbound, while westbound says mile 60.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7078499,-74.1962901,3a,75y,320.09h,93.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSwjEQwAGZqdI-3UE7-Gczw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I also noticed this same issue on Route 18 northbound in East Brunswick at milepost 35.5 while southbound is posted mile 35.
The westbound marker is wrong. The original correct MP 60 is still posted: https://goo.gl/maps/SJtV43zJcESGGXTs6
Quote from: J Route Z on November 12, 2020, 03:07:15 PM
It seems as if the DOT made a mistake with a milepost on US 22 in Newark, where it says mile 59.5 eastbound, while westbound says mile 60.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7078499,-74.1962901,3a,75y,320.09h,93.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSwjEQwAGZqdI-3UE7-Gczw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I also noticed this same issue on Route 18 northbound in East Brunswick at milepost 35.5 while southbound is posted mile 35.
I have noticed the Route 18 problem myself and put in a notification to NJDOT to fix it. You can do the same: https://www.njdotproblemreporting.com/
Is anybody aware of any major highways infrastructure plans or new highways being built in NJ other than the I-295, I-76, and NJ-42 interchange?
Quote from: MaddogMicharski on November 22, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
Is anybody aware of any major highways infrastructure plans or new highways being built in NJ other than the I-295, I-76, and NJ-42 interchange?
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/business/procurement/ProfServ/AnticipatedSolic.shtm
Unfortunately, the projects I know of aren't listed there yet, so I can't divulge (competitive interest). But there are some interchange reconstructions coming up.
Quote from: MaddogMicharski on November 22, 2020, 12:55:37 AM
Is anybody aware of any major highways infrastructure plans or new highways being built in NJ other than the I-295, I-76, and NJ-42 interchange?
In addition to Alps' link above, here are the links for the major road entities in NJ with possible upcoming projects. Note that many are in development of some sort, most projects won't actually be constructed for several years:
NJDOT List of Construction projects most likely going out to bid in the next 6 months: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/PlannedAdv/
NJDOT FY 2021 Project list, searchable by county and route: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp21/sec5.shtm
NJDOT 5 Year Project list: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp21/sec7/njdot5year.pdf
NJ Turnpike & Parkway Proposed Capital Improvement Program: https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf
AC Expressway Proposed Capital Improvement Program: https://www.sjta.com/sjta/pdfs/2020/2020%20Capital%20Plan.pdf
Based on the above, in terms of the interchange and new highways you asked about, you're not really going to see new highways in NJ, simply because there's really no room to build, and they are extremely controversial in this state. The Route 206 Hillsborough Bypass is about as close as you're going to come to a roadway on a new alignment.
Some interchange projects also bring some new roadways on unique alignments as well: The 295/42 Missing Moves project, separate from the 295/76/42 project, is about a 1 mile entirely elevated roadway. The ACX Exit 9 interchange project will be essentially a new roadway on a different alignment, and the proposed Interchange 7 Flyover from the GSP to the ACX will also be a significant improvement.
Nice to know that a flyover is planned for the GSP/ACX interchange. I'm assuming N-W, although putting one in S-E would make some sense too (clover-stack all the things!).
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2020, 02:10:27 PM
Nice to know that a flyover is planned for the GSP/ACX interchange. I'm assuming N-W, although putting one in S-E would make some sense too (clover-stack all the things!).
S-E is much less important, as a lot of traffic going South exits onto US 30 towards AC before reaching the Expressway.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2020, 02:10:27 PM
Nice to know that a flyover is planned for the GSP/ACX interchange. I'm assuming N-W, although putting one in S-E would make some sense too (clover-stack all the things!).
The ACX document states that it's to replace the current 38B GSP NB to ACX WB cloverleaf ramp, which causes plenty of slowdowns in peak months with traffic headed home to the Philly burbs from the Cape May shore region.
Quote from: storm2k on November 23, 2020, 03:08:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2020, 02:10:27 PM
Nice to know that a flyover is planned for the GSP/ACX interchange. I'm assuming N-W, although putting one in S-E would make some sense too (clover-stack all the things!).
The ACX document states that it's to replace the current 38B GSP NB to ACX WB cloverleaf ramp, which causes plenty of slowdowns in peak months with traffic headed home to the Philly burbs from the Cape May shore region.
The current configuration (a 2 lane clover ramp) certainly suggests the N-W movement is the one most in need of a flyover.
That said, CD roadways wouldn't hurt elsewhere in that interchange where the clover ramps will be retained.
Quote from: famartin on November 23, 2020, 04:59:32 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 23, 2020, 03:08:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2020, 02:10:27 PM
Nice to know that a flyover is planned for the GSP/ACX interchange. I'm assuming N-W, although putting one in S-E would make some sense too (clover-stack all the things!).
The ACX document states that it's to replace the current 38B GSP NB to ACX WB cloverleaf ramp, which causes plenty of slowdowns in peak months with traffic headed home to the Philly burbs from the Cape May shore region.
The current configuration (a 2 lane clover ramp) certainly suggests the N-W movement is the one most in need of a flyover.
That said, CD roadways wouldn't hurt elsewhere in that interchange where the clover ramps will be retained.
Sadly, there doesn't look like there's enough room under that overpass to add C-D roads on the Parkway without completely rebuilding the entire overpass. I don't think there's much you can do any useful C-D roads on the ACX either.
Quote from: storm2k on November 23, 2020, 11:44:48 AM
Quote from: famartin on November 23, 2020, 04:59:32 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 23, 2020, 03:08:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2020, 02:10:27 PM
Nice to know that a flyover is planned for the GSP/ACX interchange. I'm assuming N-W, although putting one in S-E would make some sense too (clover-stack all the things!).
The ACX document states that it's to replace the current 38B GSP NB to ACX WB cloverleaf ramp, which causes plenty of slowdowns in peak months with traffic headed home to the Philly burbs from the Cape May shore region.
The current configuration (a 2 lane clover ramp) certainly suggests the N-W movement is the one most in need of a flyover.
That said, CD roadways wouldn't hurt elsewhere in that interchange where the clover ramps will be retained.
Sadly, there doesn't look like there's enough room under that overpass to add C-D roads on the Parkway without completely rebuilding the entire overpass. I don't think there's much you can do any useful C-D roads on the ACX either.
The entire interchange was basically reconstructed, including the SJTA getting the NJTA to pay for widening the overpass.
I wonder if C/D lanes were ever discussed as an option.
In NJ, it's funny to see some fairly low-volume interchanges have C/D lanes, yet busy interchanges do without. In some cases it probably had to do with planned greatness that never materialized.
The NJ 37 exchange with the Parkway at Toms River has a totally antiquated cloverleaf that for four decades been dangerous. Should become a SPUI but major work to replace the bridge over Route 37 would need to be done competing with other needed projects to accomplish.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 25, 2020, 01:42:20 AM
The NJ 37 exchange with the Parkway at Toms River has a totally antiquated cloverleaf that for four decades been dangerous. Should become a SPUI but major work to replace the bridge over Route 37 would need to be done competing with other needed projects to accomplish.
That whole section that is concurrent with US 9 thru Toms River needs a rebuild. They've worked on either end but the middle portion (CR 527 and NJ 37 interchanges) are sub-standard, for sure.
Quote from: famartin on November 25, 2020, 03:06:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 25, 2020, 01:42:20 AM
The NJ 37 exchange with the Parkway at Toms River has a totally antiquated cloverleaf that for four decades been dangerous. Should become a SPUI but major work to replace the bridge over Route 37 would need to be done competing with other needed projects to accomplish.
That whole section that is concurrent with US 9 thru Toms River needs a rebuild. They've worked on either end but the middle portion (CR 527 and NJ 37 interchanges) are sub-standard, for sure.
Express and local configuration would work for that.
Quote from: famartin on November 25, 2020, 03:06:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 25, 2020, 01:42:20 AM
The NJ 37 exchange with the Parkway at Toms River has a totally antiquated cloverleaf that for four decades been dangerous. Should become a SPUI but major work to replace the bridge over Route 37 would need to be done competing with other needed projects to accomplish.
That whole section that is concurrent with US 9 thru Toms River needs a rebuild. They've worked on either end but the middle portion (CR 527 and NJ 37 interchanges) are sub-standard, for sure.
There are some significant issues in there - existing narrow roadway is constrained by water and ROW. Not surprising that the easier projects have been tackled first.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 25, 2020, 01:42:20 AM
The NJ 37 exchange with the Parkway at Toms River has a totally antiquated cloverleaf that for four decades been dangerous. Should become a SPUI but major work to replace the bridge over Route 37 would need to be done competing with other needed projects to accomplish.
Widening and reconstruction in that Toms River stretch is in the current 10 year plan for the Turnpike Authority so hopefully they'll work on that, but as it's been pointed out, there are going to be some big challenges to rebuild that area to meet the volume needs.
I was just recommended a six year old video about the Pulaski Bridge on YouTube, and the condition of the pylons shown in the thumbnail looks really scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLJ5Nc6Ojc
I remember there was some big restoration project several years ago. Evidently NJDOT didn't finish the job.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 01, 2020, 10:15:26 AM
I was just recommended a six year old video about the Pulaski Bridge on YouTube, and the condition of the pylons shown in the thumbnail looks really scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLJ5Nc6Ojc
I remember there was some big restoration project several years ago. Evidently NJDOT didn't finish the job.
The video is 2014. The rehabilitation finished around 2018, so this is likely repaired.
Old NJ-31 over the Musconetcong River (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.711604,-74.9679396,3a,22.3y,15.11h,89.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQTbu8Bw-miBcAYmmpwNpYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
What are these shields? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6232438,-74.9638694,3a,30.7y,257.41h,83.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1NFBVPQfCJmcp3WEmM3nVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 10:23:57 AM
What are these shields? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6232438,-74.9638694,3a,30.7y,257.41h,83.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1NFBVPQfCJmcp3WEmM3nVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Looks like an old, worn CR shield.
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2020, 10:41:18 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 10:23:57 AM
What are these shields? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6232438,-74.9638694,3a,30.7y,257.41h,83.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1NFBVPQfCJmcp3WEmM3nVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Looks like an old, worn CR shield.
Does it say "Hunterdon County" or "Perryville Road"?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2020, 10:41:18 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 10:23:57 AM
What are these shields? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6232438,-74.9638694,3a,30.7y,257.41h,83.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1NFBVPQfCJmcp3WEmM3nVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Looks like an old, worn CR shield.
Does it say "Hunterdon County" or "Perryville Road"?
It looks like a standard CR shield (move to a view from the back side to see the pentagon shape more clearly), but I can't tell what it says.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2020, 10:41:18 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 10:23:57 AM
What are these shields? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6232438,-74.9638694,3a,30.7y,257.41h,83.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1NFBVPQfCJmcp3WEmM3nVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Looks like an old, worn CR shield.
Does it say "Hunterdon County" or "Perryville Road"?
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/hunterdon/pr1.jpg) (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/hunterdon)
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2020, 04:19:34 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2020, 10:41:18 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 10:23:57 AM
What are these shields? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6232438,-74.9638694,3a,30.7y,257.41h,83.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1NFBVPQfCJmcp3WEmM3nVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Looks like an old, worn CR shield.
Does it say "Hunterdon County" or "Perryville Road"?
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/hunterdon/pr1.jpg) (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/hunterdon)
An odd sign to be sure. What prompted it, I wonder.
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2020, 04:21:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2020, 04:19:34 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 11:18:14 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 04, 2020, 10:41:18 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 04, 2020, 10:23:57 AM
What are these shields? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6232438,-74.9638694,3a,30.7y,257.41h,83.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1NFBVPQfCJmcp3WEmM3nVw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
Looks like an old, worn CR shield.
Does it say "Hunterdon County" or "Perryville Road"?
(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/hunterdon/pr1.jpg) (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/hunterdon)
An odd sign to be sure. What prompted it, I wonder.
They probably recycled a few spare pentagons or something.
Perryville used to be a county road (https://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/HUNTERDON_COUNTY/HunterdonCoRoads_1960_4.gif) and I have a map showing that as being CR 635, probably the reason why today 625 and 635 both awkwardly end at the four-way intersection with 173.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 05, 2020, 07:56:50 AM
Perryville used to be a county road (https://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/HUNTERDON_COUNTY/HunterdonCoRoads_1960_4.gif) and I have a map showing that as being CR 635, probably the reason why today 625 and 635 both awkwardly end at the four-way intersection with 173.
Woah, Hunterdon used to use 2-digit county route numbers? The more you know :wow:
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 05, 2020, 09:38:47 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 05, 2020, 07:56:50 AM
Perryville used to be a county road (https://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/HUNTERDON_COUNTY/HunterdonCoRoads_1960_4.gif) and I have a map showing that as being CR 635, probably the reason why today 625 and 635 both awkwardly end at the four-way intersection with 173.
Woah, Hunterdon used to use 2-digit county route numbers? The more you know :wow:
Probably was common in NJ before the 500/600 series development occurred in the 50s.
Quote from: famartin on December 05, 2020, 11:27:05 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 05, 2020, 09:38:47 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 05, 2020, 07:56:50 AM
Perryville used to be a county road (https://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/HUNTERDON_COUNTY/HunterdonCoRoads_1960_4.gif) and I have a map showing that as being CR 635, probably the reason why today 625 and 635 both awkwardly end at the four-way intersection with 173.
Woah, Hunterdon used to use 2-digit county route numbers? The more you know :wow:
Probably was common in NJ before the 500/600 series development occurred in the 50s.
My understanding was that the 5xx series came with the 1953 renumbering since the 5xx routes function as a sort of state secondary highway system, but the 6xx standard came more towards the late 60s or early 70s?
Quote from: storm2k on December 05, 2020, 11:48:22 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 05, 2020, 11:27:05 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on December 05, 2020, 09:38:47 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 05, 2020, 07:56:50 AM
Perryville used to be a county road (https://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/HUNTERDON_COUNTY/HunterdonCoRoads_1960_4.gif) and I have a map showing that as being CR 635, probably the reason why today 625 and 635 both awkwardly end at the four-way intersection with 173.
Woah, Hunterdon used to use 2-digit county route numbers? The more you know :wow:
Probably was common in NJ before the 500/600 series development occurred in the 50s.
My understanding was that the 5xx series came with the 1953 renumbering since the 5xx routes function as a sort of state secondary highway system, but the 6xx standard came more towards the late 60s or early 70s?
You may be right. I'd assumed the series had been created simultaneously, but honestly I'm not sure.
Drove through the construction they're doing on 440 between the Turnpike and Parkway today for the first time. It looks like there are sign structure changes incoming. It looks like this structure is going away (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5282342,-74.3366546,3a,27.1y,113.54h,96.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOqD3rczJl9iDbhh1un3O9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), as NJDOT has a new cantilever sign structure for the Turnpike ramp, with the ubiquitous "destination" of NJ Turnpike. So it looks like there will be no further advance lane guidance signs for the 514 west ramp, which seems a bit of a bad idea, since the exit there is a lane drop and comes up very quickly past the ramp. Plus, no more advance sign for 514 east. I figured these structures needed to be replaced, as they're from the 1970s at least (the signs themselves were replaced in the early to mid-90s, although a couple of them were replaced subsequent to that--especially the 514 west signs, since they changed the destination from Bonhamtown to Raritan Center), but I would have figured NJDOT would request in-kind replacement of all 3 signs. I will try to get thru there at a future date to get some pictures and report on further signage changes.
Quote from: storm2k on December 14, 2020, 03:52:13 AM
Drove through the construction they're doing on 440 between the Turnpike and Parkway today for the first time. It looks like there are sign structure changes incoming. It looks like this structure is going away (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5282342,-74.3366546,3a,27.1y,113.54h,96.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOqD3rczJl9iDbhh1un3O9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), as NJDOT has a new cantilever sign structure for the Turnpike ramp, with the ubiquitous "destination" of NJ Turnpike. So it looks like there will be no further advance lane guidance signs for the 514 west ramp, which seems a bit of a bad idea, since the exit there is a lane drop and comes up very quickly past the ramp. Plus, no more advance sign for 514 east. I figured these structures needed to be replaced, as they're from the 1970s at least (the signs themselves were replaced in the early to mid-90s, although a couple of them were replaced subsequent to that--especially the 514 west signs, since they changed the destination from Bonhamtown to Raritan Center), but I would have figured NJDOT would request in-kind replacement of all 3 signs. I will try to get thru there at a future date to get some pictures and report on further signage changes.
Hope they add control cities for US 9 as it should really be such as South Amboy for it SB.
That entire stretch from 95 to 9 needs new signage. All of those signs have been around since I was a kid, save for the Industrial Highway rename to Riverside Drive.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 15, 2020, 12:09:40 AM
That entire stretch from 95 to 9 needs new signage. All of those signs have been around since I was a kid, save for the Industrial Highway rename to Riverside Drive.
Those signs were replaced around 1993 or 94, and their retroflectivity is still OK, so it's not pressing, but hopefully replacing these structures will allow for new signage that has some control cities on them (at least for Rt 9), since the current signs had to fit on the original 1970s vintage structures which had very small signs on them.
Quote from: storm2k on December 15, 2020, 04:53:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 15, 2020, 12:09:40 AM
That entire stretch from 95 to 9 needs new signage. All of those signs have been around since I was a kid, save for the Industrial Highway rename to Riverside Drive.
Those signs were replaced around 1993 or 94, and their retroflectivity is still OK, so it's not pressing, but hopefully replacing these structures will allow for new signage that has some control cities on them (at least for Rt 9), since the current signs had to fit on the original 1970s vintage structures which had very small signs on them.
Their retroreflectivity is not still OK. Signs are guaranteed for 12 years. After more than 25 years, they just won't work right at night. Even if they still reflect light, you lose color contrast and other issues of aging emerge.
https://goo.gl/maps/4YX9yv72GrADUytp6
Why is NJ 29 here more important than the NJ Turnpike? Why first of all is NJ 29 needed here anyway?
Quote from: roadman65 on December 16, 2020, 11:37:54 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/4YX9yv72GrADUytp6
Why is NJ 29 here more important than the NJ Turnpike? Why first of all is NJ 29 needed here anyway?
Good question, but they've done that all over I-195 in the last couple years.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/2020-07-09_11_37_33_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_138_at_Exit_35B_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_34_NORTH%2C_Matawan%29_in_Wall_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/2020-07-09_11_52_44_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_28B_%28U.S._Route_9_NORTH%2C_Freehold%29_in_Howell_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/2020-07-09_11_54_10_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_28A_%28U.S._Route_9_SOUTH%2C_Lakewood%29_in_Howell_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/2020-07-09_11_58_38_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_22_%28Jackson_Mills%2C_Georgia%29_in_Jackson_Township%2C_Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/2020-07-09_12_01_32_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_21_%28Ocean_County_Route_527%2C_Ocean_County_Route_526%2C_Jackson%2C_Siloam%29_in_Jackson_Township%2C_Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/2020-07-09_12_06_09_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_16_%28County_Route_537%2C_Mount_Holly%2C_Six_Flags%2C_Freehold%29_in_Jackson_Township%2C_Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/2020-07-09_12_11_30_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_11_%28Imlaystown%2C_Coxs_Corner%29_in_Upper_Freehold_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2020-07-09_12_18_47_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_7_%28Mercer_County_Route_526%2C_Allentown%2C_Robbinsville%29_in_Robbinsville_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/2020-07-15_17_25_08_View_east_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_5A_%28U.S._Route_130_SOUTH%2C_Bordentown%29_in_Hamilton_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/2020-07-15_17_33_13_View_east_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_8_%28County_Route_539%2C_Hightstown%2C_Allentown%29_on_the_border_of_Robbinsville_Township%2C_Mercer_County_and_Upper_Freehold_Township%2C_Monmouth_County_in_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/2020-07-15_17_51_33_View_east_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_22_%28Jackson_Mills%2C_Georgia%29_in_Jackson_Township%2C_Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/2020-07-15_17_57_10_View_east_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_28B_%28U.S._Route_9_NORTH%2C_Freehold%29_in_Howell_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: famartin on December 16, 2020, 01:27:47 PM
Good question, but they've done that all over I-195 in the last couple years.
(bunch of pictures snipped)
thanks for all the pictures! i think all of those signs have been installed in the past 3.5 years or so - i don't remember seeing any of them before i moved out of the area. it's a strange decision - and even more so eastbound, i'd say, given how short 138 is.
Should be the Parkway going EB. Short roads are not important but the Parkway is as it serves the whole shore region.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 17, 2020, 12:05:22 AM
Should be the Parkway going EB. Short roads are not important but the Parkway is as it serves the whole shore region.
I'm going to disagree just on the grounds that how many people heading all the way west on I-195 are then going any significant distance on the parkway? For a short distance near the parkway, it may be useful, perhaps within 5-10 miles, but if you are further west, you are probably taking a different route unless your destination is not far north or south.
I-95/NJTP should be the control route for westbound I-195 from Six Flags to 95, and eastbound from I-295 to 95. I-295/NJ 29 should be the control route for I-195 westbound from 95 to I-295. Beyond those sections, I don't think a control route is necessary, just a control city (and Belmar/Trenton work just fine).
(referencing photos above) This has probably been noted before, but I find the larger distances (> 2 miles) to the next interchange unusual. "Next Exit x Miles" panels on the advance signs may have done better in these cases?
195 in NJ has always been an oddball. For starters, the overpass supports are different than what was used in the rest of the state.
It's almost like, NJDOT just uses the road to experiment with different things. Going back to what started this conversation...I don't necessary think the NJ Tpk & GSP Shields are necessary. But really, the pull-thru signage shouldn't even mention 29 and 138 either. They should simply be East/West 195.
On top of that, neither exit sign for those two roads are technically correct. The Parkway should be South 34 TO South GSP. Minor, but a technicality. The NJ Turnpike sign should have better destinations than New Jersey and Turnpike. :-) If the argument is that the pull-thru signs should be 195 TO NJ Tpk, then the Exit sign should be relevant for people to know why they would want to use it.
The more recent mentions of the 3 & 6 Mile signs: Correct...neither are necessary 3 Miles isn't an unusual far-off distance, and the destinations mentioned are 2 places most people not living in those 2 places have never heard of. 6 Miles is a bit further than normal between exits, but nothing too abnormal. Even if NJDOT really felt they were needed, they could've just left off the pull-thru signage so everything wouldn't be so crowded.
Quote from: odditude on December 16, 2020, 10:42:51 PM
Quote from: famartin on December 16, 2020, 01:27:47 PM
Good question, but they've done that all over I-195 in the last couple years.
(bunch of pictures snipped)
thanks for all the pictures! i think all of those signs have been installed in the past 3.5 years or so - i don't remember seeing any of them before i moved out of the area. it's a strange decision - and even more so eastbound, i'd say, given how short 138 is.
They're definitely newish. My pictures are from 2015, and there's only one TO NJ 29 sign that was there at that point. When the pandemic gets better, I'll need to take a trip down that way and reclinch it to get updated pictures.
Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.
(https://i.imgur.com/E1aHIY3.jpg)
Also saw a new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.
Quote from: storm2k on December 19, 2020, 08:13:39 PM
Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.
(https://i.imgur.com/E1aHIY3.jpg)
Also saw a new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.
Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs? I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes? At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.
Quote from: amroad17 on December 22, 2020, 12:42:15 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 19, 2020, 08:13:39 PM
Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.
(https://i.imgur.com/E1aHIY3.jpg)
Also saw a new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.
Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs? I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes? At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.
I'd like to fantasize that NJDOT just doesn't agree with NJTA's current control cities so isn't going to use them, but that's probably hoping for too much...
Quote from: famartin on December 22, 2020, 01:16:12 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 22, 2020, 12:42:15 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 19, 2020, 08:13:39 PM
Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.
(https://i.imgur.com/E1aHIY3.jpg)
Also saw new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.
Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs? I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes? At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.
I'd like to fantasize that NJDOT just doesn't agree with NJTA's current control cities so isn't going to use them, but that's probably hoping for too much...
Yet they use a Newark- Trenton for the previous exit at US 1 which should use more localized locations being the Turnpike is better route to those.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 22, 2020, 10:09:57 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 22, 2020, 01:16:12 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 22, 2020, 12:42:15 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 19, 2020, 08:13:39 PM
Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.
(https://i.imgur.com/E1aHIY3.jpg)
Also saw new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.
Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs? I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes? At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.
I'd like to fantasize that NJDOT just doesn't agree with NJTA's current control cities so isn't going to use them, but that's probably hoping for too much...
Yet they use a Newark- Trenton for the previous exit at US 1 which should use more localized locations being the Turnpike is better route to those.
NJDOT has never used control cities for the toll roads. The name of the toll road is always the control city. It's been that way for as long as I can remember and I doubt it will ever change. As for the control cities for other roads, they've had certain ones that they've used for decades and seem unwilling to change as well. Reference how 22 and 46, for example, are not great ways to get to New York City, but most signs for them use those as control cities in LGS's. 46 has more local cities on signs for exits off 80, but LGSs all over 46 east of Dover are for New York. 22 ends in Newark, and while it feeds 1-9 on the way to the Skyway, but Newark would be a way better control city for 22 than New York. I would like to see 1 use Elizabeth, New Brunswick, and Princeton as intermediate control cities, but that doesn't seem to be likely to change either.
Quote from: storm2k on December 22, 2020, 01:38:40 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 22, 2020, 10:09:57 AM
Quote from: famartin on December 22, 2020, 01:16:12 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on December 22, 2020, 12:42:15 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 19, 2020, 08:13:39 PM
Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.
(https://i.imgur.com/E1aHIY3.jpg)
Also saw new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.
Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs? I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes? At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.
I'd like to fantasize that NJDOT just doesn't agree with NJTA's current control cities so isn't going to use them, but that's probably hoping for too much...
Yet they use a Newark- Trenton for the previous exit at US 1 which should use more localized locations being the Turnpike is better route to those.
NJDOT has never used control cities for the toll roads. The name of the toll road is always the control city. It's been that way for as long as I can remember and I doubt it will ever change. As for the control cities for other roads, they've had certain ones that they've used for decades and seem unwilling to change as well. Reference how 22 and 46, for example, are not great ways to get to New York City, but most signs for them use those as control cities in LGS's. 46 has more local cities on signs for exits off 80, but LGSs all over 46 east of Dover are for New York. 22 ends in Newark, and while it feeds 1-9 on the way to the Skyway, but Newark would be a way better control city for 22 than New York. I would like to see 1 use Elizabeth, New Brunswick, and Princeton as intermediate control cities, but that doesn't seem to be likely to change either.
Never say never...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/2020-07-09_12_21_53_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_6_%28Interstate_95-New_Jersey_Turnpike%2C_New_York%2C_Camden%29_in_Robbinsville_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/2020-08-01_14_16_07_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_36.jpg/800px-2020-08-01_14_16_07_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_36.jpg)
Quote from: famartin on December 22, 2020, 04:17:51 PM
Never say never...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/2020-07-09_12_21_53_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_6_%28Interstate_95-New_Jersey_Turnpike%2C_New_York%2C_Camden%29_in_Robbinsville_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/2020-08-01_14_16_07_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_36.jpg/800px-2020-08-01_14_16_07_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_36.jpg)
Some consistency would be nice, then. All sorts of new signage has been replaced everywhere else in the past couple of years and no other ones include actual control cities for the toll roads lol.
Well now the Red Lion Circle won't be lying at the NB US 206 departing it as it always had New York as a control city there.
Here's a return to one of those quirky NJDOT only things. Note the county shield in this sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZmKIjDF.jpg)
The shield that says county without the corresponding county name above the route number is one of those old school NJDOT things that disappeared for a long time (for the longest, they just did the pentagon with just the number in it if anything). Now they brought this back. This, BTW, is on NJ-28 westbound in Raritan, at the northern end of CR567.
Unlike state and US route signs, which are pretty consistent from sign to sign (and only in the last few years have lost their black square backplates on sign assemblies), NJDOT has had ongoing inconsistencies with how they display county routes. Here are some examples on I-195 and I-295.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/2020-07-09_11_48_27_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_31A_%28Monmouth_County_Route_547_SOUTH_TO_Monmouth_County_Route_549%29_in_Howell_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/2020-07-09_13_23_08_View_north_along_Interstate_295_at_Exit_75_%28Mercer_County_Route_579%2C_West_Trenton%2C_Passenger_Terminal%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/2020-07-09_12_06_09_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_16_%28County_Route_537%2C_Mount_Holly%2C_Six_Flags%2C_Freehold%29_in_Jackson_Township%2C_Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/2020-07-09_12_11_30_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_11_%28Imlaystown%2C_Coxs_Corner%29_in_Upper_Freehold_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
From a readability standpoint, I think the version with no words and a yellow backplate looks most readable, but that might just be me.
Immediately after I first posted this, it did occur to me that for 537 and 539 on I-195, it isn't feasible to use the county name since they are on county lines at those points. But certainly there are plenty of other examples where the county name is omitted.
Quote from: famartin on December 30, 2020, 07:07:50 PM
Unlike state and US route signs, which are pretty consistent from sign to sign (and only in the last few years have lost their black square backplates on sign assemblies), NJDOT has had ongoing inconsistencies with how they display county routes. Here are some examples on I-195 and I-295.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/2020-07-09_11_48_27_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_31A_%28Monmouth_County_Route_547_SOUTH_TO_Monmouth_County_Route_549%29_in_Howell_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/2020-07-09_13_23_08_View_north_along_Interstate_295_at_Exit_75_%28Mercer_County_Route_579%2C_West_Trenton%2C_Passenger_Terminal%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/2020-07-09_12_06_09_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_16_%28County_Route_537%2C_Mount_Holly%2C_Six_Flags%2C_Freehold%29_in_Jackson_Township%2C_Ocean_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/2020-07-09_12_11_30_View_west_along_Interstate_195_%28Central_Jersey_Expressway%29_at_Exit_11_%28Imlaystown%2C_Coxs_Corner%29_in_Upper_Freehold_Township%2C_Monmouth_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
From a readability standpoint, I think the version with no words and a yellow backplate looks most readable, but that might just be me.
Immediately after I first posted this, it did occur to me that for 537 and 539 on I-195, it isn't feasible to use the county name since they are on county lines at those points. But certainly there are plenty of other examples where the county name is omitted.
I agree that the version with no text in it other than the number works best for non-reassurance shields. I wish they would be consistent about it though. Either no text, or the correct text with county names.
the county name isn't really important for 500-series routes, since they're part of a statewide system - they add no useful information to a BGS while potentially impeding legibility, similar to the state name on an Interstate shield in the same circumstances.
i personally think the yellow backplate improves the recognizability of the pentagon shape, making it more useful as opposed to the more purely-cosmetic use of the black backplate for state and US routes. i wish that change hadn't been mandated by MUTCD.
I think the county shield looks better with no backplate. The replacement of US and state signs with "no backplate" signs is going very slowly. It's hard to believe NJ was using the backplate incorrectly for decades until AASHTO apparently noticed!
Quote from: odditude on January 02, 2021, 01:17:30 PM
the county name isn't really important for 500-series routes, since they're part of a statewide system - they add no useful information to a BGS while potentially impeding legibility, similar to the state name on an Interstate shield in the same circumstances.
i personally think the yellow backplate improves the recognizability of the pentagon shape, making it more useful as opposed to the more purely-cosmetic use of the black backplate for state and US routes. i wish that change hadn't been mandated by MUTCD.
The pentagon is supposed to have a doubly thick border when on a green background to maintain target value.
Quote from: odditude on January 02, 2021, 01:17:30 PM
the county name isn't really important for 500-series routes, since they're part of a statewide system - they add no useful information to a BGS while potentially impeding legibility, similar to the state name on an Interstate shield in the same circumstances.
You are definitely correct, and the simpler version with no words and largest possible numbers makes them easiest to read.
Quote from: odditude on January 02, 2021, 01:17:30 PM
i personally think the yellow backplate improves the recognizability of the pentagon shape, making it more useful as opposed to the more purely-cosmetic use of the black backplate for state and US routes. i wish that change hadn't been mandated by MUTCD.
Agree, given that NJDOT doesn't post the non-backplated CR shields correctly (see below).
Quote from: artmalk on January 02, 2021, 01:56:11 PM
I think the county shield look better with no backplate. The replacement of US and state signs with "no backplate" signs is going very slowly. It's hard to believe NJ was using the backplate incorrectly for decades until AASHTO apparently noticed!
I think the backplate adds to legibility, but probably not enough to justify the extra cost, especially given the way they are now making signs. I'm honestly not sure if this was AASHTO backlash... their sign production process seems to be different for the signs they've posted in the last few years, so it may just be cheaper not to include backplates. As far as replacement... I don't think they are in a rush. NJDOT seems to replace signs once they decide they are no longer useful, which can be 30+ years sometimes. I know there are still signs out there that are about that old.
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2021, 02:12:45 PM
The pentagon is supposed to have a doubly thick border when on a green background to maintain target value.
Bingo.
NJDOT tends to replace signs with reflective sheeting every 20 years or so. The last round that eliminated most button copy went up in the late 90s and many of those signs are getting replaced now. Older mid-90s "transition" signs with reflective sheeting and button copy are still up (a lot on I-287 still) so reflective sheeting can make it at least 25 years.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 03, 2021, 04:52:56 PM
NJDOT tends to replace signs with reflective sheeting every 20 years or so. The last round that eliminated most button copy went up in the late 90s and many of those signs are getting replaced now. Older mid-90s "transition" signs with reflective sheeting and button copy are still up (a lot on I-287 still) so reflective sheeting can make it at least 25 years.
Most Route 55 button-copy signage between Exit 53 and Rt. 42 went up prior to 1985, and still stands.
When they replaced the 295 signage, they used older As-Built plans, which didn't account for newer replacements. One very vivid example is at Exit 13 SB: 295 was 3 lanes wide, and the center lane split to 295 or 130. The highway was widened in the 1990s to 4 lanes wide at the split, and new signage was installed to show the revised split. When the signs were replaced, the new signage only showed a 3 lane setup again. It has never been corrected.
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2020, 12:57:55 AM
I agree that the version with no text in it other than the number works best for non-reassurance shields. I wish they would be consistent about it though. Either no text, or the correct text with county names.
I prefer the incorrect text on county names:
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw9pT9s.jpg)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2021, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2020, 12:57:55 AM
I agree that the version with no text in it other than the number works best for non-reassurance shields. I wish they would be consistent about it though. Either no text, or the correct text with county names.
I prefer the incorrect text on county names:
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw9pT9s.jpg)
Taken in Atlantic County, I presume. :) Where in Atlantic County?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on January 03, 2021, 08:15:37 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2021, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2020, 12:57:55 AM
I agree that the version with no text in it other than the number works best for non-reassurance shields. I wish they would be consistent about it though. Either no text, or the correct text with county names.
I prefer the incorrect text on county names:
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw9pT9s.jpg)
Taken in Atlantic County, I presume. :) Where in Atlantic County?
ixnay
Looks like 52 NB entering Somers Point from the bridge to Ocean City
Quote from: ixnay on January 03, 2021, 08:15:37 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 03, 2021, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2020, 12:57:55 AM
I agree that the version with no text in it other than the number works best for non-reassurance shields. I wish they would be consistent about it though. Either no text, or the correct text with county names.
I prefer the incorrect text on county names:
(https://i.imgur.com/Aw9pT9s.jpg)
Taken in Atlantic County, I presume. :) Where in Atlantic County?
Westbound (on a bike with a strong headwind) on the Route 52 bridge from Ocean City into Somers Point. Pretty much the only sign error I spotted on my biking/roadgeeking tour of the Little- and regular Egg Harbor areas yesterday (excluding the private homeowner who had a portable VMS at his driveway advertising a losing presidential candidate for a year since passed).
The south segment of NJ 167 is flooded with utility company laydown boards for over-wetland work, the northern segment of former NJ 167 much overgrown with some kind of plant.
Was I-287 ever widened in Morristown? The Morris Ave and Lafayette Ave underpasses look unusually new.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 01:37:35 PM
Was I-287 ever widened in Morristown? The Morris Ave and Lafayette Ave underpasses look unusually new.
I believe that at some point it was. I think it used to be two lanes from Morristown south to Harding. Also, I recall 287 being 2 lanes from Parsippany to the previous end of the road in Montville, and that it was widened to 3 lanes in anticipation of the completion of 287.
Quote from: artmalk on January 04, 2021, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 01:37:35 PM
Was I-287 ever widened in Morristown? The Morris Ave and Lafayette Ave underpasses look unusually new.
I believe that at some point it was. I think it used to be two lanes from Morristown south to Harding. Also, I recall 287 being 2 lanes from Parsippany to the previous end of the road in Montville, and that it was widened to 3 lanes in anticipation of the completion of 287.
Were any of the bridges replaced? Or were they all wider than the road at the time to anticipate the widening?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 01:37:35 PM
Was I-287 ever widened in Morristown? The Morris Ave and Lafayette Ave underpasses look unusually new.
I think that was the HOV-lane project in the 90s. Those lanes were converted to general-purpose after less than 10 years.
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 02:10:16 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 01:37:35 PM
Was I-287 ever widened in Morristown? The Morris Ave and Lafayette Ave underpasses look unusually new.
I think that was the HOV-lane project in the 90s. Those lanes were converted to general-purpose after less than 10 years.
The 287 lanes didn't even last a year. They opened in sections, but the lanes were complete in 1998 and killed the same year. I do believe the overpasses in the Morristown area were widened the accommodate the extra lanes in that area, since it's 8 lanes between 35 and 39 there and then 10 between 39 and 41.
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2021, 02:47:18 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 02:10:16 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 01:37:35 PM
Was I-287 ever widened in Morristown? The Morris Ave and Lafayette Ave underpasses look unusually new.
I think that was the HOV-lane project in the 90s. Those lanes were converted to general-purpose after less than 10 years.
The 287 lanes didn't even last a year. They opened in sections, but the lanes were complete in 1998 and killed the same year. I do believe the overpasses in the Morristown area were widened the accommodate the extra lanes in that area, since it's 8 lanes between 35 and 39 there and then 10 between 39 and 41.
I wonder if there are any photographs of 1) the HOV lanes while they existed or 2) the old overpasses in Morristown.
To confirm or deny anything you're saying, go to Historic Aerials and check back through the years. 1979 is particularly good quality and color.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 01:37:35 PM
Was I-287 ever widened in Morristown? The Morris Ave and Lafayette Ave underpasses look unusually new.
Lafayette I can't tell because some douchebag nearby wanted their house blurred on GSV but Morris Ave.'s overpass, if the state-required bridge plate is anything to go by, was built in 1973. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7954653,-74.4689319,3a,24y,154.59h,84.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saPfiYyqh7XUfJ4dosCxlfg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DaPfiYyqh7XUfJ4dosCxlfg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D91.23532%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) The Franklin St., 124, and South St. bridges to the south are all 1968. The Hanover Ave. overpass to the north was also 1973.
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2021, 03:30:52 PM
To confirm or deny anything you're saying, go to Historic Aerials and check back through the years. 1979 is particularly good quality and color.
Yeah, after I suggested the HOV widening, I looked there and realized they kinda look the same. It seems they just eliminated the shoulders to fit in the lanes.
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2021, 03:30:52 PM
To confirm or deny anything you're saying, go to Historic Aerials and check back through the years. 1979 is particularly good quality and color.
Yeah, after I suggested the HOV widening, I looked there and realized they kinda look the same. It seems they just eliminated the shoulders to fit in the lanes.
That was my thinking, but I was working and didn't have time to check myself. I recall everything being built to 3 lanes originally, at least Morristown north.
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2021, 03:30:52 PM
To confirm or deny anything you're saying, go to Historic Aerials and check back through the years. 1979 is particularly good quality and color.
Yeah, after I suggested the HOV widening, I looked there and realized they kinda look the same. It seems they just eliminated the shoulders to fit in the lanes.
IIRC the HOV lanes weren't added separately, just cut out from the existing lanes, but removed after a short time because they did nothing to alleviate traffic.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2021, 03:30:52 PM
To confirm or deny anything you're saying, go to Historic Aerials and check back through the years. 1979 is particularly good quality and color.
Yeah, after I suggested the HOV widening, I looked there and realized they kinda look the same. It seems they just eliminated the shoulders to fit in the lanes.
IIRC the HOV lanes weren't added separately, just cut out from the existing lanes, but removed after a short time because they did nothing to alleviate traffic.
That's something you can check on https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer and it clearly shows that while in 1979 there were 3 lanes each way at CR 510, in 2002 there were 4 each way.
The HOV lanes on I-287 were added, not taken from existing lanes. The state had to show proof that the HOV lanes were not working as intended in order to keep the federal funding used to widen the highway. After the restrictions were lifted, all NJDOT did was remove the signs listing the restrictions. The diamonds remained on the roadway until they either wore off or the roadway was repaved.
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 08:14:21 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2021, 03:30:52 PM
To confirm or deny anything you're saying, go to Historic Aerials and check back through the years. 1979 is particularly good quality and color.
Yeah, after I suggested the HOV widening, I looked there and realized they kinda look the same. It seems they just eliminated the shoulders to fit in the lanes.
IIRC the HOV lanes weren't added separately, just cut out from the existing lanes, but removed after a short time because they did nothing to alleviate traffic.
That's something you can check on https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer and it clearly shows that while in 1979 there were 3 lanes each way at CR 510, in 2002 there were 4 each way.
Any more long-time NJ residents here who can remember what the old bridges in Morristown looked like?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 05, 2021, 09:06:39 AM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 08:14:21 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 04, 2021, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2021, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2021, 03:30:52 PM
To confirm or deny anything you're saying, go to Historic Aerials and check back through the years. 1979 is particularly good quality and color.
Yeah, after I suggested the HOV widening, I looked there and realized they kinda look the same. It seems they just eliminated the shoulders to fit in the lanes.
IIRC the HOV lanes weren't added separately, just cut out from the existing lanes, but removed after a short time because they did nothing to alleviate traffic.
That's something you can check on https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer and it clearly shows that while in 1979 there were 3 lanes each way at CR 510, in 2002 there were 4 each way.
Any more long-time NJ residents here who can remember what the old bridges in Morristown looked like?
No but can remember in 1970 when I-287 was dirt and the bridges carrying NJ 24 (now 124) and South Street spanned that dirt and the Green was heavily congested as 287 traffic used US 202 at that time due to the fact that the freeway ended at North Maple Avenue.
Also remember the 8-8-12-12-12 signal head on SB US 202 at Washington Street? That had three green arrows for the three turns as each turn was independent of each other.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 05, 2021, 08:46:18 AM
The HOV lanes on I-287 were added, not taken from existing lanes. The state had to show proof that the HOV lanes were not working as intended in order to keep the federal funding used to widen the highway. After the restrictions were lifted, all NJDOT did was remove the signs listing the restrictions. The diamonds remained on the roadway until they either wore off or the roadway was repaved.
I thought the state still ended up on the hook for at least some of the federal money used to build the lanes.
Also, the rotting bridge mounts and cantilevers stayed up for a very long time after the signs for the lanes were taken down (they had overhead signs every 1-2 miles). You can still see on a few overpasses where supports for bridge mounted signs went. Also, this is why, for example, the sign at Exit 26 going SB is on a full gantry and not either a cantilever, or ground mount.
There was one for a long time on 287 northbound that just stood on its own.
How much longer till the new Wittpenn Bridge opens up? Or is it suspended due to Covid 19?
2023 is projected.
Quote from: famartin on January 12, 2021, 02:44:59 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 12, 2021, 01:24:33 PM
2023 is projected.
Wasn't it supposed to be this year?
At some point it was, or even earlier. That's one area where you never know what you'll find in the ground.
Alps, were there unusual issues that came up during the Wittpenn project that caused serious delays? You alluded to finding stuff in the ground......
Quote from: SignBridge on January 12, 2021, 09:59:11 PM
Alps, were there unusual issues that came up during the Wittpenn project that caused serious delays? You alluded to finding stuff in the ground......
I'm not involved on the project. Just that this area of Hudson County has all sorts of contaminants, all sorts of wetlands, etc.
Thanks Alps. I just wondered if there were any specific factors, since as I've noted before on these boards, that project seems to be taking forever.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 13, 2021, 07:52:50 PM
Thanks Alps. I just wondered if there were any specific factors, since as I've noted before on these boards, *that project seems to be taking forever.*
So does 42/76/295...
Quote from: famartin on January 14, 2021, 08:03:32 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 13, 2021, 07:52:50 PM
Thanks Alps. I just wondered if there were any specific factors, since as I've noted before on these boards, *that project seems to be taking forever.*
So does 42/76/295...
Well, that project IS taking forever! Oirignally the project was projected to be completed this year (2021). Now, one of their website pages references the project will be completed in 2027! The entire holdup right now is the Browning Road Overpass...they can't seem to get the temp bridge's supports right.
Some props on the new NJDOT website. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/
For regular visitors to the website, the first thing you'll notice is a nice new picture on the page of a relatively empty roadway scene (if you look closely, you'll see a lane is closed in both directions too, along with the jughandle/interchange loop being closed as well. Quite often, NJ agencies/authorities have pics of congestion, which is what life is like in the Garden State.
Because Covid, NJDOT has moved their meetings to online virtual meetings. This, personally, has been awesome. I'm able to view these presentation in private, and view presentations I would have otherwise never been able attend meetings. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/ . The current presentations are for a modification of a NJ Traffic Circle (no, not roundabout) with 130. Being NJ, this circle is really an oval which 130 has the right-of-way thru at all times, with a 55 mph limit. One of the proposed improvements is to feature NJ's version of traffic metering: It's basically a regular traffic light, that if working right, will stop traffic on 130 before the circle and restrict the flow thru the circle to prevent congestion within the circle. When traffic is light, the traffic light will remain green. I'm not sure if NJDOT has any presently; I grew up seeing them on NJ 70 before they got rid of the circles that utilized them.
The other is ped/bike improvements to NJ 73 in the Maple Shade area. The area has numerous businesses and driveway/parking lot aprons, and lacks sidewalks. Hiding nothing about the area, the video shows pics of the rutted pathways pedestrians have made behind guardrails and around sign posts. Improvements are to include a shared Bike/Ped path and better crosswalks and crosswalk signals.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2021, 02:06:08 PM
Some props on the new NJDOT website. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/
For regular visitors to the website, the first thing you'll notice is a nice new picture on the page of a relatively empty roadway scene (if you look closely, you'll see a lane is closed in both directions too, along with the jughandle/interchange loop being closed as well. Quite often, NJ agencies/authorities have pics of congestion, which is what life is like in the Garden State.
Because Covid, NJDOT has moved their meetings to online virtual meetings. This, personally, has been awesome. I'm able to view these presentation in private, and view presentations I would have otherwise never been able attend meetings. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/ . The current presentations are for a modification of a NJ Traffic Circle (no, not roundabout) with 130. Being NJ, this circle is really an oval which 130 has the right-of-way thru at all times, with a 55 mph limit. One of the proposed improvements is to feature NJ's version of traffic metering: It's basically a regular traffic light, that if working right, will stop traffic on 130 before the circle and restrict the flow thru the circle to prevent congestion within the circle. When traffic is light, the traffic light will remain green. I'm not sure if NJDOT has any presently; I grew up seeing them on NJ 70 before they got rid of the circles that utilized them.
The other is ped/bike improvements to NJ 73 in the Maple Shade area. The area has numerous businesses and driveway/parking lot aprons, and lacks sidewalks. Hiding nothing about the area, the video shows pics of the rutted pathways pedestrians have made behind guardrails and around sign posts. Improvements are to include a shared Bike/Ped path and better crosswalks and crosswalk signals.
If anyone's curious, the new NJDOT picture Jeff mentions above taken was taken approximately here, looking approximately in this direction (though several hundred feet up, of course)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4669097,-74.4403779,3a,75y,231.36h,89.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgzIIEPvil5vED-yGK-h8nw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2021, 02:06:08 PM
The current presentations are for a modification of a NJ Traffic Circle (no, not roundabout) with 130. Being NJ, this circle is really an oval which 130 has the right-of-way thru at all times, with a 55 mph limit. One of the proposed improvements is to feature NJ's version of traffic metering: It's basically a regular traffic light, that if working right, will stop traffic on 130 before the circle and restrict the flow thru the circle to prevent congestion within the circle. When traffic is light, the traffic light will remain green. I'm not sure if NJDOT has any presently; I grew up seeing them on NJ 70 before they got rid of the circles that utilized them.
Doc! Doc! We made it back to 1985!
I'm trying to remember if the Berlin Circle (NJ 73) had this too. I think so. Does that mean we have another decade before they consider removing the circle? I'm a rusty on the NJ circle life cycle.
Quote from: BrianP on January 14, 2021, 04:20:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2021, 02:06:08 PM
The current presentations are for a modification of a NJ Traffic Circle (no, not roundabout) with 130. Being NJ, this circle is really an oval which 130 has the right-of-way thru at all times, with a 55 mph limit. One of the proposed improvements is to feature NJ's version of traffic metering: It's basically a regular traffic light, that if working right, will stop traffic on 130 before the circle and restrict the flow thru the circle to prevent congestion within the circle. When traffic is light, the traffic light will remain green. I'm not sure if NJDOT has any presently; I grew up seeing them on NJ 70 before they got rid of the circles that utilized them.
Doc! Doc! We made it back to 1985!
I'm trying to remember if the Berlin Circle (NJ 73) had this too. I think so. Does that mean we have another decade before they consider removing the circle? I'm a rusty on the NJ circle life cycle.
Using historicaerials dot com, it appears you are correct! There does appear to be a traffic circle meter on 73 North about 1/4 mile prior to the circle, which is indicated by the stop line and solid line between lanes in a random area without any other intersecting road there. On 73 South, there's a standard signalized intersection about 1/2 mile prior to the circle, which would help meter traffic on its own. Can't tell for the other intersecting roads if signal meters are present on those roads.
Quote from: famartin on January 14, 2021, 02:46:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2021, 02:06:08 PM
Some props on the new NJDOT website. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/
For regular visitors to the website, the first thing you'll notice is a nice new picture on the page of a relatively empty roadway scene (if you look closely, you'll see a lane is closed in both directions too, along with the jughandle/interchange loop being closed as well. Quite often, NJ agencies/authorities have pics of congestion, which is what life is like in the Garden State.
If anyone's curious, the new NJDOT picture Jeff mentions above taken was taken approximately here, looking approximately in this direction (though several hundred feet up, of course)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4669097,-74.4403779,3a,75y,231.36h,89.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgzIIEPvil5vED-yGK-h8nw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Knowing from having done some design work in the former railroad right-of-way just off the image in the past few years, the tool tip of "Route 1 - Princeton" is wrong. :) Why they chose an aerial by the parking lot of a lame for-profit higher educational facility when there is a much better state school (totally not biased for that place despite having gone there) just a little bit north, beats me.
Speaking of NJDOT, I happened to walk through the print room of my work and saw this ALTA survey (not done by my company) around everyone's favorite abandoned section of US 322. What really caught my eye is that the portion of 324 with the houses says it's under [Logan] township jurisdiction (ref. plan 7 being the jurisdictional map for US 130) and the "Road Closed" part and Springer Road intersection being private land now. The SLDs still say it's NJDOT jurisdiction and of course the milemarkers that were put up not too long ago (at least I'm assuming that all of them are still up and not taken down by anyone). The state's online parcel search (https://arcg.is/1Tnvy11) still basically has it as public ROW unless there's a lag on the parcel data there.
(https://i.imgur.com/gf5RBdU.jpg)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2021, 04:47:22 PM
Quote from: BrianP on January 14, 2021, 04:20:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2021, 02:06:08 PM
The current presentations are for a modification of a NJ Traffic Circle (no, not roundabout) with 130. Being NJ, this circle is really an oval which 130 has the right-of-way thru at all times, with a 55 mph limit. One of the proposed improvements is to feature NJ's version of traffic metering: It's basically a regular traffic light, that if working right, will stop traffic on 130 before the circle and restrict the flow thru the circle to prevent congestion within the circle. When traffic is light, the traffic light will remain green. I'm not sure if NJDOT has any presently; I grew up seeing them on NJ 70 before they got rid of the circles that utilized them.
Doc! Doc! We made it back to 1985!
I'm trying to remember if the Berlin Circle (NJ 73) had this too. I think so. Does that mean we have another decade before they consider removing the circle? I'm a rusty on the NJ circle life cycle.
Using historicaerials dot com, it appears you are correct! There does appear to be a traffic circle meter on 73 North about 1/4 mile prior to the circle, which is indicated by the stop line and solid line between lanes in a random area without any other intersecting road there. On 73 South, there's a standard signalized intersection about 1/2 mile prior to the circle, which would help meter traffic on its own. Can't tell for the other intersecting roads if signal meters are present on those roads.
There was a metering signal on the northbound side. Another contributing factor to adding that may have been the circle geometry. North 73 cut lightly across the top if I remember correctly so traffic rolled through it at 55 mph. Southbound 73 definitely had to slow down and go through the curves of the circle.
The Pole Tavern Circle definitely had that issue. Route 40 West cuts across the top and can go through at 40 mph. The eastbound direction has to go around the circle and it's a small circle with a tight radius. It was very common to go through there and see where all the arrows/chevrons in the center had been knocked down by a truck that hadn't slowed enough for the tight radius and ran through the middle of the circle.
https://goo.gl/maps/Jveor1H5RYHYqtjW6
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2021, 02:06:08 PM
The current presentations are for a modification of a NJ Traffic Circle (no, not roundabout) with 130. Being NJ, this circle is really an oval which 130 has the right-of-way thru at all times, with a 55 mph limit. One of the proposed improvements is to feature NJ's version of traffic metering: It's basically a regular traffic light, that if working right, will stop traffic on 130 before the circle and restrict the flow thru the circle to prevent congestion within the circle.
When you mentioned an oval shape, I checked to see if it was what I thought: Cranbury Circle. This is actually a more unusual specimen; while most NJ circles are at the intersection of divided highways, this has only one divided highway and one through road at a skewed angle, plus one T-intersecting road.
You know how most NJ circles have diners on or near them? This one used to have the Cranbury Grill on the north end, right where the Valero/7-11 is now. I distinctly remember it having the word GRILL in (neon?) lighted letters.
Looking at the PDF link, I notice that the header lists Wyckoff Mill Rd. as the one of the intersecting roads. But in the details, it uses the correct name, Brick Yard Rd. Now there is a Wyckoff Mills Rd. (note the added S) at the opposite end of Brick Yard Rd., and that same road T-intersects with Main St. about a mile south of the circle. Perhaps Wyckoff Mills Rd. made a complete arc once upon a time, and they were looking at some older maps.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 14, 2021, 06:10:20 PM
The SLDs still say it's NJDOT jurisdiction and of course the milemarkers that were put up not too long ago (at least I'm assuming that all of them are still up and not taken down by anyone).
The ones on the closed section were removed, but the rest were still there as of August.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 14, 2021, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 14, 2021, 02:46:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2021, 02:06:08 PM
Some props on the new NJDOT website. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/
For regular visitors to the website, the first thing you'll notice is a nice new picture on the page of a relatively empty roadway scene (if you look closely, you'll see a lane is closed in both directions too, along with the jughandle/interchange loop being closed as well. Quite often, NJ agencies/authorities have pics of congestion, which is what life is like in the Garden State.
If anyone's curious, the new NJDOT picture Jeff mentions above taken was taken approximately here, looking approximately in this direction (though several hundred feet up, of course)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4669097,-74.4403779,3a,75y,231.36h,89.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgzIIEPvil5vED-yGK-h8nw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Knowing from having done some design work in the former railroad right-of-way just off the image in the past few years, the tool tip of "Route 1 - Princeton" is wrong. :) Why they chose an aerial by the parking lot of a lame for-profit higher educational facility when there is a much better state school (totally not biased for that place despite having gone there) just a little bit north, beats me.
Speaking of NJDOT, I happened to walk through the print room of my work and saw this ALTA survey (not done by my company) around everyone's favorite abandoned section of US 322. What really caught my eye is that the portion of 324 with the houses says it's under [Logan] township jurisdiction (ref. plan 7 being the jurisdictional map for US 130) and the "Road Closed" part and Springer Road intersection being private land now. The SLDs still say it's NJDOT jurisdiction and of course the milemarkers that were put up not too long ago (at least I'm assuming that all of them are still up and not taken down by anyone). The state's online parcel search (https://arcg.is/1Tnvy11) still basically has it as public ROW unless there's a lag on the parcel data there.
(https://i.imgur.com/gf5RBdU.jpg)
Generally, treat the SLDs as "For your entertainment". While they are a great resource and good reference material,, they're not official in any way, and often have numerous errors.
NJ-28 still has a metering light before the Flemington Circle. https://goo.gl/maps/KXbsaAydoN7GbLiC9
NJ-52 used to have one on the old causeway approaching the Somer's Point circle as well.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 15, 2021, 12:34:03 PM
NJ-28 still has a metering light before the *Flemington Circle.* https://goo.gl/maps/KXbsaAydoN7GbLiC9
NJ-52 used to have one on the old causeway approaching the Somer's Point circle as well.
I know you know the real name so guess you just fat-fingered that in your mind ;)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 15, 2021, 12:34:03 PM
NJ-28 still has a metering light before the Flemington Circle. https://goo.gl/maps/KXbsaAydoN7GbLiC9
NJ-52 used to have one on the old causeway approaching the Somer's Point circle as well.
NJ 31 before Pennington Circle is another.
Quote from: Alps on January 15, 2021, 02:11:36 PM
NJ 31 before Pennington Circle is another.
I want to say that one is pretty new (within the last 10 years, maybe the last 5) but not sure.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 15, 2021, 12:34:03 PM
NJ-28 still has a metering light before the Flemington Circle. https://goo.gl/maps/KXbsaAydoN7GbLiC9
NJ-52 used to have one on the old causeway approaching the Somer's Point circle as well.
That and the 202-206 south are the only legs that have direct traffic metering lights. The one from the 202 leg disappeared when they built the overpass and there isn't one from 206 north leg anymore either. There's the light at the shopping center light on 28 eastbound from the west leg, but it's not really close enough to effectively meter traffic into the circle. I'm not really sure why the left the other one that's still there.
Quote from: famartin on January 15, 2021, 03:24:19 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 15, 2021, 02:11:36 PM
NJ 31 before Pennington Circle is another.
I want to say that one is pretty new (within the last 10 years, maybe the last 5) but not sure.
More than 5, maybe 10.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 15, 2021, 12:34:03 PM
NJ-28 still has a metering light before the Flemington Circle. https://goo.gl/maps/KXbsaAydoN7GbLiC9
NJ-52 used to have one on the old causeway approaching the Somer's Point circle as well.
Doesn't the Somerville Circle also have one or two of these?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 16, 2021, 01:00:09 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 15, 2021, 12:34:03 PM
NJ-28 still has a metering light before the Flemington Circle. https://goo.gl/maps/KXbsaAydoN7GbLiC9
NJ-52 used to have one on the old causeway approaching the Somer's Point circle as well.
Doesn't the Somerville Circle also have one or two of these?
Hint: Look at the link, and my reply to his post ;)
What an interesting sign. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9927778,-74.897878,3a,15y,319.56h,92.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_lmefePcybm2XZ-WT2RjJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The Flemington circle is the worst.
Quote from: artmalk on January 18, 2021, 12:57:00 PM
The Flemington circle is the worst.
I drove through that this past summer when I was visiting family in NJ. The first time I drove through that I was pretty tentative going through it. The second time was a lot smoother. I don't know if there are plans to replace it or not. It looks pretty built up all the way to the circle.
If you are coming from North Jersey and continuing on 202 South to enjoy a summer weekend day in the beautiful twin towns of New Hope and Lambertville, it is almost impossible to navigate the circle. Going north on 202 for the return trip, you don't have to go around the circle at all.
Quote from: artmalk on January 18, 2021, 01:54:07 PM
If you are coming from North Jersey and continuing on 202 South to enjoy a summer weekend day in the beautiful twin towns of New Hope and Lambertville, it is almost impossible to navigate the circle. Going north on 202 for the return trip, you don't have to go around the circle at all.
I disagree. 202 SB has priority through the whole circle and I haven't noticed any issues. 31 NB traffic has the worst go of it in the new configuration. Still wish we could have seen an interchange, but they're not gonna revisit this one they just rebuilt.
Quote from: Alps on January 18, 2021, 02:57:40 PM
Quote from: artmalk on January 18, 2021, 01:54:07 PM
If you are coming from North Jersey and continuing on 202 South to enjoy a summer weekend day in the beautiful twin towns of New Hope and Lambertville, it is almost impossible to navigate the circle. Going north on 202 for the return trip, you don't have to go around the circle at all.
I disagree. 202 SB has priority through the whole circle and I haven't noticed any issues. 31 NB traffic has the worst go of it in the new configuration. Still wish we could have seen an interchange, but they're not gonna revisit this one they just rebuilt.
Has anyone here made any designs for such an interchange?
Years ago a bypass for NJ 31 was proposed due to NIMBY response from NJDOT wanting to widen NJ 31 immediately north of the circle. However it would have not helped that it was proposed to go East and connect to a trumpet with US 202 between Flemington and Three Bridges.
Be nice if one were built west of Flemington for Route 31 as it would relieve some traffic there and make NJ 31 a four lane corridor from Ringoes to Clinton.
Quote from: artmalk on January 18, 2021, 01:54:07 PM
If you are coming from North Jersey and continuing on 202 South to enjoy a summer weekend day in the beautiful twin towns of New Hope and Lambertville, it is almost impossible to navigate the circle. Going north on 202 for the return trip, you don't have to go around the circle at all.
It's honestly not that bad even in the height of summer tourist season. I've spent 30 years going to and from New Hope during summers before they did any changes and after. You're making it sound like a gridlock nightmare that it isn't. The improvements to the circle helped. I don't know the full story on why NJDOT didn't look at some better interchange options (route 12 onto 31 and then put 31 into 202 with a T and a jug maybe) but it's what we ended up with (probably to minimize cost of property takings since the area is so built up, it's not like the Somerville Circle to the north where there was limited need for property taking since they could build the overpass over the circle itself for the most part).
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=2011378b-b8d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
application of US 206 around Stanhope in 1970 to remove it from the I-80 junction in Roxbury to the new alignment from I-80 north into Byram Township.
Interesting site to check out.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 05:18:16 PM
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=2011378b-b8d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
application of US 206 around Stanhope in 1970 to remove it from the I-80 junction in Roxbury to the new alignment from I-80 north into Byram Township.
Interesting site to check out.
Leads to a 404 error.
WandaVision had two decent simulated NJ road scenes, though the exit sign font was off (they got the backplate on the fake route 2 right, though)
(not sure you'll all be able to see this)
https://www.facebook.com/ray.martin/posts/10158857415936605
Was I-287 supposed to be another Route in Parssippany-Troy Hills between Route 10 and Route 46? I see between those two points the freeway existed in 1957 and are seen on a Historic Aerials.
It shows an at grade alignment with US 46 at its north end where Smith Road currently intersects and old maps even confirm it. Smith Road was not even there in 1957. Plus NJ 10s end did have freeway stubs as today's WB Route 10 to I-287 ramp and SB I-287 to Rte. 10 WB were the only ramps then ending there but left turns were allowed there for full access.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 30, 2021, 10:55:02 AM
Was I-287 supposed to be another Route in Parssippany-Troy Hills between Route 10 and Route 46? I see between those two points the freeway existed in 1957 and are seen on a Historic Aerials.
It shows an at grade alignment with US 46 at its north end where Smith Road currently intersects and old maps even confirm it. Smith Road was not even there in 1957. Plus NJ 10s end did have freeway stubs as today's WB Route 10 to I-287 ramp and SB I-287 to Rte. 10 WB were the only ramps then ending there but left turns were allowed there for full access.
It was constructed as part of US 202.
Quote from: famartin on January 30, 2021, 07:27:28 AM
WandaVision had two decent simulated NJ road scenes, though the exit sign font was off (they got the backplate on the fake route 2 right, though)
(not sure you'll all be able to see this)
https://www.facebook.com/ray.martin/posts/10158857415936605
The actual roadways are very southern looking (pines!). IMDB says the show is filmed in the Atlanta area.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 30, 2021, 10:38:10 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 30, 2021, 07:27:28 AM
WandaVision had two decent simulated NJ road scenes, though the exit sign font was off (they got the backplate on the fake route 2 right, though)
(not sure you'll all be able to see this)
https://www.facebook.com/ray.martin/posts/10158857415936605
The actual roadways are very southern looking (pines!). IMDB says the show is filmed in the Atlanta area.
Looked passable enough for somewhere in the far southern end of NJ, like at the southern stretch of 295 maybe. You are correct, like a great number of media properties, they film in Georgia because Georgia has some extremely advantageous tax policies for TV and film productions.
Is the Tremley Point Connector between Carteret and Linden still in the works? I believe it is going to be built by the Turnpike Authority but it had shown up in NJDOT's STIPs for several years but is no longer in the 2020-29 STIP and I haven't been able to find a finalized capital plan on the Turnpike Authority's website.
Quote from: storm2k on January 31, 2021, 11:59:12 AM
Is the Tremley Point Connector between Carteret and Linden still in the works? I believe it is going to be built by the Turnpike Authority but it had shown up in NJDOT's STIPs for several years but is no longer in the 2020-29 STIP and I haven't been able to find a finalized capital plan on the Turnpike Authority's website.
As of the end of 2019: https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2019/12/17/tremley-point-connector-road-project-linking-middlesex-union-set/2675304001/
This gantry (https://goo.gl/maps/iWnyM6DZWvkEVM4p6) at the eastern end of Rt 22 at the 21/1-9 interchange is getting replaced. The other gantries a bit further up were replaced when they built the new 21 viaduct in the early aughts (you can see the stub left from the original ramp to the old McCarter Highway viaduct), but this one was never replaced. It only got new signs at some point. One of the dwindling number of triangular trusses that are left in NJ, and soon to be gone. Did not see new signs out there waiting with the gantry on the side of the road, so I would presume they will move these signs onto the new structure, since they're still relatively new.
The NJ-21 viaduct project was finished mid-2003, so those "new" signs are approaching 20 years old at this point.
CR-513 Truck: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6707694,-74.8946552,3a,44.1y,192.55h,78.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skwL0zWzrfOtb6vk7R0P7MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on February 05, 2021, 09:36:45 PM
CR-513 Truck: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6707694,-74.8946552,3a,44.1y,192.55h,78.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skwL0zWzrfOtb6vk7R0P7MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm guessing that it's a sign goof. The truck route points down some little local street that appears less suited for trucks than the main route.
Quote from: dgolub on February 06, 2021, 08:44:10 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on February 05, 2021, 09:36:45 PM
CR-513 Truck: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6707694,-74.8946552,3a,44.1y,192.55h,78.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skwL0zWzrfOtb6vk7R0P7MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm guessing that it's a sign goof. The truck route points down some little local street that appears less suited for trucks than the main route.
It's not. They want trucks to avoid Main Street, and I think the low railroad overpass as well.
Quote from: famartin on January 30, 2021, 07:27:28 AM
WandaVision had two decent simulated NJ road scenes, though the exit sign font was off (they got the backplate on the fake route 2 right, though)
(not sure you'll all be able to see this)
https://www.facebook.com/ray.martin/posts/10158857415936605
Not to mention, the last "Exit" sign with the arrow is unnumbered!
Quote from: famartin on February 06, 2021, 09:04:57 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 06, 2021, 08:44:10 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on February 05, 2021, 09:36:45 PM
CR-513 Truck: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6707694,-74.8946552,3a,44.1y,192.55h,78.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skwL0zWzrfOtb6vk7R0P7MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6707694,-74.8946552,3a,44.1y,192.55h,78.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skwL0zWzrfOtb6vk7R0P7MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I'm guessing that it's a sign goof. The truck route points down some little local street that appears less suited for trucks than the main route.
It's not. They want trucks to avoid Main Street, and I think the low railroad overpass as well.
But wouldn't the Arch St viaduct also be a truck hazard? Maybe? There doesn't seem to be a height limit posted.
High Bridge station has a 12ft 6in clearance bridge right next to it, not to mention 513 goes right through downtown High Bridge. Better off sending trucks down a side road.
(Of course, the real High Bridge is buried under 146 years of dirt.)
Quote from: dgolub on February 06, 2021, 08:44:10 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on February 05, 2021, 09:36:45 PM
CR-513 Truck: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6707694,-74.8946552,3a,44.1y,192.55h,78.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skwL0zWzrfOtb6vk7R0P7MA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm guessing that it's a sign goof. The truck route points down some little local street that appears less suited for trucks than the main route.
That's been the truck route for decades. The CNJ line (now the Raritan Valley Line) overpass on 513 is both too low and too narrow (https://goo.gl/maps/AZzmVTPVacjisEjK7) for trucks to pass safely under, so they have to be detoured around.
Well, it's obvious why the truck route is there. But it can't be official, can it?
Sign along NJ 17 at US 202 is odd as the next exit for Ramapo Avenue uses Pompton Lakes as a control city when Ramapo Avenue don't go there as it ends at US 202 which does go there and is also the first ramp ahead.
So use the second exit to go where the first exit goes. Plus now that I-287 goes to Morristown I think Pompton could replace it now as the US 202 Exit guide was copied from previous signs prior to 1993 when 287 was not completed north of Boonton.
https://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/nj/state/nj17/photogal/south
Quote from: roadman65 on February 11, 2021, 10:21:33 AM
Sign along NJ 17 at US 202 is odd as the next exit for Ramapo Avenue uses Pompton Lakes as a control city when Ramapo Avenue don't go there as it ends at US 202 which does go there and is also the first ramp ahead.
So use the second exit to go where the first exit goes. Plus now that I-287 goes to Morristown I think Pompton could replace it now as the US 202 Exit guide was copied from previous signs prior to 1993 when 287 was not completed north of Boonton.
https://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/nj/state/nj17/photogal/south
Just another of many examples where NJDOT needs to completely rethink the control city used.
Quote from: famartin on February 11, 2021, 10:43:34 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 11, 2021, 10:21:33 AM
Sign along NJ 17 at US 202 is odd as the next exit for Ramapo Avenue uses Pompton Lakes as a control city when Ramapo Avenue don't go there as it ends at US 202 which does go there and is also the first ramp ahead.
So use the second exit to go where the first exit goes. Plus now that I-287 goes to Morristown I think Pompton could replace it now as the US 202 Exit guide was copied from previous signs prior to 1993 when 287 was not completed north of Boonton.
https://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/nj/state/nj17/photogal/south
Just another of many examples where NJDOT needs to completely rethink the control city used.
Yes as US 202 is more local and was even before I-287 was completed. Only during the WWII era I am sure it carried more through traffic due to it bypassing Philly, New York, New Haven, Providence and Boston. Now of course I-95 and the toll roads serve that issue of bypassing US 1.
NJ should rethink as they did for NJ 17 N Bound swapping Suffern for Mahwah. Though S Bound they still use Newark and that should also be rethought as well. Paramus and Rutherford would be better for that.
https://goo.gl/maps/Jxh7G5E7TEg1k43o7
Wow! I am impressed. Mileage signs on a NJ county road.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2021, 09:33:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Jxh7G5E7TEg1k43o7
Wow! I am impressed. Mileage signs on a NJ county road.
541 is the most "NJDOT-like" county road in NJ, probably, with it being divided with quite a few jug-handles. You could almost argue it *SHOULD* be a state highway, given its prominence (it has a NJ Turnpike exit after all).
Quote from: famartin on February 12, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2021, 09:33:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Jxh7G5E7TEg1k43o7
Wow! I am impressed. Mileage signs on a NJ county road.
541 is the most "NJDOT-like" county road in NJ, probably, with it being divided with quite a few jug-handles. You could almost argue it *SHOULD* be a state highway, given its prominence (it has a NJ Turnpike exit after all).
What about NJ 7? 162? 27 in New Brunswick? 😁
Quote from: Alps on February 12, 2021, 01:48:17 PM
Quote from: famartin on February 12, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2021, 09:33:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Jxh7G5E7TEg1k43o7
Wow! I am impressed. Mileage signs on a NJ county road.
541 is the most "NJDOT-like" county road in NJ, probably, with it being divided with quite a few jug-handles. You could almost argue it *SHOULD* be a state highway, given its prominence (it has a NJ Turnpike exit after all).
What about NJ 7? 162? 27 in New Brunswick? 😁
:-D
Quote from: Alps on February 12, 2021, 01:48:17 PM
Quote from: famartin on February 12, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2021, 09:33:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Jxh7G5E7TEg1k43o7
Wow! I am impressed. Mileage signs on a NJ county road.
541 is the most "NJDOT-like" county road in NJ, probably, with it being divided with quite a few jug-handles. You could almost argue it *SHOULD* be a state highway, given its prominence (it has a NJ Turnpike exit after all).
What about NJ 7? 162? 27 in New Brunswick? 😁
Considering it has awful bike lanes with concrete-top-abutting-asphalt trench drains (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4968197,-74.4440074,3a,40.9y,67.17h,73t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sH6nayb5GfUy4mxnPUpIxRg!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192), I'd say no, it's your standard lousy Middlesex County road (totally not biased against them despite their awful plowing jobs in Plainsboro on Thursday).
Why has it taken me this long to realize that I have indeed clinched CR 504?? :hmmm:
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on February 13, 2021, 11:17:55 AM
Why has it taken me this long to realize that I have indeed clinched CR 504?? :hmmm:
I'm not sure what discussion you think this will generate?
I was noticing that at the Tonelle Circle in Jersey City, the access to US 1 & 9 Truck is no longer. From N Bound Tonelle Avenue, the US 1 & 9 Truck S Bound is signed via St. Paul's Ave as there is now a ramp onto that particular road from it now since NJDOT rebuilt the St. Paul's Ave. Viaduct.
However, coming from JFK Blvd. now one can only go north on Tonelle Avenue, south on the Pulaski Skyway, or south on Tonelle Ave. No more access to the Truck designation from that particular ramp.
That part of the circle is left out the same as E Bound US 22 to US 202/ 206 S Bound in Bridgewater was when that interchange got redone in 1987.
WandaVision had a complete duplication of this sign gantry in the episode tonight:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/2017-10-06_15_49_16_View_north_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_1_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_29%2C_Trenton%2C_Lambertville%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2017-10-06_15_49_16_View_north_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_1_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_29%2C_Trenton%2C_Lambertville%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Quote from: famartin on February 26, 2021, 09:56:18 PM
WandaVision had a complete duplication of this sign gantry in the episode tonight:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/2017-10-06_15_49_16_View_north_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_1_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_29%2C_Trenton%2C_Lambertville%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2017-10-06_15_49_16_View_north_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_1_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_29%2C_Trenton%2C_Lambertville%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
And that doesn't even exist anymore.
Quote from: Alps on February 27, 2021, 12:38:51 AM
Quote from: famartin on February 26, 2021, 09:56:18 PM
WandaVision had a complete duplication of this sign gantry in the episode tonight:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/2017-10-06_15_49_16_View_north_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_1_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_29%2C_Trenton%2C_Lambertville%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2017-10-06_15_49_16_View_north_along_Interstate_95_at_Exit_1_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_29%2C_Trenton%2C_Lambertville%29_in_Ewing_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
And that doesn't even exist anymore.
Yeah, I wonder if they knew that 🤣 of course, the highway in the background won't be that wide even after they are done. I think they forgot there needed to be an actual exit there, too 🤣. Still, I thought it was a nice touch.
The gantry was rendered over an eight-lane freeway. If it were only six lanes and they swapped out I-95 for I-295, it'd be at least somewhat believable for what that spot would look like in 2023. :P
Quote from: Roadsguy on February 27, 2021, 09:43:47 AM
The gantry was rendered over an eight-lane freeway. If it were only six lanes and they swapped out I-95 for I-295, it'd be at least somewhat believable for what that spot would look like in 2023. :P
I guess in the Marvel cinematic universe (where billions disappeared in 2018 only to reappear in 2023, there was a Battle of New York, Hydra exists, etc), I-95 was completed as originally planned :-D
Quote from: famartin on February 12, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2021, 09:33:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Jxh7G5E7TEg1k43o7
Wow! I am impressed. Mileage signs on a NJ county road.
541 is the most "NJDOT-like" county road in NJ, probably, with it being divided with quite a few jug-handles. You could almost argue it *SHOULD* be a state highway, given its prominence (it has a NJ Turnpike exit after all).
Would you support numbering CR-541 to NJ-54? With that would come to a minor shortening of US-206.
Quote from: MaddogMicharski on February 28, 2021, 05:52:30 PM
Quote from: famartin on February 12, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2021, 09:33:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Jxh7G5E7TEg1k43o7
Wow! I am impressed. Mileage signs on a NJ county road.
541 is the most "NJDOT-like" county road in NJ, probably, with it being divided with quite a few jug-handles. You could almost argue it *SHOULD* be a state highway, given its prominence (it has a NJ Turnpike exit after all).
Would you support numbering CR-541 to NJ-54? With that would come to a minor shortening of US-206.
I don't think they'd be keen to end 206 at 54 instead of 30, and the thru route is definitely 206 over 541. I can see some use in concurrency, but its probably easier to just give it a new number. There are more than enough available.
Quote from: famartin on February 28, 2021, 06:00:37 PM
Quote from: MaddogMicharski on February 28, 2021, 05:52:30 PM
Quote from: famartin on February 12, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 12, 2021, 09:33:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Jxh7G5E7TEg1k43o7
Wow! I am impressed. Mileage signs on a NJ county road.
541 is the most "NJDOT-like" county road in NJ, probably, with it being divided with quite a few jug-handles. You could almost argue it *SHOULD* be a state highway, given its prominence (it has a NJ Turnpike exit after all).
Would you support numbering CR-541 to NJ-54? With that would come to a minor shortening of US-206.
I don't think they'd be keen to end 206 at 54 instead of 30, and the thru route is definitely 206 over 541. I can see some use in concurrency, but its probably easier to just give it a new number. There are more than enough available.
54 is a fairly short route. They could also make that stretch US-206 and NJ-54.
16, 86, 89 all need to be used.
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2021, 11:11:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
They are becoming relatively common around the state. "Relatively common" is subject to debate, but in a state where it's extremely rare for backplates to be used to begin with, they've popped up on several new signals. An intersection revision project near me for a new Wawa, they added these reflective backplates around the existing signal heads.
Millburn has some with dark signal heads as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/gzViN7UvpqYvrvAH6
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2021, 11:11:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
The SLD says that's county maintenance, but the overhead signs look like NJDOT installs. Given its proximity to the formerly NJDOT-owned section of the Parkway right there, I wonder if it might be NJDOT jurisdiction? Or perhaps NJTA?
Quote from: famartin on March 01, 2021, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2021, 11:11:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
The SLD says that's county maintenance, but the overhead signs look like NJDOT installs. Given its proximity to the formerly NJDOT-owned section of the Parkway right there, I wonder if it might be NJDOT jurisdiction? Or perhaps NJTA?
I believe the NJTA maintains about 5 signalized intersections total, but I don't have a list to point you to. I also don't know if that number includes the ones on the Parkway formerly or is anywhere close to the truth.
Quote from: Alps on March 01, 2021, 01:27:20 AM
Quote from: famartin on March 01, 2021, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2021, 11:11:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
The SLD says that's county maintenance, but the overhead signs look like NJDOT installs. Given its proximity to the formerly NJDOT-owned section of the Parkway right there, I wonder if it might be NJDOT jurisdiction? Or perhaps NJTA?
I believe the NJTA maintains about 5 signalized intersections total, but I don't have a list to point you to. I also don't know if that number includes the ones on the Parkway formerly or is anywhere close to the truth.
Two of those are the lights at Exit 12, the one to Drift Rd/Industrial Hwy and the other one to Roosevelt Ave, as well as the Roosevelt Ave/Drift Rd intersection, correct? The control cabinets have NJTP logos on them.
Quote from: storm2k on March 02, 2021, 04:56:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 01, 2021, 01:27:20 AM
Quote from: famartin on March 01, 2021, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2021, 11:11:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7 (https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7)
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
The SLD says that's county maintenance, but the overhead signs look like NJDOT installs. Given its proximity to the formerly NJDOT-owned section of the Parkway right there, I wonder if it might be NJDOT jurisdiction? Or perhaps NJTA?
I believe the NJTA maintains about 5 signalized intersections total, but I don't have a list to point you to. I also don't know if that number includes the ones on the Parkway formerly or is anywhere close to the truth.
Two of those are the lights at Exit 12, the one to Drift Rd/Industrial Hwy and the other one to Roosevelt Ave, as well as the Roosevelt Ave/Drift Rd intersection, correct? The control cabinets have NJTP logos on them.
Couldn't say. Keep in mind the signals may have been built under Int. 12 and then transferred to the city or county.
Quote from: Alps on March 02, 2021, 07:22:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 02, 2021, 04:56:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 01, 2021, 01:27:20 AM
Quote from: famartin on March 01, 2021, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2021, 11:11:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7 (https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7)
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
The SLD says that's county maintenance, but the overhead signs look like NJDOT installs. Given its proximity to the formerly NJDOT-owned section of the Parkway right there, I wonder if it might be NJDOT jurisdiction? Or perhaps NJTA?
I believe the NJTA maintains about 5 signalized intersections total, but I don't have a list to point you to. I also don't know if that number includes the ones on the Parkway formerly or is anywhere close to the truth.
Two of those are the lights at Exit 12, the one to Drift Rd/Industrial Hwy and the other one to Roosevelt Ave, as well as the Roosevelt Ave/Drift Rd intersection, correct? The control cabinets have NJTP logos on them.
Couldn't say. Keep in mind the signals may have been built under Int. 12 and then transferred to the city or county.
Honestly I'm surprised so few are under NJTA maintenance, there are plenty at GSP interchanges. And it seems odd they would all have been transferred to NJDOT/County/Municipal maintenance since they directly serve the NJTA.
Quote from: famartin on March 01, 2021, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2021, 11:11:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
The SLD says that's county maintenance, but the overhead signs look like NJDOT installs. Given its proximity to the formerly NJDOT-owned section of the Parkway right there, I wonder if it might be NJDOT jurisdiction? Or perhaps NJTA?
The signals were installed in 1989 when the Parkway was state maintained then. It was part of a UNion County project to improve the Raritan Road/ Stiles Street Intersection that was dangerous for years prior.
The State might of took care of signal installation due to it being near Exit 136.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 02, 2021, 10:06:59 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 01, 2021, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2021, 11:11:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BasRPbnzBb9Sugvs7
I see Union County started using yellow border back plates.
The SLD says that's county maintenance, but the overhead signs look like NJDOT installs. Given its proximity to the formerly NJDOT-owned section of the Parkway right there, I wonder if it might be NJDOT jurisdiction? Or perhaps NJTA?
The signals were installed in 1989 when the Parkway was state maintained then. It was part of a UNion County project to improve the Raritan Road/ Stiles Street Intersection that was dangerous for years prior.
The State might of took care of signal installation due to it being near Exit 136.
The signal might be that old, but the overhead signs are probably not even half as old.
On another subject. Is NJ going to ask AASHTo to relocate US 9 onto the Parkway at Beeslys Point.
https://goo.gl/maps/bum4FcpRJ8YYdkr59
NJDOT still has it signed with mile markers and no shields at CR 603 to turn there NB.
https://goo.gl/maps/zdjPRN5JKBXJoXnG7
https://njsld.org/NJDOT/SLD/SheetViewer/00000009__/29/4
Still on the SLD as active there.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 03, 2021, 12:57:44 AM
On another subject. Is NJ going to ask AASHTo to relocate US 9 onto the Parkway at Beeslys Point.
https://goo.gl/maps/bum4FcpRJ8YYdkr59
NJDOT still has it signed with mile markers and no shields at CR 603 to turn there NB.
https://goo.gl/maps/zdjPRN5JKBXJoXnG7
NJ never officially asked AASHTO to move US 322 from its original route around Mullica Hill, NJ to the bypass, and that was 10 or so years ago. They simply took down the old signs and put up new ones on the bypass.
So, based on that, don't expect them to do anything official anytime soon. The GSP does have 1 reassurance sign posted showing that you're on North Parkway/US 9: https://goo.gl/maps/EeKyydcviVh8yjeg6 .
At least the NJTA was nice enough to make the shoulder-less Northbound bridge 65 mph. https://goo.gl/maps/WZJ7QhAaJEebyYmU8
Is that bridge fairly new? Why would they have built it without shoulders? That's not safe to say the least. Doesn't sound like the NJTA I know.........
Quote from: SignBridge on March 03, 2021, 08:43:18 PM
Is that bridge fairly new? Why would they have built it without shoulders? That's not safe to say the least. Doesn't sound like the NJTA I know.........
Because it isn't new, and wasn't built by the NJTA.
This bridge was built in 1972 by the former New Jersey Highway Authority. The bridge was rehabbed in the past 5 years, after the new bridge for Southbound traffic next to it was built. Take a gander at what that one looks like...which was built by the NJTA.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2021, 10:35:59 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 03, 2021, 08:43:18 PM
Is that bridge fairly new? Why would they have built it without shoulders? That's not safe to say the least. Doesn't sound like the NJTA I know.........
Because it isn't new, and wasn't built by the NJTA.
This bridge was built in 1972 by the former New Jersey Highway Authority. The bridge was rehabbed in the past 5 years, after the new bridge for Southbound traffic next to it was built. Take a gander at what that one looks like...which was built by the NJTA.
I guess a more interesting question is... why didn't they replace both bridges? I hope it wasn't *just* money (NJTA seems to have plenty).
Quote from: famartin on March 04, 2021, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2021, 10:35:59 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 03, 2021, 08:43:18 PM
Is that bridge fairly new? Why would they have built it without shoulders? That's not safe to say the least. Doesn't sound like the NJTA I know.........
Because it isn't new, and wasn't built by the NJTA.
This bridge was built in 1972 by the former New Jersey Highway Authority. The bridge was rehabbed in the past 5 years, after the new bridge for Southbound traffic next to it was built. Take a gander at what that one looks like...which was built by the NJTA.
I guess a more interesting question is... why didn't they replace both bridges? I hope it wasn't *just* money (NJTA seems to have plenty).
IIRC, the original plan was to replace both, but later decided that rehabbing the northbound bridge was enough and didn't need to be completely rebuilt. Don't hold me to that tho.
Quote from: storm2k on March 04, 2021, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 04, 2021, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2021, 10:35:59 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 03, 2021, 08:43:18 PM
Is that bridge fairly new? Why would they have built it without shoulders? That's not safe to say the least. Doesn't sound like the NJTA I know.........
Because it isn't new, and wasn't built by the NJTA.
This bridge was built in 1972 by the former New Jersey Highway Authority. The bridge was rehabbed in the past 5 years, after the new bridge for Southbound traffic next to it was built. Take a gander at what that one looks like...which was built by the NJTA.
I guess a more interesting question is... why didn't they replace both bridges? I hope it wasn't *just* money (NJTA seems to have plenty).
IIRC, the original plan was to replace both, but later decided that rehabbing the northbound bridge was enough and didn't need to be completely rebuilt. Don't hold me to that tho.
A back article showing a photo of underneath the old structure plus some events of the time as some beam falling off a truck caused two days of work to remove it slowing down construction. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20170115_Get_ready_for_two_more_years_of_traffic_headaches_at_the_Jersey_shore.html
Reading an article about how the state wants to eliminate/merge/regionalize school districts, this was one of the proposals out of left field:
QuoteInstall high-occupancy toll lanes (or HOT lane) on I-80, I-295, I-287, among others.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/bernardsville-bedminster/s/hgnt3/nj-advances-plan-may-eliminate-many-school-districts
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 09, 2021, 02:05:57 PM
Reading an article about how the state wants to eliminate/merge/regionalize school districts, this was one of the proposals out of left field:
QuoteInstall high-occupancy toll lanes (or HOT lane) on I-80, I-295, I-287, among others.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/bernardsville-bedminster/s/hgnt3/nj-advances-plan-may-eliminate-many-school-districts
Getting OT, but was surprised no Mercer districts were on that list. Down here around DC, the school districts are county-wide. Mind you, Fairfax County, the largest, has a population of over 1 million.
Back on-topic... I would hope they mean to ADD new HOT lanes and not just transfer lanes into HOT.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 09, 2021, 02:05:57 PM
Reading an article about how the state wants to eliminate/merge/regionalize school districts, this was one of the proposals out of left field:
QuoteInstall high-occupancy toll lanes (or HOT lane) on I-80, I-295, I-287, among others.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/bernardsville-bedminster/s/hgnt3/nj-advances-plan-may-eliminate-many-school-districts
Weren't HOV lanes already a miserable failure in the 90s on these corridors? The commuting patterns in the region proved too multi-polar for them to work effectively. Although having the HOT option to sell off the extra capacity to SOVs would definitely increase the utility. I do wonder how they'll squeeze them in though, the ROWs are pretty tight as it is in some places (i.e. I-80 through Denville and east of 23, I-287 through Morristown etc.)
Quote from: interstate73 on March 10, 2021, 04:28:26 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 09, 2021, 02:05:57 PM
Reading an article about how the state wants to eliminate/merge/regionalize school districts, this was one of the proposals out of left field:
QuoteInstall high-occupancy toll lanes (or HOT lane) on I-80, I-295, I-287, among others.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/bernardsville-bedminster/s/hgnt3/nj-advances-plan-may-eliminate-many-school-districts
Weren't HOV lanes already a miserable failure in the 90s on these corridors? The commuting patterns in the region proved too multi-polar for them to work effectively. Although having the HOT option to sell off the extra capacity to SOVs would definitely increase the utility. I do wonder how they'll squeeze them in though, the ROWs are pretty tight as it is in some places (i.e. I-80 through Denville and east of 23, I-287 through Morristown etc.)
Not on I-295. I've often thought about that myself, and I tend to conclude in my own mind that it'll be much cheaper just to offer some ramps to connect directly between 295 and the neighboring NJ Turnpike, especially if made part of the future widening project south of NJ 73. I-295 itself could have a solo-HOT lane added (each direction) without too much inconvenience, especially north of US 30, but they would need to completely redo 295 for a 2 lane addition.
The NJ Turnpike with the Pension system I believe has been brought up before, but (rightfully) dropped before it gets too much consideration.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 09, 2021, 02:05:57 PM
Reading an article about how the state wants to eliminate/merge/regionalize school districts, this was one of the proposals out of left field:
QuoteInstall high-occupancy toll lanes (or HOT lane) on I-80, I-295, I-287, among others.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/bernardsville-bedminster/s/hgnt3/nj-advances-plan-may-eliminate-many-school-districts
I missed the OP yesterday. They already tried HOV lanes and the deal was they couldn't take existing lanes away. It turned into them becoming regular lanes. There is no way they are going to turn an existing lane into a HOT lane and get that past the public. There is no way they are fitting new lanes both ways. Dead issue.
FritzOwl be like: "Who needs Washington's Headquarters when you can widen I-287 to twelve lanes?! :awesomeface:"
On an unrelated note, why has Canoe Brook Rd in Short Hills been renamed Fineran Way?
12 lanes really isn't all that much. Not sure how much that would really ease traffic congestion in a notoriously congested city like DC.
Guess I won't be clinching CR 528 on my Ocean County roadgeeking trip today:
(https://i.imgur.com/IY1bGb8.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/oxN5SoV.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4ZiROz7.jpg)
Parkway is closed from exit 83 to 91 due to a brush fire in the area: https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/large-lakewood-brush-fire-closes-portion-of-gsp.html
If you go to the traffic cam at MP 90, (https://511nj.org/camera) you can see some burned spots in the grass.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 14, 2021, 11:46:44 AM
FritzOwl be like: "Who needs Washington's Headquarters when you can widen I-287 to twelve lanes?! :awesomeface:"
On an unrelated note, why has Canoe Brook Rd in Short Hills been renamed Fineran Way?
Renamed in honour of Scoutmaster Ken Fineran in March 2018. (https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/essex/millburn-short-hills/2018/03/08/honoring-late-scoutmaster-millburn-street-renamed-fineran-way/404762002/)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on March 14, 2021, 04:14:40 PM
Guess I won't be clinching CR 528 on my Ocean County roadgeeking trip today:
Parkway is closed from exit 83 to 91 due to a brush fire in the area: https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/large-lakewood-brush-fire-closes-portion-of-gsp.html
If you go to the traffic cam at MP 90, (https://511nj.org/camera) you can see some burned spots in the grass.
I just clicked it at the right time and they were panning around, the whole median burned there and there's still smoke coming from it.
Smoke from it also appeared on radar, it was that strong.
Happy to report this beauty is still there:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51037374182_66c0c43c57_c.jpg)
Any idea how old it is? 1950s? 1960s?
Looks like Route 46 could use a rehab project.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 14, 2021, 11:46:44 AM
FritzOwl be like: "Who needs Washington's Headquarters when you can widen I-287 to twelve lanes?! :awesomeface:"
On an unrelated note, why has Canoe Brook Rd in Short Hills been renamed Fineran Way?
Re: Fineran, I think only the part closer to 124 was renamed. The part where people live northeast of the mall wasn't touched.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 14, 2021, 03:53:08 PM
12 lanes really isn't all that much. Not sure how much that would really ease traffic congestion in a notoriously congested city like DC.
Morristown is NOT DC.
Quote from: Alps on March 14, 2021, 11:35:11 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 14, 2021, 11:46:44 AM
FritzOwl be like: "Who needs Washington's Headquarters when you can widen I-287 to twelve lanes?! :awesomeface:"
On an unrelated note, why has Canoe Brook Rd in Short Hills been renamed Fineran Way?
Re: Fineran, I think only the part closer to 124 was renamed. The part where people live northeast of the mall wasn't touched.
Yeah, I'm aware about that.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2021, 05:29:02 PM
Happy to report this beauty is still there:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51037374182_66c0c43c57_c.jpg)
Any idea how old it is? 1950s? 1960s?
Still got the old Tube Lighting assembly attached. Great classic still in use.
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
Are these (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7137807,-74.5550932,3a,75y,331.96h,102.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbxDv3DueAjuzeoZqm-YcrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) pony plates?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 23, 2021, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
Are these (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7137807,-74.5550932,3a,75y,331.96h,102.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbxDv3DueAjuzeoZqm-YcrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) pony plates?
That's a sound barrier.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 23, 2021, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 23, 2021, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
That's a sound barrier.
Are these (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7137807,-74.5550932,3a,75y,331.96h,102.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbxDv3DueAjuzeoZqm-YcrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) pony plates?
Epic reply fail :poke: :clap:
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 23, 2021, 06:55:55 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 23, 2021, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 23, 2021, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
That's a sound barrier.
Are these (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7137807,-74.5550932,3a,75y,331.96h,102.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbxDv3DueAjuzeoZqm-YcrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) pony plates?
Epic reply fail :poke: :clap:
Caught it just as you replied! LOL For some reason when I hit reply, the curser is going above the final message. I need to scroll down to get to the bottom. Otherwise, well, you see the result...
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
Do you mean a pony plate that carries a road is rare? There are enough pony plates that carry railroads that they're not rare.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
What's the origin of the term "pony plate"?
And while you chew on that, the sign on the right has a bare space that once advertised the E-Centre on the riverfront. Guess NJDOT can't afford a BB&T Pavilion (the venue's current name) logo for that space.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on March 24, 2021, 09:26:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
What's the origin of the term "pony plate"?
And while you chew on that, the sign on the right has a bare space that once advertised the E-Centre on the riverfront. Guess NJDOT can't afford a BB&T Pavilion (the venue's current name) logo for that space.
ixnay
It must have just fallen off, as the standard logo used is on the sign before it in a GSV taken Nov 2019... https://goo.gl/maps/R7UCpN3N25aTj5k67 , and was on the sign at the time of an Aug 2019 GSV... https://goo.gl/maps/YQcJxTfanbo8zNXv8
As you probably know, business logos and names are generally not allowed on highway signage (please don't cue the exceptions), but NJDOT does, fairly abundantly, sign directions and exits for 'Entertainment Center' though on other signage as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/cDyzoKCGKQsgjr7Z6
https://goo.gl/maps/ooWeGAZbyH38dhJAA
https://goo.gl/maps/yEo7UieZHbWkEonQ6
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2021, 09:39:49 AM
Quote from: ixnay on March 24, 2021, 09:26:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
What's the origin of the term "pony plate"?
And while you chew on that, the sign on the right has a bare space that once advertised the E-Centre on the riverfront. Guess NJDOT can't afford a BB&T Pavilion (the venue's current name) logo for that space.
ixnay
It must have just fallen off, as the standard logo used is on the sign before it in a GSV taken Nov 2019... https://goo.gl/maps/R7UCpN3N25aTj5k67 , and was on the sign at the time of an Aug 2019 GSV... https://goo.gl/maps/YQcJxTfanbo8zNXv8
As you probably know, business logos and names are generally not allowed on highway signage (please don't cue the exceptions), but NJDOT does, fairly abundantly, sign directions and exits for 'Entertainment Center' though on other signage as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/cDyzoKCGKQsgjr7Z6
https://goo.gl/maps/ooWeGAZbyH38dhJAA
https://goo.gl/maps/yEo7UieZHbWkEonQ6
I'm curious if that E-Centre logo was something akin to the old school Meadowlands M logo (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5342804,-74.3012025,3a,75y,313.91h,104.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU5cagk9MgKjX-lw8h5PGmw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) that you used to see on the Turnpike and Parkway before the signage replacement project. That thing has been through a bunch of names in the past 20ish years since those signs were put up. I went to a bunch of shows there when it was called the Tweeter Center and I liked it because tickets were usually cheaper than PNC Bank Arts Center for the same shows.
Quote from: storm2k on March 25, 2021, 12:18:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2021, 09:39:49 AM
Quote from: ixnay on March 24, 2021, 09:26:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2021, 11:19:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/UtzyCHHzDERphSHA9
A rare pony plate overpass on a NJ Highway.
What's the origin of the term "pony plate"?
And while you chew on that, the sign on the right has a bare space that once advertised the E-Centre on the riverfront. Guess NJDOT can't afford a BB&T Pavilion (the venue's current name) logo for that space.
ixnay
It must have just fallen off, as the standard logo used is on the sign before it in a GSV taken Nov 2019... https://goo.gl/maps/R7UCpN3N25aTj5k67 , and was on the sign at the time of an Aug 2019 GSV... https://goo.gl/maps/YQcJxTfanbo8zNXv8
As you probably know, business logos and names are generally not allowed on highway signage (please don't cue the exceptions), but NJDOT does, fairly abundantly, sign directions and exits for 'Entertainment Center' though on other signage as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/cDyzoKCGKQsgjr7Z6
https://goo.gl/maps/ooWeGAZbyH38dhJAA
https://goo.gl/maps/yEo7UieZHbWkEonQ6
I'm curious if that E-Centre logo was something akin to the old school Meadowlands M logo (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5342804,-74.3012025,3a,75y,313.91h,104.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sU5cagk9MgKjX-lw8h5PGmw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656) that you used to see on the Turnpike and Parkway before the signage replacement project. That thing has been through a bunch of names in the past 20ish years since those signs were put up. I went to a bunch of shows there when it was called the Tweeter Center and I liked it because tickets were usually cheaper than PNC Bank Arts Center for the same shows.
Disney World is used on I-4 in Central Florida as well as its Magic Kingdom theme park at Exit 64.
https://goo.gl/maps/5zhQd7cJcLGRsSXr7
Since when does Route 10 go to Denville?
If you are heading SB on US 202 you would have turned by now at US 46 or I-80 anyway if interested in that town.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 01:36:43 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/5zhQd7cJcLGRsSXr7
Since when does Route 10 go to Denville?
Looks like it goes through Denville to me. ?
https://goo.gl/maps/8DUe89H267BdCY6Z9
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 01:36:43 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/5zhQd7cJcLGRsSXr7
Since when does Route 10 go to Denville?
Looks like it goes through Denville to me. ?
https://goo.gl/maps/8DUe89H267BdCY6Z9
Yeah but not the main part of the Township.
NJ 10 barely passes through Denville. Randolph would have been a better control city for that sign.
Its an odd choice. Maybe they intend it to be via 53, but otherwise, its probably the only location where Denville is used.
Quote from: famartin on March 31, 2021, 02:22:47 PM
Its an odd choice. Maybe they intend it to be via 53, but otherwise, its probably the only location where Denville is used.
Quite right. I-287 uses Dover. Some side roads use Ledgewood. This is the only place that uses Denville, most likely cause Morris County maintains this intersection on US 202. Notice that Livingston is used here over Whipppany going the other way as well. The other roads intersecting Route 10 use Whipppany for it.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 01:54:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 01:36:43 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/5zhQd7cJcLGRsSXr7
Since when does Route 10 go to Denville?
Looks like it goes through Denville to me. ?
https://goo.gl/maps/8DUe89H267BdCY6Z9
Yeah but not the main part of the Township.
If you make that right onto 10, the next major road, NJ 53 is then signed for Denville. By taking in the full picture it's signed accurately.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 31, 2021, 02:22:47 PM
Its an odd choice. Maybe they intend it to be via 53, but otherwise, its probably the only location where Denville is used.
Quite right. I-287 uses Dover. Some side roads use Ledgewood. This is the only place that uses Denville, most likely cause Morris County maintains this intersection on US 202. Notice that Livingston is used here over Whipppany going the other way as well. The other roads intersecting Route 10 use Whipppany for it.
Only comment on that is that those look like NJDOT installs, not county ones. Which makes sense since NJDOT does maintain 10, so while that section of 202 is county, the intersection itself is probably all NJDOT.
Quote from: famartin on March 31, 2021, 04:48:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 31, 2021, 02:22:47 PM
Its an odd choice. Maybe they intend it to be via 53, but otherwise, its probably the only location where Denville is used.
Quite right. I-287 uses Dover. Some side roads use Ledgewood. This is the only place that uses Denville, most likely cause Morris County maintains this intersection on US 202. Notice that Livingston is used here over Whipppany going the other way as well. The other roads intersecting Route 10 use Whipppany for it.
Only comment on that is that those look like NJDOT installs, not county ones. Which makes sense since NJDOT does maintain 10, so while that section of 202 is county, the intersection itself is probably all NJDOT.
I can also say that there's a lot of cross traffic between 202 and 53, especially during the PM peak when 202 north backs way up from crappily timed signals and only being 1 lane each way. So this may be a way to encourage that traffic to stay on state highways instead of the local back streets that
we they use.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2021, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 01:54:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 31, 2021, 01:36:43 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/5zhQd7cJcLGRsSXr7
Since when does Route 10 go to Denville?
Looks like it goes through Denville to me. ?
https://goo.gl/maps/8DUe89H267BdCY6Z9
Yeah but not the main part of the Township.
If you make that right onto 10, the next major road, NJ 53 is then signed for Denville. By taking in the full picture it's signed accurately.
I get that part, but why use Denville instead of Dover or Ledgewood as I don't think one on US 202 would be interested in knowing how to get to Denville. At least via NJ 10. SB would use I-80 or US 46 and NB would use NJ 53 from its start.
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/2018-07-25_10_41_15_View_south_along_U.S._Route_202_%28Terhune_Drive%29_at_Passaic_County_Route_689_%28Hamburg_Turnpike%29_in_Wayne_Township%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
That's interesting to me, because the corresponding shield on the NB side before the intersection is very nicely standard (https://goo.gl/maps/zgPkupvjDkGi3BPJA).
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
Roughly a 5 - 10 mile portion of US 322 is maintained by Gloucester County.
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
Most of US 202 north of NJ 53 is county-maintained, IIRC.
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
27 is county maintained within parts of New Brunswick. IIRC, the only state road that's actually state maintained inside of the city's borders is 18. All of the other roads (26, 91, 171) were either truncated and end at the city limits or, as in the case of 27, actually maintained by Middlesex County.
Actually, correction on that. It looks like 172 is state maintained from Paul Robeson Blvd (formerly Commercial Ave) to Route 18, although it's also silently multiplexed with CR-527, which the county is absolutely atrocious with signing south of Easton Ave until it splits off 18 in East Brunswick again.
https://newjersey.news12.com/tolls-on-bridges-connecting-new-jersey-to-pennsylvania-to-increase-on-sunday?fbclid=IwAR00IdULmYA6i3f0LwlCAi3cJc87wEhKSB47YqDH3bnqWrGm8hUYIQGWf5A
Quote from: storm2k on April 07, 2021, 01:40:15 PM
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
27 is county maintained within parts of New Brunswick. IIRC, the only state road that's actually state maintained inside of the city's borders is 18. All of the other roads (26, 91, 171) were either truncated and end at the city limits or, as in the case of 27, actually maintained by Middlesex County.
172 is state-maintained.
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
NJ 41 is maintained by Camden County within its limits. It also is fully concurrent with CR 544.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 04, 2021, 08:01:11 PM
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
Roughly a 5 - 10 mile portion of US 322 is maintained by Gloucester County.
They even erroneously signed the stretch as CR 322 for a brief period.
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 07, 2021, 01:53:34 PM
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
NJ 41 is maintained by Camden County within its limits. It also is fully concurrent with CR 544.
Actually just the section between 168 and 154 is concurrent (with CR 573, not 544) and maintained by Camden County (the section signed mostly as "Temp 41").
NJ 28 in Plainfield is not NJDOT and all numbered routes in Trenton (other than US 1) are not in the state system.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 07, 2021, 02:51:34 PM
NJ 28 in Plainfield is not NJDOT and all numbered routes in Trenton (other than US 1) are not in the state system.
29 and 129 in Trenton are NJDOT.
Actually was curious about the 202 thing. Why is it county maintained north of 53? Just so the state can get it off its books and not pay for the upkeep? Just a curiosity thing as most state highways aren't maintained by non-state agencies except it seems in various cities.
Quote from: storm2k on April 07, 2021, 04:31:47 PM
Actually was curious about the 202 thing. Why is it county maintained north of 53? Just so the state can get it off its books and not pay for the upkeep? Just a curiosity thing as most state highways aren't maintained by non-state agencies except it seems in various cities.
I guess a really good question would be whether it was always under county jurisdiction, or if NJDOT transferred it to the counties, say around the time I-287 was being planned and/or built. Having driven its entirety in NJ (twice, actually), it certainly isn't up to your typical NJDOT highway quality at all. (Well, certain stretches are, but overall, I wouldn't look at it and think it was state-maintained or designed).
Quote from: famartin on April 07, 2021, 02:32:06 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 07, 2021, 01:53:34 PM
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
NJ 41 is maintained by Camden County within its limits. It also is fully concurrent with CR 544.
Actually just the section between 168 and 154 is concurrent (with CR 573, not 544) and maintained by Camden County (the section signed mostly as "Temp 41").
Yeah I always get those two screwed up. I believe the whole "Temp" thing came out of an unbuilt bypass that 41 was supposed to run along. Officially they dropped the Temp designation but never removed the signs.
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 07, 2021, 05:13:33 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 07, 2021, 02:32:06 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on April 07, 2021, 01:53:34 PM
Quote from: ixnay on April 04, 2021, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 02, 2021, 11:53:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 02, 2021, 11:35:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/etZaph4bna2sSjzu9
Cut out US 202 shield in NJ on US 202 SB at CR 609 in Wayne.
I took a picture of that in 2018. It doesn't look that old, so my guess is that the county made it custom (that part of 202 is county maintained).
From where to where? And does NJ have other stretches of road that are U.S. or state highway signed yet county maintained?
ixnay
NJ 41 is maintained by Camden County within its limits. It also is fully concurrent with CR 544.
Actually just the section between 168 and 154 is concurrent (with CR 573, not 544) and maintained by Camden County (the section signed mostly as "Temp 41").
Yeah I always get those two screwed up. I believe the whole "Temp" thing came out of an unbuilt bypass that 41 was supposed to run along. Officially they dropped the Temp designation but never removed the signs.
Pretty much. Its understandable, there is a section concurrent with 544 where both cross from Gloucester into Camden, but that part is state maintained.
202 was always county maintained north of 53.
Why would New Jersey have any state roads maintained by Counties instead of by State DOT? Does NJDOT pay the Counties for maintaining those routes?
Quote from: SignBridge on April 07, 2021, 08:19:52 PM
Why would New Jersey have any state roads maintained by Counties instead of by State DOT? Does NJDOT pay the Counties for maintaining those routes?
I believe NJDOT distributes a lot of money to the counties.
Its interesting comparing NJ to VA. In NJ, most roads are under non-state jurisdiction except mostly for major highways, while in VA, most roads including many rather small residential streets are under state jurisdiction.
Yes, I am familiar with the Virginia practices. Friends of mine used to live in Loudoun County near Leesburg. I remember the state road maintenance of neighborhood roads. It was quite a surprise at the time in 1989.
Quote from: storm2k on April 07, 2021, 04:31:47 PM
Actually was curious about the 202 thing. Why is it county maintained north of 53? Just so the state can get it off its books and not pay for the upkeep? Just a curiosity thing as most state highways aren't maintained by non-state agencies except it seems in various cities.
202 was a takeover of county roads. NJDOT has assumed upkeep of various short sections - through the I-80 interchange, for example. They had intended to construct a Lincoln Park bypass along the route of the Morris Canal that would likely have become state maintained and could have led to the entire stretch from I-287 to NJ 23 being taken over, but that never progressed beyond planning (and a boring program that is how I learned of it). My argument has been to route US 202 up to US 46, call the whole southern half US 146, call the whole part west of the Hudson NY 35, and then actually start it somewhere east of there (as far as Springfield MA even).
Quote from: famartin on April 07, 2021, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 07, 2021, 02:51:34 PM
NJ 28 in Plainfield is not NJDOT and all numbered routes in Trenton (other than US 1) are not in the state system.
29 and 129 in Trenton are NJDOT.
Forgot about those. Oops! Anyway, Trenton does a terrible job of signing US 206 and NJ 33 in its city. I have not been on NJ 31 south of I-295, so I can't say how good or bad Trenton signs it.
For US 202 you can find somewhat adequate signage in Morris County for the road, but no reassurance shields. If any just a couple, but I doubt it. Passaic County does sign US 202 somewhat including the cutout at Hamburg Turnpike. Mountain View does not sign the left turn southbound onto Boonton Turnpike though. Bergen, from GSV, has a lot to be desired as south of the NJ State Line you get a post intersection SOUTH US 202 shield to the right, but no shield after the turn or at the state line to prepare for the turn. No shields on the ramps from Route 17 to denote cardinal directions and in Oakland there is a turn that 202 makes that is unsigned completely.
One good thing though, you can find some old 2 digit width shields for US 202 in Wayne and Lincoln Park still in use. However, in 1988 when I clinched those parts, I found them to not reflect anymore at night so your headlights won't reflect off of them.
Quote from: storm2k on April 07, 2021, 04:31:47 PM
Actually was curious about the 202 thing. Why is it county maintained north of 53? Just so the state can get it off its books and not pay for the upkeep? Just a curiosity thing as most state highways aren't maintained by non-state agencies except it seems in various cities.
The state did add mileage signs though on US 202 south of the NJ Transit and Metro North Mainline. Even though its not their road they list 18 miles to Lincoln Park, 30 miles to Morristown, and 55 miles to Somerville. Even on US 202 south of Lincoln Park there was one, but last check of GSV the sign supports are still there but the sign itself was gone which listed Morristown as 18 and then Somerville and Lambertville following.
So they have somewhat of control over it to erect those signs there.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 07, 2021, 11:31:42 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 07, 2021, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 07, 2021, 02:51:34 PM
NJ 28 in Plainfield is not NJDOT and all numbered routes in Trenton (other than US 1) are not in the state system.
29 and 129 in Trenton are NJDOT.
Forgot about those. Oops! Anyway, Trenton does a terrible job of signing US 206 and NJ 33 in its city. I have not been on NJ 31 south of I-295, so I can't say how good or bad Trenton signs it.
For US 202 you can find somewhat adequate signage in Morris County for the road, but no reassurance shields. If any just a couple, but I doubt it. Passaic County does sign US 202 somewhat including the cutout at Hamburg Turnpike. Mountain View does not sign the left turn southbound onto Boonton Turnpike though. Bergen, from GSV, has a lot to be desired as south of the NJ State Line you get a post intersection SOUTH US 202 shield to the right, but no shield after the turn or at the state line to prepare for the turn. No shields on the ramps from Route 17 to denote cardinal directions and in Oakland there is a turn that 202 makes that is unsigned completely.
One good thing though, you can find some old 2 digit width shields for US 202 in Wayne and Lincoln Park still in use. However, in 1988 when I clinched those parts, I found them to not reflect anymore at night so your headlights won't reflect off of them.
Morris County has plenty of reassurance shields. Source: I live here, you don't.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 07, 2021, 11:42:52 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 07, 2021, 04:31:47 PM
Actually was curious about the 202 thing. Why is it county maintained north of 53? Just so the state can get it off its books and not pay for the upkeep? Just a curiosity thing as most state highways aren't maintained by non-state agencies except it seems in various cities.
The state did add mileage signs though on US 202 south of the NJ Transit and Metro North Mainline. Even though its not their road they list 18 miles to Lincoln Park, 30 miles to Morristown, and 55 miles to Somerville. Even on US 202 south of Lincoln Park there was one, but last check of GSV the sign supports are still there but the sign itself was gone which listed Morristown as 18 and then Somerville and Lambertville following.
So they have somewhat of control over it to erect those signs there.
Are you sure the county didn't add those mileage signs?
For a second I thought you meant the new mileposts they installed a couple years ago on all state-maintained highways, which was going to be news to me since I just drove it last summer for the second time PA to NY and the county sections had none. Which is honestly something the state should rectify.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 07, 2021, 11:31:42 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 07, 2021, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 07, 2021, 02:51:34 PM
NJ 28 in Plainfield is not NJDOT and all numbered routes in Trenton (other than US 1) are not in the state system.
29 and 129 in Trenton are NJDOT.
Forgot about those. Oops! Anyway, Trenton does a terrible job of signing US 206 and NJ 33 in its city. I have not been on NJ 31 south of I-295, so I can't say how good or bad Trenton signs it.
For US 202 you can find somewhat adequate signage in Morris County for the road, but no reassurance shields. If any just a couple, but I doubt it. Passaic County does sign US 202 somewhat including the cutout at Hamburg Turnpike. Mountain View does not sign the left turn southbound onto Boonton Turnpike though. Bergen, from GSV, has a lot to be desired as south of the NJ State Line you get a post intersection SOUTH US 202 shield to the right, but no shield after the turn or at the state line to prepare for the turn. No shields on the ramps from Route 17 to denote cardinal directions and in Oakland there is a turn that 202 makes that is unsigned completely.
One good thing though, you can find some old 2 digit width shields for US 202 in Wayne and Lincoln Park still in use. However, in 1988 when I clinched those parts, I found them to not reflect anymore at night so your headlights won't reflect off of them.
31 is not signed much south of the Ewing/Trenton line. There's one or two northbound reassurance signs, and one or two directional signs from 206, but that's it.
As far as 202 not having reassurance signs in Morris County... there are some. The signs here listed as being in Boonton, Lincoln Park, Parsippany are generally the county sections. Could there be a few more? Sure.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:U.S._Route_202_in_Morris_County,_New_Jersey
Also I did take pics in Passaic and Bergen...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:U.S._Route_202_in_Passaic_County,_New_Jersey
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:U.S._Route_202_in_Bergen_County,_New_Jersey
Quote from: famartin on April 08, 2021, 08:16:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 07, 2021, 11:42:52 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 07, 2021, 04:31:47 PM
Actually was curious about the 202 thing. Why is it county maintained north of 53? Just so the state can get it off its books and not pay for the upkeep? Just a curiosity thing as most state highways aren't maintained by non-state agencies except it seems in various cities.
The state did add mileage signs though on US 202 south of the NJ Transit and Metro North Mainline. Even though its not their road they list 18 miles to Lincoln Park, 30 miles to Morristown, and 55 miles to Somerville. Even on US 202 south of Lincoln Park there was one, but last check of GSV the sign supports are still there but the sign itself was gone which listed Morristown as 18 and then Somerville and Lambertville following.
So they have somewhat of control over it to erect those signs there.
Are you sure the county didn't add those mileage signs?
For a second I thought you meant the new mileposts they installed a couple years ago on all state-maintained highways, which was going to be news to me since I just drove it last summer for the second time PA to NY and the county sections had none. Which is honestly something the state should rectify.
Those signs may actually be in another brief state section due to the transit center.
https://goo.gl/maps/wQ4Kn4Nkkg8WHWMp8
Must be from the same breed to sign I-195. The TO NJ 72 and TO NJ 37 is not that important this far out. Also what about I-295?
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 10:10:02 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/wQ4Kn4Nkkg8WHWMp8
Must be from the same breed to sign I-195. The TO NJ 72 and TO NJ 37 is not that important this far out. Also what about I-295?
Both roads take you to 295, so not really necessary to differentiate.
Quote from: famartin on April 14, 2021, 10:44:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 10:10:02 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/wQ4Kn4Nkkg8WHWMp8
Must be from the same breed to sign I-195. The TO NJ 72 and TO NJ 37 is not that important this far out. Also what about I-295?
Both roads take you to 295, so not really necessary to differentiate.
https://goo.gl/maps/zYJoFUC7YkpSdUY46
Than this one ignoring the I-78 concurrency with US 22 East. Exit 3 is signed no direction.
At least construction workers removed the NJ 173 shield so the detour could be followed.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 11:49:21 AM
Quote from: famartin on April 14, 2021, 10:44:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 10:10:02 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/wQ4Kn4Nkkg8WHWMp8
Must be from the same breed to sign I-195. The TO NJ 72 and TO NJ 37 is not that important this far out. Also what about I-295?
Both roads take you to 295, so not really necessary to differentiate.
https://goo.gl/maps/zYJoFUC7YkpSdUY46
Than this one ignoring the I-78 concurrency with US 22 East. Exit 3 is signed no direction.
At least construction workers removed the NJ 173 shield so the detour could be followed.
Its back now. This was taken 7/13/2020.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/2020-07-13_13_08_32_View_east_along_Interstate_78_%28Phillipsburg-Newark_Expressway%29_at_Exit_3_%28U.S._Route_22%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_122%2C_New_Jersey_State_Route_173%2C_Phillipsburg%2C_Bloomsbury%29_in_Pohatcong_Township%2C_Warren_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
I'm not entirely sure, but the signs may be controlled by DRJTBC since the maintenance on this section is listed as being them (not NJDOT), so that might have something to do with it.
Also the ramps from US 22 East and NJ 173 both use New York and all signs were put up at same time.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Also the ramps from US 22 East and NJ 173 both use New York and all signs were put up at same time.
This I find interesting since the same thing happens in both directions at the I-287 interchange...EB uses Newark (but New York from I-287), and WB uses Phillipsburg (but Easton from I-287).
Now that I'm typing this, I realized I-287 SB does it too...it has Perth Amboy as the control, but both ramps from I-78 use Somerville. At least NB is consistent with Morristown! :-D
It wasn't always like that. I-287 used Newark and Clinton. Though Phillipsburg was still on I-78 W Bound though. I-287 had no control cities either way. However, US 22 was always signed New York with I-78 being Newark.
Yes that exchange is very inconsistent. NJ is on spot replacing and do not look at updates or check around. The same for the ramp to I-287 south from US 202 & 206 at Bedminster using Somerville and Princeton as SB Control city, but at the split for Exit 17 for US 202 & 206 again it features Flemington with Somerville and not consistent with the previous. After all I-287 is the bypass for US 202 & 206 for Pluckemin and Bridgewater. So that is why NJDOT assigned Princeton there, but when changes to I-287 signs were made to former Exit 13 (now 17) they switched out Princeton there for Flemington, but forgot about the sign on the ramp in Bedminster.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 10:10:02 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/wQ4Kn4Nkkg8WHWMp8
Must be from the same breed to sign I-195. The TO NJ 72 and TO NJ 37 is not that important this far out. Also what about I-295?
for the record, here's the previous version of this assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9340827,-75.0745841,3a,75y,86.31h,75.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDY4KooDurnBmar73bxASgA!2e0!5s20080601T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
the "TO 37 / 72" would make a lot more sense if the destinations included Toms River or LBI (or even the no-longer-accepted "Shore Pts") - but in a bubble, it's totally nonsensical to me.
This was a bit interesting...with the US 322 widening project between I-295 & US 130 nearing completion, NJDOT issued a press release last weekend for a traffic shift, moving the WB lane from the future EB roadway to the WB roadway. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20210408_150632_Rt322wbtrafficshifttomorrowasroadwaywideningprojectadvancesinGloucesterCounty.pdf
What is most interesting about this, is that it's the first time NJDOT has referenced this project anywhere. It's never been mentioned on their website, in the TIP, on any advanced project listing. It wasn't even put out to bid by NJDOT. The construction has encountered several phases and at least one other traffic shift, and none of them received a press release as well.
Work has started on another US 322 project just east of here, widening 322 at another intersection in preparation for another warehouse development. Similar to the above, no announcement from NJDOT has been made about that project either.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2021, 11:07:01 PM
This was a bit interesting...with the US 322 widening project between I-295 & US 130 nearing completion, NJDOT issued a press release last weekend for a traffic shift, moving the WB lane from the future EB roadway to the WB roadway. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20210408_150632_Rt322wbtrafficshifttomorrowasroadwaywideningprojectadvancesinGloucesterCounty.pdf
What is most interesting about this, is that it's the first time NJDOT has referenced this project anywhere. It's never been mentioned on their website, in the TIP, on any advanced project listing. It wasn't even put out to bid by NJDOT. The construction has encountered several phases and at least one other traffic shift, and none of them received a press release as well.
Work has started on another US 322 project just east of here, widening 322 at another intersection in preparation for another warehouse development. Similar to the above, no announcement from NJDOT has been made about that project either.
It's being done by a developer, so was probably written into their permit and thus not something biddable as the developer would then be doing it themselves.
Quote from: Alps on April 14, 2021, 11:29:27 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2021, 11:07:01 PM
This was a bit interesting...with the US 322 widening project between I-295 & US 130 nearing completion, NJDOT issued a press release last weekend for a traffic shift, moving the WB lane from the future EB roadway to the WB roadway. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20210408_150632_Rt322wbtrafficshifttomorrowasroadwaywideningprojectadvancesinGloucesterCounty.pdf
What is most interesting about this, is that it's the first time NJDOT has referenced this project anywhere. It's never been mentioned on their website, in the TIP, on any advanced project listing. It wasn't even put out to bid by NJDOT. The construction has encountered several phases and at least one other traffic shift, and none of them received a press release as well.
Work has started on another US 322 project just east of here, widening 322 at another intersection in preparation for another warehouse development. Similar to the above, no announcement from NJDOT has been made about that project either.
It's being done by a developer, so was probably written into their permit and thus not something biddable as the developer would then be doing it themselves.
At least the contractor being used is a very prominent fixture on highway projects in the state.
Hopefully they add new signs to the I-295 interchange with control cities like they have at the US 130 interchange. Even if Del. Mem. Br. is used SB for 295 it would be something.
I imagine this project is a small benefit to the DRPA, since it will encourage more usage of the Commodore Barry Bridge.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 15, 2021, 12:22:04 AM
Hopefully they add new signs to the I-295 interchange with control cities like they have at the US 130 interchange. Even if Del. Mem. Br. is used SB for 295 it would be something.
So far, no evidence new overhead signage will be added on 322 at the 295/322 Interchange.
Hopefully signage leading out of the new warehouse park will direct drivers to 295 South via 322 East, and 295 North via 322 West (to 130 South).
The missing moves at the 295/322 Interchange were no doubt omitted when 295 was built as those movements would be served by the 295-130-322 corridor. Not only did they have room at the time, the wetlands and river area just off the ramp from 295 North to 322 East appears to be manmade looking at historicaerieals.com as a part of the original 295 construction. With the growth in the Logan Twp/Swedesboro area, this interchange is a bit underpowered (especially with the morning rush hour traffic from 295 to 322). Combined with the traffic using 295's Exit 10 (Center Square Road), this general area could use some significant improvements, including adding the missing moves. The only saving grace for Swedesboro/Logan traffic to/from the Commodore Barry Bridge is that traffic can use 322-130-High Hill Road (CR 662) as a decent alternate.
Quote from: famartin on April 15, 2021, 09:34:22 AM
I imagine this project is a small benefit to the DRPA, since it will encourage more usage of the Commodore Barry Bridge.
During peak times (rush hours), the CBB is approaching congested conditions. While they don't often use the zipper barrier to provide 3 lanes, it certainly does help. On Friday afternoons with shore traffic, 3 lanes into NJ is provided, and there's still some congestion.
During non-peak travel periods, the bridge is usually free-flowing. The bridge needs quite a bit of work though - the patches of rust and paint look awful, and the concrete decking doesn't look much better. I have a feeling this bridge is going to need a lot of work in the relatively near future. For a while, the CBB was $5 and the Del Mem Bridge was $4, so if there was a reasonable drive that could use either bridge, the DMB would've saved $1. As the DMB is now $5 as well ($4.75 EZ Pass), there's no real money savings to use the DMB.
On the topic of South Jersey, US-40 could use some intersection upgrades in Salem County. Dedicated left turn lanes at traffic lights would be a nice improvement.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 12:48:29 PM
It wasn't always like that. I-287 used Newark and Clinton. Though Phillipsburg was still on I-78 W Bound though. I-287 had no control cities either way. However, US 22 was always signed New York with I-78 being Newark.
Yes that exchange is very inconsistent. NJ is on spot replacing and do not look at updates or check around. The same for the ramp to I-287 south from US 202 & 206 at Bedminster using Somerville and Princeton as SB Control city, but at the split for Exit 17 for US 202 & 206 again it features Flemington with Somerville and not consistent with the previous. After all I-287 is the bypass for US 202 & 206 for Pluckemin and Bridgewater. So that is why NJDOT assigned Princeton there, but when changes to I-287 signs were made to former Exit 13 (now 17) they switched out Princeton there for Flemington, but forgot about the sign on the ramp in Bedminster.
Speaking of which, are there any pictures of the old signs?
Took a ride around the southern half of NJ yesterday.
In addition to some brand new US 48 shields on US 40 WB, the best things I found were some really old destination signs like this - https://goo.gl/maps/uZFD5jz4TC9QwEgH8
How common is this style of sign today? I found 4 examples at 3 intersections SE of Salem. Didn't notice them anywhere else...
Also found even older signs like this - https://goo.gl/maps/nUZ4dBRZ6FMneLr18
Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 14, 2021, 06:10:20 PM
Speaking of NJDOT, I happened to walk through the print room of my work and saw this ALTA survey (not done by my company) around everyone's favorite abandoned section of US 322. What really caught my eye is that the portion of 324 with the houses says it's under [Logan] township jurisdiction (ref. plan 7 being the jurisdictional map for US 130) and the "Road Closed" part and Springer Road intersection being private land now. The SLDs still say it's NJDOT jurisdiction and of course the milemarkers that were put up not too long ago (at least I'm assuming that all of them are still up and not taken down by anyone). The state's online parcel search (https://arcg.is/1Tnvy11) still basically has it as public ROW unless there's a lag on the parcel data there.
(https://i.imgur.com/gf5RBdU.jpg)
Following up on this, apparently there was a bill in the State Legislature back in late 2017 and was passed in the Assembly & Senate by January 18, 2018 that would have dedesignated 32 (https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2016/Bills/PL17/330_.HTM) but since it was the end of that session, it probably expired before the start of the next session. In any case, NJDOT did drive the whole road per their video log later in 2018. I only bring it up now since I clinched it today (on a road bike(!) and my tires somehow survived) but it seems like since at least August 2019 when Roadwaywiz did it as a part of the Chester Virtual Meet (https://youtu.be/NBZAg45nx8I?t=3328), the road is much better cleared of the brush that line the road. There were some equipment and fresh access points near the end so maybe there was some activity going on for river dredging or the 230 kV power line crossing.
(https://i.imgur.com/iSkZL5O.jpg)
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 18, 2021, 06:53:34 PM
Took a ride around the southern half of NJ yesterday.
In addition to some brand new US 48 shields on US 40 WB, the best things I found were some really old destination signs like this - https://goo.gl/maps/uZFD5jz4TC9QwEgH8
How common is this style of sign today? I found 4 examples at 3 intersections SE of Salem. Didn't notice them anywhere else...
Also found even older signs like this - https://goo.gl/maps/nUZ4dBRZ6FMneLr18
Salem Co. is where they're still holding on most, but you'll find isolated ones in neighboring counties as well. US 48 is noteworthy.
I see according to GSV that three bridges related to US 22 in Hillside have or are being replaced as this moment goes. I see the Bloy Street overpass is being totally replaced as well as the RIRO connection. However, the old trolley bridge at the Hillside- Newark Line is still up and not been torn down despite its the same age as the Bloy Street Bridge.
It's low priority and unused. At most it would just be torn down. Most likely if pieces start coming down it will come down.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 20, 2021, 12:08:13 AM
It's low priority and unused. At most it would just be torn down. Most likely if pieces start coming down it will come down.
I can only speak for the bridge I have worked on, but traffic loads = deterioriation. Abandoned bridge = no deterioration and is still in fine condition.
Yeah figured so much that it's lack of use. Also the road salt over the decades I am sure caused the bridges in use to deteriorate as well.
I was noticing that NJ DOT still signs NJ 24 at the NJ 124 and 82 junction for NJ 124 EB. Considering that was in place before 1986 which was when the 5 Mile Reservation Gap was completed for I-78 so WB I-78 had to be signed for Route 24 then. However, now that can be changed and especially NJ 124 just came from NJ 24 at Millburn, it's not really relevant any more. Plus GSV shows no mention of Morris Avenue transitioning from Route 124 into Route 82. Only CR 577 is mentioned but no NJ 82 shields.
Then with the lack of missing movements at NJ 124 to I-78 EB (Springfield Ave) there should be signs at Vauxhall Road from NJ 124 directing motorists of interest for I-78 EB to turn onto Vauxhall Road. After all both Exits on I-78 for Vauxhall ( WB) and Rte124 (EB) are technically one interchange hence why Vauxhall Road has no ramps either to WB I-78 as well. So NJDOT needs to have TO I-78 shields for local traffic to find the way to the direction of travel created by the missing ramps.
They need to assign an engineer to travel statewide to fix issues like these still addressing the past and to pick up on damaged or missing shields too.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2021, 11:28:09 PM
I see according to GSV that three bridges related to US 22 in Hillside have or are being replaced as this moment goes. I see the Bloy Street overpass is being totally replaced as well as the RIRO connection. However, the old trolley bridge at the Hillside- Newark Line is still up and not been torn down despite its the same age as the Bloy Street Bridge.
Per a press release at the beginning of construction, it references replacing the Bloy Street Overpass, but this one, along with another press release, don't mention anything regarding the trolley bridge. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20191227_103213_2019-12-27_Route_22_Hilldale_Place-_North_Broad_Street_Replacement_Project_begins.pdf
In a brief view of the bids for the project, it references a line item for clearing structure 2004-152, which is the Bloy Street overpass. I didn't see any other structure clearing line items. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabsDP19142.pdf , Page 38.
Hopefully they will remove Irvington as control city for the connector. To me it's useless as you have to use many different roads to reach Irvington. Signing it Hillside Avenue to N. Broad Street would do fine.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2021, 02:06:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 19, 2021, 11:28:09 PM
I see according to GSV that three bridges related to US 22 in Hillside have or are being replaced as this moment goes. I see the Bloy Street overpass is being totally replaced as well as the RIRO connection. However, the old trolley bridge at the Hillside- Newark Line is still up and not been torn down despite its the same age as the Bloy Street Bridge.
Per a press release at the beginning of construction, it references replacing the Bloy Street Overpass, but this one, along with another press release, don't mention anything regarding the trolley bridge. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20191227_103213_2019-12-27_Route_22_Hilldale_Place-_North_Broad_Street_Replacement_Project_begins.pdf
In a brief view of the bids for the project, it references a line item for clearing structure 2004-152, which is the Bloy Street overpass. I didn't see any other structure clearing line items. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/procurement/ConstrServ/documents/BidTabsDP19142.pdf , Page 38.
Only Bloy and Hilldale right now.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 02:04:55 PM
I was noticing that NJ DOT still signs NJ 24 at the NJ 124 and 82 junction for NJ 124 EB. Considering that was in place before 1986 which was when the 5 Mile Reservation Gap was completed for I-78 so WB I-78 had to be signed for Route 24 then. However, now that can be changed and especially NJ 124 just came from NJ 24 at Millburn, it's not really relevant any more. Plus GSV shows no mention of Morris Avenue transitioning from Route 124 into Route 82. Only CR 577 is mentioned but no NJ 82 shields.
Then with the lack of missing movements at NJ 124 to I-78 EB (Springfield Ave) there should be signs at Vauxhall Road from NJ 124 directing motorists of interest for I-78 EB to turn onto Vauxhall Road. After all both Exits on I-78 for Vauxhall ( WB) and Rte124 (EB) are technically one interchange hence why Vauxhall Road has no ramps either to WB I-78 as well. So NJDOT needs to have TO I-78 shields for local traffic to find the way to the direction of travel created by the missing ramps.
They need to assign an engineer to travel statewide to fix issues like these still addressing the past and to pick up on damaged or missing shields too.
I presume you're referring to this assembly? (https://goo.gl/maps/DcaQqvNr4AuDTkAKA) If you follow the loop around to Springfield Ave, you'll see that the 78 overheads (https://goo.gl/maps/u4WF3suQgMuvzN3w7) properly refer to "To-NJ24" since the ramp feeds onto the local lanes which has the exit to to 24 only a mile or so ahead of this onramp, so it's not that out of place. The only thing that would have been more proper would have been a To plate and also include a 78 shield in the assembly. Other than that, I have no issue with it.
Would agree they could do better with 82 reassurance markers. There aren't proper ones posted until a mile down the road when drivers are well into Union by that point. However, the roadway did get full enhanced milemarkers and all of the overhead streetsign blades at traffic lights do reference the route number pretty much everywhere.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 02:04:55 PM
They need to assign an engineer to travel statewide to fix issues like these still addressing the past and to pick up on damaged or missing shields too.
So what would roadgeeks look for if all these issues were corrected? :biggrin:
Quote from: akotchi on April 21, 2021, 09:42:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2021, 02:04:55 PM
They need to assign an engineer to travel statewide to fix issues like these still addressing the past and to pick up on damaged or missing shields too.
So what would roadgeeks look for if all these issues were corrected? :biggrin:
Lol!
I noticed that on Exit 141 SB for Vauxhall Road a stop light is been added. You think that the Exit 141 guide now would add US 22 E Bound to it instead of having you exit at Exit 140B and get lost being the u turn at NJ 82 East is not signed for the interest of motorists for US 22 EB except in the gore.
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 18, 2021, 06:53:34 PM
Took a ride around the southern half of NJ yesterday.
In addition to some brand new US 48 shields on US 40 WB
You mean the former NJ 48 has federal funding now? US 48 has two widely separated segments now a la US 2?
ixnay
Per Google Satellite, I count 13 movable bridges on the Passaic River (2 of which appear to be on abandoned rail lines). Does the Passaic get much ship traffic?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on April 24, 2021, 07:38:16 AM
Per Google Satellite, I count 13 movable bridges on the Passaic River (2 of which appear to be on abandoned rail lines). Does the Passaic get much ship traffic?
ixnay
Considering NJDOT removed the drawspan on Route 3 for a fixed span during the widening of that particular route as well as interchange modifications with Route 21, I would say no.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 24, 2021, 11:39:27 AM
Quote from: ixnay on April 24, 2021, 07:38:16 AM
Per Google Satellite, I count 13 movable bridges on the Passaic River (2 of which appear to be on abandoned rail lines). Does the Passaic get much ship traffic?
ixnay
Considering NJDOT removed the drawspan on Route 3 for a fixed span during the widening of that particular route as well as interchange modifications with Route 21, I would say no.
Yeah, it did when they were built.
Drove on 280 for the first time in a while today. It looks like they're doing some bridge work in spot places west of Pleasant Valley Way all the way out to 80. Looks like this will include new overhead structures at Exits 6 and 5A-B. Which means they're finally replacing the overhead structure that came down at 5B (if you look at the GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/1ubs2eMGbAWgLnNbA), you can see the posts, but the truss has been gone for I think 10ish years?). Will also be curious if the new signs use the same interesting pullthru (https://goo.gl/maps/y2tTdNSQVQHU77G29) that they installed at Eisenhower Pkwy when that was replaced two years ago. WB uses Parsippany and includes a "to 80" shield, and the EB uses Kearney as a control city (which makes zero sense to me since Newark is more important and 280 passes through the heart of it) with 95/Turnpike shields.
Quote from: storm2k on April 24, 2021, 09:34:22 PM
Drove on 280 for the first time in a while today. It looks like they're doing some bridge work in spot places west of Pleasant Valley Way all the way out to 80. Looks like this will include new overhead structures at Exits 6 and 5A-B. Which means they're finally replacing the overhead structure that came down at 5B (if you look at the GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/1ubs2eMGbAWgLnNbA), you can see the posts, but the truss has been gone for I think 10ish years?). Will also be curious if the new signs use the same interesting pullthru (https://goo.gl/maps/y2tTdNSQVQHU77G29) that they installed at Eisenhower Pkwy when that was replaced two years ago. WB uses Parsippany and includes a "to 80" shield, and the EB uses Kearney as a control city (which makes zero sense to me since Newark is more important and 280 passes through the heart of it) with 95/Turnpike shields.
I'm gonna guess the use of "Kearney" is based on someone programmed to just use the road's terminus (a not-uncommon NJDOT practice). I suspect Parsippany will definitely be on the WB sign, which at least has some meritt.
Quote from: famartin on April 25, 2021, 02:48:02 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 24, 2021, 09:34:22 PM
Drove on 280 for the first time in a while today. It looks like they're doing some bridge work in spot places west of Pleasant Valley Way all the way out to 80. Looks like this will include new overhead structures at Exits 6 and 5A-B. Which means they're finally replacing the overhead structure that came down at 5B (if you look at the GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/1ubs2eMGbAWgLnNbA), you can see the posts, but the truss has been gone for I think 10ish years?). Will also be curious if the new signs use the same interesting pullthru (https://goo.gl/maps/y2tTdNSQVQHU77G29) that they installed at Eisenhower Pkwy when that was replaced two years ago. WB uses Parsippany and includes a "to 80" shield, and the EB uses Kearney as a control city (which makes zero sense to me since Newark is more important and 280 passes through the heart of it) with 95/Turnpike shields.
I'm gonna guess the use of "Kearney" is based on someone programmed to just use the road's terminus (a not-uncommon NJDOT practice). I suspect Parsippany will definitely be on the WB sign, which at least has some meritt.
KEARNY :angry:
Oh, and they're also replacing the CR 577 bridge over I-78
I live in Parsippany so it was a thrill to see Parsippany on the westbound sign near Eisenhower Parkway. The use of Kearny eastbound (skipping over The Oranges and Newark) makes no sense. I do like the use of hte NJTP and 95 shields on the sign though. It should be Newark. Most signs on 280 West show no control city at all, it should be Parsippany whenever they are replaced.
Skipping over Newark on I-280 is like skipping over New York for Providence on the NJ Turnpike.
Quote from: storm2k on April 24, 2021, 09:34:22 PM
Drove on 280 for the first time in a while today. It looks like they're doing some bridge work in spot places west of Pleasant Valley Way all the way out to 80. Looks like this will include new overhead structures at Exits 6 and 5A-B. Which means they're finally replacing the overhead structure that came down at 5B (if you look at the GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/1ubs2eMGbAWgLnNbA), you can see the posts, but the truss has been gone for I think 10ish years?). Will also be curious if the new signs use the same interesting pullthru (https://goo.gl/maps/y2tTdNSQVQHU77G29) that they installed at Eisenhower Pkwy when that was replaced two years ago. WB uses Parsippany and includes a "to 80" shield, and the EB uses Kearney as a control city (which makes zero sense to me since Newark is more important and 280 passes through the heart of it) with 95/Turnpike shields.
Then this one westbound in West Orange leaves a blank space.
https://goo.gl/maps/f8ouUb9BLkBAsqi99
The Rt 206 Doctors Way to Valley Rd project has officially kicked off (https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562021/approved/20210427a.shtml).
Good to see these projects moving forward, even though I'd love to see 4 lane divided from the Somerville Circle to Princeton or maybe further to 95.
Quote from: storm2k on April 27, 2021, 03:50:57 PM
The Rt 206 Doctors Way to Valley Rd project has officially kicked off (https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562021/approved/20210427a.shtml).
Good to see these projects moving forward, even though I'd love to see 4 lane divided from the Somerville Circle to Princeton or maybe further to 95.
You of course mean 295 :-D
Not going to happen so long as Montgomery and Princeton have anything to say about it.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 26, 2021, 11:46:57 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 24, 2021, 09:34:22 PM
Drove on 280 for the first time in a while today. It looks like they're doing some bridge work in spot places west of Pleasant Valley Way all the way out to 80. Looks like this will include new overhead structures at Exits 6 and 5A-B. Which means they're finally replacing the overhead structure that came down at 5B (if you look at the GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/1ubs2eMGbAWgLnNbA), you can see the posts, but the truss has been gone for I think 10ish years?). Will also be curious if the new signs use the same interesting pullthru (https://goo.gl/maps/y2tTdNSQVQHU77G29) that they installed at Eisenhower Pkwy when that was replaced two years ago. WB uses Parsippany and includes a "to 80" shield, and the EB uses Kearney as a control city (which makes zero sense to me since Newark is more important and 280 passes through the heart of it) with 95/Turnpike shields.
Then this one westbound in West Orange leaves a blank space.
https://goo.gl/maps/f8ouUb9BLkBAsqi99
That's a pretty old sign. I'm sure it won't look like that whenever they get around to replacing it.
Quote from: famartin on April 27, 2021, 04:13:31 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 27, 2021, 03:50:57 PM
The Rt 206 Doctors Way to Valley Rd project has officially kicked off (https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562021/approved/20210427a.shtml).
Good to see these projects moving forward, even though I'd love to see 4 lane divided from the Somerville Circle to Princeton or maybe further to 95.
You of course mean 295 :-D
Not going to happen so long as Montgomery and Princeton have anything to say about it.
I know it's a pipe dream, but it would fit the patterns. Same way that 202 should be 4 lane freeway from Doylestown to 287 in Bridgewater but will never happen either.
I still wonder why West Orange is signed on CR 577 south? If Downtown West Orange was that way it would make sense, but it isn't. Everything on CR 577 on both sides of I-280 is West Orange including the modern strip malls.
What'll happen to old US 206 after the bypass is finished?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 28, 2021, 07:53:21 AM
What'll happen to old US 206 after the bypass is finished?
I've been told it'll be transferred to local control. Not sure if that means county or municipal.
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 28, 2021, 07:53:21 AM
What'll happen to old US 206 after the bypass is finished?
I've been told it'll be transferred to local control. Not sure if that means county or municipal.
Long time coming for it to be widened. Too bad the rest of Route 31 can't be widened as it's needed. Ditto for US 9 from Manahawkin to Lakewood where US 9 is overflowing in busy Ocean County.
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 28, 2021, 07:53:21 AM
What'll happen to old US 206 after the bypass is finished?
I've been told it'll be transferred to local control. Not sure if that means county or municipal.
Local = municipal.
Quote from: Alps on April 28, 2021, 07:53:17 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 28, 2021, 07:53:21 AM
What'll happen to old US 206 after the bypass is finished?
I've been told it'll be transferred to local control. Not sure if that means county or municipal.
Local = municipal.
Sorry, was applying a non-NJ mindset to it (in much of America, there is no municipal, so local=county)
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:29:23 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 28, 2021, 07:53:17 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 28, 2021, 07:53:21 AM
What'll happen to old US 206 after the bypass is finished?
I've been told it'll be transferred to local control. Not sure if that means county or municipal.
Local = municipal.
Sorry, was applying a non-NJ mindset to it (in much of America, there is no municipal, so local=county)
Not in NJ, I think?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 29, 2021, 09:07:38 AM
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:29:23 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 28, 2021, 07:53:17 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 28, 2021, 07:53:21 AM
What'll happen to old US 206 after the bypass is finished?
I've been told it'll be transferred to local control. Not sure if that means county or municipal.
Local = municipal.
Sorry, was applying a non-NJ mindset to it (in much of America, there is no municipal, so local=county)
Not in NJ, I think?
Haven't lived in NJ in almost 18 years, but a frequent visitor.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 29, 2021, 09:07:38 AM
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:29:23 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 28, 2021, 07:53:17 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 28, 2021, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 28, 2021, 07:53:21 AM
What'll happen to old US 206 after the bypass is finished?
I've been told it'll be transferred to local control. Not sure if that means county or municipal.
Local = municipal.
Sorry, was applying a non-NJ mindset to it (in much of America, there is no municipal, so local=county)
Not in NJ, I think?
Nope, in NJ you have both county maintained roads (get the pentagon shields) and municipal maintained roads. Old 206 will revert to Hillsborough, though I won't be surprised if future money allocations for municipal grants for maintenance go up a bit for them to account for their need to maintain the road, because it will still be an important road for Hillsborough's "Main Street" development goals.
https://goo.gl/maps/WqmLMqDcxttXS2m1A
Really. Denville is the next city? Obviously someone forgot about Dover in between.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:50:46 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/WqmLMqDcxttXS2m1A
Really. Denville is the next city? Obviously someone forgot about Dover in between.
Honestly, none of those really make sense. Dover, Parsippany, and Wayne rate more.
Quote from: storm2k on May 02, 2021, 01:45:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:50:46 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/WqmLMqDcxttXS2m1A
Really. Denville is the next city? Obviously someone forgot about Dover in between.
Honestly, none of those really make sense. Dover, Parsippany, and Wayne rate more.
How about Passaic? :-D
NJ has the odd situation where every municipality is legally equal and home rule is strong. Thus with limited annexations throughout history (and none at all in a long time), none of its cities and towns could ever become "large" like in other states. Otherwise, the city of Newark would probably include the Oranges, Irvington, Belleville and maybe Kearny/Harrison/Elizabeth. Trenton would include Ewing, Lawrence and Hamilton, Atlantic City would include the entire island and possibly parts of the mainland, and Camden would be all of northern Camden County.
Debates over control cities should be kept out of these main threads. These threads should be for history, plans or ongoing/upcoming projects.
Quote from: famartin on May 02, 2021, 08:08:07 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 02, 2021, 01:45:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:50:46 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/WqmLMqDcxttXS2m1A
Really. Denville is the next city? Obviously someone forgot about Dover in between.
Honestly, none of those really make sense. Dover, Parsippany, and Wayne rate more.
How about Passaic? :-D
NJ has the odd situation where every municipality is legally equal and home rule is strong. Thus with limited annexations throughout history (and none at all in a long time), none of its cities and towns could ever become "large" like in other states. Otherwise, the city of Newark would probably include the Oranges, Irvington, Belleville and maybe Kearny/Harrison/Elizabeth. Trenton would include Ewing, Lawrence and Hamilton, Atlantic City would include the entire island and possibly parts of the mainland, and Camden would be all of northern Camden County.
But Dover the route goes through its business district proper. Denville it bypasses and has a small district. I am not saying it shouldn't be used, but after Dover though. Signs should list the next city followed by one or two main controls.
They do get it right in Denville using Clifton and New York as New York is it's endpoint is there on the GWB, however Clifton too is one of many others they can use, but was chosen as it's where Route 3 branches off and at one point before the population explosion it stood out like Clinton did on Route 22 before Branchburg and Readington exploded west of Somerville. Now it makes sense more to use Allentown on I-78 over Clinton since that is the next city of major interest and being the core of the larger Lehigh Valley Region.
South Florida runs into the same situation on both I-95 and US 1 as from Jupiter to Homestead is all incorporated cities and no open county areas in between. However West Palm and Miami are stand outs among them to be used on I -95.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2021, 10:19:13 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 02, 2021, 08:08:07 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 02, 2021, 01:45:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:50:46 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/WqmLMqDcxttXS2m1A
Really. Denville is the next city? Obviously someone forgot about Dover in between.
Honestly, none of those really make sense. Dover, Parsippany, and Wayne rate more.
How about Passaic? :-D
NJ has the odd situation where every municipality is legally equal and home rule is strong. Thus with limited annexations throughout history (and none at all in a long time), none of its cities and towns could ever become "large" like in other states. Otherwise, the city of Newark would probably include the Oranges, Irvington, Belleville and maybe Kearny/Harrison/Elizabeth. Trenton would include Ewing, Lawrence and Hamilton, Atlantic City would include the entire island and possibly parts of the mainland, and Camden would be all of northern Camden County.
But Dover the route goes through its business district proper. Denville it bypasses and has a small district. I am not saying it shouldn't be used, but after Dover though. Signs should list the next city followed by one or two main controls.
They do get it right in Denville using Clifton and New York as New York is it's endpoint is there on the GWB, however Clifton too is one of many others they can use, but was chosen as it's where Route 3 branches off and at one point before the population explosion it stood out like Clinton did on Route 22 before Branchburg and Readington exploded west of Somerville. Now it makes sense more to use Allentown on I-78 over Clinton since that is the next city of major interest and being the core of the larger Lehigh Valley Region.
South Florida runs into the same situation on both I-95 and US 1 as from Jupiter to Homestead is all incorporated cities and no open county areas in between. However West Palm and Miami are stand outs among them to be used on I -95.
There should be some sort of rationale behind what cities to use. I-95/I-80 being major through routes, the major cities should only be used. US1/US46 being relegated to service roads, they should have much more local destinations listed. Perhaps either some sort of average "time" to the destinations, or just cities that one is most likely to use the route to reach. That suggests that using New York on 46 in Denville isn't a great idea since most people will jump onto 80 at the first opportunity (though I did drive 46 end-to-end last year, just for fun and photography).
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 09:42:23 AM
Debates over control cities should be kept out of these main threads. These threads should be for history, plans or ongoing/upcoming projects.
Hi, moderator here. If you want more specific discussion, create a more specific thread. Otherwise, anything on topic to NJ is fair game!
Quote from: Alps on May 02, 2021, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2021, 09:42:23 AM
Debates over control cities should be kept out of these main threads. These threads should be for history, plans or ongoing/upcoming projects.
Hi, moderator here. If you want more specific discussion, create a more specific thread. Otherwise, anything on topic to NJ is fair game!
Yeah, them's the current rules.
The problem is that all this speculation about control cities -- not based on any current plans -- is really diluting the usefulness of the threads. It's really fictional territory.
Drove down 206 through Hillsborough to see the latest with the bypass and the widening. Prep work is already well underway for the Valley Rd to Doctors Way project. Decent amount of tree clearing and grading underway already. Bypass is still closed but the work looks pretty much done. The timeline to open it was supposed to be this spring, so hopefully we'll see it open soon.
One interesting thing I saw was at the southern end of the bypass, at the traffic light, the ramp onto the bypass has "Freeway Entrance" signs, which I don't recall seeing pretty much anywhere in New Jersey. Thought that was interesting:
(https://i.imgur.com/TJ2oN5d.jpg)
Quote from: storm2k on May 02, 2021, 06:49:36 PM
Drove down 206 through Hillsborough to see the latest with the bypass and the widening. Prep work is already well underway for the Valley Rd to Doctors Way project. Decent amount of tree clearing and grading underway already. Bypass is still closed but the work looks pretty much done. The timeline to open it was supposed to be this spring, so hopefully we'll see it open soon.
One interesting thing I saw was at the southern end of the bypass, at the traffic light, the ramp onto the bypass has "Freeway Entrance" signs, which I don't recall seeing pretty much anywhere in New Jersey. Thought that was interesting:
(https://i.imgur.com/TJ2oN5d.jpg)
"Freeway"
:spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin:
Woah, yeah never seen that in NJ before. Of course such a rare thing would not quite be used appropriately :-D
Quote from: storm2k on May 02, 2021, 06:49:36 PM
Drove down 206 through Hillsborough to see the latest with the bypass and the widening. Prep work is already well underway for the Valley Rd to Doctors Way project. Decent amount of tree clearing and grading underway already. Bypass is still closed but the work looks pretty much done. The timeline to open it was supposed to be this spring, so hopefully we'll see it open soon.
One interesting thing I saw was at the southern end of the bypass, at the traffic light, the ramp onto the bypass has "Freeway Entrance" signs, which I don't recall seeing pretty much anywhere in New Jersey. Thought that was interesting:
(https://i.imgur.com/TJ2oN5d.jpg)
Very interesting, since it's
NOT A FREEWAY. Not there the last time I drove past, which really wasn't all that long ago. I haven't seen an opening date yet.
Doubly odd because the term "freeway" has no traction in NJ, and entrance signs are for toll roads. The only reference to freeways in NJ signage I remember seeing is "freeway ends" at the southern terminus of NJ 55. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3445694,-74.9969318,3a,75y,160.63h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVhYg25SrWHzxoCHYqsRohw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2021, 10:54:52 PM
Doubly odd because the term "freeway" has no traction in NJ, and entrance signs are for toll roads. The only reference to freeways in NJ signage I remember seeing is "freeway ends" at the southern terminus of NJ 55. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3445694,-74.9969318,3a,75y,160.63h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVhYg25SrWHzxoCHYqsRohw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
There are others...
Route 15
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.056281,-74.6402725,3a,75y,329.48h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sye2x_14s_QXUmn_twXDyHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Route 18
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1812819,-74.0736598,3a,75y,172.11h,78.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCe-q61Q-I4VyB5hvrYKBVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2021, 10:54:52 PM
Doubly odd because the term "freeway" has no traction in NJ, and entrance signs are for toll roads. The only reference to freeways in NJ signage I remember seeing is "freeway ends" at the southern terminus of NJ 55. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3445694,-74.9969318,3a,75y,160.63h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVhYg25SrWHzxoCHYqsRohw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
When I was young, Route 42 was called the Freeway, a shortened form of it's name, the North-South Freeway. Although maybe that is disappearing from usage.
I-78 when it ended in Watchung for many years had a FREEWAY ENDS sign there at Exit 41.
Quote from: DrSmith on May 03, 2021, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2021, 10:54:52 PM
Doubly odd because the term "freeway" has no traction in NJ, and entrance signs are for toll roads. The only reference to freeways in NJ signage I remember seeing is "freeway ends" at the southern terminus of NJ 55. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3445694,-74.9969318,3a,75y,160.63h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVhYg25SrWHzxoCHYqsRohw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
When I was young, Route 42 was called the Freeway, a shortened form of it's name, the North-South Freeway. Although maybe that is disappearing from usage.
The younger crowd doesn't use it as much, but traffic reporter Bob Kelly (Fox29) uses it often in his traffic reports.
Quote from: famartin on May 03, 2021, 08:41:04 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2021, 10:54:52 PM
Doubly odd because the term "freeway" has no traction in NJ, and entrance signs are for toll roads. The only reference to freeways in NJ signage I remember seeing is "freeway ends" at the southern terminus of NJ 55. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3445694,-74.9969318,3a,75y,160.63h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVhYg25SrWHzxoCHYqsRohw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
There are others...
Route 15
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.056281,-74.6402725,3a,75y,329.48h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sye2x_14s_QXUmn_twXDyHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Route 18
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1812819,-74.0736598,3a,75y,172.11h,78.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCe-q61Q-I4VyB5hvrYKBVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's not even the only Freeway Ends sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Nd3HKTcQdSK6N1qN7) on 18!
And, if we're being fair, even if it's not used very much in the common lexicon in NJ, NJDOT does officially call these roads freeways, as evidenced by the prohibition signs (https://goo.gl/maps/YL4kyvuHPRyx2oo68) at on-ramps.
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2021, 07:22:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 03, 2021, 08:41:04 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2021, 10:54:52 PM
Doubly odd because the term "freeway" has no traction in NJ, and entrance signs are for toll roads. The only reference to freeways in NJ signage I remember seeing is "freeway ends" at the southern terminus of NJ 55. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3445694,-74.9969318,3a,75y,160.63h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVhYg25SrWHzxoCHYqsRohw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
There are others...
Route 15
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.056281,-74.6402725,3a,75y,329.48h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sye2x_14s_QXUmn_twXDyHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Route 18
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1812819,-74.0736598,3a,75y,172.11h,78.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCe-q61Q-I4VyB5hvrYKBVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's not even the only Freeway Ends sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Nd3HKTcQdSK6N1qN7) on 18!
And, if we're being fair, even if it's not used very much in the common lexicon in NJ, NJDOT does officially call these roads freeways, as evidenced by the prohibition signs (https://goo.gl/maps/YL4kyvuHPRyx2oo68) at on-ramps.
Yes, very true. Those signs are everywhere. And NJDOT documents are full of the term "freeway".
Recently I pointed out about the mileage sign on US 46 east of NJ 183 skipping over Dover for Denville and some pointed out why use Dover anymore because the fact New Jersey is so built up what once stood out along the roads now have blended into the development around them.
In essence US 46 from Hackettstown to Fort Lee is all developed pretty much where all of US 46 between those points is vastly suburban in character. Only US 46 from Columbia to Hackettstown is rural where towns along the way stand out and get noticed by the drivers. In fact from Hackettstown to NJ 31, is the longest non expressway stretch to not be signalized along the 71 mile route. So I can see now why it really don't matter to even sign cities like the state did, however despite I-80 stealing the long distance it should use some references along its way.
Dover does still stand out as it is noticeable among Wharton and Rockaway around it. Denville is fine to use if NJDOT is back to signing mileages post Route numbered intersections and needs a control point at Route 15. Denville, Rockaway, and Parsippany-Troy Hills blend together like Montville and Fairfield as do Little Falls/ Totawa and Wayne further east, so Denville is fine for that or even Rockaway. However Denville is where both I-80 andNJ 53 meet and probably stand out in the minds of locals.
My point is NJDOT should examine importance of each especially on the much more traveled roads. US 9 does well with the mileage sign in Woodbridge SB at the Mall entrance where the 1997 install at the split from US 1 listed Cape May was not in the interest in the motorists who use that highway. It was more trivial than anything and the project manager of the US 1 and 9 split did right by not replacing it upon completion of the interchange.
Ran across this article (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2021/04/27/route-206-hillsborough-nj-widening-project-takes-huge-step-ahead/7396911002/) in the Courier News from last week that mentioned that the 206 bypass will now open in June. Guessing they're just doing finishing touches. So, that answers that.
Shouldn't the left shoulders be 10-12 feet wide? That's how it is here in North Carolina. If the freeway has 6 lanes or more.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6588846,-74.4377784,3a,29.6y,37.47h,84.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfdQkkpHOxlNmOi_SZZbCEw!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 06, 2021, 03:29:46 PM
Shouldn't the left shoulders be 10-12 feet wide? That's how it is here in North Carolina. If the freeway has 6 lanes or more.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6588846,-74.4377784,3a,29.6y,37.47h,84.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfdQkkpHOxlNmOi_SZZbCEw!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192
I don't know the standard when 295 was built; it's possible a full left shoulder wasn't required at the time. NJDOT does add full left shoulders sometimes when a highway is rebuilt. This area of 295 was reconstructed about 10 years ago but they elected not to add the wider ahoulders.
Of course, if you think that is bad, they also have I-76 which doesn't have a left shoulder...and is up to 6 lanes wide in a single direction!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zKNQkEXvfBcCWMfx8
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 06, 2021, 03:29:46 PM
Shouldn't the left shoulders be 10-12 feet wide? That's how it is here in North Carolina. If the freeway has 6 lanes or more.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6588846,-74.4377784,3a,29.6y,37.47h,84.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfdQkkpHOxlNmOi_SZZbCEw!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6588846,-74.4377784,3a,29.6y,37.47h,84.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfdQkkpHOxlNmOi_SZZbCEw!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
Standard 10, desirable 12, minimum 4. There may be environmental or stormwater reasons why not to add pavement to the road here. The guide rail is set 10' back (it appears) so there was a conscious decision that part of the shoulder needed to remain unpaved.
NJDOT freeways are pretty notorious for not having full left shoulders. I'm not sure I can think of a single NJDOT road which has them. Maybe someone else can.
The NJTA, on the other hand, has them on most of the turnpike. The parkway is lacking in a lot of places, though, but that wasn't always NJTA... the NJHA had lower standards.
All that said... Everytime I see a disable vehicle in the left shoulder, I kinda shake my head, because if its hard getting out of the right shoulder, its damn near impossible getting out of the left sometimes.
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
NJDOT freeways are pretty notorious for not having full left shoulders. I'm not sure I can think of a single NJDOT road which has them. Maybe someone else can.
295 from Exits 13 to 23, then again from Exit 30 to 40.
NJ 42, the 4 lane-per-direction section from 295 to 55.
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 06, 2021, 03:29:46 PM
Shouldn't the left shoulders be 10-12 feet wide? That's how it is here in North Carolina. If the freeway has 6 lanes or more.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6588846,-74.4377784,3a,29.6y,37.47h,84.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfdQkkpHOxlNmOi_SZZbCEw!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192
78 in the Watchung Reservation is a kinda special case. They had to do some specific things for environmental reasons in order to get the road approved through there. The narrower shoulders may be part of that. It's why there's an overpass that's just for wildlife to cross the road, and also why all the signposts, light structures, etc. used to be brown, although that practice has stopped and newer signs and structures are just standard metal now.
Also, for a lot of roads in NJ, if they were originally 4 lanes and widened to 6, a lot of times that was done by eating into median space so they didn't have to acquire too much ROW or eat too much into their ROW buffers.
Quote from: storm2k on May 07, 2021, 12:20:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 06, 2021, 03:29:46 PM
Shouldn't the left shoulders be 10-12 feet wide? That's how it is here in North Carolina. If the freeway has 6 lanes or more.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6588846,-74.4377784,3a,29.6y,37.47h,84.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfdQkkpHOxlNmOi_SZZbCEw!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192
78 in the Watchung Reservation is a kinda special case. They had to do some specific things for environmental reasons in order to get the road approved through there. The narrower shoulders may be part of that. It's why there's an overpass that's just for wildlife to cross the road, and also why all the signposts, light structures, etc. used to be brown, although that practice has stopped and newer signs and structures are just standard metal now.
Also, for a lot of roads in NJ, if they were originally 4 lanes and widened to 6, a lot of times that was done by eating into median space so they didn't have to acquire too much ROW or eat too much into their ROW buffers.
That's unterstandable.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2021, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
NJDOT freeways are pretty notorious for not having full left shoulders. I'm not sure I can think of a single NJDOT road which has them. Maybe someone else can.
295 from Exits 13 to 23, then again from Exit 30 to 40.
NJ 42, the 4 lane-per-direction section from 295 to 55.
I want to say those are all sections which were rebuilt in the not too distant past.
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2021, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
NJDOT freeways are pretty notorious for not having full left shoulders. I'm not sure I can think of a single NJDOT road which has them. Maybe someone else can.
295 from Exits 13 to 23, then again from Exit 30 to 40.
NJ 42, the 4 lane-per-direction section from 295 to 55.
I want to say those are all sections which were rebuilt in the not too distant past.
295 Exit 13-23 in 1992.
42 between 295 and 55 in 1999.
295 Exit 28-40 around 2010.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2021, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
NJDOT freeways are pretty notorious for not having full left shoulders. I'm not sure I can think of a single NJDOT road which has them. Maybe someone else can.
295 from Exits 13 to 23, then again from Exit 30 to 40.
NJ 42, the 4 lane-per-direction section from 295 to 55.
nothing to see here (https://goo.gl/maps/zTVCkPZ8NYa61Szf9)
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
All that said... Everytime I see a disable vehicle in the left shoulder, I kinda shake my head, because if its hard getting out of the right shoulder, its damn near impossible getting out of the left sometimes.
I think the purpose of 10 foot left shoulders is to allow for evasive maneuvers, not really for emergency stopping
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 07, 2021, 07:12:36 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
All that said... Everytime I see a disable vehicle in the left shoulder, I kinda shake my head, because if its hard getting out of the right shoulder, its damn near impossible getting out of the left sometimes.
I think the purpose of 10 foot left shoulders is to allow for evasive maneuvers, not really for emergency stopping
Both. If you blow a tire or have a minor accident, easier to pull over 1 or 2 lanes to the left rather than 3 or 4 lanes to the right.
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:42:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2021, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
NJDOT freeways are pretty notorious for not having full left shoulders. I'm not sure I can think of a single NJDOT road which has them. Maybe someone else can.
295 from Exits 13 to 23, then again from Exit 30 to 40.
NJ 42, the 4 lane-per-direction section from 295 to 55.
nothing to see here (https://goo.gl/maps/zTVCkPZ8NYa61Szf9)
Wasn't that section reconstructed for the HOV addition during the 90s?
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 08:52:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:42:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2021, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
NJDOT freeways are pretty notorious for not having full left shoulders. I'm not sure I can think of a single NJDOT road which has them. Maybe someone else can.
295 from Exits 13 to 23, then again from Exit 30 to 40.
NJ 42, the 4 lane-per-direction section from 295 to 55.
nothing to see here (https://goo.gl/maps/zTVCkPZ8NYa61Szf9)
Wasn't that section reconstructed for the HOV addition during the 90s?
It definitely was west of there. Not sure what the eastern limit was.
Quote from: Alps on May 08, 2021, 12:56:14 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 08:52:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2021, 05:42:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2021, 08:28:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 07, 2021, 07:34:42 AM
NJDOT freeways are pretty notorious for not having full left shoulders. I'm not sure I can think of a single NJDOT road which has them. Maybe someone else can.
295 from Exits 13 to 23, then again from Exit 30 to 40.
NJ 42, the 4 lane-per-direction section from 295 to 55.
nothing to see here (https://goo.gl/maps/zTVCkPZ8NYa61Szf9)
Wasn't that section reconstructed for the HOV addition during the 90s?
It definitely was west of there. Not sure what the eastern limit was.
287 was the eastern limit, so the wide left shoulders there are definitely a byproduct of the HOV build out.
Any reason that the US 46/NJ 3 interchange is being rebuilt? I drove through there on my way to New York two weeks ago and didn't notice anything wrong with it. I think that there should be more lanes to 3 (rather than the middle lane on 46 being either/or), but that's my opinion. I could see why the even split exists (46 goes to GSP NB, 3 goes to GSP SB), so maybe it's worth keeping.
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 08, 2021, 10:13:05 PM
Any reason that the US 46/NJ 3 interchange is being rebuilt? I drove through there on my way to New York two weeks ago and didn't notice anything wrong with it. I think that there should be more lanes to 3 (rather than the middle lane on 46 being either/or), but that's my opinion. I could see why the even split exists (46 goes to GSP NB, 3 goes to GSP SB), so maybe it's worth keeping.
Death weaves, aging bridges, high traffic.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on May 08, 2021, 10:20:48 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 08, 2021, 10:13:05 PM
Any reason that the US 46/NJ 3 interchange is being rebuilt? I drove through there on my way to New York two weeks ago and didn't notice anything wrong with it. I think that there should be more lanes to 3 (rather than the middle lane on 46 being either/or), but that's my opinion. I could see why the even split exists (46 goes to GSP NB, 3 goes to GSP SB), so maybe it's worth keeping.
Death weaves, aging bridges, high traffic.
That bad, huh? I didn't notice any weaving going EB (then again I was driving and in the correct lane to begin with), but I'm sure WB is a different story.
Yes, I went to college next to it.
I promise you this is a project that's been needed a long time. The westbound 3 merge is a mess, along with 46 coming in. Lots of death weaves westbound. It also cleans up traffic getting on and off the Montclair campus.
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 08, 2021, 10:13:05 PM
Any reason that the US 46/NJ 3 interchange is being rebuilt? I drove through there on my way to New York two weeks ago and didn't notice anything wrong with it. I think that there should be more lanes to 3 (rather than the middle lane on 46 being either/or), but that's my opinion. I could see why the even split exists (46 goes to GSP NB, 3 goes to GSP SB), so maybe it's worth keeping.
The fact that the infrastructure is 70+ years old at this point and was designed for much lower traffic volumes is reason enough. You clearly are not from the area, nor did you drive through it in pre-pandemic traffic, which often saw major backups along 46 in this stretch with loads of traffic trying to get to and from a main arterial to the Lincoln Tunnel. Trust me, these improvements are sorely needed.
Was Fairfield Road in Fairfield ever been part of US 46?
I always felt something strange passing through the Clinton Street traffic signal. Of course it's the only traffic signal in Fairfield as well as between the Bloomfield Avenue split and Clifton as well. I always felt thatNJDOT short changed the US 46 expressway by allowing one light to remain.
Then I noticed that Fairfield Road interchanges with US 46 to the east of NJ 159. Fairfield Road parallels US 46 and returns to it near Passaic Avenue. Plus the median is narrower west of Fairfield Roads west terminus and the bridges at both Fairfield Road trumpets as well as Hollywood Avenue look like late 40s or early 50s design unlike WB Bloomfield Ave. over EB US 46 which look pre WWII era design.
So I would guess Fairfield Road was once US 46 or NJ 6 at one time.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2021, 10:43:34 AM
Was Fairfield Road in Fairfield ever been part of US 46?
I always felt something strange passing through the Clinton Street traffic signal. Of course it's the only traffic signal in Fairfield as well as between the Bloomfield Avenue split and Clifton as well. I always felt thatNJDOT short changed the US 46 expressway by allowing one light to remain.
Then I noticed that Fairfield Road interchanges with US 46 to the east of NJ 159. Fairfield Road parallels US 46 and returns to it near Passaic Avenue. Plus the median is narrower west of Fairfield Roads west terminus and the bridges at both Fairfield Road trumpets as well as Hollywood Avenue look like late 40s or early 50s design unlike WB Bloomfield Ave. over EB US 46 which look pre WWII era design.
So I would guess Fairfield Road was once US 46 or NJ 6 at one time.
It was not. It was the main road through before US 46 was designated, but the bypass of Fairfield was built in the 20s and 46 was designated in the 30s. It's unclear whether 6 would have been signed temporarily on Fairfield Rd. or if NJDOT waited until they built it.
Fairfield Road was US 46. The bypass was not built until the 1950s.
Quote from: NE2 on May 09, 2021, 07:45:52 PM
Fairfield Road was US 46. The bypass was not built until the 1950s.
I had always been under the impression that the bypass was built (with at-grades) at the same time as the piece in Wayne, but clearly that was not the case.
Asked this question on my FB page and I'll take answers here too, wherever I can get one. Whence H. LEBER?
https://www.facebook.com/alpsroads.net/posts/4324031877631203
I noticed that there is an inconsistency of County Route 531 between Somerset and Union Counties. Somerset has Watchung Avenue signed as CR 531. Union has Park Avenue Avenue signed as CR 531.
To make things worse NJDOT signs Watchung Avenue as CR 531 as well. Considering that there is no signs on any cross street (Front, Second, NJ 28 etc.) to get you between the two. I believe Somerset Street and Park Avenue is the true alignment, but Somerset County is misinformed about its alignment.
Plus the one way couplet north of US 22 between NB Watchung and SB Somerset and the strange configuration of its interchange with US 22 didn't help matters in this when implemented decades ago. The interchange with US 22 has the the through movement between NB Somerset Street to NB Watchung Avenue and SB from Watchung Ave ( although Somerset Street has a slip ramp into the interchange though, but one way SB) to Somerset making CR 531 to be straight through. Considering Somerset defaults to Park Avenue at Front Street further south which takes the route into Middlesex County further south and the design of the US 22 interchange, having CR 531 signed for Somerset is the better and uninterrupted choice.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 11, 2021, 11:18:43 AM
I noticed that there is an inconsistency of County Route 531 between Somerset and Union Counties. Somerset has Watchung Avenue signed as CR 531. Union has Park Avenue Avenue signed as CR 531.
To make things worse NJDOT signs Watchung Avenue as CR 531 as well. Considering that there is no signs on any cross street (Front, Second, NJ 28 etc.) to get you between the two. I believe Somerset Street and Park Avenue is the true alignment, but Somerset County is misinformed about its alignment.
Plus the one way couplet north of US 22 between NB Watchung and SB Somerset and the strange configuration of its interchange with US 22 didn't help matters in this when implemented decades ago. The interchange with US 22 has the the through movement between NB Somerset Street to NB Watchung Avenue and SB from Watchung Ave ( although Somerset Street has a slip ramp into the interchange though, but one way SB) to Somerset making CR 531 to be straight through. Considering Somerset defaults to Park Avenue at Front Street further south which takes the route into Middlesex County further south and the design of the US 22 interchange, having CR 531 signed for Somerset is the better and uninterrupted choice.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000531__-.pdf
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000531Z_-.pdf
This shows it better: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/enlarged_view_11.pdf
Although NJDOT signs Watchung Ave. in Plainfield as 531. The problem is that its all municipal maintenance in that area, so the signing is non-existent. Also, Somerset County signs Watchung Ave. in North Plainfield as both directions because its county maintained. Its likely Somerset St. and Watchung Ave. were a one-way pair south of US-22 at one point, just the records were never updated to reflect a two-way street conversion and re-routing of 531.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2021, 05:15:20 PM
This shows it better: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/enlarged_view_11.pdf
Although NJDOT signs Watchung Ave. in Plainfield as 531. The problem is that its all municipal maintenance in that area, so the signing is non-existent. Also, Somerset County signs Watchung Ave. in North Plainfield as both directions because its county maintained. Its likely Somerset St. and Watchung Ave. were a one-way pair south of US-22 at one point, just the records were never updated to reflect a two-way street conversion and re-routing of 531.
Doesn't one-way conversion usually happen the other way around? As in, streets or avenues are originally two-way, and are later converted to one-way?
Also, I was under the impression that CR-531 had a maintenance gap in Plainfield.
The thing about bad signage is definitely right in my own experience, though. You can hardly tell where NJ-28 or CR-531 is supposed to be.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 12, 2021, 12:28:03 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2021, 05:15:20 PM
This shows it better: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/enlarged_view_11.pdf
Although NJDOT signs Watchung Ave. in Plainfield as 531. The problem is that its all municipal maintenance in that area, so the signing is non-existent. Also, Somerset County signs Watchung Ave. in North Plainfield as both directions because its county maintained. Its likely Somerset St. and Watchung Ave. were a one-way pair south of US-22 at one point, just the records were never updated to reflect a two-way street conversion and re-routing of 531.
Doesn't one-way conversion usually happen the other way around? As in, streets or avenues are originally two-way, and are later converted to one-way?
Also, I was under the impression that CR-531 had a maintenance gap in Plainfield.
The thing about bad signage is definitely right in my own experience, though. You can hardly tell where NJ-28 or CR-531 is supposed to be.
CR 531 is signed in Plainfield, but not very well. There is at least one reassurance sign in each direction, however, and a directional sign for CR 531 at NJ 28 eastbound.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:County_Route_531_(Union_County,_New_Jersey)
NJ 28 is harder to follow since in addition to being poorly signed, it jumps streets. Some of them have virtually no indication of NJ 28 along them.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roads_in_Plainfield,_New_Jersey (all the 6/20/2018 photos are of 28)
The real problem on CR 531 is in North Plainfield, however, where there is literally no indication of the jump from Park Avenue/Somserset Street to Watchung Avenue, especially southbound. Northbound you can keep on Park Avenue to 22 east and then follow the CR 531 signs which loop around over 22 to Watchung Avenue north of 22.
Quote from: famartin on May 12, 2021, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 12, 2021, 12:28:03 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2021, 05:15:20 PM
This shows it better: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/enlarged_view_11.pdf
Although NJDOT signs Watchung Ave. in Plainfield as 531. The problem is that its all municipal maintenance in that area, so the signing is non-existent. Also, Somerset County signs Watchung Ave. in North Plainfield as both directions because its county maintained. Its likely Somerset St. and Watchung Ave. were a one-way pair south of US-22 at one point, just the records were never updated to reflect a two-way street conversion and re-routing of 531.
Doesn't one-way conversion usually happen the other way around? As in, streets or avenues are originally two-way, and are later converted to one-way?
Also, I was under the impression that CR-531 had a maintenance gap in Plainfield.
The thing about bad signage is definitely right in my own experience, though. You can hardly tell where NJ-28 or CR-531 is supposed to be.
CR 531 is signed in Plainfield, but not very well. There is at least one reassurance sign in each direction, however, and a directional sign for CR 531 at NJ 28 eastbound.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:County_Route_531_(Union_County,_New_Jersey)
NJ 28 is harder to follow since in addition to being poorly signed, it jumps streets. Some of them have virtually no indication of NJ 28 along them.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roads_in_Plainfield,_New_Jersey (all the 6/20/2018 photos are of 28)
The real problem on CR 531 is in North Plainfield, however, where there is literally no indication of the jump from Park Avenue/Somserset Street to Watchung Avenue, especially southbound. Northbound you can keep on Park Avenue to 22 east and then follow the CR 531 signs which loop around over 22 to Watchung Avenue north of 22.
I agree that the situation for NJ-28 is worse. I presume it is also city-maintained within Plainfield? I know I've lost the path of the road more than once traveling through there.
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2021, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 12, 2021, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 12, 2021, 12:28:03 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2021, 05:15:20 PM
This shows it better: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/enlarged_view_11.pdf
Although NJDOT signs Watchung Ave. in Plainfield as 531. The problem is that its all municipal maintenance in that area, so the signing is non-existent. Also, Somerset County signs Watchung Ave. in North Plainfield as both directions because its county maintained. Its likely Somerset St. and Watchung Ave. were a one-way pair south of US-22 at one point, just the records were never updated to reflect a two-way street conversion and re-routing of 531.
Doesn't one-way conversion usually happen the other way around? As in, streets or avenues are originally two-way, and are later converted to one-way?
Also, I was under the impression that CR-531 had a maintenance gap in Plainfield.
The thing about bad signage is definitely right in my own experience, though. You can hardly tell where NJ-28 or CR-531 is supposed to be.
CR 531 is signed in Plainfield, but not very well. There is at least one reassurance sign in each direction, however, and a directional sign for CR 531 at NJ 28 eastbound.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:County_Route_531_(Union_County,_New_Jersey)
NJ 28 is harder to follow since in addition to being poorly signed, it jumps streets. Some of them have virtually no indication of NJ 28 along them.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roads_in_Plainfield,_New_Jersey (all the 6/20/2018 photos are of 28)
The real problem on CR 531 is in North Plainfield, however, where there is literally no indication of the jump from Park Avenue/Somserset Street to Watchung Avenue, especially southbound. Northbound you can keep on Park Avenue to 22 east and then follow the CR 531 signs which loop around over 22 to Watchung Avenue north of 22.
I agree that the situation for NJ-28 is worse. I presume it is also city-maintained within Plainfield? I know I've lost the path of the road more than once traveling through there.
The map RoadFan posted has it as state-maintained (in contrast to CR-531)!
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2021, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 12, 2021, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 12, 2021, 12:28:03 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2021, 05:15:20 PM
This shows it better: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/enlarged_view_11.pdf
Although NJDOT signs Watchung Ave. in Plainfield as 531. The problem is that its all municipal maintenance in that area, so the signing is non-existent. Also, Somerset County signs Watchung Ave. in North Plainfield as both directions because its county maintained. Its likely Somerset St. and Watchung Ave. were a one-way pair south of US-22 at one point, just the records were never updated to reflect a two-way street conversion and re-routing of 531.
Doesn't one-way conversion usually happen the other way around? As in, streets or avenues are originally two-way, and are later converted to one-way?
Also, I was under the impression that CR-531 had a maintenance gap in Plainfield.
The thing about bad signage is definitely right in my own experience, though. You can hardly tell where NJ-28 or CR-531 is supposed to be.
CR 531 is signed in Plainfield, but not very well. There is at least one reassurance sign in each direction, however, and a directional sign for CR 531 at NJ 28 eastbound.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:County_Route_531_(Union_County,_New_Jersey)
NJ 28 is harder to follow since in addition to being poorly signed, it jumps streets. Some of them have virtually no indication of NJ 28 along them.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roads_in_Plainfield,_New_Jersey (all the 6/20/2018 photos are of 28)
The real problem on CR 531 is in North Plainfield, however, where there is literally no indication of the jump from Park Avenue/Somserset Street to Watchung Avenue, especially southbound. Northbound you can keep on Park Avenue to 22 east and then follow the CR 531 signs which loop around over 22 to Watchung Avenue north of 22.
I agree that the situation for NJ-28 is worse. I presume it is also city-maintained within Plainfield? I know I've lost the path of the road more than once traveling through there.
The SLD's list it as NJDOT maintenance, but based on the state of signage etc, I'm reasonably sure NJ 28 is actually under municipal maintenance through Plainfield.
Quote from: famartin on May 12, 2021, 02:34:36 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2021, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 12, 2021, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 12, 2021, 12:28:03 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2021, 05:15:20 PM
This shows it better: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/enlarged_view_11.pdf
Although NJDOT signs Watchung Ave. in Plainfield as 531. The problem is that its all municipal maintenance in that area, so the signing is non-existent. Also, Somerset County signs Watchung Ave. in North Plainfield as both directions because its county maintained. Its likely Somerset St. and Watchung Ave. were a one-way pair south of US-22 at one point, just the records were never updated to reflect a two-way street conversion and re-routing of 531.
Doesn't one-way conversion usually happen the other way around? As in, streets or avenues are originally two-way, and are later converted to one-way?
Also, I was under the impression that CR-531 had a maintenance gap in Plainfield.
The thing about bad signage is definitely right in my own experience, though. You can hardly tell where NJ-28 or CR-531 is supposed to be.
CR 531 is signed in Plainfield, but not very well. There is at least one reassurance sign in each direction, however, and a directional sign for CR 531 at NJ 28 eastbound.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:County_Route_531_(Union_County,_New_Jersey)
NJ 28 is harder to follow since in addition to being poorly signed, it jumps streets. Some of them have virtually no indication of NJ 28 along them.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roads_in_Plainfield,_New_Jersey (all the 6/20/2018 photos are of 28)
The real problem on CR 531 is in North Plainfield, however, where there is literally no indication of the jump from Park Avenue/Somserset Street to Watchung Avenue, especially southbound. Northbound you can keep on Park Avenue to 22 east and then follow the CR 531 signs which loop around over 22 to Watchung Avenue north of 22.
I agree that the situation for NJ-28 is worse. I presume it is also city-maintained within Plainfield? I know I've lost the path of the road more than once traveling through there.
The SLD's list it as NJDOT maintenance, but based on the state of signage etc, I'm reasonably sure NJ 28 is actually under municipal maintenance through Plainfield.
NJ 28 is bad signage for sure. For years EB on Front Street there was a missing shields at Plainfield Avenue, where the route jumps from one side of the CNJ to the other.
When Fourth Street was converted to one way WB the shields that were on SB Plainfield Avenue at Fourth had the arrows removed instead of relocating the shields completely to Fifth Street. I assume it’s city maintenance just like NJ 27 in Elizabeth. Good luck following that one too.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2021, 05:30:28 PM
NJ 28 is bad signage for sure. For years EB on Front Street there was a missing shields at Plainfield Avenue, where the route jumps from one side of the CNJ to the other.
When Fourth Street was converted to one way WB the shields that were on SB Plainfield Avenue at Fourth hand the arrows removed instead of relocating the shields completely to Fifth Street. I assume it's city maintenance just like NJ 27 in Elizabeth. Good luck following that one too.
I did it (hence those 6/20/2018 pics) but only because I had the SLD's with me. :-D
https://goo.gl/maps/YDi3Lrw8ctWVKkh6A
Is this a state install on Watchung Avenue at the NJ Transit Raritan Valley Line for NJ 28?
Or this https://goo.gl/maps/rUBmU9skxdEWS1fYA
NB on Watchung at Fifth Street?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2021, 05:54:19 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/YDi3Lrw8ctWVKkh6A
Is this a state install on Watchung Avenue at the NJ Transit Raritan Valley Line for NJ 28?
Or this https://goo.gl/maps/rUBmU9skxdEWS1fYA
NB on Watchung at Fifth Street?
They look like state installs. I had followed the SLD's so didn't even see them until now, since officially that isn't 531, but I might have to stop back in Plainfield one of these days.
All the signs on Watchung Ave. are state installs. Also Somerset County DPW only maintains Watchung Ave. as 531. Somerset St. is municipal.
Been poking around GSV since Google has a lot of new imagery available. I see that they've captured some of the new signage from the Rt 7/Whitepenn Bridge project, including this APL (https://goo.gl/maps/zT4fRTiGE6UeVckQ7). Interesting that they're omitting CR-508 from the sign even though that's the actual route and you need to follow it to get to 280. Kind of surprising to me since they're signing 506 along with Rt 7, and NJDOT is usually very good at signing the 5xx county routes since they function as a sort of secondary state system.
On the subject of bridge construction, NJDOT is almost done building a temporary Bailey Bridge on the westbound side of US-22 in Union over Chestnut St. The current overpass that carries US-22 over Chestnut St. is from the late 20s and past due for replacement.
While on county roads where is CR 577's southern terminus? Is it at NJ 124 in Springfield? Or is it at CR 509 in Westfield?
NJDOT signs Meisel/ Springfield Avenues as CR 577 from NJ 82 & 124 and US 22, but Union County signs it as CR 509 Spur.
Now I know NJ does make errors like with CR 509 continuing past NJ 28 in Westfield when the route has been truncated for many decades. At NJ 28 and West Broad Street, the guide sign shows CR 509 South continuing along Broad into Scotch Plains as if it were still aligned to South Plainfield where it once ended prior to the Mid 70's.
Then again, the counties seem to make their own rules too as 500 series routes in NJ are supposed to be assigned by NJDOT and not the counties themselves like the 600 series routes are. Plus, didn't NJ phase out SPUR routes from 500 series routes as well?
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2021, 12:45:17 AM
Been poking around GSV since Google has a lot of new imagery available. I see that they've captured some of the new signage from the Rt 7/Whitepenn Bridge project, including this APL (https://goo.gl/maps/zT4fRTiGE6UeVckQ7). Interesting that they're omitting CR-508 from the sign even though that's the actual route and you need to follow it to get to 280. Kind of surprising to me since they're signing 506 along with Rt 7, and NJDOT is usually very good at signing the 5xx county routes since they function as a sort of secondary state system.
What is with the drop off next to the staircase? https://goo.gl/maps/Jh9sQoBbhPorHPJd8
Quote from: roadman65 on May 13, 2021, 11:11:38 PM
While on county roads where is CR 577's southern terminus? Is it at NJ 124 in Springfield? Or is it at CR 509 in Westfield?
NJDOT signs Meisel/ Springfield Avenues as CR 577 from NJ 82 & 124 and US 22, but Union County signs it as CR 509 Spur.
Now I know NJ does make errors like with CR 509 continuing past NJ 28 in Westfield when the route has been truncated for many decades. At NJ 28 and West Broad Street, the guide sign shows CR 509 South continuing along Broad into Scotch Plains as if it were still aligned to South Plainfield where it once ended prior to the Mid 70's.
Then again, the counties seem to make their own rules too as 500 series routes in NJ are supposed to be assigned by NJDOT and not the counties themselves like the 600 series routes are. Plus, didn't NJ phase out SPUR routes from 500 series routes as well?
509 Spur has been replaced by 577 and new signs are consistent.
Quote from: Alps on May 14, 2021, 01:14:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 13, 2021, 11:11:38 PM
While on county roads where is CR 577's southern terminus? Is it at NJ 124 in Springfield? Or is it at CR 509 in Westfield?
NJDOT signs Meisel/ Springfield Avenues as CR 577 from NJ 82 & 124 and US 22, but Union County signs it as CR 509 Spur.
Now I know NJ does make errors like with CR 509 continuing past NJ 28 in Westfield when the route has been truncated for many decades. At NJ 28 and West Broad Street, the guide sign shows CR 509 South continuing along Broad into Scotch Plains as if it were still aligned to South Plainfield where it once ended prior to the Mid 70's.
Then again, the counties seem to make their own rules too as 500 series routes in NJ are supposed to be assigned by NJDOT and not the counties themselves like the 600 series routes are. Plus, didn't NJ phase out SPUR routes from 500 series routes as well?
509 Spur has been replaced by 577 and new signs are consistent.
Should be CR 577 anyway. I mean why not.
TIL that CR 509 has an unsigned section in Edison :wow:
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 14, 2021, 11:42:29 AM
TIL that CR 509 has an unsigned section in Edison :wow:
This is one of those cases where I don't trust the SLDs - they aren't almighty. That is a leftover from the old routing of 509 before it was truncated to NJ 28, and as far as I know it remains truncated to NJ 28. The county should answer to this, but it ought to have a 6xx number.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 13, 2021, 11:11:38 PM
While on county roads where is CR 577's southern terminus? Is it at NJ 124 in Springfield? Or is it at CR 509 in Westfield?
NJDOT signs Meisel/ Springfield Avenues as CR 577 from NJ 82 & 124 and US 22, but Union County signs it as CR 509 Spur.
Now I know NJ does make errors like with CR 509 continuing past NJ 28 in Westfield when the route has been truncated for many decades. At NJ 28 and West Broad Street, the guide sign shows CR 509 South continuing along Broad into Scotch Plains as if it were still aligned to South Plainfield where it once ended prior to the Mid 70's.
Then again, the counties seem to make their own rules too as 500 series routes in NJ are supposed to be assigned by NJDOT and not the counties themselves like the 600 series routes are. Plus, didn't NJ phase out SPUR routes from 500 series routes as well?
Spur routes were (mostly) retired in the 1990s, I believe. It's led to some rare cases of 6xx routes being signed at exits along main NJ highways, which NJDOT usually does not do (they only sign the 5xx routes since they're akin to a state secondary system). For example, CR651 is signed at Exit 36 (https://goo.gl/maps/CBezYgvaZbmYTU1v9) on 78, owing to its days as 527 Spur. It's wonderfully inconsistent, though. Exit 26 is signed as 523 Spur (https://goo.gl/maps/nphRuozCs98qqnat5) even though it's been CR-655 for years now. Also, when River Road in Piscataway was downgraded from 514 Spur to 622 a while back, NJDOT removed all county route references from its signage of Exit 9 on 287. And, of course, I believe there are some Spur routes still kicking around, especially in Monnmouth County.
Not to mention in Gloucester County on I-295 where 600 series routes are signed from Woodbury to Repaupo.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2021, 11:22:51 PM
Not to mention in Gloucester County on I-295 where 600 series routes are signed from Woodbury to Repaupo.
600 routes are signed very sporadically by NJDOT in most of the state, but mostly not. However, the reconstructed section of I-295 in Gloucester is a very odd and prominent example of where they were signed heavily and consistently.
Quote from: famartin on May 14, 2021, 11:36:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2021, 11:22:51 PM
Not to mention in Gloucester County on I-295 where 600 series routes are signed from Woodbury to Repaupo.
600 routes are signed very sporadically by NJDOT in most of the state, but mostly not. However, the reconstructed section of I-295 in Gloucester is a very odd and prominent example of where they were signed heavily and consistently.
i thought this was an artifact of carrying (and originally solely being) US 130 over this stretch.
Actually the original US 130 signage had no routes listed, but street names underscored like jughandle signage has. The street name with one or two control cities were featured only on US 130 signage there.
https://goo.gl/maps/UAYHFyX3p4UTfCDx7
Also I see in Westfield Union County does indeed acknowledge CR 577 now. Plus at CR 639 its also now signed.
The 509 Spur signs were an error, but they did have neat shields.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2Fcr-509_spur.jpg&hash=2cfd2219429981310d176c497591f25d1d49bf9e)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 15, 2021, 12:59:18 PM
The 509 Spur signs were an error, but they did have neat shields.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2Fcr-509_spur.jpg&hash=2cfd2219429981310d176c497591f25d1d49bf9e)
Is this really the best quality signage available
Go smoke some grass.
Pics I would love to see:
* I-78's temporary eastern end at Exit 41 or western end at Exit 48 (?)
* I-287's temporary northern end at Exit 44
* I-78 Exit 36 signed as CR 527 Spur instead of CR 651
* I-287 Exit 9 signed as CR 514 Spur
* Signage of I-287 from Exits 52-59 as NJ-208
* The old configuration of the US-22/202/206 interchange in Bridgewater/Somerville
* NJ-177 signage (did that even exist?)
I know someone who has video footage of I-78 with the older signs. NJ-208 ended at US-202, so you won't see any other signs.
I worked in Bedminster for my first job and commuted I-78 from Watchung to I-287. No photos then, but the same signs then are just copied now. Originally the CR 531 exit was signed " Hilcrest Road" up until 1983 when NJDOT gave exit numbers to I-78 west of Watchung. Then SPUR 527 was signed " King George Rd" and used Bound Brook as control over Warren ( for a while Warrenville was used after SPUR 527 was added with exit numbers) for whatever logic they used then.
County Route 525 was signed " Martinsville Road" and both exits for CR 523 and SPUR 523 used control city only and no route shields.
Also I-78 East from I-287 was not signed. Local Traffic- No Trucks was signed. Also TO NJ 24 WEST was signed for ramps onto I-78 West in Newark, Irvington, and Union with the west end a default with sign bridges up but covered panels for the I-78 through lanes up a grass grade to under Shunpike Road overpass. The express lanes were grass too west of NJ 124 as local lanes only operated until people complained about them being closed. Though west of NJ 24 crossover remained closed until 1986 when the final segment in Union County opened.
I see on GSV that some of the traffic lights on NJ 28 in Roselle Park are being replaced. Locust Street and Chestnut are going for monotube mast arms and adding the typical red hand and white pedestrian instead of using side mount signals for the crosswalks. In addition it appears that even with the left turn signals, they are adding a left side through signal head as well.
Does anyone know if the signals are operational yet?
Also I see Sullivan Chevrolet is out of business, just an empty lot. IMO Union County should connect the two discontinuous segments of Chestnut Street now the land is open. Then again the same county spends money to keep the Gordon Street Bridge open, when they should just tear it down and bring Gordon Street to grade level. The CNJ is no longer operational and Conrail abandoned freight use many ages ago. I am surprised that the old CNJ ROW is not put to use as a jogging or bike trail.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2021, 11:21:09 PM
I see on GSV that some of the traffic lights on NJ 28 in Roselle Park are being replaced. Locust Street and Chestnut are going for monotube mast arms and adding the typical red hand and white pedestrian instead of using side mount signals for the crosswalks. In addition it appears that even with the left turn signals, they are adding a left side through signal head as well.
Does anyone know if the signals are operational yet?
Also I see Sullivan Chevrolet is out of business, just an empty lot. IMO Union County should connect the two discontinuous segments of Chestnut Street now the land is open. Then again the same county spends money to keep the Gordon Street Bridge open, when they should just tear it down and bring Gordon Street to grade level. The CNJ is no longer operational and Conrail abandoned freight use many ages ago. I am surprised that the old CNJ ROW is not put to use as a jogging or bike trail.
When a company goes out of business, the land just doesn't become available. It's still opened by the company or bank who owns the property. They are probably going to be reluctant to sell to the government as it may reduce the ability to sell the rest of the property.
Quote from: DrSmith on May 03, 2021, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2021, 10:54:52 PM
Doubly odd because the term "freeway" has no traction in NJ, and entrance signs are for toll roads. The only reference to freeways in NJ signage I remember seeing is "freeway ends" at the southern terminus of NJ 55. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3445694,-74.9969318,3a,75y,160.63h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVhYg25SrWHzxoCHYqsRohw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
When I was young, Route 42 was called the Freeway, a shortened form of it's name, the North-South Freeway. Although maybe that is disappearing from usage.
Found an overhead that used it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.836176,-75.0933506,3a,75y,59.17h,88.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0RHNCEJMwkdpTAfwGveNRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2021, 11:21:09 PM
I see on GSV that some of the traffic lights on NJ 28 in Roselle Park are being replaced. Locust Street and Chestnut are going for monotube mast arms and adding the typical red hand and white pedestrian instead of using side mount signals for the crosswalks. In addition it appears that even with the left turn signals, they are adding a left side through signal head as well.
Does anyone know if the signals are operational yet?
Also I see Sullivan Chevrolet is out of business, just an empty lot. IMO Union County should connect the two discontinuous segments of Chestnut Street now the land is open. Then again the same county spends money to keep the Gordon Street Bridge open, when they should just tear it down and bring Gordon Street to grade level. The CNJ is no longer operational and Conrail abandoned freight use many ages ago. I am surprised that the old CNJ ROW is not put to use as a jogging or bike trail.
Isn't there still a CVS in the way?
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2021, 01:16:15 AM
Quote from: DrSmith on May 03, 2021, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2021, 10:54:52 PM
Doubly odd because the term "freeway" has no traction in NJ, and entrance signs are for toll roads. The only reference to freeways in NJ signage I remember seeing is "freeway ends" at the southern terminus of NJ 55. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3445694,-74.9969318,3a,75y,160.63h,93.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVhYg25SrWHzxoCHYqsRohw!2e0!5s20180801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
When I was young, Route 42 was called the Freeway, a shortened form of it's name, the North-South Freeway. Although maybe that is disappearing from usage.
Found an overhead that used it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.836176,-75.0933506,3a,75y,59.17h,88.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0RHNCEJMwkdpTAfwGveNRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Which in itself probably is a sign that shouldn't be used, since at this very intersection there's no access to Rt. 42 (it's a one-way off-ramp), and to a person unfamiliar with the nickname, could be confused as allowing access to 42 both North & South!
The project that revised this particular intersection was not one of NJDOT's proudest moments. Examples include: No drainage at a low point in the roadway, creating flooding, an inaccessible push button for a Walk/Don't Walk sign 4 feet off the roadway behind a guardrail, and a major left turn movement that got a revised left turn lane that fit 4 vehicles max (DOT is going back to fix this issue, but won't begin construction for several years). Rt. 41 was also widened slightly, but a year later had to be re-widened to fit in an additional lane, which included having to replace utility poles twice. At the light you posted here, this would've been better off with 2 lanes exiting Rt. 42 at the traffic light. There's often a long single line of traffic that extends back to the sharp curve on the exit ramp.
Edit...to add: This intersection was created as part of the project, yet the sign blade used was just 42 North (and again, not particularly useful as this is just an off-ramp as well. https://goo.gl/maps/nRzThUfZfKruSeK67
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2021, 11:21:09 PM
I see on GSV that some of the traffic lights on NJ 28 in Roselle Park are being replaced. Locust Street and Chestnut are going for monotube mast arms and adding the typical red hand and white pedestrian instead of using side mount signals for the crosswalks. In addition it appears that even with the left turn signals, they are adding a left side through signal head as well.
Lights are operational and the empty lot has apartments being constructed.
https://goo.gl/maps/f1Xy2HaHrqnid92U9
Too bad they couldn't do something about this intersection. As I always remembered EB Route 28 had to stop when both the Protected Left and Faitoute Avenue turned green simultaneously. Because left turns are prohibited on Faitoute to Route 28 East ( due to turning cars on EB art. 28 to NB Faitoute) there is no cross traffic to deal with there.
The WB image of that intersection still shows EB through movement as a stop. I know when the light was first added before I was born, signal call buttons were not in NJDOT vocabulary and detection loops were not invented yet, so it was made as what it was for the time. However new mast arms were added and upgrades to the signal heads to 12-12-12 were introduced, they could have reprogrammed the time mechanism and added pedestrian call features at that moment.
The light setup at Gordon/Faitoute makes sense when you drive through it.
It makes sense going from Gordon to Faitoute or Faitoute to Gordon. However from Gordon to EB NJ 28 it requires a stop for nothing. I am sure since Romerovski closed, no one crosses the street there anymore. So let it be green all the time unless someone calls for it.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2021, 11:53:14 PM
It makes sense going from Gordon to Faitoute or Faitoute to Gordon. However from Gordon to EB NJ 28 it requires a stop for nothing. I am sure since Romerovski closed, no one crosses the street there anymore. So let it be green all the time unless someone calls for it.
Yeah, given that traffic from Faitoute can't turn left onto 28, they could have installed a small barrier in from the back end of the intersection to make a completely channelized lane for the left turn traffic from 28 to Faitoute, install a proper pedestrian crossing setup (with actual pedestrian signals and actuator buttons) and just have that light turn red if someone presses the button to cross. That whole install is old, I want to say the last time it was touched was the early 1990s (NJDOT hasn't done the 2 8" lights with the 12" arrow light assemblies like that in many years) even though they've put traffic detection gear in there to help with the light. It would be a better setup.
However better than NYC with some traffic lights at one way streets inward to the right that have you wait until the green light due to NYS Law allowing NYC to have NTOR due to it's population exceeding the one million mark.
That is a dumb excuse especially with pollution that is created when a stop light turns red and we should be cutting back on the emissions and CO2 quality.
However I have no control over this and don't live up there no more.
https://goo.gl/maps/a9ZsSmKnaVHiH2gTA
Looks like the NJ 3 EB bridge over the Hackensack River was once lower in height(presumably a drawbridge previously) as the top part of the bridge piers look like they were added extensions as per one solid concrete slab over three piers and concrete age shows the difference between the original pier cap and the extension.
It was announced this morning that the Hillsborough Bypass will open Saturday. (https://patch.com/new-jersey/hillsborough/route-206-bypass-open-saturday-after-almost-50-years) (For US 206)
Quote from: roadman65 on June 02, 2021, 12:13:40 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/a9ZsSmKnaVHiH2gTA
Looks like the NJ 3 EB bridge over the Hackensack River was once lower in height(presumably a drawbridge previously) as the top part of the bridge piers look like they were added extensions as per one solid concrete slab over three piers and concrete age shows the difference between the original pier cap and the extension.
Yep, if you look at this aerial from 1954 (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/40.79824545238346/-74.06793367408608/1954/18), you can actually make out where the gap in the roadway is where the two halves of the bascule would go up when traffic needed to sail underneath. By the next aerial in 1966, it was replaced by the structure that exists now and the second roadway for the WB traffic was in place.
Quote from: Alps on May 02, 2021, 10:07:29 PM
Very interesting, since it's NOT A FREEWAY. Not there the last time I drove past, which really wasn't all that long ago. I haven't seen an opening date yet.
Here, have a meme.
(https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/13720877/99444359-1a156480-28ea-11eb-96d1-ebf56899051c.jpg)
Field update: NJ 7 bridge is complete and signs are up.
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2021, 09:20:20 AM
Field update: NJ 7 bridge is complete and signs are up.
I guess that brings up the question, "How do I fit this in with my planned US 206 clinching trip?"
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 05, 2021, 10:05:24 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2021, 09:20:20 AM
Field update: NJ 7 bridge is complete and signs are up.
I guess that brings up the question, "How do I fit this in with my planned US 206 clinching trip?"
About time. Now that drop off ramp can be built once the old bridge is removed.
Quote from: https://nj1015.com/brand-new-highway-route-206-bypass-in-hillsborough-nj-finally-open/
provide much needed relief to the daily crush of commuter traffic on what will be now known as "Business Route" or "Old" Route 206
Surely they don't mean that in the AASHTO or NJDOT sense...
https://nj1015.com/brand-new-highway-route-206-bypass-in-hillsborough-nj-finally-open/?fbclid=IwAR2cMoX4i-0w7XePitjFie3w_orfrEeAJDefTZkve22cXv8i_3kVXhuHxRg
Quote from: yakra on June 05, 2021, 12:37:12 PM
Quote from: https://nj1015.com/brand-new-highway-route-206-bypass-in-hillsborough-nj-finally-open/
provide much needed relief to the daily crush of commuter traffic on what will be now known as "Business Route" or "Old" Route 206
Surely they don't mean that in the AASHTO or NJDOT sense...
I can imagine them "naming" it "Old Route 206" on street signs (written out, just like that). Of course, since 206 is supposed to be part of a "Central business district" for Hillsborough... why not name it "Main Street"? Or something similar? Just my thoughts, pay them no mind.
Quote from: storm2k on June 03, 2021, 02:23:06 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 02, 2021, 12:13:40 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/a9ZsSmKnaVHiH2gTA
Looks like the NJ 3 EB bridge over the Hackensack River was once lower in height(presumably a drawbridge previously) as the top part of the bridge piers look like they were added extensions as per one solid concrete slab over three piers and concrete age shows the difference between the original pier cap and the extension.
Yep, if you look at this aerial from 1954 (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/40.79824545238346/-74.06793367408608/1954/18), you can actually make out where the gap in the roadway is where the two halves of the bascule would go up when traffic needed to sail underneath. By the next aerial in 1966, it was replaced by the structure that exists now and the second roadway for the WB traffic was in place.
I do like the original NJ 3 and NJ 17 interchange then better than what has been since the early 70s. You crossed Route 3 on Route 17 and no convoluted loop back then that you have now. I know the current interchange of that was supposed to be for a new alignment of Route 17 to connect to I-280 in Kearny that NJDOT scrapped, however the old interchange had a seam less connection from Rutherford Ave to Meadow Road across Route 3 which saved a minute of travel.
Here's the field report from the new 206 bypass:
- The old road is still signed as mainline 206 and the new road as 206 bypass
- The milepost 0s were removed from the Hillsborough Road intersection but the 0.5 and 1 mile posts for Business 206 [sic] still exist
- Speed limit between 206 south and Hillsborough Road is 45, the rest of it, including the existing portion are 50
- The traffic lights at each end don't detect bicycles, boo to NJDOT who's usually good with their sensors detecting me
- The "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signs spotted by storm2k only exist at that spot, probably to help guide people to the right spot at the southern 206 left turning/Mountain View Road traffic to the right spot
Some photos of it (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=9&user=Mr.+Matt%C3%A9&ilshowall=1) including a weird sign directing people to CR 514, but explicitly mentioning it's a county route. :-/
Also seen on my trip: the US 27 Farmers Market on NJ Route 27 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26376.msg2486551#msg2486551) has been decommissioned and replaced with no shield: link (https://www.google.com/maps/place/A%26C+Farmers+Market/@40.4212135,-74.5768489,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipP2VKyY3djiMrCCKP23dbAYgKHksZJCAig6-7b-!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP2VKyY3djiMrCCKP23dbAYgKHksZJCAig6-7b-%3Dw203-h114-k-no!7i3024!8i1702!4m7!3m6!1s0x89c3c29604b74d55:0xdd12cded971eb588!8m2!3d40.4211298!4d-74.5765724!14m1!1BCgIgAQ)
^Do you have any pictures of US 206 shields along the old road or are they just on the streetblades?
No photos specifically of any US 206 shields along the old road itself (wasn't paying too much attention to the old road). The photo below does have a south 206 on the old road in the far background (adjacent to the business directional sign), the southern end before the fork has shields for 206 and Bypass 206. I also saw what was probably the back of [NORTH] [US 206] [↗] at the southbound bypass's southern end pointing towards the direct ramp. The township-posted street signs still call it only "Route 206" and the state traffic signals still have US 206 blades posted, including a new blade at the Mountain View Road intersection. The Bypass's signal blades (at least at Hillsborough Road and the northern end) are new (no black background, lowercase lettering) and not temporary looking like the old ones at Hillsborough Road and Service Road.
(https://i.imgur.com/kAO8ZPO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vrow18Q.jpg)
^Thank you. This satisifies my question. I was also thinking that there may be no US 206 shield pointing to the route through town resulting in a future NJ 15 situation (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8864157,-74.5587665,3a,75y,97.64h,63.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOwpgBirnVNI-tZWKc3WbJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (which may end up being the case anyway).
The SLDs called the half finished road US-206 BYPASS, so thats what it'll likely be when they figure out the signs.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 07, 2021, 10:42:34 PM
The SLDs called the half finished road US-206 BYPASS, so thats what it'll likely be when they figure out the signs.
Until they turn old 206 back to Hillsborough and Bypass becomes regular.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
^Do you have any pictures of US 206 shields along the old road or are they just on the streetblades?
I drove down there last Friday, just before it opened, and at the jughandle to move you from the mainline onto the "old" (still "current") 206, there were very new shields that were clearly put up by the contractor that showed that 206's alignment continued on its original alignment. Still were 206 shields and NJDOT EMMs along that stretch as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll have an NJ-24 situation on our hands once NJDOT moves the actual 206 designation to the bypass and 206 signage along the original stretch will just be left there until they fall down or fade out of existence.
Also, I gotta say, most of this contractor signage is ugly. Doesn't look like NJDOT stuff at all. They put up a sign for "Hillsborough Business District" at the jughandle, and it's not proportioned well, uses all caps, and everything looks scrunched together. Shame too, because I've been finding that NJDOT's signage of late has been pretty damn good for most of the replacements I've been seeing slowly creep across many state roads.
Few notes further north. The Brown Ave to Valley Road project continues apace with plenty of tree clearing and grading, and the beginnings of some utility work. With the bypass now open (even if it doesn't go as far as it was supposed to and goes down to two lanes sooner than it should) and work continuing on the missing links of expansion, we are finally on our way to four lanes from the Somerville Circle to almost Belle Meade, and that's amazing.
Quote from: Alps on June 07, 2021, 11:58:32 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 07, 2021, 10:42:34 PM
The SLDs called the half finished road US-206 BYPASS, so thats what it'll likely be when they figure out the signs.
Until they turn old 206 back to Hillsborough and Bypass becomes regular.
Quote from: storm2k on June 08, 2021, 02:35:01 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
^Do you have any pictures of US 206 shields along the old road or are they just on the streetblades?
I drove down there last Friday, just before it opened, and at the jughandle to move you from the mainline onto the "old" (still "current") 206, there were very new shields that were clearly put up by the contractor that showed that 206's alignment continued on its original alignment. Still were 206 shields and NJDOT EMMs along that stretch as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll have an NJ-24 situation on our hands once NJDOT moves the actual 206 designation to the bypass and 206 signage along the original stretch will just be left there until they fall down or fade out of existence.
Also, I gotta say, most of this contractor signage is ugly. Doesn't look like NJDOT stuff at all. They put up a sign for "Hillsborough Business District" at the jughandle, and it's not proportioned well, uses all caps, and everything looks scrunched together. Shame too, because I've been finding that NJDOT's signage of late has been pretty damn good for most of the replacements I've been seeing slowly creep across many state roads.
Few notes further north. The Brown Ave to Valley Road project continues apace with plenty of tree clearing and grading, and the beginnings of some utility work. With the bypass now open (even if it doesn't go as far as it was supposed to and goes down to two lanes sooner than it should) and work continuing on the missing links of expansion, we are finally on our way to four lanes from the Somerville Circle to almost Belle Meade, and that's amazing.
Presuming that Alps is correct, that is why I am concerned about a future NJ 15 situation.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 08, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 07, 2021, 11:58:32 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 07, 2021, 10:42:34 PM
The SLDs called the half finished road US-206 BYPASS, so thats what it'll likely be when they figure out the signs.
Until they turn old 206 back to Hillsborough and Bypass becomes regular.
Quote from: storm2k on June 08, 2021, 02:35:01 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
^Do you have any pictures of US 206 shields along the old road or are they just on the streetblades?
I drove down there last Friday, just before it opened, and at the jughandle to move you from the mainline onto the "old" (still "current") 206, there were very new shields that were clearly put up by the contractor that showed that 206's alignment continued on its original alignment. Still were 206 shields and NJDOT EMMs along that stretch as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll have an NJ-24 situation on our hands once NJDOT moves the actual 206 designation to the bypass and 206 signage along the original stretch will just be left there until they fall down or fade out of existence.
Also, I gotta say, most of this contractor signage is ugly. Doesn't look like NJDOT stuff at all. They put up a sign for "Hillsborough Business District" at the jughandle, and it's not proportioned well, uses all caps, and everything looks scrunched together. Shame too, because I've been finding that NJDOT's signage of late has been pretty damn good for most of the replacements I've been seeing slowly creep across many state roads.
Few notes further north. The Brown Ave to Valley Road project continues apace with plenty of tree clearing and grading, and the beginnings of some utility work. With the bypass now open (even if it doesn't go as far as it was supposed to and goes down to two lanes sooner than it should) and work continuing on the missing links of expansion, we are finally on our way to four lanes from the Somerville Circle to almost Belle Meade, and that's amazing.
Presuming that Alps is correct, that is why I am concerned about a future NJ 15 situation.
I'm more expecting a NJ-24 situation. The township (which gets saddled with the road once the state divests itself from it) isn't going to want to spend the money to remove shields and other signs. Since most people know this stretch of road as "206", it will just stay that way until the signs fall down or fade out and that's that. Not that I would expect that Somerset County would be any more interested in doing anything about it if the road came into their jurisdiction either.
Quote from: storm2k on June 08, 2021, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 08, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 07, 2021, 11:58:32 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 07, 2021, 10:42:34 PM
The SLDs called the half finished road US-206 BYPASS, so thats what it'll likely be when they figure out the signs.
Until they turn old 206 back to Hillsborough and Bypass becomes regular.
Quote from: storm2k on June 08, 2021, 02:35:01 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
^Do you have any pictures of US 206 shields along the old road or are they just on the streetblades?
I drove down there last Friday, just before it opened, and at the jughandle to move you from the mainline onto the "old" (still "current") 206, there were very new shields that were clearly put up by the contractor that showed that 206's alignment continued on its original alignment. Still were 206 shields and NJDOT EMMs along that stretch as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll have an NJ-24 situation on our hands once NJDOT moves the actual 206 designation to the bypass and 206 signage along the original stretch will just be left there until they fall down or fade out of existence.
Also, I gotta say, most of this contractor signage is ugly. Doesn't look like NJDOT stuff at all. They put up a sign for "Hillsborough Business District" at the jughandle, and it's not proportioned well, uses all caps, and everything looks scrunched together. Shame too, because I've been finding that NJDOT's signage of late has been pretty damn good for most of the replacements I've been seeing slowly creep across many state roads.
Few notes further north. The Brown Ave to Valley Road project continues apace with plenty of tree clearing and grading, and the beginnings of some utility work. With the bypass now open (even if it doesn't go as far as it was supposed to and goes down to two lanes sooner than it should) and work continuing on the missing links of expansion, we are finally on our way to four lanes from the Somerville Circle to almost Belle Meade, and that's amazing.
Presuming that Alps is correct, that is why I am concerned about a future NJ 15 situation.
I'm more expecting a NJ-24 situation. The township (which gets saddled with the road once the state divests itself from it) isn't going to want to spend the money to remove shields and other signs. Since most people know this stretch of road as "206", it will just stay that way until the signs fall down or fade out and that's that. Not that I would expect that Somerset County would be any more interested in doing anything about it if the road came into their jurisdiction either.
I'm not so sure. First, Hillsborough isn't exactly poor, and this project is intended so they can develop a "Main Street" business district. So... why not just name it exactly that?
Bridgewater is hardly what I'd call a poor town and their local road maintenance is notoriously terrible. So terrible that they recently put out stuff saying basically "oh hey, we hired an actual engineer to like, help us plot out how bad our local roads are and which ones we need to really focus on repaving." And I'm not just talking like tertiary residential streets necessarily either. It's up to towns to want to invest. As far as Hillsborough goes, they may want to invest in Main Street signs, who knows. But they could decide it's worth spending money on that and not on taking down 206 shields. Who knows.
Quote from: storm2k on June 08, 2021, 02:35:01 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
^Do you have any pictures of US 206 shields along the old road or are they just on the streetblades?
I drove down there last Friday, just before it opened, and at the jughandle to move you from the mainline onto the "old" (still "current") 206, there were very new shields that were clearly put up by the contractor that showed that 206's alignment continued on its original alignment. Still were 206 shields and NJDOT EMMs along that stretch as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll have an NJ-24 situation on our hands once NJDOT moves the actual 206 designation to the bypass and 206 signage along the original stretch will just be left there until they fall down or fade out of existence.
Also, I gotta say, most of this contractor signage is ugly. Doesn't look like NJDOT stuff at all. They put up a sign for "Hillsborough Business District" at the jughandle, and it's not proportioned well, uses all caps, and everything looks scrunched together. Shame too, because I've been finding that NJDOT's signage of late has been pretty damn good for most of the replacements I've been seeing slowly creep across many state roads.
Few notes further north. The Brown Ave to Valley Road project continues apace with plenty of tree clearing and grading, and the beginnings of some utility work. With the bypass now open (even if it doesn't go as far as it was supposed to and goes down to two lanes sooner than it should) and work continuing on the missing links of expansion, we are finally on our way to four lanes from the Somerville Circle to almost Belle Meade, and that's amazing.
The railroad underpass is the key to a continuous 4 lanes. All eyes there. And desperately need one more project from south end of bypass to Great Road.
Quote from: Alps on June 09, 2021, 12:03:19 AM
Quote from: storm2k on June 08, 2021, 02:35:01 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
^Do you have any pictures of US 206 shields along the old road or are they just on the streetblades?
I drove down there last Friday, just before it opened, and at the jughandle to move you from the mainline onto the "old" (still "current") 206, there were very new shields that were clearly put up by the contractor that showed that 206's alignment continued on its original alignment. Still were 206 shields and NJDOT EMMs along that stretch as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll have an NJ-24 situation on our hands once NJDOT moves the actual 206 designation to the bypass and 206 signage along the original stretch will just be left there until they fall down or fade out of existence.
Also, I gotta say, most of this contractor signage is ugly. Doesn't look like NJDOT stuff at all. They put up a sign for "Hillsborough Business District" at the jughandle, and it's not proportioned well, uses all caps, and everything looks scrunched together. Shame too, because I've been finding that NJDOT's signage of late has been pretty damn good for most of the replacements I've been seeing slowly creep across many state roads.
Few notes further north. The Brown Ave to Valley Road project continues apace with plenty of tree clearing and grading, and the beginnings of some utility work. With the bypass now open (even if it doesn't go as far as it was supposed to and goes down to two lanes sooner than it should) and work continuing on the missing links of expansion, we are finally on our way to four lanes from the Somerville Circle to almost Belle Meade, and that's amazing.
The railroad underpass is the key to a continuous 4 lanes. All eyes there. And desperately need one more project from south end of bypass to Great Road.
Well, the STIP for that project claims they're replacing that overpass. Hopefully that holds true and is 4 lanes so we don't have a bottleneck there.
Quote from: storm2k on June 08, 2021, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 08, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 07, 2021, 11:58:32 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 07, 2021, 10:42:34 PM
The SLDs called the half finished road US-206 BYPASS, so thats what it'll likely be when they figure out the signs.
Until they turn old 206 back to Hillsborough and Bypass becomes regular.
Quote from: storm2k on June 08, 2021, 02:35:01 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 07, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
^Do you have any pictures of US 206 shields along the old road or are they just on the streetblades?
I drove down there last Friday, just before it opened, and at the jughandle to move you from the mainline onto the "old" (still "current") 206, there were very new shields that were clearly put up by the contractor that showed that 206's alignment continued on its original alignment. Still were 206 shields and NJDOT EMMs along that stretch as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll have an NJ-24 situation on our hands once NJDOT moves the actual 206 designation to the bypass and 206 signage along the original stretch will just be left there until they fall down or fade out of existence.
Also, I gotta say, most of this contractor signage is ugly. Doesn't look like NJDOT stuff at all. They put up a sign for "Hillsborough Business District" at the jughandle, and it's not proportioned well, uses all caps, and everything looks scrunched together. Shame too, because I've been finding that NJDOT's signage of late has been pretty damn good for most of the replacements I've been seeing slowly creep across many state roads.
Few notes further north. The Brown Ave to Valley Road project continues apace with plenty of tree clearing and grading, and the beginnings of some utility work. With the bypass now open (even if it doesn't go as far as it was supposed to and goes down to two lanes sooner than it should) and work continuing on the missing links of expansion, we are finally on our way to four lanes from the Somerville Circle to almost Belle Meade, and that's amazing.
Presuming that Alps is correct, that is why I am concerned about a future NJ 15 situation.
I'm more expecting a NJ-24 situation. The township (which gets saddled with the road once the state divests itself from it) isn't going to want to spend the money to remove shields and other signs. Since most people know this stretch of road as "206", it will just stay that way until the signs fall down or fade out and that's that. Not that I would expect that Somerset County would be any more interested in doing anything about it if the road came into their jurisdiction either.
INB4 they pull a Mullica Hill and start signing County Route 206 :bigass:
The finished Bypass is finally visible on Google Maps.
Wonder how long it will take them to get new GSV imagery for that area. Last update was in late 2019. Hope it isn't the case where they sent the car thru there in late 2020 and we don't get updated GSV until early 2022 or something.
Quote from: storm2k on June 12, 2021, 01:46:59 AM
Wonder how long it will take them to get new GSV imagery for that area. Last update was in late 2019. Hope it isn't the case where they sent the car thru there in late 2020 and we don't get updated GSV until early 2022 or something.
I actually prefer 2019 imagery to 2020 imagery. Because of the pandemic, and also because of the fact that 2019 imagery generally showcases the brighter seasons.
Took a ride on the completed 206 bypass today:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245043901_4f3f1dd82c_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51244332742_b7766d388e_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245241603_8354c2dc08_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245809354_482606c1e8_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51244332712_eb1d5a6d4e_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245043871_9eebd77844_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245043856_58e4cb712c_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245809329_8d7017f2a0_c.jpg)
So, yeah. Based on how they signed this, it's almost like they plan on leaving 206 signed along its current route and signing the bypass just as 206 Bypass even though the plans as I've known them have been to reroute 206 on the bypass and turn the old 206 over to the township. Not thrilled by that. Would have rather they just setup the signage to point 206 itself onto the bypass and be done with it, but it's at both ends. Plus, the EMM for 206 Business is interesting.
I have a feeling the EMM is an error. Someone confused "206B" for business instead of bypass.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 13, 2021, 08:00:21 PM
I have a feeling the EMM is an error. Someone confused "206B" for business instead of bypass.
Probably. I want to see if NJDOT eventually puts up EMMs for 206 itself.
Quote from: storm2k on June 13, 2021, 09:51:17 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 13, 2021, 08:00:21 PM
I have a feeling the EMM is an error. Someone confused "206B" for business instead of bypass.
Probably. I want to see if NJDOT eventually puts up EMMs for 206 itself.
What do you mean exactly? I'm confused.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.483201,-74.6530881,3a,75y,22.78h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smaWgGZPs-rN2ByW39p_oJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: storm2k on June 13, 2021, 06:04:32 PM
Took a ride on the completed 206 bypass today...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245809329_8d7017f2a0_c.jpg)
This post seems awfully close to the roadway with no guardrail protection.
While it's in a way no different than a traffic light post, usually signage like this along the roadway is further back or protected.
Google Maps calls the US 206 bypass of Hillsborough the Peter J. Biondi Bypass. Who is/was Peter J. Biondi?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 14, 2021, 02:33:00 PM
Google Maps calls the US 206 bypass of Hillsborough the Peter J. Biondi Bypass. Who is/was Peter J. Biondi?
He advocated for the bypass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Biondi
Quote from: famartin on June 13, 2021, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 13, 2021, 09:51:17 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 13, 2021, 08:00:21 PM
I have a feeling the EMM is an error. Someone confused "206B" for business instead of bypass.
Probably. I want to see if NJDOT eventually puts up EMMs for 206 itself.
What do you mean exactly? I'm confused.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.483201,-74.6530881,3a,75y,22.78h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smaWgGZPs-rN2ByW39p_oJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The bypass is supposed to become 206 and current 206 that goes through the Hillsborough Business District is supposed to be returned to the township. I'll believe that is what's going to happen more if they put EMMs for 206 on the bypass itself. Because the way they signed this all, it feels very much like 206 is going to stay 206 and the bypass is just going to be a bypass route.
Quote from: storm2k on June 15, 2021, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 13, 2021, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 13, 2021, 09:51:17 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 13, 2021, 08:00:21 PM
I have a feeling the EMM is an error. Someone confused "206B" for business instead of bypass.
Probably. I want to see if NJDOT eventually puts up EMMs for 206 itself.
What do you mean exactly? I'm confused.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.483201,-74.6530881,3a,75y,22.78h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smaWgGZPs-rN2ByW39p_oJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The bypass is supposed to become 206 and current 206 that goes through the Hillsborough Business District is supposed to be returned to the township. I'll believe that is what's going to happen more if they put EMMs for 206 on the bypass itself. Because the way they signed this all, it feels very much like 206 is going to stay 206 and the bypass is just going to be a bypass route.
I think it's going to stay as is until every I is dotted and T is crossed and AASHTO says it's okay and the town is ready.
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2021, 09:20:20 AM
Field update: NJ 7 bridge is complete and signs are up.
any photos from it?
Are we talking about the Wittpenn Bridge?
yup, Alps said the new Whitpenn bridge is open so I was wondering if anyone has any photos from the new one.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 18, 2021, 11:12:50 PM
yup, Alps said the new Whitpenn bridge is open so I was wondering if anyone has any photos from the new one.
I did not
I mistook complete for being open. I figured it was complete like the whole project was done.
I guess not. Look how long it took for NJDOT to rebuild the viaduct over Wilson Avenue, Delancey Street, and Oak Island yards on US 1& 9 in Newark.
Then the Hillsborough Bypass took well over a decade to complete.
NJ works on their own schedule.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 20, 2021, 01:58:41 AM
I guess not. Look how long it took for NJDOT to rebuild the viaduct over Wilson Avenue, Delancey Street, and Oak Island yards on US 1& 9 in Newark.
Then the Hillsborough Bypass took well over a decade to complete.
NJ works on their own schedule.
Lets not forget 42/76/295...
NJDOT works on a schedule closer to PTC, with NJTA in its own little (much accelerated) world.
440 (Middlesex portion) update on new signs: this sign bridge (https://goo.gl/maps/ZGhCrWxx1mRK5soj7) has been replaced. The new sign for the 514 WB exit is tall and super skinny, like they wanted to make the whole sign fit over one lane and add more signs (looks like they added a 440 reassurance sign with Staten Island/Outerbridge Cr to it).
Median repair work in this area has been completed. New structure supports are in place to replace this sign bridge (https://goo.gl/maps/PoRfFrvgg44sMYb4A) as well as this one (https://goo.gl/maps/W8ukfHhgsiDuAdoYA). Replacement sign bridge is up on the Turnpike/514WB ramp from 440SB here (https://goo.gl/maps/rXL1M1fvVstABAFG9).
I will try to grab pictures of new signs the next time I have an opportunity.
That entire stretch of 440 is due for sign replacement.
Did NJDOT file the Hillsborough US 206 bypass with AASHTO?
Rhetorical question, but according to this. No.
https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2021, 12:56:44 PM
Did NJDOT file the Hillsborough US 206 bypass with AASHTO?
Rhetorical question, but according to this. No.
https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
I never saw anything where NJ filed the 322 bypass with AASHTO either. But it's been signed as US 322 since day 1.
Yet US 9 is not signed on Cape May County Road 623, and it still is on its old route up to the missing Beeslys Point Bridge. Same situation as US 322, where AASHTO is not notified, but you figure that NJDOT would just sign it anyway.
SB the NJTA does a good job signing it though, but NJDOT want people to drive in to a dead end following US 9. I guess they have complete faith in the GPS (Great Piece of Sh**).
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 21, 2021, 08:18:09 PM
That entire stretch of 440 is due for sign replacement.
It's happening, just a matter of how long it takes them to do it end to end. Most of the signs are from the early 1990s when they replaced the non-reflective button copy signs with earlier generations of reflective signage, but most of the structures are much older than that.
I just sent a problem report to NJDOT about missing signage and that the Beesly Point Bridge is no longer there. According to GSV, NB US 9 at CR 623 in Upper Township is only signed TO Garden State Parkway and CR 623 for Ocean City. No shields there to tell you to turn right or any sort of NO OUTLET sign north of CR 623 to inform you that Route 9 is incomplete across the Great Egg Harbor and how to circumvent it.
The NJDOT site is very hard to report problems, as you have to go to a map and find the spot, then make sure you use the proper route number as if it is not NJDOT, then it will say not a state asset. Then you enter your info followed by a form to fill out and hit SEND.
Quote from: storm2k on June 22, 2021, 06:28:14 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 21, 2021, 08:18:09 PM
That entire stretch of 440 is due for sign replacement.
It's happening, just a matter of how long it takes them to do it end to end. Most of the signs are from the early 1990s when they replaced the non-reflective button copy signs with earlier generations of reflective signage, but most of the structures are much older than that.
PennDOT is the same. It took five years to update the signage on I-95 from the old substandard signs in Bucks County to what it was before I-295 got placed upon it. Then when US 1 opened up north of Oxford Valley in 1987, it took years also for PennDOT to sign it as US 1 and remove the US 1 signs (or place the business banners) in Pendell. In addition it was 1991 when the Oxford Valley Cloverleaf where I-295 and US 1 currently meet, to have US 1 added to the guide signs there. Up until 1991, US 1 Business was signed as mainline US 1 from I-95 and even Trenton was signed at the current US 1B and PA 413 exchange while just Oxford Valley remained for US 1 North and Langhorne for US 1 south without any route shields.
So yes both PA and NJ are slow as molasses when it comes to getting stuff done.
Why is the I-80 W Bound exit for Route 94 signed as both Exit 4A and 4C? It makes no sense as A should be after C going WB and Exit 4B is for US 46 East after the departure for NJ 94. Plus one ramp does not need two suffixes.
Also why does the Exit 310 sign use Stroudsburg on I-80 West, when its non applicable there? Sure PA 611 goes there, but PennDOT does not sign Exit 310 on their signs as such as the PA 191, Dreher Avenue, and Main Street exits are rigtht in Stroudsburg.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 26, 2021, 12:01:34 PM
Why is the I-80 W Bound exit for Route 94 signed as both Exit 4A and 4C? It makes no sense as A should be after C going WB and Exit 4B is for US 46 East after the departure for NJ 94. Plus one ramp does not need two suffixes.
Also why does the Exit 310 sign use Stroudsburg on I-80 West, when its non applicable there? Sure PA 611 goes there, but PennDOT does not sign Exit 310 on their signs as such as the PA 191, Dreher Avenue, and Main Street exits are rigtht in Stroudsburg.
Jurisdiction would be my guess in regards to the questions about the 310 signs. I'm going to wager a guess that those are DRJTBC assemblies, and not from either NJDOT or PennDOT. They have a habit like most of the bi-state and quasi-independent agencies, do kinda do their own thing with signage (glares in PANYNJ). If you look at Alps' page for Route 80 in NJ (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-80/w2.html), at the bottom, you'll see a picture from the 70s that's clearly a PennDOT assembly that only says Del Water Gap on it.
Yeah I remember the old US 611 sign at Exit 1.
Yet there is still Hainesburg Road that lacks an exit number though. NJDOT just carbon copies the old US 611 guide signs including the second exit in from PA having a guide sign for Dover and New York for through traffic but no information for the ramp at all. In fact, both ramps upon entering NJ are redundant of each other and the second one should really be closed and removed.
https://goo.gl/maps/ipuhpWAbdH2tbMXg6
This one has EXIT but no guide sign and even an Exit 1 sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/G2oDWvPaKA9sEx3Z7
The second one gets a pull through instead of an EXIT but like the previous ramp serves the same frontage road. Plus with the elimination of two way traffic on the WB I-80 off ramp across the highway, it's original function to access the Apppalachian trailhead is no longer possible.
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Quote from: civilmaher on July 01, 2021, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Signage has a tendency to disappear and not get replaced. I've seen it occur where the speed limit both increases and decreases.
Both US 206 and its bypass are now yellow on Google Maps.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on July 03, 2021, 12:53:53 PM
Both US 206 and its bypass are now yellow on Google Maps.
I haven't been able to figure out exactly what yellow means on Google. All US routes are yellow, but as for state routes, NJ 73 is only yellow north of US 30 despite nothing obvious changing there. NJ 124 is white east of NJ 82 for no obvious reason. NJ 47 is yellow in 2 segments, between the Garden State Parkway and NJ 55, and between US 40 and US 322.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 04, 2021, 06:38:55 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on July 03, 2021, 12:53:53 PM
Both US 206 and its bypass are now yellow on Google Maps.
I haven't been able to figure out exactly what yellow means on Google. All US routes are yellow, but as for state routes, NJ 73 is only yellow north of US 30 despite nothing obvious changing there. NJ 124 is white east of NJ 82 for no obvious reason. NJ 47 is yellow in 2 segments, between the Garden State Parkway and NJ 55, and between US 40 and US 322.
It's supposed to represent how major a route is but yeah, I'd be happier if they kept it to orange = US, yellow = state, white = neither.
Quote from: Alps on July 04, 2021, 10:11:10 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 04, 2021, 06:38:55 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on July 03, 2021, 12:53:53 PM
Both US 206 and its bypass are now yellow on Google Maps.
I haven't been able to figure out exactly what yellow means on Google. All US routes are yellow, but as for state routes, NJ 73 is only yellow north of US 30 despite nothing obvious changing there. NJ 124 is white east of NJ 82 for no obvious reason. NJ 47 is yellow in 2 segments, between the Garden State Parkway and NJ 55, and between US 40 and US 322.
It's supposed to represent how major a route is but yeah, I'd be happier if they kept it to orange = US, yellow = state, white = neither.
Or maybe orange=freeway, yellow=divided, white=Neither.
^ I would not mind a distinction between divided and undivided.
Divided and undivided is a tricky distinction, and maybe more so in Jersey than elsewhere. Divided could mean a free-flowing Jersey freeway, something like US 1 where there's a mix of overpasses and lights but no left turns can be made, or a road like NJ 73 where there's a median, but left turns can be made at both controlled and uncontrolled intersections?
I knew someone who I couldn't convince to take 42 to 322 to near AC to avoid the ACX tolls, because he didn't want to be on a 2 lane 322. The map showed it as the same type of road as when the 2 lane 322 goes from the Com. Barry Bridge to 42 , even though it's a 4 lane highway when it meets and becomes the Black Horse Pike. Just no median barrier for a long portion.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 04, 2021, 06:38:55 PM
I haven't been able to figure out exactly what yellow means on Google. All US routes are yellow, but as for state routes, NJ 73 is only yellow north of US 30 despite nothing obvious changing there. NJ 124 is white east of NJ 82 for no obvious reason. NJ 47 is yellow in 2 segments, between the Garden State Parkway and NJ 55, and between US 40 and US 322.
Top 10 ancient mysteries that shall never be solved.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 19, 2021, 05:52:31 PM
I mistook complete for being open. I figured it was complete like the whole project was done.
I have not seen any news articles stating that the Wittpenn Bridge is open. I have been considering taking two hours out of my US 206 roadtrip on July 16th just to drive it.
Am I missing something Alps?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 06, 2021, 12:21:17 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 19, 2021, 05:52:31 PM
I mistook complete for being open. I figured it was complete like the whole project was done.
I have not seen any news articles stating that the Wittpenn Bridge is open. I have been considering taking two hours out of my US 206 roadtrip on July 16th just to drive it.
Am I missing something Alps?
The bridge is complete. The approaches aren't.
Quote from: Alps on July 07, 2021, 12:22:26 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 06, 2021, 12:21:17 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 19, 2021, 05:52:31 PM
I mistook complete for being open. I figured it was complete like the whole project was done.
I have not seen any news articles stating that the Wittpenn Bridge is open. I have been considering taking two hours out of my US 206 roadtrip on July 16th just to drive it.
Am I missing something Alps?
The bridge is complete. The approaches aren't.
Thank you for clarifying.
Looks like NJDOT's spot sign structure replacement projects are proceeding. This structure (https://goo.gl/maps/1m5vsY1q7dSzNAJt9) has new foundations installed and is probably curing for a bit. I feel like I remember seeing at least one other one on 80 in the Paterson area getting ready for replacement as well. Basically, it looks like NJDOT is slowly targeting older triangular chord truss structures across the state for replacement with a standard box chord truss design but the replacements are spotty instead of all sign structures in one area getting done at a time. I'm wondering if they're doing it based on their evaluations of the condition some are in and working to get the ones they view as most problematic done first. Also hope that the new signs for the interstate sheilds are better resistant to UV fading than a lot of ones installed in the 2005-15 or so timeframe. Feels like a lot of those faded super quickly in the sun.
There is a new gantry up at NJ-24 East going onto I-78 East associated with this project. Unlike just about every other sign in the area, it actually spells out "Garden State Parkway" as a destination for the local lanes.
The signs for I-280 are not that old.
Quote from: storm2k on July 12, 2021, 03:37:22 PM
Looks like NJDOT's spot sign structure replacement projects are proceeding. This structure (https://goo.gl/maps/1m5vsY1q7dSzNAJt9) has new foundations installed and is probably curing for a bit. I feel like I remember seeing at least one other one on 80 in the Paterson area getting ready for replacement as well. Basically, it looks like NJDOT is slowly targeting older triangular chord truss structures across the state for replacement with a standard box chord truss design but the replacements are spotty instead of all sign structures in one area getting done at a time. I'm wondering if they're doing it based on their evaluations of the condition some are in and working to get the ones they view as most problematic done first. Also hope that the new signs for the interstate sheilds are better resistant to UV fading than a lot of ones installed in the 2005-15 or so timeframe. Feels like a lot of those faded super quickly in the sun.
There are a few (or several) projects replacing old signs currently. A few of these projects are more delayed than others (I think one ongoing project had a 2015 date but was only let in the past year or two), and any one project seems to have a wide range of locations where they are replacing signage.
Nearly all of those triangle gantry structures are targeted. Structures only going across a portion of the roadway seem to have an issue as well, as many of them are being replaced also.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 07, 2021, 07:38:31 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 07, 2021, 12:22:26 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 06, 2021, 12:21:17 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 19, 2021, 05:52:31 PM
I mistook complete for being open. I figured it was complete like the whole project was done.
I have not seen any news articles stating that the Wittpenn Bridge is open. I have been considering taking two hours out of my US 206 roadtrip on July 16th just to drive it.
Am I missing something Alps?
The bridge is complete. The approaches aren't.
Thank you for clarifying.
Re-update: Signing and some striping is up. Approaches are complete.
Quote from: Alps on July 12, 2021, 07:20:03 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 07, 2021, 07:38:31 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 07, 2021, 12:22:26 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on July 06, 2021, 12:21:17 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on June 19, 2021, 05:52:31 PM
I mistook complete for being open. I figured it was complete like the whole project was done.
I have not seen any news articles stating that the Wittpenn Bridge is open. I have been considering taking two hours out of my US 206 roadtrip on July 16th just to drive it.
Am I missing something Alps?
The bridge is complete. The approaches aren't.
Thank you for clarifying.
Re-update: Signing and some striping is up. Approaches are complete.
Open complete or closed but complete? I'll be up that way within the week (but will also be back in September if not sooner, so if its not ready yet, not a big deal for me).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvirtuallawpractice.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2FAnd-now.jpg&hash=f08aa0bcfa22a852683b29a02f242981564d6f3c)
Started my week-long South Jersey roadgeeking trip today, it looks like NJ 87 now has enhanced mileposts, but of the SJTA variety- same spec as the NJDOT ones but one forward facing every 0.1 miles (excluding MM 0.0 and on the NJDOT bridge into Brigantine). Nothing else really earth shattering from what I saw today except for some US/circle shield swaps around US 40/NJ 140/NJ 48 and the lack of any remediation of the retaining wall collapse from April at the 42/295 interchange.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 12, 2021, 08:38:43 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvirtuallawpractice.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2FAnd-now.jpg&hash=f08aa0bcfa22a852683b29a02f242981564d6f3c)
Started my week-long South Jersey roadgeeking trip today, it looks like NJ 87 now has enhanced mileposts, but of the SJTA variety- same spec as the NJDOT ones but one forward facing every 0.1 miles (excluding MM 0.0 and on the NJDOT bridge into Brigantine). Nothing else really earth shattering from what I saw today except for some US/circle shield swaps around US 40/NJ 140/NJ 48 and the lack of any remediation of the retaining wall collapse from April at the 42/295 interchange.
The most I've seen from that wall collapse is possibly some dark-colored dirt/loose asphalt covering the exposed dirt. But they certainly aren't quickly rebuilding it.
If you looked at the right moment, you may have seen they are finally building the temporary Browning Road overpass off to the side where the cemetery is located.
Eh, wasn't focused on the Browning Road area. Since this isn't my neck of the woods, I was looking out for the bigger things (in addition to the driving itself around the small radius lane shifts and sunken type A inlets), like the unexpected-to-me bridge pier progress on the 42 N/295 S ramps. I did see coming in from the south the really high Wawa gas station sign and am amazed how something like that would have gotten through the local planning board.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 12, 2021, 10:43:10 PM
Eh, wasn't focused on the Browning Road area. Since this isn't my neck of the woods, I was looking out for the bigger things (in addition to the driving itself around the small radius lane shifts and sunken type A inlets), like the unexpected-to-me bridge pier progress on the 42 N/295 S ramps. I did see coming in from the south the really high Wawa gas station sign and am amazed how something like that would have gotten through the local planning board.
From my perspective, the 295/42 missing moves project has been coming along very well, and nearly all of the bridge piers are in place at this point. A bit of work to do on the Rt. 42 side, but there's still 2 years left in the timing of this project.
That large Wawa sign is a bit surprising, especially as most Wawas located alongside highways in the state generally don't have such signage. Not sure how often Wawa attempts to build such signage, although Bellmawr obviously granted them the variance. In my town, a Dunkin Donuts wanted a sign in a non-residential area to be tall for highway visibility, and the town turned them down.
Quote from: artmalk on July 12, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
The signs for I-280 are not that old.
Which signs are you referring to?
Quote from: storm2k on July 13, 2021, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on July 12, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
The signs for I-280 are not that old.
Which signs are you referring to?
Many on I-280 were replaced in the early 2010's. To which are you referring that ARE that old? There are a few that date at least to the 90s, for sure, but 90s isn't all that old by NJDOT standards (most of the signs on 287 are 90s era, I believe).
Quote from: famartin on July 13, 2021, 11:04:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 13, 2021, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on July 12, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
The signs for I-280 are not that old.
Which signs are you referring to?
Many on I-280 were replaced in the early 2010's. To which are you referring that ARE that old? There are a few that date at least to the 90s, for sure, but 90s isn't all that old by NJDOT standards (most of the signs on 287 are 90s era, I believe).
280 got a bunch of new signage in the Oranges and Newark in the 2010s, but a lot of signage west of there was replaced in the 90s and only put up on old structures. Think the one at 5B that came down in the early 2010s and is only getting replaced now.
And yes, as far as 287 goes, most everything north of 78 was installed in ~1993-94 or so on new structures around the time they started the HOV lanes and also finally finishing the roadway all the way to Mahwah. There have been some replacements since then slowly but surely (most of the signage near 80, the new sign bridge that is near 22A). South of 78 down to 22, all that signage went up in 1997, also on new structures, with the exception of the signage for 14A southbound, which also went up in 1994. South of 22 down to the Turnpike, that signage went up in 1998, and that was all on new structures as well. Everything south of 78 was replacing the old "experimental" diagrammatic signage.
Quote from: famartin on July 13, 2021, 11:04:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 13, 2021, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on July 12, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
The signs for I-280 are not that old.
Which signs are you referring to?
Many on I-280 were replaced in the early 2010's. To which are you referring that ARE that old? There are a few that date at least to the 90s, for sure, but 90s isn't all that old by NJDOT standards (most of the signs on 287 are 90s era, I believe).
There's trace amounts of button copy left, all reflective. Anything good in Newark is long gone.
Couple of quick pictures I grabbed of new signage on 440 today. There's a bunch of it on ramps and stuff both at the 514/Turnpike and 9/Parkway exits and several in Perth Amboy coming SB from the OBX. Still a bunch of mainline replacements to go, but pretty much all the footings are done and it's a matter of time before new structures and signs will be up.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311769418_3262a456cc_c.jpg)
New sign bridge for 514 exits. The WB sign is weirdly tall and thin so it only fits over the exit only lane. Not a typical NJDOT thing.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51310822622_47c9d472e2_c.jpg)
New sign bridge awaiting install approaching the 9/Parkway/Smith St exit. Would very much have preferred if they kept Smith St and DOWNTOWN Perth Amboy off this sign and instead just moved that to an aux BGS before the exit and instead just signed Woodbridge as a control city (works for both Parkway and Rt 9)
More will follow whenever they get more signs up and I can get back down that way.
No "G S Parkway" that is typical on NJDOT signs. Its nice to see stuff finally getting replaced here though. The old signs were way too small to fit the required amount of information they had to convey. Also NJDOT doesn't seem to care about the MUTCD changes prohibiting bridges as control cities :P
I don't think the MUTCD prohibits showing a bridge or tunnel name in addition to the control city or destination.
From the above photos it appears that NJDOT is still providing lighting of new overhead signs. Surprising since New York DOT abolished that practice, at least in Long Island's Region-10 when they converted to the newer, much higher reflective sheeting some years back. They actually removed the lighting fixtures from their existing sign gantries with the new signs.
Hopefully its LED. NJDOT seems to waiver between lights and no lights on new installs.
Did they add control cities for Route 9 south?
Quote from: SignBridge on July 14, 2021, 08:38:33 PM
I don't think the MUTCD prohibits showing a bridge or tunnel name in addition to the control city or destination.
From the above photos it appears that NJDOT is still providing lighting of new overhead signs. Surprising since New York DOT abolished that practice, at least in Long Island's Region-10 when they converted to the newer, much higher reflective sheeting some years back. They actually removed the lighting fixtures from their existing sign gantries with the new signs.
NJDOT stopped for a long time. Like, a very long time. In the past couple of years, they've started bringing back LED standards on new signage in some places. Feels like the LEDs don't last for a long time tho.
As for the control cities issue, I doubt NJDOT will change its stance ever. I just find that sign to be too cluttered. Rt 9's control city at this point is Woodbridge and I would just prefer that with Smith St/Downtown Perth Amboy on an aux sign before the exit.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 12, 2021, 08:38:43 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvirtuallawpractice.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2FAnd-now.jpg&hash=f08aa0bcfa22a852683b29a02f242981564d6f3c)
Started my week-long South Jersey roadgeeking trip today, it looks like NJ 87 now has enhanced mileposts, but of the SJTA variety- same spec as the NJDOT ones but one forward facing every 0.1 miles (excluding MM 0.0 and on the NJDOT bridge into Brigantine). Nothing else really earth shattering from what I saw today except for some US/circle shield swaps around US 40/NJ 140/NJ 48 and the lack of any remediation of the retaining wall collapse from April at the 42/295 interchange.
Piggybacking on my earlier deviation, the Cumberland Co portion of NJ 347 also has enhanced mileposts every 1/2 mile now, again based on the standard design but posted on U-Posts with a green reflective strip inside the channel like other Cumberland mileposts (which are otherwise still just the "MILE #" style).
EDIT: Pics of what's noted above (https://imgur.com/a/elTnzLf)
Wittpenn Bridge Update: I went past it this week while riding a PATH train. The bridge itself and the eastern approach appear to be complete. However the western approach still has work being done and the roadway is cluttered with construction vehicles, etc. But it's almost there.
As of today, the work of widening US 322 to 4 lanes between US 130 and I-295 is mostly complete. All 4 lanes are open to traffic.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2021, 08:57:07 PM
Wittpenn Bridge Update: I went past it this week while riding a PATH train. The bridge itself and the eastern approach appear to be complete. However the western approach still has work being done and the roadway is cluttered with construction vehicles, etc. But it's almost there.
The whole thing looks like it's done (from a vehicular perspective) but it's clear they're doing surficial work on various items still.
Checked out the US-22/Chestnut St. (CR-619) overpass construction site today. NJDOT has finished shifting eastbound traffic onto the westbound side of the existing bridge. Westbound traffic is using a temporary bailey bridge. Demolition of the eastbound side should be starting shortly.
Small plane piloted by 18 year old makes emergency landing on the Route 52 Causeway (aka 9th Street Bridge) between Somers Point and OCNJ. Smooth landing with no injuries or other issues other than some traffic delays.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/ocean-city-bridge-plane-emergency-landing-traffic-20210719.html
https://6abc.com/plane-emergency-landing-9th-street-bridge-ocean-city-new-jersey/10897436/
Finally got around to trying out the 206 bypass in Hillsborough.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/2021-07-19_10_33_37_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_01.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_33_37_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_01.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/2021-07-19_10_34_50_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_02.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_34_50_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_02.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/2021-07-19_10_40_40_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_03.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_40_40_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_03.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/2021-07-19_10_41_26_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_04.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_41_26_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_04.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/2021-07-19_10_44_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_05.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_44_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_05.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/2021-07-19_10_48_38_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_07.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_48_38_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_07.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/2021-07-19_10_46_08_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_06.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_46_08_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_06.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/2021-07-19_10_58_21_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_08.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_58_21_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_08.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/2021-07-19_10_59_17_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_09.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_10_59_17_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_09.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/2021-07-19_11_05_16_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_10.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_11_05_16_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_10.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/2021-07-19_11_09_11_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_11.jpg/640px-2021-07-19_11_09_11_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_11.jpg)
Ah, I see they put up better EMMs since I went through there back in June. Those white "Bypass" tabs do look pretty temporary, which gives me hope that they'll actually get around to pulling 206 off the original 2 lane road and routing it only on the bypass at some point instead of just leaving it all in a limbo state.
I think it's interesting how all the signage is there. It's like NJDOT is hedging their bets as to whether US 206 will be moved or not and wants the signage to work either way.
Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2021, 04:09:25 PM
I think it's interesting how all the signage is there. It's like NJDOT is hedging their bets as to whether US 206 will be moved or not and wants the signage to work either way.
I think they technically treat the Bypass like a separate state highway for now, so that's why it's done that way. The plan has always been to reroute it onto the bypass and return the original road to local control, but who knows how long that will take.
Quote from: civilmaher on July 01, 2021, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Miraculously, the sign has reappeared (replacement looks smaller than the original, tho). Makes you wonder if someone here bugged NJDOT about it. Or if they are reading this forum. Either way, nice that it's back.
Considering no ramps merge onto the freeway from Route 23 to US 46, they don't need speed limit signs except at the bump up point where I-80 crosses the Passaic River entering Fairfield.
Quote from: famartin on July 24, 2021, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 01, 2021, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Miraculously, the sign has reappeared (replacement looks smaller than the original, tho). Makes you wonder if someone here bugged NJDOT about it.
Yes. (https://www.njdotproblemreporting.com/)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 24, 2021, 05:57:09 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 24, 2021, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 01, 2021, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Miraculously, the sign has reappeared (replacement looks smaller than the original, tho). Makes you wonder if someone here bugged NJDOT about it.
Yes. (https://www.njdotproblemreporting.com/)
Thank you. Filling out that form out takes less time than bitching about an issue, but too many people are adverse to actually trying to solve a problem.
Sometimes, things are overlooked. I filled that out once because a certain speed limit sign was missing for quite a while. Within a few days, it was put back up. The sign had probably just been laying there and they needed that little nudge to put it back on someone's radar.
The form doesn't always seemingly work, especially if the problem is bigger than a quick fix. But about half the time it results in an issue getting resolved.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2021, 09:35:19 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 24, 2021, 05:57:09 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 24, 2021, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 01, 2021, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Miraculously, the sign has reappeared (replacement looks smaller than the original, tho). Makes you wonder if someone here bugged NJDOT about it.
Yes. (https://www.njdotproblemreporting.com/)
Thank you. Filling out that form out takes less time than bitching about an issue, but too many people are adverse to actually trying to solve a problem.
Sometimes, things are overlooked. I filled that out once because a certain speed limit sign was missing for quite a while. Within a few days, it was put back up. The sign had probably just been laying there and they needed that little nudge to put it back on someone's radar.
The form doesn't always seemingly work, especially if the problem is bigger than a quick fix. But about half the time it results in an issue getting resolved.
I used it once to report a signal problem, for them to reply that it was a County signal (287 at 511), for me to reply that it was a state signal because it was state ramps and I know what I'm talking about. Took them 3 weeks.
They are actually pretty bad when it comes to repairing things. It took them nearly 4 months just to replace a missing milepost sign, in which they put up the wrong cardinal direction :rolleyes:
Quote from: J Route Z on July 25, 2021, 01:18:53 AM
They are actually pretty bad when it comes to repairing things. It took them nearly 4 months just to replace a missing milepost sign, in which they put up the wrong cardinal direction :rolleyes:
They did that on US-264 as well the marker is the wrong way and what i mean is the red facing the way the way going forward.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on July 24, 2021, 05:57:09 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 24, 2021, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 01, 2021, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Miraculously, the sign has reappeared (replacement looks smaller than the original, tho). Makes you wonder if someone here bugged NJDOT about it.
Yes. (https://www.njdotproblemreporting.com/)
:clap:
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2021, 04:44:38 AM
Considering no ramps merge onto the freeway from Route 23 to US 46, they don't need speed limit signs except at the bump up point where I-80 crosses the Passaic River entering Fairfield.
The thing that made this more confusing was that is a 55 mph signs here, right after the ramp from 23 merges in.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8957162,-74.2577853,3a,75y,245.11h,82.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shYcDMtPgzL0ZmnLxl5aLYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Then there is a double posted 65 mph sign here, at the Parsippany line.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8624906,-74.3500316,3a,75y,268.3h,82.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skSqkGaaxOdwDYZRZrniQUw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
These made it seem like the whole stretch was 55 until Parsippany.
Quote from: famartin on July 24, 2021, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 01, 2021, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Miraculously, the sign has reappeared (replacement looks smaller than the original, tho). Makes you wonder if someone here bugged NJDOT about it. Or if they are reading this forum. Either way, nice that it's back.
Speaking of Passaic River, how does NJDOT decide which rivers and creeks to sign? It seems like of all the Raritan River crossings in NJ, for example, only one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5393362,-74.5134051,3a,75y,52.83h,94.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1e9p6QFkyYMxppw1xZWSWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is signed, and even that has only appeared a few years ago.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 26, 2021, 04:30:06 PM
Quote from: famartin on July 24, 2021, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 01, 2021, 09:20:59 AM
Quote from: famartin on July 01, 2021, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: interstate73 on July 01, 2021, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: famartin on June 30, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
Why is I-80 wb 55 mph in Fairfield, but 65 mph eb?
It isn't??? :confused: :confused: :confused: The 55/65 transition is at the Essex/Passaic County line in both directions
There are no 65 mph signs until the Parsippany line going WB. Not even a hint of it with a "65 mph zone fines doubled speeding and other violations" sign. In fact, there aren't any speed limit signs along this section going westbound. That seems more than a slight error.
Looks like the WB sign disappeared in 2016.
https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17 (https://goo.gl/maps/xiPQSfBfLRnqvPq17)
Miraculously, the sign has reappeared (replacement looks smaller than the original, tho). Makes you wonder if someone here bugged NJDOT about it. Or if they are reading this forum. Either way, nice that it's back.
Speaking of Passaic River, how does NJDOT decide which rivers and creeks to sign? It seems like of all the Raritan River crossings in NJ, for example, only one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5393362,-74.5134051,3a,75y,52.83h,94.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1e9p6QFkyYMxppw1xZWSWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is signed, and even that has only appeared a few years ago.
That's actually a very interesting question. There is no corresponding sign northbound on 287 crossing the Raritan. Nor is the second crossing of the river signed between 12 and 13. NJDOT did sign the North Branch of the river over Rt 202 on the Bridgewater-Branchburg border, but it's wrong, because it's the branch at that point, not the regular river. Of all the state highways that cross the Raritan, those seem to be the only places that were signed.
New Jersey, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't that into marking river crossings. If there were they were old white faced with black raised letters left over from the WWII era signage just as some of the old county line signs are still around if you look.
NJ cares mostly with differentiation of municipalities over everything and only until a few decades ago also started signing overpasses to just add to that practice.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2021, 01:33:18 AM
New Jersey, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't that into marking river crossings. If there were they were old white faced with black raised letters left over from the WWII era signage just as some of the old county line signs are still around if you look.
NJ cares mostly with differentiation of municipalities over everything and only until a few decades ago also started signing overpasses to just add to that practice.
Other than those, the only "official" state agency county line signs I've seen have been along the GSP, and they may date from before the NJTPK authority absorbed the GSP authority.
OTOH there's this sign welcoming eastbounders on US 40 to Gloucester County...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5864011,-75.0853169,3a,18.1y,140.7h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQI4u4qDThz_dD6-gHjxhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on July 27, 2021, 02:56:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2021, 01:33:18 AM
New Jersey, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't that into marking river crossings. If there were they were old white faced with black raised letters left over from the WWII era signage just as some of the old county line signs are still around if you look.
NJ cares mostly with differentiation of municipalities over everything and only until a few decades ago also started signing overpasses to just add to that practice.
Other than those, the only "official" state agency county line signs I've seen have been along the GSP, and they may date from before the NJTPK authority absorbed the GSP authority.
OTOH there's this sign welcoming eastbounders on US 40 to Gloucester County...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5864011,-75.0853169,3a,18.1y,140.7h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQI4u4qDThz_dD6-gHjxhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
ixnay
Gloucester County put a bunch of them up on many of the roadways entering the county. I think other counties did some sporadic, similar signage. On the AC Expressway I believe there's signs noting when you enter/leave Camden/Gloucester Counties. Looking at a map, the roadway straddles the county line closely so you may actually enter and leave the 2 counties several times, but they are only signed once.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2021, 03:07:11 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 27, 2021, 02:56:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2021, 01:33:18 AM
New Jersey, to the best of my knowledge, wasn’t that into marking river crossings. If there were they were old white faced with black raised letters left over from the WWII era signage just as some of the old county line signs are still around if you look.
NJ cares mostly with differentiation of municipalities over everything and only until a few decades ago also started signing overpasses to just add to that practice.
Other than those, the only "official" state agency county line signs I've seen have been along the GSP, and they may date from before the NJTPK authority absorbed the GSP authority.
OTOH there's this sign welcoming eastbounders on US 40 to Gloucester County...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5864011,-75.0853169,3a,18.1y,140.7h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQI4u4qDThz_dD6-gHjxhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
ixnay
Gloucester County put a bunch of them up on many of the roadways entering the county. I think other counties did some sporadic, similar signage. On the AC Expressway I believe there's signs noting when you enter/leave Camden/Gloucester Counties. Looking at a map, the roadway straddles the county line closely so you may actually enter and leave the 2 counties several times, but they are only signed once.
The yellow on blue pentagons were definitely a NJHA thing from before they were absorbed into the Turnpike Authority. I'm not sure if the Turnpike Authority plans to replace them once they fade out or fall down. I'm gonna guess no.
Hunterdon County has these (https://goo.gl/maps/L7rfqUPYiJZz4wDK7) along many of its county maintained roads at county lines. Made to look like a historic marker sign. Somerset has them on some roads, but they're more sporadic than Hunterdon is.
Somerset and Hunterdon, though, were dual pioneers in an early version of EMMs. Most of their county roads are mileposted with the more traditional mile post, but with a small county route shield above it so you know what county road you're on (Here's an example (https://goo.gl/maps/fnZ7594iiqxLCEjV6)). Been doing that since the late 90s/early 2000s I believe.
NJTA put up new county line signs on the Great Egg Harbor Bay Bridge, so they seem to be keeping that tradition alive for now.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2021, 03:07:11 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 27, 2021, 02:56:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2021, 01:33:18 AM
New Jersey, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't that into marking river crossings. If there were they were old white faced with black raised letters left over from the WWII era signage just as some of the old county line signs are still around if you look.
NJ cares mostly with differentiation of municipalities over everything and only until a few decades ago also started signing overpasses to just add to that practice.
Other than those, the only "official" state agency county line signs I've seen have been along the GSP, and they may date from before the NJTPK authority absorbed the GSP authority.
OTOH there's this sign welcoming eastbounders on US 40 to Gloucester County...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5864011,-75.0853169,3a,18.1y,140.7h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siQI4u4qDThz_dD6-gHjxhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
ixnay
Gloucester County put a bunch of them up on many of the roadways entering the county. I think other counties did some sporadic, similar signage. On the AC Expressway I believe there's signs noting when you enter/leave Camden/Gloucester Counties. Looking at a map, the roadway straddles the county line closely so you may actually enter and leave the 2 counties several times, but they are only signed once.
The Atlantic City Expressway has welcome signs at the Atlantic/Camden County boundary in both directions (I want to say, but on GSV I can only find the Atlantic County one). Gloucester County has welcome signs in both directions despite the ACE barely entering it, and Camden County doesn't bother to tell you that you're back afterward.
Looking on Streetview, did the ACE put up more billboards up for advertising on their right-of-way? How.... awful and tacky.
https://goo.gl/maps/ENgvjtUvJUEyEFxW7
Really? I can see near Atlantic City, but these low installs are kinda out of place.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 27, 2021, 06:23:39 PM
NJTA put up new county line signs on the Great Egg Harbor Bay Bridge, so they seem to be keeping that tradition alive for now.
The Middlesex ones are NOT 30 years old.
https://goo.gl/maps/JupHFCBMJL2bW4WaA
Was noticing that when I lived in NJ that many shopping centers along arterial roads with jug handles use left side of the road driving at the intersection to allow for protected left turns and uninterrupted through (cross) movements.
In a way this could be NJs version of a DDI but without the interchange.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2021, 05:47:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JupHFCBMJL2bW4WaA
Was noticing that when I lived in NJ that many shopping centers along arterial roads with jug handles use left side of the road driving at the intersection to allow for protected left turns and uninterrupted through (cross) movements.
In a way this could be NJs version of a DDI but without the interchange.
Many?
This one here is a rare example, and there's a NJ Transit maintenance yard entrance/exit that also has its own phase at this traffic light. A bigger issue with this particular intersection is traffic leaving the shopping center here can't legally make a right, but motorists often do, causing unnecessary mayhem with the opposing traffic.
This is fitting a square peg in a round hole, but not really one of NJDOT's finer moments.
Blue Star on Route 22 in Watchung.
Livingston Mall on Eisenhower Parkway in Livingston.
Brunswick Square Mall on Route 18 in East Brunswick.
A small plaza on Route 23 in Verona.
These are only a few, but many more county roads do (or did) have them in the 20th Century.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2021, 05:57:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 28, 2021, 05:47:50 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JupHFCBMJL2bW4WaA
Was noticing that when I lived in NJ that many shopping centers along arterial roads with jug handles use left side of the road driving at the intersection to allow for protected left turns and uninterrupted through (cross) movements.
In a way this could be NJs version of a DDI but without the interchange.
Many?
This one here is a rare example, and there's a NJ Transit maintenance yard entrance/exit that also has its own phase at this traffic light. A bigger issue with this particular intersection is traffic leaving the shopping center here can't legally make a right, but motorists often do, causing unnecessary mayhem with the opposing traffic.
This is fitting a square peg in a round hole, but not really one of NJDOT's finer moments.
I've seen a few of these, but definitely the exception. I think Eisenhower Parkway at Livingston Mall has another.
https://goo.gl/maps/2Xy2szP7GFg4CjtK8
Scotch Plains has one at the Glenside Avenue jug handle on US 22. In fact the u turn only jug handles is what catered to this concept in the first place. The way they were off set to allow free flowing lefts from inside the jug handles gave the idea for shopping centers to follow suit.
From the Star Ledger: U.S. House advances effort to pull funds from controversial I-80 rockfall project (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/08/us-house-advances-effort-to-pull-funds-from-controversial-i-80-rockfall-project.html)
QuoteNew Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer, who represents the Garden State communities surrounding the proposed project site, introduced the amendment aimed at the Federal Highway Administration budget for the next fiscal year.
The amendment seeks "to emphasize the importance of federal money not being used for the construction of an artificial wall between mile posts 1.04 and 1.45 along Interstate 80 in Knowlton and Hardwick Townships, New Jersey."
I did not know this project was so disliked. I don't know enough about the rockfall danger in that area to know if this is some NIMBY bullshit taken the highest level or if we're looking at a matter of time before some big piece of rock crushes a part of someone's car and injures them and then everyone is mad at NJDOT for not taking action.
Quote from: storm2k on August 01, 2021, 12:47:09 PM
From the Star Ledger: U.S. House advances effort to pull funds from controversial I-80 rockfall project (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/08/us-house-advances-effort-to-pull-funds-from-controversial-i-80-rockfall-project.html)
QuoteNew Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer, who represents the Garden State communities surrounding the proposed project site, introduced the amendment aimed at the Federal Highway Administration budget for the next fiscal year.
The amendment seeks "to emphasize the importance of federal money not being used for the construction of an artificial wall between mile posts 1.04 and 1.45 along Interstate 80 in Knowlton and Hardwick Townships, New Jersey."
I did not know this project was so disliked. I don't know enough about the rockfall danger in that area to know if this is some NIMBY bullshit taken the highest level or if we're looking at a matter of time before some big piece of rock crushes a part of someone's car and injures them and then everyone is mad at NJDOT for not taking action.
This makes no sense. So, as a NJ congressman, you want funding pulled from our state? I wish I had a vote to eliminate this wanker.
What ever happened to Singac on Route 23 guide signs? I remember south of Butler at all now defunct circles where NJDOT replaced Singac on guide signs with Little Falls in the early 80s.
Considering Little Falls is on US 46 and not NJ 23 I always thought that was a strange replacement. Yet where Butler- Newark existed from Port Jervis southward, Singac- Newark existed from Butler southward.
There is still one very old sign remaining on Parsippany Road in Parsippany, near the entrance to 287. In a previous thread the consensus was that it was there because at one stage 287 ended at 46, which had signs for Singac. None of the proposed alignments of 287 would have been near Singac.
Question about the never built US 9 freeway in Old Bridge and Sayreville.
I was noticing that along with the scrapped NJ 74 freeway that would have connected NJ 18 in East Brunswick to NJ 35 in Old Bridge, there was also a proposed realignment of US 9 that would have extended from the US 9 & NJ 34 wye interchange (where NJ 74 was to interchange with Routes 9 & 34) to NJ 35 in South Amboy south of where the current south end of the US 9 and NJ 35 concurrency ends.
Considering that US 9 from NJ 34 to NJ 35 is expressway grade and even prior to 1991 when the Ernston Road intersection was removed for an interchange, still back in the 60's and 70's and even the 80's there was only one signal from Perrine Road in Old Bridge and NJ 35 in South Amboy. So to me building a freeway bypass of an already free flowing expressway is unheard of.
However, I do remember that in South Amboy and Sayreville that Route 35 at one time had median breaks south of NJ 35 all the way to the Cheesequake Creek Bridge that eventually got sealed off with wooden barricades to prevent left turns and cross traffic that caused many accidents back then. So, I was wondering was US 9 in both Sayreville and the former Madison Township also full of median breaks that were later closed off due to safety issues that prompted NJDOT to pursue another alignment had the Route 74 freeway been constructed?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 04, 2021, 12:23:43 AM
Question about the never built US 9 freeway in Old Bridge and Sayreville.
I was noticing that along with the scrapped NJ 74 freeway that would have connected NJ 18 in East Brunswick to NJ 35 in Old Bridge, there was also a proposed realignment of US 9 that would have extended from the US 9 & NJ 34 wye interchange (where NJ 74 was to interchange with Routes 9 & 34) to NJ 35 in South Amboy south of where the current south end of the US 9 and NJ 35 concurrency ends.
Considering that US 9 from NJ 34 to NJ 35 is expressway grade and even prior to 1991 when the Ernston Road intersection was removed for an interchange, still back in the 60's and 70's and even the 80's there was only one signal from Perrine Road in Old Bridge and NJ 35 in South Amboy. So to me building a freeway bypass of an already free flowing expressway is unheard of.
However, I do remember that in South Amboy and Sayreville that Route 35 at one time had median breaks south of NJ 35 all the way to the Cheesequake Creek Bridge that eventually got sealed off with wooden barricades to prevent left turns and cross traffic that caused many accidents back then. So, I was wondering was US 9 in both Sayreville and the former Madison Township also full of median breaks that were later closed off due to safety issues that prompted NJDOT to pursue another alignment had the Route 74 freeway been constructed?
I think what you were seeing here was bypassing the US 9/NJ 35 interchange. That's been on the books for decades but it's never happening now.
Why has Mercer County 583 shields been removed from I-295 in Lawrence Township? I see Princeton Pike is used with Princeton and Trenton added as control cities per GSV.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 03:37:28 PM
Why has Mercer County 583 shields been removed from I-295 in Lawrence Township? I see Princeton Pike is used with Princeton and Trenton added as control cities per GSV.
Right side, with decision noted lower down:
https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/R_2015_d_127_(47_NJR_1979(a)).pdf
Quote from: famartin on August 06, 2021, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 03:37:28 PM
Why has Mercer County 583 shields been removed from I-295 in Lawrence Township? I see Princeton Pike is used with Princeton and Trenton added as control cities per GSV.
Right side, with decision noted lower down:
https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/R_2015_d_127_(47_NJR_1979(a)).pdf
So the county relinquished the road to both Princeton and Lawrence. So cR 583 os no longer a route. Considering how short it was probably a good idea to not use a five hundred series number for it anyway.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 05:03:30 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 06, 2021, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 03:37:28 PM
Why has Mercer County 583 shields been removed from I-295 in Lawrence Township? I see Princeton Pike is used with Princeton and Trenton added as control cities per GSV.
Right side, with decision noted lower down:
https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/R_2015_d_127_(47_NJR_1979(a)).pdf
So the county relinquished the road to both Princeton and Lawrence. So cR 583 os no longer a route. Considering how short it was probably a good idea to not use a five hundred series number for it anyway.
Well, remember, NJ is one of those places where different jurisdictions can still maintain routes which are designated by higher authority (i.e., such as US 206 thru Trenton). So, CR 583 I think "technically" still exists along this corridor, but for all intents and purposes, doesn't. There is still a CR 583 shield just north of I-295, I believe, but many have indeed disappeared.
https://goo.gl/maps/cFbkRAsDFaMq2BRF9
How far along is the construction at one of the state" s problematic interchanges coming along?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 05:39:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/cFbkRAsDFaMq2BRF9
How far along is the construction at one of the state" s problematic interchanges coming along?
Its coming. I was nearby recently and snapped a few pics nearby.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg/800px-2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg)
View east on 46 from Clove Road.
(full size -> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg )
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/2021-07-31_14_16_31_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_61.jpg/800px-2021-07-31_14_16_31_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_61.jpg)
View west on 3 from Grove Street.
(full size-> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/2021-07-31_14_16_31_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_61.jpg )
I believe completion isn't scheduled until 2024.
Quote from: famartin on August 06, 2021, 05:07:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 05:03:30 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 06, 2021, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 03:37:28 PM
Why has Mercer County 583 shields been removed from I-295 in Lawrence Township? I see Princeton Pike is used with Princeton and Trenton added as control cities per GSV.
Right side, with decision noted lower down:
https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/R_2015_d_127_(47_NJR_1979(a)).pdf
So the county relinquished the road to both Princeton and Lawrence. So cR 583 os no longer a route. Considering how short it was probably a good idea to not use a five hundred series number for it anyway.
Well, remember, NJ is one of those places where different jurisdictions can still maintain routes which are designated by higher authority (i.e., such as US 206 thru Trenton). So, CR 583 I think "technically" still exists along this corridor, but for all intents and purposes, doesn't. There is still a CR 583 shield just north of I-295, I believe, but many have indeed disappeared.
It is still there. There was also a SB one south of the interchange, too, but that was removed a couple years ago.
I see though from Street View that US 206 is barely signed in Downtown Trenton. On Warren Street, where the city built a roundabout at the point US 206 S Bound heads east one block to Broad Street, there is no signage within the roundabout directing US 206 S Bound.
Also NJ 31 is not signed from US 206 S Bound as well as US 206 on Market Street at Broad which is signed from US 1 as TO US 206 (or was at one time) and no TO US 1 on Broad Street shields exist anymore pointing EB on Market.
IMO, why not just route US 206 on either I-295 and I-195 and bypass the city or even co sign US 206 on US 1 and renumber NJ 129 to US 206 and have US 206 overlap NJ 29 and I-295 to its alignment south of White Horse. However, NJDOT will not even think of it as they still have not applied to AASHTO to remove US 9 from Beeslys Point or US 322 to from its old alignment in Mullica Hill either. As far as AASHTO is concerned US 9 still crosses the Great Egg Harbor Bay on what is now open water due to the removal of the old bridge. Oh, and yes the new Hillsborough Bypass is not officially US 206 Bypass even though signage reflects it.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2021, 11:56:42 AM
I see though from Street View that US 206 is barely signed in Downtown Trenton. On Warren Street, where the city built a roundabout at the point US 206 S Bound heads east one block to Broad Street, there is no signage within the roundabout directing US 206 S Bound.
Also NJ 31 is not signed from US 206 S Bound as well as US 206 on Market Street at Broad which is signed from US 1 as TO US 206 (or was at one time) and no TO US 1 on Broad Street shields exist anymore pointing EB on Market.
IMO, why not just route US 206 on either I-295 and I-195 and bypass the city or even co sign US 206 on US 1 and renumber NJ 129 to US 206 and have US 206 overlap NJ 29 and I-295 to its alignment south of White Horse. However, NJDOT will not even think of it as they still have not applied to AASHTO to remove US 9 from Beeslys Point or US 322 to from its old alignment in Mullica Hill either. As far as AASHTO is concerned US 9 still crosses the Great Egg Harbor Bay on what is now open water due to the removal of the old bridge. Oh, and yes the new Hillsborough Bypass is not officially US 206 Bypass even though signage reflects it.
I had thought that they could just mostly bypass the non-NJDOT sections by sending US 206 north along I-195/NJ 29/NJ 129/US 1 up to the Brunswick Circle. There would still be the stub along South Broad Street in Hamilton that NJDOT still maintains presently, but I would think the county could take that over as part of an extended 524. But these are things unlikely to happen.
Quote from: famartin on August 07, 2021, 09:31:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2021, 11:56:42 AM
I see though from Street View that US 206 is barely signed in Downtown Trenton. On Warren Street, where the city built a roundabout at the point US 206 S Bound heads east one block to Broad Street, there is no signage within the roundabout directing US 206 S Bound.
Also NJ 31 is not signed from US 206 S Bound as well as US 206 on Market Street at Broad which is signed from US 1 as TO US 206 (or was at one time) and no TO US 1 on Broad Street shields exist anymore pointing EB on Market.
IMO, why not just route US 206 on either I-295 and I-195 and bypass the city or even co sign US 206 on US 1 and renumber NJ 129 to US 206 and have US 206 overlap NJ 29 and I-295 to its alignment south of White Horse. However, NJDOT will not even think of it as they still have not applied to AASHTO to remove US 9 from Beeslys Point or US 322 to from its old alignment in Mullica Hill either. As far as AASHTO is concerned US 9 still crosses the Great Egg Harbor Bay on what is now open water due to the removal of the old bridge. Oh, and yes the new Hillsborough Bypass is not officially US 206 Bypass even though signage reflects it.
I had thought that they could just mostly bypass the non-NJDOT sections by sending US 206 north along I-195/NJ 29/NJ 129/US 1 up to the Brunswick Circle. There would still be the stub along South Broad Street in Hamilton that NJDOT still maintains presently, but I would think the county could take that over as part of an extended 524. But these are things unlikely to happen.
Yeah, NJDOT has plenty of non-state maintained mileage that they seem to have no interest in caring about.
Quote from: famartin on August 06, 2021, 06:09:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 05:39:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/cFbkRAsDFaMq2BRF9
How far along is the construction at one of the state" s problematic interchanges coming along?
Its coming. I was nearby recently and snapped a few pics nearby.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg/800px-2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg)
View east on 46 from Clove Road.
(full size -> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg )
Drove thru here late last night. Signing is pretty non-existent at the moment besides one very temporary big orange APL sign a mile in advance of the split. Out of towners better be paying attention to those lane markings, because you don't get much else!
Always wondered this: how much of 27, 28, and 439 in Elizabeth is actually maintained by NJDOT? Many of the traffic light installs in various places look like either local Elizabeth city installs or Union County jobs rather than NJDOT installs (I mean, a lot of them are the old style trombone arms with the horizontal signal installs, including some where the left turn arrow is between the yellow and green lights like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/g2wxfEz6BmYK2DEG9)), EMMs are uneven, and the way they sign the end of 28 and where 27 goes once the one way Chilton/Cherry pair gets to Westfield Ave is inconsistent. Never was all that sure how much NJDOT actually did and how much fell on the city.
Quote from: storm2k on August 08, 2021, 04:41:10 PM
Always wondered this: how much of 27, 28, and 439 in Elizabeth is actually maintained by NJDOT? Many of the traffic light installs in various places look like either local Elizabeth city installs or Union County jobs rather than NJDOT installs (I mean, a lot of them are the old style trombone arms with the horizontal signal installs, including some where the left turn arrow is between the yellow and green lights like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/g2wxfEz6BmYK2DEG9)), EMMs are uneven, and the way they sign the end of 28 and where 27 goes once the one way Chilton/Cherry pair gets to Westfield Ave is inconsistent. Never was all that sure how much NJDOT actually did and how much fell on the city.
I usually go by the street name blade on the light mast. NJDOT tends to be the only agency to use green background and lowercase letters. If the sign blades are a different color, typeface or omitted completely, it probably isn't a NJDOT light.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2021, 11:35:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 08, 2021, 04:41:10 PM
Always wondered this: how much of 27, 28, and 439 in Elizabeth is actually maintained by NJDOT? Many of the traffic light installs in various places look like either local Elizabeth city installs or Union County jobs rather than NJDOT installs (I mean, a lot of them are the old style trombone arms with the horizontal signal installs, including some where the left turn arrow is between the yellow and green lights like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/g2wxfEz6BmYK2DEG9)), EMMs are uneven, and the way they sign the end of 28 and where 27 goes once the one way Chilton/Cherry pair gets to Westfield Ave is inconsistent. Never was all that sure how much NJDOT actually did and how much fell on the city.
I usually go by the street name blade on the light mast. NJDOT tends to be the only agency to use green background and lowercase letters. If the sign blades are a different color, typeface or omitted completely, it probably isn't a NJDOT light.
A lot of north and central Jersey counties are using similar style to NJDOT. So far, though, I've only seen EMM's on NJDOT and SJTA roads. That might be more of a clue.
Quote from: storm2k on August 08, 2021, 04:41:10 PM
Always wondered this: how much of 27, 28, and 439 in Elizabeth is actually maintained by NJDOT? Many of the traffic light installs in various places look like either local Elizabeth city installs or Union County jobs rather than NJDOT installs (I mean, a lot of them are the old style trombone arms with the horizontal signal installs, including some where the left turn arrow is between the yellow and green lights like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/g2wxfEz6BmYK2DEG9)), EMMs are uneven, and the way they sign the end of 28 and where 27 goes once the one way Chilton/Cherry pair gets to Westfield Ave is inconsistent. Never was all that sure how much NJDOT actually did and how much fell on the city.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/ pick your route and have fun
Quote from: Alps on August 09, 2021, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 08, 2021, 04:41:10 PM
Always wondered this: how much of 27, 28, and 439 in Elizabeth is actually maintained by NJDOT? Many of the traffic light installs in various places look like either local Elizabeth city installs or Union County jobs rather than NJDOT installs (I mean, a lot of them are the old style trombone arms with the horizontal signal installs, including some where the left turn arrow is between the yellow and green lights like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/g2wxfEz6BmYK2DEG9)), EMMs are uneven, and the way they sign the end of 28 and where 27 goes once the one way Chilton/Cherry pair gets to Westfield Ave is inconsistent. Never was all that sure how much NJDOT actually did and how much fell on the city.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/ pick your route and have fun
I thought of suggesting that, but someone here likes to rip them for inaccuracies, so decided not to.
I know most of the time NJ uses the truss arms for the traffic lights, but why do some intersections have the wisconsin style sideways lights? I seen them a lot in Newark and Atlantic City.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 09, 2021, 04:01:48 PM
I know most of the time NJ uses the truss arms for the traffic lights, but why do some intersections have the wisconsin style sideways lights? I seen them a lot in Newark and Atlantic City.
It's just a different local style. Like how NYC uses the guy wire mast arms.
Quote from: famartin on August 09, 2021, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 09, 2021, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 08, 2021, 04:41:10 PM
Always wondered this: how much of 27, 28, and 439 in Elizabeth is actually maintained by NJDOT? Many of the traffic light installs in various places look like either local Elizabeth city installs or Union County jobs rather than NJDOT installs (I mean, a lot of them are the old style trombone arms with the horizontal signal installs, including some where the left turn arrow is between the yellow and green lights like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/g2wxfEz6BmYK2DEG9)), EMMs are uneven, and the way they sign the end of 28 and where 27 goes once the one way Chilton/Cherry pair gets to Westfield Ave is inconsistent. Never was all that sure how much NJDOT actually did and how much fell on the city.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/ pick your route and have fun
I thought of suggesting that, but someone here likes to rip them for inaccuracies, so decided not to.
It's not perfect but it's a good start.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on August 09, 2021, 04:07:30 PM
Quote from: mariethefoxy on August 09, 2021, 04:01:48 PM
I know most of the time NJ uses the truss arms for the traffic lights, but why do some intersections have the wisconsin style sideways lights? I seen them a lot in Newark and Atlantic City.
It's just a different local style. Like how NYC uses the guy wire mast arms.
Horizontals were the norm decades ago in many places. Essex County had them on ALL of their roads.
Quote from: famartin on August 09, 2021, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 09, 2021, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 08, 2021, 04:41:10 PM
Always wondered this: how much of 27, 28, and 439 in Elizabeth is actually maintained by NJDOT? Many of the traffic light installs in various places look like either local Elizabeth city installs or Union County jobs rather than NJDOT installs (I mean, a lot of them are the old style trombone arms with the horizontal signal installs, including some where the left turn arrow is between the yellow and green lights like this one (https://goo.gl/maps/g2wxfEz6BmYK2DEG9)), EMMs are uneven, and the way they sign the end of 28 and where 27 goes once the one way Chilton/Cherry pair gets to Westfield Ave is inconsistent. Never was all that sure how much NJDOT actually did and how much fell on the city.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/ pick your route and have fun
I thought of suggesting that, but someone here likes to rip them for inaccuracies, so decided not to.
Calls 'em as I sees 'em.
There are still lots of horizontal traffic lights in Essex County in Newark and West Orange to name a few.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 10, 2021, 08:25:46 PM
There are still lots of horizontal traffic lights in Essex County in Newark and West Orange to name a few.
Atlantic City has plenty as well.
Drove on the Middlesex County portion of 440 today to see what new signage was installed since I was last there.
New sign bridge ahead of the Parkway SB ramp. Guessing they'll take down the original one. The black on yellow "exit only" style bar is a new phenominon for NJDOT. Still omits a yellow toll banner for the Parkway even though there is nowhere to exit once you're on the southbound Parkway at this point before you hit a toll. Also interesting that the No Trucks banner is on 2 lines, and they don't put the usual "GS Parkway" control city.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51378098717_d4566853e5_c.jpg)
Most of the other signage is currently done only on ramps, although there is a road closure tonight for a new sign bridge install near Pfeiffer Blvd.
Here's the new sign bridge for the 514WB exit from 440SB. Again with the black on yellow bars for the 200 ft warning, but not done the same way. It's missing the "LEFT" banner at the top that is supposed to accompany left-hand exits. NJDOT is really favoring the tall skinny signs like this these days in certain places. Will be curious if the 95 shield doesn't suffer from major fading in the next few years. Feels like a lot of interstate shields that NJDOT put up at one point on BGS's were extra prone to fading.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51379604294_d4d38dcda1_c.jpg)
Interesting that NJDOT has fully recommitted to illuminating their sign bridges again, even though these should be fully retroflective and not need it.
One bonus sign:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51379094623_976d5e934b_c.jpg)
This one annoys me, because 514 doesn't end here, of course. It just has a concurrency with 27 until it crosses the Albany St bridge and turns off onto Johnson Dr (not that you'd know it, because the City of New Brunswick doesn't sign the county route anywhere, not on overhead signs, not with reassurance markers, nothing. You basically lose sight of it from the Franklin/New Brunswick border until it veers off on its own again in Highland Pk). Also, the trip down the SLD rabbit hole brought something to my attention that I never knew. I never knew that 527 is officially routed down George St from the intersection with Albany St (Rt 27) all the way down to 18 (sharing a concurrency with NJ-172 for its tiny travel from 18... I'm not even sure why it's still a state route at this point). Yet at the intersection of George & Albany, the street name blade on the traffic signal posts it as NJ-171! Plus, several street name blades on traffic signals further down George St sign it as CR-672, which it only is north of NJ-27. That's kinda frustrating. I honestly always thought 527 silently made the left at the end of Easton Ave and then just silently was concurrent with 18 from the 18-27 interchange all the way down to where it veers off on its own again in East Brunswick. The more you know...
Having lived in Highland Park for 20 years, it's been like that forever (514 END misnomer). It's just been replaced in kind the last few years. It will probably be there for eternity.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on August 15, 2021, 01:36:10 PM
Having lived in Highland Park for 20 years, it's been like that forever (514 END misnomer). It's just been replaced in kind the last few years. It will probably be there for eternity.
I suspect this is due to it being the terminus of Middlesex County maintenance. The small section that is independent of another route in New Brunswick is under municipal maintenance, IIRC.
On another topic, 527 may follow George St (which was also part of 171 at 27 until fairly recently), but Middlesex County doesn't recognize that, signing it as a 600 route instead. It might as well follow 27 to 18 as suggested, which is actually the only legal option (left turns from George St northbound to 27 are prohibited).
I personally wouldn't mind hacking 514 into two bits anyway. A concurrency (even unsigned) there is utterly pointless.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on August 15, 2021, 08:25:21 PM
I personally wouldn't mind hacking 514 into two bits anyway. A concurrency (even unsigned) there is utterly pointless.
A lot of the 500 routes are rather odd and not exactly useful. No doubt this is because they were plotted 70 years or so ago and were meant as supplements/backups to the state highway system, not necessarily touring routes.
Slowly but surely, NJDOT is installing more signs without the black backplate (try saying that 10 times fast!) I hadn't seen too many new ones in New Jersey, but this one is brand new and is shown in the Wikipedia article for NJ Route 10:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Quote from: artmalk on August 16, 2021, 11:35:35 AM
Slowly but surely, NJDOT is installing more signs without the black backplate (try saying that 10 times fast!) I hadn't seen too many new ones in New Jersey, but this one is brand new and is shown in the Wikipedia article for NJ Route 10:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Yes, it's one of my photos.
Yes, it seems that they started with these signs in South and Cetnral Jersey, and they are working their way North.
Quote from: famartin on August 15, 2021, 11:15:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on August 15, 2021, 08:25:21 PM
I personally wouldn't mind hacking 514 into two bits anyway. A concurrency (even unsigned) there is utterly pointless.
A lot of the 500 routes are rather odd and not exactly useful. No doubt this is because they were plotted 70 years or so ago and were meant as supplements/backups to the state highway system, not necessarily touring routes.
They were assigned on 1/1/53 (same day as the current SR designations) as like their WW2 predecessor, air raid/disaster/military issues evacuation routes so the major roads could be used by the military in that situation.
Quote from: famartin on August 16, 2021, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: artmalk on August 16, 2021, 11:35:35 AM
Slowly but surely, NJDOT is installing more signs without the black backplate (try saying that 10 times fast!) I hadn't seen too many new ones in New Jersey, but this one is brand new and is shown in the Wikipedia article for NJ Route 10:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Yes, it's one of my photos.
What is really weird here is that US 46 can also be reached by going north on I-287. Plus it's shorter.
However NJDOT using termination cities or townships now includes the Route the road is terminating at.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2021, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 16, 2021, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: artmalk on August 16, 2021, 11:35:35 AM
Slowly but surely, NJDOT is installing more signs without the black backplate (try saying that 10 times fast!) I hadn't seen too many new ones in New Jersey, but this one is brand new and is shown in the Wikipedia article for NJ Route 10:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Yes, it's one of my photos.
What is really weird here is that US 46 can also be reached by going north on I-287. Plus it's shorter.
However NJDOT using termination cities or townships now includes the Route the road is terminating at.
Do not like. 10 doesn't hit 46 for a while. Also, Dover's been the control city for 10 westbound for a while, and makes more sense than Roxbury.
Quote from: storm2k on August 16, 2021, 07:26:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2021, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 16, 2021, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: artmalk on August 16, 2021, 11:35:35 AM
Slowly but surely, NJDOT is installing more signs without the black backplate (try saying that 10 times fast!) I hadn't seen too many new ones in New Jersey, but this one is brand new and is shown in the Wikipedia article for NJ Route 10:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Yes, it's one of my photos.
What is really weird here is that US 46 can also be reached by going north on I-287. Plus it's shorter.
However NJDOT using termination cities or townships now includes the Route the road is terminating at.
Do not like. 10 doesn't hit 46 for a while. Also, Dover's been the control city for 10 westbound for a while, and makes more sense than Roxbury.
Is it still that on I-287 for NJ 10 West?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2021, 07:29:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 16, 2021, 07:26:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2021, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 16, 2021, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: artmalk on August 16, 2021, 11:35:35 AM
Slowly but surely, NJDOT is installing more signs without the black backplate (try saying that 10 times fast!) I hadn't seen too many new ones in New Jersey, but this one is brand new and is shown in the Wikipedia article for NJ Route 10:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Yes, it's one of my photos.
What is really weird here is that US 46 can also be reached by going north on I-287. Plus it's shorter.
However NJDOT using termination cities or townships now includes the Route the road is terminating at.
Do not like. 10 doesn't hit 46 for a while. Also, Dover's been the control city for 10 westbound for a while, and makes more sense than Roxbury.
Is it still that on I-287 for NJ 10 West?
Yep. The signage on 287 in that area is still the reflective button copy signs installed when the HOV lanes were built in the mid 90s. Only ones that have been replaced are the signs at 21A-B, 22A sign bridge, and the signs right at 80 north of Exit 40.
Took a ride to see what other new sign replacements I could find in areas with lots of triangular chord trusses still up there and was not disappointed. NJDOT is plowing right along with these replacements. Next effort will likely be on 78 as there are a bunch there, and I know a few were being readied where they're doing the overpass work near Main St Millburn.
22EB at Hillside Ave in Hillside. Not sure why the cantilever is so long when the sign is so short. Wondering if they'll eventually put a 22 to 1-9 Newark sign next to the exit sign, or maybe a "Newark Areas" style sign or something. Does feel like with such a sharp curve onto the exit ramp still, they should have put a black on yellow 10mph advisory on the sign itself, not just the advisory sign next to it.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51382205385_2ab73c63c0_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mhtewR)
22 at the end. Seeing the Newark Airport part without the brown background is weird, but it's properly executed and still includes EWR's unique airport logo. Also, that middle sign is not great if you ask me. And another tall and skinny sign on the left with Exit Only on two lines.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51381196781_f3a3cbcaf1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mho4H8)
1&9 North at the Port Newark exit. There's clearly room for the North Area to be added to this sign, but wasn't. Don't know why. The rest of this is bad. The Crossover sign is completely over the local lanes instead of the express lanes, which could have easily been put there right if they slid the sign on the left over. That left sign, by the way, is way too busy with the three lines of control cities. Just leave it at New York City and call it a day!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51382205375_17e9cdc6c1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mhtewF)
Over to 280 westbound now. Looks like every overhead sign structure west of Exit 7 is in the process of being replaced if it hasn't been already (Exit 4). Pretty much a carbon copy of what was there previously just done to modern 2021 standards (previous ones were late 90s vintage). The 6A sign is still attached to the overpass and is the sign that was already there. I suspect if they need to take it down, it will turn into a ground mount replacement.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51382205415_8d1e8c1647_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mhtexn)
Exit 5B overhead is finally back! It's been missing for years already. Again, pretty much a replace in kind of what was there before, just done to modern specs once again.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51381934359_29a23e52eb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mhrQXZ)
And new Exit 5A bridge. Again, replace in kind with update to most recent standards.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51381934354_f69cc81b15_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mhrQXU)
There are new structures going up for the EB signs at this area. Additionally, there are new structures in progress for Exit 1 and the approach signs to 80. All of them were the old triangle chord trusses, and all are getting replaced with modern box trusses instead. Pretty much everything east of Exit 6, while not new, is much more modern than this, so I don't expect any replacements of those.
I was often wondering about NJ 24 through Chatham. It was constructed two decades before the freeway west of it to I-287 was. Was that originally planned to connect to Triborough Road? I am guessing that the Eisenhower Extension was cancelled after the freeway west of JFK was built.
I also speculate, that if Triborough Road was completed, it would have been signed as TEMP Route 24 south of it to at least bypass Downtown Chatham until 1992 when NJ 24 finally opened.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2021, 08:16:01 PM
I was often wondering about NJ 24 through Chatham. It was constructed two decades before the freeway west of it to I-287 was. Was that originally planned to connect to Triborough Road? I am guessing that the Eisenhower Extension was cancelled after the freeway west of JFK was built.
I also speculate, that if Triborough Road was completed, it would have been signed as TEMP Route 24 south of it to at least bypass Downtown Chatham until 1992 when NJ 24 finally opened.
Alps' page (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_609/) about Eisenhower suggests it was always supposed to be a county highway all the way. You can trace out the vague path that the roadway would have followed and it makes sense that it would have connected to 124 in the Chatham area.
Quote from: storm2k on August 16, 2021, 07:58:26 PM
22 at the end. Seeing the Newark Airport part without the brown background is weird, but it's properly executed and still includes EWR's unique airport logo. Also, that middle sign is not great if you ask me. And another tall and skinny sign on the left with Exit Only on two lines.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51381196781_f3a3cbcaf1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mho4H8)
The right-most sign would definitely qualify for the short-lived https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19572.msg2201593#msg2201593 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19572.msg2201593#msg2201593) thread.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 08, 2021, 03:38:56 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 06, 2021, 06:09:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 05:39:26 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/cFbkRAsDFaMq2BRF9
How far along is the construction at one of the state" s problematic interchanges coming along?
Its coming. I was nearby recently and snapped a few pics nearby.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg/800px-2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg)
View east on 46 from Clove Road.
(full size -> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/2021-07-23_14_39_02_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_42.jpg )
Drove thru here late last night. Signing is pretty non-existent at the moment besides one very temporary big orange APL sign a mile in advance of the split. Out of towners better be paying attention to those lane markings, because you don't get much else!
I go through this area several times a week. Retaining walls are being built along US 46 East where the hill has been cut away to widen the highway. Work continues on replacing the US 46 bridges over Lower Notch Rd. and Valley Rd. They are working on the eastbound side now and when that is complete, will probably shift traffic to work on the westbound side. There is no access from US 46 East to Valley Rd. The exit to Valley Rd. South has been closed permanently and the exit to Valley Rd. North, which will eventually serve all traffic from 46 East to Valley Rd. is closed while the US 46 East flyover is being built. Construction has begun on the flyover and I think that once that is completed, US 46 East traffic will be routed that way and the new main movement between US 46 East-NJ 3 East and NJ 3 West-US 46 West can be completed. Then I would imagine they will work on the US 46 West roadway and the replacement of the current bridge over NJ 3 West.
I second NJRoadfan's comments about signage. A stranger going east on 46 has very little warning about the road split. New covered signs have been installed on a sign bridge on NJ 3 West, but there is no signage for the Valley Rd. exit until you get to the gore. Also US 46 West now has only 1 lane crossing over NJ 3 West (there will be two when construction is complete) and 1 lane for the Valley Rd. exit. It is easy to get caught in the wrong lane (ask me how I know).
Three more years.
Quote from: storm2k on August 16, 2021, 08:36:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2021, 08:16:01 PM
I was often wondering about NJ 24 through Chatham. It was constructed two decades before the freeway west of it to I-287 was. Was that originally planned to connect to Triborough Road? I am guessing that the Eisenhower Extension was cancelled after the freeway west of JFK was built.
I also speculate, that if Triborough Road was completed, it would have been signed as TEMP Route 24 south of it to at least bypass Downtown Chatham until 1992 when NJ 24 finally opened.
Alps' page (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_609/) about Eisenhower suggests it was always supposed to be a county highway all the way. You can trace out the vague path that the roadway would have followed and it makes sense that it would have connected to 124 in the Chatham area.
Yeah, but NJ allows state designations to be county maintained in some areas. Heck look at parts of Route 41 and the old alignment of NJ 18 on River Road in Highland Park and Piscataway. It was never state maintained, but NJDOT had it designated TEMP NJ 18 up until 1987 when part of the NJ 18 freeway got built in New Brunswick.
It could have been anticipated that Triborough Road could have been TEMP 24 up to current NJ 124 until the final leg of the freeway got done in the early 90's. Then the signs would come down and revert to the 600 series number proposed for the never built arterial.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 16, 2021, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 16, 2021, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: artmalk on August 16, 2021, 11:35:35 AM
Slowly but surely, NJDOT is installing more signs without the black backplate (try saying that 10 times fast!) I hadn't seen too many new ones in New Jersey, but this one is brand new and is shown in the Wikipedia article for NJ Route 10:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Route_10#/media/File:2021-07-06_10_41_33_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_31.jpg)
Yes, it's one of my photos.
What is really weird here is that US 46 can also be reached by going north on I-287. Plus it's shorter.
However NJDOT using termination cities or townships now includes the Route the road is terminating at.
If you're going anywhere on Westbound 46 west of 53 taking route 10 is usually faster than I-287. I'm not sure how something like that should be communicated. Perhaps not mentioning 46 at all is better. Otherwise, one might argue that I-80, NJ 53, US 202, and even NJ 15 should be added as well
Wonder if the eastbound counterpart has West Orange and TO Essex County Route 577.
Obviously, the same engineer who designed the I-195 pull throughs with the with TO NJ 138 and TO NJ 29 engineered this. Again on I-195 they omit the Turnpike, Parkway, and I-295 and just use the two Routes 29 and 138 because at both ends the freeway defaults into them not realizing that the importance of the connecting routes would be more important than the continuing routes are in the minds of travelers.
Route 24 has the same issue with I-287 being signed at Exit 48 on I-78 local in Springfield. The contractor who amended the previous implied NJ 24 and NJ 124 concurrency that never existed placed I-287 to compliment Morristown as NJ 24 ends at it not realizing I-78 interchanges also with it 18 miles further. So, for example, if someone on local 78 is heading for I-287 South for Piscataway would see the sign, exit at Route 24, and head south on I-287 from Morristown.
By this logic, all pull through signs on I-287 in Bergen- Passaic will use TO NJ 440 and Perth Amboy going south where using TO I-80 would work better. Then NB from the Turnpike it would have TO I -87 in addition to Mahwah on all pull through that way.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 17, 2021, 11:25:36 PM
Wonder if the eastbound counterpart has West Orange and TO Essex County Route 577.
Obviously, the same engineer who designed the I-195 pull throughs with the with TO NJ 138 and TO NJ 29 engineered this. Again on I-195 they omit the Turnpike, Parkway, and I-295 and just use the two Routes 29 and 138 because at both ends the freeway defaults into them not realizing that the importance of the connecting routes would be more important than the continuing routes are in the minds of travelers.
Route 24 has the same issue with I-287 being signed at Exit 48 on I-78 local in Springfield. The contractor who amended the previous implied NJ 24 and NJ 124 concurrency that never existed placed I-287 to compliment Morristown as NJ 24 ends at it not realizing I-78 interchanges also with it 18 miles further. So, for example, if someone on local 78 is heading for I-287 South for Piscataway would see the sign, exit at Route 24, and head south on I-287 from Morristown.
By this logic, all pull through signs on I-287 in Bergen- Passaic will use TO NJ 440 and Perth Amboy going south where using TO I-80 would work better. Then NB from the Turnpike it would have TO I -87 in addition to Mahwah on all pull through that way.
Assuming those signs are replaced anytime soon, that is indeed likely to occur. I suspect either their chief sign engineer, or a policy change, exists to cause the installation of this odd signage. Remember this is probably also the same one who decided to sign "EAST I-280 to I-95/NJTP / Kearny" instead of using the more prominent "Newark" along I-280 well west of Newark proper.
The sign on NJ 10 westbound at I-287 is new, it was installed within the last year. I don't think they have a pull through going eastbound. In fact, I don't recall if they even replaced the signs going eastbound - that area was under construction a year ago, but I want to say it was just westbound on NJ 10 that was being worked on. Here are the signs from a year ago:
NJ 10 westbound (these were replaced, notice the ongoing construction)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/2020-09-09_09_04_02_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_10_at_the_exit_for_Interstate_287_NORTH_%28Boonton%29_in_Hanover_Township%2C_Morris_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2020-09-09_09_04_02_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_10_at_the_exit_for_Interstate_287_NORTH_%28Boonton%29_in_Hanover_Township%2C_Morris_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
NJ 10 eastbound (I think these are still in place, notice the lack of construction)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/2020-09-09_17_07_23_View_east_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_10_at_the_exit_for_Interstate_287_SOUTH_%28Morristown%29_in_Hanover_Township%2C_Morris_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
In Newfoundland along NJ 23 at LaRue Road, I noticed on GSV that the SB jug handle is closed off with LaRue Road being one way SB. I assume it was because left turns on LaRue to Route 23 was having to wait on traffic leaving the jug handle traffic from Route 23 SB to LaRue Road.
Considering that the median of Route 23 is super mega wide at that particular location, why didn't they just allow a direct left turn from SB Route 23 to LaRue Road instead of converting LaRue into a one way? The purpose of a jug handle is for the left turns that would have to wait on oncoming traffic to be moved to the ramp instead. Left turns on Route 23 south to LaRue does not face that problem.
Someone please remind NJDOT that I-287 goes to Mahwah these days, not Boonton.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 18, 2021, 07:47:11 PM
In Newfoundland along NJ 23 at LaRue Road, I noticed on GSV that the SB jug handle is closed off with LaRue Road being one way SB. I assume it was because left turns on LaRue to Route 23 was having to wait on traffic leaving the jug handle traffic from Route 23 SB to LaRue Road.
Are you referring to Cross Rd? The jug handle was redundant, they can use Clinton Rd. instead. That movement also serves Union Valley Rd./CR-513 traffic wanting to go south, so it was likely an operational improvement. The locals all use the Clinton Rd. light anyway.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 18, 2021, 07:54:23 PM
Someone please remind NJDOT that I-287 goes to Mahwah these days, not Boonton.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 18, 2021, 07:47:11 PM
In Newfoundland along NJ 23 at LaRue Road, I noticed on GSV that the SB jug handle is closed off with LaRue Road being one way SB. I assume it was because left turns on LaRue to Route 23 was having to wait on traffic leaving the jug handle traffic from Route 23 SB to LaRue Road.
Are you referring to Cross Rd? The jug handle was redundant, they can use Clinton Rd. instead. That movement also serves Union Valley Rd./CR-513 traffic wanting to go south, so it was likely an operational improvement. The locals all use the Clinton Rd. light anyway.
Well signs on Route 23 call it LaRue Road. It always had as long as I can remember. My cousin use to own Outdoorsman Sports Shop nearby, and we would visit him a lot when I was kid.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 18, 2021, 07:54:23 PM
Someone please remind NJDOT that I-287 goes to Mahwah these days, not Boonton.
What's wrong with it? This forum is filled with people that think the next control city should be every significant town or whatever is 10 miles down the highway.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 18, 2021, 07:54:23 PM
Someone please remind NJDOT that I-287 goes to Mahwah these days, not Boonton.
I was surprised to see the Boonton signs last year along NJ 10 since they were definitely fairly new (this century), and not pre-extension. I'd guess they were replaced at some point but were not updated (ie a pure copy job without thinking). The new signs WB now say Mahwah.
Quote from: Alps on July 17, 2021, 12:56:05 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2021, 08:57:07 PM
Wittpenn Bridge Update: I went past it this week while riding a PATH train. The bridge itself and the eastern approach appear to be complete. However the western approach still has work being done and the roadway is cluttered with construction vehicles, etc. But it's almost there.
The whole thing looks like it's done (from a vehicular perspective) but it's clear they're doing surficial work on various items still.
Alps, were you able to get an update on this before you went on vacation? I presume that it is still not open since I was unable to find any news articles on it.
What difference does Boonton vs. Mahwah make. On NJ 10 being it's a local highway Boonton still makes an ideal choice.
Quote from: famartin on August 19, 2021, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 18, 2021, 07:54:23 PM
Someone please remind NJDOT that I-287 goes to Mahwah these days, not Boonton.
I was surprised to see the Boonton signs last year along NJ 10 since they were definitely fairly new (this century), and not pre-extension. I'd guess they were replaced at some point but were not updated (ie a pure copy job without thinking). The new signs WB now say Mahwah.
Yeah I think it was an in-house copy, not a consultant who should have noticed the issue.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 19, 2021, 10:57:14 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 17, 2021, 12:56:05 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2021, 08:57:07 PM
Wittpenn Bridge Update: I went past it this week while riding a PATH train. The bridge itself and the eastern approach appear to be complete. However the western approach still has work being done and the roadway is cluttered with construction vehicles, etc. But it's almost there.
The whole thing looks like it's done (from a vehicular perspective) but it's clear they're doing surficial work on various items still.
Alps, were you able to get an update on this before you went on vacation? I presume that it is still not open since I was unable to find any news articles on it.
I only know it's not open, not when it might.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 19, 2021, 02:17:03 PM
What difference does Boonton vs. Mahwah make. On NJ 10 being it's a local highway Boonton still makes an ideal choice.
10 is local (relatively), 287 is not. In any case, this is related to historical precedent: Before I-287 was completed, I-287 north was signed for Boonton north of Morristown, since that's as far as it went. After completion in 1993, most signs were changed to Mahwah, but these obviously missed the cut.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49322554911_1c1eb53bfa_c.jpg
If NJDOT was in charge of the overhead sign at I-95's southern terminus.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49322554911_1c1eb53bfa_c.jpg)
This sign would have Houlton, ME as a control city here with a TO New Brunswick Highway 95 shield next to I-95.
:sombrero:
If Maryland was in charge it would say New York City.
Pixel 2
Quote from: billpa on August 20, 2021, 02:42:51 PM
If Maryland was in charge it would say New York City.
Pixel 2
LOL
Quote from: billpa on August 20, 2021, 02:42:51 PM
If Maryland was in charge it would say New York City.
Pixel 2
No, Baltimore and New York 😂
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2021, 10:10:53 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 18, 2021, 07:54:23 PM
Someone please remind NJDOT that I-287 goes to Mahwah these days, not Boonton.
What's wrong with it? This forum is filled with people that think the next control city should be every significant town or whatever is 10 miles down the highway.
In this case, Mahwah has been the northernmost control city for 287 since the final northern stretch of the freeway opened in 1993. Clearly the sign in question was a replace in kind without any update to the legend since then.
On I-287 going north of Morristown there really isn't an ideal control city. Anyone can do including Pompton Lakes which is on a guide in Bedminster. However being Mahwah is near the Thruway junction, it will have to do and I myself do not see an issue with it. The Thruway is a familiar artery that many have to use if they follow I-287 to the very end. So it's appropriate.
The Thruway itself would be the most logical destination to display. However, that is not permitted. One would think that these signs are there to aid the motorists rather than to provide them with a geography lesson.
Here is the problem with choosing a contol city for I-287. At the state line, you can go east on 287 (Thruway South)to the Cuomo/TZ Bridge, or stay north on I-87 and Thruway North to Albany. To show all these options further south on 287 would be too confusing. Of course Albany is more important than Mahwah, but even to sign it "287 to 87 Albany" would totally ignore another significant destination to continue on 287. So for lack of a better option it does no harm just to show Mahwah until you actually get to the state line intersection.
They could use Suffern, New York which is where the Thruway interchange is, or would that be a sin to use a city in another state, even if it's right at the state line?
Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2021, 07:49:17 PM
They could use Suffern, New York which is where the Thruway interchange is, or would that be a sin to use a city in another state, even if it's right at the state line?
Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2021, 07:49:17 PM
They could use Suffern, New York which is where the Thruway interchange is, or would that be a sin to use a city in another state, even if it's right at the state line?
The problem is no direct exit to Suffern from I-287. Have to go the opposite way on the Thruway to Exit 15A.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2021, 10:55:41 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2021, 07:49:17 PM
They could use Suffern, New York which is where the Thruway interchange is, or would that be a sin to use a city in another state, even if it's right at the state line?
Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2021, 07:49:17 PM
They could use Suffern, New York which is where the Thruway interchange is, or would that be a sin to use a city in another state, even if it's right at the state line?
The problem is no direct exit to Suffern from I-287. Have to go the opposite way on the Thruway to Exit 15A.
You can use Exit 14B fairly easily as well, which is on I-287. In any case, the lack of a "direct exit" hasn't ever stopped NJDOT before... I-295 doesn't go directly to Princeton, I-195 doesn't go directly to Trenton, and I-78 doesn't go directly to Phillipsburg.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2021, 07:49:17 PM
They could use Suffern, New York which is where the Thruway interchange is, or would that be a sin to use a city in another state, even if it's right at the state line?
Suffern is no more notable than Mahwah.
Quote from: Alps on August 23, 2021, 12:30:59 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 22, 2021, 07:49:17 PM
They could use Suffern, New York which is where the Thruway interchange is, or would that be a sin to use a city in another state, even if it's right at the state line?
Suffern is no more notable than Mahwah.
White Plains is probably the most notable location along I-287 northeast of Morristown, I would think.
Suffern used to used on Route 17 as well, but in the eighties they slowly converted to Mahwah. Route 17 actually has two exits in NJ that serve Suffern: Franklin Turnpike and US 202. Though I am not really that against using it, but getting too it from I-287 north is awkward as you have to go north on the Thruway and backtrack south along NY 59 East.
Then you have to do a roundabout action if you use 14B as well. So even though I-387 literally goes through Downtown Suffern. It access to it is cut off. Even if NJDOT built a ramp at where US 202 crosses its path in Mahwah, it would be better accessible.
In Wayne you have a mileage sign that uses Ramapo instead of Suffern where US 202 leaves NJ 23. To respond to SignBridge as he is partially right in NJDOT ignoring Suffern, as they use it’s town locale there.
https://goo.gl/maps/YK2tCCENBHNFDTui7
There is one sign along I-287 in Pompton Lakes that acknowledges Suffern.
I advocate using Suffern instead of Mahwah, because it's where the Thruway interchange is located and therefore might be better known and recognized by drivers.
I assume that's why on I-95 going into Connecticut that New Haven is used instead of Bridgeport for instance. Because New Haven is where the interchange with I-91 is located. Bridgeport does not have any Interstate Highway interchanges, but it is a larger city with a higher population, so arguably should be the control city in that region instead of New Haven. But the city with an Interstate interchange seems to be considered the higher priority in that case.
Same might apply with Suffern vs. Mahwah even if those are smaller cities/villages, whatever. But I think the real reasoning by NJDOT is they want to use a place name in their state which I think is foolish politics.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 23, 2021, 04:12:44 PM
Same might apply with Suffern vs. Mahwah even if those are smaller cities/villages, whatever. But I think the real reasoning by NJDOT is they want to use a place name in their state which I think is foolish politics.
I think that is the main driver. They are not the only guilty party - other states do it too. That doesn't make it right, though.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 23, 2021, 04:12:44 PM
I advocate using Suffern instead of Mahwah, because it's where the Thruway interchange is located and therefore might be better known and recognized by drivers.
I assume that's why on I-95 going into Connecticut that New Haven is used instead of Bridgeport for instance. Because New Haven is where the interchange with I-91 is located. Bridgeport does not have any Interstate Highway interchanges, but it is a larger city with a higher population, so arguably should be the control city in that region instead of New Haven. But the city with an Interstate interchange seems to be considered the higher priority in that case.
Same might apply with Suffern vs. Mahwah even if those are smaller cities/villages, whatever. But I think the real reasoning by NJDOT is they want to use a place name in their state which I think is foolish politics.
No one knows "you meet the Thruway in Suffern." No one knows what Suffern is except locals. You meet the Thruway at the NY border. New Haven is more recognizable than Bridgeport, historically more important, has more destinations (such as Yale), etc.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 23, 2021, 04:12:44 PM
I advocate using Suffern instead of Mahwah, because it's where the Thruway interchange is located and therefore might be better known and recognized by drivers.
I assume that's why on I-95 going into Connecticut that New Haven is used instead of Bridgeport for instance. Because New Haven is where the interchange with I-91 is located. Bridgeport does not have any Interstate Highway interchanges, but it is a larger city with a higher population, so arguably should be the control city in that region instead of New Haven. But the city with an Interstate interchange seems to be considered the higher priority in that case.
Same might apply with Suffern vs. Mahwah even if those are smaller cities/villages, whatever. But I think the real reasoning by NJDOT is they want to use a place name in their state which I think is foolish politics.
New Jersey isn't PA. Hell, for a lot of routes, they prefer to sign New York over the state's biggest city (Newark) because it's assumed more traffic is heading to the City.
Thanks Alps and storm2k. You both make interesting points.
Usually how it goes. The big attraction is the city nearby. Never understood why Carlisle is signed on I-81 from Chambersburg and north when Harrisburg is the larger city and state capital. However, both PA and LA are like that signing small towns over larger ones.
NJ sort of going west on I-78 with Clinton, but recently they opted more for Easton, even though Allentown is most appropriate being PA's third largest city.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 24, 2021, 10:37:19 PM
Usually how it goes. The big attraction is the city nearby. Never understood why Carlisle is signed on I-81 from Chambersburg and north when Harrisburg is the larger city and state capital. However, both PA and LA are like that signing small towns over larger ones.
NJ sort of going west on I-78 with Clinton, but recently they opted more for Easton, even though Allentown is most appropriate being PA's third largest city.
I do believe I saw a mileage sign on the westbound Newark Bay extension listing both Allentown and Harrisburg...
If I may make a modest proposal for the signage at the 10/287 interchange:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTxAIbT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/5hHidNi.png)
Then at the 80/287 interchange I would change to control cities to something like:
(https://i.imgur.com/ABLsYgE.png)
Quote from: interstate73 on August 25, 2021, 04:37:33 PM
If I may make a modest proposal for the signage at the 10/287 interchange:
(https://i.imgur.com/BTxAIbT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/5hHidNi.png)
Then at the 80/287 interchange I would change to control cities to something like:
(https://i.imgur.com/ABLsYgE.png)
I like it (especially the plane on the signs) :nod:
Exit 43B, get rid of White Plains. If somebody wants to go there, best to take 80 to either the GSP N to 287/87 or the Palisades.
For 80W, get rid of Del Water Gap, I hate that as a control city. Just use WB/Scranton, PA.
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 02:22:08 AM
Exit 43B, get rid of White Plains. If somebody wants to go there, best to take 80 to either the GSP N to 287/87 or the Palisades.
No its not. 287 is the best way.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.8675012,-74.4528731/41.0345777,-73.7623831/@40.9605018,-74.2231406,11.38z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
^ Not to mention, the I-80 routing is longer distance by a couple miles.
Quote from: famartin on August 28, 2021, 07:35:35 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 02:22:08 AM
Exit 43B, get rid of White Plains. If somebody wants to go there, best to take 80 to either the GSP N to 287/87 or the Palisades.
No its not. 287 is the best way.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.8675012,-74.4528731/41.0345777,-73.7623831/@40.9605018,-74.2231406,11.38z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
Plus trucks are prohibited on the GSP and the Palisades. However, not much traffic from there is specifically headed to White Plains, but Albany definitely fits the bill
As for 80W, I would love to use SWB (although it requires the use of 380 or 81), as Stroudsburg is just too small. Of course, you could make like ODOT and just skip over PA and use Cleveland :)
I too dislike the use of Delaware Water Gap. Problem is that I-80 doesn't go to Scranton or Wilkes-Barre. I was gonna suggest State College but I see that 80 doesn't actually go there either, LOL. Yeah, maybe Cleveland. There really just is no satisfactory control city on I-80 in Pa. What does Pa. actually use after you pass I-380?
Quote from: SignBridge on August 28, 2021, 08:14:43 PM
I too dislike the use of Delaware Water Gap. Problem is that I-80 doesn't go to Scranton or Wilkes-Barre. I was gonna suggest State College but I see that 80 doesn't actually go there either, LOL. Yeah, maybe Cleveland. There really just is no satisfactory control city on I-80 in Pa. What does Pa. actually use after you pass I-380?
Hazleton
Del Water Gap made more sense when the plan was to turn the whole thing into an amusement park (Tocks Island)
Quote from: Alps on August 28, 2021, 09:56:53 PM
Del Water Gap made more sense when the plan was to turn the whole thing into an amusement park (Tocks Island)
The gap's been a notable natural landmark that's been used for navigation for centuries. It being used as a destination on BGSes really isn't a problem.
The Gap is no different than using Bear Mountain on the Palisades Parkway in New York.
Also there is a village called Delaware Water Gap on the PA side of the I-80 toll bridge. Unlike Bear Mountain in Upstate NY that has no community, the Water Gap does.
Mahwah and White Plains make the most sense for control cities north of Morristown.
Mahwah is the posted destination of Rt 17 at Exit 66, the last exit in NJ. White Plains is where 287 goes once it's in NY. I've personally never understood why they insisted on continuing it and having it share a decently long concurrency with its parent route instead of just having the piece east of the Narcissist Memorial Bridge be a spur route (looks like 187 and 387 were never used for interstates) since the most logical thing that should have happened never did and never will (the entire 287 loop should have been an x95 since whether you consider its original planned start at the canceled Somerset Freeway or its current start at the Turnpike, 287 is a long bypass of 95 through New York City but it got to be 287 instead).
Quote from: storm2k on August 29, 2021, 02:16:31 AM
Mahwah and White Plains make the most sense for control cities north of Morristown.
Mahwah is the posted destination of Rt 17 at Exit 66, the last exit in NJ. White Plains is where 287 goes once it's in NY. I've personally never understood why they insisted on continuing it and having it share a decently long concurrency with its parent route instead of just having the piece east of the Narcissist Memorial Bridge be a spur route (looks like 187 and 387 were never used for interstates) since the most logical thing that should have happened never did and never will (the entire 287 loop should have been an x95 since whether you consider its original planned start at the canceled Somerset Freeway or its current start at the Turnpike, 287 is a long bypass of 95 through New York City but it got to be 287 instead).
Well remember, they had other plans for the whole system and 295, 495, 695 and 895 were used. The way things turned out suggests using 87 and 287 along existing 278, 187 along existing 495, and 495 along existing 287. But now we're edging into fake roads, not real roads.
There is already an I-295 in Southern New Jersey, so better that I-287 was used to avoid confusion by not having two different roads with the same Interstate number in different parts of the same state.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 29, 2021, 08:26:29 PM
There is already an I-295 in Southern New Jersey, so better that I-287 was used to avoid confusion by not having two different roads with the same Interstate number in different parts of the same state.
That's not legal. I-495 would work if they renumbered I-495 on LI to an X87.
NYSDOT originally proposed the eastern piece of I-287 as I-187, which FHWA changed to I-487 before merging it in to I-287 (this predated the other concept for I-487).
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix87.html
An I-x87 number for the LIE would not make any more sense than I-287 does now due to the history of the route (in fact, it makes even less, as it does not intersect I-87 or an I-x87 route anywhere). NJ 495 was originally I-495 and was intended to cross Manhattan to connect to the part that is still I-495.
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2021, 09:03:12 PM
NYSDOT originally proposed the eastern piece of I-287 as I-187, which FHWA changed to I-487 before merging it in to I-287 (this predated the other concept for I-487).
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix87.html
An I-x87 number for the LIE would not make any more sense than I-287 does now due to the history of the route (in fact, it makes even less, as it does not intersect I-87 or an I-x87 route anywhere). NJ 495 was originally I-495 and was intended to cross Manhattan to connect to the part that is still I-495.
x87 would work for the LIE if you extended 87 down 278, and changed the northern Bruckner section of 278 to 287. I mentioned this above already.
And what would be the point of any of these revisions besides to further confuse the general public? I have no problem with these route numbers as currently designed.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 29, 2021, 10:02:57 PM
And what would be the point of any of these revisions besides to further confuse the general public? I have no problem with these route numbers as currently designed.
Logic. Not saying they *need* to be done. Just saying it would be nice for system rules.
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2021, 09:03:12 PM
NYSDOT originally proposed the eastern piece of I-287 as I-187, which FHWA changed to I-487 before merging it in to I-287 (this predated the other concept for I-487).
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix87.html
An I-x87 number for the LIE would not make any more sense than I-287 does now due to the history of the route (in fact, it makes even less, as it does not intersect I-87 or an I-x87 route anywhere). NJ 495 was originally I-495 and was intended to cross Manhattan to connect to the part that is still I-495.
Also worth noting that I-495 was to have ended at either I-295 (then I-78) or I-678, with the rest of it just a state route.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 29, 2021, 10:02:57 PM
And what would be the point of any of these revisions besides to further confuse the general public? I have no problem with these route numbers as currently designed.
It's not going to happen at this point. Which I clearly said. I was just musing about the historical quirk about the numbering of 287. Given its route and where it's always started and ended (even if it was disjointed for 30+ years), it would have made more sense as an x95. That was all.
Back to more germane matters. Sign project continuing on 440 in Edison/Woodbridge/Perth Amboy (https://www.facebook.com/NewJerseyDOT/photos/a.559103584423651/1479562462377754/). Apparently there are 25 total structures to replace, and they've done 15 of them so far. Also includes a nice photo of them prepping to lift a sign bridge into place.
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/239884099_1479562469044420_7986900074794538206_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=hp9uwbVVP-8AX8Y3wkK&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=352a1f4e07d75c8685da102cb1916473&oe=61526346)
What difference does this make if it's I-287 or I-295? Everyone seems to get all bent out of shape when someone makes a suggestion that is plausible, but has a good reason not to work.
Why can't we have a friendly discussion here and respect other's opinions whether they are good or bad?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 30, 2021, 11:53:53 AM
What difference does this make if it's I-287 or I-295? Everyone seems to get all bent out of shape when someone makes a suggestion that is plausible, but has a good reason not to work.
Why can't we have a friendly discussion here and respect other's opinions whether they are good or bad?
Sometimes it's just an unwillingness to think outside of the box, or believing that certain routes are THE main route. When it comes to 3 digit numbering when a highway connecting two 2-di Interstates together, both 2-dis have equal footing as to which 2 di will be the official parent.
I mentioned several times in the past with the debate about what former I-95 could change to around Trenton, that an I-x76 would work because the PA Turnpike is I-276 in that area, and the route (if the interchange was built on the original timeline) extends from there. There was a very lukewarm reception to it, even though it absolutely fit within the Interstate numbering guidelines.
To expand on that, the Beltway around Baltimore could've been numbered I-x83 or I-x70. DC's beltway could've been I-x66. Using an I-x95 makes sense, and not looking at the timeline of interstate buildings maybe it was the first Interstate in the area so they defaulted to that 2-di, but it wasn't the only option that could've been used. In Pennsylvania, in similar fashion, I-476 could've been I-x81.
NYC landed up with the wackiest luck with Interstate numbers. Somehow its the only major city along I-95 to not have a x95 for its beltway. Also most of the spur routes are x78s that don't even connect to the parent route (which barely enters NYC)!
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 30, 2021, 02:56:24 PM
NYC landed up with the wackiest luck with Interstate numbers. Somehow its the only major city along I-95 to not have a x95 for its beltway.
Miami says hi.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 30, 2021, 02:56:24 PM
NYC landed up with the wackiest luck with Interstate numbers. Somehow its the only major city along I-95 to not have a x95 for its beltway. Also most of the spur routes are x78s that don't even connect to the parent route (which barely enters NYC)!
The x78 thing is a holdover from the cancellation of 78 through Manhattan and Brooklyn, so that one is pretty easily explained. The idea of 78 through lower Manhattan and Brooklyn stayed on the books for quite a while, hence why so many spur routes throughout the area. Also, 278 was supposed to continue westward in NJ to its parent, but it also got canceled.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 30, 2021, 02:56:24 PM
NYC landed up with the wackiest luck with Interstate numbers. Somehow its the only major city along I-95 to not have a x95 for its beltway. Also most of the spur routes are x78s that don't even connect to the parent route (which barely enters NYC)!
Philadelphia's sort-of beltway is 276 and 476
Quote from: bzakharin on August 30, 2021, 08:13:37 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 30, 2021, 02:56:24 PM
NYC landed up with the wackiest luck with Interstate numbers. Somehow its the only major city along I-95 to not have a x95 for its beltway. Also most of the spur routes are x78s that don't even connect to the parent route (which barely enters NYC)!
Philadelphia's sort-of beltway is 276 and 476
The original 'beltway' was intended to be I-295, but with 295 being such a major route mainly in a neighboring state, and with I-95 never being completed as intended north of Trenton, it took on an identity of its own.
If there was a direct connection with the NJ Tpk PA Connector, and a better connection around the Commodore Barry Bridge area to get from 295 to 476, there could easily be a legit beltway all around Philadelphia.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 28, 2021, 08:14:43 PM
I too dislike the use of Delaware Water Gap. Problem is that I-80 doesn't go to Scranton or Wilkes-Barre. I was gonna suggest State College but I see that 80 doesn't actually go there either, LOL. Yeah, maybe Cleveland. There really just is no satisfactory control city on I-80 in Pa. What does Pa. actually use after you pass I-380?
It's the way to Scranton/WBS, it should be that.
I see NJDOT gave Route 35 a road diet in Seaside Park. The lane striping turned the left lane near the traffic circle into a shoulder to allow the cars in the median to safely back up.
https://goo.gl/maps/revWfDsqhu9dVoJ76
Quote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2021, 05:20:25 AM
I see NJDOT gave Route 35 a road diet in Seaside Park. The lane striping turned the left lane near the traffic circle into a shoulder to allow the cars in the median to safely back up.
https://goo.gl/maps/revWfDsqhu9dVoJ76
Looks like that's been in place since at least 2017, as it goes on the GSV back to there.
Quote from: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 02:22:08 AM
Exit 43B, get rid of White Plains. If somebody wants to go there, best to take 80 to either the GSP N to 287/87 or the Palisades.
For 80W, get rid of Del Water Gap, I hate that as a control city. Just use WB/Scranton, PA.
Maybe I have Stockholm Syndrome but I've come to like Del Water Gap personally, it's unique and amongst locals it basically means "Pennsylvania." But if not that I would def go with Scranton, or maybe "The Poconos" since that's such a big getaway destination for the Tri-State.
Scranton used to be the control city from US 46 along with the Gap prior to the early nineties. That was because US 611 was the old route of I-80 until 1972 which went there and it took NJDOT twenty years to figure that one out.
Though I-380 went there later, now with this cancel culture stuff in the MUTCD and political correctness in thinking that has NJDOT seems to leaning for proper communities.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2021, 05:22:08 PM
Scranton used to be the control city from US 46 along with the Gap prior to the early nineties. That was because US 611 was the old route of I-80 until 1972 which went there and it took NJDOT twenty years to figure that one out.
Though I-380 went there later, now with this cancel culture stuff in the MUTCD and political correctness in thinking that has NJDOT seems to leaning for proper communities.
What the fuck?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2021, 05:22:08 PM
Scranton used to be the control city from US 46 along with the Gap prior to the early nineties. That was because US 611 was the old route of I-80 until 1972 which went there and it took NJDOT twenty years to figure that one out.
Though I-380 went there later, now with this cancel culture stuff in the MUTCD and political correctness in thinking that has NJDOT seems to leaning for proper communities.
This comment is really out of place and doesn't belong here.
I am very curious to learn what the MUTCD has to do with any of that stuff...
Lately the MUTCD has cancelled a lot. When I mean "Cancel Culture" in the last election context, but the fact the latest revisions of the MUTCD says a lot over the years that seems to go away with what has always been. The NJ Turnpike forced to redo their classic signs, not more than two control cities per sign, the yellow striped back plates, etc.
There is more to life than politics. Just like when one famous person says that a group is the Al Qaeda of a moment, he is not referring to extreme Islam. Just comparing.
I was responding to why most likely Scranton got removed from I-80 in Knowlton Township, NJ. It could be NJDOT thought it was not compliant with the MUTCD.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 11:32:05 AM
I was responding to why most likely Scranton got removed from I-80 in Knowlton Township, NJ. It could be NJDOT thought it was not compliant with the MUTCD.
I'm gonna bet no on this one... probably just being consistent with their established control "city".
That said, i wonder if they might be forced to change it... is Del Water Gap actually kosher with MUTCD? Technically there is a town, but really, we all know they mean the geologic feature.
It could be signed "80 TO 380" Scranton.
Quote from: artmalk on September 01, 2021, 12:07:08 PM
It could be signed "80 TO 380" Scranton.
:awesomeface: Ha Ha
Quote from: famartin on September 01, 2021, 12:03:40 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 11:32:05 AM
I was responding to why most likely Scranton got removed from I-80 in Knowlton Township, NJ. It could be NJDOT thought it was not compliant with the MUTCD.
I'm gonna bet no on this one... probably just being consistent with their established control "city".
That said, i wonder if they might be forced to change it... is Del Water Gap actually kosher with MUTCD? Technically there is a town, but really, we all know they mean the geologic feature.
You sure?
What about the Columbia 7 and Del Water Gap 11 sign near Hope. The town and Columbia are indeed 4 miles apart.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 12:13:30 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 01, 2021, 12:03:40 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 11:32:05 AM
I was responding to why most likely Scranton got removed from I-80 in Knowlton Township, NJ. It could be NJDOT thought it was not compliant with the MUTCD.
I'm gonna bet no on this one... probably just being consistent with their established control "city".
That said, i wonder if they might be forced to change it... is Del Water Gap actually kosher with MUTCD? Technically there is a town, but really, we all know they mean the geologic feature.
You sure?
What about the Columbia 7 and Del Water Gap 11 sign near Hope. The town and Columbia are indeed 4 miles apart.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.9292898,-74.9719917/40.9256364,-75.0930967/@40.9310897,-75.0558048,13.46z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
7.2 miles
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.9292898,-74.9719917/40.9716397,-75.1255414/@40.9460902,-75.0724233,13.46z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
10.5 rounds to 11
Sure? No. Reasonably confident? Yes.
https://goo.gl/maps/PGq9MgE6jXM9QgSH8
This sign used to read Scranton before Stroudsburg, PA.
Anyway the lack of state designation for the Gap, supports your point for this sign.
Looks like shit's getting serious. The governor is closing all state highways to nonessential traffic. Stay safe everyone.
What
Quote from: kernals12 on September 01, 2021, 11:58:25 PM
Looks like shit's getting serious. The governor is closing all state highways to nonessential traffic. Stay safe everyone.
Floods and tornadoes will do that.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 01, 2021, 11:58:25 PM
Looks like shit's getting serious. The governor is closing all state highways to nonessential traffic. Stay safe everyone.
Huh? Not true.
It is bad out there in numerous areas throughout the state. But no one is closing all state highways.
It seems like he is doing nothing more than telling people to stay off the roads. That would be expected in a flash flooding situation just as much as in a winter storm.
Sorry, I misread the nj.com article. But still, stay safe
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2021, 08:24:34 AM
Sorry, I misread the nj.com article. But still, stay safe
We all can misread things or immediately jump to the wrong conclusion.
In fact after you said that, I googled road closings in NJ and found nothing. I learned in the past during the Trump verses Biden thing that immediately jumping to a wrong conclusion can make a heated Facebook argument. I have seen pro Trump and pro Biden followers jump to the wrong conclusions and see cursing and kinds of character bashing and stereotyping over a misread statement.
I also now check dates of web articles as Google too posts old articles during searches as I have had egg on my face way too often before.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 12:44:04 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PGq9MgE6jXM9QgSH8
This sign used to read Scranton before Stroudsburg, PA.
Anyway the lack of state designation for the Gap, supports your point for this sign.
How about this then? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9728672,-75.1332617,3a,75y,328.94h,91.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg4k794Uqs3y0lzURViS_fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Exit 310 is in PA, Del Water Gap without PA is still there. Wouldn't that go away after the visitors center if it's not referring to the borough in PA?
You know whether Del. Water Gap is a place or not, the fact is either way the Feds can't prove that it is or isn't with the town of the same name beyond the actual geographical feature.
You could argue the same with NJ 94 nearby that has its mileage sign for Warwick, NY. As Warwick is both a town and village in New York, both on the same road and Route 94 goes through them both. However, the mileage sign refers to the NY State Border in which is the town line for Warwick, so its the town not the village, but one can argue that the guide signs in Hamburg and Vernon could mean either one. Ditto for Freehold on US 9 as the US route is signed north from Lakewood as Freehold, and south from Sayreville as Freehold. US 9 also passes by both municipalities named Freehold so we can consider the township and borough both on all the signs.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 02, 2021, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 12:44:04 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PGq9MgE6jXM9QgSH8
This sign used to read Scranton before Stroudsburg, PA.
Anyway the lack of state designation for the Gap, supports your point for this sign.
How about this then? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9728672,-75.1332617,3a,75y,328.94h,91.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg4k794Uqs3y0lzURViS_fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Exit 310 is in PA, Del Water Gap without PA is still there. Wouldn't that go away after the visitors center if it's not referring to the borough in PA?
Assuming this is accurate (and the signage suggests it is), that sign was placed by either DRJTBC or PennDOT since its within the DRJTBC section of I-80, so not relevant.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000080__-.pdf
Quote from: bzakharin on September 02, 2021, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 12:44:04 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PGq9MgE6jXM9QgSH8
This sign used to read Scranton before Stroudsburg, PA.
Anyway the lack of state designation for the Gap, supports your point for this sign.
How about this then? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9728672,-75.1332617,3a,75y,328.94h,91.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg4k794Uqs3y0lzURViS_fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Exit 310 is in PA, Del Water Gap without PA is still there. Wouldn't that go away after the visitors center if it's not referring to the borough in PA?
The sign is actually in NJ despite it being a PA Exit. The bridge is ahead and the Millbrook-Flatbrookville exit is just ahead to the right.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 03, 2021, 11:59:01 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 02, 2021, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 12:44:04 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/PGq9MgE6jXM9QgSH8
This sign used to read Scranton before Stroudsburg, PA.
Anyway the lack of state designation for the Gap, supports your point for this sign.
How about this then? https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9728672,-75.1332617,3a,75y,328.94h,91.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg4k794Uqs3y0lzURViS_fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Exit 310 is in PA, Del Water Gap without PA is still there. Wouldn't that go away after the visitors center if it's not referring to the borough in PA?
The sign is actually in NJ despite it being a PA Exit. The bridge is ahead and the Millbrook-Flatbrookville exit is just ahead to the right.
See my comment, but its in the DRJTBC jurisdiction, so not an NJDOT sign.
It may DRJTBC jurisdiction, but it is in New Jersey on a NJ highway.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 04, 2021, 12:20:25 AM
It may DRJTBC jurisdiction, but it is in New Jersey on a NJ highway.
In case you are unfamiliar with Exit 354, the bridge agencies have their own rules for signs which may completely disagree with NJDOT, so still, irrelevant.
The next person to talk about control cities in the New Jersey thread will receive moderation.
This is more of an issue. The sign clutter EB Exit 53.
https://goo.gl/maps/B1q5E1gGyrPfrfSA7
It's the gateway sort of into Midtown Manhattan, and US 46, NJ 3, and NJ 495 provide a direct almost freeway like access to Midtown Manhattan.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2021, 07:35:52 AM
This is more of an issue. The sign clutter EB Exit 53.
https://goo.gl/maps/B1q5E1gGyrPfrfSA7
It's the gateway sort of into Midtown Manhattan, and US 46, NJ 3, and NJ 495 provide a direct almost freeway like access to Midtown Manhattan.
What is an issue? What clutter?
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2021, 07:35:52 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/B1q5E1gGyrPfrfSA7
What's that logo on the far right?
Perhaps that in itself is the issue.
Quote from: yakra on September 06, 2021, 09:38:42 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2021, 07:35:52 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/B1q5E1gGyrPfrfSA7
What's that logo on the far right?
it's an older logo for the Meadowlands Sports Complex.
The clutter issue on the right-hand sign is too many symbols and too many destinations, a common issue on NJ highways. The term sign salad comes to mind. One of the destinations should be removed. In Sec. 2E-10 the MUTCD suggests a maximum of three in the whole display. This display has a total of five. And that unknown symbol on the right should maybe go too.
The one thing that is confusing is that New York is the control for I-80, while the Lincoln Tunnel (the NJ 3 control) is a better route to get to Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 06, 2021, 08:01:14 PM
The one thing that is confusing is that New York is the control for I-80, while the Lincoln Tunnel (the NJ 3 control) is a better route to get to Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30119.0
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2021, 10:39:56 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 06, 2021, 08:01:14 PM
The one thing that is confusing is that New York is the control for I-80, while the Lincoln Tunnel (the NJ 3 control) is a better route to get to Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30119.0
Did not see that
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 06, 2021, 10:53:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2021, 10:39:56 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 06, 2021, 08:01:14 PM
The one thing that is confusing is that New York is the control for I-80, while the Lincoln Tunnel (the NJ 3 control) is a better route to get to Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30119.0
Did not see that
Why was that moved out of here?
Quote from: famartin on September 06, 2021, 11:06:55 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 06, 2021, 10:53:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2021, 10:39:56 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 06, 2021, 08:01:14 PM
The one thing that is confusing is that New York is the control for I-80, while the Lincoln Tunnel (the NJ 3 control) is a better route to get to Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30119.0
Did not see that
Why was that moved out of here?
Moved it back in. So there's an entirely separate control cities area, or feel free to start a new thread on it.
The temporary bridge built for the US-22 overpass over Chestnut St. reconstruction is now visible on Street View
https://goo.gl/maps/pbCYp67j1cAimwq27
https://goo.gl/maps/jY1w1eB5covcW3Hf8
No photos underneath though.
https://goo.gl/maps/BkFX5nxS2TnejF4a8
This one shows how bad it is to warrant replacement.
New Wittpenn bridge set to open on October 1, according to nj.com (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/09/the-taller-wider-new-wittpenn-bridge-is-opening-soon-officials-say.html)
Snapped a picture of new signs along Route 3 approaching US 46. I had taken a photo from this very spot a year ago, so here's the comparison:
First, last year:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/2020-09-08_10_39_26_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_3_at_the_exit_for_the_Garden_State_Parkway_SOUTH_in_Clifton%2C_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2020-09-08_10_39_26_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_3_at_the_exit_for_the_Garden_State_Parkway_SOUTH_in_Clifton%2C_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Now, current:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/2021-09-25_12_29_28_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_21.jpg/800px-2021-09-25_12_29_28_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_21.jpg)
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2021, 06:03:11 PM
Snapped a picture of new signs along Route 3 approaching US 46. I had taken a photo from this very spot a year ago, so here's the comparison:
First, last year:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/2020-09-08_10_39_26_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_3_at_the_exit_for_the_Garden_State_Parkway_SOUTH_in_Clifton%2C_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2020-09-08_10_39_26_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_3_at_the_exit_for_the_Garden_State_Parkway_SOUTH_in_Clifton%2C_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Now, current:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/2021-09-25_12_29_28_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_21.jpg/800px-2021-09-25_12_29_28_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_21.jpg)
Note for those that believe whenever they add signage, they need to revamp the entire structure: The structure is the same; easily identifiable by the sign lighting remaining the same even though it doesn't match the signage now.
Also, speaking of overhead lighting: NJDOT is using LED lighting for signage. They were fairly early adapters with Red lights at on traffic lights, then green, then yellow. And now with overhead signage lighting. But they've generally steered clear of using LED lighting for street lighting.
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2021, 06:03:11 PM
Snapped a picture of new signs along Route 3 approaching US 46. I had taken a photo from this very spot a year ago, so here's the comparison:
First, last year:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/2020-09-08_10_39_26_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_3_at_the_exit_for_the_Garden_State_Parkway_SOUTH_in_Clifton%2C_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2020-09-08_10_39_26_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_3_at_the_exit_for_the_Garden_State_Parkway_SOUTH_in_Clifton%2C_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Now, current:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/2021-09-25_12_29_28_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_21.jpg/800px-2021-09-25_12_29_28_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_21.jpg)
I'm not a fan of that sign on the left. Either you don't need the Valley Rd exit sign there, or even better, you can omit the 3 to 46 part of that sign and just have a sign for the Valley Rd exit. That leftmost sign is busy and just looks bad. The straight upward arrow is incorrect usage for the type of sign it is as well. NJDOT is making more sign choices like this as they embark on a lot of signage replacement throughout the state, and I'm not a fan of some of these choices.
In response to another comment about the structure. NJDOT's MO for decades has been to do signage replacements on existing structures so long as they're not too old and still in good condition. This is actually why there are so many structure replacements happening these days. A lot of them are very much end of life and have hosted at least one previous signage replacement contract in their time (pretty much all the structures with the triangular truss configuration. Those mostly went up in the 1970s-early 80s and had a couple of replacements over the years. 440 in Edison/Woodbridge/Perth Amboy is a prime example. Those structures got new signs in the early 1990s. Some got even newer ones in the early 2010s.) I expect that most box truss style structures will stay for a long time to come and just get new signs as they do replacements as part of other projects.
Also agree on NJDOT being very slow on the uptake of the LED lighting. PSEG got in on some kind of LED lights very early on for the streetlamps on their utility poles. NJTA is now all in on LED lightning and is swiftly installing it everywhere. But NJDOT, for whatever reason, seems content to stick with HPS lighting, at least for now.
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2021, 12:32:47 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 25, 2021, 06:03:11 PM
Snapped a picture of new signs along Route 3 approaching US 46. I had taken a photo from this very spot a year ago, so here's the comparison:
First, last year:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/2020-09-08_10_39_26_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_3_at_the_exit_for_the_Garden_State_Parkway_SOUTH_in_Clifton%2C_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2020-09-08_10_39_26_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_3_at_the_exit_for_the_Garden_State_Parkway_SOUTH_in_Clifton%2C_Passaic_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Now, current:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/2021-09-25_12_29_28_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_21.jpg/800px-2021-09-25_12_29_28_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_21.jpg)
I'm not a fan of that sign on the left. Either you don't need the Valley Rd exit sign there, or even better, you can omit the 3 to 46 part of that sign and just have a sign for the Valley Rd exit. That leftmost sign is busy and just looks bad. The straight upward arrow is incorrect usage for the type of sign it is as well. NJDOT is making more sign choices like this as they embark on a lot of signage replacement throughout the state, and I'm not a fan of some of these choices.
In response to another comment about the structure. NJDOT's MO for decades has been to do signage replacements on existing structures so long as they're not too old and still in good condition. This is actually why there are so many structure replacements happening these days. A lot of them are very much end of life and have hosted at least one previous signage replacement contract in their time (pretty much all the structures with the triangular truss configuration. Those mostly went up in the 1970s-early 80s and had a couple of replacements over the years. 440 in Edison/Woodbridge/Perth Amboy is a prime example. Those structures got new signs in the early 1990s. Some got even newer ones in the early 2010s.) I expect that most box truss style structures will stay for a long time to come and just get new signs as they do replacements as part of other projects.
Also agree on NJDOT being very slow on the uptake of the LED lighting. PSEG got in on some kind of LED lights very early on for the streetlamps on their utility poles. NJTA is now all in on LED lightning and is swiftly installing it everywhere. But NJDOT, for whatever reason, seems content to stick with HPS lighting, at least for now.
I'm confused by the left sign too. Isn't 3 going to be two or three thru lanes once the new interchange is complete? Right now the sign is ok, but it won't be when all done.
As far as light changeovers, I'm guessing this is typical NJDOT policy at work... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" .
A quick glance at this structure appears that it's a newer style. The older ones being replaced are generally a large box structure or a triangle (for lack of better terms).
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2021, 12:32:47 AM
Also agree on NJDOT being very slow on the uptake of the LED lighting. PSEG got in on some kind of LED lights very early on for the streetlamps on their utility poles. NJTA is now all in on LED lightning and is swiftly installing it everywhere. But NJDOT, for whatever reason, seems content to stick with HPS lighting, at least for now.
PSE&G installed inductive "ice arc" lighting, not LEDs. At the time they weighed the pros and cons and chose induction. They replaced all the old mercury vapor street lights first and then moved to the HPS fixtures. I don't know if they are even installing new induction lighting though as I think the supplier they were using went out of business. They may be forced to switch to LED anyway as that's where the rest of the industry and economies of scale are going.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 12:31:42 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2021, 12:32:47 AM
Also agree on NJDOT being very slow on the uptake of the LED lighting. PSEG got in on some kind of LED lights very early on for the streetlamps on their utility poles. NJTA is now all in on LED lightning and is swiftly installing it everywhere. But NJDOT, for whatever reason, seems content to stick with HPS lighting, at least for now.
PSE&G installed inductive "ice arc" lighting, not LEDs. At the time they weighed the pros and cons and chose induction. They replaced all the old mercury vapor street lights first and then moved to the HPS fixtures. I don't know if they are even installing new induction lighting though as I think the supplier they were using went out of business. They may be forced to switch to LED anyway as that's where the rest of the industry and economies of scale are going.
That's interesting. I always thought they were earlier generation LED luminaries. They were pretty bright when they started putting them up, but a lot of them are not anymore. I would not be opposed to them eventually switching to LED.
^^^Induction lighting is so associated with New Jersey that streetlight collectors refer to the distinctive fixtures as "Jersey Series". I have an example in my garage.
What year did the New Jersey highway markers switch from triangles to circles?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 12:31:42 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2021, 12:32:47 AM
Also agree on NJDOT being very slow on the uptake of the LED lighting. PSEG got in on some kind of LED lights very early on for the streetlamps on their utility poles. NJTA is now all in on LED lightning and is swiftly installing it everywhere. But NJDOT, for whatever reason, seems content to stick with HPS lighting, at least for now.
PSE&G installed inductive "ice arc" lighting, not LEDs. At the time they weighed the pros and cons and chose induction. They replaced all the old mercury vapor street lights first and then moved to the HPS fixtures. I don't know if they are even installing new induction lighting though as I think the supplier they were using went out of business. They may be forced to switch to LED anyway as that's where the rest of the industry and economies of scale are going.
They looked like fluorescents to me, so that all makes sense. Didn't know there was a difference, actually.
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 26, 2021, 07:44:39 PM
^^^Induction lighting is so associated with New Jersey that streetlight collectors refer to the distinctive fixtures as "Jersey Series". I have an example in my garage.
I have one of those right outside my house! I don't give it too much thought, although when it wasn't working a few years back it was noticeably darker. I sent PSEG a form request mentioning it wasn't working; they were out the next day and fixed it.
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 26, 2021, 07:44:39 PM
^^^Induction lighting is so associated with New Jersey that streetlight collectors refer to the distinctive fixtures as "Jersey Series". I have an example in my garage.
US Lighting Tech, the company that made the fixtures, called them "The Jersey" on their product listings as it was custom designed for PSE&G. USLT seems to have gone out of business though.
NJDOT seems to have a thing for new signs with a vertical divider on them. The new exit sign on 440 South for the NJTP and CR-514 West is a similar setup (514 East still has a seperate BGS). Also a much clearer END NJ-440/BEGIN I-287 sign has appeared there (now famartin needs to drive up there and get a photo).
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 10:12:58 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 26, 2021, 07:44:39 PM
^^^Induction lighting is so associated with New Jersey that streetlight collectors refer to the distinctive fixtures as "Jersey Series". I have an example in my garage.
US Lighting Tech, the company that made the fixtures, called them "The Jersey" on their product listings as it was custom designed for PSE&G. USLT seems to have gone out of business though.
NJDOT seems to have a thing for new signs with a vertical divider on them. The new exit sign on 440 South for the NJTP and CR-514 West is a similar setup (514 East still has a seperate BGS). Also a much clearer END NJ-440/BEGIN I-287 sign has appeared there (now famartin needs to drive up there and get a photo).
Been doing views from overpasses this year... any sign pics were purely opportunistic and incidental. The Route 3 sign was because I was taking a pic of 509 which passes right below there, but the sign was right there and the light was optimal, so I couldn't resist.
So the new pull throughs on the EB side now will feature TO NJ 495 and Lincoln Tunnel I would guess.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 26, 2021, 10:43:34 PM
So the new pull throughs on the EB side now will feature TO NJ 495 and Lincoln Tunnel I would guess.
The old ones had Lincoln Tunnel already. Adding 495 would be natural. That said, the old ones had "To NJTP" .
The WEST NJ-3 to WEST US-46 sign makes sense due to traffic coming off of GSP northbound looking to make that connection. Alas, that sign is before the northbound GSP ramp merges on!
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 26, 2021, 07:44:39 PM
^^^Induction lighting is so associated with New Jersey that streetlight collectors refer to the distinctive fixtures as "Jersey Series". I have an example in my garage.
What year did the New Jersey highway markers switch from triangles to circles?
1776? they've always been circles
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 10:12:58 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 26, 2021, 07:44:39 PM
^^^Induction lighting is so associated with New Jersey that streetlight collectors refer to the distinctive fixtures as "Jersey Series". I have an example in my garage.
US Lighting Tech, the company that made the fixtures, called them "The Jersey" on their product listings as it was custom designed for PSE&G. USLT seems to have gone out of business though.
NJDOT seems to have a thing for new signs with a vertical divider on them. The new exit sign on 440 South for the NJTP and CR-514 West is a similar setup (514 East still has a seperate BGS). Also a much clearer END NJ-440/BEGIN I-287 sign has appeared there (now famartin needs to drive up there and get a photo).
I will get there and grab a couple eventually. I've been grabbing the new ones off and on, which you can see if you scroll through this thread.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 11:20:59 PM
The WEST NJ-3 to WEST US-46 sign makes sense due to traffic coming off of GSP northbound looking to make that connection. Alas, that sign is before the northbound GSP ramp merges on!
Exactly! Just put up a sign for the Valley Rd exit and leave a reassurance sign like that to after the Parkway ramp merges in.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 11:20:59 PM
The WEST NJ-3 to WEST US-46 sign makes sense due to traffic coming off of GSP northbound looking to make that connection. Alas, that sign is before the northbound GSP ramp merges on!
The content makes sense, but the single arrow will be wrong when construction is complete.
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2021, 07:24:37 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 11:20:59 PM
The WEST NJ-3 to WEST US-46 sign makes sense due to traffic coming off of GSP northbound looking to make that connection. Alas, that sign is before the northbound GSP ramp merges on!
The content makes sense, but the single arrow will be wrong when construction is complete.
The arrow not only should it be there, but center the distance to the Valley Road/ Route 46 split. Problem solved. And also remove the NJ 3 shield for sole US 46 too.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2021, 09:14:43 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2021, 07:24:37 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 11:20:59 PM
The WEST NJ-3 to WEST US-46 sign makes sense due to traffic coming off of GSP northbound looking to make that connection. Alas, that sign is before the northbound GSP ramp merges on!
The content makes sense, but the single arrow will be wrong when construction is complete.
The arrow not only should it be there, but center the distance to the Valley Road/ Route 46 split. Problem solved. And also remove the NJ 3 shield for sole US 46 too.
Well, you're not actually on 46 yet...
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2021, 09:21:29 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2021, 09:14:43 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 27, 2021, 07:24:37 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 26, 2021, 11:20:59 PM
The WEST NJ-3 to WEST US-46 sign makes sense due to traffic coming off of GSP northbound looking to make that connection. Alas, that sign is before the northbound GSP ramp merges on!
The content makes sense, but the single arrow will be wrong when construction is complete.
The arrow not only should it be there, but center the distance to the Valley Road/ Route 46 split. Problem solved. And also remove the NJ 3 shield for sole US 46 too.
Well, you're not actually on 46 yet...
With the distance shifted to the center it would become a dual advanced exit guide.
I saw on someone's Instagram stories that it looks like the PA has put up the new gold and blue signs for the Newark Airport ramps off of 1-9 now. Includes that new gold Lady Liberty torch. Pour one out for the death of the original four color EWR logo, which was unique and a great trailblazer to find your way to and from the airport for several decades. I wonder if this means that NJDOT will replace the one they put on those new signs at the end of 22 with either the torch logo (less likely) or the generic MUTCD airport logo.
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2021, 05:13:39 PM
I saw on someone's Instagram stories that it looks like the PA has put up the new gold and blue signs for the Newark Airport ramps off of 1-9 now. Includes that new gold Lady Liberty torch. Pour one out for the death of the original four color EWR logo, which was unique and a great trailblazer to find your way to and from the airport for several decades. I wonder if this means that NJDOT will replace the one they put on those new signs at the end of 22 with either the torch logo (less likely) or the generic MUTCD airport logo.
Someone in this forum is involved with the new design standards.
NJDOT makes it official, announces that the new Rt 7/Whitpenn Bridge opens this weekend (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20210930_171452_Route7-WittpennBridgetoopenthisweekend.pdf).
There will be some closures and detours this weekend as they get everything in place. Additionally, some detours will last a while to build new ramps between Rt 7 and 1-9 Truck SB.
Quote from: storm2k on October 01, 2021, 01:17:04 AM
NJDOT makes it official, announces that the new Rt 7/Whitpenn Bridge opens this weekend (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20210930_171452_Route7-WittpennBridgetoopenthisweekend.pdf).
There will be some closures and detours this weekend as they get everything in place. Additionally, some detours will last a while to build new ramps between Rt 7 and 1-9 Truck SB.
It's never official until it actually happens! :cool:
But, looking at the weather forecast for tonight and this weekend, it looks to be perception-free so there should be no issues.
I wonder how pervasive those weekend closures will be. I was hoping to drive the new bridge on the 10th. Between this and the rainy forecast for that weekend, it looks like my travel plans for the Atlantic Beach mini-meet are falling apart.
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 08:38:32 PM
I wonder how pervasive those weekend closures will be. I was hoping to drive the new bridge on the 10th. Between this and the rainy forecast for that weekend, it looks like my travel plans for the Atlantic Beach mini-meet are falling apart.
Looking at NYC in Accuweather, the day of the meet shows scattered showers with the majority of the rain on the day before. Hopefully, it will stay that way.
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 08:38:32 PM
I wonder how pervasive those weekend closures will be. I was hoping to drive the new bridge on the 10th. Between this and the rainy forecast for that weekend, it looks like my travel plans for the Atlantic Beach mini-meet are falling apart.
Yeah, definitely don't check out a new road unless everything is absolutely perfect.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 01, 2021, 08:55:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 08:38:32 PM
I wonder how pervasive those weekend closures will be. I was hoping to drive the new bridge on the 10th. Between this and the rainy forecast for that weekend, it looks like my travel plans for the Atlantic Beach mini-meet are falling apart.
Looking at NYC in Accuweather, the day of the meet shows scattered showers with the majority of the rain on the day before. Hopefully, it will stay that way.
Looks like Accuweather is being more optimistic than Weather Underground (which makes it look like a washout, though it dipped to something nicer briefly last night before reverting back today). Actually, that seems to be a trend this whole year. Let's hope that's more accurate.
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2021, 09:11:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 08:38:32 PM
I wonder how pervasive those weekend closures will be. I was hoping to drive the new bridge on the 10th. Between this and the rainy forecast for that weekend, it looks like my travel plans for the Atlantic Beach mini-meet are falling apart.
Yeah, definitely don't check out a new road unless everything is absolutely perfect.
It doesn't need to be perfect, but the article is making it sound like it won't even be open. Unless they meant weekend lane/ramp closures and not full bridge closures?
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 09:38:21 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 01, 2021, 08:55:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 08:38:32 PM
I wonder how pervasive those weekend closures will be. I was hoping to drive the new bridge on the 10th. Between this and the rainy forecast for that weekend, it looks like my travel plans for the Atlantic Beach mini-meet are falling apart.
Looking at NYC in Accuweather, the day of the meet shows scattered showers with the majority of the rain on the day before. Hopefully, it will stay that way.
Looks like Accuweather is being more optimistic than Weather Underground (which makes it look like a washout, though it dipped to something nicer briefly last night before reverting back today). Actually, that seems to be a trend this whole year. Let's hope that's more accurate.
Quote from: Alps on October 01, 2021, 09:11:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 08:38:32 PM
I wonder how pervasive those weekend closures will be. I was hoping to drive the new bridge on the 10th. Between this and the rainy forecast for that weekend, it looks like my travel plans for the Atlantic Beach mini-meet are falling apart.
Yeah, definitely don't check out a new road unless everything is absolutely perfect.
It doesn't need to be perfect, but the article is making it sound like it won't even be open. Unless they meant weekend lane/ramp closures and not full bridge closures?
7 will be open. They will have shoulder and lane closures to finish tie-ins.
I wasn't able to grab a picture when i went thru there yesterday, but I saw that this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Du44obTKP5UXrf2G8) was replaced with an APL. An APL sign is not a bad thing to have here as that middle lane is a true option lane while the left lane completely drops off onto 280, but NJDOT (or their contractor) messed up the arrows! The arrows for the lanes that continue onto 80 are right arrows, where they should be straight. The rest of the sign looks very good, too, so I'm annoyed by the mistake.
Quote from: storm2k on October 02, 2021, 08:27:47 PM
I wasn't able to grab a picture when i went thru there yesterday, but I saw that this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Du44obTKP5UXrf2G8) was replaced with an APL. An APL sign is not a bad thing to have here as that middle lane is a true option lane while the left lane completely drops off onto 280, but NJDOT (or their contractor) messed up the arrows! The arrows for the lanes that continue onto 80 are right arrows, where they should be straight. The rest of the sign looks very good, too, so I'm annoyed by the mistake.
And I'm excited for the other advance signs.
A welcome change in Newark of the dark signal heads.
https://goo.gl/maps/mWFCmkXFPVWGbsQ69
NJ used to have dark colors until the eighties when NJ went to yellow.
Ironically when the rest of the state was green or black, Newark was yellow then.
https://goo.gl/maps/yG8yq6ALrUoRowtA9
Also it appears that NJ won't result in installing signal heads on bridges. Florida would not attempt to fit a mast arm under a bridge but mount the heads to the bridge itself.
Quote from: storm2k on October 02, 2021, 08:27:47 PM
I wasn't able to grab a picture when i went thru there yesterday, but I saw that this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Du44obTKP5UXrf2G8) was replaced with an APL. An APL sign is not a bad thing to have here as that middle lane is a true option lane while the left lane completely drops off onto 280, but NJDOT (or their contractor) messed up the arrows! The arrows for the lanes that continue onto 80 are right arrows, where they should be straight. The rest of the sign looks very good, too, so I'm annoyed by the mistake.
Did they change "The Oranges - Newark" to Kearny like on the sign further east on 280?
It is October 4th and I have yet to see any gas stations lower their prices to reflect the reduction in the State tax which went into effect last Friday.
Quote from: artmalk on October 04, 2021, 10:50:18 AM
Quote from: storm2k on October 02, 2021, 08:27:47 PM
I wasn't able to grab a picture when i went thru there yesterday, but I saw that this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Du44obTKP5UXrf2G8) was replaced with an APL. An APL sign is not a bad thing to have here as that middle lane is a true option lane while the left lane completely drops off onto 280, but NJDOT (or their contractor) messed up the arrows! The arrows for the lanes that continue onto 80 are right arrows, where they should be straight. The rest of the sign looks very good, too, so I'm annoyed by the mistake.
Did they change "The Oranges - Newark" to Kearny like on the sign further east on 280?
Actually I think I saw a new pull thru on 280 at 527 with all three.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 04, 2021, 09:39:57 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/yG8yq6ALrUoRowtA9
Also it appears that NJ won't result in installing signal heads on bridges. Florida would not attempt to fit a mast arm under a bridge but mount the heads to the bridge itself.
I've been to that spot several times. That overpass is too high for signals to be mounted on it without having them hanging further down to the correct height.
Quote from: artmalk on October 04, 2021, 10:50:18 AM
Quote from: storm2k on October 02, 2021, 08:27:47 PM
I wasn't able to grab a picture when i went thru there yesterday, but I saw that this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Du44obTKP5UXrf2G8) was replaced with an APL. An APL sign is not a bad thing to have here as that middle lane is a true option lane while the left lane completely drops off onto 280, but NJDOT (or their contractor) messed up the arrows! The arrows for the lanes that continue onto 80 are right arrows, where they should be straight. The rest of the sign looks very good, too, so I'm annoyed by the mistake.
Did they change "The Oranges - Newark" to Kearny like on the sign further east on 280?
No, it still uses The Oranges and Newark as before.
https://goo.gl/maps/fYWStBJeUiXcJ5Ux9
Why does Route 440 cross under the NJ Turnpike and then cross back?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 05, 2021, 12:54:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/fYWStBJeUiXcJ5Ux9
Why does Route 440 cross under the NJ Turnpike and then cross back?
It's a few roads cobbled together to form one route, like I-278. Before around 2001, the eastern piece was Route 169, If memory serves. They wanted to build a freeway down the west side of Hoboken, but fat chance of that.
Yeah I remember the interchange that was removed, but they could have straightened the road when they took out the bridge that was to connect SB 440 to previous NJ 169.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 05, 2021, 12:54:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/fYWStBJeUiXcJ5Ux9
Why does Route 440 cross under the NJ Turnpike and then cross back?
Because that's what they built. How much more are you spending on a connection that functions well enough?
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2021, 06:00:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 05, 2021, 12:54:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/fYWStBJeUiXcJ5Ux9 (https://goo.gl/maps/fYWStBJeUiXcJ5Ux9)
Why does Route 440 cross under the NJ Turnpike and then cross back?
Because that's what they built. How much more are you spending on a connection that functions well enough?
Yeah but the shortest way is in a straight line. It is odd that it's built that way, I'm not saying bulldoze the thing and start over. I'm just wondering why it wasn't built right at first.
Like I haven't heard you complaining about shit done already on here. It's a valid question like any others on here.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 05, 2021, 08:19:31 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 05, 2021, 06:00:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 05, 2021, 12:54:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/fYWStBJeUiXcJ5Ux9 (https://goo.gl/maps/fYWStBJeUiXcJ5Ux9)
Why does Route 440 cross under the NJ Turnpike and then cross back?
Because that's what they built. How much more are you spending on a connection that functions well enough?
Yeah but the shortest way is in a straight line. It is odd that it's built that way, I'm not saying bulldoze the thing and start over. I'm just wondering why it wasn't built right at first.
Like I haven't heard you complaining about shit done already on here. It's a valid question like any others on here.
OK, so the history there is that 440 used to end at the trumpet interchange just north of I-78 and went to JFK Blvd. It was signed TEMP 440 from there south along 501 to the Bayonne Bridge. They then opened 440 under I-78 to the next interchange upon construction of NJ 169, which went east parallel to I-78 and then south along the east side of Bayonne. That became 440 upon extension back around to the Bayonne Bridge approach when they realized they were never going to build 440 as intended. For awhile, 440 exited itself at that trumpet interchange onto 169, but then NJDOT smoothed it out so that the entire roadway stays together as it follows the path of the interchange. They never bought additional ROW, so that's the way it is.
From the (film!) archives the day of the transition. May 15th 2001.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnj-169_at_ave_c.jpg&hash=4c412968d93bb8a6260b559c5b5c611aa2f8cdd3)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnj169_near_185.jpg&hash=7c4b0f88e81e14bdca5f48a7b16912d18cd80e3b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2F169_at_185.jpg&hash=3bdfb098be3a76a028dfa6e3b333c354b754c61c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2F5-01%2Fnj-169_to_440_crew.jpg&hash=3f82eefe6bbfae7beaaa71b4771ef0b52e6b3388)
Had occasion to go to Newark Airport today (had to return a car I rented for a work trip), so I was able to grab some pictures of some of the new blue signage:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51563341613_97514273e8_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51562302847_a68ac92e6c_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51562302817_866e049c62_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51563093101_3cafbb46d9_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51563783784_09111aebfb_c.jpg)
In addition to RIP the original EWR logo (way better than the Lady Liberty torch they're trying to associate with this, and I won't back down from that opinion), looks like RIP Frutiger for signage. Can't tell if that's actual Helvetica, or Standard Medium, or some other derivative font, but it looks like Frutiger has had its day after 21-22 years. Also going away apparently are the egg shaped terminal identifiers. Still using the same colors, but now just plain squares. Also, the legends for the rental car facilities leads you kind of astray right now. You still should take that first left exit that leads to P4 and P6, but it's there now because the roadways to the new Terminal A (which they very quietly changed the name of the under construction Terminal One to recently) will have a more direct connection to the new rental car facility that's also under construction, but for now it loops you all the way around the airport to take the ramp down to that last area which does lead you to where the current car rental lots are. Will be curious if this is a prelude to a larger signage refresh within the airport itself. I've always thought the wayfinding system within the airport is actually pretty good, but they may be moving to change it, for better or worse.
The new signage definitely seems like a downgrade to me. It's lost a lot of information with the lack of color-coding. And I really don't like the "Newark Liberty" banner on top of all the signage. It's just clutter.
I agree; no reason for that banner to be there and it does create clutter and distraction.
I like how they really highlight the Cell Phone Lot, but dislike the abbreviation Pkg for parking, which at quick glance looks like an abbreviation for package. I would think the sign could just say "Parking", then get more specific as you get closer to the exits for the individual lots.
They've been pretty good about highlighting the turns to the Cell Phone lot for a while, so that is just basically a replace in kind thing. The wording for those last signs to the longer term parking options is not really great for sure, especially since a big part of this is that you have to separate between those that are to the one direction and the super short term in front of the terminal parking that you would go the other way to reach. I don't really know what the "right" answer is on signing this without overloading the sign with too much legend.
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 11:03:51 AM
They've been pretty good about highlighting the turns to the Cell Phone lot for a while, so that is just basically a replace in kind thing. The wording for those last signs to the longer term parking options is not really great for sure, especially since a big part of this is that you have to separate between those that are to the one direction and the super short term in front of the terminal parking that you would go the other way to reach. I don't really know what the "right" answer is on signing this without overloading the sign with too much legend.
The color coding was certainly a big help to separate the destinations, and they got rid of that. Plus the extra "Newark Liberty" legend which is completely useless. Clearly there was no care put into making the signs legible.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 08, 2021, 12:26:14 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 11:03:51 AM
They've been pretty good about highlighting the turns to the Cell Phone lot for a while, so that is just basically a replace in kind thing. The wording for those last signs to the longer term parking options is not really great for sure, especially since a big part of this is that you have to separate between those that are to the one direction and the super short term in front of the terminal parking that you would go the other way to reach. I don't really know what the "right" answer is on signing this without overloading the sign with too much legend.
The color coding was certainly a big help to separate the destinations, and they got rid of that. Plus the extra "Newark Liberty" legend which is completely useless. Clearly there was no care put into making the signs legible.
Most of the signs are absolutely legible. What's wrong with reading anything on the blue background? It's just the extra yellow stripe that needs to go.
Also, people on the group should be in love with the smaller APL arrows.
I don't like where Parking A-B-C is on that APL sign. Couldn't tell if there's a blue out there because some other piece of info is going above it, but it looks poorly placed. There is clearly a piece of blued out info between the part for Terminals and Rental Car Return on the right half.
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 03:34:28 PM
I don't like where Parking A-B-C is on that APL sign. Couldn't tell if there's a blue out there because some other piece of info is going above it, but it looks poorly placed. There is clearly a piece of blued out info between the part for Terminals and Rental Car Return on the right half.
Yep, that's a blue out.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 08, 2021, 12:26:14 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 11:03:51 AM
They've been pretty good about highlighting the turns to the Cell Phone lot for a while, so that is just basically a replace in kind thing. The wording for those last signs to the longer term parking options is not really great for sure, especially since a big part of this is that you have to separate between those that are to the one direction and the super short term in front of the terminal parking that you would go the other way to reach. I don't really know what the "right" answer is on signing this without overloading the sign with too much legend.
The color coding was certainly a big help to separate the destinations, and they got rid of that. Plus the extra "Newark Liberty" legend which is completely useless. Clearly there was no care put into making the signs legible.
Color coding is not MUTCD compliant. Clearly there was no care put into making this comment.
See what I did there?
Quote from: Alps on October 08, 2021, 04:14:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 08, 2021, 12:26:14 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 11:03:51 AM
They've been pretty good about highlighting the turns to the Cell Phone lot for a while, so that is just basically a replace in kind thing. The wording for those last signs to the longer term parking options is not really great for sure, especially since a big part of this is that you have to separate between those that are to the one direction and the super short term in front of the terminal parking that you would go the other way to reach. I don't really know what the "right" answer is on signing this without overloading the sign with too much legend.
The color coding was certainly a big help to separate the destinations, and they got rid of that. Plus the extra "Newark Liberty" legend which is completely useless. Clearly there was no care put into making the signs legible.
Color coding is not MUTCD compliant. Clearly there was no care put into making this comment.
See what I did there?
Blue backgrounds for guide signs and helvetica or whatever that font is aren't MUTCD compliant either.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 08, 2021, 07:14:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 08, 2021, 04:14:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 08, 2021, 12:26:14 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 08, 2021, 11:03:51 AM
They've been pretty good about highlighting the turns to the Cell Phone lot for a while, so that is just basically a replace in kind thing. The wording for those last signs to the longer term parking options is not really great for sure, especially since a big part of this is that you have to separate between those that are to the one direction and the super short term in front of the terminal parking that you would go the other way to reach. I don't really know what the "right" answer is on signing this without overloading the sign with too much legend.
The color coding was certainly a big help to separate the destinations, and they got rid of that. Plus the extra "Newark Liberty" legend which is completely useless. Clearly there was no care put into making the signs legible.
Color coding is not MUTCD compliant. Clearly there was no care put into making this comment.
See what I did there?
Blue backgrounds for guide signs and helvetica or whatever that font is aren't MUTCD compliant either.
You didn't see what he did there.
I took a virtual drive EB on NJ 49 from Pennsville to Salem and noticed that there are no mileage signs along the route. The first sign I saw was east of Salem just past the Quinton Township line for Bridgetown at 12 miles, Millville at 20, and ultimately Tuckahoe at 40 miles.
Did I zip past a sign as the Goog has the tendency to do it occasionally? Or is the sign at Quinton the first log of communities along the route.
Also I noticed a few other things as well such as the bridge over Salem River that seems like it was built in the 21st Century, and a guide sign in Pennsville at CR 551 for the Delaware Memorial Bridge and NJ Turnpike along with Routes 295 & 40 to use Hook Road instead of continuing on Route 49. I am guessing Route 551 is a de facto bypass of the Pennsville Business District and of course somewhat shorter.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2021, 10:50:40 AM
I took a virtual drive EB on NJ 49 from Pennsville to Salem and noticed that there are no mileage signs along the route. The first sign I saw was east of Salem just past the Quinton Township line for Bridgetown at 12 miles, Millville at 20, and ultimately Tuckahoe at 40 miles.
Did I zip past a sign as the Goog has the tendency to do it occasionally? Or is the sign at Quinton the first log of communities along the route.
Also I noticed a few other things as well such as the bridge over Salem River that seems like it was built in the 21st Century, and a guide sign in Pennsville at CR 551 for the Delaware Memorial Bridge and NJ Turnpike along with Routes 295 & 40 to use Hook Road instead of continuing on Route 49. I am guessing Route 551 is a de facto bypass of the Pennsville Business District and of course somewhat shorter.
Mileage signs are generally sparse in NJ.
I am interested in learning more about the Valet Package at the airport
Quote from: jamess on October 11, 2021, 02:12:02 PM
I am interested in learning more about the Valet Package at the airport
Not currently on offer. They stopped it when Covid became a thing. I'm guessing they plan on starting it again, but it's currently not available, but it's in the P4 garage.
Quote from: storm2k on October 11, 2021, 02:27:09 PM
Quote from: jamess on October 11, 2021, 02:12:02 PM
I am interested in learning more about the Valet Package at the airport
Not currently on offer. They stopped it when Covid became a thing. I'm guessing they plan on starting it again, but it's currently not available, but it's in the P4 garage.
Yet every casino in AC offers it again.
Well I see Passaic County signs it's 600 series routes like this one on River Road in Clifton near the Famous Ruts Hut restaurant.
https://goo.gl/maps/F8xhUvR1sh9PwsCW6
When I lived there Bergen, Hudson, and Passaic Counties were bad at signing 600 series routes as well as some 500 series too. So this is welcome to see for sure. Oh wait, Bergen don't have 600 series, but two digit numbers. However the same treatment.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Well I see Passaic County signs it's 600 series routes like this one on River Road in Clifton near the Famous Ruts Hut restaurant.
https://goo.gl/maps/F8xhUvR1sh9PwsCW6
When I lived there Bergen, Hudson, and Passaic Counties were bad at signing 600 series routes as well as some 500 series too. So this is welcome to see for sure. Oh wait, Bergen don't have 600 series, but two digit numbers. However the same treatment.
Hudson and Bergen remain very limited with 600 level signage. Most Bergen ones are very old, the old black on white squares. Hudson is mainly nonexistent, though I think NJDOT posted some EMMs along Paterson Plank Road near 3 and the Eastern Spur in Secaucus/North Bergen area. Hudson mostly doesn't sign 500s either, but Bergen does sign them fairly well. Passaic seems to sign all its CRs pretty well.
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2021, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Well I see Passaic County signs it's 600 series routes like this one on River Road in Clifton near the Famous Ruts Hut restaurant.
https://goo.gl/maps/F8xhUvR1sh9PwsCW6
When I lived there Bergen, Hudson, and Passaic Counties were bad at signing 600 series routes as well as some 500 series too. So this is welcome to see for sure. Oh wait, Bergen don't have 600 series, but two digit numbers. However the same treatment.
Hudson and Bergen remain very limited with 600 level signage. Most Bergen ones are very old, the old black on white squares. Hudson is mainly nonexistent, though I think NJDOT posted some EMMs along Paterson Plank Road near 3 and the Eastern Spur in Secaucus/North Bergen area. Hudson mostly doesn't sign 500s either, but Bergen does sign them fairly well. Passaic seems to sign all its CRs pretty well.
NJDOT is the only one signing the county level systems in Hudson and Bergen.
Did they ever sign CR 507 on NJ 17 near Ramsey? From my research and what AARoads posted its not signed on the large overheads and at the northern terminus of CR 507, there is none from both directions of US 202. However, US 202 is poorly signed in Bergen as well as the US designation is county maintained like other Bergen roads.
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2021, 07:36:15 PM
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2021, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Well I see Passaic County signs it's 600 series routes like this one on River Road in Clifton near the Famous Ruts Hut restaurant.
https://goo.gl/maps/F8xhUvR1sh9PwsCW6
When I lived there Bergen, Hudson, and Passaic Counties were bad at signing 600 series routes as well as some 500 series too. So this is welcome to see for sure. Oh wait, Bergen don't have 600 series, but two digit numbers. However the same treatment.
Hudson and Bergen remain very limited with 600 level signage. Most Bergen ones are very old, the old black on white squares. Hudson is mainly nonexistent, though I think NJDOT posted some EMMs along Paterson Plank Road near 3 and the Eastern Spur in Secaucus/North Bergen area. Hudson mostly doesn't sign 500s either, but Bergen does sign them fairly well. Passaic seems to sign all its CRs pretty well.
NJDOT is the only one signing the county level systems in Hudson and Bergen.
Hudson I believe. But Bergen? There are quite a lot of 500 roads signed well away from NJDOT maintained areas. So... not so sure about that.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2021, 09:39:41 PM
Did they ever sign CR 507 on NJ 17 near Ramsey? From my research and what AARoads posted its not signed on the large overheads and at the northern terminus of CR 507, there is none from both directions of US 202. However, US 202 is poorly signed in Bergen as well as the US designation is county maintained like other Bergen roads.
I think it may be signed partly now, at least along 7 in spots, but not at 17.
I've taken a lot of pics of the roads in Bergen, including many reassurance signs.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Roads_in_Bergen_County,_New_Jersey
I didn't take every photo here, but if the file name starts with the date and time, then it's >99% likely mine.
Quote from: famartin on October 13, 2021, 12:02:13 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 12, 2021, 07:36:15 PM
Quote from: famartin on October 12, 2021, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Well I see Passaic County signs it's 600 series routes like this one on River Road in Clifton near the Famous Ruts Hut restaurant.
https://goo.gl/maps/F8xhUvR1sh9PwsCW6 (https://goo.gl/maps/F8xhUvR1sh9PwsCW6)
When I lived there Bergen, Hudson, and Passaic Counties were bad at signing 600 series routes as well as some 500 series too. So this is welcome to see for sure. Oh wait, Bergen don't have 600 series, but two digit numbers. However the same treatment.
Hudson and Bergen remain very limited with 600 level signage. Most Bergen ones are very old, the old black on white squares. Hudson is mainly nonexistent, though I think NJDOT posted some EMMs along Paterson Plank Road near 3 and the Eastern Spur in Secaucus/North Bergen area. Hudson mostly doesn't sign 500s either, but Bergen does sign them fairly well. Passaic seems to sign all its CRs pretty well.
NJDOT is the only one signing the county level systems in Hudson and Bergen.
Hudson I believe. But Bergen? There are quite a lot of 500 roads signed well away from NJDOT maintained areas. So... not so sure about that.
500s are not a county level system. County routes, state system. I couldn't say 600 because Bergen.
State designed, but still county maintained and signed, for the most part.
As a kid in the early 90s, I remember a lot of 600 series routes not being signed at least in Gloucester, Camden, and Salem counties. I remember looking at a map and seeing many roads had county route numbers that were not posted anywhere along the length. Others would be posted more frequently. Maybe it wasn't as much a local issue as it seemed all the county routes were known by names and not as much by numbers, including many of the 500 series routes which includes some of the longer routes that can have multiple name changes for each township/borough/etc boundary crossed. Over time more and more routes started getting identified with signs for the route numbers.
In NJ many 500s series were hidden but signed on interstates up until the early eighties. However, some exits like CR 503 on Hackensack on I-80 remained unsigned for the route even into the nineties and possibly today. Oh yes, and on Route 495 at JFK Blvd in Hudson County as well.
Only South Jersey had signing when I grew up as Union County, where I lived, had no county designations signed.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2021, 01:06:40 PM
In NJ many 500s series were hidden but signed on interstates up until the early eighties. However, some exits like CR 503 on Hackensack on I-80 remained unsigned for the route even into the nineties and possibly today. Oh yes, and on Route 495 at JFK Blvd in Hudson County as well.
Only South Jersey had signing when I grew up as Union County, where I lived, had no county designations signed.
CR 503 doesn't directly interchange with I-80. CR 507 does and is signed. CR 501 and CR 505 don't interchange directly with I-95. CR 501 does interchange with NJ 495, so that is missing in signage, as is the case along NJ 440 in Hoboken.
CR 501, 502, 503, 505 and 507 are reasonably well signed with reassurance shields in Bergen all along their routes. CR 501 is not signed with reassurance signs except near 440 and 495 in Hudson County, and CR 505 is not signed at all in Hudson County. CR 508 is signed with reassurance markers near NJ 7 and I-280 in Hudson County, as is 507 near Route 7. Otherwise, little to no signage.
Then you have CR 508 signed at Exit 10 in West Orange on I-280 for Northfield Avenue where that part of Northfield is not even CR 508. It leaves Northfield at Wittingham Place to the west, yet the ramp signage has it signed both ways in error to match it.
I think though the reasoning is people would head south on Valley Road to Kingsley which is CR 508. In retrospect it should be TO CR 508 or TO CR 508 West.
Starting in the early 00s, NJDOT appears to have made a push for counties to sign their 500 and 600 series routes. Union County got a full sign refresh in 2003-04. Passaic County was one of the more recent ones done.
Somerset County, meanwhile, has always been well above average with signing its county routes. Sadly, their custom white on blue pentagons with the black on white aux plates (for direction, arrows, etc) are slowly disappearing as they replace old signs with standard yellow on blue pentagons. Either way, they do sign almost all of their county routes, including at main intersections and also reassurance shields along the way. Plus they've been doing their own version of EMMs for close to 20 years already. It's not perfect, of course (Finderne Ave south of E Main St doesn't reflect its change from 533 to 633, Chimney Rock Rd doesn't have signs for its routes but they do exist on NJDOT's street name blades as well as the new BGSs installed with the interchange grade separation project that was done at Route 22, and Allen Rd is a county road with no signage whatsoever. And those are just three off the top of my head), but most of the heavily used county routes--both 5xx and 6xx--are signed.
I think those Somerset County shields are actually faded. Most of them are well over 20 years old and are finally getting replaced.
Downtown Bound Brook at the roundabout has no CR 527 shields as it turns from Main to Easton Avenue. Plus at Main and Mountain there is no shields (unless they added them since Google was there last) showing the junction of CR 527 and the terminus of CR 533.
Plus the Watchung Circle in Watchung according to GSV lost the shields it once had including a I-78 shield at the Valley Road exit of the circle.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 14, 2021, 05:44:14 PM
I think those Somerset County shields are actually faded. Most of them are well over 20 years old and are finally getting replaced.
No, they were white the whole time. I've seen newer whites.
I actually didn't know that the road I grew up on was a county route. If I recall correctly, 600-series county route signs in Camden County started popping up on traffic light blades in the mid to late 90s, and shortly thereafter on standalone assemblies.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 15, 2021, 12:49:21 PM
I actually didn't know that the road I grew up on was a county route. If I recall correctly, 600-series county route signs in Camden County started popping up on traffic light blades in the mid to late 90s, and shortly thereafter on standalone assemblies.
There are a smattering of old 600/700 signs in Camden County that are the old black-on-white squares, which probably date from many decades ago, but I don't know the history of signing there.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 14, 2021, 05:44:14 PM
I think those Somerset County shields are actually faded. Most of them are well over 20 years old and are finally getting replaced.
Oh no, it's quite intentional. This 525 shield (https://goo.gl/maps/c8DnnM9RCSJNdHGaA) is very clearly white on blue, not faded yellow (you can also see the kinda intermediate thing Somerset County did for several years where they did a standard yellow on blue pentagon but the direction and arrow panels were black on white).
I've noticed a weird practice that only seems to be used so thoroughly in NJ, of painting transverse rumble strips across the road. I've seen this done in other states as well to provide advance warning of particularly dangerous roadway conditions like a freeway ending, but certain towns in NJ like to put these things everywhere on low-speed local roads (Newark for example). If they're supposed to be warning of something, I can't tell what it is, because they are often used in sets of 2 or 3 on every block of a street. In other cases they are used more infrequently, but still seemingly with no rhyme or reason. If they're trying to warn of a certain condition they're doing a really bad job of it. And if their purpose is speed control, that's even dumber, because the strips are only the most mild annoyance, and if anything you feel them less at higher speeds. Does anyone know what the theory is with these?
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 20, 2021, 08:36:38 PM
I've noticed a weird practice that only seems to be used so thoroughly in NJ, of painting transverse rumble strips across the road. I've seen this done in other states as well to provide advance warning of particularly dangerous roadway conditions like a freeway ending, but certain towns in NJ like to put these things everywhere on low-speed local roads (Newark for example). If they're supposed to be warning of something, I can't tell what it is, because they are often used in sets of 2 or 3 on every block of a street. In other cases they are used more infrequently, but still seemingly with no rhyme or reason. If they're trying to warn of a certain condition they're doing a really bad job of it. And if their purpose is speed control, that's even dumber, because the strips are only the most mild annoyance, and if anything you feel them less at higher speeds. Does anyone know what the theory is with these?
I'm not sure what you mean by used so thoroughly in NJ, because I really haven't seen them almost anywhere in South Jersey. The only real example I can think of are these on NJ 129 in Trenton approaching Lalor Street: https://goo.gl/maps/JNZxgXDXAkWhMLcFA , which I believed were put in place after a nasty crash that also resulted in 129's speed limit being lowered to 40 mph shortly after the roadway opened.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2021, 09:59:56 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 20, 2021, 08:36:38 PM
I've noticed a weird practice that only seems to be used so thoroughly in NJ, of painting transverse rumble strips across the road. I've seen this done in other states as well to provide advance warning of particularly dangerous roadway conditions like a freeway ending, but certain towns in NJ like to put these things everywhere on low-speed local roads (Newark for example). If they're supposed to be warning of something, I can't tell what it is, because they are often used in sets of 2 or 3 on every block of a street. In other cases they are used more infrequently, but still seemingly with no rhyme or reason. If they're trying to warn of a certain condition they're doing a really bad job of it. And if their purpose is speed control, that's even dumber, because the strips are only the most mild annoyance, and if anything you feel them less at higher speeds. Does anyone know what the theory is with these?
I'm not sure what you mean by used so thoroughly in NJ, because I really haven't seen them almost anywhere in South Jersey. The only real example I can think of are these on NJ 129 in Trenton approaching Lalor Street: https://goo.gl/maps/JNZxgXDXAkWhMLcFA , which I believed were put in place after a nasty crash that also resulted in 129's speed limit being lowered to 40 mph shortly after the roadway opened.
I have come across them in Salem County leading up to an intersection where you need to stop.
Similarly, I am figuring there have been issues at these intersections.
https://goo.gl/maps/iU7w7JK4aDdmg23B9
https://goo.gl/maps/wHuvKtxt9FfQZGnj9
https://goo.gl/maps/4fQDRPRbJAQNGhyL8
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 20, 2021, 08:36:38 PM
I've noticed a weird practice that only seems to be used so thoroughly in NJ, of painting transverse rumble strips across the road. I've seen this done in other states as well to provide advance warning of particularly dangerous roadway conditions like a freeway ending, but certain towns in NJ like to put these things everywhere on low-speed local roads (Newark for example). If they're supposed to be warning of something, I can't tell what it is, because they are often used in sets of 2 or 3 on every block of a street. In other cases they are used more infrequently, but still seemingly with no rhyme or reason. If they're trying to warn of a certain condition they're doing a really bad job of it. And if their purpose is speed control, that's even dumber, because the strips are only the most mild annoyance, and if anything you feel them less at higher speeds. Does anyone know what the theory is with these?
It's not thorough, it's jurisdictional.
Passaic's plans were to add shields as roads were paved and it was fun to watch them pop up. There were some errors as they were put up. (I was told this by the Passaic County people.)
It took years for North Jersey to get into this. I saw Union County Start at some intersections in early 1980s along CR 509 in Kenilworth, Union, and Hillside.
Middlesex County started in the Mid Eighties. However when CR 501 got done, they only signed it to the Edison- Fords Line omitting King George Road up until sometime after 1990.
Weird mast arm connection to pole here. I guess a Monmouth County thing.
https://goo.gl/maps/E8WBA5c4t3saoqqf7
Also https://goo.gl/maps/QgqK3zivLpGDFV4B9 I-95 now featured with the Turnpike shield for I-195 west from CR 537. It's about time.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 03, 2021, 02:04:32 PM
Also https://goo.gl/maps/QgqK3zivLpGDFV4B9 I-95 now featured with the Turnpike shield for I-195 west from CR 537. It's about time.
That sign was posted 2-3 years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1616451,-74.4219741,3a,75y,229.38h,86.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1se0rVD-fyfAGXccJ7B5X_YA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: famartin on November 03, 2021, 04:39:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 03, 2021, 02:04:32 PM
Also https://goo.gl/maps/QgqK3zivLpGDFV4B9 I-95 now featured with the Turnpike shield for I-195 west from CR 537. It's about time.
That sign was posted 2-3 years ago.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1616451,-74.4219741,3a,75y,229.38h,86.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1se0rVD-fyfAGXccJ7B5X_YA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Whether two years ago, or five years ago, it's about time that I-95 gets recognized. I meant now as figurative speech not literally.
Got some more pictures of the 440 sign replacements in Edison/Perth Amboy. I have very mixed feelings about these. I'm not a big fan of some things NJDOT has decided to do now. Weird things with spacing and dividing lines on signs that I feel over complicate things. Plus, NJDOT is very much in love with yellow panels now, even for things that don't need them.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51653787299_0da08c22e6_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51652299312_393ea2389f_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51652299267_d836004f08_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51653118381_e157db1a54_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51653787144_2265033e01_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51653978850_fc3ca99d1a_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51652299037_8739975401_c.jpg)
Being that sometimes you have a split second to determine which way to go when an exit ramp divides, I actually kind of like that left lane/right lane sign.
Your photo doesn't do it justice. That LEFT 3 LANES banner is HUGE in person.
The TOLL banner should be below the "NORTH". Otherwise the rest is fine. Highlighting what lane to be in is a must with complicated NJ ramps. Overall these new gantries seem constrained for space compared to the old ones. Every sign is narrow and squished together showing less information.
Yeah, my only nit pick is with where the toll banner goes. Otherwise, these are sign practices which are common elsewhere.
I was hoping they would add control cities for US 9 South like Sayreville or South Amboy, and Shore Points for the Parkway on the new 440 signs.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 04, 2021, 11:05:07 PM
Your photo doesn't do it justice. That LEFT 3 LANES banner is HUGE in person.
The TOLL banner should be below the "NORTH". Otherwise the rest is fine. Highlighting what lane to be in is a must with complicated NJ ramps. Overall these new gantries seem constrained for space compared to the old ones. Every sign is narrow and squished together showing less information.
There was a semi in my way which meant I could not get a good picture of that sign closer up.
My honest opinion is that if there's a ramp that requires quickly figuring out what lane you need to be in, put an overhead on the ramp itself indicating which lane it needs to be.
And, yes, NJDOT seems to be embracing taller thinner "it fits over one lane" sign strategies now. Not sure why. But this is a thing.
Quote from: storm2k on November 05, 2021, 01:44:07 AM
My honest opinion is that if there's a ramp that requires quickly figuring out what lane you need to be in, put an overhead on the ramp itself indicating which lane it needs to be.
Unfortunately, that's an pricey $100,000 job, complicated by whatever underground utilities and obstructions may be in the way. New signage on existing gantries, by comparison, is cheap.
I would like to see way more overhead signage in this state, and it's sometimes a bit of a headscratcher where they put it and where they don't. Using NJ 73 as an example, the signage as you approach NJ 41 & NJ 73 is mostly overhead, and easily helps figure out what lane to be in. Yet just a mile away, for 295 and the NJ Turnpike, the area is mostly devoid of overhead signage, even though this area has a lot more traffic, including out-of-area traffic not familiar with what lanes to be in. It's gotten marginally better over the years, but still not great.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 05, 2021, 06:07:08 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 05, 2021, 01:44:07 AM
My honest opinion is that if there's a ramp that requires quickly figuring out what lane you need to be in, put an overhead on the ramp itself indicating which lane it needs to be.
I would like to see way more overhead signage in this state, and it's sometimes a bit of a headscratcher where they put it and where they don't. Using NJ 73 as an example, the signage as you approach NJ 41 & NJ 73 is mostly overhead, and easily helps figure out what lane to be in. Yet just a mile away, for 295 and the NJ Turnpike, the area is mostly devoid of overhead signage, even though this area has a lot more traffic, including out-of-area traffic not familiar with what lanes to be in. It's gotten marginally better over the years, but still not great.
Concur 100%
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 04, 2021, 11:05:07 PM
Your photo doesn't do it justice. That LEFT 3 LANES banner is HUGE in person.
The TOLL banner should be below the "NORTH". Otherwise the rest is fine. Highlighting what lane to be in is a must with complicated NJ ramps. Overall these new gantries seem constrained for space compared to the old ones. Every sign is narrow and squished together showing less information.
I'm fine with the layout in general but agree that the yellow panels are a bit extra.
Has the Wittpenn Bridge yet opened completely?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7380584,-74.0793321,1032m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7177545!4d-74.0431435
Satellite imagery seems to imply it is with the transparent map.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 11:13:28 AM
Has the Wittpenn Bridge yet opened completely?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7380584,-74.0793321,1032m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7177545!4d-74.0431435
Satellite imagery seems to imply it is with the transparent map.
Yes, it's open. The approach on the JC side is still a mess since the Newark Ave exit won't be open for a while and traffic is being detoured onto a temporary ramp for Saint Pauls Ave. It's very inadequate and you can get stuck behind a railroad crossing with slow freight trains.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 09, 2021, 03:39:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 11:13:28 AM
Has the Wittpenn Bridge yet opened completely?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7380584,-74.0793321,1032m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7177545!4d-74.0431435
Satellite imagery seems to imply it is with the transparent map.
Yes, it's open. The approach on the JC side is still a mess since the Newark Ave exit won't be open for a while and traffic is being detoured onto a temporary ramp for Saint Pauls Ave. It's very inadequate and you can get stuck behind a railroad crossing with slow freight trains.
NJDOT video about the opening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccxsmwOumpc
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 09, 2021, 03:39:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 11:13:28 AM
Has the Wittpenn Bridge yet opened completely?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jersey+City,+NJ/@40.7380584,-74.0793321,1032m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c250d225bfafdd:0x249f013a2cd25d9!8m2!3d40.7177545!4d-74.0431435
Satellite imagery seems to imply it is with the transparent map.
Yes, it's open. The approach on the JC side is still a mess since the Newark Ave exit won't be open for a while and traffic is being detoured onto a temporary ramp for Saint Pauls Ave. It's very inadequate and you can get stuck behind a railroad crossing with slow freight trains.
You won't get stuck if you make a left, get back on 1&9T South, then U-turn at Broadway... but the train may clear by then.
Curiosity question: where southbound NJ-179 turns onto Bridge St in Lambertville, why does this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/LMMiJiu3P9TmbpGE9) show "Toll Bridge 1 Mile" when Bridge St leads directly onto the free bridge between Lambertville and New Hope. You'd have to make a second right at NJ-29 northbound and follow that back to 202 to get to the toll bridge, but there are no signs for that. In any event, Scudders Falls isn't free anymore, so it's even more misleading. This sign isn't old either. I'm assuming that it was a replace in kind from earlier signs at this location. Why not just update the sign to say Bridge to New Hope and be done with it?
Quote from: storm2k on November 23, 2021, 03:02:09 PM
Curiosity question: where southbound NJ-179 turns onto Bridge St in Lambertville, why does this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/LMMiJiu3P9TmbpGE9) show "Toll Bridge 1 Mile" when Bridge St leads directly onto the free bridge between Lambertville and New Hope. You'd have to make a second right at NJ-29 northbound and follow that back to 202 to get to the toll bridge, but there are no signs for that. In any event, Scudders Falls isn't free anymore, so it's even more misleading. This sign isn't old either. I'm assuming that it was a replace in kind from earlier signs at this location. Why not just update the sign to say Bridge to New Hope and be done with it?
Error like Essex County on the JFK Parkway in Millburn using I-287 for I-280 bound truckers to bypass Livingston as the intent of that sign posted on the Parsonage Hill Road overpass is for. Someone along the line was thinking I-280 but made out the sign to instead say I-287.
https://goo.gl/maps/B9owPfyh7tTzM8Sv6
I see that the access from US 22 East to the GSP southbound is to become more tedious as you will have to do a double u turn using NJ 82 in addition to the u turn to US 22WB due to the US 22 and NJ 82 improvements.
Why didn't they add a ramp from US 22 EB to Chestnut Street as part of the bridge replacement project. That would at least allow EB to SB to use the 139 on ramp to the Parkway and simply that part plus restore access from US 22 to Chestnut Street it once easily had at the U Turn ramp by the Flagship to Chestnut Street on the WB side. Plus simply that aspect as if any of you know the u turn ramps in the center aisle of Union can be a major issue due to long waits. So many there find alternate means including Union County Route 617.
Locals already use Fairway Dr. S to access the GSP south from 22E. It's shorter then taking 22 and U-turning already.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2021, 11:05:31 AM
I see that the access from US 22 East to the GSP southbound is to become more tedious as you will have to do a double u turn using NJ 82 in addition to the u turn to US 22WB due to the US 22 and NJ 82 improvements.
Why didn't they add a ramp from US 22 EB to Chestnut Street as part of the bridge replacement project. That would at least allow EB to SB to use the 139 on ramp to the Parkway and simply that part plus restore access from US 22 to Chestnut Street it once easily had at the U Turn ramp by the Flagship to Chestnut Street on the WB side. Plus simply that aspect as if any of you know the u turn ramps in the center aisle of Union can be a major issue due to long waits. So many there find alternate means including Union County Route 617.
It would likely mean getting rid of Fairway Drive, which would probably upset the locals. Fairway Drive to Chestnut to 139 on-ramp is the way to go to reach the SB Parkway from 22 Eastbound for sure.
Not really. There's room to fit a ramp. Plus there is plenty of places with five miles to replant trees under the Jersey law.
https://flic.kr/p/egRnS9
This photo is 16 years old, but other than the price of the 50 cents, the sign is most likely still there today. ACE for some reason don't have an interest in replacing guide signs.
Edit: Well they did change it( I'm impressed) as seen in the same location 12 years later in 2017.
https://goo.gl/maps/Xd92GaNdFQqTTzTJ9
Unless the mall owner changed, which seems possible as it's their road.
Video on forthcoming Route 4 Hackensack River Bridge replacement project.
https://www.rt4hackensackriverbridge.com/
Left Turn Arrow To Be Added To Improve Bridgewater Intersection (https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/left-turn-arrow-be-added-improve-bridgewater-intersection)
NJDOT finally coming back around and doing what they should have done when they improved this intersection in.... uh, 2006 or so I think it was? I have no idea why they didn't put dedicated left turn arrows from Chimney Rock Rd onto 28 when they did the intersection improvements. With all the traffic coming from the UPS complex, the big shopping center, etc., this should have been done. It's only gotten worse with the redesign of the Chimney Rock/22 intersection and the further development on the other side of 22 near the quarry.
Quote from: storm2k on December 02, 2021, 01:28:19 PM
Left Turn Arrow To Be Added To Improve Bridgewater Intersection (https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/left-turn-arrow-be-added-improve-bridgewater-intersection)
NJDOT finally coming back around and doing what they should have done when they improved this intersection in.... uh, 2006 or so I think it was? I have no idea why they didn't put dedicated left turn arrows from Chimney Rock Rd onto 28 when they did the intersection improvements. With all the traffic coming from the UPS complex, the big shopping center, etc., this should have been done. It's only gotten worse with the redesign of the Chimney Rock/22 intersection and the further development on the other side of 22 near the quarry.
I've always felt NJDOT over-studied if a left turn arrow was needed, and all too often they are omitted. For the cost of the studies, they probably could've saved some money by just making them standard features in the design. I tend to believe other states (Delaware) appear to use them as matter of policy, and only need to decide will it be a protected/permitted light, protected light with or without flashing red, or off-set phasing.
Why don't they just have the arrow added? Dispatch a crew to hang new signal heads? In Florida it would be done instantly. Even on the mast arm signals we have had an extra head mounted.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2021, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 02, 2021, 01:28:19 PM
Left Turn Arrow To Be Added To Improve Bridgewater Intersection (https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/left-turn-arrow-be-added-improve-bridgewater-intersection)
NJDOT finally coming back around and doing what they should have done when they improved this intersection in.... uh, 2006 or so I think it was? I have no idea why they didn't put dedicated left turn arrows from Chimney Rock Rd onto 28 when they did the intersection improvements. With all the traffic coming from the UPS complex, the big shopping center, etc., this should have been done. It's only gotten worse with the redesign of the Chimney Rock/22 intersection and the further development on the other side of 22 near the quarry.
I've always felt NJDOT over-studied if a left turn arrow was needed, and all too often they are omitted. For the cost of the studies, they probably could've saved some money by just making them standard features in the design. I tend to believe other states (Delaware) appear to use them as matter of policy, and only need to decide will it be a protected/permitted light, protected light with or without flashing red, or off-set phasing.
I can tell you when we do it as consultants, it's very straightforward. We analyze the intersection for the build year of choice and if it doesn't look great, we see what we can do to improve it. Heck, I had a recent project where NJDOT told us "study adding left turn signals at every intersection, or left turn lanes if they don't have one." I don't think anything really changed, but they were thinking about it!
Quote from: roadman65 on December 02, 2021, 10:58:18 PM
Why don't they just have the arrow added? Dispatch a crew to hang new signal heads? In Florida it would be done instantly. Even on the mast arm signals we have had an extra head mounted.
Because a signal head can't just be added. Wiring needs to be fished to the control box. The computerized software needs to be updated. A detection system needs to be installed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2021, 09:55:50 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 02, 2021, 01:28:19 PM
Left Turn Arrow To Be Added To Improve Bridgewater Intersection (https://patch.com/new-jersey/bridgewater/left-turn-arrow-be-added-improve-bridgewater-intersection)
NJDOT finally coming back around and doing what they should have done when they improved this intersection in.... uh, 2006 or so I think it was? I have no idea why they didn't put dedicated left turn arrows from Chimney Rock Rd onto 28 when they did the intersection improvements. With all the traffic coming from the UPS complex, the big shopping center, etc., this should have been done. It's only gotten worse with the redesign of the Chimney Rock/22 intersection and the further development on the other side of 22 near the quarry.
I've always felt NJDOT over-studied if a left turn arrow was needed, and all too often they are omitted. For the cost of the studies, they probably could've saved some money by just making them standard features in the design. I tend to believe other states (Delaware) appear to use them as matter of policy, and only need to decide will it be a protected/permitted light, protected light with or without flashing red, or off-set phasing.
This intersection is kind of an interesting case. There was always a jughandle there, mostly to handle traffic to and from the UPS facility there as well as the small industrial park that's along Chimney Rock between 28 and 22. In 1999, TD Bank park opened, as well as the Promenade shopping center which caused a lot more traffic that the original intersection could not handle. In... I want to say 2005-06, they redid the intersection and added dedicated left turn lanes and signals from both sides of 28 to Chimney Rock, thus rendering the original jughandle as a right turn only thing. My point is that when they did this work, traffic on Chimney Rock was already a lot worse, and they put dedicated left turn lanes on both sides on Chimney Rock, so I don't know why they didn't go for arrows as well. Traffic has only gotten worse as instead of ending at a RIRO at 22, that whole intersection was redone in 2014 or so such that Chimney Rock was extended across 22 and connects to Foothill Rd and all of the new stores that were built on the other side of 22 there. I don't know the criteria that NJDOT was looking for in those days, but since they were already installing new signal equipment when they upgraded the 28/Chimney Rock intersection, it would have made sense to put left turn arrows in on Chimney Rock at that time as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2021, 06:41:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 02, 2021, 10:58:18 PM
Why don't they just have the arrow added? Dispatch a crew to hang new signal heads? In Florida it would be done instantly. Even on the mast arm signals we have had an extra head mounted.
Because a signal head can't just be added. Wiring needs to be fished to the control box. The computerized software needs to be updated. A detection system needs to be installed.
And that's even assuming that the signal controller has the ability to handle the additional phase. If it doesn't, you have to get creative or are stuck with what you have until the whole signal is replaced.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2021, 06:41:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 02, 2021, 10:58:18 PM
Why don't they just have the arrow added? Dispatch a crew to hang new signal heads? In Florida it would be done instantly. Even on the mast arm signals we have had an extra head mounted.
Because a signal head can't just be added. Wiring needs to be fished to the control box. The computerized software needs to be updated. A detection system needs to be installed.
You haven't been to NYC. They do it all the time and using the old click box controllers as nothing in NYC is computerized. Still using the technology from decades ago and have plenty of signals with add on arrows to the existing heads.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2021, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2021, 06:41:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 02, 2021, 10:58:18 PM
Why don't they just have the arrow added? Dispatch a crew to hang new signal heads? In Florida it would be done instantly. Even on the mast arm signals we have had an extra head mounted.
Because a signal head can't just be added. Wiring needs to be fished to the control box. The computerized software needs to be updated. A detection system needs to be installed.
You haven't been to NYC. They do it all the time and using the old click box controllers as nothing in NYC is computerized. Still using the technology from decades ago and have plenty of signals with add on arrows to the existing heads.
Wait what? You were talking about Florida, not NYC.
I am saying that it is easy to be done. I used NYC as its got many permissive arrows added with no problems. If you want me to say Florida, I will.
Amazing that NYC is so far behind the times. They still have a lot of 8-inch signals too.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2021, 08:05:15 PM
Amazing that NYC is so far behind the times. They still have a lot of 8-inch signals too.
8 inch signals are fine for 25 & 30 mph roadways with short distance intersections, so most of them are within spec.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 04, 2021, 08:05:15 PM
Amazing that NYC is so far behind the times. They still have a lot of 8-inch signals too.
NYC does use them on the West Side Highway, the 12 inch that is.
Yes I think Queens Blvd. and some other main thoroughfares now have 12-inch signals too. But most signals on the low speed local streets are still 8-inch, unlike many parts of the country (like California) where 12-inch lights are used in most newer installations.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 05, 2021, 07:21:40 PM
Yes I think Queens Blvd. and some other main thoroughfares now have 12-inch signals too. But most signals on the low speed local streets are still 8-inch, unlike many parts of the country (like California) where 12-inch lights are used in most newer installations.
San Francisco still uses 8 inch at many intersections. Though, US 101 is slowly upgrading to 12 inch and standard Caltrans Mast Arms, so whenever the rest of the city's intersections are to the point in time to be replaced I am sure they will install 12 inch signals for sure.
https://www.nj.com/news/2021/12/your-parkway-and-turnpike-tolls-are-going-up-jan-1-again.html
Quote
...Under the indexing plan, Parkway barrier tolls for E-ZPass customers in passenger vehicles will increase from $1.90 to $1.96 on Jan. 1, Feeney said. Cash tolls are rounded to the nickel instead of the penny, meaning the cash toll at a Parkway barrier plaza will be $2, he said.
On the Turnpike, an E-ZPass customer in a passenger vehicle would pay $4.23 instead of $4.10 to travel from Interchange 11 in Woodbridge to Interchange 14 in Newark during peak periods, he said. A cash customer would pay $4.25 for that trip. Under a 25% discount for New Jersey E-ZPass customers during off-peak Turnpike travel, that trip would cost $3.17, he said.
The average passenger vehicle Turnpike toll that now costs $4.80 will rise to $4.95 under this increase, Feeney said.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2021, 12:08:41 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2021/12/your-parkway-and-turnpike-tolls-are-going-up-jan-1-again.html
Quote
...Under the indexing plan, Parkway barrier tolls for E-ZPass customers in passenger vehicles will increase from $1.90 to $1.96 on Jan. 1, Feeney said. Cash tolls are rounded to the nickel instead of the penny, meaning the cash toll at a Parkway barrier plaza will be $2, he said.
On the Turnpike, an E-ZPass customer in a passenger vehicle would pay $4.23 instead of $4.10 to travel from Interchange 11 in Woodbridge to Interchange 14 in Newark during peak periods, he said. A cash customer would pay $4.25 for that trip. Under a 25% discount for New Jersey E-ZPass customers during off-peak Turnpike travel, that trip would cost $3.17, he said.
The average passenger vehicle Turnpike toll that now costs $4.80 will rise to $4.95 under this increase, Feeney said.
In real terms, that's a drop in toll rates.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 06, 2021, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2021, 12:08:41 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2021/12/your-parkway-and-turnpike-tolls-are-going-up-jan-1-again.html
Quote
...Under the indexing plan, Parkway barrier tolls for E-ZPass customers in passenger vehicles will increase from $1.90 to $1.96 on Jan. 1, Feeney said. Cash tolls are rounded to the nickel instead of the penny, meaning the cash toll at a Parkway barrier plaza will be $2, he said.
On the Turnpike, an E-ZPass customer in a passenger vehicle would pay $4.23 instead of $4.10 to travel from Interchange 11 in Woodbridge to Interchange 14 in Newark during peak periods, he said. A cash customer would pay $4.25 for that trip. Under a 25% discount for New Jersey E-ZPass customers during off-peak Turnpike travel, that trip would cost $3.17, he said.
The average passenger vehicle Turnpike toll that now costs $4.80 will rise to $4.95 under this increase, Feeney said.
In real terms, that's a drop in toll rates.
I guess it's because of COVID, but we had 6% inflation this year. Future years are projected under 3%.
https://whyy.org/articles/investigation-into-i-295-route-42-wall-collapse-is-nearly-complete/
A few quotes from the story:
Quote
...A draft report is expected to be complete in the next couple of weeks...
..."When we finalize that and have the plans in place, then the balance of the old wall will be demolished to make room for the construction of the new one," ...
...the department hopes the design will be completed by the end of the first quarter in 2022, with construction beginning after plans are approved...
Based on the above timeline (which I'm sure will be delayed, like the rest of the project): For those considering the Philadelphia Multi-Day meet in August, 2022, Wall 2.0 may be under construction during that meet.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 09, 2021, 10:31:01 PM
Based on the above timeline (which I'm sure will be delayed, like the rest of the project): Everyone who reads this is going to attend the Philadelphia Multi-Day meet in August, 2022, Wall 2.0 may be under construction during that meet.
ftfy
Atlantic City girl, 14, among three dead in fiery expressway crash (https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/three-dead-after-car-hits-toll-plaza-on-atlantic-city-expressway/article_8506f074-66d8-11ec-9d5b-4bffeb133afb.html)
QuoteAn Atlantic City teenager was one of three family members killed after their car crashed into an Atlantic City Expressway toll plaza and caught fire Sunday night.
...
The vehicle was traveling eastbound when it struck the Egg Harbor Toll Plaza just past milepost 17.6 and burst into flames.
Apparently there was a similar crash at the same toll plaza in 2005.
Quote from: storm2k on December 27, 2021, 10:40:37 PM
Atlantic City girl, 14, among three dead in fiery expressway crash (https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/three-dead-after-car-hits-toll-plaza-on-atlantic-city-expressway/article_8506f074-66d8-11ec-9d5b-4bffeb133afb.html)
QuoteAn Atlantic City teenager was one of three family members killed after their car crashed into an Atlantic City Expressway toll plaza and caught fire Sunday night.
...
The vehicle was traveling eastbound when it struck the Egg Harbor Toll Plaza just past milepost 17.6 and burst into flames.
Apparently there was a similar crash at the same toll plaza in 2005.
KYW radio reported this morning (on one of their traffic reports) that four of the five eb lanes were knocked out of commission, and we can expect months for repairs to be made. If the plaza is not fixed by Memorial Day...
Took another ride on 440 in Woodbridge/Perth Amboy to get pictures of more new signage.
These are on the Exit 10 ramp from the Turnpike to 440. First one replaced a NJTA structure that had new signs erected when they did the MUTCD signage project. Second replaces an old NJDOT structure that was likely due to fall down. NJDOT has really embraced the black on yellow panel where a black on yellow panel is not required.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51789177605_0c9af59b11_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51788555048_7aeb067ab5_c.jpg)
New exit sign for 9 southbound. I guess NJDOT will just never give 9 control cities through here.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51789177650_fcc188e158_c.jpg)
Onramp from Smith Street in Perth Amboy to 440SB. Talk about shield overload.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51788429731_25d90c889d_c.jpg)
440SB exit to Amboy Ave. If you thought that previous sign had shield overload...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51787490752_b7d17a1fb2_c.jpg)
Exit to 184/Pfeiffer Blvd. I wish they had laid this out better.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51788812344_1f491e3a6e_c.jpg)
Got a better picture of this sign at the 514/Turnpike exit just to capture the utterly ridiculous nature of that giant "Left 3 Lanes" panel.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51788429771_15f9496ace_c.jpg)
At this point, I really have to wonder what the NJDOT engineers that either designed or signed off on the plans for these signs were honestly thinking. This new style of signage is atrocious. Panels that are not needed. Layouts that are confusing. Repeated information overload... over and over and over again. I don't know how these engineers can look at some of these signs and think that these are helping motorists find their ways when some of them are so dense that they're more likely to cause a fender bender while a motorist tries to take all this in and not pay attention to the likely stopped traffic in front of them.
If you think this is "shield overload", then you haven't spent much time around the GWB, where similar overloads are common.
Honestly, my only issue with any of these signs is the use of "NJ Turnpike" instead of control cities. Otherwise they seem alright.
Quote from: famartin on December 30, 2021, 07:40:26 PM
If you think this is "shield overload", then you haven't spent much time around the GWB, where similar overloads are common.
Honestly, my only issue with any of these signs is the use of "NJ Turnpike" instead of control cities. Otherwise they seem alright.
Maybe this is their response to not being allowed to use backplates.
All the shields possible sans backplates
I inserted links to old signs from GSV for comparisons
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2021, 06:11:55 PM
Took another ride on 440 in Woodbridge/Perth Amboy to get pictures of more new signage.
These are on the Exit 10 ramp from the Turnpike to 440. First one replaced a NJTA structure that had new signs erected when they did the MUTCD signage project. Second replaces an old NJDOT structure that was likely due to fall down. NJDOT has really embraced the black on yellow panel where a black on yellow panel is not required.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51789177605_0c9af59b11_c.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5255702,-74.3342371,3a,75y,127.53h,85.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIwjyvrfoazSoVkT0SD4TMQ!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2021, 06:11:55 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51788555048_7aeb067ab5_c.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5251496,-74.3311494,3a,75y,64.22h,87.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWn1kJxMEcdQAQ56OZwOBpw!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2021, 06:11:55 PM
New exit sign for 9 southbound. I guess NJDOT will just never give 9 control cities through here.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51789177650_fcc188e158_c.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5212249,-74.307493,3a,75y,126.2h,88.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siVxkM0wCuLf4a5iAuJGPEQ!2e0!5s20210701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2021, 06:11:55 PM
Onramp from Smith Street in Perth Amboy to 440SB. Talk about shield overload.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51788429731_25d90c889d_c.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.526044,-74.2684424,3a,75y,298.51h,91.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn9QLzq-9kHymmlB_Yo5Rwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2021, 06:11:55 PM
440SB exit to Amboy Ave. If you thought that previous sign had shield overload...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51787490752_b7d17a1fb2_c.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.526992,-74.2711669,3a,75y,294.4h,88.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sww_srw4LkoOLb5f40iO4AA!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2021, 06:11:55 PM
Exit to 184/Pfeiffer Blvd. I wish they had laid this out better.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51788812344_1f491e3a6e_c.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5285166,-74.2755621,3a,75y,294.4h,88.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sopkSTnmzJPxK4wSuWnohQg!2e0!5s20210701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2021, 06:11:55 PM
Got a better picture of this sign at the 514/Turnpike exit just to capture the utterly ridiculous nature of that giant "Left 3 Lanes" panel.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51788429771_15f9496ace_c.jpg)
I can't do a direct comparison because there wasn't any gantry near here before. Which was, IMHO, an error which long needed correcting.
Quote from: storm2k on December 30, 2021, 06:11:55 PM
At this point, I really have to wonder what the NJDOT engineers that either designed or signed off on the plans for these signs were honestly thinking. This new style of signage is atrocious. Panels that are not needed. Layouts that are confusing. Repeated information overload... over and over and over again. I don't know how these engineers can look at some of these signs and think that these are helping motorists find their ways when some of them are so dense that they're more likely to cause a fender bender while a motorist tries to take all this in and not pay attention to the likely stopped traffic in front of them.
NJDOT has a long history of info overload on its signs though these new ones do seem pretty extreme. They definitely are not consistent with the MUTCD's stated objective of having brief, easily readable sign messages.
What's always puzzled me about NJDOT is why they think they need to show that any given route leads to so many other numbered routes. I've always made it my business to know that I needed to take Route A to Route B to Route C, etc. Or in the above cases, Route 440/287 to get to the GS Parkway or NJ Turnpike.
Personally, I generally like them. If you're looking for a specific route, you can pick it out easily and go that way.
The 'Left 3 Lanes' is horribly bad though. But even in the not-so-bad versions, NJDOT likes using it for some reason. It's not needed when it's basically a pull-thru sign.
Why doesnt the Parkway exit NB have Toms River and Shore Points used instead of NO TRUCKS solo? Why is Woodbridge signed solo from Exit 10 off the NJ Turnpike? Being Metuchen is the control city from the Turnpike for I-287, sign it with Woodbridge so that both I-287 and CR 514 have a city each?
Then having all the indirect routes is dumb as NJ 138 and NJ 29 now on I-195 in Central Jersey pull through signs. I have to say that NJ freeway guides have gotten worse instead of better.
Hey does the SB New Brunswick Avenue exit still use Woodbridge as a control city? That should be Fords as Woodbridge is reached via NJ 35 North previously. Or did they copy it over ?
https://goo.gl/maps/pPguXXjvqXbCRkFp7
Another issue I see is naming control cites that aren’t on the maps? Solebury,PA might be where US 202 enters PA from NJ. However, New Hope, PA is very nearby and is not only on the map, but more popular and well known.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 30, 2021, 11:22:25 PM
Why doesnt the Parkway exit NB have Toms River and Shore Points used instead of NO TRUCKS solo? Why is Woodbridge signed solo from Exit 10 off the NJ Turnpike? Being Metuchen is the control city from the Turnpike for I-287, sign it with Woodbridge so that both I-287 and CR 514 have a city each?
Then having all the indirect routes is dumb as NJ 138 and NJ 29 now on I-195 in Central Jersey pull through signs. I have to say that NJ freeway guides have gotten worse instead of better.
1. NJDOT still refuses to use any control cities for the Parkway or Turnpike except for some variation of "Garden State Parkway" or "NJ Turnpike". It's been that way my entire life and doesn't seem likely to change.
2. Metuchen as a control city at Exit 10 is strictly a NJTA thing. NJDOT's recognized control cities for 287NB have been Morristown and Mahwah since the early 1990s.
My general thought here is that NJDOT should pick one or two critical key routes that your current route follows and sign for it. In this case, the Parkway, 95/Turnpike, and 287 would make sense. Routes 9 and 35 are not important for long haul travelers in this area. It's the same how 29 and 138 are not important to most travelers on 195 until they're in the immediate area. Not does signing to 80 or 95/Turnpike on 280 as has shown up on some signs. Either just sign them at exits that serve them, or put them on aux signs like most states do.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 30, 2021, 11:30:55 PM
Hey does the SB New Brunswick Avenue exit still use Woodbridge as a control city? That should be Fords as Woodbridge is reached via NJ 35 North previously. Or did they copy it over ?
https://goo.gl/maps/pPguXXjvqXbCRkFp7
Another issue I see is naming control cites that aren't on the maps? Solebury,PA might be where US 202 enters PA from NJ. However, New Hope, PA is very nearby and is not only on the map, but more popular and well known.
I can't answer the question about signage, but Fords is an unincorporated entity in Woodbridge. The recent trends in NJ are away from signing those, so I wouldn't expect it (although Iselin was recently added GSP signage at exit 132, so you never know). At least Solebury is incorporated.
Quote from: storm2k on December 31, 2021, 04:40:22 AM
1. NJDOT still refuses to use any control cities for the Parkway or Turnpike except for some variation of "Garden State Parkway" or "NJ Turnpike". It's been that way my entire life and doesn't seem likely to change.
With the exception of along I-195 and US 206, you are correct. New York and Camden are signed there instead of "NJ Turnpike".
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1956442,-74.6061952,3a,75y,290.93h,88.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_67HQxUAZEGP6wVw1kw3qw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1988752,-74.6191547,3a,75y,110.72h,89.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUoGB3HCdh6bObdSVtRJlhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1179995,-74.7063688,3a,75y,355.7h,91.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZuomsf-sEunLRzJHSV1a1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: bzakharin on December 31, 2021, 12:04:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 30, 2021, 11:30:55 PM
Hey does the SB New Brunswick Avenue exit still use Woodbridge as a control city? That should be Fords as Woodbridge is reached via NJ 35 North previously. Or did they copy it over ?
https://goo.gl/maps/pPguXXjvqXbCRkFp7
Another issue I see is naming control cites that aren't on the maps? Solebury,PA might be where US 202 enters PA from NJ. However, New Hope, PA is very nearby and is not only on the map, but more popular and well known.
I can't answer the question about signage, but Fords is an unincorporated entity in Woodbridge. The recent trends in NJ are away from signing those, so I wouldn't expect it (although Iselin was recently added GSP signage at exit 132, so you never know). At least Solebury is incorporated.
Crows Mill Road NB is always been signed Fords and so is Keasbey for the first NB Smith Street. Also both unincorporated parts of Woodbridge Township, yet signed always. Ditto for Sewaren off the State Street Ramp.
Also New Hope is incorporated in Bucks County, PA. It really should be the control city after Lambertville or go for Doylestown at least. However, NJDOT don't like PA points from signing experiences and that only Easton and Stroudsburg and recently Philadelphia added since I-95 is now complete.
Chester is much larger city than Bridgeport , but the latter gets used on US 322 over the former. Even Exit 11 signage on I-295 in Gloucester County would rather use Commodore Barry Bridge than sign Chester. Only the Turnpike used Chester for Exit 2 up until the NJTA decided to finally acknowledge Glassboro as a point of interest giving both east and west US 322 a control city each instead of only WB.
I have to admit seeing the new Flemington Circle reconstruction completed is only a half ass job as still SB US 202 has to circumvent the circle. The only thing that project improves is that NB US 202 traffic bypasses the circle completely.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 01, 2022, 09:53:26 AM
I have to admit seeing the new Flemington Circle reconstruction completed is only a half ass job as still SB US 202 has to circumvent the circle. The only thing that project improves is that NB US 202 traffic bypasses the circle completely.
I have to agree. Even before. it was not so bad to continue north on 202, but trying to navigate the circle to stay on 202 south, or do anything else, is a chaotic nightmare. Please, NJDOT, fix this mess!
Quote from: roadman65 on January 01, 2022, 09:53:26 AM
I have to admit seeing the new Flemington Circle reconstruction completed is only a half ass job as still SB US 202 has to circumvent the circle. The only thing that project improves is that NB US 202 traffic bypasses the circle completely.
This was the best that we were going to get without a huge amount of landtaking and probably a decade or more's worth of court battles over eminent domain and the like (reference the numerous court battles that have occurred in Flemington about the redevelopment of their Main Street, and also the ones that will likely follow for the redevelopment of Liberty Village). They made the improvements they could do in the land that they had. This is why I also think there haven't been further improvements to the Somerville circle which I feel like needs to be completely demolished and reconfigured way more than Flemington does.
NJDOT had grand plans to bypass the whole mess in Flemington and Raritan Township to the east. It of course died quickly.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 01, 2022, 10:34:48 PM
NJDOT had grand plans to bypass the whole mess in Flemington and Raritan Township to the east. It of course died quickly.
Not to mention the bypass of NJ 31 that was created because the business owners along NJ 31 in Flemington didn't want Route 31 widened in front of their stores. |
NJ 31 is also on the state's list of widening as from Flemington to Washington the road does need complete four lane status. It took a big fight to get it done in Clinton Township which is most of what is four lanes now.
Has anyone else noticed that the temporary paper license plates look different recently? They used to have a font similar to the regular plates but lately I've been seeing them printed with a much narrower serif font. Anyone know what's up with that? Is it just a dealer thing?
See: https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/Law_Enforcement_Advisory_1121.pdf
Quote from: interstate73 on January 02, 2022, 07:35:46 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the temporary paper license plates look different recently? They used to have a font similar to the regular plates but lately I've been seeing them printed with a much narrower serif font. Anyone know what's up with that? Is it just a dealer thing?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 02, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
See: https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/Law_Enforcement_Advisory_1121.pdf
It does seem odd they went with a thinner font, which us harder to read.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2022, 12:14:09 PM
Quote from: interstate73 on January 02, 2022, 07:35:46 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the temporary paper license plates look different recently? They used to have a font similar to the regular plates but lately I've been seeing them printed with a much narrower serif font. Anyone know what's up with that? Is it just a dealer thing?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 02, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
See: https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/Law_Enforcement_Advisory_1121.pdf
It does seem odd they went with a thinner font, which us harder to read.
It seems the focus is more on making the expiry more obvious, which makes sense. The old expiry text was very small and easily missed. Plus, upgrading from a 1D to 2D barcode lets them encode more data into it which is also useful.
Quote from: storm2k on January 02, 2022, 01:16:15 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2022, 12:14:09 PM
Quote from: interstate73 on January 02, 2022, 07:35:46 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the temporary paper license plates look different recently? They used to have a font similar to the regular plates but lately I've been seeing them printed with a much narrower serif font. Anyone know what's up with that? Is it just a dealer thing?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 02, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
See: https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/Law_Enforcement_Advisory_1121.pdf
It does seem odd they went with a thinner font, which us harder to read.
It seems the focus is more on making the expiry more obvious, which makes sense. The old expiry text was very small and easily missed. Plus, upgrading from a 1D to 2D barcode lets them encode more data into it which is also useful.
I would think they could've kept a bolded font while making the expiration date larger.
When are the scan codes used anyway? Regular license plates now feature a very small 1D barcode, but I've never heard them used, or why they exist.
I was wondering about the new alignment for NJ 7 on the Wittpenn Bridge? Google maps show an exit ramp to St Paul's Avenue. Yet move the peg man to it, and your back in 2007 on the old Truck US 1 & 9.
I assume now that there is a ramp leading to St Paul's Avenue from Route 7 and Google never got the caption yet, or mislabeled the blue line.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 02, 2022, 08:00:23 PM
I was wondering about the new alignment for NJ 7 on the Wittpenn Bridge? Google maps show an exit ramp to St Paul's Avenue. Yet move the peg man to it, and your back in 2007 on the old Truck US 1 & 9.
I assume now that there is a ramp leading to St Paul's Avenue from Route 7 and Google never got the caption yet, or mislabeled the blue line.
Yes there is exit ramp to St Paul's Avenue.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 30, 2021, 08:32:48 PM
NJDOT has a long history of info overload on its signs though these new ones do seem pretty extreme. They definitely are not consistent with the MUTCD's stated objective of having brief, easily readable sign messages.
What's always puzzled me about NJDOT is why they think they need to show that any given route leads to so many other numbered routes. I've always made it my business to know that I needed to take Route A to Route B to Route C, etc. Or in the above cases, Route 440/287 to get to the GS Parkway or NJ Turnpike.
I know I'm way late to this party, but I was a little far from home at the time. There are simply way too many routes signed on these overheads.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51787490752_b7d17a1fb2_c.jpg)
From left to right:
* Get rid of the bottom panel on the left sign. Not needed here yet.
* Get rid of the top panel on the center sign. 184 can be done with a supplemental ground-mounted assembly.
* Get rid of the left panel on the right sign. U-turn can be done with a supplemental ground-mounted assembly.
The problem boils down to NJ trying to put all the information in one place instead of spacing it out.
The old sign directly after it conveys the same information with far less text. I don't understand why they are scrunching these signs up in the middle of the gantry. They have room to spread them out!
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2022, 11:15:16 AM
The problem boils down to NJ trying to put all the information in one place instead of spacing it out.
This never used to be a major issue on most signs from NJDOT. Seems to really have sprung up in the past 4-5 years or so as they've started doing big replacement projects. Seems like whatever engineer is doing the specs or signing off on them seems to think every route that the route you're on touches needs to be on that new sign. It's so much overload I don't know how a driver takes that all in within the couple of seconds you have to comprehend the sign at highway speeds.
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 04, 2022, 11:15:16 AM
The problem boils down to NJ trying to put all the information in one place instead of spacing it out.
This never used to be a major issue on most signs from NJDOT. Seems to really have sprung up in the past 4-5 years or so as they've started doing big replacement projects. Seems like whatever engineer is doing the specs or signing off on them seems to think every route that the route you're on touches needs to be on that new sign. It's so much overload I don't know how a driver takes that all in within the couple of seconds you have to comprehend the sign at highway speeds.
They're just amuzing themselves listing to GPS systems giving directions to see if people react fast enough...
"In 1,000 feet, take the South 440 to North 287 South 9 South Garden State Parkway 95 New Jersey Tu...Recalculating"
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
NJDOT is generally loathe to sign any route with more than one direction. 36 and 7 are the only ones I can think of. They should've done that with 295, but alas...
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2022, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
NJDOT is generally loathe to sign any route with more than one direction. 36 and 7 are the only ones I can think of. They should've done that with 295, but alas...
I'm fine with 295 continuing its direction that it's followed for the first 67 miles. It's better than the North to South/South to North transition that used to happen when it just became 95 after the Rt 1 exit.
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 11:38:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2022, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
NJDOT is generally loathe to sign any route with more than one direction. 36 and 7 are the only ones I can think of. They should've done that with 295, but alas...
I'm fine with 295 continuing its direction that it's followed for the first 67 miles. It's better than the North to South/South to North transition that used to happen when it just became 95 after the Rt 1 exit.
That's a NJ centric viewpoint. Its really what happens right after it leaves NJ that is a problem... signing a highway which is entirely north-south as east west, just to avoid the situation that existed before (which at least had the advantage of changing route numbers).
Quote from: famartin on January 05, 2022, 07:34:51 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 11:38:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2022, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
NJDOT is generally loathe to sign any route with more than one direction. 36 and 7 are the only ones I can think of. They should've done that with 295, but alas...
I'm fine with 295 continuing its direction that it's followed for the first 67 miles. It's better than the North to South/South to North transition that used to happen when it just became 95 after the Rt 1 exit.
That's a NJ centric viewpoint. Its really what happens right after it leaves NJ that is a problem... signing a highway which is entirely north-south as east west, just to avoid the situation that existed before (which at least had the advantage of changing route numbers).
There was really no one great option to resign 95. I still personally think it would been better just to do away with an x95 and giving it an x76, which would work as it connects to I-276... when PTC finally get around to completing the interchange that is.
Well Florida has a situation where I-295 keeps the same number around the whole loop, but North becomes South and South becomes North on both ends where it meets I-95.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2022, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on January 05, 2022, 07:34:51 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 11:38:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2022, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
NJDOT is generally loathe to sign any route with more than one direction. 36 and 7 are the only ones I can think of. They should've done that with 295, but alas...
I'm fine with 295 continuing its direction that it's followed for the first 67 miles. It's better than the North to South/South to North transition that used to happen when it just became 95 after the Rt 1 exit.
That's a NJ centric viewpoint. Its really what happens right after it leaves NJ that is a problem... signing a highway which is entirely north-south as east west, just to avoid the situation that existed before (which at least had the advantage of changing route numbers).
There was really no one great option to resign 95. I still personally think it would been better just to do away with an x95 and giving it an x76, which would work as it connects to I-276... when PTC finally get around to completing the interchange that is.
The direction situation could have been solved were NJ willing to sign former I-95 as east-west. Then NJ could sign their portion is north-south without that issue. But no, NJ had to have a stick up its rear, and now we have a very north-south route signed east-west in PA to avoid south becoming north and vice-versa at the border.
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2022, 01:01:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2022, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on January 05, 2022, 07:34:51 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 11:38:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2022, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
NJDOT is generally loathe to sign any route with more than one direction. 36 and 7 are the only ones I can think of. They should've done that with 295, but alas...
I'm fine with 295 continuing its direction that it's followed for the first 67 miles. It's better than the North to South/South to North transition that used to happen when it just became 95 after the Rt 1 exit.
That's a NJ centric viewpoint. Its really what happens right after it leaves NJ that is a problem... signing a highway which is entirely north-south as east west, just to avoid the situation that existed before (which at least had the advantage of changing route numbers).
There was really no one great option to resign 95. I still personally think it would been better just to do away with an x95 and giving it an x76, which would work as it connects to I-276... when PTC finally get around to completing the interchange that is.
The direction situation could have been solved were NJ willing to sign former I-95 as east-west. Then NJ could sign their portion is north-south without that issue. But no, NJ had to have a stick up its rear, and now we have a very north-south route signed east-west in PA to avoid south becoming north and vice-versa at the border.
Alternatively, they could have done what PennDOT wanted to do for a while and extend I-195 around Trenton, cutting 295 back to the 195 interchange. This was also rejected by NJDOT because they didn't want to have to change all the mile markers and renumber all the exits.
They also briefly considered creating a new I-395, presumably completely replacing 295 all the way to the 195 interchange. I only saw mention of this once (I forget where exactly) and dismissed it as a typo until the 2018 "Golden Spike" road meet, when we got to visit the project office and I did indeed see I-395 listed on one of the interchange diagrams.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 05, 2022, 02:21:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2022, 01:01:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2022, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on January 05, 2022, 07:34:51 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 11:38:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2022, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
NJDOT is generally loathe to sign any route with more than one direction. 36 and 7 are the only ones I can think of. They should've done that with 295, but alas...
I'm fine with 295 continuing its direction that it's followed for the first 67 miles. It's better than the North to South/South to North transition that used to happen when it just became 95 after the Rt 1 exit.
That's a NJ centric viewpoint. Its really what happens right after it leaves NJ that is a problem... signing a highway which is entirely north-south as east west, just to avoid the situation that existed before (which at least had the advantage of changing route numbers).
There was really no one great option to resign 95. I still personally think it would been better just to do away with an x95 and giving it an x76, which would work as it connects to I-276... when PTC finally get around to completing the interchange that is.
The direction situation could have been solved were NJ willing to sign former I-95 as east-west. Then NJ could sign their portion is north-south without that issue. But no, NJ had to have a stick up its rear, and now we have a very north-south route signed east-west in PA to avoid south becoming north and vice-versa at the border.
Alternatively, they could have done what PennDOT wanted to do for a while and extend I-195 around Trenton, cutting 295 back to the 195 interchange. This was also rejected by NJDOT because they didn't want to have to change all the mile markers and renumber all the exits.
They also briefly considered creating a new I-395, presumably completely replacing 295 all the way to the 195 interchange. I only saw mention of this once (I forget where exactly) and dismissed it as a typo until the 2018 "Golden Spike" road meet, when we got to visit the project office and I did indeed see I-395 listed on one of the interchange diagrams.
Last I checked, 695 and 895 are both available. 395 doesn't make sense to me given its more of a loop than a spur, at least the section in question. I disliked the 195 idea since then it would have to follow one-lane ramps, which is always a no-no in my book.
295 works fine if you sign it with some sense (north-south in PA, east-west from the river to 1, south-north beyond). Certainly MD and VA have locations where junctions are signed with different cardinal sets along the beltways. Don't see why this is a problem for I-295 north of Trenton, but whatevs.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 05, 2022, 02:21:44 PM
Alternatively, they could have done what PennDOT wanted to do for a while and extend I-195 around Trenton, cutting 295 back to the 195 interchange. This was also rejected by NJDOT because they didn't want to have to change all the mile markers and renumber all the exits.
The biggest problem with this is for a driver to continue on 195, one would need to utilize a single lane ramp. Where this condition exists elsewhere, many people, especially those on this forums, generally disapprove of this type of routing.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 05, 2022, 02:21:44 PM
They also briefly considered creating a new I-395, presumably completely replacing 295 all the way to the 195 interchange. I only saw mention of this once (I forget where exactly) and dismissed it as a typo until the 2018 "Golden Spike" road meet, when we got to visit the project office and I did indeed see I-395 listed on one of the interchange diagrams.
I liked this idea. Creates a half-beltway around Trenton, gives it its own identity, and since most affected exits were going to be renumbered anyway, the only cost difference would've been to anything related from NJ 295's Exit 60 to Exit 67.
I still regret not being able to attend that meet.
They should do what VDOT did for the awkward section of I-64 in Chesapeake, VA and just leave off the banners.
Banners? Do you mean compass directions?
LOL Yeah, they could follow German Autobahn practice around the whole region and just show route numbers and lots of city names, without directions. I wonder if that would be better or worse than what exists now.
Umm...I'm on I-295. *which direction?* UMM...... Phila?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 05, 2022, 08:39:37 PM
Umm...I'm on I-295. *which direction?* UMM...... Phila?
Hey VDOT uses VA Beach and Richmond. However Richmond is signed EB instead of WB as the EB end defaults into NB I-664 which loops back to I-64 in Hampton.
https://goo.gl/maps/Gz5RECwFRd1BAEa58
https://goo.gl/maps/FnCJVMyfUbHwt9Km8
Here's another banner less I-64 assembly. Add US 17 North to EB unbannered I-64.
Talk about confusing. Yet locals get by.
This thread's gone all fictional.
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2022, 08:49:33 PM
This thread's gone all fictional.
No we are talking about number anomalies on roadways that exist already.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2022, 09:00:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2022, 08:49:33 PM
This thread's gone all fictional.
No we are talking about number anomalies on roadways that exist already.
No, people are throwing around all sorts of ideas about what NJ should do.
https://goo.gl/maps/DAnpo79i9fSSYjKZA
This would work on I-295 in Ewing and Lawrence Townships. Use Camden and Philadelphia underneath the shields.
Don't see why this wouldn't work at various locations... (particularly at US 1 and NJ 29)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3740038,-76.7500704,3a,75y,143.67h,88.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLr5Q0a6E_TLj_yAoQYEt4w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLr5Q0a6E_TLj_yAoQYEt4w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D334.4478%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0356904,-77.1446543,3a,75y,154.56h,93.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYHp4ijx42SEUDd_2ZyZ2Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: famartin on January 06, 2022, 12:09:05 AM
Don't see why this wouldn't work at various locations... (particularly at US 1 and NJ 29)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3740038,-76.7500704,3a,75y,143.67h,88.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLr5Q0a6E_TLj_yAoQYEt4w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLr5Q0a6E_TLj_yAoQYEt4w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D334.4478%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0356904,-77.1446543,3a,75y,154.56h,93.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYHp4ijx42SEUDd_2ZyZ2Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Indiana on their beltway also changes cardinal directions. The change in PA is most confusing as the road don't run east-west at all. They seemed to playing in South Carolina's playbook who loves to sign some E-W routes as N-S
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2022, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2022, 09:00:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2022, 08:49:33 PM
This thread's gone all fictional.
No we are talking about number anomalies on roadways that exist already.
No, people are throwing around all sorts of ideas about what NJ should do.
Or really, what NJ should have done, and rehashing the same argument from 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 19 months ago, etc..
What no one has proven: Have people have actually been confused about their direction of travel due to the cardinal direction posted.
Quote from: famartin on January 06, 2022, 12:09:05 AM
Don't see why this wouldn't work at various locations... (particularly at US 1 and NJ 29)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3740038,-76.7500704,3a,75y,143.67h,88.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLr5Q0a6E_TLj_yAoQYEt4w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DLr5Q0a6E_TLj_yAoQYEt4w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D334.4478%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0356904,-77.1446543,3a,75y,154.56h,93.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYHp4ijx42SEUDd_2ZyZ2Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That is how the local road signing is formatted now at the interchanges on either side of the Scudder Falls Bridge (Taylorsville Road and NJ 29).
Folks tend to forget the Atlantic City Expressway did exactly this. Only recently did it start posting East/West on trailblazers. The shield banners used to say "PHILA" and "SHORE POINTS".
https://goo.gl/maps/jRLK5UkTNRhdoQyo6
https://goo.gl/maps/m6hBv3ZTvsfw64Wm7
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2022, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 05, 2022, 09:00:16 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2022, 08:49:33 PM
This thread's gone all fictional.
No we are talking about number anomalies on roadways that exist already.
No, people are throwing around all sorts of ideas about what NJ should do.
This does not equate to Fictional. This is trying to solve a real problem on a real road.
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2022, 01:01:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2022, 09:51:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on January 05, 2022, 07:34:51 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 11:38:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 04, 2022, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 04:25:23 PM
It is bad the way they did that for sure. The first exit should be Amboy Ave/ NJ 35 North. I agree with Alps on that the U Turn Info should be on a ground mount separately.
The second exit should be NJ 35 South and NJ 184 West with TO GSP N Bound as a control city. The pull through should read NJ 440 South to GSP South and maybe Somerville or Morristown as a control city.
This is the worst signing I have ever seen.
I also loathe NJDOT reassigning the directions back in the late eighties from E-W to N-S as well. It worked better as an E-W Route signed. There was no confusion as far as I saw.
Yeah, that change was never great because you have a south to north and north to south direction change between 287 and 440. You can have a route change directions fine. I get that it was to stay contiguous with the New York and northern New Jersey segments, but that's still jarring.
NJDOT is generally loathe to sign any route with more than one direction. 36 and 7 are the only ones I can think of. They should've done that with 295, but alas...
I'm fine with 295 continuing its direction that it's followed for the first 67 miles. It's better than the North to South/South to North transition that used to happen when it just became 95 after the Rt 1 exit.
That's a NJ centric viewpoint. Its really what happens right after it leaves NJ that is a problem... signing a highway which is entirely north-south as east west, just to avoid the situation that existed before (which at least had the advantage of changing route numbers).
There was really no one great option to resign 95. I still personally think it would been better just to do away with an x95 and giving it an x76, which would work as it connects to I-276... when PTC finally get around to completing the interchange that is.
The direction situation could have been solved were NJ willing to sign former I-95 as east-west. Then NJ could sign their portion is north-south without that issue. But no, NJ had to have a stick up its rear, and now we have a very north-south route signed east-west in PA to avoid south becoming north and vice-versa at the border.
The only state that ever did that was Connecticut when it signed the original CT Turnpike E-W but even that gave way to N-S cardinals after a while. Plus, 95 would have gone N-S in a general sense if they had built the Somerset Freeway. That would have been a non-starter as 95 is N-S from the Keys to the Canadian border even if it does travel in a more E-W orientation in some sections.
Quote from: storm2k on January 07, 2022, 12:51:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2022, 01:01:16 PM
The direction situation could have been solved were NJ willing to sign former I-95 as east-west. Then NJ could sign their portion is north-south without that issue. But no, NJ had to have a stick up its rear, and now we have a very north-south route signed east-west in PA to avoid south becoming north and vice-versa at the border.
The only state that ever did that was Connecticut when it signed the original CT Turnpike E-W but even that gave way to N-S cardinals after a while. Plus, 95 would have gone N-S in a general sense if they had built the Somerset Freeway. That would have been a non-starter as 95 is N-S from the Keys to the Canadian border even if it does travel in a more E-W orientation in some sections.
95 between DC and Philly is more East-West than North-South as well. The section in Cecil County MD is almost a wrong way direction as its nearly perfectly East-West there.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2022, 01:18:29 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 07, 2022, 12:51:46 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2022, 01:01:16 PM
The direction situation could have been solved were NJ willing to sign former I-95 as east-west. Then NJ could sign their portion is north-south without that issue. But no, NJ had to have a stick up its rear, and now we have a very north-south route signed east-west in PA to avoid south becoming north and vice-versa at the border.
The only state that ever did that was Connecticut when it signed the original CT Turnpike E-W but even that gave way to N-S cardinals after a while. Plus, 95 would have gone N-S in a general sense if they had built the Somerset Freeway. That would have been a non-starter as 95 is N-S from the Keys to the Canadian border even if it does travel in a more E-W orientation in some sections.
95 between DC and Philly is more East-West than North-South as well. The section in Cecil County MD is almost a wrong way direction as its nearly perfectly East-West there.
That's like I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee but E- W running N-S instead. Even with the redundant I-41 to upgrade US 41, I don't think it confuses people either.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2022, 06:29:05 PM
Folks tend to forget the Atlantic City Expressway did exactly this. Only recently did it start posting East/West on trailblazers. The shield banners used to say "PHILA" and "SHORE POINTS".
https://goo.gl/maps/jRLK5UkTNRhdoQyo6
https://goo.gl/maps/m6hBv3ZTvsfw64Wm7
On the ACE I think cardinal directions together with control cities work just fine. One can argue whether "Atlantic City" is better than "Shore Points", but the former follows the rules whereas the latter does not
Atlantic City Expressway needs to update their signs. I don't think they have ever had a major sign replacement ever. Many still use upper case letters on them and the cloverleaf at the Parkway has been long overdue. Plus the Exit 2 guides with Atlantic City via Black Horse Pike is so old. Just sign the thing " US 40-322 East- Albany Avenue" and use Downbeach and Margate City as supplemental control points on separate sign.
I wouldn't equate the situation with I-95 in CT and I-94 south of Milwaukee with I-295. Those routes are overall as signed, even if that section doesn't match. The way I-295 is signed doesn't get you one set of directions on the route (it changes at the border), and it doesn't get you accurate directions (the PA portion is perpendicular to how it's signed). It doesn't solve anything over signing PA properly and having it be east-west in NJ on the portion that was formerly I-95. In fact, it makes things worse and pushes the problem from NJ to PA, something that seems to be a trend with this whole affair, going all the way back to the cancellation of the Somerset Freeway. It basically acts as half a beltway around Trenton, and beltways routinely change directions, for good reason.
I-295 North should be only signed to US 1 in Lawrence. Then E-W along I-295 from US 1 to the PA border. Then in PA sign it N-S again. Just like US 101 is in Washington as it progresses through the Olympic Peninsula. It goes N-S, E-W, and back to N-S.
On the NJ Tpk thread there were one or two posts referring to Paterson Plank Road as "PPR". Is that local custom, like "LIE" or "BQE" across the Hudson and East?
Quote from: ixnay on January 08, 2022, 07:38:15 AM
On the NJ Tpk thread there were one or two posts referring to Paterson Plank Road as "PPR". Is that local custom, like "LIE" or "BQE" across the Hudson and East?
I don't think it's really in popular usage, but when you're discussing projects involving PPR it's a lot quicker to type (:
NJDOT announces real-time traffic alert system for commercial vehiclesQuote(Trenton)- New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) Commissioner Diane Gutierrez Scaccetti today announced the implementation of a real-time traffic alert system for commercial vehicle drivers, making NJDOT one of the first states in the country to offer this safety feature. The system offers in-cab traffic congestion updates and slowdown alerts to commercial vehicle drivers on 647 miles of New Jersey's highways, including the New Jersey Turnpike, Garden State Parkway, and Atlantic City Expressway. Commercial vehicle drivers will be alerted about two to three miles before the slowdown begins, giving them plenty of time to reduce speed to help prevent crashes.
Press release at www.bit.ly/33rDzyg
https://goo.gl/maps/1NKcazvFDHz1VPcY9
I wish other states would use a guide sign like this, but remove the Dunnelen of course as it's not a destination of US 22 which is the focus of the sign anyway.
However, I like the concept otherwise.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2022, 10:51:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/1NKcazvFDHz1VPcY9
I wish other states would use a guide sign like this, but remove the Dunnelen of course as it's not a destination of US 22 which is the focus of the sign anyway.
However, I like the concept otherwise.
Maryland uses them. I haven't seen the in Virginia.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2022, 10:51:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/1NKcazvFDHz1VPcY9
I wish other states would use a guide sign like this, but remove the Dunnelen of course as it's not a destination of US 22 which is the focus of the sign anyway.
However, I like the concept otherwise.
Control-city opinion notwithstanding, these are a long-time NJDOT trademark. I don't know if the control city is really all that necessary on modern day signage, as most people would probably find the route number more important. It generally doesn't hurt though, and can provide some motorists with secondary confirmation that's the direction one wants to go.
Personally, I would rather NJDOT sign route numbers approaching an intersection better than what they often do. That sign is the only signage existing in this direction as to the cardinal directions of US 22. If someone has already committed to a lane, they may now need to change the lane they're in (and then, people get all irritated that someone "doesn't know how to drive" because they're switching lanes at the last moment).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 18, 2022, 01:01:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2022, 10:51:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/1NKcazvFDHz1VPcY9
I wish other states would use a guide sign like this, but remove the Dunnelen of course as it's not a destination of US 22 which is the focus of the sign anyway.
However, I like the concept otherwise.
Control-city opinion notwithstanding, these are a long-time NJDOT trademark. I don't know if the control city is really all that necessary on modern day signage, as most people would probably find the route number more important. It generally doesn't hurt though, and can provide some motorists with secondary confirmation that's the direction one wants to go.
Personally, I would rather NJDOT sign route numbers approaching an intersection better than what they often do. That sign is the only signage existing in this direction as to the cardinal directions of US 22. If someone has already committed to a lane, they may now need to change the lane they're in (and then, people get all irritated that someone "doesn't know how to drive" because they're switching lanes at the last moment).
That assembly used to not have US 22 on it. It was Newark- New York to the left and Somerville to the right.
Yes most side roads at lights have cities only but no route numbers.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2022, 10:51:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/1NKcazvFDHz1VPcY9
I wish other states would use a guide sign like this, but remove the Dunnelen of course as it's not a destination of US 22 which is the focus of the sign anyway.
However, I like the concept otherwise.
Dunellen is, however, the destination for continuing on the same road. Note the straight arrow. As such, I'd leave it on, given that NJ basically combined the route signs and the destination sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2714973,-76.0012613,3a,25y,54.13h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su-zS_8OPCQVrI3ja8JW5vw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) into a single sign.
Quote from: vdeane on January 18, 2022, 09:09:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 18, 2022, 10:51:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/1NKcazvFDHz1VPcY9
I wish other states would use a guide sign like this, but remove the Dunnelen of course as it's not a destination of US 22 which is the focus of the sign anyway.
However, I like the concept otherwise.
Dunellen is, however, the destination for continuing on the same road. Note the straight arrow. As such, I'd leave it on, given that NJ basically combined the route signs and the destination sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2714973,-76.0012613,3a,25y,54.13h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su-zS_8OPCQVrI3ja8JW5vw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) into a single sign.
The only change I would have made would have been to move it to the bottom of the sign instead of the top so the directions for Somerville and Newark line up better.
Also, that leads me back to a complaint. NJDOT needs to just solidify Newark being the control city for 22 as that's where it ends. If you're heading for New York City, you're most likely taking 78 to the Turnpike, not 22 to 1-9. Some signs show Newark, others New York. Newark is slowly going back to being an up and coming city again little by little. Let's show it some love as an actual destination.
Well, lets be honest... you have to be pretty close to Newark to have a good reason to take 22 there. Otherwise, 78 works better for most.
That said, I totally agree that New York should never be used as the control on 22.
NJDOT's using New York as the destination on Route 22 probably dates back to before I-78 was built, when 22 was the main route in that direction. And NJDOT just kept repeating what they'd always done........
Well I have seen signs west of Somerville use Somerville- New York for EB and omit Newark completely.
I didn’t like when I-287 used New York for US 22 and Newark for I-78. That’s been remedied since, but now some I-287 signs use Newark at Exit 14A , but i still say being it’s a major freeway, it should use more local destinations like Green Brook or North Plainfield. Then Somerville should be the US 22 Westbound control at Exit 14B and not Clinton.
As far as signs go NJDOT still has NJ 29 destinations on a U.S. 22 WB mileage sign near North Bridge Street from when NJ 29 used US 22 and US 202 to Lambertville. Also the Flemington Circle reconfiguration also copied Newark for US 202 as well on the guide signs. True most US 202 NB traffic from Flemington does eventually continue on to US 22 East with only some remaining north to I-287 for Bedminster and Morristown, but in all honesty it was copied over from pre 1953 when NJ 29 traveled from Trenton to Newark.
Quote from: famartin on January 19, 2022, 10:59:58 PM
Well, lets be honest... you have to be pretty close to Newark to have a good reason to take 22 there. Otherwise, 78 works better for most.
That said, I totally agree that New York should never be used as the control on 22.
Yeah i agree with that 78 is better overall, but Newark is where 22 ends, and it does have a connection to 21 and the airport. It's also frustrating that it's inconsistent. Just make Newark the control city there. To my mind, 78 should include Newark and New York together (I could buy an argument to figure out how to get Jersey City in there as well, but no one signs it from 78, as NJDOT uses New York and NJTA uses Holland Tunnel on the NBHCE and just leaves Jersey City designations for 14B and 14C).
Quote from: storm2k on January 23, 2022, 02:49:38 AM
Quote from: famartin on January 19, 2022, 10:59:58 PM
Well, lets be honest... you have to be pretty close to Newark to have a good reason to take 22 there. Otherwise, 78 works better for most.
That said, I totally agree that New York should never be used as the control on 22.
Yeah i agree with that 78 is better overall, but Newark is where 22 ends, and it does have a connection to 21 and the airport. It's also frustrating that it's inconsistent. Just make Newark the control city there. To my mind, 78 should include Newark and New York together (I could buy an argument to figure out how to get Jersey City in there as well, but no one signs it from 78, as NJDOT uses New York and NJTA uses Holland Tunnel on the NBHCE and just leaves Jersey City designations for 14B and 14C).
Well, 46 goes to New York too, but fortunately, that control city usage has mostly been abandoned in favor of local controls. Playing around with Google, it looks like from Mountainside on east, Newark is a fine control for US 22 EB, but further west, 78 is overwhelmingly better.
Yeah it should be GREEN Brook, then Springfield, and finally Newark. WB Hillside ( as is already from US 1 & 9) , North Plainfield, and then Somerville. West of Somerville Clinton is fine.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 23, 2022, 02:20:14 PM
Yeah it should be GREEN Brook, then Springfield, and finally Newark. WB Hillside ( as is already from US 1 & 9) , North Plainfield, and then Somerville. West of Somerville Clinton is fine.
Neither North Plainfield nor Green Brook are frankly important enough to warrant control city status. I'd be fine for Clinton, Somerville, Springfield, and Newark.
Well I've heard of Newark, Springfield and Somerville, but have no idea where Clinton and Green Brook are. Shouldn't larger, more well known places be used?
Quote from: SignBridge on January 23, 2022, 08:36:16 PM
Well I've heard of Newark, Springfield and Somerville, but have no idea where Clinton and Green Brook are. Shouldn't larger, more well known places be used?
Clinton is a pretty prominent locale where I-78, US 22 and NJ 31 all junction. Its used by all those roads as controls, at least here and there, and works reasonably well.
Green Brook, I agree, probably isn't a great choice.
Who thought this was a good idea? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7530903,-74.1949711,3a,28.6y,112.27h,99.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWOr09HWi-eKFPZaNeIm9Zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
...was my first reaction upon seeing this for the first time. I drove to New York a few weeks ago and, for spice, took I-280 to the Lincoln Tunnel and up the HHP to my hotel. Now, traffic wasn't bad despite the time (around 3 PM), but this heavy merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7566094,-74.2019368,3a,75y,286.05h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQP3qunV1mZNFsxqJwPW8Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) from the GSP does not help. I'd like to smack the monkeys responsible for designing I-280 through Newark.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 23, 2022, 10:45:46 PM
Who thought this was a good idea? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7530903,-74.1949711,3a,28.6y,112.27h,99.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWOr09HWi-eKFPZaNeIm9Zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
...was my first reaction upon seeing this for the first time. I drove to New York a few weeks ago and, for spice, took I-280 to the Lincoln Tunnel and up the HHP to my hotel. Now, traffic wasn't bad despite the time (around 3 PM), but this heavy merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7566094,-74.2019368,3a,75y,286.05h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQP3qunV1mZNFsxqJwPW8Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) from the GSP does not help. I'd like to smack the monkeys responsible for designing I-280 through Newark.
There's a bunch of history here. First was that the section between Exit 13 and the Stickel Bridge over the Passaic predates the interstate system and was grandfathered in. With it being mostly in a narrow trench, not much hope for widening without HUGE costs and condemnations. Second, Exit 13 was supposed to be a major freeway exit which would lead down to I-78 west of US 1/9 and NJ 21. But that never materialized, either.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 23, 2022, 10:45:46 PM
Who thought this was a good idea? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7530903,-74.1949711,3a,28.6y,112.27h,99.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWOr09HWi-eKFPZaNeIm9Zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
...was my first reaction upon seeing this for the first time. I drove to New York a few weeks ago and, for spice, took I-280 to the Lincoln Tunnel and up the HHP to my hotel. Now, traffic wasn't bad despite the time (around 3 PM), but this heavy merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7566094,-74.2019368,3a,75y,286.05h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQP3qunV1mZNFsxqJwPW8Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) from the GSP does not help. I'd like to smack the monkeys responsible for designing I-280 through Newark.
The most heavily traveled metro area in the country. This ain't Kansas.
Quote from: famartin on January 23, 2022, 11:07:00 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 23, 2022, 10:45:46 PM
Who thought this was a good idea? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7530903,-74.1949711,3a,28.6y,112.27h,99.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWOr09HWi-eKFPZaNeIm9Zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
...was my first reaction upon seeing this for the first time. I drove to New York a few weeks ago and, for spice, took I-280 to the Lincoln Tunnel and up the HHP to my hotel. Now, traffic wasn't bad despite the time (around 3 PM), but this heavy merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7566094,-74.2019368,3a,75y,286.05h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQP3qunV1mZNFsxqJwPW8Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) from the GSP does not help. I'd like to smack the monkeys responsible for designing I-280 through Newark.
There's a bunch of history here. First was that the section between Exit 13 and the Stickel Bridge over the Passaic predates the interstate system and was grandfathered in. With it being mostly in a narrow trench, not much hope for widening without HUGE costs and condemnations. Second, Exit 13 was supposed to be a major freeway exit which would lead down to I-78 west of US 1/9 and NJ 21. But that never materialized, either.
Assuming that everything was built out, the GSP interchange smacks of poor planning. In order to reach that freeway, you'd have to weave across two lanes of traffic that's also weaving to cross the bridge (a la Fort Pitt Bridge). Going the other direction would be even more fun - a bunch of traffic merging from your left that you suddenly have to deal with in order to continue west.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 23, 2022, 11:23:46 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 23, 2022, 11:07:00 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 23, 2022, 10:45:46 PM
Who thought this was a good idea? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7530903,-74.1949711,3a,28.6y,112.27h,99.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWOr09HWi-eKFPZaNeIm9Zw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
...was my first reaction upon seeing this for the first time. I drove to New York a few weeks ago and, for spice, took I-280 to the Lincoln Tunnel and up the HHP to my hotel. Now, traffic wasn't bad despite the time (around 3 PM), but this heavy merge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7566094,-74.2019368,3a,75y,286.05h,84.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQP3qunV1mZNFsxqJwPW8Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) from the GSP does not help. I'd like to smack the monkeys responsible for designing I-280 through Newark.
There's a bunch of history here. First was that the section between Exit 13 and the Stickel Bridge over the Passaic predates the interstate system and was grandfathered in. With it being mostly in a narrow trench, not much hope for widening without HUGE costs and condemnations. Second, Exit 13 was supposed to be a major freeway exit which would lead down to I-78 west of US 1/9 and NJ 21. But that never materialized, either.
Assuming that everything was built out, the GSP interchange smacks of poor planning. In order to reach that freeway, you'd have to weave across two lanes of traffic that's also weaving to cross the bridge (a la Fort Pitt Bridge). Going the other direction would be even more fun - a bunch of traffic merging from your left that you suddenly have to deal with in order to continue west.
That's fair. Not sure exactly what they were going for with the GSP interchange other than trying not to destroy all of East Orange, but considering how much they did destroy, almost pointless to have stopped themselves.
To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.
And what is now the actual continuation of I-280 over the Stickel Bridge was originally supposed to be an exit onto that old four-lane highway (NJ Route 58) to the Bridge and ending across the river in Harrison. And yes, that road is obviously not up to Interstate standards.
I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
Quote from: storm2k on January 23, 2022, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 23, 2022, 02:20:14 PM
Yeah it should be GREEN Brook, then Springfield, and finally Newark. WB Hillside ( as is already from US 1 & 9) , North Plainfield, and then Somerville. West of Somerville Clinton is fine.
Neither North Plainfield nor Green Brook are frankly important enough to warrant control city status. I'd be fine for Clinton, Somerville, Springfield, and Newark.
Neither is Franklin Park on I-287 in Oakland for Route 208, but it's used.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 24, 2022, 07:40:51 PM
To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.
And what is now the actual continuation of I-280 over the Stickel Bridge was originally supposed to be an exit onto that old four-lane highway (NJ Route 58) to the Bridge and ending across the river in Harrison. And yes, that road is obviously not up to Interstate standards.
I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 24, 2022, 07:40:51 PM
To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.
And what is now the actual continuation of I-280 over the Stickel Bridge was originally supposed to be an exit onto that old four-lane highway (NJ Route 58) to the Bridge and ending across the river in Harrison. And yes, that road is obviously not up to Interstate standards.
I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
No that was for never built NJ 75 that would have connected to I-78 at the Elizabeth Avenue systems interchange.
Well if that's true, then where was supposed to be the original end of I-280? It might be that there were several different plans floated at different times for these roads.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 24, 2022, 07:40:51 PM
To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.
(snip)
I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
Either way, I-280 would still be interchanging with the GSP regardless of whether it reached I-78 or not. I personally think that there had to be a better way to design that interchange, especially since there was nothing stopping NJDOT tearing apart The Oranges. Assuming that the extension to I-78 was still on the books in the 60s, then we'd see a left merge (but I guess we should be thankful that never happened) with small ramps to NJ 58.
Still, echoing what
famartin says - who really knows what NJDOT wanted to do here. I shouldn't be surprised that the 280/GSP interchange is a nightmare because it's literally from a different generation of cars and drivers.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 24, 2022, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 24, 2022, 07:40:51 PM
To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.
(snip)
I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
Either way, I-280 would still be interchanging with the GSP regardless of whether it reached I-78 or not. I personally think that there had to be a better way to design that interchange, especially since there was nothing stopping NJDOT tearing apart The Oranges. Assuming that the extension to I-78 was still on the books in the 60s, then we'd see a left merge (but I guess we should be thankful that never happened) with small ramps to NJ 58.
Still, echoing what famartin says - who really knows what NJDOT wanted to do here. I shouldn't be surprised that the 280/GSP interchange is a nightmare because it's literally from a different generation of cars and drivers.
We all know what NJDOT wanted to do here because the plans are on the books. Signs even had room for 75 shields.
Quote from: noelbotevera on January 24, 2022, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 24, 2022, 07:40:51 PM
To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.
(snip)
I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
Either way, I-280 would still be interchanging with the GSP regardless of whether it reached I-78 or not. I personally think that there had to be a better way to design that interchange, especially since there was nothing stopping NJDOT tearing apart The Oranges. Assuming that the extension to I-78 was still on the books in the 60s, then we'd see a left merge (but I guess we should be thankful that never happened) with small ramps to NJ 58.
Still, echoing what famartin says - who really knows what NJDOT wanted to do here. I shouldn't be surprised that the 280/GSP interchange is a nightmare because it's literally from a different generation of cars and drivers.
The NJ State Library in Trenton has a lot of old plans for highways when they were first designed or proposed. I haven't been in there in ages, but that would be a great source to locate what might have been...
Also Steve Anderson has done a lot of research to it as well. Check out his NYC Roads site.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/unbuilt_NJ/
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NJ-75/
This here has diagram of original interchange and plan for Route 75.
Somewhere in past years I'm almost sure I saw several different plans for where I-280 was to end. Regrettably I can't remember where I saw them, but I still think one route was for I-280 to go to I-78. And that this was the final plan until local opposition in Newark forced the re-routing over the Stickel Bridge and east to the Turnpike.
I could be mistaken but I'm almost positive I saw that plan somewhere, with the explanation of the multi-ramp interchange on I-78 being where I-280 was supposed to end.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 25, 2022, 08:27:32 PM
Somewhere in past years I'm almost sure I saw several different plans for where I-280 was to end. Regrettably I can't remember where I saw them, but I still think one route was for I-280 to go to I-78. And that this was the final plan until local opposition in Newark forced the re-routing over the Stickel Bridge and east to the Turnpike.
I could be mistaken but I'm almost positive I saw that plan somewhere, with the explanation of the multi-ramp interchange on I-78 being where I-280 was supposed to end.
You may be right, but I've never seen mention of the plan you describe on NYCRoads, and Steve's pretty thorough, so if that idea was floated, I'd think I'd have seen it there.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-280_NJ/
According to Steve, I-95 was once proposed to use NJ 75, but was truncated to I-287 which later got deleted in 1988.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2022, 09:05:29 PM
According to Steve, I-95 was once proposed to use NJ 75, but was truncated to I-287 which later got deleted in 1988.
1982. But yes, the NJ 75 alignment is shown in the DEIS for the Somerset County segment of I-95 as one of the proposed routings for I-95 in northern NJ earlier in the 60s.
Interesting question. Why are trucks prohibited on the left exit ramp on NJ 3 EB at NJ 495 EB? I noticed they are directed through the loop ramp from the service road instead along with JFK Blvd. traffic.
Now I know the latter is done to minimize weaving as the NJ 3 ramp into Route 495 merges from the left and JFK traffic soon exits on the right. Plus with early AM traffic some aggressive maneuvering would be required as well, but I doubt there is any weight restriction on that particular ramp to prohibit trucks. The only feasible reason would be to keep trucks out of the left two lanes as the viaduct grade over Tonnelle Avenue and Paterson Plank Road exceeds 6 percent to cause slow movement in the fast lanes.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2022, 12:37:11 AM
Interesting question. Why are trucks prohibited on the left exit ramp on NJ 3 EB at NJ 495 EB? I noticed they are directed through the loop ramp from the service road instead along with JFK Blvd. traffic.
Now I know the latter is done to minimize weaving as the NJ 3 ramp into Route 495 merges from the left and JFK traffic soon exits on the right. Plus with early AM traffic some aggressive maneuvering would be required as well, but I doubt there is any weight restriction on that particular ramp to prohibit trucks. The only feasible reason would be to keep trucks out of the left two lanes as the viaduct grade over Tonnelle Avenue and Paterson Plank Road exceeds 6 percent to cause slow movement in the fast lanes.
Probably just what you describe, to keep slower trucks out of the left lanes.
It may well be related to a general NJDOT policy in this regard. I noticed that the ramp from I-78 EB to I-287 NB, which had been a right exit to left entrance semi-directional, is now a right exit to right entrance loop. The lack of wisdom regarding left entrances, I definitely get, but replacing a semi-directional ramp with a loop on a freeway-to-freeway interchange is definitely a "very NJDOT-like" thing to do. Most states would go the other direction (loop to semi-directional), just moving the ramp to having a right entrance. Maybe it was cost-prohibitive here.
Yes, the Exit 29 ramp EB on I-78 was done to avoid building a long flyover across both I-78 and I-287 and the WB I78 to I-287 ramp. Remember other states would gladly consider a three level stack, although NJ does have some in Elizabeth at US 1 & 9 and NJ 81 and in Woodbridge at the Tangle, they generally don’t consider that option here.
Other states would have the much needed widenings such as US 9 in Ocean County between Forked River and Lakewood (( FDOT would have US 9 as a six lane arterial from NJ 166 to NJ 88), NJ 31 from Flemington to Washington, and US 206 from Bedminster to Netcong done already. Not in New Jersey.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2022, 07:14:17 AM
Yes, the Exit 29 ramp EB on I-78 was done to avoid building a long flyover across both I-78 and I-287 and the WB I78 to I-287 ramp. Remember other states would gladly consider a three level stack, although NJ does have some in Elizabeth at US 1 & 9 and NJ 81 and in Woodbridge at the Tangle, they generally don't consider that option here.
Other states would have the much needed widenings such as US 9 in Ocean County between Forked River and Lakewood (( FDOT would have US 9 as a six lane arterial from NJ 166 to NJ 88), NJ 31 from Flemington to Washington, and US 206 from Bedminster to Netcong done already. Not in New Jersey.
Well if they had built a long flyover to land on the right side, you have the ramp from westbound 78 to contend with combined with the fact that the exit for 202-206 is very close beyond that. Not a lot of room to land all that and have sufficient room for the exit, especially since the exit for 202-206SB requires a fairly tight curve so traffic is already slowing in that rightmost lane. This is why their solution to eliminate that lefthand entrance (which was never great) involved a loop ramp, which has worked out pretty well.
Quote from: storm2k on January 26, 2022, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2022, 07:14:17 AM
Yes, the Exit 29 ramp EB on I-78 was done to avoid building a long flyover across both I-78 and I-287 and the WB I78 to I-287 ramp. Remember other states would gladly consider a three level stack, although NJ does have some in Elizabeth at US 1 & 9 and NJ 81 and in Woodbridge at the Tangle, they generally don't consider that option here.
Other states would have the much needed widenings such as US 9 in Ocean County between Forked River and Lakewood (( FDOT would have US 9 as a six lane arterial from NJ 166 to NJ 88), NJ 31 from Flemington to Washington, and US 206 from Bedminster to Netcong done already. Not in New Jersey.
Well if they had built a long flyover to land on the right side, you have the ramp from westbound 78 to contend with combined with the fact that the exit for 202-206 is very close beyond that. Not a lot of room to land all that and have sufficient room for the exit, especially since the exit for 202-206SB requires a fairly tight curve so traffic is already slowing in that rightmost lane. This is why their solution to eliminate that lefthand entrance (which was never great) involved a loop ramp, which has worked out pretty well.
Agreed - I think the bigger picture is what is missing here. Granted, in other states, they would've taken that bigger picture and reconstructed 287 for a mile in either direction to braid ramps and fit in a flyover, and probably redo the next interchanges as well. If NJDOT can get away with a cloverleaf ramp that requires a slower speed for a few moments, and doesn't impact the buildings and properties north along 287 north of 78, they'll go for the simpler option that would be less controversial overall.
Plus they had the loop ramp already from a 1988 project that redone bridge decks of the Eastbound Exit 29 ramp. It was used when the two bridges that carried EB to NB were closed for deck replacement and never removed. The ramp had a guard rail across it.
Yes, other states would have used this as an excuse to modify Exit 22 in Bedminster and build a new Burn Store Road Overpass as well replace other ramps at the 78-287 interchange and very well create a stack interchange.
re: I-287 loop ramp: most definitely this was designed to maximize the NB weave distance and minimize the number of lanes anyone needs to cross to get to or from the ramps here and 202/206.
re: 3 to 495: There are some clearance issues on the direct left ramp, though that itself wouldn't be a dealbreaker, so I might buy the argument of reducing weave severity on 495.
I did see though one project in particular back in the early aughts did prove effective. In Rahway, NJ, the US 1& 9 Rahway River Bridge replacement made things actually better. It not only added lanes to US 1 & 9 ( as previously it narrowed to four lanes between the Hazelwood Avenue Half Diamond and CR 514) but extended Randolph Avenue to intersect US 1& 9 for better connection into Carteret. Before it was a hassle using Hazelwood and CR 514 or the SB CR 514 Jughandle to reach Randolph Avenue East. Now a direct turn ( or reverse Jughandle SB) does the trick. Not to mention the grade separation with CR 514 is an added bonus and the elimination of the Turner Street signal for a pair of Right Ins and Right Outs, as Turner Street was just a local residential street with no real need to have it signalized with the highway.
The minor sacrifice was eliminating the interchange with Hazelwood Avenue, but Turner Street did prove effective as now it serves as a reverse Jughandle to Milton Avenue. So motorists to Downtown Rahway can use WB Milton to reach it instead of Hazelwood Avenue like previously. Plus the Randolph Avenue Extension could help for other needs on Hazelwood lost by the NB ramp removal.
Did great planning on that one I must say.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2022, 10:03:47 PM
I did see though one project in particular back in the early aughts did prove effective. In Rahway, NJ, the US 1& 9 Rahway River Bridge replacement made things actually better. It not only added lanes to US 1 & 9 ( as previously it narrowed to four lanes between the Hazelwood Avenue Half Diamond and CR 514) but extended Randolph Avenue to intersect US 1& 9 for better connection into Carteret. Before it was a hassle using Hazelwood and CR 514 or the SB CR 514 Jughandle to reach Randolph Avenue East. Now a direct turn ( or reverse Jughandle SB) does the trick. Not to mention the grade separation with CR 514 is an added bonus and the elimination of the Turner Street signal for a pair of Right Ins and Right Outs, as Turner Street was just a local residential street with no real need to have it signalized with the highway.
The minor sacrifice was eliminating the interchange with Hazelwood Avenue, but Turner Street did prove effective as now it serves as a reverse Jughandle to Milton Avenue. So motorists to Downtown Rahway can use WB Milton to reach it instead of Hazelwood Avenue like previously. Plus the Randolph Avenue Extension could help for other needs on Hazelwood lost by the NB ramp removal.
Did great planning on that one I must say.
I've found most if not all the improvements that NJDOT has done along 1&9 south of Newark to be improvements of note.
Yeah but US 1 in the vicinity of Menlo Park Mall took decades way too long to complete. Now it's adequate but IMO the intersection with Parsonage Road should be a trumpet, the Ford Avenue intersection a SPUI, and Grandview Avenue a Parclo.
Oh yeah and the US 1 at Gill Lane/ Woodbridge Center Drive could be a DDI.
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html
Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.
Quote from: J Route Z on January 27, 2022, 11:33:53 AM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html
Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.
Only a north Jersey source would term the ACE a "small highway" :-D
Can't find this on NJDOT's site yet, but didn't look hard... Route 3 Hackensack River Bridge replacement project:
https://www.nj.com/hudson/2022/01/pols-announce-143-million-route-3-bridge-over-hackensack-river-and-talk-of-light-rail-too.html
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2022/01/25/route-3-bridge-nj-replaced-meadowlands-light-rail/9203472002/
Quote from: famartin on January 27, 2022, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on January 27, 2022, 11:33:53 AM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html
Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.
Only a north Jersey source would term the ACE a "small highway" :-D
Compared to the other ones that aren't cashless yet it's small potatoes.
Quote from: famartin on January 27, 2022, 06:12:02 PM
Can't find this on NJDOT's site yet, but didn't look hard... Route 3 Hackensack River Bridge replacement project:
https://www.nj.com/hudson/2022/01/pols-announce-143-million-route-3-bridge-over-hackensack-river-and-talk-of-light-rail-too.html
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2022/01/25/route-3-bridge-nj-replaced-meadowlands-light-rail/9203472002/
Yup that's been known in engineering circles for awhile. Get your photos of the old truss now while you can.
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2022, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 27, 2022, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on January 27, 2022, 11:33:53 AM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html
Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.
Only a north Jersey source would term the ACE a "small highway" :-D
Compared to the other ones that aren't cashless yet it's small potatoes.
What "toll highways" are cashless in NJ? If you're counting Staten Island bridges, you have to count the bridges and tunnels that aren't cashless as well.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 29, 2022, 06:57:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2022, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 27, 2022, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on January 27, 2022, 11:33:53 AM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html
Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.
Only a north Jersey source would term the ACE a "small highway" :-D
Compared to the other ones that aren't cashless yet it's small potatoes.
What "toll highways" are cashless in NJ? If you're counting Staten Island bridges, you have to count the bridges and tunnels that aren't cashless as well.
In NJ, the only cashless toll I can think of other than PANYNJ crossings is the Scudder Falls Bridge. There might be others I'm just not thinking of.
As far as large highways, I think Pa Turnpike is cashless now, which is larger than the three major NJ toll roads combined (in length at least, but maybe not revenue).
Quote from: famartin on January 29, 2022, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 29, 2022, 06:57:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2022, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 27, 2022, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on January 27, 2022, 11:33:53 AM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html
Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.
Only a north Jersey source would term the ACE a "small highway" :-D
Compared to the other ones that aren't cashless yet it's small potatoes.
What "toll highways" are cashless in NJ? If you're counting Staten Island bridges, you have to count the bridges and tunnels that aren't cashless as well.
In NJ, the only cashless toll I can think of other than PANYNJ crossings is the Scudder Falls Bridge. There might be others I'm just not thinking of.
As far as large highways, I think Pa Turnpike is cashless now, which is larger than the three major NJ toll roads combined (in length at least, but maybe not revenue).
Sorry, I misread "Compared to the other ones that aren't cashless yet" as referring only to NJ only
Quote from: bzakharin on January 29, 2022, 09:09:49 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 29, 2022, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 29, 2022, 06:57:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2022, 06:27:23 PM
Quote from: famartin on January 27, 2022, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on January 27, 2022, 11:33:53 AM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html (https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html)
Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.
Only a north Jersey source would term the ACE a "small highway" :-D
Compared to the other ones that aren't cashless yet it's small potatoes.
What "toll highways" are cashless in NJ? If you're counting Staten Island bridges, you have to count the bridges and tunnels that aren't cashless as well.
In NJ, the only cashless toll I can think of other than PANYNJ crossings is the Scudder Falls Bridge. There might be others I'm just not thinking of.
As far as large highways, I think Pa Turnpike is cashless now, which is larger than the three major NJ toll roads combined (in length at least, but maybe not revenue).
Sorry, I misread "Compared to the other ones that aren't cashless yet" as referring only to NJ only
I was referring to the Turnpike and Parkway as the other ones. Any remaining Port Authority crossings are also big potatoes.
When were these non-reflective button copy beauties installed on NJ-21? I imagine pretty late as the exit tabs are right aligned. Pretty late for non-reflective background button copy signs.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51854162800_fbd59694f1_z.jpg)
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 12:55:40 PM
When were these non-reflective button copy beauties installed on NJ-21? I imagine pretty late as the exit tabs are right aligned. Pretty late for non-reflective background button copy signs.
Historicaerials.com has it installed around the early '80s.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on January 31, 2022, 12:55:40 PM
When were these non-reflective button copy beauties installed on NJ-21? I imagine pretty late as the exit tabs are right aligned. Pretty late for non-reflective background button copy signs.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51854162800_fbd59694f1_z.jpg)
That's vintage late 70s-early 80s NJDOT goodness. But like you point out, on the later side of that since the exit tabs are aligned and not centered.
I remember the original signing on I-80 from the 1960's-70's was the same as above. I always liked that effect of the button-copy legend against what appeared at night to be a black background but which was actually non-reflective green sheeting.
The original NJ 21 signs were substandard as so were those on Route 3. They used small signs with upper case lettering and underscored the street names. The NJ 7 offramp NB had a side mount small sign showing Passaic to the left for NJ 21 pull through and Belleville- Kearny for Route 7 ramp. NJ 7 used a separate stand alone shields instead of on the sign. NJ 3 had a gore sign with a lighting fixture on the NB side with Passaic straight ahead and a NJ 3 shield( on the sign display) with cardinal directions. There was no advanced warning guides for it but a large JCT display prior to the NJ 3 overpass that is part of the Passaic River Bridge.
It was in the early eighties they introduced freeway signs to the freeway here.
https://nj1015.com/awful-potentially-dangerous-improvement-on-nj-440-i-287-in-woodbridge-nj/
This article gives accurate details about the poorly designed sign replacements along Route 440 in Woodbridge. Apparently, some of the down arrows do not quite align with the lanes, causing motorist confusion.
Quote from: J Route Z on February 27, 2022, 08:51:03 PM
https://nj1015.com/awful-potentially-dangerous-improvement-on-nj-440-i-287-in-woodbridge-nj/
This article gives accurate details about the poorly designed sign replacements along Route 440 in Woodbridge. Apparently, some of the down arrows do not quite align with the lanes, causing motorist confusion.
Errrrrrr....this was hard to read. If they're going to do such a lengthy story, maybe they could've, you know, driven the road and taken pictures from the appropriate lanes, rather than just using GSV views. (Did they talk with someone from North Carolina regarding this story?)
They also seem to be completely unaware of specific MUTCD signage guidelines. The sign showing the left exit 200 feet ahead never said "Exit Only", so the sign was correct.
It would be nice to have actual crash data too, to see if there is an uptick in crashes due to the new signage. This is, after all, a 'major' news station for New Jersey. They have the contacts. Or maybe they did get the data which conflicts with their story, so they just left that out.
https://www.nj.com/politics/2022/03/will-nj-allow-self-serve-gas-stations-with-new-bill-the-great-debate-is-back.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2022, 04:57:49 PM
https://www.nj.com/politics/2022/03/will-nj-allow-self-serve-gas-stations-with-new-bill-the-great-debate-is-back.html
It's absolutely comical there even has to be a debate. "Should we join the 21st century or keep idiotic laws in place."
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2022, 07:08:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2022, 04:57:49 PM
https://www.nj.com/politics/2022/03/will-nj-allow-self-serve-gas-stations-with-new-bill-the-great-debate-is-back.html
It's absolutely comical there even has to be a debate. "Should we join the 21st century or keep idiotic laws in place."
Just for a little counterpoint with that:
It just shows what we are used to doing ourselves. Many people complain about self-serve check outs in stores, wondering why we need to do the work of a cashier at the store. At a gas station, we think nothing of getting out of the car to pump our own gas, rather than expecting an employee at the store to do it for us.
Heck, there's people that come that will pump their own gas, walk inside, pour their own coffee, then complain about the self checkout.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2022, 08:02:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2022, 07:08:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2022, 04:57:49 PM
https://www.nj.com/politics/2022/03/will-nj-allow-self-serve-gas-stations-with-new-bill-the-great-debate-is-back.html
It's absolutely comical there even has to be a debate. "Should we join the 21st century or keep idiotic laws in place."
Just for a little counterpoint with that:
It just shows what we are used to doing ourselves. Many people complain about self-serve check outs in stores, wondering why we need to do the work of a cashier at the store. At a gas station, we think nothing of getting out of the car to pump our own gas, rather than expecting an employee at the store to do it for us.
Heck, there's people that come that will pump their own gas, walk inside, pour their own coffee, then complain about the self checkout.
Putting the fuel pump in your car is a lot less tedious than unloading each one of your groceries, scanning it, then putting it in a bag.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2022, 09:18:07 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on February 27, 2022, 08:51:03 PM
https://nj1015.com/awful-potentially-dangerous-improvement-on-nj-440-i-287-in-woodbridge-nj/
This article gives accurate details about the poorly designed sign replacements along Route 440 in Woodbridge. Apparently, some of the down arrows do not quite align with the lanes, causing motorist confusion.
Errrrrrr....this was hard to read. If they're going to do such a lengthy story, maybe they could've, you know, driven the road and taken pictures from the appropriate lanes, rather than just using GSV views. (Did they talk with someone from North Carolina regarding this story?)
They also seem to be completely unaware of specific MUTCD signage guidelines. The sign showing the left exit 200 feet ahead never said "Exit Only", so the sign was correct.
It would be nice to have actual crash data too, to see if there is an uptick in crashes due to the new signage. This is, after all, a 'major' news station for New Jersey. They have the contacts. Or maybe they did get the data which conflicts with their story, so they just left that out.
The last thing NJ101.5 is is a "major news station". It's generic right wing talk radio that most people just know because they do traffic reports centered on the state every quarter hour.
Quote from: storm2k on March 01, 2022, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2022, 09:18:07 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on February 27, 2022, 08:51:03 PM
https://nj1015.com/awful-potentially-dangerous-improvement-on-nj-440-i-287-in-woodbridge-nj/
This article gives accurate details about the poorly designed sign replacements along Route 440 in Woodbridge. Apparently, some of the down arrows do not quite align with the lanes, causing motorist confusion.
Errrrrrr....this was hard to read. If they're going to do such a lengthy story, maybe they could've, you know, driven the road and taken pictures from the appropriate lanes, rather than just using GSV views. (Did they talk with someone from North Carolina regarding this story?)
They also seem to be completely unaware of specific MUTCD signage guidelines. The sign showing the left exit 200 feet ahead never said "Exit Only", so the sign was correct.
It would be nice to have actual crash data too, to see if there is an uptick in crashes due to the new signage. This is, after all, a 'major' news station for New Jersey. They have the contacts. Or maybe they did get the data which conflicts with their story, so they just left that out.
The last thing NJ101.5 is is a "major news station". It's generic right wing talk radio that most people just know because they do traffic reports centered on the state every quarter hour.
Right wing? I haven't ever been able to make anything of 101.5 other than it's got a catchy catchphrase and occasionally issues generic traffic reports reading from Google. I've heard them in the intervening time and I don't even find them political, just dumb.
Quote from: Alps on March 01, 2022, 11:34:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 01, 2022, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2022, 09:18:07 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on February 27, 2022, 08:51:03 PM
https://nj1015.com/awful-potentially-dangerous-improvement-on-nj-440-i-287-in-woodbridge-nj/
This article gives accurate details about the poorly designed sign replacements along Route 440 in Woodbridge. Apparently, some of the down arrows do not quite align with the lanes, causing motorist confusion.
Errrrrrr....this was hard to read. If they're going to do such a lengthy story, maybe they could've, you know, driven the road and taken pictures from the appropriate lanes, rather than just using GSV views. (Did they talk with someone from North Carolina regarding this story?)
They also seem to be completely unaware of specific MUTCD signage guidelines. The sign showing the left exit 200 feet ahead never said "Exit Only", so the sign was correct.
It would be nice to have actual crash data too, to see if there is an uptick in crashes due to the new signage. This is, after all, a 'major' news station for New Jersey. They have the contacts. Or maybe they did get the data which conflicts with their story, so they just left that out.
The last thing NJ101.5 is is a "major news station". It's generic right wing talk radio that most people just know because they do traffic reports centered on the state every quarter hour.
Right wing? I haven't ever been able to make anything of 101.5 other than it's got a catchy catchphrase and occasionally issues generic traffic reports reading from Google. I've heard them in the intervening time and I don't even find them political, just dumb.
The news portion is fairly neutral. The talk shows are not necessarily. Bill Spadea is pretty right wing for NJ, and Dennis and Judi are pretty right leaning too. Deminski and Doyle are fairly neutral though.
Spring 2007 I rolled up to the diesel pump somewhere between Neptune & Eatontown or wherever & started pumping my own. Didn't hear peep from anyone; nobody came rushing over exclaiming NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT.
Coulda been they saw my outtastate plates, coulda been they saw what fuel I was getting.
Does the pump-your-own ban apply explicitly to gas, or to diesel as well?
Quote from: yakra on March 02, 2022, 12:30:08 PM
Spring 2007 I rolled up to the diesel pump somewhere between Neptune & Eatontown or wherever & started pumping my own. Didn't hear peep from anyone; nobody came rushing over exclaiming NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT.
Coulda been they saw my outtastate plates, coulda been they saw what fuel I was getting.
Does the pump-your-own ban apply explicitly to gas, or to diesel as well?
Not sure.
Regarding gas...
I never tried to pump myself in nj until the pandemic. Since then I've had occasions where attendants shrug it off, as well as instances where they rush over to prevent me. I've heard there are "observers" sent to stations on occasion to ensure people are prevented from self serve, but honestly not sure how true that is.
Quote from: yakra on March 02, 2022, 12:30:08 PM
Spring 2007 I rolled up to the diesel pump somewhere between Neptune & Eatontown or wherever & started pumping my own. Didn't hear peep from anyone; nobody came rushing over exclaiming NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT.
Coulda been they saw my outtastate plates, coulda been they saw what fuel I was getting.
Does the pump-your-own ban apply explicitly to gas, or to diesel as well?
Diesel is not required to be full-serve in NJ, nor is EV charging.
Quote from: famartin on March 02, 2022, 01:02:46 PM
Quote from: yakra on March 02, 2022, 12:30:08 PM
Spring 2007 I rolled up to the diesel pump somewhere between Neptune & Eatontown or wherever & started pumping my own. Didn't hear peep from anyone; nobody came rushing over exclaiming NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT.
Coulda been they saw my outtastate plates, coulda been they saw what fuel I was getting.
Does the pump-your-own ban apply explicitly to gas, or to diesel as well?
Not sure.
Regarding gas...
I never tried to pump myself in nj until the pandemic. Since then I've had occasions where attendants shrug it off, as well as instances where they rush over to prevent me. I've heard there are "observers" sent to stations on occasion to ensure people are prevented from self serve, but honestly not sure how true that is.
0% true.
The state's drivers loves its Full-Serve gas, but the agency responsible for ensuring complaince (which is not the State or Local Police) isn't so anal that they're doing secret surveillance.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2022, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 02, 2022, 01:02:46 PM
Quote from: yakra on March 02, 2022, 12:30:08 PM
Spring 2007 I rolled up to the diesel pump somewhere between Neptune & Eatontown or wherever & started pumping my own. Didn't hear peep from anyone; nobody came rushing over exclaiming NO NO NO DON'T DO THAT.
Coulda been they saw my outtastate plates, coulda been they saw what fuel I was getting.
Does the pump-your-own ban apply explicitly to gas, or to diesel as well?
Not sure.
Regarding gas...
I never tried to pump myself in nj until the pandemic. Since then I've had occasions where attendants shrug it off, as well as instances where they rush over to prevent me. I've heard there are "observers" sent to stations on occasion to ensure people are prevented from self serve, but honestly not sure how true that is.
0% true.
The state's drivers loves its Full-Serve gas, but the agency responsible for ensuring complaince (which is not the State or Local Police) isn't so anal that they're doing secret surveillance.
I've taken it from someone who has worked pump retail that you can pump your own unless you see the state's Weights and Measures folks around. Probably wanna avoid with a cop there too just in case.
Is Temporary Banners ever going to be removed from Route 41? Considering it's a permanent route and NJDOT will never build it's intended alignment, why not remove the banners altogether or did engineers forget about it with every sign replacement ending up being a carbon copy?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 22, 2022, 04:59:41 PM
Is Temporary Banners ever going to be removed from Route 41? Considering it's a permanent route and NJDOT will never build it's intended alignment, why not remove the banners altogether or did engineers forget about it with every sign replacement ending up being a carbon copy?
It's not NJDOT maintained so it's only happening if the county does it.
https://goo.gl/maps/WDdorLtj9K6a669Z6
I think that signing Island Beach State Park on the NJ 35 pull through is non essential information that no one driving here is interested in that location.
Also Keyport for NJ 36 is dumb as you have arrived there with the exit for its Downtown was passed by already via CR 516 Exit to Broadway. Plus ground signage there uses Keansburg and Atlantic Highlands and the overhead it replaced originally used those two control points as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2022, 02:02:15 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/WDdorLtj9K6a669Z6
I think that signing Island Beach State Park on the NJ 35 pull through is non essential information that no one driving here is interested in that location.
Or, they way overestimated how much people would want to shunpike the GSP by taking another two hours to get there. :D
I do get what NJDOT is trying to do with signing Island Beach, but I do agree that NJ 35 wouldn’t be the fastest way to get there. If someone were to shunpike, wouldn’t it make more sense to follow US 9 down to NJ 18 and then NJ 34? Google doesn’t even acknowledge NJ 35 as an option if you set it to avoid highways.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on March 30, 2022, 09:04:08 AM
I do get what NJDOT is trying to do with signing Island Beach, but I do agree that NJ 35 wouldn't be the fastest way to get there. If someone were to shunpike, wouldn't it make more sense to follow US 9 down to NJ 18 and then NJ 34? Google doesn't even acknowledge NJ 35 as an option if you set it to avoid highways.
This seems to be another example of the recent trend of signing exactly where the road ends as its final control city, without thinking about the logic of using said locale. I've seen this is other locations recently, like using Roxbury on westbound 10 at 287, and Parsippany and Kearny on 280 (even in places where using Newark would make more sense).
Also to note NJ 35 to IBSP was added to the road system later in the game when NJ and Ocean County switched ownership with former NJ Route 180 in Manahawkin. Originally it was Seaside Heights at Route 37 with the route south of there being under Ocean County unsigned. This, I agree is making the end of the road the final control city regardless if something more prominent lies before or after the end of the route. People are more interested in the places along the way, especially along local thoroughfares next to freeways as Route 35 is here
Shunpiking is more used by Route 9 to Route 37 to get to Seaside or Island Beach as 35 is red light city here and two lanes in Wall and from Pt. Pleasant to south of CR 528 at Mantaloking.
NCDOT signed Route 34 as Wall, where it ends, removing Asbury Park and Brielle that were previously used in Holmdel. Asbury Park changed due to demographics in the eighties to lose it's popularity as a beach resort it once was as well as leaving Route 34 at the Collingwood Circle for two other routes and a municipal street to reach the now defunct Boardwalk community. That I can understand it's removal, and Brielle was more seen on a map, but Point Pleasant is more prominent to have used and still use as nobody is really going to Wall who is unfamiliar with the roads.
NCDOT does it on Route 15 out of Dover using Frankford as the final mileage city for it instead of Lafayette or even Milford, PA. Most NJ 15 motorists are bound for Sussex County as well as US 206 north of Frankford, so using Sussex County points like Lafayette, Branchville, or Montague or even Milford would be better.
NJ 23 using Montague is also a bad choice being Montague is more notable for being on US 206, even though the township limits reach Route 23. Port Jervis is better suited for it and used to be at one time at the Ratzer Road Circle in Wayne before elimination on guide signs there. The mileage signs at Verona near the Clraridge Apartments north or it's terminus and along the 40 mph part all ng the Kinnelon- West Milford Border near Butler mentions Montague as final mileage controls on the 1998 mileage statewide mileage sign replacement project.
Yeah NJ, is getting too technical with road sign control points especially on interstates like 195.and 280.
Here's a dump of random signage replacements I've caught in various drives around the state.
Rt 1-9 North in Newark
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52027891109_c2af2ee604_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52026600007_9f49756ac1_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52027680728_53240b1992_c.jpg)
(These signs are pretty busy. I feel like the clearance limits are not needed since trucks are not allowed on the Skyway anyway)
Rt 1-9 North Pulaski Skyway
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52026600042_9bfa6d1e17_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52028156435_a64b4768d2_c.jpg)
(Again, these clearance limits are not needed since no trucks are allowed)
Rt 3 West
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52028156455_99d5a691e0_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52028156475_015dcc6521_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52027891239_b1eb67cd87_c.jpg)
(The orange signs are obviously in the 3-46 interchange construction area)
Rt 46 West
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52027891269_7ddb7e49b6_c.jpg)[/url]
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52026600167_b81da3bce8_c.jpg)[/url]
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52028156585_e997352131_c.jpg)[/url]
(I'm annoyed by the inconsistent control cities. Don't start with Dover until you're past Parsippany)
Rt 280 at 80
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52028156645_40a7943508_c.jpg)
(Not at fan at all. Way too busy. The previous sign where the "local" lanes were just signed as the exit to 287 was way easier to follow)
Rt 9 South at 195
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51993398476_31cf6f7e32_c.jpg)
(Don't know why they didn't change "Shore Points" to "Belmar" as they've done up and down 195)
Rt 195 East
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51992399207_0d12ebdf71_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51993943085_e00d917709_c.jpg)
(They kept "Exit 36" even though that's technically on 138 and would be fine with no exit number)
Wow. These are almost all awful.
The one on I-195 at NJ 34 needs to combine the two left panels together as it's way too much info to comprehend.
Have the Garden State Parkway text is not only redundant, but wastes time to read it. Use NJ 138 and North (Parkway shield) 3/4 mile. Then END 1-195 on the bridge pull through in the distance
Then the Route 9 photo just use Belmar and have a TO Garden State Parkway shield with it along with a TO I-95 shield for Westbound to Trenton. The Parkway and Turnpike are both noteworthy to be mentioned on overheads instead of just on ground shields.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 30, 2022, 10:53:10 PM
Wow. These are almost all awful.
Almost all okay (not saying great necessarily), except CR 613 should be signed Passaic Ave. 600 routes are barely recognized in North Jersey.
NJDOT is still resistant to the concept of control cities for the parkway. Its really annoying now that they are openly signed and in the NJTA sign plans as well. Not to mention that the actual control cities are going to be less text to read than "Garden State Parkway".
I realize that Passaic County recently signed all their 600 and 700 series routes, but is it really a good idea to clutter all the signs with those shields? US-46 is a mess with traffic and the complicated intersection of NJ-23 and I-80. Might be best to use the KISS principal on that particular stretch of highway.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 01, 2022, 12:02:31 AM
NJDOT is still resistant to the concept of control cities for the parkway. Its really annoying now that they are openly signed and in the NJTA sign plans as well. Not to mention that the actual control cities are going to be less text to read than "Garden State Parkway".
I realize that Passaic County recently signed all their 600 and 700 series routes, but is it really a good idea to clutter all the signs with those shields? US-46 is a mess with traffic and the complicated intersection of NJ-23 and I-80. Might be best to use the KISS principal on that particular stretch of highway.
The Parkway is an important route in the state and should be signed with control cities like other highways
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 01, 2022, 12:02:31 AM
NJDOT is still resistant to the concept of control cities for the parkway. Its really annoying now that they are openly signed and in the NJTA sign plans as well. Not to mention that the actual control cities are going to be less text to read than "Garden State Parkway".
I realize that Passaic County recently signed all their 600 and 700 series routes, but is it really a good idea to clutter all the signs with those shields? US-46 is a mess with traffic and the complicated intersection of NJ-23 and I-80. Might be best to use the KISS principal on that particular stretch of highway.
I wonder if the county wanted them up there, or if that was NJDOT's idea.
Quote from: famartin on May 01, 2022, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 01, 2022, 12:02:31 AM
NJDOT is still resistant to the concept of control cities for the parkway. Its really annoying now that they are openly signed and in the NJTA sign plans as well. Not to mention that the actual control cities are going to be less text to read than "Garden State Parkway".
I realize that Passaic County recently signed all their 600 and 700 series routes, but is it really a good idea to clutter all the signs with those shields? US-46 is a mess with traffic and the complicated intersection of NJ-23 and I-80. Might be best to use the KISS principal on that particular stretch of highway.
I wonder if the county wanted them up there, or if that was NJDOT's idea.
That's an interesting question. Historically, NJDOT has only ever signed the 5xx county routes (since they function as a secondary state highway system of sorts) and not signed 6xx county routes on BGS's except for occasional random one offs (Exit 36 on 78 always comes to mind since it used to be a 5xx spur that was renumbered with a 6xx route but they replaced the 5xx spur shields with the 6xx route number... but it didn't happen at Exit 9 on 287 when that was changed). Honestly, at this point, as I've been chronicling, the engineer(s) at NJDOT who draft and/or approve the designs for these newer signs has embraced information overload and "interesting" choices for layout and information put on this current generation of BGSs. So who knows at this point.
Considering NJDOT normally never signs 600 routes in North Jersey, most likely the county.
Also while on control cities, in Bedminster on US 202 & 206 at the entrance ramp to I-287 to control the interest of motorists traveling straight through on Route 206 SB to use the better quality road between Bedminster and Somerville, to sign both Somerville and Princeton onto the SB I-287 ramp. In addition guide signs once at Exit 17 (Former Exit 13) on I-287 listed Somerville and Princeton as well to follow up. However current street view shows the old guides on I-287 to be gone and no follow up to Princeton now.
The US 202 & 206 SB ramp to I-287 now has a situation like Morris County 511 in Parsippany with an extra control point of Singac but with the Mercer County College Township instead.
IMO the supplemental Princeton signs need to be put back on I-287 South at Exit 17 or remove Princeton from the I-287 ramp altogether.
BTW I-287 never had control cities just as the Parkway except at some interchanges like I-80 and I-78. US 22 East once used New Brunswick before Perth Amboy came into the picture there, but US 22 West once had large panel overheads at I-287, but no destinations for both I-287 ramps as well. So NJRoadfan , it wasnt only the tolled freeways that lacked control cities from NJDOT, but I-287 and also I-78 as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2022, 01:53:40 AM
Considering NJDOT normally never signs 600 routes in North Jersey, most likely the county.
Also while on control cities, in Bedminster on US 202 & 206 at the entrance ramp to I-287 to control the interest of motorists traveling straight through on Route 206 SB to use the better quality road between Bedminster and Somerville, to sign both Somerville and Princeton onto the SB I-287 ramp. In addition guide signs once at Exit 17 (Former Exit 13) on I-287 listed Somerville and Princeton as well to follow up. However current street view shows the old guides on I-287 to be gone and no follow up to Princeton now.
The US 202 & 206 SB ramp to I-287 now has a situation like Morris County 511 in Parsippany with an extra control point of Singac but with the Mercer County College Township instead.
IMO the supplemental Princeton signs need to be put back on I-287 South at Exit 17 or remove Princeton from the I-287 ramp altogether.
BTW I-287 never had control cities just as the Parkway except at some interchanges like I-80 and I-78. US 22 East once used New Brunswick before Perth Amboy came into the picture there, but US 22 West once had large panel overheads at I-287, but no destinations for both I-287 ramps as well. So NJRoadfan , it wasnt only the tolled freeways that lacked control cities from NJDOT, but I-287 and also I-78 as well.
I honestly have long thought that NJDOT would be better served routing 202-206 onto 287 between Exits 17 and 22 to just take some traffic off of a mostly two lane road that suffers from a decent amount of congestion (especially in Pluckemin where there is nowhere to expand the road without possibly taking down historic buildings) and hand the rest of the stretch to Somerset County but that doesn't ever seem likely to happen. I do agree that the mention of Princeton on the sign at the 287SB ramp gore should be changed to say Flemington and not Princeton to be consistent with the signage for Exit 17 which have been there since 1997.
Another one of not being consistent is the NJTA at Parkway Exit 129 into Turnpike Exit 11. Now with I-95 going to Philly without gap thanks to the long awaited I-95 and PA Turnpike Exchange, the Exit 129 SB Parkway guide features " Philadelphia " over previously "Camden," the sign is not in Canon with the post entry toll for the Turnpike ramp split which reads " Trenton."
You now are directed to Philadelphia from the Parkway South onto the Turnpike, but once onto the Turnpike you get no follow up info. There is room to add a second city SB after the 11 plazawhich should ideally read Trenton Philadelphia and not violate MUTCD policies ( not that both NJTA or NJ DOT ever cared about anyway) if they catered to both used Parkway Control cities for the Turnpike at Exit 129.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2022, 06:50:06 AM
Another one of not being consistent is the NJTA at Parkway Exit 129 into Turnpike Exit 11. Now with I-95 going to Philly without gap thanks to the long awaited I-95 and PA Turnpike Exchange, the Exit 129 SB Parkway guide features " Philadelphia " over previously "Camden," the sign is not in Canon with the post entry toll for the Turnpike ramp split which reads " Trenton."
You now are directed to Philadelphia from the Parkway South onto the Turnpike, but once onto the Turnpike you get no follow up info. There is room to add a second city SB after the 11 plazawhich should ideally read Trenton Philadelphia and not violate MUTCD policies ( not that both NJTA or NJ DOT ever cared about anyway) if they catered to both used Parkway Control cities for the Turnpike at Exit 129.
It's because the previous exit for Rt 1 uses Trenton for the SB control city since that's what NJDOT does. I guess they didn't want to sign it twice even though NJTA's standard control city for the Turnpike SB is Trenton until 7A.
Quote from: storm2k on May 01, 2022, 11:26:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2022, 06:50:06 AM
Another one of not being consistent is the NJTA at Parkway Exit 129 into Turnpike Exit 11. Now with I-95 going to Philly without gap thanks to the long awaited I-95 and PA Turnpike Exchange, the Exit 129 SB Parkway guide features " Philadelphia " over previously "Camden," the sign is not in Canon with the post entry toll for the Turnpike ramp split which reads " Trenton."
You now are directed to Philadelphia from the Parkway South onto the Turnpike, but once onto the Turnpike you get no follow up info. There is room to add a second city SB after the 11 plazawhich should ideally read Trenton Philadelphia and not violate MUTCD policies ( not that both NJTA or NJ DOT ever cared about anyway) if they catered to both used Parkway Control cities for the Turnpike at Exit 129.
It's because the previous exit for Rt 1 uses Trenton for the SB control city since that's what NJDOT does. I guess they didn't want to sign it twice even though NJTA's standard control city for the Turnpike SB is Trenton until 7A.
That's inconsistency on NJDOT's side. US 1 south should be signed New Brunswick there, to match how it is signed northbound in the Trenton area. NJDOT seems to have forgotten that quirk.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2022, 01:53:40 AM
Considering NJDOT normally never signs 600 routes in North Jersey, most likely the county.
Also while on control cities, in Bedminster on US 202 & 206 at the entrance ramp to I-287 to control the interest of motorists traveling straight through on Route 206 SB to use the better quality road between Bedminster and Somerville, to sign both Somerville and Princeton onto the SB I-287 ramp. In addition guide signs once at Exit 17 (Former Exit 13) on I-287 listed Somerville and Princeton as well to follow up. However current street view shows the old guides on I-287 to be gone and no follow up to Princeton now.
The US 202 & 206 SB ramp to I-287 now has a situation like Morris County 511 in Parsippany with an extra control point of Singac but with the Mercer County College Township instead.
IMO the supplemental Princeton signs need to be put back on I-287 South at Exit 17 or remove Princeton from the I-287 ramp altogether.
BTW I-287 never had control cities just as the Parkway except at some interchanges like I-80 and I-78. US 22 East once used New Brunswick before Perth Amboy came into the picture there, but US 22 West once had large panel overheads at I-287, but no destinations for both I-287 ramps as well. So NJRoadfan , it wasnt only the tolled freeways that lacked control cities from NJDOT, but I-287 and also I-78 as well.
I would not assume that the county asked for it. NJDOT has been doing it more often. When they built the Chimney Rock Rd overpass over 22, all the signs for the new Chimey Rock Rd ramps show the CR675 shield, despite the fact that Somerset County does not sign it. In fact, the only other way you happen to know that this is a county route is the street name blade on the traffic light (https://goo.gl/maps/T8e2HGWU1PnG4aWu7) at 28, which is another NJDOT install (although my thought is that they should have rerouted CR525 onto this new alignment to still have it end either at 28 or CR533/Main Street and renumber the Thompson Ave stretch to a 6xx route to take a 5xx out of a residential neighborhood and it's not clearly signed that the route turns at that intersection now anyway).
Quote from: storm2k on May 01, 2022, 11:26:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2022, 06:50:06 AM
Another one of not being consistent is the NJTA at Parkway Exit 129 into Turnpike Exit 11. Now with I-95 going to Philly without gap thanks to the long awaited I-95 and PA Turnpike Exchange, the Exit 129 SB Parkway guide features " Philadelphia " over previously "Camden," the sign is not in Canon with the post entry toll for the Turnpike ramp split which reads " Trenton."
You now are directed to Philadelphia from the Parkway South onto the Turnpike, but once onto the Turnpike you get no follow up info. There is room to add a second city SB after the 11 plazawhich should ideally read Trenton Philadelphia and not violate MUTCD policies ( not that both NJTA or NJ DOT ever cared about anyway) if they catered to both used Parkway Control cities for the Turnpike at Exit 129.
It's because the previous exit for Rt 1 uses Trenton for the SB control city since that's what NJDOT does. I guess they didn't want to sign it twice even though NJTA's standard control city for the Turnpike SB is Trenton until 7A.
Unless it's been changed after Google last went through there, the NB signage on the Parkway says Trenton as well at Exit 129.
Almost all the signage on the freeway part of 202 from East Amwell to the New Hope toll bridge has been replaced. I will go through when it's not raining to get pictures. One note of interest is that the signs for the Mount Airy/Dilts Corner exit now has CR-605 shields on it. Here's the SB one (https://goo.gl/maps/eSP18Z7oGMbz8186A), which Google already picked up for SV. This is even more complicated than needed as no one needs to care about "Frontage Road to". It's just extra noise that doesn't help motorists find their way. But I guess this means that CR shields are getting signed now whether they're 5xx or 6xx routes. Also of interest is that they spelled out Pennsylvania instead of just going with New Hope PA.
Quote from: storm2k on May 01, 2022, 09:10:20 PM
Almost all the signage on the freeway part of 202 from East Amwell to the New Hope toll bridge has been replaced. I will go through when it's not raining to get pictures. One note of interest is that the signs for the Mount Airy/Dilts Corner exit now has CR-605 shields on it. Here's the SB one (https://goo.gl/maps/eSP18Z7oGMbz8186A), which Google already picked up for SV. This is even more complicated than needed as no one needs to care about "Frontage Road to". It's just extra noise that doesn't help motorists find their way. But I guess this means that CR shields are getting signed now whether they're 5xx or 6xx routes. Also of interest is that they spelled out Pennsylvania instead of just going with New Hope PA.
I saw them tonight and marveled at how stupid 605 was!
Does the NB signage say "Brief 2-way access road for compressor station back entrance to (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/CR_605_jct.svg/20px-CR_605_jct.svg.png)"?
Quote from: storm2k on April 30, 2022, 05:47:02 PM
Rt 1-9 North Pulaski Skyway
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52026600042_9bfa6d1e17_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52028156435_a64b4768d2_c.jpg)
What's shitty here is that the first sign references the Tonnele Avenue exit, but the second one, with the main signage for the exit, doesn't say Tonnele Avenue anywhere.
Quote from: storm2k on May 01, 2022, 09:10:20 PM
Almost all the signage on the freeway part of 202 from East Amwell to the New Hope toll bridge has been replaced. I will go through when it's not raining to get pictures. One note of interest is that the signs for the Mount Airy/Dilts Corner exit now has CR-605 shields on it. Here's the SB one (https://goo.gl/maps/eSP18Z7oGMbz8186A), which Google already picked up for SV. This is even more complicated than needed as no one needs to care about "Frontage Road to". It's just extra noise that doesn't help motorists find their way. But I guess this means that CR shields are getting signed now whether they're 5xx or 6xx routes. Also of interest is that they spelled out Pennsylvania instead of just going with New Hope PA.
https://goo.gl/maps/jaUtdvvoyQvU1pSb8 Well at least they got rid of the ground mount toll bridge sign for it now being on the pull through making the old ground and overhead a combined effort to convey it all in one sign. Though having the town of New Hope and the state it's in as two separate control cities is a second new one after the former signage on I-95 for the Betsy Ross Bridge in Philadelphia. Remember when the control cities there were both Pennsauken and New Jersey?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2022, 11:34:11 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 01, 2022, 09:10:20 PM
Almost all the signage on the freeway part of 202 from East Amwell to the New Hope toll bridge has been replaced. I will go through when it's not raining to get pictures. One note of interest is that the signs for the Mount Airy/Dilts Corner exit now has CR-605 shields on it. Here's the SB one (https://goo.gl/maps/eSP18Z7oGMbz8186A), which Google already picked up for SV. This is even more complicated than needed as no one needs to care about "Frontage Road to". It's just extra noise that doesn't help motorists find their way. But I guess this means that CR shields are getting signed now whether they're 5xx or 6xx routes. Also of interest is that they spelled out Pennsylvania instead of just going with New Hope PA.
https://goo.gl/maps/jaUtdvvoyQvU1pSb8 Well at least they got rid of the ground mount toll bridge sign for it now being on the pull through making the old ground and overhead a combined effort to convey it all in one sign. Though having the town of New Hope and the state it's in as two separate control cities is a second new one after the former signage on I-95 for the Betsy Ross Bridge in Philadelphia. Remember when the control cities there were both Pennsauken and New Jersey?
That particular assembly remains as you can see they replaced the overhead structure a few years ago (standard box truss not the older triangle truss). The newer box truss assemblies were not touched, just the ones on the older triangle trusses from the 1970s that are the focus of replacement across the state right now.
That particular sign writing technique there at Mount Airy needs to be used EB on I-78:at Exits 11 and 12 which are signed for Route 173 in which both EB ramps do not directly connect to Route 173. You have to use local Hunderton 600 routes over the freeway to reach that route.
Exit 12 shouldn't be even using Route 173 as the main focus when Perrinville Road should be as Jutland and Norton are both served by them and not NJ 173.
IMO NJ 173 is a bit redundant as 4 consecutive exits are signed for that highway. However Exits 11 and 12 do not need to be signed at all for it. Also West Portal going Eastbound at Exit 11 is a waste and irrelevant to the needs of motorists as well. Exit 7 already was signed for it and is unincorporated within Bethlehem Township. In fact prior to 1982, only Pattenburg was used at Exit 11 (then it wasn't Exit 11 as NJDOT wasn't using exit numbers) without West Portal traveling Eastbound and NJ 173 was not at all signed.
Was there any modifications made in Pt. Pleasant Beach at the NJ 35 and Broadway intersection?
I remember, when I lived up there a different set up was in effect for SB Route 35 to EB Broadway. The u turn to the north you had to make ( as Broadway only turns from the NB lanes) seemed quite different now then previously.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2022, 08:49:06 AM
That particular sign writing technique there at Mount Airy needs to be used EB on I-78:at Exits 11 and 12 which are signed for Route 173 in which both EB ramps do not directly connect to Route 173. You have to use local Hunderton 600 routes over the freeway to reach that route.
Exit 12 shouldn't be even using Route 173 as the main focus when Perrinville Road should be as Jutland and Norton are both served by them and not NJ 173.
IMO NJ 173 is a bit redundant as 4 consecutive exits are signed for that highway. However Exits 11 and 12 do not need to be signed at all for it. Also West Portal going Eastbound at Exit 11 is a waste and irrelevant to the needs of motorists as well. Exit 7 already was signed for it and is unincorporated within Bethlehem Township. In fact prior to 1982, only Pattenburg was used at Exit 11 (then it wasn't Exit 11 as NJDOT wasn't using exit numbers) without West Portal traveling Eastbound and NJ 173 was not at all signed.
That's easily solved by putting a "To" in front of the 173 shield and then having reassurance shields to direct motorists once they exit.
My point is why bother sign it at all. In that case green it out. However, wait and see what NJDOT has planned for replacement signage and it will most likely read the 600 route to NJ 173 at Exit 11 and Frontage Road To 600 route to NJ 173 for Jutland and Norton.
BTW those signs coming off the Outerbridge Crossing for NJ 440 at NJ 35 are beyond bad. So much information and most of it not needed, but the big issue is arrangement of all the shields to make it hard to read.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 03:46:05 AM
My point is why bother sign it at all. In that case green it out. However, wait and see what NJDOT has planned for replacement signage and it will most likely read the 600 route to NJ 173 at Exit 11 and Frontage Road To 600 route to NJ 173 for Jutland and Norton.
BTW those signs coming off the Outerbridge Crossing for NJ 440 at NJ 35 are beyond bad. So much information and most of it not needed, but the big issue is arrangement of all the shields to make it hard to read.
Agreed re: the 440 signs. Pick one or two routes (maybe 95/Turnpike) and move the rest to aux signs or just let their exits come up.
Is it true that Exits 69-72 on the GW Bridge Approach are really from I-95's exit mileage (had the Somerset Freeway been built) and not I-80's, and the similarity in numbering is only a coincidence?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 12, 2022, 12:11:02 PM
Is it true that Exits 69-72 on the GW Bridge Approach are really from I-95's exit mileage (had the Somerset Freeway been built) and not I-80's, and the similarity in numbering is only a coincidence?
Yes, in fact, Exit 68 is south of I-80
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8520973,-74.0148446,3a,75y,19.28h,89.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sweOad5jo8s6a8EiGbl3ihA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8500241,-74.016821,3a,75y,183.69h,80.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz7a_9dEyjdB4vVsJFbhYLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2F95_original_NJ.png&hash=1f2d0ebb476f16c2a2836d93559539a2e5eeb984)
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/95_original_NJ.png
[tweet]1524833038466686976[/tweet]
Video from NJDOT about doing a sign replacement. This particular one is on 295. Kind of neat to see this in video action.
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2022, 03:39:20 PM
[tweet]1524833038466686976[/tweet]
Video from NJDOT about doing a sign replacement. This particular one is on 295. Kind of neat to see this in video action.
Whatever font that "2" is in, it's not FHWA
Why the truck restriction in the NJ 29 tunnel? I've never known of weight restrictions in a tunnel.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 12, 2022, 04:16:11 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2022, 03:39:20 PM
[tweet]1524833038466686976[/tweet]
Video from NJDOT about doing a sign replacement. This particular one is on 295. Kind of neat to see this in video action.
Whatever font that "2" is in, it's not FHWA
And capitalization wise they flubbed the "N
ORTH T
O" on the Browning Rd./Marlton Pike sign too.
Quote from: ixnay on May 17, 2022, 09:26:55 AM
Why the truck restriction in the NJ 29 tunnel? I've never known of weight restrictions in a tunnel.
Local complaints about truck traffic.
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2022, 03:39:20 PM
[tweet]1524833038466686976[/tweet]
Video from NJDOT about doing a sign replacement. This particular one is on 295. Kind of neat to see this in video action.
He said signs are only supposed to last 10 years!? That's it?? NJ can make their own extruded aluminum signs? CT can't. They have to contract it out.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 17, 2022, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2022, 03:39:20 PM
[tweet]1524833038466686976[/tweet]
Video from NJDOT about doing a sign replacement. This particular one is on 295. Kind of neat to see this in video action.
He said signs are only supposed to last 10 years!? That's it?? NJ can make their own extruded aluminum signs? CT can't. They have to contract it out.
Yes, but NJDOT has plenty of signs more than 20 years old, so "supposed" versus "reality" are two very different things.
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2022, 11:02:27 AM
Quote from: ixnay on May 17, 2022, 09:26:55 AM
Why the truck restriction in the NJ 29 tunnel? I've never known of weight restrictions in a tunnel.
Local complaints about truck traffic.
Just about all of NJ 29 is verboten to rigs. Just like the Pulaski Skyway.
Here's a map of NJ's truck routes.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/freight/trucking/pdf/largetruckmap.pdf
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2022, 04:03:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 17, 2022, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2022, 03:39:20 PM
[tweet]1524833038466686976[/tweet]
Video from NJDOT about doing a sign replacement. This particular one is on 295. Kind of neat to see this in video action.
He said signs are only supposed to last 10 years!? That's it?? NJ can make their own extruded aluminum signs? CT can't. They have to contract it out.
Yes, but NJDOT has plenty of signs more than 20 years old, so "supposed" versus "reality" are two very different things.
Signs are supposed to only last 10 years. You are supposed to test them to ascertain at what point they lose minimum standards of retroreflectivity, but supposedly the average is in the 10-12 year range. Signs out there more than 20 years typically do not meet minimums.
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2022, 09:03:37 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2022, 04:03:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 17, 2022, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 12, 2022, 03:39:20 PM
[tweet]1524833038466686976[/tweet]
Video from NJDOT about doing a sign replacement. This particular one is on 295. Kind of neat to see this in video action.
He said signs are only supposed to last 10 years!? That's it?? NJ can make their own extruded aluminum signs? CT can't. They have to contract it out.
Yes, but NJDOT has plenty of signs more than 20 years old, so "supposed" versus "reality" are two very different things.
Signs are supposed to only last 10 years. You are supposed to test them to ascertain at what point they lose minimum standards of retroreflectivity, but supposedly the average is in the 10-12 year range. Signs out there more than 20 years typically do not meet minimums.
I don't disagree, but there are (or at least, were still very recently) plenty of signs from the 90s around NJDOT highways like 287.
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2022, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2022, 09:03:37 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2022, 04:03:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 17, 2022, 03:14:53 PM
He said signs are only supposed to last 10 years!? That's it?? NJ can make their own extruded aluminum signs? CT can't. They have to contract it out.
Yes, but NJDOT has plenty of signs more than 20 years old, so "supposed" versus "reality" are two very different things.
Signs are supposed to only last 10 years. You are supposed to test them to ascertain at what point they lose minimum standards of retroreflectivity, but supposedly the average is in the 10-12 year range. Signs out there more than 20 years typically do not meet minimums.
I don't disagree, but there are (or at least, were still very recently) plenty of signs from the 90s around NJDOT highways like 287.
I know, but they're really showing their age.
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2022, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2022, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2022, 09:03:37 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2022, 04:03:26 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 17, 2022, 03:14:53 PM
He said signs are only supposed to last 10 years!? That's it?? NJ can make their own extruded aluminum signs? CT can't. They have to contract it out.
Yes, but NJDOT has plenty of signs more than 20 years old, so "supposed" versus "reality" are two very different things.
Signs are supposed to only last 10 years. You are supposed to test them to ascertain at what point they lose minimum standards of retroreflectivity, but supposedly the average is in the 10-12 year range. Signs out there more than 20 years typically do not meet minimums.
I don't disagree, but there are (or at least, were still very recently) plenty of signs from the 90s around NJDOT highways like 287.
I know, but they're really showing their age.
Again, don't disagree. I was just saying that their "life expectancy" doesn't align with what they actually do in the field. Signs might be designed for 10 years, but are routinely left in service for over 20, regardless of whether they meet minimums or not.
Pretty amazing, actually because most of the signs on 287 north of Exit 14 were installed between 1993-97. The only real replacements were right around Exit 41 for Rt 80 which are much newer but suffering from terrible UV fading on the interstate shields. Signs from 13 down to the Turnpike were pretty much all installed in 1998 (except for the Exit 8 signs which were from around 1994). I've felt like they've held up fine for the most part. NJDOT has done very few replacements over the years, save for signs that got mauled in accidents (except, it seems, for the ground mounts approaching Exit 10 going SB, which have been knocked over multiple times over the years and just put back up) and a couple of overhead structures they needed to replace. I expect that we'll get at least one new sign for Exit 10 NB since the old one was bridge mounted to the River Rd overpass and was taken down. I wonder if a broader signage project is going to eventually be in the works for 287 given that at the northern end of the roadway, most of those signs are rapidly approaching 30 years of age.
Quote from: storm2k on May 18, 2022, 12:55:14 AM
Pretty amazing, actually because most of the signs on 287 north of Exit 14 were installed between 1993-97. The only real replacements were right around Exit 41 for Rt 80 which are much newer but suffering from terrible UV fading on the interstate shields. Signs from 13 down to the Turnpike were pretty much all installed in 1998 (except for the Exit 8 signs which were from around 1994). I've felt like they've held up fine for the most part. NJDOT has done very few replacements over the years, save for signs that got mauled in accidents (except, it seems, for the ground mounts approaching Exit 10 going SB, which have been knocked over multiple times over the years and just put back up) and a couple of overhead structures they needed to replace. I expect that we'll get at least one new sign for Exit 10 NB since the old one was bridge mounted to the River Rd overpass and was taken down. I wonder if a broader signage project is going to eventually be in the works for 287 given that at the northern end of the roadway, most of those signs are rapidly approaching 30 years of age.
I mean, the signs for Exit 66 are button copy, so it's likely that those are nearing the end of their lifespan. I forget if the rest of the signs are button copy between NJ 208 and the New York border. Then there is this faded non MUTCD compliant auxiliary sign for I-84 that will probably come down sadly.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0898561,-74.1682396,3a,46.9y,17.11h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4WIMngOpMwR-QYQwifSiMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That I-84 sign isn't even NJDOT, looks like NYSTA put that up. The rounded corners and post style give that away. I think the button copy on that section of I-287 dates to its opening in 1993.
It seemed that whoever put up that sign wanted to encourage motorists to avoid the Tappan Zee and choose the less congested Newburgh-Beacon Bridge instead. Personally, while I think that I-84 is the best option if you are headed to Boston, Tappan Zee to I-95 is a better route to Cape Cod. So the sign really is not that useful. Depends where in New England you are going.
Quote from: storm2k on May 18, 2022, 12:55:14 AM
Pretty amazing, actually because most of the signs on 287 north of Exit 14 were installed between 1993-97. The only real replacements were right around Exit 41 for Rt 80 which are much newer but suffering from terrible UV fading on the interstate shields. Signs from 13 down to the Turnpike were pretty much all installed in 1998 (except for the Exit 8 signs which were from around 1994). I've felt like they've held up fine for the most part. NJDOT has done very few replacements over the years, save for signs that got mauled in accidents (except, it seems, for the ground mounts approaching Exit 10 going SB, which have been knocked over multiple times over the years and just put back up) and a couple of overhead structures they needed to replace. I expect that we'll get at least one new sign for Exit 10 NB since the old one was bridge mounted to the River Rd overpass and was taken down. I wonder if a broader signage project is going to eventually be in the works for 287 given that at the northern end of the roadway, most of those signs are rapidly approaching 30 years of age.
The Middlesex and Somerset Counties had diagram signs for decades that only in 1985 got repainted. Yes they were repainted! They were given reflecting green from the old style green used on button copies. Other than that NJDOT kept them.
The SB guide though for CR 527 in Somerset was never replaced with a new diagramical sign when it got knocked down in the very early eighties. They used two small guides that were in upper case lettering instead of replacing the guides with another large diagram sign or large standard sign.
Plus in the early eighties only River Road, CR 527, and Weston Canal Road received exit numbers south of US 22 then but the rest did not get them though US 202 and 206 in Bedminster and Bridgewater got them.
However on another subject at least I-287 was the only one in north Central Jersey to use square county Route shields instead of street names back in the sixties. I-78 used road names east of I-287 like Martinsville Road for CR 525 and Hilcrest Road for CR 531. Then at CR 523 just Oldwick and Whitehouse were signed and even CR 525 on I-287 was signed solely as Mount Airy Road.
Also I never understood why Stelton Road never had been built with a complete interchange from the start. It was only made complete in either the early or mid nineties. Plus why was South Washington Avenue signed as SB CR 529 from I-287 NB before the current sign installed in Piscataway is another mystery and why no SB I-287 ramp from NB Washington still missing.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
Just out of curiosity how much of this is done so far? I know the schedule from NJDOTs page, but would like to know also from a pass by perspective what is been done so far?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 08:56:16 AM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
Just out of curiosity how much of this is done so far? I know the schedule from NJDOTs page, but would like to know also from a pass by perspective what is been done so far?
They're getting there, I was last there last summer and I think most/all of the overpasses were in place by then.
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2022, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 08:56:16 AM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
Just out of curiosity how much of this is done so far? I know the schedule from NJDOTs page, but would like to know also from a pass by perspective what is been done so far?
They're getting there, I was last there last summer and I think most/all of the overpasses were in place by then.
A lot of the major structure work is done, but they still have all manners of lane shifts and stuff. Still a ways to go, but it's getting there. Traffic on 46EB approaching it is as bad as ever tho.
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on May 18, 2022, 08:30:33 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 18, 2022, 12:55:14 AM
Pretty amazing, actually because most of the signs on 287 north of Exit 14 were installed between 1993-97. The only real replacements were right around Exit 41 for Rt 80 which are much newer but suffering from terrible UV fading on the interstate shields. Signs from 13 down to the Turnpike were pretty much all installed in 1998 (except for the Exit 8 signs which were from around 1994). I've felt like they've held up fine for the most part. NJDOT has done very few replacements over the years, save for signs that got mauled in accidents (except, it seems, for the ground mounts approaching Exit 10 going SB, which have been knocked over multiple times over the years and just put back up) and a couple of overhead structures they needed to replace. I expect that we'll get at least one new sign for Exit 10 NB since the old one was bridge mounted to the River Rd overpass and was taken down. I wonder if a broader signage project is going to eventually be in the works for 287 given that at the northern end of the roadway, most of those signs are rapidly approaching 30 years of age.
I mean, the signs for Exit 66 are button copy, so it's likely that those are nearing the end of their lifespan. I forget if the rest of the signs are button copy between NJ 208 and the New York border. Then there is this faded non MUTCD compliant auxiliary sign for I-84 that will probably come down sadly.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0898561,-74.1682396,3a,46.9y,17.11h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4WIMngOpMwR-QYQwifSiMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Going northbound, everything north of Exit 22 is the 1990s vintage reflective button copy, except for some signs around the exits for Rt 80. SB they're mostly the same except for new signs for Exit 37 all the way to 14A (even though they did the weird replacement of the control city on signs that should not have allowed it). It's how you still have signs like this (https://goo.gl/maps/NcacgY6pmjJ3bd9w6) where they put the CR525 shields with directions and also the Road name with direction. You can also see where the HOV lane sign would have gone, as these were installed when the HOV lane was built, since this was what it took to get a third lane each way north of Exit 22.
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2022, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 08:56:16 AM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
Just out of curiosity how much of this is done so far? I know the schedule from NJDOTs page, but would like to know also from a pass by perspective what is been done so far?
They're getting there, I was last there last summer and I think most/all of the overpasses were in place by then.
That's good. At least it's getting there. That particular intersection needed it decades ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/YfBzyQrgR2zj1ES7A
Speaking of Exit 66 signs are they going to remove the center panel here. Route 17 no longer exits in 1 mile like it once did.
Also a question. Why didn't engineers connect NJ 17 South with a direct ramp. Why the long switchback and u turn to cross I-287 south to get there? Considering Mahwah is been the controlling interest of guide signs from the start, it seems like it got the back seat on direct access. Ditto for NJ 17 north to I-287 south. That long ramp is really too much otherwise. Yes the merge on the SB side is needed way before the left exit to safely move traffic across a busy freeway, but the direct ramp would have made more sense, or even a ramp to US 202 North a mile back for interest to both Mahwah and NJ 17.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2022, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 08:56:16 AM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
Just out of curiosity how much of this is done so far? I know the schedule from NJDOTs page, but would like to know also from a pass by perspective what is been done so far?
They're getting there, I was last there last summer and I think most/all of the overpasses were in place by then.
That's good. At least it's getting there. That particular intersection needed it decades ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/YfBzyQrgR2zj1ES7A
Speaking of Exit 66 signs are they going to remove the center panel here. Route 17 no longer exits in 1 mile like it once did.
Also a question. Why didn't engineers connect NJ 17 South with a direct ramp. Why the long switchback and u turn to cross I-287 south to get there? Considering Mahwah is been the controlling interest of guide signs from the start, it seems like it got the back seat on direct access. Ditto for NJ 17 north to I-287 south. That long ramp is really too much otherwise. Yes the merge on the SB side is needed way before the left exit to safely move traffic across a busy freeway, but the direct ramp would have made more sense, or even a ramp to US 202 North a mile back for interest to both Mahwah and NJ 17.
I know this stretch of 287 was wildly controversial when proposed, so I would assume any strange design choices were aimed at mollifying angry locals/environmentalists and minimizing impact on the surrounding landscape and community
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2022, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 08:56:16 AM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
Just out of curiosity how much of this is done so far? I know the schedule from NJDOTs page, but would like to know also from a pass by perspective what is been done so far?
They're getting there, I was last there last summer and I think most/all of the overpasses were in place by then.
That's good. At least it's getting there. That particular intersection needed it decades ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/YfBzyQrgR2zj1ES7A
Speaking of Exit 66 signs are they going to remove the center panel here. Route 17 no longer exits in 1 mile like it once did.
Technically it does, since the ramp from I-287 northbound to I-87 northbound carries the designation of NY 17, and that ramp is 1 mile ahead.
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2022, 11:26:39 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2022, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 08:56:16 AM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
Just out of curiosity how much of this is done so far? I know the schedule from NJDOTs page, but would like to know also from a pass by perspective what is been done so far?
They're getting there, I was last there last summer and I think most/all of the overpasses were in place by then.
That's good. At least it's getting there. That particular intersection needed it decades ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/YfBzyQrgR2zj1ES7A
Speaking of Exit 66 signs are they going to remove the center panel here. Route 17 no longer exits in 1 mile like it once did.
Technically it does, since the ramp from I-287 northbound to I-87 northbound carries the designation of NY 17, and that ramp is 1 mile ahead.
It still should be moved to the left panel though being it concurs onto I-87.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 21, 2022, 12:30:45 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2022, 11:26:39 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 11:13:16 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 20, 2022, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 20, 2022, 08:56:16 AM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
Just out of curiosity how much of this is done so far? I know the schedule from NJDOTs page, but would like to know also from a pass by perspective what is been done so far?
They're getting there, I was last there last summer and I think most/all of the overpasses were in place by then.
That's good. At least it's getting there. That particular intersection needed it decades ago.
https://goo.gl/maps/YfBzyQrgR2zj1ES7A
Speaking of Exit 66 signs are they going to remove the center panel here. Route 17 no longer exits in 1 mile like it once did.
Technically it does, since the ramp from I-287 northbound to I-87 northbound carries the designation of NY 17, and that ramp is 1 mile ahead.
It still should be moved to the left panel though being it concurs onto I-87.
It should be signed with an NY outline.
It's been a while, but have we talked about how the empty gantries on I-287 for never-built HOV lanes have been taken down?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 21, 2022, 04:41:12 PM
It's been a while, but have we talked about how the empty gantries on I-287 for never-built HOV lanes have been taken down?
oh finally? cool. but no, the HOV lanes were built. they were then converted to the 3rd general purpose lane in each direction.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9237369,-75.0906185,3a,15y,192.44h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTH7xjDS6P1Xl8ZE_XhEliw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I mean if we're talking about signs...
Quote from: Declan127 on May 22, 2022, 07:22:08 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9237369,-75.0906185,3a,15y,192.44h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTH7xjDS6P1Xl8ZE_XhEliw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I mean if we're
talking about signs...
That's DRTJ signage copying an old US 611 shield that never got removed when AASHTO decommissioned it in 1972 form NJ and the system.
Quote from: Alps on May 21, 2022, 11:59:27 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 21, 2022, 04:41:12 PM
It's been a while, but have we talked about how the empty gantries on I-287 for never-built HOV lanes have been taken down?
oh finally? cool. but no, the HOV lanes were built. they were then converted to the 3rd general purpose lane in each direction.
Why? So many violators that NJDOT gave up and made the lanes GP? Or overall traffic volumes?
Quote from: ixnay on May 24, 2022, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 21, 2022, 11:59:27 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 21, 2022, 04:41:12 PM
It's been a while, but have we talked about how the empty gantries on I-287 for never-built HOV lanes have been taken down?
oh finally? cool. but no, the HOV lanes were built. they were then converted to the 3rd general purpose lane in each direction.
Why? So many violators that NJDOT gave up and made the lanes GP? Or overall traffic volumes?
yes
Quote from: Alps on May 24, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: ixnay on May 24, 2022, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 21, 2022, 11:59:27 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 21, 2022, 04:41:12 PM
It's been a while, but have we talked about how the empty gantries on I-287 for never-built HOV lanes have been taken down?
oh finally? cool. but no, the HOV lanes were built. they were then converted to the 3rd general purpose lane in each direction.
Why? So many violators that NJDOT gave up and made the lanes GP? Or overall traffic volumes?
yes
Yes to what? Too many HOV violators to make enforcement worthwhile, or traffic volume?
Back in 1998, a prominent Star-Ledger columnist started a letter writing campaign to have the HOV restrictions removed from I-287 and I-80. Apparently there are some clauses in the federal funding laws used for HOV lane expansion that you can get the HOV restrictions removed but keep the funding. The lanes going unused and proving to be ineffective was one of the clauses and NJDOT managed to convince the feds.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 24, 2022, 06:56:15 AM
Quote from: Declan127 on May 22, 2022, 07:22:08 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9237369,-75.0906185,3a,15y,192.44h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTH7xjDS6P1Xl8ZE_XhEliw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I mean if we're
talking about signs...
That's DRTJ signage copying an old US 611 shield that never got removed when AASHTO decommissioned it in 1972 form NJ and the system.
The old shield is why I went onto maps- I wasn't expecting a shield that looks straight out of Florida (if 611 had been in said state) but from non-state agencies I expect nothing less.
More on the NJ HOV lanes: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/3947/dot_3947_DS1.pdf?
Quote from: ixnay on May 24, 2022, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 24, 2022, 04:32:30 PM
Quote from: ixnay on May 24, 2022, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 21, 2022, 11:59:27 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on May 21, 2022, 04:41:12 PM
It's been a while, but have we talked about how the empty gantries on I-287 for never-built HOV lanes have been taken down?
oh finally? cool. but no, the HOV lanes were built. they were then converted to the 3rd general purpose lane in each direction.
Why? So many violators that NJDOT gave up and made the lanes GP? Or overall traffic volumes?
yes
Yes to what? Too many HOV violators to make enforcement worthwhile, or traffic volume?
it's a snarky way of saying "both" or "all of the above".
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 24, 2022, 05:17:34 PM
Back in 1998, a prominent Star-Ledger columnist started a letter writing campaign to have the HOV restrictions removed from I-287 and I-80. Apparently there are some clauses in the federal funding laws used for HOV lane expansion that you can get the HOV restrictions removed but keep the funding. The lanes going unused and proving to be ineffective was one of the clauses and NJDOT managed to convince the feds.
this is a better explanation than my yes (:
NJDOT will have a public meeting for replacing the US 130 South Bridge over Assiscunk Creek. This is the very northern part of the US 130 split thru Burlington.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/pubmeet/details/Handbook_20220517_123702_Route130SBoverAssiscunkBridgePICFlyer-FINAL.pdf
The interesting part here is regarding the detour. They will utilize the long-abandoned bridge that used to be US 130 North long ago! https://goo.gl/maps/2nQBSAgVu1bKyooD9 Based on some historicaerials imagery, this bridge was built prior to 1931, and last used for vehicular traffic sometime between 1959 & 1962. Never fully closed off, it can still be walked across. After a portion of the new US 130 SB overpass is built, traffic will utilize the new bridge. That will presumably be the last hurrah for the old bridge, which I expect will be demolished to make way for the rest of the new overpass.
Construction isn't schedule to begin until at least 2026, so plenty of time to check it out.
Why doesn't NJDOT do some access management on its Jersey Freeways? On NJ 3, for example, between Bloomfield and Passaic avenues, there are a bunch of businesses with driveway curb cuts onto the freeway that already have access on Allwood Road
(https://i.imgur.com/azFPIVu.jpg)
Why not just close those off?
Money.
That and most likely opposition from those who would be inconvenienced by the closures.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 12, 2022, 10:10:22 AM
Why doesn't NJDOT do some access management on its Jersey Freeways? On NJ 3, for example, between Bloomfield and Passaic avenues, there are a bunch of businesses with driveway curb cuts onto the freeway that already have access on Allwood Road
(https://i.imgur.com/azFPIVu.jpg)
Why not just close those off?
NJDOT and the municipality originally approved the access for those businesses. Legally they can't take that access away, especially without compensation.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 12, 2022, 10:10:22 AM
Why doesn't NJDOT do some access management on its Jersey Freeways? On NJ 3, for example, between Bloomfield and Passaic avenues, there are a bunch of businesses with driveway curb cuts onto the freeway that already have access on Allwood Road
(https://i.imgur.com/azFPIVu.jpg)
Why not just close those off?
It's technically an arterial that just doesn't have cross streets or left turns.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 12, 2022, 10:10:22 AM
Why doesn't NJDOT do some access management on its Jersey Freeways? On NJ 3, for example, between Bloomfield and Passaic avenues, there are a bunch of businesses with driveway curb cuts onto the freeway that already have access on Allwood Road
Why not just close those off?
NJDOT rarely does that to existing roads. A service road would be more likely to get traction here versus complete cessation of access, but that requires land and money which are both in limited supply.
I think Alps kind of hit the nail on the head. Route 3 is not actually a freeway (full-control of access) as defined in the MUTCD. It is an expressway (partial control of access) but with some interchanges. As such it can still have private driveway entrances and exits to businesses along the route. New Jersey has many such roads including US-22, US-46, NJ-4, NJ-17 to name a few.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 12, 2022, 08:21:22 PM
I think Alps kind of hit the nail on the head. Route 3 is not actually a freeway (full-control of access) as defined in the MUTCD. It is an expressway (partial control of access) but with some interchanges. As such it can still have private driveway entrances and exits to businesses along the route. New Jersey has many such roads including US-22, US-46, NJ-4, NJ-17 to name a few.
3 is a bit different from 22/46/4/17 in that it has had all its lights long-since replaced by interchanges (I'm thinking many decades ago at this point, but someone correct me if I'm wrong). 22/4/46 all still have some lights in the mix, at least sparingly or in some sections. Yes, some areas of 22/46/4/17 are just like 3, but 3 is one of the few roads where every light is gone.
Quote from: famartin on June 12, 2022, 07:22:38 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 12, 2022, 10:10:22 AM
Why doesn't NJDOT do some access management on its Jersey Freeways? On NJ 3, for example, between Bloomfield and Passaic avenues, there are a bunch of businesses with driveway curb cuts onto the freeway that already have access on Allwood Road
Why not just close those off?
NJDOT rarely does that to existing roads. A service road would be more likely to get traction here versus complete cessation of access, but that requires land and money which are both in limited supply.
Or in the case of this stretch of 3, non-existent, at least in terms of land. Those parking lots butt up right against the roadway. Even if there was a desire to spend on landtaking and construction of service roads, it's just completely unfesable. This holds true of most roadways that have this. It's why the businesses on the median of 22 continue to exist even though that creates far more dangerous road conditions (anyone who drives there on a regular basis is used to seeing cars do the old dash across all the lanes to get to a side street move which is dangerous as hell). That small stretch of 3 is one of the new places where closing off the access is even possible. In a lot of other places, it's not, either because those businesses butt up against private homes, water, railroad tracks, etc.
Quote from: famartin on June 12, 2022, 09:43:54 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 12, 2022, 08:21:22 PM
I think Alps kind of hit the nail on the head. Route 3 is not actually a freeway (full-control of access) as defined in the MUTCD. It is an expressway (partial control of access) but with some interchanges. As such it can still have private driveway entrances and exits to businesses along the route. New Jersey has many such roads including US-22, US-46, NJ-4, NJ-17 to name a few.
3 is a bit different from 22/46/4/17 in that it has had all its lights long-since replaced by interchanges (I'm thinking many decades ago at this point, but someone correct me if I'm wrong). 22/4/46 all still have some lights in the mix, at least sparingly or in some sections. Yes, some areas of 22/46/4/17 are just like 3, but 3 is one of the few roads where every light is gone.
3 never had lights on its current alignment to my knowledge. It was shifted in pieces off of surface streets.
Sinkhole closes ramp at intersection of 2 N.J. highways (https://www.nj.com/somerset/2022/06/sinkhole-closes-ramp-at-intersection-of-2-nj-highways.html)
QuoteThe sinkhole opened up in the local lanes of the northbound ramp from Interstate 287 to eastbound Interstate 78 in Bedminster, according to 511nj.org.
All lanes of Exit 21A on I-287 were closed, the report said.
That ramp was rebuilt like two years ago. There also haven't been a lot of super heavy rains in this area (I live about seven minutes from this intersection) in a while that should cause the earth underneath to do this. That's not a great look.
What the hell is going on in NJDOT's geotech department? This is now a pattern...
Quote from: storm2k on June 19, 2022, 01:18:21 PM
Sinkhole closes ramp at intersection of 2 N.J. highways (https://www.nj.com/somerset/2022/06/sinkhole-closes-ramp-at-intersection-of-2-nj-highways.html)
QuoteThe sinkhole opened up in the local lanes of the northbound ramp from Interstate 287 to eastbound Interstate 78 in Bedminster, according to 511nj.org.
All lanes of Exit 21A on I-287 were closed, the report said.
That ramp was rebuilt like two years ago. There also haven't been a lot of super heavy rains in this area (I live about seven minutes from this intersection) in a while that should cause the earth underneath to do this. That's not a great look.
That ramp was just rebuilt, so now I have to worry about the 78E-287N loop ramp that pushed it out. Which I may be taking in 6 days. :|
On September 10, 1977, the New York Times had an article about congestion on the interchange between Routes 4 and 17. They said one proposal to relieve the traffic was an overpass connecting The Garden State Plaza mall and what was then an Alexander's Department Store(https://i.imgur.com/c8LJMGK.png).
I assume this is what they're talking about?
(https://i.imgur.com/kggfLWs.png)
Slide the map a bit east. The NJ-4 and 17 interchange was just a simple under-powered cloverleaf until the addition of flyovers and service roads in the late 90s.
https://web.archive.org/web/20001209163800/http://www.state.nj.us/njcommuter/4_17/construc2.htm
Its amazing it was such a nightmare in 1975, yet didn't get fixed for another 20 years.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 09:05:43 PM
On September 10, 1977, the New York Times had an article about congestion on the interchange between Routes 4 and 17. They said one proposal to relieve the traffic was an overpass connecting The Garden State Plaza mall and what was then an Alexander's Department Store. I assume this is what they're talking about?
(https://i.imgur.com/kggfLWs.png)
I think you're right.
Quote from: famartin on June 24, 2022, 09:38:37 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 23, 2022, 09:05:43 PM
On September 10, 1977, the New York Times had an article about congestion on the interchange between Routes 4 and 17. They said one proposal to relieve the traffic was an overpass connecting The Garden State Plaza mall and what was then an Alexander's Department Store. I assume this is what they're talking about?
(https://i.imgur.com/kggfLWs.png)
I think you're right.
It's always a matter of money.
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2016/10/28/donald-trump-had-a-plan-in-the-80s-to-make-paramus-great-again/93116464/
Apparently, in the late 80s, a man who would later become the President of the United States wanted to build a giant mall where the Ikea is now. He even said he would pay to upgrade the interchange. The owners of Garden State Plaza fought back and they even helped pay to upgrade the interchange.
Just thought I'd share this interesting local interchange between CR 571 and Hooper Ave. It's a full cloverleaf except the two roads intersect. Are there any other examples of these? This is the only one I could find.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9788679,-74.1825682,245m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9788679,-74.1825682,245m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 24, 2022, 05:20:20 PM
Just thought I'd share this interesting local interchange between CR 571 and Hooper Ave. It's a full cloverleaf except the two roads intersect. Are there any other examples of these? This is the only one I could find.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9788679,-74.1825682,245m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9788679,-74.1825682,245m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
This is the only one I know of. There have always been some really funky signs there too - see my CR 571 and 549 pages at https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/
Quote from: Alps on June 24, 2022, 05:36:24 PM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 24, 2022, 05:20:20 PM
Just thought I'd share this interesting local interchange between CR 571 and Hooper Ave. It's a full cloverleaf except the two roads intersect. Are there any other examples of these? This is the only one I could find.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9788679,-74.1825682,245m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9788679,-74.1825682,245m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
This is the only one I know of. There have always been some really funky signs there too - see my CR 571 and 549 pages at https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/
I've seen those pages before, you were actually one of the people that inspired me to join this forum, I used to always look at your webpage. It's great actually talking to you! :D
But it's definitely interesting that this is the only example of a ground cloverleaf in the area.
Drove past the ramp from 287 NB to 78 EB which remains closed due to the sinkhole. They have some big ole heavy equipment there to conduct repairs, but I'm sure they're probably also checking the integrity of the earth under the entire ramp structure to make sure no future sinkholes are possible.
I have to imagine they'll also want to check out the replacement ramp from 78 EB to 287 NB (the new loop ramp) to make sure its integrity is intact.
Still not a great look for NJDOT and its contractors that this happened to a ramp that's barely a year or so old.
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 24, 2022, 05:20:20 PM
Just thought I'd share this interesting local interchange between CR 571 and Hooper Ave. It's a full cloverleaf except the two roads intersect. Are there any other examples of these? This is the only one I could find.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9788679,-74.1825682,245m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9788679,-74.1825682,245m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I imagine that "jug handle" is the Jersey word for Bra.
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
Don't be stupid. Those are obviously for hitchhikers :bigass:
Quote from: kernals12 on June 25, 2022, 10:13:40 AM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
Don't be stupid. Those are obviously for hitchhikers :bigass:
Or for panhandler's.
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
LOL classic NJ where they build a crosswalk but don't bother with the rest of the sidewalk :spin:
Quote from: famartin on June 25, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
LOL classic NJ where they build a crosswalk but don't bother with the rest of the sidewalk :spin:
Pretty sure that's all about jurisdictional nonsense with NJ. They just repaved Washington Valley Rd in Bridgewater earlier this year. That's a county road (CR620) so Somerset County is responsible for its upkeep. At intersections, they improved the curbs including installing ADA compliant ramps and painting the crosswalks. Some stretches of the roadway have sidewalks and others don't. That's because it's on the municipality (Bridgewater Township in this case) to make sure sidewalks are built and maintained. That's why you end up with weirdness like this. Personally I think the law should be amended that requires sidewalks pretty much everywhere (at least main roads and secondary streets in residential neighborhoods) but that's not always the case.
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2022, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 25, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
LOL classic NJ where they build a crosswalk but don't bother with the rest of the sidewalk :spin:
Pretty sure that's all about jurisdictional nonsense with NJ. They just repaved Washington Valley Rd in Bridgewater earlier this year. That's a county road (CR620) so Somerset County is responsible for its upkeep. At intersections, they improved the curbs including installing ADA compliant ramps and painting the crosswalks. Some stretches of the roadway have sidewalks and others don't. That's because it's on the municipality (Bridgewater Township in this case) to make sure sidewalks are built and maintained. That's why you end up with weirdness like this. Personally I think the law should be amended that requires sidewalks pretty much everywhere (at least main roads and secondary streets in residential neighborhoods) but that's not always the case.
Can't and shouldn't be law. Imagine running miles of sidewalks down every paved and unpaved road in the Pine Barrens or other rural area where they would never be used. It's bad enough rural intersections need to upgraded with pedestrian crosswalks and signals; we don't need more costly improvements that would serve almost no one, and the money spent takes away from other needed improvements elsewhere.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2022, 02:22:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2022, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 25, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
LOL classic NJ where they build a crosswalk but don't bother with the rest of the sidewalk :spin:
Pretty sure that's all about jurisdictional nonsense with NJ. They just repaved Washington Valley Rd in Bridgewater earlier this year. That's a county road (CR620) so Somerset County is responsible for its upkeep. At intersections, they improved the curbs including installing ADA compliant ramps and painting the crosswalks. Some stretches of the roadway have sidewalks and others don't. That's because it's on the municipality (Bridgewater Township in this case) to make sure sidewalks are built and maintained. That's why you end up with weirdness like this. Personally I think the law should be amended that requires sidewalks pretty much everywhere (at least main roads and secondary streets in residential neighborhoods) but that's not always the case.
Can't and shouldn't be law. Imagine running miles of sidewalks down every paved and unpaved road in the Pine Barrens or other rural area where they would never be used. It's bad enough rural intersections need to upgraded with pedestrian crosswalks and signals; we don't need more costly improvements that would serve almost no one, and the money spent takes away from other needed improvements elsewhere.
Pretty much everywhere doesn't mean everywhere everywhere.
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2022, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 25, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
LOL classic NJ where they build a crosswalk but don't bother with the rest of the sidewalk :spin:
Pretty sure that's all about jurisdictional nonsense with NJ. They just repaved Washington Valley Rd in Bridgewater earlier this year. That's a county road (CR620) so Somerset County is responsible for its upkeep. At intersections, they improved the curbs including installing ADA compliant ramps and painting the crosswalks. Some stretches of the roadway have sidewalks and others don't. That's because it's on the municipality (Bridgewater Township in this case) to make sure sidewalks are built and maintained. That's why you end up with weirdness like this. Personally I think the law should be amended that requires sidewalks pretty much everywhere (at least main roads and secondary streets in residential neighborhoods) but that's not always the case.
What you're seeing is that unless peds are prohibited from crossing a given roadway leg, whenever they do substantial work (replace traffic signal, repave more than just a simple mill/surface) they put in the ramps. There doesn't have to be sidewalk there, but as long as pedestrians are ALLOWED there, they'll put it all in so that if the municipality, county or state ever decide to put a sidewalk on their road, it'll already be tied into something compliant. Also helps with resolving design issues - you don't (as the agency responsible) want to issue plans that are not ADA compliant without good reason (i.e. specifically resurfacing the road only and not touching anything beyond the curb).
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2022, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2022, 02:22:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 25, 2022, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 25, 2022, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 25, 2022, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: cockroachking on June 25, 2022, 01:21:16 AM
That is the most New Jersey thing I have ever seen! :-D
I find it even funnier that the sidewalks and crosswalks in the middle do not lead anywhere; they just make a square around the intersection... :bigass:
LOL classic NJ where they build a crosswalk but don't bother with the rest of the sidewalk :spin:
Pretty sure that's all about jurisdictional nonsense with NJ. They just repaved Washington Valley Rd in Bridgewater earlier this year. That's a county road (CR620) so Somerset County is responsible for its upkeep. At intersections, they improved the curbs including installing ADA compliant ramps and painting the crosswalks. Some stretches of the roadway have sidewalks and others don't. That's because it's on the municipality (Bridgewater Township in this case) to make sure sidewalks are built and maintained. That's why you end up with weirdness like this. Personally I think the law should be amended that requires sidewalks pretty much everywhere (at least main roads and secondary streets in residential neighborhoods) but that's not always the case.
Can't and shouldn't be law. Imagine running miles of sidewalks down every paved and unpaved road in the Pine Barrens or other rural area where they would never be used. It's bad enough rural intersections need to upgraded with pedestrian crosswalks and signals; we don't need more costly improvements that would serve almost no one, and the money spent takes away from other needed improvements elsewhere.
Pretty much everywhere doesn't mean everywhere everywhere.
The problem with laws is they can apply to areas where it shouldn't, and not apply to areas where it should. In my suburban town, we got a new business to install sidewalks, even though for someone to get to them, someone will be walking on roadsfie a fair distance without sidewalks, and no legal way to get property owners to install them in those areas. In the end, it was a feel-good ruling that made no sense, and cost the new business a fair amount of money. I honestly can't recall anyone ever using them when I passed by, mainly because of the safety factor to get to them in the first place.
Even when they just resurface the roads around here they'll come thru a week before and update anything to ADA compliance. Makes sense since they have to cut into the road edge to install the new ramp.
The theory for passing these laws and installing "fragment" sidewalks and bike lanes, is that over time eventually everything will be connected as new stuff is built or rehabbed.
Quote from: tsmatt13 on June 24, 2022, 05:43:20 PM
But it's definitely interesting that this is the only example of a ground cloverleaf in the area.
Here's one with all the left turns. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.096753,-74.1391016,318m/data=!3m1!1e3)
With the GWB going cashless tomorrow, has it been announced how and when the toll booths will be removed and what the lane configuration will be thereafter? The latter will be most interesting.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 09, 2022, 09:58:31 PM
With the GWB going cashless tomorrow, has it been announced how and when the toll booths will be removed and what the lane configuration will be thereafter? The latter will be most interesting.
According to the press release by PANYNJ, it says that the toll booths will be demolished shortly after it is implemented with no specific date. My guess is that lane setup stays about the same.
I wonder what sort of traffic impact will occur with free flow tolling.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 10, 2022, 09:57:55 AM
I wonder what sort of traffic impact will occur with free flow tolling.
Since the bridge itself is a constraint on traffic, not much.
Quote from: Alps on July 10, 2022, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 10, 2022, 09:57:55 AM
I wonder what sort of traffic impact will occur with free flow tolling.
Since the bridge itself is a constraint on traffic, not much.
I was going to say this. The chokepoint at the Hudson/East River crossings was never the toll plazas, but the crossings themselves. If you have 5 lanes of 80, 4 lanes of 95, 3 lanes of 4, 2 lanes of 1/9, 3 lanes from local roads in Fort Lee, and 2 from the PIP merging into 7 across the bridge, there are going to be issues. See how the backups are as bad heading into NJ. What it WILL likely do is make the merge a little smoother due to less stop/go from toll payment.
Quote from: cl94 on July 10, 2022, 02:54:20 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 10, 2022, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 10, 2022, 09:57:55 AM
I wonder what sort of traffic impact will occur with free flow tolling.
Since the bridge itself is a constraint on traffic, not much.
I was going to say this. The chokepoint at the Hudson/East River crossings was never the toll plazas, but the crossings themselves. If you have 5 lanes of 80, 4 lanes of 95, 3 lanes of 4, 2 lanes of 1/9, 3 lanes from local roads in Fort Lee, and 2 from the PIP merging into 7 across the bridge, there are going to be issues. See how the backups are as bad heading into NJ. What it WILL likely do is make the merge a little smoother due to less stop/go from toll payment.
In reality it could make the backup a bit worse during times that are currently less congested. Assuming traffic is free-flowing on the bridge, traffic currently spreads itself out to 12 lanes & gets blocked a bit by the toll plaza. In the future, traffic won't have that constraint, will free-flow onto the bridge at a faster rate, and then get jammed at the next constraint down the roadway during a time thay may not have been jammed in the past.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2022, 12:54:35 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 10, 2022, 02:54:20 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 10, 2022, 01:09:12 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 10, 2022, 09:57:55 AM
I wonder what sort of traffic impact will occur with free flow tolling.
Since the bridge itself is a constraint on traffic, not much.
I was going to say this. The chokepoint at the Hudson/East River crossings was never the toll plazas, but the crossings themselves. If you have 5 lanes of 80, 4 lanes of 95, 3 lanes of 4, 2 lanes of 1/9, 3 lanes from local roads in Fort Lee, and 2 from the PIP merging into 7 across the bridge, there are going to be issues. See how the backups are as bad heading into NJ. What it WILL likely do is make the merge a little smoother due to less stop/go from toll payment.
In reality it could make the backup a bit worse during times that are currently less congested. Assuming traffic is free-flowing on the bridge, traffic currently spreads itself out to 12 lanes & gets blocked a bit by the toll plaza. In the future, traffic won't have that constraint, will free-flow onto the bridge at a faster rate, and then get jammed at the next constraint down the roadway during a time thay may not have been jammed in the past.
Doubtful. What really happens now is sideswipe crashes from the toll plaza merge. You'll get a net BENEFIT by not having that. The constraint on throughput from NY interchanges is much more limiting than the toll plaza capacity anyway, so that's why I think most of the time will be about the same as it is now.
I couldn’t help notice that in Keyport on NJ 35 you have two sets of mileage signs along the SB route. The original Red Bank- Eatontown- Asbury Park is still there copied over to new mixed case from previous signs and then the 1998 addition of the set controls with updated mileages upon surpassing each city along the way. The 1998 sign placed near the aforementioned is got Eatontown- Brielle- Seaside Heights.
Is there a reason why they need both? Also that after the newer one they came by and replaced the older one and of course “ Eatontown “ is featured on both assemblies. However the latest one still retains the all uppercase font.
https://goo.gl/maps/MiBK8zGMtxA21Zu58
https://goo.gl/maps/nouHyzV6GHgUeCzp8
Northbound you get only a lone Rahway control for 13 miles. Of course Rahway is NJ 35s northern end, but you would have figured that Perth Amboy would also be listed being it’s population is big enough with the route entering its city limits. Also the side road control for NJ 35 is “ The Amboys” so one of the two Amboy cities you would figure should be used.
https://goo.gl/maps/f81BtqBfrmNDhJoYA
Different point from first paragraph, but in any case NJ has gotten bad with mileage signs including ignoring the interstates to comply with other states minus Connecticut of corse who I have found is worse than NJ in mileage sign postings.
Does anyone know the story of the section of US 22 in Springfield and Union where it becomes a one-way pair?
I think it's an extremely clever design since it gets rid of left turns.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2022, 11:51:02 AM
Does anyone know the story of the section of US 22 in Springfield and Union where it becomes a one-way pair?
I think it's an extremely clever design since it gets rid of left turns.
You're referring to the area where there's numerous u-turn channels and businesses in the median, all of which require left turns?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 16, 2022, 06:38:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2022, 11:51:02 AM
Does anyone know the story of the section of US 22 in Springfield and Union where it becomes a one-way pair?
I think it's an extremely clever design since it gets rid of left turns.
You're referring to the area where there's numerous u-turn channels and businesses in the median, all of which require left turns?
Yes, but the left turns aren't against the flow of traffic.
I think if they reduced the number of driveways, they'd really have something brilliant.
It was the brainchild of the mayor of Union NJ. The state wanted to widen the roadway, but the township didn't want to lose the tax revenue, so they built the new westbound lanes behind existing businesses. Its not clever, its hell. Try driving it sometime.
I used to drive that stretch as a young guy back in the 1970's and I always found it an interesting area. But I guess with today's traffic, it's probably become antiquated and dangerous.
Does anyone know what year that widening took place? Definitely before 1958 when I first rode thru there with my parents and saw the ship in the median. Anyone know if that's still there?
The flagship is still there albeit a circa 1986 building. The second roadway was likely built around 1940-41 going by the dates on the overpasses.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 16, 2022, 08:44:41 PM
It was the brainchild of the mayor of Union NJ. The state wanted to widen the roadway, but the township didn't want to lose the tax revenue, so they built the new westbound lanes behind existing businesses. Its not clever, its hell. Try driving it sometime.
Can't be as hellish as a typical 4 lane undivided stroad where it's just one red light after another.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2022, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 16, 2022, 08:44:41 PM
It was the brainchild of the mayor of Union NJ. The state wanted to widen the roadway, but the township didn't want to lose the tax revenue, so they built the new westbound lanes behind existing businesses. Its not clever, its hell. Try driving it sometime.
Can't be as hellish as a typical 4 lane undivided stroad where it's just one red light after another.
I rarely use it, but have been told it's usually stop and go during rush hour.
I can tell by your use of STROAD that you're a road dieter...
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2022, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 16, 2022, 08:44:41 PM
It was the brainchild of the mayor of Union NJ. The state wanted to widen the roadway, but the township didn't want to lose the tax revenue, so they built the new westbound lanes behind existing businesses. Its not clever, its hell. Try driving it sometime.
Can't be as hellish as a typical 4 lane undivided stroad where it's just one red light after another.
In modern times, it would be considered extremely pedestrian unfriendly since there's no ped access to the stores in the median. (Ironically, just to the east of this area, there's a ped walkway over 22...with no proper pedestrian crossings to get anywhere on the south side of 22.)
But overall, it's just not a popular design, which is why you don't usually see it duplicated anywhere. Your left turn issue is simply mitigated by protected left turn lights (or in NJ's case at some intersections, jughandles).
Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2022, 08:50:26 PM
I used to drive that stretch as a young guy back in the 1970's and I always found it an interesting area. But I guess with today's traffic, it's probably become antiquated and dangerous.
Does anyone know what year that widening took place? Definitely before 1958 when I first rode thru there with my parents and saw the ship in the median. Anyone know if that's still there?
The businesses in the median are called by locals as The Center Aisle.
,My dad said all of US 22 from Chimney Rock Road to US 1 and 9 in Newark was a three lane highway with a bidirectional passing lane in the median.
If you notice in the Bridgewater Somerville area the same wide median set up is also where the westbound lanes were added behind existing businesses previously.
Quote from: famartin on July 16, 2022, 10:09:35 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2022, 10:00:12 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 16, 2022, 08:44:41 PM
It was the brainchild of the mayor of Union NJ. The state wanted to widen the roadway, but the township didn't want to lose the tax revenue, so they built the new westbound lanes behind existing businesses. Its not clever, its hell. Try driving it sometime.
Can't be as hellish as a typical 4 lane undivided stroad where it's just one red light after another.
I rarely use it, but have been told it's usually stop and go during rush hour.
I can tell by your use of STROAD that you're a road dieter...
And for many hours outside of that. It really is that bad because the businesses are so busy in the median, there is no fast lane. At least other highways the left lane can move, here both outside lanes have driveways and cross streets and the center lane is just all traffic crossing from one to the other side. It truly is heck.
The eastbound side has 3 lanes so you can at least try and avoid most of the chaos by just staying in the middle. Most of the traffic cutting across isn't even going somewhere on 22. There are no overpasses between South Springfield Ave. to the west and Chestnut St. to the east, so all traffic going north-south in that part of the county is forced onto 22, only to u-turn and cut back across. Another fun relic of the past is that there used to be an at grade railroad crossing in the middle of this mess for the long defunct Rahway Valley RR.
http://www.trainweb.org/rahwayvalley/route_union_route22.htm
Oh, and lest we can forget Jean Shepard's ode to Route 22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rke5xFNO0og
I find that interesting that no cross streets are between Chestnut Street and CR 577. You have Union County Route 617 as a RIRO at the McDonalds that only heads south from the EB lanes and Springfield Road is a pair of RIROs. The latter is a lightly traveled arterial to the south, but north it's a thoroughfare to NJ 82 somewhat.
It's a very populated area and yet no major intersections along that stretch.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2022, 11:51:02 AM
Does anyone know the story of the section of US 22 in Springfield and Union where it becomes a one-way pair?
I think it's an extremely clever design since it gets rid of left turns.
"Clever" in the sense of Satan inventing it as a novel form of torture maybe.. as others have said it works pretty horribly in practice. On top of the obvious (terrible pedestrian access, which I know personally from risking my life many times to go to the 7/11 in the median) it compounds the RIRO access problem endemic to Jersey freeways by having RIRO on BOTH sides of the carriageway. There's a reason the design hasn't been widely copied!!!
Quote from: interstate73 on July 18, 2022, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2022, 11:51:02 AM
Does anyone know the story of the section of US 22 in Springfield and Union where it becomes a one-way pair?
I think it's an extremely clever design since it gets rid of left turns.
"Clever" in the sense of Satan inventing it as a novel form of torture maybe.. as others have said it works pretty horribly in practice. On top of the obvious (terrible pedestrian access, which I know personally from risking my life many times to go to the 7/11 in the median) it compounds the RIRO access problem endemic to Jersey freeways by having RIRO on BOTH sides of the carriageway. There's a reason the design hasn't been widely copied!!!
Terrible pedestrian access? No. No pedestrian access. No crosswalks. Nothing.
What's interesting is the Vauxhall Road interchange there is a staircase leading down from Vauxhall Road to US 22 for pedestrian access to the highway. If you look on the quadrant of the interchange on the south end you will see it.
https://goo.gl/maps/BNPpEzrHycRxR7q98
I'm guessing it's from an old bus stop that was on US 22 that is long gone.
https://goo.gl/maps/mDtw1dG85EqYjC3t6
A similar one on the opposite end as well.
I also see, on another topic, that the overhead signs on US 22 at the Parkway all have been removed as part of the bridge and interchange rehabilitation project.
https://goo.gl/maps/MaLzhn21oZUKFz6w6
What's more interesting is no temporary ground signs to guide motorists to both NJ 82 and The Parkway exits.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 18, 2022, 11:01:10 AM
I find that interesting that no cross streets are between Chestnut Street and CR 577. You have Union County Route 617 as a RIRO at the McDonalds that only heads south from the EB lanes and Springfield Road is a pair of RIROs. The latter is a lightly traveled arterial to the south, but north it's a thoroughfare to NJ 82 somewhat.
It's a very populated area and yet no major intersections along that stretch.
Michigan Ave is a roundabout way to Morris Ave, but its main use is to get to and from the Boulevard in Kennelworth.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 16, 2022, 11:51:02 AM
Does anyone know the story of the section of US 22 in Springfield and Union where it becomes a one-way pair?
I think it's an extremely clever design since it gets rid of left turns.
What in the hell is clever about this design? This stretch of roadway is
extremely dangerous. You frequently see people zoom out of one of the median businesses driveways and just drive perpendicular across the roadway to get to a side street or to a driveway to a business on the right side of the road regardless of what traffic is coming. Or they'll get out into the left shoulder and Jersey Sweep their way across. And that's not even counting all the U-Turns, several of which the state has closed to try to make things safer.
Honestly, the best outcome to ever happen to this stretch would be for the state to take all the properties in the median via emenent domain and build proper thru lanes and turn the existing roadways into service roads so that people can travel through this area in a safer manner while allowing for entrance and exit to businesses along the right sides of the roadway. That's never going to happen though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5794031,-74.5913902,1596m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5794031,-74.5913902,1596m/data=!3m1!1e3)
This stretch of US-22 also has businesses in the median, although more sparse. It's a stranger design since there are no median U-turn ramps.
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 19, 2022, 12:32:28 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5794031,-74.5913902,1596m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5794031,-74.5913902,1596m/data=!3m1!1e3)
This stretch of US-22 also has businesses in the median, although more sparse. It's a stranger design since there are no median U-turn ramps.
There used to be a lot more U-Turn ramps. In fact, most of them were left/U-Turn ramps (reference this HA shot, for example (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/40.577977105192225/-74.58469897618335/1987/18)). Over the past 30ish years, NJDOT has slowly been closing the U-Turn ramps because there were high rates of accidents. That U/Left to Adamsville Rd used to have accidents all the time because drivers were trying to cross 3 lanes of traffic moving at 55-60mph to get to the side street. At this point, there aren't any left hand U-Turns along this stretch. They're not needed anyway. There are multiple overpasses with interchanges (Foothill Rd, Grove/Bridge Streets, 202-206, plus the jughandle at Somerset Corp Drive) where U-Turns can be safely made.
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 02:34:38 PM
There used to be a lot more U-Turn ramps. In fact, most of them were left/U-Turn ramps (reference this HA shot, for example (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/40.577977105192225/-74.58469897618335/1987/18)). Over the past 30ish years, NJDOT has slowly been closing the U-Turn ramps because there were high rates of accidents. That U/Left to Adamsville Rd used to have accidents all the time because drivers were trying to cross 3 lanes of traffic moving at 55-60mph to get to the side street. At this point, there aren't any left hand U-Turns along this stretch. They're not needed anyway. There are multiple overpasses with interchanges (Foothill Rd, Grove/Bridge Streets, 202-206, plus the jughandle at Somerset Corp Drive) where U-Turns can be safely made.
That's interesting! Unfortunately, where one of those U-turn ramps were located is now a speed trap area most of the time.
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 19, 2022, 03:41:28 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 02:34:38 PM
There used to be a lot more U-Turn ramps. In fact, most of them were left/U-Turn ramps (reference this HA shot, for example (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/40.577977105192225/-74.58469897618335/1987/18)). Over the past 30ish years, NJDOT has slowly been closing the U-Turn ramps because there were high rates of accidents. That U/Left to Adamsville Rd used to have accidents all the time because drivers were trying to cross 3 lanes of traffic moving at 55-60mph to get to the side street. At this point, there aren't any left hand U-Turns along this stretch. They're not needed anyway. There are multiple overpasses with interchanges (Foothill Rd, Grove/Bridge Streets, 202-206, plus the jughandle at Somerset Corp Drive) where U-Turns can be safely made.
That's interesting! Unfortunately, where one of those U-turn ramps were located is now a speed trap area most of the time.
Bridgewater cops have liked to hunt on that stretch of road for basically ever. That's not new. For a while the speed limit on the stretch from Grove to the 287 ramp was lowered to 45, but that's been reversed back to the standard 55. That area is also one of NJ's "safe corridors" so pulling you over is lucrative for the township as they collect double fines.
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 19, 2022, 03:41:28 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 02:34:38 PM
There used to be a lot more U-Turn ramps. In fact, most of them were left/U-Turn ramps (reference this HA shot, for example (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/40.577977105192225/-74.58469897618335/1987/18)). Over the past 30ish years, NJDOT has slowly been closing the U-Turn ramps because there were high rates of accidents. That U/Left to Adamsville Rd used to have accidents all the time because drivers were trying to cross 3 lanes of traffic moving at 55-60mph to get to the side street. At this point, there aren't any left hand U-Turns along this stretch. They're not needed anyway. There are multiple overpasses with interchanges (Foothill Rd, Grove/Bridge Streets, 202-206, plus the jughandle at Somerset Corp Drive) where U-Turns can be safely made.
That's interesting! Unfortunately, where one of those U-turn ramps were located is now a speed trap area most of the time.
Bridgewater cops have liked to hunt on that stretch of road for basically ever. That's not new. For a while the speed limit on the stretch from Grove to the 287 ramp was lowered to 45, but that's been reversed back to the standard 55. That area is also one of NJ's "safe corridors" so pulling you over is lucrative for the township as they collect double fines.
Not really, and not directly.
When a ticket is issued, much of the money doesn't stay with the municipality. It goes to the muni, county and/or state, depending on who writes the ticket. For the most part, if a municipal officer writes a ticket, after deducting for various fees and funds within a the cost of the fine, the municipality will receive about half of what's remaining. For a $100 ticket, that's going to amount to around $30 or so. In a 'Safe Corridor', the excess fine first goes to the state, which then provides grants to the municipalities for certain equipment, salaries, programs, projects, or initiatives.
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 18, 2022, 11:01:10 AM
I find that interesting that no cross streets are between Chestnut Street and CR 577. You have Union County Route 617 as a RIRO at the McDonalds that only heads south from the EB lanes and Springfield Road is a pair of RIROs. The latter is a lightly traveled arterial to the south, but north it’s a thoroughfare to NJ 82 somewhat.
It’s a very populated area and yet no major intersections along that stretch.
Michigan Ave is a roundabout way to Morris Ave, but its main use is to get to and from the Boulevard in Kennelworth.
Read the post. I didn’t say Michigan Avenue was shortcut to Morris Avenue, but Springfield Road was.
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 19, 2022, 12:32:28 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5794031,-74.5913902,1596m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5794031,-74.5913902,1596m/data=!3m1!1e3)
This stretch of US-22 also has businesses in the median, although more sparse. It's a stranger design since there are no median U-turn ramps.
The median ramps were once plentiful back in the eighties and before.
I am surprised that North Gaston Avenue wasn’t instead signalized as that has the traffic counts to warrant such a signal. Adamsville Road, though, not so much. Chimney Rock Road, however, was interchanged via municipal money as Bridgewater Township flipped that bill to restore full cross traffic that was once a Michigan Left set up previously. Though for several years it was a RIRO pair until a few years ago when Bridgewater decided to build the interchange to restore Chimney Rock Road’s continuous status.
https://goo.gl/maps/cFLgpn7YJ68rhNrq9
https://goo.gl/maps/6sg7zkoRnvYqgxKY6
What's up here with wires supplying power to the signals? Did NJDOT forget how to install underground conduits to the signal poles?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 08:06:57 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/cFLgpn7YJ68rhNrq9
https://goo.gl/maps/6sg7zkoRnvYqgxKY6
What's up here with wires supplying power to the signals? Did NJDOT forget how to install underground conduits to the signal poles?
Just normal techniques for construction, often involving replacing signals and equipment.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.739361,-74.0780388,3a,21.1y,104.64h,104.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swpEzg6vWUC11u7ploD1TAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.739361,-74.0780388,3a,21.1y,104.64h,104.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swpEzg6vWUC11u7ploD1TAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Interesting BGS design on the new Wittpenn Bridge carrying NJ-7 eastbound (erected in 2021 IIRC): the "Holland Tunnel" barely fits inside the sign. Also it looks like they've ditched the black borders around the route shields...
I remember when those signals above were not wired from above. Though some intersections did had a connecting wire if you had two four way heads on opposite corners. One signal was at the supply while the other was fed by a wire across diagonally.
https://goo.gl/maps/PEfRB79g2AokbX7P9
This one was that way for ages. In fact the pole on the right is planted in the ground as that was the norm at one time. I'm guessing it was in the 50s when bolts to foundations began becoming normal pole mounting.
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 19, 2022, 08:33:42 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.739361,-74.0780388,3a,21.1y,104.64h,104.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swpEzg6vWUC11u7ploD1TAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.739361,-74.0780388,3a,21.1y,104.64h,104.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swpEzg6vWUC11u7ploD1TAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Interesting BGS design on the new Wittpenn Bridge carrying NJ-7 eastbound (erected in 2021 IIRC): the "Holland Tunnel" barely fits inside the sign. Also it looks like they've ditched the black borders around the route shields...
Ditto for
Lincoln Tunnel on the left sign. Maybe they were supposed to be abbreviated as
Tun. That would have fit better on both signs. Or maybe they just squeezed it in the best they could within the signs that could not exceed a lane-width.
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 19, 2022, 08:33:42 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.739361,-74.0780388,3a,21.1y,104.64h,104.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swpEzg6vWUC11u7ploD1TAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.739361,-74.0780388,3a,21.1y,104.64h,104.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swpEzg6vWUC11u7ploD1TAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Interesting BGS design on the new Wittpenn Bridge carrying NJ-7 eastbound (erected in 2021 IIRC): the "Holland Tunnel" barely fits inside the sign. Also it looks like they've ditched the black borders around the route shields...
Welcome to the wonderful new world of NJDOT BGS design. It's pretty terrible if you honestly ask me. Weird sizing, weird spacing, and the newer thing is information overload on many signs. If you find some of my posts in this thread (or just check my Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mero/), you'll see examples of this that I've been taking pictures of around the state, especially since the state is engaged in numerous sign replacement projects (mostly to finally replace many of the triangle truss overhead structures which are EOL). Also, yes, no more backplates on route shields. I feel like this is a detriment as I always felt like the backplates made it easier to see the shields, but that's what the MUTCD mandates.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 07:36:37 PM
I am surprised that North Gaston Avenue wasn't instead signalized as that has the traffic counts to warrant such a signal. Adamsville Road, though, not so much. Chimney Rock Road, however, was interchanged via municipal money as Bridgewater Township flipped that bill to restore full cross traffic that was once a Michigan Left set up previously. Though for several years it was a RIRO pair until a few years ago when Bridgewater decided to build the interchange to restore Chimney Rock Road's continuous status.
Pretty sure the thinking was that it was just cheaper and easier to close the U/Left there and just put up the signs directing drivers to use the Grove street ramp to turn around and reach Gaston that way. Also prevented having all that traffic on 22 from having to stop yet another light, which is a bonus.
And the Chimney Rock Rd thing achieved several goals for both the township and the state. It improved access as the two new commercial strips were built on the north side of the roadway, it eliminated the at grade RR crossing from the main highway (I know it is only used very sparingly late at night but any RR crossing elimination is a good thing... it was actually cool to see NJT sending the two diesel engines down the track to the quarry to pick up the cars as they handle that part, not a freight company!) and since Somerset County rebuilt the roadway to actually connect Chimney Rock's both ends with a full road, traffic no longer needs to curve onto Thompson Ave and this takes a lot of traffic headed for Route 28 out of a residential neighborhood in Bound Brook and routes it through the commercial area. Plus, NJDOT is planning to improve the intersection of Chimney Rock and Rt 28 to put dedicated left turn signals on Chimney Rock in and realign some geometry which should help the backups at that intersection.
Yeah, but west of US 202 & 206 they have no problem adding signals though. Why is it problematic here?
In the early 80s there were only three stop lights between Somerville and Annandale. CR 523 was added in 1985 replacing a flashing beacon. The rest were added sporadically starting with Ethicon Drive and the office park just east of NJ 28. Then Milltown Road received its signal in August 90. In fact it got turned on the day I moved out of NJ. Orr Road came afterwards as it's Jughandle was being constructed as I left Jersey.
Then rest all happened from 1990 to today. Even the median crossovers were eliminated between US 202 & 206 to CR 614 in North Branch which I'm not complaining. Although it took long enough to add a jug handle at Milltown Road as NJDOT just posted no left turn signage to save money on a protected left turn phase. Oh that's okay, just use CR 614 to circumvent until we construct a loop ramp.
Then US 202 has seen more than its share in Branchburg and Readington as for many years from Old York Road to Three Bridges Road was signal less. Then of course they did avoid a signal at Center Hill, they created a pair of RIRO due to the limited sight distance of the Pleasant Hill Road Intersection has from drivers on 202. I have to admit adding a signal at Pleasant Hill would have created more accidents than saving any.
I do like the J Turn set up on US 202 as that makes u turns more safer. A driver can shoot across two lanes before swinging around to come in again at a better angle. That's one thing other states should use is the turnout on the other side of median breaks like NJ does on US 202 IMO.
NJ can be cheap in one area but not in another.
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2022, 08:48:33 AMAlso, yes, no more backplates on route shields. I feel like this is a detriment as I always felt like the backplates made it easier to see the shields, but that's what the MUTCD mandates.
Add them in the other 49 states and let us know
Apologies for the poor camera angle, but this Exit 8 tab on I-287 SB has room on the right for some reason. Maybe Exit 8 was once intended to be split into "8A" and "8B," and that was the space left over? If I-287 SB did have two exits, my guess would be a loop ramp to Possumtown Rd. north.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/98VeuoKr0CKtdZJFbwzWj9UDzV-dUaOKioDEi1w7ksGexVPGAmFxCgSWtzvTpEuJaO-OopdzaxwmyF8l9aoiHkijAHC9dIlFjIsPb3i40O6mdlJ7K-mR9NZ2rv8BiOG-zIz0aPalJJFEQRKEM_nI2Y0QpYFzkwg00TSnB1G-fyJds8YIBxiquGsr8YfNYtff3bLeCCq3L3KD-VvtWZd2Utp21f35brOYFZFUkDf-E5CJV6s-xBR0HKH7p-el0gfaLykf8ZcsqfCx6BrgAf9JZz7dDIDb8yEIov2byqoyB7GFIQ07dLYBsZvL0tHAUXK4zEUbl8os5JrC0hh2eNp5mEJJweNcVHHx61Q0cctjRWgCdbRKvQo2vl3B53Y8r9bMsjdTyxg17lQi0ofDrEe-ocmigFNw-W8MVnw42uaCR3VM7Qbn2TfSGusqc4qFqFXujDX8JklKnlcJfw8lbHq02GybCJxdznCH647URvSCOkus0nmo7FGmrMzzrG1_0r3RLFI2cQXULCE1PZh4tzWVAAxg-23UVXH0bKYUENppPShwEGpt0lthf-swOHFIFI8BT62Q4IA6-ZFQCet51XsD5pVxIPLEW0S510TWtqNnTitkeJkYm1fFv3YiESOri9JsGmMqVjNRa2UE_jjmw-sfA6tEyXSlNvoNOzZ3NYQAYWkyaJFQgSgyS1gJteZImyNLXNsiHUMcpR4Sia1nLcVf5BQZTbGtDbI1c1OEL_J56I3MqGW2xiCNPKGRzvBDXw=w641-h854-no?authuser=0)
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 22, 2022, 08:15:17 AM
Apologies for the poor camera angle, but this Exit 8 tab on I-287 SB has room on the right for some reason. Maybe Exit 8 was once intended to be split into "8A" and "8B," and that was the space left over? If I-287 SB did have two exits, my guess would be a loop ramp to Possumtown Rd. north.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/98VeuoKr0CKtdZJFbwzWj9UDzV-dUaOKioDEi1w7ksGexVPGAmFxCgSWtzvTpEuJaO-OopdzaxwmyF8l9aoiHkijAHC9dIlFjIsPb3i40O6mdlJ7K-mR9NZ2rv8BiOG-zIz0aPalJJFEQRKEM_nI2Y0QpYFzkwg00TSnB1G-fyJds8YIBxiquGsr8YfNYtff3bLeCCq3L3KD-VvtWZd2Utp21f35brOYFZFUkDf-E5CJV6s-xBR0HKH7p-el0gfaLykf8ZcsqfCx6BrgAf9JZz7dDIDb8yEIov2byqoyB7GFIQ07dLYBsZvL0tHAUXK4zEUbl8os5JrC0hh2eNp5mEJJweNcVHHx61Q0cctjRWgCdbRKvQo2vl3B53Y8r9bMsjdTyxg17lQi0ofDrEe-ocmigFNw-W8MVnw42uaCR3VM7Qbn2TfSGusqc4qFqFXujDX8JklKnlcJfw8lbHq02GybCJxdznCH647URvSCOkus0nmo7FGmrMzzrG1_0r3RLFI2cQXULCE1PZh4tzWVAAxg-23UVXH0bKYUENppPShwEGpt0lthf-swOHFIFI8BT62Q4IA6-ZFQCet51XsD5pVxIPLEW0S510TWtqNnTitkeJkYm1fFv3YiESOri9JsGmMqVjNRa2UE_jjmw-sfA6tEyXSlNvoNOzZ3NYQAYWkyaJFQgSgyS1gJteZImyNLXNsiHUMcpR4Sia1nLcVf5BQZTbGtDbI1c1OEL_J56I3MqGW2xiCNPKGRzvBDXw=w641-h854-no?authuser=0)
That sign was erected in 1994 and the exit tab was blank until 1999 when they did the full sign replacement on that stretch of 287 and signs got exit numbers. Don't know if there was a plan to ever have two exits there, but I suspect it was more that they didn't align the 8 very well when they did it. Another fun fact: they always left room for the 18 shield, but that didn't come until they finally extended 18 up Hoes Lane in the mid 2010s.
New LGS appeared on the Exit 41 offramp from 78 Eastbound in the past few months:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52235977296_31b6476245_o.jpg)
NJDOT really seems to have gone in on the "sign every county route regardless of importance" train these days. It's also a bit of a misnomer. Drift Rd itself isn't a county route (this piece of roadway is actually in Somerset County as a tiny piece of Warren goes beyond 78 to its terminus just to the north of the highway), but Plainfield Ave instead. Plainfield Ave is sparsely signed by UCo. It does of course continue Southeast to turn into Bonnie Burn Rd, which is within SoCo but has the unique "Maintained by Union County" (https://goo.gl/maps/CpwFdQZnMu6qeNLM9) sign (as it's all almost entirely within Watchung until the very bottom piece past the intersection with Diamond Hill where it enters Scotch Plains and is back in UCo). That's a long-winded way of my saying that NJDOT has really embraced undoing 40+ years of sign policy which is sparse acknowledgement of 6xx county routes in its signage. The BGS for this exit is a little more than a decade old, so it's not likely to be replaced soon, but I do wonder if they do replace it, will it suddenly have a CR641 to US22 legend on it instead of just town names like it does now?
Quote from: storm2k on July 23, 2022, 01:30:34 PM
New LGS appeared on the Exit 41 offramp from 78 Eastbound in the past few months:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52235977296_31b6476245_o.jpg)
NJDOT really seems to have gone in on the "sign every county route regardless of importance" train these days. It's also a bit of a misnomer. Drift Rd itself isn't a county route (this piece of roadway is actually in Somerset County as a tiny piece of Warren goes beyond 78 to its terminus just to the north of the highway), but Plainfield Ave instead. Plainfield Ave is sparsely signed by UCo. It does of course continue Southeast to turn into Bonnie Burn Rd, which is within SoCo but has the unique "Maintained by Union County" (https://goo.gl/maps/CpwFdQZnMu6qeNLM9) sign (as it's all almost entirely within Watchung until the very bottom piece past the intersection with Diamond Hill where it enters Scotch Plains and is back in UCo). That's a long-winded way of my saying that NJDOT has really embraced undoing 40+ years of sign policy which is sparse acknowledgement of 6xx county routes in its signage. The BGS for this exit is a little more than a decade old, so it's not likely to be replaced soon, but I do wonder if they do replace it, will it suddenly have a CR641 to US22 legend on it instead of just town names like it does now?
I remember this ramp quite well. It used to be a freeway segment end from 1971 to about 1985, and there used to be a lone TO US 22 shield at the far side of Drift Road. A Berkeley Hts. and Scotch Plains guide to the right at the end of the ramp.
In 1984 I used to commute this way at my first adult job in Bedminster to my home in Clark.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 23, 2022, 10:32:32 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 23, 2022, 01:30:34 PM
New LGS appeared on the Exit 41 offramp from 78 Eastbound in the past few months:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52235977296_31b6476245_o.jpg)
NJDOT really seems to have gone in on the "sign every county route regardless of importance" train these days. It's also a bit of a misnomer. Drift Rd itself isn't a county route (this piece of roadway is actually in Somerset County as a tiny piece of Warren goes beyond 78 to its terminus just to the north of the highway), but Plainfield Ave instead. Plainfield Ave is sparsely signed by UCo. It does of course continue Southeast to turn into Bonnie Burn Rd, which is within SoCo but has the unique "Maintained by Union County" (https://goo.gl/maps/CpwFdQZnMu6qeNLM9) sign (as it's all almost entirely within Watchung until the very bottom piece past the intersection with Diamond Hill where it enters Scotch Plains and is back in UCo). That's a long-winded way of my saying that NJDOT has really embraced undoing 40+ years of sign policy which is sparse acknowledgement of 6xx county routes in its signage. The BGS for this exit is a little more than a decade old, so it's not likely to be replaced soon, but I do wonder if they do replace it, will it suddenly have a CR641 to US22 legend on it instead of just town names like it does now?
I remember this ramp quite well. It used to be a freeway segment end from 1971 to about 1985, and there used to be a lone TO US 22 shield at the far side of Drift Road. A Berkeley Hts. and Scotch Plains guide to the right at the end of the ramp.
In 1984 I used to commute this way at my first adult job in Bedminster to my home in Clark.
When I was a kid in the 1980s my grandparents and uncle lived in Elizabeth and during the summers, we would go frequently to Spruce Run to swim. I have very vivid memories of driving down 22 to Bonnie Burn Rd and picking up 78 to drive out to the Clinton area to get to Spruce Run.
One thing I will say is that NJDOT needs to figure something out with the 78 Westbound Exit 41 ramp. That ramp is way too short and subject to frequent backups because a lot of traffic wants to exit there. Probably not any great solutions, and if they closed the ramp entirely it would result in some long detours to get to and from Plainfield Ave, but those backups can be an issue even at non rush-hours.
Quote from: storm2k on July 24, 2022, 12:43:20 PM
One thing I will say is that NJDOT needs to figure something out with the 78 Westbound Exit 41 ramp. That ramp is way too short and subject to frequent backups because a lot of traffic wants to exit there. Probably not any great solutions, and if they closed the ramp entirely it would result in some long detours to get to and from Plainfield Ave, but those backups can be an issue even at non rush-hours.
I believe signalization would solve it - but they'd need to get buy-in from Watchung since they maintain Drift Road.
Quote from: storm2k on July 24, 2022, 12:43:20 PM
One thing I will say is that NJDOT needs to figure something out with the 78 Westbound Exit 41 ramp. That ramp is way too short and subject to frequent backups because a lot of traffic wants to exit there. Probably not any great solutions, and if they closed the ramp entirely it would result in some long detours to get to and from Plainfield Ave, but those backups can be an issue even at non rush-hours.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6625816,-74.4301734,3a,50y,260.71h,80.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUUcwBNVX_28uaQvhvNW-kQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Google Maps even caught it in action. A signal or perhaps a roundabout would definitely work there.
The backup is mostly from the light at Drift Rd. and Plainfield Ave. which is maintained by Union County even though it is in Somerset County.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 24, 2022, 10:56:13 PM
The backup is mostly from the light at Drift Rd. and Plainfield Ave. which is maintained by Union County even though it is in Somerset County.
Even if there isn't a decent queue for that light (and there's enough traffic moving on Plainfield Ave that things would almost certainly be worse if it were gone), traffic backs up off the ramp because it has to wait for an opportunity to turn in, and if there are a decent number of cars exiting from the other side and coming around that bend, you might wait a bit, which is why a light on the offramp may be of help.
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2022, 02:56:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 24, 2022, 12:43:20 PM
One thing I will say is that NJDOT needs to figure something out with the 78 Westbound Exit 41 ramp. That ramp is way too short and subject to frequent backups because a lot of traffic wants to exit there. Probably not any great solutions, and if they closed the ramp entirely it would result in some long detours to get to and from Plainfield Ave, but those backups can be an issue even at non rush-hours.
I believe signalization would solve it - but they'd need to get buy-in from Watchung since they maintain Drift Road.
A little bigger endeavor might be modifying the ramp so that it is much straighter and longer and meets up with Drift Road where the 78 Westbound on-ramp is located.
Quote from: DrSmith on July 25, 2022, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2022, 02:56:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 24, 2022, 12:43:20 PM
One thing I will say is that NJDOT needs to figure something out with the 78 Westbound Exit 41 ramp. That ramp is way too short and subject to frequent backups because a lot of traffic wants to exit there. Probably not any great solutions, and if they closed the ramp entirely it would result in some long detours to get to and from Plainfield Ave, but those backups can be an issue even at non rush-hours.
I believe signalization would solve it - but they'd need to get buy-in from Watchung since they maintain Drift Road.
A little bigger endeavor might be modifying the ramp so that it is much straighter and longer and meets up with Drift Road where the 78 Westbound on-ramp is located.
I don't think that'd help. Delays I see are from right turns, which is based on who's coming north on Drift Rd., which really wouldn't change in your scenario.
Quote from: storm2k on July 22, 2022, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 22, 2022, 08:15:17 AM
Apologies for the poor camera angle, but this Exit 8 tab on I-287 SB has room on the right for some reason. Maybe Exit 8 was once intended to be split into "8A" and "8B," and that was the space left over? If I-287 SB did have two exits, my guess would be a loop ramp to Possumtown Rd. north.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/98VeuoKr0CKtdZJFbwzWj9UDzV-dUaOKioDEi1w7ksGexVPGAmFxCgSWtzvTpEuJaO-OopdzaxwmyF8l9aoiHkijAHC9dIlFjIsPb3i40O6mdlJ7K-mR9NZ2rv8BiOG-zIz0aPalJJFEQRKEM_nI2Y0QpYFzkwg00TSnB1G-fyJds8YIBxiquGsr8YfNYtff3bLeCCq3L3KD-VvtWZd2Utp21f35brOYFZFUkDf-E5CJV6s-xBR0HKH7p-el0gfaLykf8ZcsqfCx6BrgAf9JZz7dDIDb8yEIov2byqoyB7GFIQ07dLYBsZvL0tHAUXK4zEUbl8os5JrC0hh2eNp5mEJJweNcVHHx61Q0cctjRWgCdbRKvQo2vl3B53Y8r9bMsjdTyxg17lQi0ofDrEe-ocmigFNw-W8MVnw42uaCR3VM7Qbn2TfSGusqc4qFqFXujDX8JklKnlcJfw8lbHq02GybCJxdznCH647URvSCOkus0nmo7FGmrMzzrG1_0r3RLFI2cQXULCE1PZh4tzWVAAxg-23UVXH0bKYUENppPShwEGpt0lthf-swOHFIFI8BT62Q4IA6-ZFQCet51XsD5pVxIPLEW0S510TWtqNnTitkeJkYm1fFv3YiESOri9JsGmMqVjNRa2UE_jjmw-sfA6tEyXSlNvoNOzZ3NYQAYWkyaJFQgSgyS1gJteZImyNLXNsiHUMcpR4Sia1nLcVf5BQZTbGtDbI1c1OEL_J56I3MqGW2xiCNPKGRzvBDXw=w641-h854-no?authuser=0)
That sign was erected in 1994 and the exit tab was blank until 1999 when they did the full sign replacement on that stretch of 287 and signs got exit numbers. Don't know if there was a plan to ever have two exits there, but I suspect it was more that they didn't align the 8 very well when they did it. Another fun fact: they always left room for the 18 shield, but that didn't come until they finally extended 18 up Hoes Lane in the mid 2010s.
Something similar happened with Exit 37 (NJ-24).
Am I the only one not seeing a photo?
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2022, 12:08:10 PM
Am I the only one not seeing a photo?
Yeah the picture isn't showing up for me either.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2022, 12:08:10 PM
Am I the only one not seeing a photo?
Sorry, the photo was there when I first posted it, don't know where it went.
Here is the link to the photo on Flickr, it should be fixed now. :D
https://flic.kr/p/2nBq3Dj (https://flic.kr/p/2nBq3Dj)
Quote from: tsmatt13 on July 31, 2022, 01:28:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2022, 12:08:10 PM
Am I the only one not seeing a photo?
Sorry, the photo was there when I first posted it, don't know where it went.
Here is the link to the photo on Flickr, it should be fixed now. :D
https://flic.kr/p/2nBq3Dj (https://flic.kr/p/2nBq3Dj)
It wasn't showing for me either. Now it is. We thank you. :thumbsup:
I see now in Clifton at the NJ 3 and US 46 exchange, the exit Eastbound on Route 46 for Route 3 is moved to the left now.
Plus the temporary control city of " Fort Lee" is being used on the orange signs. I just hope it really stays temporary as too much inconsistency lately in NJ with pull through controls especially in this region of the state.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2022, 09:48:29 AM
I see now in Clifton at the NJ 3 and US 46 exchange, the exit Eastbound on Route 46 for Route 3 is moved to the left now.
Plus the temporary control city of " Fort Lee" is being used on the orange signs. I just hope it really stays temporary as too much inconsistency lately in NJ with pull through controls especially in this region of the state.
I know 46 takes you to the GWB, but it's not the primary way there anymore and hasn't been for 60 years since they built 80. I would like to see them emphasize local destinations more, as that's why you'd be on 46.
Same way that 22 should really use Newark as its eastbound control east of Somerville instead of New York (and the fun part is some signs say one, some say the other). That one is less defensible since whereas 46 actually merges onto the bridge, 22 ends at 1-9 and you have to drive over the Skyway (or truck route) to get anywhere near the Holland Tunnel and the city.
The funny thing is between US 22 and I-78 off I-287, for many years it was Newark fot the interstate but New York for the US route. Now since the signs were changed thirty years ago or so, both read New York City. I'd be in favor now of more local destinations over the big city being I-78 is the faster route.
Even for US 1 in Edison on I-287 uses Trenton and Newark for US 1. Being next to I-95 it should use more local points as well. Use Woodbridge for Exit 1A and New Brunswick for Exit 1B. Thus for NJ 27 south Highland Park should replace New Brunswick there.
For NJ 18 now completed to I-287, it should have also New Brunswick instead of Highland Park, but the signing engineers failed to see that and kept the old places signed and just added a NJ 18 shield instead.
CR 527 could have New Brunswick replaced with Somerset and be Somerset- South Bound Brook at Exit 9.
Some random browsing I stumbled upon a page filled with some vintage NJ road photos: https://gardenstatesignals.net/old-signs-and-sundries/
Its buried on the site, so a direct link to vintage Exit 153 signs on the GSP: https://gardenstatesignals.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/gspexit153.png
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 08, 2022, 07:39:10 PM
Some random browsing I stumbled upon a page filled with some vintage NJ road photos: https://gardenstatesignals.net/old-signs-and-sundries/
Its buried on the site, so a direct link to vintage Exit 153 signs on the GSP: https://gardenstatesignals.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/gspexit153.png
Original signs from that stretch of Parkway!
Quote from: Alps on August 08, 2022, 09:53:02 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 08, 2022, 07:39:10 PM
Some random browsing I stumbled upon a page filled with some vintage NJ road photos: https://gardenstatesignals.net/old-signs-and-sundries/
Its buried on the site, so a direct link to vintage Exit 153 signs on the GSP: https://gardenstatesignals.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/gspexit153.png
Original signs from that stretch of Parkway!
I think that set of overhead signs was built later. I believe that section of the Parkway was opened in the mid 1950's before that type of signing began. Those signs were probably built in the early 1960's when that style signing became common in the New York Metro area. It was definitely there in 1964 as I remember seeing that photo as a kid reading a magazine article about the Parkway that year. I believe the article was celebrating the Parkway's first ten years of operation. And I kept that magazine for many years.
What a great trove of old pictures. A lot of black on white enamel panels of yore, for sure, but lots of gems nonetheless.
(https://gardenstatesignals.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/wayne.signs_.66.jpeg)
This one on 46 at the spaghetti bowl (back when it was more of an elongated ovalish circle) is great. The route signs look like oversized props or something, but that was a thing they did. Maybe NJDOT should do this at the western end of 139 where it meets 1-9 since they took down the LGSs and just left shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389868,-74.0618492,3a,75y,281.05h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVEGsYrTLqu3zUfDoth1O9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) to direct motorists.
Quote from: storm2k on August 09, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
What a great trove of old pictures. A lot of black on white enamel panels of yore, for sure, but lots of gems nonetheless.
(https://gardenstatesignals.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/wayne.signs_.66.jpeg)
This one on 46 at the spaghetti bowl (back when it was more of an elongated ovalish circle) is great. The route signs look like oversized props or something, but that was a thing they did. Maybe NJDOT should do this at the western end of 139 where it meets 1-9 since they took down the LGSs and just left shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389868,-74.0618492,3a,75y,281.05h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVEGsYrTLqu3zUfDoth1O9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) to direct motorists.
This one never made any sense. Look at historic aerials and tell me where there is any setup that would have north 23 left, south 23 right, and west 46 straight.
Signals like this, are one of the reasons I miss non-electronic toll plazas:
https://gardenstatesignals.net/old-signs-and-sundries/#jp-carousel-10033 (https://gardenstatesignals.net/old-signs-and-sundries/#jp-carousel-10033)
Speaking of which, how is traffic in Fort Lee now that the Port Authority is getting rid of the toll plazas for the George Washington Bridge?
https://www.panynj.gov/port-authority/en/press-room/press-release-archives/2022-press-releases/new-cashless-tolling-activation-at-george-washington-bridge-set-.html
Does the Garden State Parkway still use the square heads on their post toll signals at the coin drops?
Quote from: storm2k on August 09, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
What a great trove of old pictures. A lot of black on white enamel panels of yore, for sure, but lots of gems nonetheless.
(https://gardenstatesignals.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/wayne.signs_.66.jpeg)
This one on 46 at the spaghetti bowl (back when it was more of an elongated ovalish circle) is great. The route signs look like oversized props or something, but that was a thing they did. Maybe NJDOT should do this at the western end of 139 where it meets 1-9 since they took down the LGSs and just left shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389868,-74.0618492,3a,75y,281.05h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVEGsYrTLqu3zUfDoth1O9g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) to direct motorists.
I guess today's NJDOT doesn't care that they have a tree blocking an interstate shield.
Do you know what would be great from that site? A collection that includes the old neon VMS signs on the New Jersey Turnpike.
Why didn't the Skyway Rehabilitation Project include overheads at the Tonnelle Avenue exit?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 04:20:52 PM
Why didn't the Skyway Rehabilitation Project include overheads at the Tonnelle Avenue exit?
What do you mean exactly?
Quote from: famartin on August 10, 2022, 04:47:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 04:20:52 PM
Why didn't the Skyway Rehabilitation Project include overheads at the Tonnelle Avenue exit?
What do you mean exactly?
That project to rebuild the Skyway. Why didn't it erect signs there at NJ 139's west end when the long underpass got rebuilt.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 04:58:34 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 10, 2022, 04:47:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 04:20:52 PM
Why didn't the Skyway Rehabilitation Project include overheads at the Tonnelle Avenue exit?
What do you mean exactly?
That project to rebuild the Skyway. Why didn't it erect signs there at NJ 139's west end when the long underpass got rebuilt.
Still not following... what were you expecting besides these?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7390575,-74.0680418,3a,75y,88.09h,95.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CRTNcRgUs_A-94d40fNtA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7393421,-74.0643211,3a,75y,270.08h,86.17t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sYbgVXh3njQBjK4NBVardxA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DYbgVXh3njQBjK4NBVardxA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D95.81198%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
If you are referring to this... yeah, not sure, but this area hasn't been touched much, so maybe when this section has its turn, it'll get new signs.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389868,-74.0618492,3a,75y,301.9h,84.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVEGsYrTLqu3zUfDoth1O9g!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
The area around JFK overpass was under construction. The project should have included overheads for the pre skyway ramps.
Due to age and condition, the bridge parapet could not take on anything more than the flat panel assemblies that are there now. Having been involved on that project, I know that larger signs were desired. It is better than what was there before.
Quote from: akotchi on August 10, 2022, 06:57:31 PM
Due to age and condition, the bridge parapet could not take on anything more than the flat panel assemblies that are there now. Having been involved on that project, I know that larger signs were desired. It is better than what was there before.
Ahh. Gantries? They could be erected, let's say in front of the age old overpass.
Anyway what's up with Google showing an exit for St. Paul's Avenue from NJ 7 which GSV doesn't show consistency with?
Edit: Never mind. Google still is using 2013 imagery. Not to mention I tap on the year bar, and no options for previous or later years. So I assume 2013 was Googles only run at this?
https://goo.gl/maps/G3WEMqyTGinPf8HE9
That was also considered, but there was not a suitable location to place either a cantilever or a gantry. The roadway in this area transitions to a viaduct, which factored into the decision. What is there, while not ideal, was the best we could come up with. Putting nothing there, or leaving what was there, were not options. Thank you for your concern.
StreetView on St. Pauls Ave. is more recent, so the new ramp under construction shows there. It is part of the Wittpenn Bridge project.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 06:47:39 PM
The area around JFK overpass was under construction. The project should have included overheads for the pre skyway ramps.
Around it, yes, but the actual overpass and the immediate vicinity still look pretty old.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389868,-74.0618492,3a,75y,286.69h,86.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVEGsYrTLqu3zUfDoth1O9g!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Pretty much everything you can see in that view is old, and that area appears to have mostly been avoided. I imagine that at some point, the overpass itself will need replacement, and there will be better signs placed then. When that is, who is to say except NJDOT...
It was a sort of no man's land between two contracts. I think there is a project under design to replace that bridge – not sure where it is in the pipeline.
Quote from: famartin on August 10, 2022, 07:29:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 06:47:39 PM
The area around JFK overpass was under construction. The project should have included overheads for the pre skyway ramps.
Around it, yes, but the actual overpass and the immediate vicinity still look pretty old.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389868,-74.0618492,3a,75y,286.69h,86.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVEGsYrTLqu3zUfDoth1O9g!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389868,-74.0618492,3a,75y,286.69h,86.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVEGsYrTLqu3zUfDoth1O9g!2e0!5s20211001T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
Pretty much everything you can see in that view is old, and that area appears to have mostly been avoided. I imagine that at some point, the overpass itself will need replacement, and there will be better signs placed then. When that is, who is to say except NJDOT...
NJDOT still could have factored it in the cost of the two projects. I doubt that overpass will soon be replaced.
Quote from: akotchi on August 10, 2022, 07:18:15 PM
That was also considered, but there was not a suitable location to place either a cantilever or a gantry. The roadway in this area transitions to a viaduct, which factored into the decision. What is there, while not ideal, was the best we could come up with. Putting nothing there, or leaving what was there, were not options. Thank you for your concern.
StreetView on St. Pauls Ave. is more recent, so the new ramp under construction shows there. It is part of the Wittpenn Bridge project.
They can drive a long support over the side to support a cantilever unless the state eventually plans to remove the bridge over the abandoned Erie Tracks?
Also why can’t smaller signs be placed on the new beams to support the Hoboken Avenue (NJ 139U) viaduct over NJ 139 being the lack of space to install in the underpass, hence why no 1 mile guides for the Tonnelle Circle exit. A lgs can be supported on them with no compromise on integrity.
Plus there is no access anymore to US 1-9 Truck from JFK Blvd. now since the new roads installed between the Circle and Wittpenn Bridge reconfigured, no access to the truck alignment from the ramp leading down to the Circle from JFK. TO shields directing are definitely needed for Truckers.
Place one at Tonnelle Ave SB in the Circle that reads TRUCK US 1-9 SOUTH to turn left onto SB Tonnelle followed by another at St. Paul’s Ave. WB leading to the ramp to SB US 1-9T. Then another on JFK at St Paul’s wouldn’t hurt either especially to help NB JFK trucks navigate the now missing move.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 11, 2022, 08:55:07 AM
Quote from: akotchi on August 10, 2022, 07:18:15 PM
That was also considered, but there was not a suitable location to place either a cantilever or a gantry. The roadway in this area transitions to a viaduct, which factored into the decision. What is there, while not ideal, was the best we could come up with. Putting nothing there, or leaving what was there, were not options. Thank you for your concern.
StreetView on St. Pauls Ave. is more recent, so the new ramp under construction shows there. It is part of the Wittpenn Bridge project.
They can drive a long support over the side to support a cantilever unless the state eventually plans to remove the bridge over the abandoned Erie Tracks?
Also why can't smaller signs be placed on the new beams to support the Hoboken Avenue (NJ 139U) viaduct over NJ 139 being the lack of space to install in the underpass, hence why no 1 mile guides for the Tonnelle Circle exit. A lgs can be supported on them with no compromise on integrity.
Plus there is no access anymore to US 1-9 Truck from JFK Blvd. now since the new roads installed between the Circle and Wittpenn Bridge reconfigured, no access to the truck alignment from the ramp leading down to the Circle from JFK. TO shields directing are definitely needed for Truckers.
Place one at Tonnelle Ave SB in the Circle that reads TRUCK US 1-9 SOUTH to turn left onto SB Tonnelle followed by another at St. Paul's Ave. WB leading to the ramp to SB US 1-9T. Then another on JFK at St Paul's wouldn't hurt either especially to help NB JFK trucks navigate the now missing move.
I am guessing that the designers on the adjacent Route 139 project had their reasons to not provide further guide signing in that area. My purview generally stopped at JFK, except for coordination of activities east of there with the adjacent project.
The original St. Pauls Viaduct (U.S. 1&9T between the circles) Replacement project included a set of trailblazer assemblies for the JFK-Truck 1&9 movement in the design. Historic StreetView shows some vestiges of those assemblies -- 2013 era. Guessing these signs got knocked down over the years and not replaced. Skyway-related detours may have also taken down some of those assemblies. The rerouting did not involve using the circle or Tonnele Ave. SB, as trucks cannot easily make the right turn from Tonnele Ave. to St. Pauls Ave.
Quote from: Alps on August 09, 2022, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 09, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
What a great trove of old pictures. A lot of black on white enamel panels of yore, for sure, but lots of gems nonetheless.
(https://gardenstatesignals.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/wayne.signs_.66.jpeg)
This one on 46 at the spaghetti bowl (back when it was more of an elongated ovalish circle) is great.
This one never made any sense. Look at historic aerials and tell me where there is any setup that would have north 23 left, south 23 right, and west 46 straight.
It's claimed to be from 1966, at which time the aerial shows it was being rebuilt as an interchange. But I can't identify the bridge. There's another opening to the left, which rules out the old railroad bridges, the temporary shoo-fly railroad bridges, and the two new railroad bridges over 23. The design doesn't match the new railroad bridge over 46 at all.
The rest of this is complete guesswork:
This was US 46 westbound at Riverview Drive (art deco design from original 1948 bridge; railing was replaced in 2003 when Riverview was widened; the old photo definitely looks like the median support lacked the holes it has now though - was it foreshortened that much?). The angled white line at right is from the entrance ramp. As for how 23 north was to the left, I'm guessing that the two bridges carrying US 46 west over 23 and the ramp to US 46 east had been built, but 23 north over I-80 was not yet complete. So traffic from US 46 west to 23 north used a contraflow lane along the eastbound carriageway and the ramp from 23 south to US 46 east.
And shit, I just noticed that the directional plates are a bit janky, as if they placed temporary ones over the eventual permanent ones.
Quote from: NE2 on August 12, 2022, 07:43:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 09, 2022, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 09, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
What a great trove of old pictures. A lot of black on white enamel panels of yore, for sure, but lots of gems nonetheless.
(https://gardenstatesignals.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/wayne.signs_.66.jpeg)
This one on 46 at the spaghetti bowl (back when it was more of an elongated ovalish circle) is great.
This one never made any sense. Look at historic aerials and tell me where there is any setup that would have north 23 left, south 23 right, and west 46 straight.
It's claimed to be from 1966, at which time the aerial shows it was being rebuilt as an interchange. But I can't identify the bridge. There's another opening to the left, which rules out the old railroad bridges, the temporary shoo-fly railroad bridges, and the two new railroad bridges over 23. The design doesn't match the new railroad bridge over 46 at all.
The rest of this is complete guesswork:
This was US 46 westbound at Riverview Drive (art deco design from original 1948 bridge; railing was replaced in 2003 when Riverview was widened; the old photo definitely looks like the median support lacked the holes it has now though - was it foreshortened that much?). The angled white line at right is from the entrance ramp. As for how 23 north was to the left, I'm guessing that the two bridges carrying US 46 west over 23 and the ramp to US 46 east had been built, but 23 north over I-80 was not yet complete. So traffic from US 46 west to 23 north used a contraflow lane along the eastbound carriageway and the ramp from 23 south to US 46 east.
And shit, I just noticed that the directional plates are a bit janky, as if they placed temporary ones over the eventual permanent ones.
we have now learned that the original photo is a lie to promote overhead signage
Photo is a 1966 version of a photoshop with arrows overlaid onto the Riverview Drive overpass. (Passaic Herald-News, September 15, 1966 (https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=533606&id=527378145&clippingId=107488486&width=557&height=183&crop=0_5958_4966_1669&rotation=0))
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
I also see another traffic circle was on NJ 23 where Newark- Pompton Turnpike interchanges.
Will someone tell me how to get the direct link to Wayne, NJ in 1970 to the location of NJ 23 and Newark- Pompton Turnpike.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 12, 2022, 10:44:30 PM
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
I also see another traffic circle was on NJ 23 where Newark- Pompton Turnpike interchanges.
Will someone tell me how to get the direct link to Wayne, NJ in 1970 to the location of NJ 23 and Newark- Pompton Turnpike.
Only way I know is to click the tweet link and get it from there.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on August 12, 2022, 10:31:45 PM
Photo is a 1966 version of a photoshop with arrows overlaid onto the Riverview Drive overpass. (Passaic Herald-News, September 15, 1966 (https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=533606&id=527378145&clippingId=107488486&width=557&height=183&crop=0_5958_4966_1669&rotation=0))
Well boo. I liked the idea of that picture. Probably makes more sense tat it isn't tho.
South Amboy used to have one NB on the overpass prior to the former Victory Circle with lane control arrows. Two pull through US 9 shields and one NJ 35 shield for the exit ramp all with down arrows to the lanes each was for.
This overpass at Andejewsi Drive.
https://goo.gl/maps/4dnpHzbC7BLj2H728
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 10, 2022, 01:22:35 AM
Signals like this, are one of the reasons I miss non-electronic toll plazas:
https://gardenstatesignals.net/old-signs-and-sundries/#jp-carousel-10033 (https://gardenstatesignals.net/old-signs-and-sundries/#jp-carousel-10033)
Speaking of which, how is traffic in Fort Lee now that the Port Authority is getting rid of the toll plazas for the George Washington Bridge?
https://www.panynj.gov/port-authority/en/press-room/press-release-archives/2022-press-releases/new-cashless-tolling-activation-at-george-washington-bridge-set-.html
Watching the live cam on YouTube, absolutely nothing. It still gets back up tremendously,
So apparently a tweet counts as sufficient notification that a major interstate link is closed. A tweet. Seriously? Are drivers supposed to use Twitter while behind the wheel? If one wasn't using Twitter, there was NO warning of this prior to encountering the cones blocking off the road at NJ 208. There was a VMS just a mile away, but it was displaying a message about US 202 being closed (which turned out not to be the case, thankfully). I was driving here on my way back from the Philadelphia meet, had to find somewhere off an interchange on NJ 208 to pull over and pull out Google Maps, couldn't find a good way out of NJ that didn't involve I-287 or US 202 without backtracking practically to I-80, tried to ask Google Maps for directions only to get told to get back on I-287 (epic fail... guess nobody even thought to tell them about the closure!), eventually found a bypass around the US 202 closure marked on Google Maps (though it turned out not to be closed), turned around to head to US 202, saw the backup on the ramp, got off at Skyline drive thinking I could go around, repeated the maneuver of finding somewhere to pull over and check Google Maps again, turn around again after seeing that there's no link between Skyline Drive and US 202 north of I-287, and eventually make it up US 202 and NJ 17 to get on my way and finally leave NJ 20 minutes later than I thought I would. All of this drama could have been avoided if NJ had simply reprogrammed the VMS before US 202 to say something along the lines of "I-287 closed at 208/follow 202" instead of leaving it with a message about a closure that didn't exist and leaving everyone to fend for themselves. Heck, maybe reprogram some of the ones displaying travel times further south, so traffic could divert before US 202. I know that had I known, I would have just taken the Garden State Parkway (which was the original plan, but then I was making such good time that I decided to take I-287 one more time in case NJDOT gets rid of the fun concrete pavement between Boonton and US 202 like they are with the concrete that was between NJ 208 and the NY line, which is now your basic boring instead of the fun ride it used to be). So FU NJ, I give you a F- in communications related to incident management!
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/mahwah/2022/08/22/route-287-north-accident-today-shut-down-mahwah-nj/65414028007/
I've seen NYS DOT make similar mistakes on Long Island.
Quote from: vdeane on August 22, 2022, 09:47:57 PM
So apparently a tweet counts as sufficient notification that a major interstate link is closed. A tweet. Seriously? Are drivers supposed to use Twitter while behind the wheel? If one wasn't using Twitter, there was NO warning of this prior to encountering the cones blocking off the road at NJ 208. There was a VMS just a mile away, but it was displaying a message about US 202 being closed (which turned out not to be the case, thankfully). ...
Wow. I was going to say that wouldn't happen in NY, but then again, NYSDOT has gotten a lot better in recent years, both with installing more VMS's and keeping them updated with relevant incident/closure and/or construction info. The ones on NY 590 have even been programmed to warn drivers about intermittent lane closures for shoulder tree work the last few weeks.
In this case though, the US 202 thing is a weird complicating factor, and obviously US 202 and I-287 both being closed would be the nightmare scenario for thru traffic. Where was the supposed closure on US 202? This might be a bit of a stretch, but I'm wondering if something changed with US 202
because of the I-287 closure (either it was reopened or the closure was postponed), and the VMS's never got updated.
At least on 295, the VMSs usually do display relevant information for crashes and incidents. That is a different district though, so it can have different policies.
When a message is displayed about a closure, usually it'll say 'Use Alternate Route' rather than one specific route, because that one route will quickly be clogged with traffic and the complaints will then focus on NJDOT telling everyone to detour to a jammed alternative.
Quote from: webny99 on August 22, 2022, 10:56:49 PM
In this case though, the US 202 thing is a weird complicating factor, and obviously US 202 and I-287 both being closed would be the nightmare scenario for thru traffic. Where was the supposed closure on US 202? This might be a bit of a stretch, but I'm wondering if something changed with US 202 because of the I-287 closure (either it was reopened or the closure was postponed), and the VMS's never got updated.
Just south of Darlington Avenue.
https://goo.gl/maps/TEqXB32bcZB54Gtn8
I noticed that the Exit 163 ramps crossing over Route 17 have piers, but the Parkway itself has no piers to support itself over Route 17. I assume the ramps crossing are the original Parkway bridges over the route and to make the right side exits transformed the old carriage way crossings into the ramp overpasses.
https://goo.gl/maps/VZkDuccNgs4E359K8
Also noticed that NJDOT still haven't signed proper exit guides at the NB Parkway ramp on Route 17 either.
Considering all other exits have guide signs for exits, this would be an abomination being the other exits are for local roads and this being a ramp between two major highways.
All you get is the Parkway Infamous Trapezoid signs like it's a small local or two lane roadway. Very substandard for a six lane highway.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 23, 2022, 10:11:15 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/TEqXB32bcZB54Gtn8
I noticed that the Exit 163 ramps crossing over Route 17 have piers, but the Parkway itself has no piers to support itself over Route 17. I assume the ramps crossing are the original Parkway bridges over the route and to make the right side exits transformed the old carriage way crossings into the ramp overpasses.
https://goo.gl/maps/VZkDuccNgs4E359K8
Also noticed that NJDOT still haven't signed proper exit guides at the NB Parkway ramp on Route 17 either.
Considering all other exits have guide signs for exits, this would be an abomination being the other exits are for local roads and this being a ramp between two major highways.
All you get is the Parkway Infamous Trapezoid signs like it's a small local or two lane roadway. Very substandard for a six lane highway.
From this older GSV, the new bridge now carrying the Parkway lanes was built in the mid-2010s, while from a Historic Aerials photo, the original bridge now carrying the exit lanes was built in the late 1950s or early 1960s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9387457,-74.0714163,3a,75y,55.78h,84.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2KSApA1hjFb1e1_vCdHBng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9387457,-74.0714163,3a,75y,55.78h,84.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2KSApA1hjFb1e1_vCdHBng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
From the photo above. Looks like the original Parkway overpasses over Route 17 were both reduced from their original width. From the piers in the older GSV, it looks like the work of six lane widening of the Parkway in circa 1978 is visible as the inside piers were capped differently.
Going to another part of the state, I see Atlantic County is doing the combined US 40-322 thing like North Jersey has done with the one shield US 1-9 for US 1 and US 9 concurrency. I see at the Circle by ACY, there is a one shield US 40 & 322 for SB CR 583 leaving the circle. However the two routes are stacked with 40 on top ( obviously a 40-322 across wouldn't fit) over 322 instead.
The Atlantic City Expressway is horrible at signing road work in a useful manner, when they leave only one lane open (or even block all traffic while waiting for construction vehicles to come through) with the first "road work ahead" usually after the last opportunity to exit. I don't have nearly as much experience with the Turnpike, so I don't know how often this happens, but there was a huge late evening traffic jam about two months ago as six lanes of traffic merged into a single open lane south of Exit 6, again with the first "road work ahead" sign after the previous exit.
NJDOT is continuing new overhead structure/sign installs on 78 westbound in the Union area, replacing the triangular truss structures that have been around since the 70s and likely well past their expiry date. New structures are basically right behind the current structures and new signs still covered. I'll go thru there and grab some pictures as soon as I see they're revealed.
For those that have been down NJ 324, the closed, all-but-abandoned roadway that used to serve the Chester (PA) - Bridgeport (NJ) Ferry, there may be some life coming to it after all!
In the very informational 42Freeway website and Facebook page, they disclosed that there's a large warehouse project that is seeking approvals to build in and around the road along all of NJ 324. There's no plans yet, other than the parcels the owner is seeking to build on, and truth be told this road could either be a main road for the warehouses, or torn up with another roadway built to serve the area.
This complex resides in Logan, NJ, and the township has seen a huge warehouse building boom lately due to its available land and easily accessible location along I-295 and US 322 which provides easy access to I-76, I-95, the NJ Turnpike and within a half-day's drive of a significant portion of the eastern half of the country, with a large population of residents nearby available to work.
https://42freeway.com/news/5-million-sq-ft-warehouse-park-proposed-for-logan-at-commodore-barry-bridge-20-year-window/?fbclid=IwAR2-q7hQ7FHQOC92-JFrtW8W36T4WTGUoFaWgBZNX-as5Iply4mBt5kjL5c
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2022, 02:53:08 PM
For those that have been down NJ 324, the closed, all-but-abandoned roadway that used to serve the Chester (PA) - Bridgeport (NJ) Ferry, there may be some life coming to it after all!
In the very informational 42Freeway website and Facebook page, they disclosed that there's a large warehouse project that is seeking approvals to build in and around the road along all of NJ 324. There's no plans yet, other than the parcels the owner is seeking to build on, and truth be told this road could either be a main road for the warehouses, or torn up with another roadway built to serve the area.
This complex resides in Logan, NJ, and the township has seen a huge warehouse building boom lately due to its available land and easily accessible location along I-295 and US 322 which provides easy access to I-76, I-95, the NJ Turnpike and within a half-day's drive of a significant portion of the eastern half of the country, with a large population of residents nearby available to work.
https://42freeway.com/news/5-million-sq-ft-warehouse-park-proposed-for-logan-at-commodore-barry-bridge-20-year-window/?fbclid=IwAR2-q7hQ7FHQOC92-JFrtW8W36T4WTGUoFaWgBZNX-as5Iply4mBt5kjL5c
Warehouses are to New Jersey as Lab Space is to Massachusetts I see.
I'd be more concerned about flood levels of those warehouses than anything. Much of that area is pretty close to swamp level.
https://goo.gl/maps/VKJN14JRmPKfdqj48
Does anyone know if this assembly is still standing? I've heard it got replaced without Columbia and the mileage to Del. Water Gap adjusted.
Looks like "red clearance extensions" are coming to the problematic Route 129 & Lalor Street intersection in Trenton. The press release calls it a "first in the nation" application, at first I had thought, "didn't Road Guy Rob already cover this?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_EmAKRrlBc) but his video detailed giving additional green time for speeding vehicles in the dilemma zone. I'll be interested in seeing how this test works out.
NJDOT press release (PDF) (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20220829_155442_NJDOTandlegislativeleadersannounceRt129PedestrianImprovementprojectinTrenton.pdf)
NJ.com article (may be paywalled) (https://www.nj.com/mercer/2022/08/deadly-nj-intersection-will-get-safety-improvements-but-no-pedestrian-bridge-state-says.html)
Drove my girlfriend to EWR last night and saw some new signage on 78 Eastbound. Will have to go back thru and photograph.
- Signs for the crossover from express to local ahead of the Parkway exit now feature the Parkway shield.
- Some of the signs now show 78 with "Express lanes" and "local lanes" separated by a horizontal line. Those areas of the signs are just white on green, not black on yellow and NJDOT has done in the past for the express and local lanes.
- The crossover past Exit 52 that's for traffic headed to EWR now features the standard MUTCD airport pictograph since PANYNJ has changed the logo for EWR (it's now the Lady Liberty torch). RIP as always to the four color EWR logo that I'm still sad has been retired.
Will try to get out on both directions of 78 soon and get new pictures. There are so many triangle truss overhead structures in the Dual lanes section that there are going to be a ton of new signs once all is said and done with all the replacements.
I-78 seems to have changed their signs several times since it opened in the late seventies. I remember when in 1986 the Express Local split in Springfield didn't sign either as I-78, but signed the Express with TO US 1 US 9 and a NJ Turnpike shield with Newark Airport Holland Tunnel as control cities for it. The Local Lanes simply read TO NJ 24 NJ 124 NJ 82 and Garden State Parkway shield, but no control cities.
Of course now I-78 Express and Local are signed each with I-78 and both use control cities. New York City for Express and Newark for local. Nearby US 1-9 in Elizabeth followed that same format when replacing the guides at the North Avenue Express Local split using the big city for Express and Newark for the Local in the early or mid nineties.
Quote from: storm2k on September 04, 2022, 12:55:53 AM
Drove my girlfriend to EWR last night and saw some new signage on 78 Eastbound. Will have to go back thru and photograph.
- Signs for the crossover from express to local ahead of the Parkway exit now feature the Parkway shield.
- Some of the signs now show 78 with "Express lanes" and "local lanes" separated by a horizontal line. Those areas of the signs are just white on green, not black on yellow and NJDOT has done in the past for the express and local lanes.
- The crossover past Exit 52 that's for traffic headed to EWR now features the standard MUTCD airport pictograph since PANYNJ has changed the logo for EWR (it's now the Lady Liberty torch). RIP as always to the four color EWR logo that I'm still sad has been retired.
Will try to get out on both directions of 78 soon and get new pictures. There are so many triangle truss overhead structures in the Dual lanes section that there are going to be a ton of new signs once all is said and done with all the replacements.
i feel like this has changed in the last week because i didn't see any of this in my last trip down there recently
Quote from: storm2k on September 04, 2022, 12:55:53 AM
Drove my girlfriend to EWR last night and saw some new signage on 78 Eastbound. Will have to go back thru and photograph.
- Signs for the crossover from express to local ahead of the Parkway exit now feature the Parkway shield.
- Some of the signs now show 78 with "Express lanes" and "local lanes" separated by a horizontal line. Those areas of the signs are just white on green, not black on yellow and NJDOT has done in the past for the express and local lanes.
- The crossover past Exit 52 that's for traffic headed to EWR now features the standard MUTCD airport pictograph since PANYNJ has changed the logo for EWR (it's now the Lady Liberty torch). RIP as always to the four color EWR logo that I'm still sad has been retired.
Will try to get out on both directions of 78 soon and get new pictures. There are so many triangle truss overhead structures in the Dual lanes section that there are going to be a ton of new signs once all is said and done with all the replacements.
I thought the EWR logo was just 3 colors unless you're counting the color of the aircraft itself.
Some new signs on 80 in Elmwood Park (replaces this gantry (https://goo.gl/maps/9fUcA5SQPuVenCd49)):
EB at Exit 61 (CR507/River Dr)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52335363145_27f1722768_c.jpg)
WB at Exit 60 (NJ20)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52335363155_0dcf8f74cb_c.jpg)
The main takeaway that I have is that it seems like NJDOT is starting to move to install new cantilever signs as one size fits all with the intention of holding a second sign (as the WB photo does) even if there isn't a second sign attached. For reference, here are two more examples of this: this one on NJ19 (https://goo.gl/maps/sF6XcTyU7jLUoZAZ8) and this one on US22 (https://goo.gl/maps/H47VAZEVtDvguDXW7).
Quote from: Alps on September 04, 2022, 08:12:13 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 04, 2022, 12:55:53 AM
Drove my girlfriend to EWR last night and saw some new signage on 78 Eastbound. Will have to go back thru and photograph.
- Signs for the crossover from express to local ahead of the Parkway exit now feature the Parkway shield.
- Some of the signs now show 78 with "Express lanes" and "local lanes" separated by a horizontal line. Those areas of the signs are just white on green, not black on yellow and NJDOT has done in the past for the express and local lanes.
- The crossover past Exit 52 that's for traffic headed to EWR now features the standard MUTCD airport pictograph since PANYNJ has changed the logo for EWR (it's now the Lady Liberty torch). RIP as always to the four color EWR logo that I'm still sad has been retired.
Will try to get out on both directions of 78 soon and get new pictures. There are so many triangle truss overhead structures in the Dual lanes section that there are going to be a ton of new signs once all is said and done with all the replacements.
i feel like this has changed in the last week because i didn't see any of this in my last trip down there recently
They've been extremely active with replacements in the past few weeks so I think these were very new.
Finally got to drive on the Rt 202 freeway portion from Ringoes to the river to grab pictures of the new sign structures that have been installed. Of note: they only replaced the triangular truss sign structures that were on this stretch outside of DRJTBC jurisdiction (I didn't actually drive on the bridge to see if any signs there were replaced, I just u-turned at Rt 29), so some of the sign structures that were replaced in the 2010s still remain. All the ground mount BGS's remain as well.
Southbound:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52336084667_4c0a360c57_c.jpg)
This is at the Mount Airy/Dilts Corner exit. The "Frontage Rd to CR605" legends seem like unnecessary information that just make the sign harder to read. But the continuing new standard of signing the 6xx series county roads, going against decades of standards. Also, the "Toll" banner on the pullthrough sign doesn't belong there, as there is another exit before the bridge. Also not sure why they use the fully spelled out Pennsylvania like it's a second control city instead of just the standard "Pa" abbreviation.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52337466510_68e1751b82_c.jpg)
This is at the Rt 29 exit. Technically it should say "To 29" as the southbound ramp doesn't connect directly to Rt 29. Also, the exit only banner is wrong! The "lane drop" is just a deceleration lane, not a lane that just stops. No idea why they did that, especially as it forced the "last exit before toll" banner above the sign.
Northbound:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52337341064_27692155b1_c.jpg)
This is at the Mount Airy/Dilts Corner exit. note the CR605 shield now added. I like that the pullthrough now includes the dual destinations of Flemington and Somerville.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52337341069_0b6b0ac430_c.jpg)
Ths is at the Rt 179 SB exit. No major commentary, these signs all look great. The NB ramp sign has been ground mount for years and it was not replaced (so it has a backplate even though none of these do).
I drove the bridge just the other day, no replacements I could see.
https://goo.gl/maps/ntoj7QpyM6kGrG5FA
Speaking of signs, I noticed some inconsistency on US 46 in Totawa and Little Falls.
The sign at the Passaic River uses the 600 series number routes for McBride Avenue and Browerton Road.
https://goo.gl/maps/j5AUWaprrGMnpSnd8
Yet further up the road it omits the route numbers.
I'm guessing the signs in Little Falls is more recent than those in Totawa.
On another subject, I see the caption now of both the old and new overpasses across Route 3 for US 46.
https://goo.gl/maps/EWUQogY1Tfbhb9PU6
Quote from: storm2k on September 05, 2022, 06:35:01 PM
Southbound:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52336084667_4c0a360c57_c.jpg)
This is at the Mount Airy/Dilts Corner exit. The "Frontage Rd to CR605" legends seem like unnecessary information that just make the sign harder to read. But the continuing new standard of signing the 6xx series county roads, going against decades of standards. Also, the "Toll" banner on the pullthrough sign doesn't belong there, as there is another exit before the bridge. Also not sure why they use the fully spelled out Pennsylvania like it's a second control city instead of just the standard "Pa" abbreviation.
Delete "Frontage Rd" from the legend. 6xx signing is NOT new to the state. It was done in some areas (I-295) but not others. Appearing here does not go against anything. I'm fine with spelling out Pennsylvania since it's on a separate line. Could just as easily have been "New Hope PA" on a single line though.
Quote from: storm2k on September 04, 2022, 10:41:30 PM
WB at Exit 60 (NJ20)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52335363155_0dcf8f74cb_c.jpg)
The main takeaway that I have is that it seems like NJDOT is starting to move to install new cantilever signs as one size fits all with the intention of holding a second sign (as the WB photo does) even if there isn't a second sign attached.
They installed lighting, impressive given that should have gone away about 20 years ago. These signs wouldn't look so bad if they were properly aligned on the gantries. It just looks messy with a single sign in the middle and not on the end. Obviously that isn't an option with an Exit Only sign that needs to be over a particular lane.
What I don't like is the cheapening out. The old gantries were full span over the highway because they included advance signing for upcoming closely spaced exits. Those were signed for a reason.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 06, 2022, 10:54:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 04, 2022, 10:41:30 PM
WB at Exit 60 (NJ20)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52335363155_0dcf8f74cb_c.jpg)
The main takeaway that I have is that it seems like NJDOT is starting to move to install new cantilever signs as one size fits all with the intention of holding a second sign (as the WB photo does) even if there isn't a second sign attached.
They installed lighting, impressive given that should have gone away about 20 years ago. These signs wouldn't look so bad if they were properly aligned on the gantries. It just looks messy with a single sign in the middle and not on the end. Obviously that isn't an option with an Exit Only sign that needs to be over a particular lane.
What I don't like is the cheapening out. The old gantries were full span over the highway because they included advance signing for upcoming closely spaced exits. Those were signed for a reason.
NJDOT had stopped doing illumination on signage for close to 20 years. I am surprised that they seem to have committed to doing it again (obviously this time with LED illumination) given that retroflectivity standards have improved so much in sign design over the years.
As for this particular sign, the structure it replaced only had the older versions of these two signs on it. There were no further signs on that structure.
Now that the GWB is cashless, do they have plans to remove the booths entirely, and not have the obstruction of the structures and extra lane merges?
Quote from: bluecountry on September 07, 2022, 09:08:09 PM
Now that the GWB is cashless, do they have plans to remove the booths entirely, and not have the obstruction of the structures and extra lane merges?
Eventually. They're doing the Holland Tunnel and I'm sure at some point they will look to remove the booths from the GWB approaches.
Quote from: storm2k on September 07, 2022, 09:26:41 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 07, 2022, 09:08:09 PM
Now that the GWB is cashless, do they have plans to remove the booths entirely, and not have the obstruction of the structures and extra lane merges?
Eventually. They're doing the Holland Tunnel and I'm sure at some point they will look to remove the booths from the GWB approaches.
It will be interesting to watch, especially on YT's GWB Live Stream (courtesy of Fort Lee's finest) (when it's online).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1nmRcAklH0
Quote from: storm2k on September 07, 2022, 09:26:41 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 07, 2022, 09:08:09 PM
Now that the GWB is cashless, do they have plans to remove the booths entirely, and not have the obstruction of the structures and extra lane merges?
Eventually. They're doing the Holland Tunnel and I'm sure at some point they will look to remove the booths from the GWB approaches.
What's that mean, 40 years?
I think it would really help.
Quote from: bluecountry on September 11, 2022, 06:46:07 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 07, 2022, 09:26:41 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 07, 2022, 09:08:09 PM
Now that the GWB is cashless, do they have plans to remove the booths entirely, and not have the obstruction of the structures and extra lane merges?
Eventually. They're doing the Holland Tunnel and I'm sure at some point they will look to remove the booths from the GWB approaches.
What's that mean, 40 years?
I think it would really help.
Well considering it took many decades to remove the Verrazano Bridge Plaza after it went one way tolling, this, I'm sure, could be a permanent fixture for a long time.
That's a different agency altogether and the irony is we have two way tolling again now, so it ended up coming full circle back to 1986 on that. PANYNJ is pretty good about quickcanning the toll booths
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 12, 2022, 11:57:39 AM
That's a different agency altogether and the irony is we have two way tolling again now, so it ended up coming full circle back to 1986 on that. PANYNJ is pretty good about quickcanning the toll booths
Point was anything is possible. If the now defunct Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority can do it, so can the PANYNJ too.
PANYNJ is pretty good about this thing. I cannot for the life of me expect them to leave abandoned tolllbooths standing 25 years like the TBTA did. That isn't their style. They wiped out the old PATH entrances fast when the Oculus opened.
Hope so. I think they can do a better job, however I've seen other states not remove plazas after the tolling stop. FTE in Florida is one of them.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 14, 2022, 08:42:20 AM
Hope so. I think they can do a better job, however I've seen other states not remove plazas after the tolling stop. FTE in Florida is one of them.
PTC doesn't seem to be in a huge hurry to remove their plazas either. Even in places where they had ORT lanes, like the Mid County interchange they still have some of the booths open just to drive thru.
Add another 2-lane* road in the state with a 55-mph speed limit: the entirety of the US 206 Bypass. The count is now up to 6 (also parts of 54, 70, 72, 539, and 33 southeast of Freehold*). It was formerly 45 south of Hillsborough Road and 50 on the original part and the 4-lane part north of CR 514.
*Ok, they're part of a divided super 2
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 25, 2022, 08:13:54 PM
Add another 2-lane* road in the state with a 55-mph speed limit: the entirety of the US 206 Bypass. The count is now up to 6 (also parts of 54, 70, 72, 539, and 33 southeast of Freehold*). It was formerly 45 south of Hillsborough Road and 50 on the original part and the 4-lane part north of CR 514.
*Ok, they're part of a divided super 2
Still not entirely sure why NJDOT didn't just make the whole bypass 4 lanes, but what do I know? Not the first time NJDOT's taken this tact. They are making the section between Brooks Blvd and the bypass 4 lanes slowly but surely, and it would be great if they could make it four lanes all the way to 295, but I know that's probably never going to happen south of Montgomery.
Quote from: storm2k on September 25, 2022, 09:53:37 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 25, 2022, 08:13:54 PM
Add another 2-lane* road in the state with a 55-mph speed limit: the entirety of the US 206 Bypass. The count is now up to 6 (also parts of 54, 70, 72, 539, and 33 southeast of Freehold*). It was formerly 45 south of Hillsborough Road and 50 on the original part and the 4-lane part north of CR 514.
*Ok, they're part of a divided super 2
Still not entirely sure why NJDOT didn't just make the whole bypass 4 lanes, but what do I know? Not the first time NJDOT's taken this tact. They are making the section between Brooks Blvd and the bypass 4 lanes slowly but surely, and it would be great if they could make it four lanes all the way to 295, but I know that's probably never going to happen south of Montgomery.
US 206 also needs to be four lanes as well from I-287 at Bedminster to I-80 at Roxbury.
Then you have US 9 that needs widening in both Lakewood and Toms River Townships as well as from Beachwood to Manahawkin.
NJ 23 could use a freeway alignment north of Stockholm, as traffic there warrants it and the existing NJ 23 is too winding for a typical widening.
It’s just not happening. The Star Ledger used to write articles in the eighties about how far behind the state is with projects. If FDOT ran NJDOT US 206 would be four lanes from Somerville to Princeton and a bypass of Princeton to, with a realigned roadway to I-295. US 206 south of the Brunswick Circle would be concurrent with US 1, and NJ 129 would be US 206 into NJ 129 and I-295. However, NJ, for whatever reason, does things another way. FDOT won’t let municipal agencies maintain state or US routes. Oh yes, Hillsborough Bypass would be built as four lanes.
Quote from: storm2k on September 25, 2022, 09:53:37 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on September 25, 2022, 08:13:54 PM
Add another 2-lane* road in the state with a 55-mph speed limit: the entirety of the US 206 Bypass. The count is now up to 6 (also parts of 54, 70, 72, 539, and 33 southeast of Freehold*). It was formerly 45 south of Hillsborough Road and 50 on the original part and the 4-lane part north of CR 514.
*Ok, they're part of a divided super 2
Still not entirely sure why NJDOT didn't just make the whole bypass 4 lanes, but what do I know? Not the first time NJDOT's taken this tact. They are making the section between Brooks Blvd and the bypass 4 lanes slowly but surely, and it would be great if they could make it four lanes all the way to 295, but I know that's probably never going to happen south of Montgomery.
existing 206 should be nb only and Great Road should be sb only
There's usually so much opposition to any roadway building in NJ, that they probably compromise with a 2 lane roadway just to get something done. Florida and most other states are a lot more accommodating,
To be honest, even posting it as a 55 MPH roadway is a lot more generous than what NJ normally allows. NJ 133 is only 50 mph, and that was after public pressure forced the state to originally sign the 4 lane limited access roadway at 45 mph.
Yeah, I'm sure NJ has its reasons and Florida has its. However, Florida has its share of obstacles too. Trying to get certain needed freeways is like pulling teeth. Plus you have unlimited development causing traffic counts to increase faster than the EPA studies needed to get a road built.
I'm sure within a few years we will be behind in getting things done as well. Heck the I-4 Ultimate was 30 years behind. That should have been built in 1980.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2022, 10:41:21 PM
There's usually so much opposition to any roadway building in NJ, that they probably compromise with a 2 lane roadway just to get something done. Florida and most other states are a lot more accommodating,
To be honest, even posting it as a 55 MPH roadway is a lot more generous than what NJ normally allows. NJ 133 is only 50 mph, and that was after public pressure forced the state to originally sign the 4 lane limited access roadway at 45 mph.
NIMBY opposition is what moved the southern end of the bypass to where it is today. It was supposed to go down to the Montgomery line, but that was stopped. However, most of the bypass itself is on undeveloped land and the whole point is to move the bulk of traffic away from the crowded "downtown" part of Hillsborough. I would imagine they could have just built it four lanes all the way without issue, but for cost savings most likely.
Quote from: storm2k on September 26, 2022, 03:05:54 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2022, 10:41:21 PM
There's usually so much opposition to any roadway building in NJ, that they probably compromise with a 2 lane roadway just to get something done. Florida and most other states are a lot more accommodating,
To be honest, even posting it as a 55 MPH roadway is a lot more generous than what NJ normally allows. NJ 133 is only 50 mph, and that was after public pressure forced the state to originally sign the 4 lane limited access roadway at 45 mph.
NIMBY opposition is what moved the southern end of the bypass to where it is today. It was supposed to go down to the Montgomery line, but that was stopped. However, most of the bypass itself is on undeveloped land and the whole point is to move the bulk of traffic away from the crowded "downtown" part of Hillsborough. I would imagine they could have just built it four lanes all the way without issue, but for cost savings most likely.
the two lanes from the south end to great road is just lovely
New Jersey is a slow growing state, Florida is a fast growing one. Also, just about every new freeway in Florida built in the last 40 years has been tolled.
A solution could be in sight for the bottleneck on NJ 17 between I-80 and NJ 4 where it narrows to 4 lanes
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/09/work-on-a-97m-solution-to-one-of-njs-worst-bottlenecks-will-begin-in-2023.html
Quote from: kernals12 on September 29, 2022, 07:52:00 PM
A solution could be in sight for the bottleneck on NJ 17 between I-80 and NJ 4 where it narrows to 4 lanes
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/09/work-on-a-97m-solution-to-one-of-njs-worst-bottlenecks-will-begin-in-2023.html
Rochelle-Farview isn't the only parallel corridor - Maywood Ave. is another. And there is so much missing in that article that I can't speak to ;)
Whatever they do there is long overdue. That's a hairy stretch to drive with the sheer volume of traffic heading towards Paramus, the Parkway, and trucks heading towards 287/Thruway via 17 to Mahwah.
Somehow I was under the impression that there was local resistance to widening in that area.
Quote from: famartin on September 30, 2022, 11:37:18 PM
Somehow I was under the impression that there was local resistance to widening in that area.
Shocking.
What's up with this sign for I-195 on CR 537?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1576143,-74.4277277,3a,49.5y,68.34h,89.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssW1yHSYxZxYxwZrbMoEtjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
It seems to be unique in showing NJTP destinations for I-195 West, and it uses Philadelphia (Pennsylvania in older versions of the sign), not Camden (Del Mem Br in older versions) that I-195 itself uses. All other signs referencing I-195 West on CR 537 sign it for Trenton just like all other I-195 West signs I was able to find.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 11, 2022, 09:36:15 PM
What's up with this sign for I-195 on CR 537?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1576143,-74.4277277,3a,49.5y,68.34h,89.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssW1yHSYxZxYxwZrbMoEtjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
It seems to be unique in showing NJTP destinations for I-195 West, and it uses Philadelphia (Pennsylvania in older versions of the sign), not Camden (Del Mem Br in older versions) that I-195 itself uses. All other signs referencing I-195 West on CR 537 sign it for Trenton just like all other I-195 West signs I was able to find.
This was born out of the 95/295 redesignation a few years back. I believe someone on these forums was part of the project team, and was giving a fair bit of latitude to revise or update other signage "related" to I-95. As this area sees a lot of traffic needing to get to 95, he was able to include this sign as part of the project. Changing Exit 60 on I-195/NJ 29 to Exit 1A/B was another part of that project.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2022, 09:54:22 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 11, 2022, 09:36:15 PM
What's up with this sign for I-195 on CR 537?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1576143,-74.4277277,3a,49.5y,68.34h,89.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssW1yHSYxZxYxwZrbMoEtjQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
It seems to be unique in showing NJTP destinations for I-195 West, and it uses Philadelphia (Pennsylvania in older versions of the sign), not Camden (Del Mem Br in older versions) that I-195 itself uses. All other signs referencing I-195 West on CR 537 sign it for Trenton just like all other I-195 West signs I was able to find.
This was born out of the 95/295 redesignation a few years back. I believe someone on these forums was part of the project team, and was giving a fair bit of latitude to revise or update other signage "related" to I-95. As this area sees a lot of traffic needing to get to 95, he was able to include this sign as part of the project. Changing Exit 60 on I-195/NJ 29 to Exit 1A/B was another part of that project.
But the previous version of the sign said "Pennsylvania" which was never used used as a destination on either the NJ Turnpike or I-195 as far as I can remember. Exit 6 was signed "Pa Turnpike" or something similar.
I know this is fictional, but considering what's written in this article https://www.nj.com/news/2021/12/ny-says-replace-the-narrow-outerbridge-crossing-but-nj-has-to-agree-to-a-study-first.html
shows traffic on the Outerbridge Crossing is real.
I was just curious. Being the State Street exit would have to be replaced to add for the new bridge approaches, I was wondering if there is a strong possibility that the missing moves to and from State and High Streets would be addressed.
Considering that a u turn must be made at Amboy Avenue to accomplish traffic to and from Staten Island, I would assure that new ramps from a new bridge would be in the plans.
https://goo.gl/maps/SJbTYkbxAyuM21TY7
NJDOT needs to do a quality check and reverse the Long Valley and NJ 57 WEST and swap locations. This sign is as confusing for a quick glance as the existence of NJ 182 the sign is locked on.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2022, 11:58:59 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/SJbTYkbxAyuM21TY7
NJDOT needs to do a quality check and reverse the Long Valley and NJ 57 WEST and swap locations. This sign is as confusing for a quick glance as the existence of NJ 182 the sign is locked on.
And yet, this puzzles me more (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8344866,-74.8229325,3a,75y,177.66h,88.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXrztCaX8rGwIR6vlzIAzzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). I do believe that CR 517 was part of NJ 24 before the freeway was built farther east.
Yup. Since 1991 ( over 30 years ago) it hasn't been. The current NJ 24 changed everything and made 24 what it is today. This, though is Morris County, that maintains this assembly.
Question about Hunterdon County Route 523 in Flemington. I noticed that on Route 31 at Flemington Junction Road there is no more reference to it being CR 523 anymore. However at Walter E. Foran Blvd it does refer to it as CR 523 with also the intersection of Mine and Main Streets there are no shields present ( seen on GSV) to inform motorists of alignment changes there.
I assume Park Avenue is the new alignment for CR 523 being it defaults into Walter E. Foran Blvd since the apparent switch?
Again no shields either on Mine Street and Park Avenue with Park Avenue appearing to have a traffic calming zone along it through Downtown Flemington. So that to me would suggest no route along it.
What’s the deal here?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2022, 03:18:20 PM
Question about Hunterdon County Route 523 in Flemington. I noticed that on Route 31 at Flemington Junction Road there is no more reference to it being CR 523 anymore. However at Walter E. Foran Blvd it does refer to it as CR 523 with also the intersection of Mine and Main Streets there are no shields present ( seen on GSV) to inform motorists of alignment changes there.
I assume Park Avenue is the new alignment for CR 523 being it defaults into Walter E. Foran Blvd since the apparent switch?
Again no shields either on Mine Street and Park Avenue with Park Avenue appearing to have a traffic calming zone along it through Downtown Flemington. So that to me would suggest no route along it.
What's the deal here?
I believe it's been on Walter Foran Blvd for a while now. Look at the intersection on GSV and the NJDOT street blades have the 523 shield and you can also see a reassurance shield (https://goo.gl/maps/iBJv2xuF9qUbtRxKA) just south of the intersection. Also, per the SLD (https://www.nj.gov/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000523__-.pdf), it's Foran Blvd -> Foran Blvd Extension -> Park Ave -> Mine St, but the latter two are maintained at a municipal level and I doubt the borough is going to pay for shields. That reminds me of following 28 through a lot of Plainfield, where most of it is maintained by the city and they don't really post shields.
ETA: Further evidence: NJDOT posts a shield for it at the NJ12 circle where it meets Mine St (https://goo.gl/maps/1d2JxQkB4qZFGoR97).
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 16, 2022, 12:05:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2022, 11:58:59 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/SJbTYkbxAyuM21TY7
NJDOT needs to do a quality check and reverse the Long Valley and NJ 57 WEST and swap locations. This sign is as confusing for a quick glance as the existence of NJ 182 the sign is locked on.
And yet, this puzzles me more (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8344866,-74.8229325,3a,75y,177.66h,88.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXrztCaX8rGwIR6vlzIAzzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). I do believe that CR 517 was part of NJ 24 before the freeway was built farther east.
That'd be the last 24 shield on the old road if it's still there.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2022, 11:58:59 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/SJbTYkbxAyuM21TY7
NJDOT needs to do a quality check and reverse the Long Valley and NJ 57 WEST and swap locations. This sign is as confusing for a quick glance as the existence of NJ 182 the sign is locked on.
Probably a standard practice to have the route shield portion at top, not necessarily a "quality check". I see your point though.
From Larry Higgs at NJ.com: Get your head out of your app! Snarky overhead signs debut on N.J. roadways. (https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/get-your-head-out-of-your-app-snarky-overhead-signs-debut-on-nj-roadways.html)
Quote
New Jersey Department of Transportation staffers have come up with some new, attention getting ways to convey basic safety message and rules of the road, said Leanna Nelson, an NJDOT spokeswoman.
"The Department wanted to be more creative in how we present our safety messages," she said. "We are trying a few new messages that are both fun and catchy in hopes that people will remember the message to drive safely."
NJDOT resisted the whole "be funny with your VMS safety messages" trend for so long. I'm actually surprised they're trying it out at this point.
Quote from: storm2k on October 20, 2022, 12:21:40 PM
From Larry Higgs at NJ.com: Get your head out of your app! Snarky overhead signs debut on N.J. roadways. (https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/get-your-head-out-of-your-app-snarky-overhead-signs-debut-on-nj-roadways.html)
Quote
New Jersey Department of Transportation staffers have come up with some new, attention getting ways to convey basic safety message and rules of the road, said Leanna Nelson, an NJDOT spokeswoman.
"The Department wanted to be more creative in how we present our safety messages," she said. "We are trying a few new messages that are both fun and catchy in hopes that people will remember the message to drive safely."
NJDOT resisted the whole "be funny with your VMS safety messages" trend for so long. I'm actually surprised they're trying it out at this point.
I guess they hired some new person that convinced the Commissioner to allow the messages.
It's not the first time I've seen NJDOT change their usage. Back when the VMSs were first installed, they were used very sparingly. They are now used quite often. And travel times used to be posted only during rush hours, but now are posted up to 24 hours a day.
I did drive on Rt 22 in Somerville today where they installed VMS's a couple of years ago and it only had a very generic safety message, nothing snarky. I was kinda disappointed.
Quote from: storm2k on October 21, 2022, 02:06:10 AM
I did drive on Rt 22 in Somerville today where they installed VMS's a couple of years ago and it only had a very generic safety message, nothing snarky. I was kinda disappointed.
I've seen the funnies on 80, 287, and 24 so far.
Quote from: Alps on October 22, 2022, 01:09:54 AM
Quote from: storm2k on October 21, 2022, 02:06:10 AM
I did drive on Rt 22 in Somerville today where they installed VMS's a couple of years ago and it only had a very generic safety message, nothing snarky. I was kinda disappointed.
I've seen the funnies on 80, 287, and 24 so far.
Saw "Get your head out of your apps" and "hocus pocus drive with focus" on 295 so far.
We all know that no one is going to heed that message. Many if their texting aren't even paying attention to the fact the VMS is even there. :bigass:
How did it take me THIS LONG to realize that the D&R Canal has received new GSV
https://goo.gl/maps/j5k9gHDMsUsiCyKE9
I'm liking the way NJ denotes mileage to the state line on US 1. Just post the cities on both sides of the Delaware River and let the imagination rule.
However is the math correct? Are both cities 3 miles apart?
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 11:34:30 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/j5k9gHDMsUsiCyKE9
I'm liking the way NJ denotes mileage to the state line on US 1. Just post the cities on both sides of the Delaware River and let the imagination rule.
However is the math correct? Are both cities 3 miles apart?
The two municipalities touch each other on the river. But, where US 1 first enters Trenton, Morrisville is about 3 1/4 miles away, so the different shown on the sign appears to be accurate.
Yeah now I see, as Downtown is close to the river. In NJ you have some signs using the city limits as a mileage point, and the rest to city centers.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 05:33:35 PM
Yeah now I see, as Downtown is close to the river. In NJ you have some signs using the city limits as a mileage point, and the rest to city centers.
Yes, that gets a bit vague a far as centers versus municipal boundaries. Has that been defined by MUTCD?
NJ needs to get consistent with their mileage sign criteria. They were up to constancy till 1998 when NJ started a campaign to add new plot point destinations where the signs are next posted after each destinations are reached for a new mileage sign to be seen.
Evidence is on US 1 entering the state from Morrisville that reads mileage to Plainsboro, New Brunswick, and Newark 45 miles away. The next follow up is at Plainsboro with now New Brunswick, Woodbridge, and Newark. Then after that the third is strategically placed in New Brunswick north of Route 18 for Woodbridge, Newark, and Fort Lee.
These newer signs use the municipality limit rather than the center of the listed community. The original mileage signs used town centers or Downtowns. Thus with the old and the new together, it can create some confusion due to the points plotted for mileage to. In addition NJDOT in their campaign to convert to mixed case lettering, are carbon copying the old all caps onto the new signs, and not doing a quality check to see the current validility.
https://goo.gl/maps/paxTqXsjAEacfU847
South Broad Street is US Route 206. Yet NJDOT fails to mention here on Route 129 at Hamilton Avenue.
Also what is the control city for NJ 68 referencing here?
https://goo.gl/maps/w1NhbhxoUzT5ajw7A
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 08:17:40 AM
Also what is the control city for NJ 68 referencing here?
https://goo.gl/maps/w1NhbhxoUzT5ajw7A
MDL =
McGuire, Fort
Dix,
Lakehurst
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Base_McGuire%E2%80%93Dix%E2%80%93Lakehurst
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 08:17:40 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/paxTqXsjAEacfU847
South Broad Street is US Route 206. Yet NJDOT fails to mention here on Route 129 at Hamilton Avenue.
Also what is the control city for NJ 68 referencing here?
https://goo.gl/maps/w1NhbhxoUzT5ajw7A
There's more than a handful of instances statewide where this sort of thing happens for various routes. Generally it's where they follow city streets and probably shouldn't be for anything other than local travel. 206 at this location isn't even state maintained.
MDL is usually just referenced as "joint base" in casual conversation and in the statewide emergency communications check roll call.
The city really should consider asking AASHTO to realign it off the city maintained streets. They could have it follow NJ 129 and US 1 either via I-195 & NJ 29 or Hamilton Avenue. Though the latter still will have some city maintenance, the part of South Broad that is state maintained wouldn’t need a new route number as with the former. Although, someone on here once suggested turn it over to Mercer County and extend CR 524 over South Broad Street and the part of US 206 from the White Horse Circle to the I-195 exchange as Mercer County maintained Route 533 extended.
Many states would indeed do that over allow piss poor signage on non state roads. Although Virginia is one that gives all independent cities total control over Allstate and US routes per agreement in municipality corporations making NJ not alone, but still even that state has a lot to be desired as well as NY, that has routes maintained by municipalities over the DOT where US 9W is badly signed in Albany.
I think, though fictional here, is the better way to keep it continuous through the state.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 05:24:37 PM
The city really should consider asking AASHTO to realign it off the city maintained streets. They could have it follow NJ 129 and US 1 either via I-195 & NJ 29 or Hamilton Avenue. Though the latter still will have some city maintenance, the part of South Broad that is state maintained wouldn't need a new route number as with the former. Although, someone on here once suggested turn it over to Mercer County and extend CR 524 over South Broad Street and the part of US 206 from the White Horse Circle to the I-195 exchange as Mercer County maintained Route 533 extended.
Many states would indeed do that over allow piss poor signage on non state roads. Although Virginia is one that gives all independent cities total control over Allstate and US routes per agreement in municipality corporations making NJ not alone, but still even that state has a lot to be desired as well as NY, that has routes maintained by municipalities over the DOT where US 9W is badly signed in Albany.
I think, though fictional here, is the better way to keep it continuous through the state.
I would think if it's missing a few signs, wouldn't just adding a few signs be the better option. If it's realigned, it'll need...added signs.
And for what it's worth, the sign that you're noting is missing the US 206 shield is a NJDOT sign.
The one on NJ 129 at Hamilton Avenue yes. That I believe is state maintained. It and US 1 and NJ 29 are the only state routes in Trenton.
Although the 54 mile marker on Brunswick Avenue at the Brunswick Circle suggests part Brunswick Avenue may be state maintained within the city.
They did, though, a good job in asking AASHTO to decommission ALT US 1 which ran along Warren Street ( part of Broad going NB) and MLK Blvd. However, there are some erroneous US 1 Business shields still up along Strawberry Street and MLK to still imply US 1 Business does not return to its parent at the Brunswick Circle. Therefore suggesting that US 1 Business is just a switchover from the ALT route instead of truncation along with the change.
So again chalk one up to the city for not staying up to date despite they did switch out the ALT banner’s for the BUSINESS banners which is odd that they didn’t just remove them altogether.
Did AASHTO approve the decommissioning of US 1 ALT in Trenton? Heck, did they even allow US 1 to be applied to the Trenton Freeway north of Strawberry Street when it's final segment opened north of Whitehead Road circa 1975?
The last petition to AASHTO from the state was the US 206 realignment near Netcong in 1972 or about?
So US 1 in Lawrence may still be US 1 Business and US 1 Business May still not be approved.
What's up with the 13 ton maximum on Route 29 here?
https://goo.gl/maps/kQL7gNSXLAmSD5aZ9
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 06:10:37 PM
What's up with the 13 ton maximum on Route 29 here?
https://goo.gl/maps/kQL7gNSXLAmSD5aZ9
The restriction is for the tunnel south of Cass Street. The truck route is to continue on I-295 to I-195.
Quote from: akotchi on November 06, 2022, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 06:10:37 PM
What's up with the 13 ton maximum on Route 29 here?
https://goo.gl/maps/kQL7gNSXLAmSD5aZ9
The restriction is for the tunnel south of Cass Street. The truck route is to continue on I-295 to I-195.
When the tunnel was about to open, there was concern among residents that there'd be a big increase in truck traffic, so in natural fashion, NJDOT banned them. NJ 29 is mostly a commuter route anyway, so the many commuters were fine with that too.
Quote from: famartin on November 06, 2022, 04:45:37 PM
Quote from: akotchi on November 06, 2022, 04:44:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 06:10:37 PM
What's up with the 13 ton maximum on Route 29 here?
https://goo.gl/maps/kQL7gNSXLAmSD5aZ9
The restriction is for the tunnel south of Cass Street. The truck route is to continue on I-295 to I-195.
When the tunnel was about to open, there was concern among residents that there'd be a big increase in truck traffic, so in natural fashion, NJDOT banned them. NJ 29 is mostly a commuter route anyway, so the many commuters were fine with that too.
One of the purposes of the tunnel was to hide traffic, including truck traffic, from the neighborhoods. Shortly before the tunnel opened, NJDOT did an about face and prohibited trucks from using the tunnel.
Personally, I think there's something a little more sinister involved...such as they didn't want trucks rumbling thru the tunnel, vibrating and cracking the concrete.
Some truckers with knowledge of the area will go thru, knowing the chances of a Trooper being nearby to stop them is rare. (I guess Trenton police could stop them also, but based on observations they largely let the NJSP handle the truck issue.) There's the occasional trucker not familiar with the area that finds themself confused as they'll see the "No Trucks over 13 Tons" signs, especially after the point of no return. They'll creep up real slow to the tunnel, hoping they can squeeze under (the tunnel is built 15 or 16 feet high, so they'll easily fit in). Of course, they're now delaying everyone behind them as they creep forward.
The truck route on 295 and 1 doesn't really exist anymore - the signage was removed long ago. Instead, they permit trucks to use Cass Street, even though there's signage saying trucks shouldn't be using Cass Street. It's not enforced. Cass Street is heavily residential with a few corner businesses. And a prison. Not really the road to be sending truckers, but that's how everything panned out.
https://goo.gl/maps/6xtYVYdZqXvzyCKt9
The control city for I-295 NB from Route 656 EB near Florence is the most hilarious control city they could ever use. 😂
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6xtYVYdZqXvzyCKt9
The control city for I-295 NB from Route 656 EB near Florence is the most hilarious control city they could ever use. 😂
The reasoning is likely because of trucks using it to jump onto the turnpike a little ways up. But yeah, not quite kosher.
Quote from: famartin on November 07, 2022, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6xtYVYdZqXvzyCKt9
The control city for I-295 NB from Route 656 EB near Florence is the most hilarious control city they could ever use. 😂
The reasoning is likely because of trucks using it to jump onto the turnpike a little ways up. But yeah, not quite kosher.
NJDOT, for 295 South past Interchanges 57 & 56, encourage truckers to make a u-turn at Exit 52 A to head back north on 295 to Exit 56. This is the on-ramp to complete that u-turn.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z6f65QnS6x2wT3De6 (Note the usage of Gas and not Gas/Diesel or Fuel.)
This unique control city is the result of them "helping", although I'm sure the businesses would appreciate their logos not to be hidden behind the sign.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2022, 05:54:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 07, 2022, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6xtYVYdZqXvzyCKt9
The control city for I-295 NB from Route 656 EB near Florence is the most hilarious control city they could ever use.
The reasoning is likely because of trucks using it to jump onto the turnpike a little ways up. But yeah, not quite kosher.
NJDOT, for 295 South past Interchanges 57 & 56, encourage truckers to make a u-turn at Exit 52 A to head back north on 295 to Exit 56. This is the on-ramp to complete that u-turn.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z6f65QnS6x2wT3De6 (Note the usage of Gas and not Gas/Diesel or Fuel.)
This unique control city is the result of them "helping", although I'm sure the businesses would appreciate their logos not to be hidden behind the sign.
That makes sense, even though it’s a strange way of doing things for businesses on a NB
https://goo.gl/maps/dKSUpUuFmZc3yRxw7
You figure that sending them on US 130 north to Farnsworth Ave. would be better to get truckers there.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2022, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2022, 05:54:41 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 07, 2022, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/6xtYVYdZqXvzyCKt9
The control city for I-295 NB from Route 656 EB near Florence is the most hilarious control city they could ever use.
The reasoning is likely because of trucks using it to jump onto the turnpike a little ways up. But yeah, not quite kosher.
NJDOT, for 295 South past Interchanges 57 & 56, encourage truckers to make a u-turn at Exit 52 A to head back north on 295 to Exit 56. This is the on-ramp to complete that u-turn.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z6f65QnS6x2wT3De6 (Note the usage of Gas and not Gas/Diesel or Fuel.)
This unique control city is the result of them "helping", although I'm sure the businesses would appreciate their logos not to be hidden behind the sign.
That makes sense, even though it's a strange way of doing things for businesses on a NB
https://goo.gl/maps/dKSUpUuFmZc3yRxw7
You figure that sending them on US 130 north to Farnsworth Ave. would be better to get truckers there.
They discourage truckers from going that way, although I don't believe they outright prohibit it.
The idea of making Interchange 56 a full interchange has been floated, but doesn't appear to have gained much traction currently. It's fairly close to Interchange 57 so there's probably a bit of a weaving issue if they were to build the missing movements.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2022, 09:45:03 PM
They discourage truckers from going that way, although I don't believe they outright prohibit it.
This would sure suggest that: https://goo.gl/maps/sgjdnfNdjXAoWzyVA (https://goo.gl/maps/sgjdnfNdjXAoWzyVA) (and apparently that truck then turns!)
It might be a good idea for SB US 130 to have a J Left turn into Rising Sun Road. This way truckers could exit onto US 130 south and turn left into Rising Sun instead of the project that would be contending with a ramp off I-295 south at Rising Sun with US 130 traffic merging in there.
On another note, I see the Brigantine Connector has enhanced mile markers. It's odd, though, the use of the ACE shield with a Connector banner across it.
https://goo.gl/maps/o1nEUyL62iVuJCUR8
You would think the assigned route number 446X would make better reference to stranded motorists.
No one knows what Route 446X is in the general public. Same for 444, 445, 700 and so on.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
It might be a good idea for SB US 130 to have a J Left turn into Rising Sun Road. This way truckers could exit onto US 130 south and turn left into Rising Sun instead of the project that would be contending with a ramp off I-295 south at Rising Sun with US 130 traffic merging in there
I don't think it's a turning issue. I believe the businesses and residents on Rising Sun Road don't want the truck traffic using the road. Unlike the residents along Cass Street in Trenton, these people probably have a bit more ability to sway NJDOT.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
It might be a good idea for SB US 130 to have a J Left turn into Rising Sun Road. This way truckers could exit onto US 130 south and turn left into Rising Sun instead of the project that would be contending with a ramp off I-295 south at Rising Sun with US 130 traffic merging in there.
On another note, I see the Brigantine Connector has enhanced mile markers. It's odd, though, the use of the ACE shield with a Connector banner across it.
https://goo.gl/maps/o1nEUyL62iVuJCUR8
You would think the assigned route number 446X would make better reference to stranded motorists.
Not when the number is never used anywhere else
Quote from: famartin on November 08, 2022, 04:26:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
It might be a good idea for SB US 130 to have a J Left turn into Rising Sun Road. This way truckers could exit onto US 130 south and turn left into Rising Sun instead of the project that would be contending with a ramp off I-295 south at Rising Sun with US 130 traffic merging in there.
On another note, I see the Brigantine Connector has enhanced mile markers. It's odd, though, the use of the ACE shield with a Connector banner across it.
https://goo.gl/maps/o1nEUyL62iVuJCUR8
You would think the assigned route number 446X would make better reference to stranded motorists.
Not when the number is never used anywhere else
It's a reference for emergency. The 911 or EMS should know if a call comes in where the locale is. The enhanced mileposts are for that. Not reassuring like we all want them to be.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2022, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
It might be a good idea for SB US 130 to have a J Left turn into Rising Sun Road. This way truckers could exit onto US 130 south and turn left into Rising Sun instead of the project that would be contending with a ramp off I-295 south at Rising Sun with US 130 traffic merging in there
I don't think it's a turning issue. I believe the businesses and residents on Rising Sun Road don't want the truck traffic using the road. Unlike the residents along Cass Street in Trenton, these people probably have a bit more ability to sway NJDOT.
The NB US 130 has Truck Stops next right sign at Rising Sun.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 07:42:27 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 08, 2022, 04:26:57 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 10:15:00 AM
It might be a good idea for SB US 130 to have a J Left turn into Rising Sun Road. This way truckers could exit onto US 130 south and turn left into Rising Sun instead of the project that would be contending with a ramp off I-295 south at Rising Sun with US 130 traffic merging in there.
On another note, I see the Brigantine Connector has enhanced mile markers. It's odd, though, the use of the ACE shield with a Connector banner across it.
https://goo.gl/maps/o1nEUyL62iVuJCUR8
You would think the assigned route number 446X would make better reference to stranded motorists.
Not when the number is never used anywhere else
It's a reference for emergency. The 911 or EMS should know if a call comes in where the locale is. The enhanced mileposts are for that. Not reassuring like we all want them to be.
The milepost is used for that, but not 446X. No one other than NJDOT and us road geeks are aware of it.
That's my point. It should be made known to EMS and reference markers on side of road.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 08:58:13 PM
That's my point. It should be made known to EMS and reference markers on side of road.
The number is solely for NJDOT internal use. SJTA doesn't use it. They have no reason to sign it and I wouldn't expect them to.
Quote from: famartin on November 08, 2022, 09:54:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 08:58:13 PM
That's my point. It should be made known to EMS and reference markers on side of road.
The number is solely for NJDOT internal use. SJTA doesn't use it. They have no reason to sign it and I wouldn't expect them to.
Then why even have the enhanced mile marker if it's hard to read? It's not that hard to implement a change in what to call a road. Just send a department memo and hold pubic information hearings etc. Even so they don't need that. Those in the hierarchy can do it as an executive level to say hey let's use the state reference number to identify a road to make it easier to identify in emergency.
I don't expect them to do all this as much as signing NJ 87 shields at the north terminus of the Connector. Just a suggestion on my part being the connector shield is not that different from the expressway mainline shield.
https://goo.gl/maps/WmmK6uE4UWqbi7WVA
On another note, at least the city got a US 40 shield in someplace. Too bad Albany Avenue can't have more shields and NJDOT can't place enhanced mileposts on Albany Avenue either. In fact the first US 40 shield, I believe is in Pleasantville if you head west on the two routes.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 10:14:53 PM
Quote from: famartin on November 08, 2022, 09:54:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 08:58:13 PM
That's my point. It should be made known to EMS and reference markers on side of road.
The number is solely for NJDOT internal use. SJTA doesn't use it. They have no reason to sign it and I wouldn't expect them to.
Then why even have the enhanced mile marker if it's hard to read? It's not that hard to implement a change in what to call a road. Just send a department memo and hold pubic information hearings etc. Even so they don't need that. Those in the hierarchy can do it as an executive level to say hey let's use the state reference number to identify a road to make it easier to identify in emergency.
I don't expect them to do all this as much as signing NJ 87 shields at the north terminus of the Connector. Just a suggestion on my part being the connector shield is not that different from the expressway mainline shield.
https://goo.gl/maps/WmmK6uE4UWqbi7WVA
On another note, at least the city got a US 40 shield in someplace. Too bad Albany Avenue can't have more shields and NJDOT can't place enhanced mileposts on Albany Avenue either. In fact the first US 40 shield, I believe is in Pleasantville if you head west on the two routes.
Incorrect:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3604453,-74.4621725,3a,36.3y,326.68h,89.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc_HgCDV7TkZyKxP-Q4VWFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's why I said " I believe" in my sentence as margin of error and asking a question of where the first shield really is.
Oh and I stand corrected with mile markers as the Drawbridge has the 64 mile marker from the Delaware Memorial Bridge where I missed it on zooming through GSV.
Not sure what the hangup is with the desire to have the Connector having a NJ Route Number posted, yet never had an issue with the Expressway, Parkway, or Turnpike. Especially the Turnpike, being many people have always thought they were on 95.
At the very least, if the Connector wasn't readily readable to someone calling in for assistance, at least the 'North' and 'South' would give it away on mileposts.
And what may be an unpopular opinion, EMS may be great at saving lives, but many drivers are fairly ditzy when it comes to knowing roads. Even more so when I'll see a cop racing down the shoulder of a highway to get to a crash, then a fire truck racing down the shoulder of the highway...then an Ambulance trying to squeeze between 2 lanes of stopped traffic as they slowly move out of the way...when they could've taken the same shoulder to get to the crash scene.
Even if you trained EMS as to what the route number is, chances are the communication is going to use what is most familiar to those in the field.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 10:27:49 PM
That's why I said " I believe" in my sentence as margin of error and asking a question of where the first shield really is.
Oh and I stand corrected with mile markers as the Drawbridge has the 64 mile marker from the Delaware Memorial Bridge where I missed it on zooming through GSV.
And a 63.5. https://goo.gl/maps/ahrAFWZKrA9MXd8T8
No hang ups. Just stating my reasons. I a not interested in changing it nor suggesting to the South Jersey Transportation Authority to take my consideration into thought either.
Just a wishful thought that I would share. Right now I've moved on and considering Florida got a hit from Nicole I'm more focused on that.
Question about I-295 and US 130 overlap in Gloucester County. Of course prior to 1985, the freeway was very substandard and it’s interchanges had very poor ramp geometries as well as using a restriped shoulders as acceleration and deceleration lanes and then the remnants of today are the frequent interchanges it has using the A-B exit numbers for two separate exits being within two whole mileposts.
I remember that also the signs were substandard as well for each exit as well as some businesse having driveways to and from the freeway between Route 44 and the I-295 and US 130 split. For example the NB signed Exit 16B which is this https://goo.gl/maps/ynwMLAtZ6jCeCUAe7
was this in the seventies:
DEMOCRAT RD
GIBBSTOWN
Then later
CR 673
Gibbstown
In 1985 I saw the lane addition to the freeway from four to six overall lanes. I take this didn’t bring yet the freeway up to standards as the tight ramps were not yet redesigned until later?
Plus when about did the state buy up all the US 130 front properties and transform completely the US 130 expressways into the current I-295?
Nice while it lasted...
https://nj1015.com/feds-telling-nj-to-stop-our-sarcastic-road-signs-is-pure-b-s-opinion/
Quote from: famartin on November 19, 2022, 06:52:16 PM
Nice while it lasted...
https://nj1015.com/feds-telling-nj-to-stop-our-sarcastic-road-signs-is-pure-b-s-opinion/
Seems odd FHWA can't give a canned answer when asked about that.
If it works, why fight it. I have admit. Drive Sober or get pulled over is too old and beyond corny now. Click it or ticket, is older now than Bell Bottoms.
Why knock something new especially living in a world where tradition is been tossed out for progress.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2022, 07:04:09 PM
Question about I-295 and US 130 overlap in Gloucester County. Of course prior to 1985, the freeway was very substandard and it's interchanges had very poor ramp geometries as well as using a restriped shoulders as acceleration and deceleration lanes and then the remnants of today are the frequent interchanges it has using the A-B exit numbers for two separate exits being within two whole mileposts.
I remember that also the signs were substandard as well for each exit as well as some businesse having driveways to and from the freeway between Route 44 and the I-295 and US 130 split. For example the NB signed Exit 16B which is this https://goo.gl/maps/ynwMLAtZ6jCeCUAe7
was this in the seventies:
DEMOCRAT RD
GIBBSTOWN
Then later
CR 673
Gibbstown
In 1985 I saw the lane addition to the freeway from four to six overall lanes. I take this didn't bring yet the freeway up to standards as the tight ramps were not yet redesigned until later?
Plus when about did the state buy up all the US 130 front properties and transform completely the US 130 expressways into the current I-295?
Well, I remember in 1983, there was a gap in I-295 with at-grade intersections, and street signs that said "Route 130". So it must have been upgraded not long after that. I really didn't have occasion to use that part of I-295 again until the mid- to late-1990s, so I don't know what happened when.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2022, 07:04:09 PM
Plus when about did the state buy up all the US 130 front properties and transform completely the US 130 expressways into the current I-295?
If you're talking about the stretch in West Deptford around Interchange 21/22, I don't know if the state fully bought up any property. They may have bought some frontage area, but many of the businesses (or at least the buildings) that were there prior to 1990 are still there, including the Crown Point Truck Stop, a trailer park, and other small businesses.
A Drive-In theater closed at some point prior to 2000, and the property is now becoming a warehouse.
Up further near where 295 and 130 meet at Int. 23, there is the remains of a small gas station hidden behind a fence and brush. https://maps.app.goo.gl/8wiWsy2kyLiTb3px6 . This property appears to have been taken by the state, but I can't figure out looking at Historicaerial views if it was taken in the early 90s, or during another reconfiguration of this area prior to that.
https://goo.gl/maps/nwbKMNzVstDDkbE17
Shouldn't this Exit 57A guide also include a SB Garden State Parkway shield being that NJ 19 is a de facto ramp between I-80 and the Parkway?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2022, 12:41:09 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nwbKMNzVstDDkbE17
Shouldn't this Exit 57A guide also include a SB Garden State Parkway shield being that NJ 19 is a de facto ramp between I-80 and the Parkway?
It is a brand new sign, as you can tell from no backplate. Certainly they should have added the "TO" GSP South shield.
The old sign didn't have one either. So, maybe it should, but its not a downgrade.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2022, 12:41:09 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/nwbKMNzVstDDkbE17
Shouldn't this Exit 57A guide also include a SB Garden State Parkway shield being that NJ 19 is a de facto ramp between I-80 and the Parkway?
NJDOT considers the Parkway ramp an exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9073591,-74.1729053,3a,75y,150.08h,102.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC_wqc7HVbllQRpPVMz2O7A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) off 19, and the real end is 46 in Clifton. By that logic, the sign off 80 is signed properly.
Yes, but it should include GSP shields as a TO being the Saddle Brook Interchange has EB to SB use local streets to make the connection.
Sort of like NJ 3 East was signed TO GSP South on US 46 East before the interchange there had the current reconfiguration took place. There it was posted that way due to lack of a SB GSP ramp in Clifton from US 46 Eastbound.
Oh yeah love the control city fot the Parkway here
https://goo.gl/maps/9nPvz9eupgBhPhhV6
Department of Redundancy Department.
Take the Garden State Parkway South to the Garden State Parkway. Real nice.
https://goo.gl/maps/wxbmBMcfV4THuStN6
Then no acknowledgement of US 46 east from CR 509 NB.
https://goo.gl/maps/rSkAL29CufgpSdcy6
SB NJ 19/ CR 509 you get a faded shield, but at least a shield.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2022, 05:26:48 PM
Yes, but it should include GSP shields as a TO being the Saddle Brook Interchange has EB to SB use local streets to make the connection.
Sort of like NJ 3 East was signed TO GSP South on US 46 East before the interchange there had the current reconfiguration took place. There it was posted that way due to lack of a SB GSP ramp in Clifton from US 46 Eastbound.
Oh yeah love the control city fot the Parkway here
https://goo.gl/maps/9nPvz9eupgBhPhhV6
Department of Redundancy Department.
Take the Garden State Parkway South to the Garden State Parkway. Real nice.
NJDOT feels (correctly) that most people have trouble reading the shield on a BGS. Its useful if you are a local to have the shield, but if you're not, then the shield does you no good.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2022, 05:26:48 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/wxbmBMcfV4THuStN6
Then no acknowledgement of US 46 east from CR 509 NB.
There used to be.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8748394,-74.168204,3a,75y,4.6h,81.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB31TxObvGwbYZw_pHPCETA!2e0!5s20130701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2022, 05:26:48 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/rSkAL29CufgpSdcy6
SB NJ 19/ CR 509 you get a faded shield, but at least a shield.
That's a pretty old sign for sure.
I thought there were all new signs on 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/48HsqAmAEJhc6UFp8
Odd to see a 700 series route in NJ.
Also unusual to see Passaic County sign routes at all.
https://goo.gl/maps/fcsg5oLoGXFDw7xF9
https://goo.gl/maps/Erfs8AkCbYmHP7bb6
https://goo.gl/maps/3UhjQE11huYsM9PU7
These links is further west on CR 504 from the CR 703 junction where it changes alignment at Newark Pompton Turnpike from Black Oak Ridge Road.
Passaic County did a complete signing of all their 600/700 series routes in 2015ish. Even put up a few END signs.
I was a Montclair student when they did. The Passaic County people told me that they would put up new shields as they repaved the roads. So the signage was always done in bits. Lots were popping up (including an incorrect one in Hawthorne).
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2022, 09:14:39 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/48HsqAmAEJhc6UFp8
Odd to see a 700 series route in NJ.
Also unusual to see Passaic County sign routes at all.
https://goo.gl/maps/fcsg5oLoGXFDw7xF9
https://goo.gl/maps/Erfs8AkCbYmHP7bb6
https://goo.gl/maps/3UhjQE11huYsM9PU7
These links is further west on CR 504 from the CR 703 junction where it changes alignment at Newark Pompton Turnpike from Black Oak Ridge Road.
Camden County has a few 700's signed too.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 28, 2022, 05:26:48 PMOh yeah love the control city fot the Parkway here
https://goo.gl/maps/9nPvz9eupgBhPhhV6
Department of Redundancy Department.
Take the Garden State Parkway South to the Garden State Parkway. Real nice.
That is, for better or worse, standard practice for NJDOT. Even though the NJTA adopted standardized control cities for both the Parkway and Turnpike, NJDOT will forever sign the control cities for interchanges with those roadways "Garden State Parkway" or "New Jersey Turnpike" (or some abbreviated version thereof).
Yeah just like New York for the Thruway and Pennsylvania for the PA Turnpike. They don't like for some reason to use control cities.
NJ is one worse as they won't use mileage signs on freeways like they do other state highways. The ones you do see are those townships that are along the way but not used enough in common chat, plus two left from the 1960's era when NJ was going to go next exit, control city format like many states do hence the copied over Berkley Heights 5, Jct 287 18 and Clinton 32 on I-78 WB in Springfield. and Columbia 7 Del. Water Gap 11 on I-80 WB past CR 521.
There was a Bedminster 3 Metuchen 20 in Bernard's Township south of CR 525, but never survived the mid 1990s widening of I-287 which obviously suggested the next exit for sure as 3 miles south of CR 525 is the US 202/206 exit well into Bedminster. Metuchen was obvious used because of the original I-287 terminus if the Somerset Freeway had been built.
Also, NJDOT never really put effort into signing control cities either on interstate ramps like it's neighbors done with free freeways. At least NY and PA always used control cities for freeway ramps.
https://goo.gl/maps/M7K2819pzChPDgbCA
I'm going to guess that at the Trenton- Hamilton Border is where US 206 changes jurisdiction from NJDOT to the City of Trenton.
I noticed the change in pavement which usually signifies a change in maintenance, usually at state lines. Here such change in pavement exists in the caption.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2022, 05:22:38 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/M7K2819pzChPDgbCA
I'm going to guess that at the Trenton- Hamilton Border is where US 206 changes jurisdiction from NJDOT to the City of Trenton.
I noticed the change in pavement which usually signifies a change in maintenance, usually at state lines. Here such change in pavement exists in the caption.
Per the SLD and confirmed via the township website, 206 north of the circle is now municipal.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000206__-.pdf
https://hamiltonnj.com/FAQ.aspx?QID=549
Interesting that the state relinquished the route to Hamilton Township.
On another story, is the US 46 bridge over NJ 17 NB.
https://goo.gl/maps/t6DHuu7ccp3badHV6
I take NJDOT is going let it continue to crumble into the nets?
NJDOT has no plans soon to replace as it has to compete with many other failing structures including Route 4 over the Hackensack River nearby.
What's the significance of this "SJTA Starts" sign at the US 30 / I-676 split in Camden? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9474442,-75.1171614,3a,19y,143.8h,86.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGmqVLDDM6XIsUxr6gF6BkA!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
To my knowledge the SJTA doesn't have any assets in the area. Does SJTA stand for something else here? There is a corresponding "SJTA Ends" sign in the other direction. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9474846,-75.1167168,3a,44.2y,323.63h,79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa-txJ-o_rYEuM0BPzvqDwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And speaking of that area, who is this oddly placed "Welcome to New Jersey" sign meant to be for?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9468104,-75.1153028,3a,30.9y,84.78h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdRQ1FkzB7dYkiqCDE_Oz4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2022, 09:28:35 PM
What's the significance of this "SJTA Starts" sign at the US 30 / I-676 split in Camden? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9474442,-75.1171614,3a,19y,143.8h,86.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGmqVLDDM6XIsUxr6gF6BkA!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
To my knowledge the SJTA doesn't have any assets in the area. Does SJTA stand for something else here? There is a corresponding "SJTA Ends" sign in the other direction. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9474846,-75.1167168,3a,44.2y,323.63h,79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa-txJ-o_rYEuM0BPzvqDwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And speaking of that area, who is this oddly placed "Welcome to New Jersey" sign meant to be for?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9468104,-75.1153028,3a,30.9y,84.78h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdRQ1FkzB7dYkiqCDE_Oz4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's an interesting question. Per the SLDs, SJTA does have some jurisdiction over Rt 30, but only its last mile or so in Atlantic City. Aside from the shared bit with 676 that's DRPA jurisdiction, NJDOT says that the rest of the roadway is under their jurisdiction. Very curious.
Quote from: storm2k on December 04, 2022, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2022, 09:28:35 PM
What's the significance of this "SJTA Starts" sign at the US 30 / I-676 split in Camden? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9474442,-75.1171614,3a,19y,143.8h,86.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGmqVLDDM6XIsUxr6gF6BkA!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
To my knowledge the SJTA doesn't have any assets in the area. Does SJTA stand for something else here? There is a corresponding "SJTA Ends" sign in the other direction. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9474846,-75.1167168,3a,44.2y,323.63h,79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa-txJ-o_rYEuM0BPzvqDwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And speaking of that area, who is this oddly placed "Welcome to New Jersey" sign meant to be for?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9468104,-75.1153028,3a,30.9y,84.78h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdRQ1FkzB7dYkiqCDE_Oz4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's an interesting question. Per the SLDs, SJTA does have some jurisdiction over Rt 30, but only its last mile or so in Atlantic City. Aside from the shared bit with 676 that's DRPA jurisdiction, NJDOT says that the rest of the roadway is under their jurisdiction. Very curious.
Many years ago, I'm going to say sometime between 2000 - 2010, NJDOT agreed to allow the SJTA to plant and maintain flowers, shrubbery and other 'maintenance' along NJ 42.
I'm not sure if this relates to that or expands that. There's very little that the SJTA can do along I-676 and I-76 due to sound barriers and other limitations. These signs are on the US 30 MPs, and if it pertains to a similar program along US 30, I can't find anything about it. The SJTA's press release section seems to be updated when someone remembers to add something to it. The 'History and Milestones' section talks about everything under the sun until 2011, then zip for the past 11 years.
That 'Welcome to New Jersey' sign I believe originated from around 1999/2000 when the Republican National Convention was in Philly, and Gov. Whitman at the time wanted to spruce up the US 30 Admiral Wilson Blvd "Gateway" area which was home to numerous strip bars and other low-quality businesses. As seen in that picture, the sign is decent enough still, and has been updated with a (partially hidden) website apparently between 2009-2011 per GSV history, but otherwise could use a bit more sprucing up in that area.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2022, 10:40:22 PM
That 'Welcome to New Jersey' sign [...] could use a bit more sprucing up in that area.
That's an understatement IMO.
Anyone remember the "New Jersey Welcomes Safe Drivers" signs?
Quote from: ixnay on December 05, 2022, 10:33:48 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2022, 10:40:22 PM
That 'Welcome to New Jersey' sign [...] could use a bit more sprucing up in that area.
That's an understatement IMO.
Anyone remember the "New Jersey Welcomes Safe Drivers" signs?
I do.
I believe the Wipers on signs replaced them now.
Anyone remember when this used to be US 30?
https://goo.gl/maps/oVX7J3m13VumkwTw6
Prior to I-676, US 30 had the same situation NJ 139 has now going from expressway to a river crossing in Jersey City. A one way couplet connected the Adm. Wilson Blvd expressway with the Ben Franklin Bridge as does NJ 139 with the Holland Tunnel in another part of the state.
Penn Street was for EB US 30 and was most likely given a road diet when the present US 30 was built right next to it. Currently Penn Street is not as wide as Linden Street, but was equal in traffic counts once upon a time.
Quote from: storm2k on December 04, 2022, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2022, 09:28:35 PM
What's the significance of this "SJTA Starts" sign at the US 30 / I-676 split in Camden? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9474442,-75.1171614,3a,19y,143.8h,86.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGmqVLDDM6XIsUxr6gF6BkA!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
To my knowledge the SJTA doesn't have any assets in the area. Does SJTA stand for something else here? There is a corresponding "SJTA Ends" sign in the other direction. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9474846,-75.1167168,3a,44.2y,323.63h,79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa-txJ-o_rYEuM0BPzvqDwg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And speaking of that area, who is this oddly placed "Welcome to New Jersey" sign meant to be for?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9468104,-75.1153028,3a,30.9y,84.78h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdRQ1FkzB7dYkiqCDE_Oz4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's an interesting question. Per the SLDs, SJTA does have some jurisdiction over Rt 30, but only its last mile or so in Atlantic City. Aside from the shared bit with 676 that's DRPA jurisdiction, NJDOT says that the rest of the roadway is under their jurisdiction. Very curious.
So a bit of research brought me to at least some generic info on it.
In 2020 a resolution was passed for 'maintenance' services on 676 and 30. It doesn't describe the maintenance that will be performed, although by its reading it does seem to stay away from construction and other high-dollar costs. But considering these routes "feeder roads" is probably a bit of a stretch, considering the distance between their maintenance jurisdiction and the actual Expresssway. Google research seems to show that this didn't generate any media attention. I have a guy I'll reach out to, in case he may be interested in trying to do a little research on it.
QuoteRESOLUTION 2020-127 OF THE SOUTH JERSEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES ON ROUTE 30 (MILE POST 0.92 TO MILE POST 4.20) AND INTERSTATE 676 (MILE POST 0.00 TO 3.50)
Pursuant to Section 7(p) of the Act, the Authority has the power to acquire, construct, maintain or operate any public highway connecting with any one or more projects which in the opinion of the Authority will increase the use of a project or projects, to take over for construction, maintenance or operation any existing public highway as a feeder road and to realign any existing public highway and build additional sections of road over new alignment in connection with that existing public highway. The New Jersey Department of Transportation ("NJDOT" ), under the powers vested in the law, N.J.S.A. 27:1A-5 and N.J.S.A. 27:7-21, and the Authority, pursuant to its powers under the Act, have mutual interest in entering into an agreement for the initiation and completion of maintenance services (the "Agreement" ) on Route 30 ("Rt. 30" ) (Mile Post 0.92 to 4.20) and Interstate 676 ("I-676" ) (Mile Post 0.00 to 3.50). Pursuant to the Agreement, NJDOT will continue to perform certain maintenance activities on Rt. 30 and I-676, but the Authority will begin to perform maintenance services on Rt. 30 and I-676. The Director of Operations believes it to be in the best interest of the Authority and recommends entering into a contract with NJDOT for the Authority to initiate and complete maintenance services on Rt. 30 and I-676.
Since I was going across the bridge yesterday, I was on the lookout for these markers. Along with the signs on the US 30 MPs, there's this Start sign on I-676 South just after the 676/30 split.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qjhPSPm1gDank8kb9
And an End sign just before the 676/76 merge.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hXZ459GWbsh6MXNq6
North I-676, Same:
SJTA Starts:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gdofFemAGy558xzHA
SJTA Ends: I-676
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tAfNnbrfjqKLQ5kC9
Speaking of river crossings, the Lincoln Tunnel is now cashless.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/lincoln-tunnel-makes-switch-to-cashless-tolls-ending-carpool-discount-e-zpass/#:~:text=WEEHAWKEN%2C%20N.J.%20%2D%2D%20Cashless%2Donly,of%20accidents%20at%20the%20crossing.
Anytime a toll is removed for cyber technology. It's old news. Expect all toll roads to be this way.
Prepare to pay more to cross from NJ to NY:
Port Authority approves toll hikes as part of budget (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/transportation/2022/12/15/port-authority-toll-hike-approved-for-2023/69731291007/)
QuoteHere are the increases:
E-ZPass tolls during off-peak hours will rise to $12.75, from $11.75.
E-ZPass tolls during peak hours will rise to $14.75, from $13.75.
Tolls delivered by mail will rise to $17, up from $16.
Makes me glad I almost never have to drive to the city, between the ever increasing PANYNJ tolls and all the NY agencies practicing transponder discrimination.
PANYNJ & MTA are the Mob :-D Nothing new.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 12, 2022, 09:12:51 AM
Anytime a toll is removed for cyber technology. It's old news.
To you, maybe, Roadman.
Quote from: ixnay on December 16, 2022, 06:10:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 12, 2022, 09:12:51 AM
Anytime a toll is removed for cyber technology. It's old news.
To you, maybe, Roadman.
It's an expression. It means tolls being removed has been a long term plan for a while and little by little they have been being phased out. It's just a matter of time before it hits the Garden State completely.
Don't expect cash tolls to be forever or consider buying swampland in Arizona.
https://goo.gl/maps/8qgWUvEhWRuLUMoF8
This is different. After visiting my aunt who lived near US 22 in Bridgewater, seeing both Clinton and Easton was common on US 22 guides in the Bridgewater area as well as nearby Readington and Whitehouse for control destinations for US 22 WB.
However, never saw Clinton and Easton being signed in opposing directions like in this image.
https://goo.gl/maps/ChyYLeWbbXBCss5N9
Why doesn’t NJDOT maintain I-78 west of Exit 3 in Still Valley? I see this sign has the EB Exit 3 ramp noted for being in their jurisdiction some 3 miles away from the bridge they own. I believe the mainline freeway has a similar sign denoting the change from DRJTBC to NJDOT that I saw over 33 years ago after I-78 opened there.
Fun Fact:
https://goo.gl/maps/ywdi9A58ruJJ9GpBA
This used to be the carriage way of US 22 WB into the long defunct Still Valley Circle where the US 22 and NJ 122 intersection is now operating. Motorists traveling west into the circle on US 22 would see the Great Sign of the former Holiday Inn that was where the furniture store and Aldi Market now stand on the Western quadrant of the US 22 and NJ 122 intersection.
The Holiday Inn later became an investment of Fighter Larry Holmes and renamed The Commodore Inn. Holmes, as many maybe aware was a nearby resident of Easton, PA and was diversifying his assets and briefly dabbled in the hospitality industry using the hotel as an investment. In addition Walmart used to be a regional department store called Laneco.
The current Exit 3 was also a wye interchange hence the abandoned US 22 roadway in the aforementioned link as originally in the 1960’s when that part of I-78 was built, engineers envisioned a different interchange at that location and stubs were indeed left behind at the former wye for the extension into PA that was built nearly three decades later.
Also up until the early nineties, NJ 122 was US 22 ALT. It may still be too as last request to AASHTO was in 1971 circa for US 206 to be realigned in Netcong, so as far as ASHTO is concerned that Alternate bannered route is still alive and well.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 27, 2022, 11:36:33 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/ChyYLeWbbXBCss5N9
Why doesn't NJDOT maintain I-78 west of Exit 3 in Still Valley? I see this sign has the EB Exit 3 ramp noted for being in their jurisdiction some 3 miles away from the bridge they own. I believe the mainline freeway has a similar sign denoting the change from DRJTBC to NJDOT that I saw over 33 years ago after I-78 opened there.
I think that was part of the compromise of DRJTBC getting to toll the bridge...
I see in Union, NJ on EB US 22 at the U Turn east of NJ 82 is no longer going to be possible. Latest GSV images show new curbing on US 22 is realigning the left merge from NJ 82 WB to US 22 EB to a sooner location and no left exit from US 22 EB to the U Turn ramp to US 22 WB.
So no more u turn access to provide two of the missing moves at the US 22 and GSP interchange that relied on that particular ramp. Typical NJ for you.
The whole area is under construction at the moment. The U-Turn is closed because it isn't possible to keep it open while half an overpass is missing. The Vauxhall Rd. interchange got some improvements and seems to be handling the u-turning traffics without a problem.
https://goo.gl/maps/AkchD7dwXDprRGw66
Found an old Milemarker in Springfield from when NJ 124 was NJ 24. It looks like NJDOT forgot about it and it's still there to this day stating at Phillipsburg was once the zero mm for the route.
Even as late as the 1980s, these signs were still being used for mile posts until the word mile ( and now the route number)was added.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2023, 05:18:12 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/AkchD7dwXDprRGw66
Found an old Milemarker in Springfield from when NJ 124 was NJ 24. It looks like NJDOT forgot about it and it's still there to this day stating at Phillipsburg was once the zero mm for the route.
Even as late as the 1980s, these signs were still being used for mile posts until the word mile ( and now the route number)was added.
I wish NJDOT would post "Historic Route 24" signs along all of its old alignment west of Morristown.
Quote from: artmalk on January 19, 2023, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2023, 05:18:12 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/AkchD7dwXDprRGw66
Found an old Milemarker in Springfield from when NJ 124 was NJ 24. It looks like NJDOT forgot about it and it's still there to this day stating at Phillipsburg was once the zero mm for the route.
Even as late as the 1980s, these signs were still being used for mile posts until the word mile ( and now the route number)was added.
I wish NJDOT would post "Historic Route 24" signs along all of its old alignment west of Morristown.
Through Mendham and Chester it would fit in with the Colonial Downtowns both communities have.
https://goo.gl/maps/HXBNoEYzmjsUQCHg8
I’m not sure I like this APL used on Route 7 in Kearny as part of the Wittpenn replacement project.
It lists CR 508 as I-280 and the NJ Turnpike as it’s missing “ TO” banners. Plus wasn’t CR 506 truncated to Belleville years ago? According to this CR 506 still overlaps with NJ 7.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 23, 2023, 12:58:33 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/HXBNoEYzmjsUQCHg8
I'm not sure I like this APL used on Route 7 in Kearny as part of the Wittpenn replacement project.
It lists CR 508 as I-280 and the NJ Turnpike as it's missing " TO" banners. Plus wasn't CR 506 truncated to Belleville years ago? According to this CR 506 still overlaps with NJ 7.
Yeah, it seems even weirder since the follow on sign (which is older) is this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7468276,-74.0961625,3a,75y,295.78h,86.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9AelQLzaCcV7Bi4-zMk7_w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Quote from: famartin on January 23, 2023, 02:32:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 23, 2023, 12:58:33 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/HXBNoEYzmjsUQCHg8
I'm not sure I like this APL used on Route 7 in Kearny as part of the Wittpenn replacement project.
It lists CR 508 as I-280 and the NJ Turnpike as it's missing " TO" banners. Plus wasn't CR 506 truncated to Belleville years ago? According to this CR 506 still overlaps with NJ 7.
Yeah, it seems even weirder since the follow on sign (which is older) is this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7468276,-74.0961625,3a,75y,295.78h,86.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9AelQLzaCcV7Bi4-zMk7_w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
NJDOT somewhat routinely leaves off "TO" for routes not directly connected.
The APL appears to have been added in 2020. Notice off to the right signage was added, mostly hidden by the Stop sign, for "TO" 508 there. Looking at the GSV in late 2020, that wasn't there then but does appear on the next GSV in 2021.
Typical sloppy NJDOT signing.
Quote from: SignBridge on January 23, 2023, 09:01:09 PM
Typical sloppy NJDOT signing.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 01, 2022, 07:54:06 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 01, 2022, 06:57:04 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 01, 2022, 04:38:02 PM
Quote from: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 07:26:25 PM
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"
What con-artists lol
They got it all screwed up. It should say: "TOLL FREE? KEEP MOVING!"
Oops, shouldn't have this DOT logo either.
*watches random NJTA worker eat the part of the sign*
Quote from: SignBridge on January 23, 2023, 09:01:09 PM
Typical sloppy NJDOT signing.
Yeah like the new NJ 440 signing in Perth Amboy or the guide signs on I-195 listing the next exit even if it is 6.5 miles away plus the TO NJ 29 thing on pull throughs because NJDOT feels like saying I-195 west to Trenton is a lie to drivers.
I live in Parsippany and that road has always been one of my favorite weekend drives.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 23, 2023, 12:54:18 AM
Quote from: artmalk on January 19, 2023, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2023, 05:18:12 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/AkchD7dwXDprRGw66
Found an old Milemarker in Springfield from when NJ 124 was NJ 24. It looks like NJDOT forgot about it and it's still there to this day stating at Phillipsburg was once the zero mm for the route.
Even as late as the 1980s, these signs were still being used for mile posts until the word mile ( and now the route number)was added.
I wish NJDOT would post "Historic Route 24" signs along all of its old alignment west of Morristown.
Through Mendham and Chester it would fit in with the Colonial Downtowns both communities have.
Does NJ Route 94 have any speed zones with 50 mph maximums? I know north of Hamburg the speed limit is 45 mph to the NY State Line. How about from Columbia to Newton?
One thing I do admire is the fact NJ 94 in its entire run in NJ has very few traffic lights along its alignment. Though some were added over the years, such as in Lafayette, McAffee, and Veron as Route 23 in Hamburg was the northernmost signal in the state for the longest time. CR 517 north was added in 1977 or 78 due to that intersection having a limited sight distance which most likely created accidents. The one at CR 515 in Vernon was added in the eighties to replace a permanent beacon that created long queues on NJ 94 NB as traffic had to STOP for CR 515 traffic due the turn NJ 94 makes there.
For the most part NJ 94 is two lanes and frequent curves, if not all of it two lanes, so subject to lower speed limits.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2023, 12:05:15 AM
Does NJ Route 94 have any speed zones with 50 mph maximums? I know north of Hamburg the speed limit is 45 mph to the NY State Line. How about from Columbia to Newton?
One thing I do admire is the fact NJ 94 in its entire run in NJ has very few traffic lights along its alignment. Though some were added over the years, such as in Lafayette, McAffee, and Veron as Route 23 in Hamburg was the northernmost signal in the state for the longest time. CR 517 north was added in 1977 or 78 due to that intersection having a limited sight distance which most likely created accidents. The one at CR 515 in Vernon was added in the eighties to replace a permanent beacon that created long queues on NJ 94 NB as traffic had to STOP for CR 515 traffic due the turn NJ 94 makes there.
For the most part NJ 94 is two lanes and frequent curves, if not all of it two lanes, so subject to lower speed limits.
From here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9332518,-75.081542,3a,43.3y,48.6h,85.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfeveBzxEBrhJ85xgvDlZdA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) to here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9443765,-75.0704274,3a,30.4y,228.04h,89.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUpMhTx1UvpTXuNLr5jhuJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) and from here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9584983,-75.0566877,3a,75y,81.75h,89.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMeM8NOVhmqtFAFTWb791kA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) to here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9825418,-74.9645824,3a,75y,298.67h,88.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFZ58xzcTLrTtRxV8gnLAdA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) at least, from what I could find in 10 minutes of poking around on GSV.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZVNkEqvqHadN13Zu9
Found this signal installation to be unusual. Usually when two left turn lanes are present, two left turn signal heads are always present. Yet here only one is only installed. Plus NJ is one of the few US states that always has two signal heads for left turn signals which this is indeed a mistake for NJ to have done.
That intersection was posted on the New Jersey subreddit in the past, moreso because the closest pole you can date back to no later than the early 90s based on the Bush-Quayle sticker.
Well that intersection is in Essex County, which I was surprised went with yellow heads as they were one of the last counties to switch from green. That is why Short Hills Mall has some greens left.
Has anyone ever contacted NJDOT about the missing trailblazers in both Asbury Park and Belmar along Route 71?
Here is SB Main at Eighth where Route 71 SB turns right onto Eighth to head west.
https://goo.gl/maps/3u7k5GJeUCbmXXpy5
No shields informing SB motorists of the right turn at all.
https://goo.gl/maps/RkHxJSWj8SbVpUTW8
Now travel west on Eighth and no mention Route 71 SB turns left here either onto Route 35.
Now let's go north on Route 71.
https://goo.gl/maps/f9s8iWLG1VpX7nNAA
EB Eighth in Belmar at Main where no shields direct traffic to the left as Route 71 turns left from Eighth.
https://goo.gl/maps/jL7nPQ9R6ci16Sth6
This is NB on Main in Asbury Park. No shields to inform northbound motorists the route turns east on Deal Lake.
https://goo.gl/maps/E9PNYV61AgKGCpsp7
Then once again no signage to point out Route 71 NB turns left at the light on to Norwood Avenue.
This is got to be the worst state maintained route to follow outside of DC.
I think the street blades helped me out quite a bit on NJ 71.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 01, 2023, 01:17:39 AM
Has anyone ever contacted NJDOT about the missing trailblazers in both Asbury Park and Belmar along Route 71?
Here is SB Main at Eighth where Route 71 SB turns right onto Eighth to head west.
https://goo.gl/maps/3u7k5GJeUCbmXXpy5
No shields informing SB motorists of the right turn at all.
https://goo.gl/maps/RkHxJSWj8SbVpUTW8
Now travel west on Eighth and no mention Route 71 SB turns left here either onto Route 35.
Now let's go north on Route 71.
https://goo.gl/maps/f9s8iWLG1VpX7nNAA
EB Eighth in Belmar at Main where no shields direct traffic to the left as Route 71 turns left from Eighth.
https://goo.gl/maps/jL7nPQ9R6ci16Sth6
This is NB on Main in Asbury Park. No shields to inform northbound motorists the route turns east on Deal Lake.
https://goo.gl/maps/E9PNYV61AgKGCpsp7
Then once again no signage to point out Route 71 NB turns left at the light on to Norwood Avenue.
This is got to be the worst state maintained route to follow outside of DC.
When I toured 71 back in 2018, I tried to grab photos of at least 1 reassurance in each direction in every municipality, but several towns completely lacked them. The new mile markers help and as already mentioned, so do the traffic light blades.
71 is a relatively rare relic of olden times in NJ, where the road mostly exists on existing streets instead of being realigned to something more modern constructed by the state.
If I recall, NJ-71 itself is an older alignment of what is now NJ-35 in the area.
Quote from: artmalk on January 19, 2023, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2023, 05:18:12 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/AkchD7dwXDprRGw66
Found an old Milemarker in Springfield from when NJ 124 was NJ 24. It looks like NJDOT forgot about it and it's still there to this day stating at Phillipsburg was once the zero mm for the route.
Even as late as the 1980s, these signs were still being used for mile posts until the word mile ( and now the route number)was added.
I wish NJDOT would post "Historic Route 24" signs along all of its old alignment west of Morristown.
I've wanted this for years. I even created a mockup of a potential one a while ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/j6OiaeU.png)
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 01, 2023, 04:00:24 PM
If I recall, NJ-71 itself is an older alignment of what is now NJ-35 in the area.
Or its predecessor. I believe NJ 35 was NJ 4 once upon a time.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2023, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 01, 2023, 04:00:24 PM
If I recall, NJ-71 itself is an older alignment of what is now NJ-35 in the area.
Or its predecessor. I believe NJ 35 was NJ 4 once upon a time.
Correct, 35 was the original Rt 4 that was the gateway to the shore. When it was rerouted, what was 4 became 4N which is today's 71.
That sign would be perfect!
Quote from: storm2k on February 01, 2023, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: artmalk on January 19, 2023, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2023, 05:18:12 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/AkchD7dwXDprRGw66
Found an old Milemarker in Springfield from when NJ 124 was NJ 24. It looks like NJDOT forgot about it and it's still there to this day stating at Phillipsburg was once the zero mm for the route.
Even as late as the 1980s, these signs were still being used for mile posts until the word mile ( and now the route number)was added.
I wish NJDOT would post "Historic Route 24" signs along all of its old alignment west of Morristown.
I've wanted this for years. I even created a mockup of a potential one a while ago:
(https://i.imgur.com/j6OiaeU.png)
Quote from: famartin on February 01, 2023, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 01, 2023, 01:17:39 AM
Has anyone ever contacted NJDOT about the missing trailblazers in both Asbury Park and Belmar along Route 71?
Here is SB Main at Eighth where Route 71 SB turns right onto Eighth to head west.
https://goo.gl/maps/3u7k5GJeUCbmXXpy5
No shields informing SB motorists of the right turn at all.
https://goo.gl/maps/RkHxJSWj8SbVpUTW8
Now travel west on Eighth and no mention Route 71 SB turns left here either onto Route 35.
Now let's go north on Route 71.
https://goo.gl/maps/f9s8iWLG1VpX7nNAA
EB Eighth in Belmar at Main where no shields direct traffic to the left as Route 71 turns left from Eighth.
https://goo.gl/maps/jL7nPQ9R6ci16Sth6
This is NB on Main in Asbury Park. No shields to inform northbound motorists the route turns east on Deal Lake.
https://goo.gl/maps/E9PNYV61AgKGCpsp7
Then once again no signage to point out Route 71 NB turns left at the light on to Norwood Avenue.
This is got to be the worst state maintained route to follow outside of DC.
When I toured 71 back in 2018, I tried to grab photos of at least 1 reassurance in each direction in every municipality, but several towns completely lacked them. The new mile markers help and as already mentioned, so do the traffic light blades.
71 is a relatively rare relic of olden times in NJ, where the road mostly exists on existing streets instead of being realigned to something more modern constructed by the state.
Ignoring tiny things like 13 and 59: 5, 7, 17 south end, 26, 27, 28, 31 Trenton, 33 Hightstown and Trenton, 40/50 plex, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49, 53... it goes on.
Quote from: Alps on February 04, 2023, 12:34:56 AM
Quote from: famartin on February 01, 2023, 07:35:06 AM
71 is a relatively rare relic of olden times in NJ, where the road mostly exists on existing streets instead of being realigned to something more modern constructed by the state.
Ignoring tiny things like 13 and 59: 5, 7, 17 south end, 26, 27, 28, 31 Trenton, 33 Hightstown and Trenton, 40/50 plex, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49, 53... it goes on.
Many of those have sections which were realigned to allow higher speed travel. Where on 71 qualifies for that? It's mostly several residential roads cobbled together.
I don't think the speed limit exceeds 35 mph anywhere on Route 71 either. In Brielle it's only 30.
Yup, it's mostly residential especially through Loch Arbour and Deal.
Drove thru part of the 29 freeway in Trenton today, got pictures of some new signs. These replaced more of the triangular truss structures that have been happening all over the state.
Rt 29 Southbound:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52669892553_f5108e2344_z.jpg)
Not sure what's up with the orange Left plaque, that should be black on yellow. Also note the black on yellow plaque for "Left 3 Lanes" and the unnecessary "Exit Only" plaque on what isn't a lane drop, just an exit ramp. This is a thing that NJDOT has basically embraced for every exit sign at the final decision point regardless of if there's a lane drop or just a deceleration lane. It's kind of annoying.
Rt 29 Northbound:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52669392271_ccf4118e03_z.jpg)
Don't know why they don't include Lambertville as the control city here, that's the next official control city for 29. Also note the unneccessary Exit Only plaque.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52669681299_3b1e00d51f_z.jpg)
The exit only plaques for these are legit because both are lane drops. Again they could have put Lambertville on the thru sign but chose not to.
At some point in the last few years NJDOT went from perfectly average BGS design to some of the strangest and worst in the country. What happened? Is it new software or some rogue engineer?
These signs are mostly fine. The only part that stands out is the unnecessary exit only plaques. This is better than the mess they made of the new signs on 440 in Perth Amboy/Woodbridge.
I think the contractor just used a bad color on that LEFT plaque. It's always been a left only exit, regardless of the contruction activity in the area.
On the NB side, I like they added 'Capital Complex' to both signs. That said, they really didn't do much after you exit the highway to convey what to do or where to go; there's some limited signage but that's it. The right most 'Exit Only' isn't necessary because it's just a cloverleaf-type exit here where the on ramp enters the highway just about 150 feet before the lane exits ( https://goo.gl/maps/H3qDCUzcUTQKDe4FA ). The 'Exit Only' for Calhoun Street is properly signed though.
Since you were in the area, I'll mention this as well: I wished they put this sign bridge *before* the overpass, not after where its visibility is severely limited: https://goo.gl/maps/xEypdBFRMeFBrHmf7 . This new location is just feet away from its old location and signage, but the gantry was lower, offering more visibility ( https://goo.gl/maps/xEypdBFRMeFBrHmf7 ).
The Left 3 Lanes plaque is annoying where its been used around the state, often when there's only 3 lanes in the area to begin with.
I do note that despite the efforts of the sign modernization, removing the black backgrounds, etc., they still sign US 122 near Phillipsburg (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6762519,-75.1415308,3a,38.2y,191.31h,90.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slSvxLKrcFHUyetXddjzWVQ!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192) (US 173 still exists on the old signs not replaced as of the GSV drive in 2021)
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 05, 2023, 07:40:13 PM
I do note that despite the efforts of the sign modernization, removing the black backgrounds, etc., they still sign US 122 near Phillipsburg (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6762519,-75.1415308,3a,38.2y,191.31h,90.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slSvxLKrcFHUyetXddjzWVQ!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192) (US 173 still exists on the old signs not replaced as of the GSV drive in 2021)
That was likely just on sign plans as replace in kind, which the contractor dutifully did.
I guess this is truly for Alps, but does anyone have an update when this new US 1 TRUCK/US 9 TRUCK (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20191025_155201_Countyroadlane.pdf) will open?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 09, 2023, 01:18:42 PM
I guess this is truly for Alps, but does anyone have an update when this new US 1 TRUCK/US 9 TRUCK (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20191025_155201_Countyroadlane.pdf) will open?
Guessing you mean this road?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7508662,-74.0620163,3a,75y,66.08h,89.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3FhMOkW7n2Sh6-vwUBrWvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7624184,-74.0534619,3a,75y,262.21h,86.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4XLh1QWQ6d791zK9rLzhyQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4XLh1QWQ6d791zK9rLzhyQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.8902855%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: famartin on February 09, 2023, 01:55:20 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 09, 2023, 01:18:42 PM
I guess this is truly for Alps, but does anyone have an update when this new US 1 TRUCK/US 9 TRUCK (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20191025_155201_Countyroadlane.pdf) will open?
Guessing you mean this road?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7508662,-74.0620163,3a,75y,66.08h,89.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3FhMOkW7n2Sh6-vwUBrWvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7624184,-74.0534619,3a,75y,262.21h,86.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4XLh1QWQ6d791zK9rLzhyQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4XLh1QWQ6d791zK9rLzhyQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.8902855%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
That is correct.
Why did NJDOT replace Kennedy with JFK?
https://goo.gl/maps/Hq9yWPqkWH1fbtPW8
It's all the same. We know Kennedy usually is JFK.
Here is I-287 written out in text ( though faded badly, but still can be made out) but using " Rt" instead of "I."
Shows how everything in New Jersey is a route and why they don't duplicate route numbers.
https://goo.gl/maps/ouYscRPucUyKaRQL9
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2023, 02:47:38 PM
Here is I-287 written out in text ( though faded badly, but still can be made out) but using " Rt" instead of "I."
Shows how everything in New Jersey is a route and why they don't duplicate route numbers.
https://goo.gl/maps/ouYscRPucUyKaRQL9
The text started fading out sometime between Sept. 2018 and Oct. 2019.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2023, 07:31:03 AM
Why did NJDOT replace Kennedy with JFK?
https://goo.gl/maps/Hq9yWPqkWH1fbtPW8
It's all the same. We know Kennedy usually is JFK.
Essex County officially calls it the JFK Parkway so it makes sense for the name to match. Can't assume everyone knows they're the same thing. It's more amazing that there's a couple of signs like that in that area they have survived this long with non-reflective button copy signs.
Noticed the NJ 124 button copy used for Kennedy was all upper case despite Livingston in mixed case. Usually thats a Garden State Parkway thing capitalizing the street name but allowing the control cities to be both.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 16, 2023, 07:31:03 AM
Why did NJDOT replace Kennedy with JFK?
https://goo.gl/maps/Hq9yWPqkWH1fbtPW8
It's all the same. We know Kennedy usually is JFK.
I've noticed NYCDOT starting to do the same thing with respect to the airport.
https://goo.gl/maps/KZEiN9Y4mJ52JGFf7
Does anyone know why there is a SB US 202 shield on WB NJ 124 at James Street? Considering James Street does not intersect US 202, that sign is misleading.
I do remember though that Maple Avenue used to connect to SB US 202 before Market Street was converted to a one way for US 202 NB. Could that be the case? It is a worthy scenario as assuming that this sign was left over from that as motorists would turn left on James, right on Maple, and left on former two way Market.
Plus I remember the black on white Route 202 south sign so it's probably careless copying from when they updated the signs.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 18, 2023, 07:56:12 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/KZEiN9Y4mJ52JGFf7
Does anyone know why there is a SB US 202 shield on WB NJ 124 at James Street? Considering James Street does not intersect US 202, that sign is misleading.
I do remember though that Maple Avenue used to connect to SB US 202 before Market Street was converted to a one way for US 202 NB. Could that be the case? It is a worthy scenario as assuming that this sign was left over from that as motorists would turn left on James, right on Maple, and left on former two way Market.
Plus I remember the black on white Route 202 south sign so it's probably careless copying from when they updated the signs.
If you look at the historical GSVs, there was an old rotting black on white with no shield sign that likely got replaced in a sign replacement contract because it was replace-in-kind.
https://www.nj.com/news/2023/02/from-mega-projects-to-regional-highways-these-are-njdots-top-10-construction-projects-in-2023.html
This maybe old, but came up on Social Media about NJDOT projects.
Plus in last post look at what I said about the old black on white shields as I do remember those. I implied that NJDOT carelessly copied over in a sign replacement project.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2023, 03:33:12 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2023/02/from-mega-projects-to-regional-highways-these-are-njdots-top-10-construction-projects-in-2023.html
This maybe old, but came up on Social Media about NJDOT projects.
Plus in last post look at what I said about the old black on white shields as I do remember those. I implied that NJDOT carelessly copied over in a sign replacement project.
It's paywalled.
And they got the very first picture wrong. That's the overpass from 42 North to 295 South, part of the $180 million missing moves project, a totally separate project from the $900 million (and well above that) Direct Connection project referenced.
Hopefully someone will write NJ.com an editorial and mention Larry Higgs is reporting like certain propaganda news reporters without checking the facts.
Why don't you?
https://6abc.com/interstate-295-closed-i-295-crash-carneys-point-route-140-bridge-overpass/12867308/
Updated: 295's reopened. But the NJ 140 overpass itself remains closed.
https://www.nj.com/salem/2023/02/i-295-north-reopens-after-truck-damaged-overpass-in-salem-county.html
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 21, 2023, 12:19:58 PM
Why don't you?
I don't know enough about the I-295 project to debate the accuracy of the article. Jeff knows it as he lives nearby and saw the inaccuracy of it.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 26, 2023, 07:24:55 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 21, 2023, 12:19:58 PM
Why don't you?
I don't know enough about the I-295 project to debate the accuracy of the article. Jeff knows it as he lives nearby and saw the inaccuracy of it.
I saw the author and could pretty much guarantee there was some inaccuracy to it.
Unlike, say, Dr. Gridlock of the Washington Post, the author of that story appears he was told he would be covering transportation and transit stories whether he wanted to or not. His well-meaning stories are generally recaps of press releases, short on facts, and while they may pass muster with most of the newspaper's readers, anyone with a bit more info commonly will find some...or a lot of...inaccuracies.
Another newspaper company, the (Camden) Courier Post, had a similar person. His stories were really bad. He had no knowledge of the subject, and I kinda wonder if he wrote them in a manner that would just irritate the readers against NJDOT. Their current reporter who gets some transportation/transit stories isn't much better.
In a state known for its congested roads, its tolls, and its state-wide transit system, the media has generally decided to ignore transportation issues and construction projects except in some rare cases, and getting someone to actually care about their story is even more rare.
Saw the NJ-140 bridge damage today. That...... was quite an impact. Looks like NJDOT removed the two damaged girders from the bridge over the northbound lanes of I-295 already. That repair is going to take a bit of time to finish.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 26, 2023, 08:15:10 PM
Saw the NJ-140 bridge damage today. That...... was quite an impact. Looks like NJDOT removed the two damaged girders from the bridge over the northbound lanes of I-295 already. That repair is going to take a bit of time to finish.
The detour around it would have to be US 40 & The Turnpike overlap I assume?
What I find a bit interesting is NJDOT for some reason never signs NJ 140 on any signage approaching the exits for 140. Yet construction signage for a project in the area, along with all the discussion from NJDOT regarding this crash, mentions NJ 140 prominently.
The Straight-Line maps also give NJ 140 different names. In the detail, on the US 130 SLD, it's called Slapes Corner Road. On the NJ 140 SLD, it's East Hawks Road. The maps, including on the US 40 & I-295 SLDs, it's properly called Hawks Bridge Road.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 27, 2023, 01:35:51 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 26, 2023, 08:15:10 PM
Saw the NJ-140 bridge damage today. That...... was quite an impact. Looks like NJDOT removed the two damaged girders from the bridge over the northbound lanes of I-295 already. That repair is going to take a bit of time to finish.
The detour around it would have to be US 40 & The Turnpike overlap I assume?
Depends on your origin and destination. Much of it involves going on US 130 or US 40 between this point and NJ 48. WB traffic on 140 West can take 295 North to NJ 48 (Exit 4) and make a u-turn. Traffic on 140 East can take the unmarked Hook Rd exit, or turn onto 295 South then take Exit 2A for Hook Rd. There's a jughandle for a u-turn about 1/2 mile down the road, which leads you back to 295 North to Exit 2 B/C for 140 East.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2023, 09:59:45 PM
What I find a bit interesting is NJDOT for some reason never signs NJ 140 on any signage approaching the exits for 140. Yet construction signage for a project in the area, along with all the discussion from NJDOT regarding this crash, mentions NJ 140 prominently.
What's even funnier is that while NJDOT doesn't sign 140 from 295, NJTA does sign it on the Turnpike southbound!
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6807662,-75.4735629,3a,75y,255.8h,83.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_OifEYYsyLkv2YiLU77rFw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://goo.gl/maps/yxpa4yzb1guaz2Np6
https://goo.gl/maps/zEVRoRQRY79bcTf86
It's signed along the route.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 01:17:01 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/yxpa4yzb1guaz2Np6
https://goo.gl/maps/zEVRoRQRY79bcTf86
It's signed along the route.
Yes but... "on any signage approaching the exits for 140" is what Jeff said, which is true.
Yes I am aware 2B-C just uses US 40 and 130 due to it being short route. But it's not totally ignored like it once was.
https://goo.gl/maps/2APXcDau3quzJP2c7
https://goo.gl/maps/gGRB8cfhFWnrgRfL7
I love the new blue Newark Airport signs.
If you like blue signs you should have been on the New York Thruway and the Connecticut Turnpike back in the 1960's. LOL I like both blue and green. I think they're equally effective.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 03, 2023, 01:33:51 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/2APXcDau3quzJP2c7
https://goo.gl/maps/gGRB8cfhFWnrgRfL7
I love the new blue Newark Airport signs.
I am not a fan of them ditching the classic 4 color plane egg logo that has defined this airport for my entire life.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 03, 2023, 08:13:34 PM
If you like blue signs you should have been on the New York Thruway and the Connecticut Turnpike back in the 1960's. LOL I like both blue and green. I think they're equally effective.
Saw them. They were prominent in the 1980's still
I see the new Terminal A at EWR opened this year. It has 33 gates but no Gate 13, and it's still in Elizabeth like its predecessor was making cab hailing difficult unless they finally allowed Newark Cabs to cross the city line.
That was always an issue for the longest time trying to get taxis at Terminal A.
If anyone enjoys listening or attending public meetings, NJDOT has a few currently happening:
Replacement of the US 130 Bridge over Newton Creek in Haddon Township & Camden City (this is one of the first in-person public meetings since the pandemic): Wednesday, March 8, 4:00-6:30pm.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/pubmeet/details/Handbook_20230227_125743_PICFlyer-Rt130NewtonsCreek-english-Commedits_Approved.pdf
Replacement of the NJ 36 Bridge Troutmans Creek NJ 36 Bridge in City of Long Branch. Virtual meeting, currently underway until Wednesday, March 8.
https://route36bridge.com/public-information-center/
Quote from: storm2k on March 04, 2023, 12:02:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 03, 2023, 01:33:51 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/2APXcDau3quzJP2c7
https://goo.gl/maps/gGRB8cfhFWnrgRfL7
I love the new blue Newark Airport signs.
I am not a fan of them ditching the classic 4 color plane egg logo that has defined this airport for my entire life.
You (on one side) and roadman and I (on the other) will have to agree to disagree.
What I don't get, though, is the use of of the egg logo and "Newark Airport" on a brown background on signs where the rest of the sign is green. I mean, EWR isn't a park, but is it that much of a tourist attraction?
Quote from: ixnay on March 07, 2023, 07:16:38 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 04, 2023, 12:02:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 03, 2023, 01:33:51 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/2APXcDau3quzJP2c7
https://goo.gl/maps/gGRB8cfhFWnrgRfL7
I love the new blue Newark Airport signs.
I am not a fan of them ditching the classic 4 color plane egg logo that has defined this airport for my entire life.
You (on one side) and roadman and I (on the other) will have to agree to disagree.
What I don't get, though, is the use of of the egg logo and "Newark Airport" on a brown background on signs where the rest of the sign is green. I mean, EWR isn't a park, but is it that much of a tourist attraction?
Traditionally the airport used all white on brown signage. When the PA did their last major sign replacement in the early aughts (the Frutiger signage), they moved to a more standard white on green with the yellow and white panels (since yellow was the airport wayfinding system's indication of "this way to airside things"). Signs for the airport being on brown backgrounds was just a vestigial leftover of that original signage at that point.
Quote from: storm2k on March 13, 2023, 10:40:59 AM
Quote from: ixnay on March 07, 2023, 07:16:38 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 04, 2023, 12:02:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 03, 2023, 01:33:51 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/2APXcDau3quzJP2c7
https://goo.gl/maps/gGRB8cfhFWnrgRfL7
I love the new blue Newark Airport signs.
I am not a fan of them ditching the classic 4 color plane egg logo that has defined this airport for my entire life.
You (on one side) and roadman and I (on the other) will have to agree to disagree.
What I don't get, though, is the use of of the egg logo and "Newark Airport" on a brown background on signs where the rest of the sign is green. I mean, EWR isn't a park, but is it that much of a tourist attraction?
Traditionally the airport used all white on brown signage. When the PA did their last major sign replacement in the early aughts (the Frutiger signage), they moved to a more standard white on green with the yellow and white panels (since yellow was the airport wayfinding system's indication of "this way to airside things"). Signs for the airport being on brown backgrounds was just a vestigial leftover of that original signage at that point.
That's why Exit 13A on the Turnpike uses brown border rule on the latest guides. Traditionally the Turnpike used white on green Newark Airport.
https://goo.gl/maps/bBZgf3H4miVKuz7R7
Very lame Exit 21 overhead guide. No distance reference.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2023, 01:51:14 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/bBZgf3H4miVKuz7R7
Very lame Exit 21 overhead guide. No distance reference.
Yeah, while other new signs here are odd, this one is just an error.
Quote from: famartin on March 29, 2023, 04:13:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2023, 01:51:14 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/bBZgf3H4miVKuz7R7
Very lame Exit 21 overhead guide. No distance reference.
Yeah, while other new signs here are odd, this one is just an error.
Route 440 for sure is now odd with all the information overload coming from Staten Island on the gantry near Route 35.
https://goo.gl/maps/HuGMqpMrAjkh6bqW8
I noticed that Googlemaps and GSV consider NJ 23 as Sussex County Route 443 in both Wantage and Montague Townships.
Is this an error?
Quote from: roadman65 on April 04, 2023, 05:09:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/HuGMqpMrAjkh6bqW8
I noticed that Googlemaps and GSV consider NJ 23 as Sussex County Route 443 in both Wantage and Montague Townships.
Is this an error?
Yes.
Does anyone know what the designer was thinking designing the guardrail and sidewalk (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0463673,-74.2219171,3a,90y,352.33h,83.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN94OcVFYm4ztmuOj5Zf10A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) like this? Seems so dumb plus a waste of materials.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 07, 2023, 11:06:07 PM
Does anyone know what the designer was thinking designing the guardrail and sidewalk (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0463673,-74.2219171,3a,90y,352.33h,83.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN94OcVFYm4ztmuOj5Zf10A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) like this? Seems so dumb plus a waste of materials.
This link works better.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0463673,-74.2219171,3a,90y,106.72h,76.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN94OcVFYm4ztmuOj5Zf10A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
But yeah, LOL
Based on GSV, looks like it was a newly installed sidewalk sometime between 2008 and 2013
2008: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0463152,-74.2220215,3a,75y,101.61h,82.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sc4vnojuEH92eiOI7PPB6-A!2e0!5s20080901T000000!7i3328!8i1664
2013: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.046349,-74.22201,3a,75y,101.61h,82.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9d1J2L8HnL8KAbKG82kggw!2e0!5s20130801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
So I guess they were just working around the guardrail.
Quote from: famartin on April 07, 2023, 11:14:59 PM
Based on GSV, looks like it was a newly installed sidewalk sometime between 2008 and 2013
2008: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0463152,-74.2220215,3a,75y,101.61h,82.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sc4vnojuEH92eiOI7PPB6-A!2e0!5s20080901T000000!7i3328!8i1664
2013: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.046349,-74.22201,3a,75y,101.61h,82.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9d1J2L8HnL8KAbKG82kggw!2e0!5s20130801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
So I guess they were just working around the guardrail.
I went back on historicaerials.com to see if there was some funky past situation that they were trying to work around, but I think it was just an issue where someone was contracted to install a sidewalk; doesn't have the expertise to install guiderail, so they worked around what currently existed. But then this doesn't explain why they needlessly double-faced the guardrail for the pedestrians...only at certain points.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 07, 2023, 11:06:07 PM
Does anyone know what the designer was thinking designing the guardrail and sidewalk (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0463673,-74.2219171,3a,90y,352.33h,83.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN94OcVFYm4ztmuOj5Zf10A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) like this? Seems so dumb plus a waste of materials.
I can tell you exactly why: you need a certain length of guide rail before the obstruction begins. It has to terminate in an approved way. That necessitates a certain required length of guide rail. In this case the ramp intersects US 9 within that required length, so the decision was made to swing the terminal toward the ramp instead of to have a substandard length of guide rail in advance of the bridge. We do this all the time. While it's funky in this specific case, it is ADA compliant and MASH compliant (for guide rail) and is the correct solution.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2023, 11:45:00 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 07, 2023, 11:14:59 PM
Based on GSV, looks like it was a newly installed sidewalk sometime between 2008 and 2013
2008: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0463152,-74.2220215,3a,75y,101.61h,82.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sc4vnojuEH92eiOI7PPB6-A!2e0!5s20080901T000000!7i3328!8i1664
2013: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.046349,-74.22201,3a,75y,101.61h,82.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9d1J2L8HnL8KAbKG82kggw!2e0!5s20130801T000000!7i13312!8i6656
So I guess they were just working around the guardrail.
I went back on historicaerials.com to see if there was some funky past situation that they were trying to work around, but I think it was just an issue where someone was contracted to install a sidewalk; doesn't have the expertise to install guiderail, so they worked around what currently existed. But then this doesn't explain why they needlessly double-faced the guardrail for the pedestrians...only at certain points.
It's double faced for pedestrians. The part that isn't is the terminal, which has a specific layout to it that must be followed.
It still feels like complying with the letter of the law and not the spirit. If the concern is protecting the embankment, the guardrail should have gone behind the sidewalk so people don't need to loop around or jump a guardrail. If the sidewalk outside my house looked like that I would be irritated.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 12, 2023, 01:43:53 AM
It still feels like complying with the letter of the law and not the spirit. If the concern is protecting the embankment, the guardrail should have gone behind the sidewalk so people don't need to loop around or jump a guardrail. If the sidewalk outside my house looked like that I would be irritated.
This protects pedestrians better
New topic: What's the history of the interchange at Atlantic City High School? It predates the school by decades and was a partially paved U turn within a ghost trumpet. Never saw a land use there and not aware of a proposed connector.
The guiderail placement is certainly unusual, usually I see it placed behind the sidewalk at least for new installations. Since the rail preceded the walk at that spot, I guess DOT didn't want to redesign/recalculate a new location, even after it looks like it was replaced in-kind at the same location. I don't think that placement is better for pedestrians since the guiderail will give a little bit in a vehicular crash, but it does keep them on the sidewalk rather than walking right onto the narrow road at the overpass.
As to the AC interchange, Great Island there was cleared in that area in the early 1960s (Historic Aerials) with the interchange constructed in 1970 (HA and bridge marking). All I could find with regards to a specific intent was that a local developer acquired the island in the 1970s from Vornado to build a casino there. Obviously that plan fell through. It may have also been a spot for a relocated Bader Field before the city got it for the school and public works facility.
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2023, 09:13:50 AM
New topic: What's the history of the interchange at Atlantic City High School? It predates the school by decades and was a partially paved U turn within a ghost trumpet. Never saw a land use there and not aware of a proposed connector.
I suspect this was NJDOT's way of providing traffic from the Atlantic City Expressway's exit 2 a way back towards West Atlantic City and vice versa. The trumpet stub could have been intended for a future commercial or residential project before the city decided to close and replace the old high school on Albany Avenue.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 12, 2023, 12:59:47 PM
The guiderail placement is certainly unusual, usually I see it placed behind the sidewalk at least for new installations. Since the rail preceded the walk at that spot, I guess DOT didn't want to redesign/recalculate a new location, even after it looks like it was replaced in-kind at the same location. I don't think that placement is better for pedestrians since the guiderail will give a little bit in a vehicular crash, but it does keep them on the sidewalk rather than walking right onto the narrow road at the overpass.
As to the AC interchange, Great Island there was cleared in that area in the early 1960s (Historic Aerials) with the interchange constructed in 1970 (HA and bridge marking). All I could find with regards to a specific intent was that a local developer acquired the island in the 1970s from Vornado to build a casino there. Obviously that plan fell through. It may have also been a spot for a relocated Bader Field before the city got it for the school and public works facility.
The casino makes sense, I imagine the developer arranged for the trumpet and then went bankrupt or so.
https://goo.gl/maps/M6K5XXSsrzKUKkREA
Why is there a NO LEFT TURN prohibition here? It's a one way into a two way street.
Plus why is the ramp to NJ Route 495 EB now closed ?
Quote from: roadman65 on April 17, 2023, 04:26:39 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/M6K5XXSsrzKUKkREA
Why is there a NO LEFT TURN prohibition here? It's a one way into a two way street.
Plus why is the ramp to NJ Route 495 EB now closed ?
I'd guess that there isn't enough room for traffic to queue which results in intersection functionality problems, not to mention potentially backing the ramp up onto the mainline. As for the on-ramp, I'd bet it's something similar.
It's two parallel one-ways that probably get green at the same time.
Quote from: famartin on April 17, 2023, 04:30:37 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 17, 2023, 04:26:39 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/M6K5XXSsrzKUKkREA
Why is there a NO LEFT TURN prohibition here? It's a one way into a two way street.
Plus why is the ramp to NJ Route 495 EB now closed ?
I'd guess that there isn't enough room for traffic to queue which results in intersection functionality problems, not to mention potentially backing the ramp up onto the mainline. As for the on-ramp, I'd bet it's something similar.
gridlock central yes
NE2 correctly gave the reason for the NO LEFT TURN. As far as the AUTHORIZED VEHICLES ONLY for the on ramp, the ramp created too many problems for traffic queueing at The Helix.
Quote from: famartin on April 17, 2023, 04:30:37 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 17, 2023, 04:26:39 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/M6K5XXSsrzKUKkREA
Why is there a NO LEFT TURN prohibition here? It's a one way into a two way street.
Plus why is the ramp to NJ Route 495 EB now closed ?
I'd guess that there isn't enough room for traffic to queue which results in intersection functionality problems, not to mention potentially backing the ramp up onto the mainline. As for the on-ramp, I'd bet it's something similar.
The ramp backs up onto 495 regardless. Sometimes 2 out of the 3 lanes are standstill and only the third lane gets by because cars double-stack to get off, even though only 1 lane is supposed to exit.
A throwback of when I-95 was in Lawrence Township.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/8706983273_e727aa914e_c.jpg)
Exit numbers have changed since as I-295 has different mileposts than previous I-95.
https://goo.gl/maps/kd9eF8Bowze5ucf36
I know that NJ 24 does lead to Interstate 287, but is it really needed on this particular guide located at a crossover from express to local in Union?
Also considering that 19 miles further the straight through freeway encounters I-287 in Bedminster, it can be misleading especially if someone is looking to head south on I-287 for Somerville or Piscataway.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 25, 2023, 04:43:12 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/kd9eF8Bowze5ucf36
I know that NJ 24 does lead to Interstate 287, but is it really needed on this particular guide located at a crossover from express to local in Union?
Also considering that 19 miles further the straight through freeway encounters I-287 in Bedminster, it can be misleading especially if someone is looking to head south on I-287 for Somerville or Piscataway.
I'd guess this is another example of hold-over signage from a time when it was relevant to when now, when its not exactly. In this case, because for some time 24 didn't go all the way to 287, and then finally in the early 90s, it was finished, I'd guess they wanted to emphasize its completion all the way to 287 at one time. At this point, its no longer necessary and as you point out, possibly confusing.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 25, 2023, 04:43:12 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/kd9eF8Bowze5ucf36
I know that NJ 24 does lead to Interstate 287, but is it really needed on this particular guide located at a crossover from express to local in Union?
Also considering that 19 miles further the straight through freeway encounters I-287 in Bedminster, it can be misleading especially if someone is looking to head south on I-287 for Somerville or Piscataway.
If you're going northbound on 287 past Morristown, taking 24 from that spot makes more sense. Same reason they show 78 on the signs southbound on 287 at Exit 37.
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2023, 08:16:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 25, 2023, 04:43:12 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/kd9eF8Bowze5ucf36
I know that NJ 24 does lead to Interstate 287, but is it really needed on this particular guide located at a crossover from express to local in Union?
Also considering that 19 miles further the straight through freeway encounters I-287 in Bedminster, it can be misleading especially if someone is looking to head south on I-287 for Somerville or Piscataway.
If you're going northbound on 287 past Morristown, taking 24 from that spot makes more sense. Same reason they show 78 on the signs southbound on 287 at Exit 37.
This is a good spot to have a "TO NORTH I-287" on the NJ 24 sign and a "TO SOUTH I-287" on the I-78 sign, although it may be a case of "taking the long way around" concerning I-287 South. Likewise, a "TO WEST I-78" could be helpful on the I-287 sign.
From the point of this sign for 24 WEST, the fastest way to the northern 36 miles (Exits 30 to 66) of I-287 is by way of 24. Heading west on 78 is only the fastest route to a middle 14 mile stretch (Exits 12 to 26). Anywhere south of 12, its faster to get off of 78 and take local roads.
So, in THAT sense, "TO I-287" makes sense. That said, I still feel its a hold-over from when 24 was extended to 287, and they wanted to advertise it.
Quote from: famartin on April 25, 2023, 10:39:52 PM
From the point of this sign for 24 WEST, the fastest way to the northern 36 miles (Exits 30 to 66) of I-287 is by way of 24. Heading west on 78 is only the fastest route to a middle 14 mile stretch (Exits 12 to 26). Anywhere south of 12, its faster to get off of 78 and take local roads.
So, in THAT sense, "TO I-287" makes sense. That said, I still feel its a hold-over from when 24 was extended to 287, and they wanted to advertise it.
NJ has TO signs to much more illogical routes than this one. My favorite is I-195 which is TO NJ 138 Eastbound and TO NJ 29 westbound the whole way despite the state routes being relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. And signing those is a relatively recent development, one that was not linked with any work done on any of the roads involved or new connections being built. On the other hand, NJ 24 freeway's main purpose is to connect I-287 and I-78.
Quote from: bzakharin on April 27, 2023, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 25, 2023, 10:39:52 PM
From the point of this sign for 24 WEST, the fastest way to the northern 36 miles (Exits 30 to 66) of I-287 is by way of 24. Heading west on 78 is only the fastest route to a middle 14 mile stretch (Exits 12 to 26). Anywhere south of 12, its faster to get off of 78 and take local roads.
So, in THAT sense, "TO I-287" makes sense. That said, I still feel its a hold-over from when 24 was extended to 287, and they wanted to advertise it.
NJ has TO signs to much more illogical routes than this one. My favorite is I-195 which is TO NJ 138 Eastbound and TO NJ 29 westbound the whole way despite the state routes being relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. And signing those is a relatively recent development, one that was not linked with any work done on any of the roads involved or new connections being built. On the other hand, NJ 24 freeway's main purpose is to connect I-287 and I-78.
That's true, but in 195's case, it's an obvious case of a relatively recent signing practice change. 287 has been signed at 78 for 24 westbound for close to 30 years, I think.
It’s better than the previous signing which in the late eighties signed Exit 48 as NJ 24/124 WEST as if the two routes were concurrent.
But yes, Exit 48 should be signed TO NORTH 287.
However, recently at Exit 29 for I-287 the NB guide for I-287 removed the NORTH header for US 202/ 206 because the interchange north of I-78 for the US routes has access to both directions as before the grand scheme was for SB US 202/206 to head south on 287 to Exit 17 where it accesses it all going that way only as no one thought of Pluckemin or Bridgewater traffic in between.
Ditto on the aforementioned in Mansfield on I-295 at Rising Sun Road eliminating the south only banner on US 206 because access to both directions are possible via Rising Sun even though staying on I-295 for one more exit to US 130 is the way to US 206 NB for Bordentown and Hamilton and is still signed for it.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2023, 05:59:54 PM
It's better than the previous signing which in the late eighties signed Exit 48 as NJ 24/124 WEST as if the two routes were concurrent.
But yes, Exit 48 should be signed TO NORTH 287.
However, recently at Exit 29 for I-287 the NB guide for I-287 removed the NORTH header for US 202/ 206 because the interchange north of I-78 for the US routes has access to both directions as before the grand scheme was for SB US 202/206 to head south on 287 to Exit 17 where it accesses it all going that way only as no one thought of Pluckemin or Bridgewater traffic in between.
Ditto on the aforementioned in Mansfield on I-295 at Rising Sun Road eliminating the south only banner on US 206 because access to both directions are possible via Rising Sun even though staying on I-295 for one more exit to US 130 is the way to US 206 NB for Bordentown and Hamilton and is still signed for it.
56 on 295 should have "to" banners, but they appear to have space restrictions on that sign, so we're stuck with what we got.
Quote from: famartin on April 27, 2023, 08:14:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2023, 05:59:54 PM
It's better than the previous signing which in the late eighties signed Exit 48 as NJ 24/124 WEST as if the two routes were concurrent.
But yes, Exit 48 should be signed TO NORTH 287.
However, recently at Exit 29 for I-287 the NB guide for I-287 removed the NORTH header for US 202/ 206 because the interchange north of I-78 for the US routes has access to both directions as before the grand scheme was for SB US 202/206 to head south on 287 to Exit 17 where it accesses it all going that way only as no one thought of Pluckemin or Bridgewater traffic in between.
Ditto on the aforementioned in Mansfield on I-295 at Rising Sun Road eliminating the south only banner on US 206 because access to both directions are possible via Rising Sun even though staying on I-295 for one more exit to US 130 is the way to US 206 NB for Bordentown and Hamilton and is still signed for it.
56 on 295 should have "to" banners, but they appear to have space restrictions on that sign, so we're stuck with what we got.
Both signs aren't really great.
https://goo.gl/maps/qfrESPjKLknX9UUe6
The Exit 56 sign could be as tall as the Exit 57 sign, and that would allow it to incorporate "TO".
Traffic needing to get to the NJ Turnpike Exit 7 needs to take Exit 56, then makes a left onto a connector roadway, then turns North onto 206 North for a brief moment. Except, Exit 57 reads 206 North, which isn't accurate at that location as you're only on 130 North there.
Both signs could use a little revamping, which we know will never occur.
BTW, since we're in the general vicinity, there's a new roundabout on Dunns Mills Road, just south of 130. In fact, NJDOT took their maintenance yard and made a whole big training yard here. The GSV dated Sept 2022 is apparently just old enough not to show the finished product...I'll have to get some pics of this area soon. https://goo.gl/maps/gDM8e6q5ZDuuPTTTA
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2023, 11:26:34 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 27, 2023, 08:14:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2023, 05:59:54 PM
It's better than the previous signing which in the late eighties signed Exit 48 as NJ 24/124 WEST as if the two routes were concurrent.
But yes, Exit 48 should be signed TO NORTH 287.
However, recently at Exit 29 for I-287 the NB guide for I-287 removed the NORTH header for US 202/ 206 because the interchange north of I-78 for the US routes has access to both directions as before the grand scheme was for SB US 202/206 to head south on 287 to Exit 17 where it accesses it all going that way only as no one thought of Pluckemin or Bridgewater traffic in between.
Ditto on the aforementioned in Mansfield on I-295 at Rising Sun Road eliminating the south only banner on US 206 because access to both directions are possible via Rising Sun even though staying on I-295 for one more exit to US 130 is the way to US 206 NB for Bordentown and Hamilton and is still signed for it.
56 on 295 should have "to" banners, but they appear to have space restrictions on that sign, so we're stuck with what we got.
Both signs aren't really great.
https://goo.gl/maps/qfrESPjKLknX9UUe6
The Exit 56 sign could be as tall as the Exit 57 sign, and that would allow it to incorporate "TO".
Traffic needing to get to the NJ Turnpike Exit 7 needs to take Exit 56, then makes a left onto a connector roadway, then turns North onto 206 North for a brief moment. Except, Exit 57 reads 206 North, which isn't accurate at that location as you're only on 130 North there.
Both signs could use a little revamping, which we know will never occur.
BTW, since we're in the general vicinity, there's a new roundabout on Dunns Mills Road, just south of 130. In fact, NJDOT took their maintenance yard and made a whole big training yard here. The GSV dated Sept 2022 is apparently just old enough not to show the finished product...I'll have to get some pics of this area soon. https://goo.gl/maps/gDM8e6q5ZDuuPTTTA
56 is interesting as its literally the only connection to a turnpike junction along 295 which doesn't feature the "TO" for the NJTP...
I'd wonder if there was a wind resistance or weight restriction on that gantry, but the presence of an entirely sign panel to the left of the 57 suggests otherwise.
Maybe there's a restriction on number of lines of information... there's already 3, "TO" would make it 4, unless it was placed on the left.
Another oddity is that there is no mention of how to get to 130 southbound anywhere, though the answer is also exit 56, which would make the ideal signage there "TO SOUTH 130/206 "TO 95/NJTP "TO 68"
Quote from: famartin on April 27, 2023, 11:43:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2023, 11:26:34 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 27, 2023, 08:14:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2023, 05:59:54 PM
It's better than the previous signing which in the late eighties signed Exit 48 as NJ 24/124 WEST as if the two routes were concurrent.
But yes, Exit 48 should be signed TO NORTH 287.
However, recently at Exit 29 for I-287 the NB guide for I-287 removed the NORTH header for US 202/ 206 because the interchange north of I-78 for the US routes has access to both directions as before the grand scheme was for SB US 202/206 to head south on 287 to Exit 17 where it accesses it all going that way only as no one thought of Pluckemin or Bridgewater traffic in between.
Ditto on the aforementioned in Mansfield on I-295 at Rising Sun Road eliminating the south only banner on US 206 because access to both directions are possible via Rising Sun even though staying on I-295 for one more exit to US 130 is the way to US 206 NB for Bordentown and Hamilton and is still signed for it.
56 on 295 should have "to" banners, but they appear to have space restrictions on that sign, so we're stuck with what we got.
Both signs aren't really great.
https://goo.gl/maps/qfrESPjKLknX9UUe6
The Exit 56 sign could be as tall as the Exit 57 sign, and that would allow it to incorporate "TO".
Traffic needing to get to the NJ Turnpike Exit 7 needs to take Exit 56, then makes a left onto a connector roadway, then turns North onto 206 North for a brief moment. Except, Exit 57 reads 206 North, which isn't accurate at that location as you're only on 130 North there.
Both signs could use a little revamping, which we know will never occur.
BTW, since we're in the general vicinity, there's a new roundabout on Dunns Mills Road, just south of 130. In fact, NJDOT took their maintenance yard and made a whole big training yard here. The GSV dated Sept 2022 is apparently just old enough not to show the finished product...I'll have to get some pics of this area soon. https://goo.gl/maps/gDM8e6q5ZDuuPTTTA
56 is interesting as its literally the only connection to a turnpike junction along 295 which doesn't feature the "TO" for the NJTP...
I'd wonder if there was a wind resistance or weight restriction on that gantry, but the presence of an entirely sign panel to the left of the 57 suggests otherwise.
Maybe there's a restriction on number of lines of information... there's already 3, "TO" would make it 4, unless it was placed on the left.
Another oddity is that there is no mention of how to get to 130 southbound anywhere, though the answer is also exit 56, which would make the ideal signage there "TO SOUTH 130/206 "TO 95/NJTP "TO 68"
It wouldn't be fully accurate to put To South 130/206, as that would leave a void of sorts on 130 and 206 between the area of Exit 56 and 57 as one may need to access 130/206 North to get to that area, but the conflicting signage doesn't suggest that's a possible movement.
Doesn't Rising Sun Road have a RIRO intersection with US 130? Therefore no access to US 130 south anyway.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 28, 2023, 02:06:27 PM
Doesn't Rising Sun Road have a RIRO intersection with US 130? Therefore no access to US 130 south anyway.
Good catch. Missed that.
That Exit 56 sign should nix the NJ 68 shield as that really isn't needed. The Joint Base control is what's important and you could add the word " TO" on the panel.
https://goo.gl/maps/tutdmjRvSFAkASe86
Interesting Route shields here. Looks like the circle diameter is bigger than the norm leaving a smaller black border surface area.
Also what’s up with this?
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20220318_152959_GordonStBridgetobeclosedforreplacementprojectinRoselleParkUnionCounty.pdf
Why is both borough and state replacing a bridge that goes over an abandoned rail line that’s never going to be used again? Wouldn’t it be better just rebuild the road at grade and not build a bridge over nothing?
What if the road from Tuckerton to Atlantic City was built? (https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/what-if-the-road-from-tuckerton-to-little-egg-harbor-to-brigantine-to-atlantic-city-was-built/article_856ab33e-df04-11ed-8919-274bbb7c823e.html)
QuoteThe main reason the road never connected Ocean and Atlantic counties was because of the Shooting Thorofare splitting Little Egg Harbor and Little Beach.
"When they reached Shooting Thorofare, they realized the water was too deep and it was too far to build two more additional bridges over this water to reach Brigantine and Atlantic City," Able said. "There's 40 feet of water right off the edge, so this is not a simple exercise."
Moreover, the Little Egg Inlet, which the thorofare is a part of, is volatile.
"It failed because the state felt the shifting inlet was too precarious. The Little Egg Inlet has been moving through a cycle of three distinct locations since at least 1600," said Norman Goos of the Atlantic County Historical Society.
https://goo.gl/maps/bEsYoxgsRbfkqLxQ6
What are these? The large concrete structure on both sides of Route 36 and both sides of the Shrewsbury River, that is along with the route number written at the base.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2023, 01:41:47 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/bEsYoxgsRbfkqLxQ6
What are these? The large concrete structure on both sides of Route 36 and both sides of the Shrewsbury River, that is along with the route number written at the base.
Tombstones.
They just look like decorative elements to me.
They're probably meant to replicate the pillars on the previous bridge too.
The Morris Goodkind Bridge on US 1 between Edison and New Brunswick has them. However that bridge was built in the 1930's. This here is a modern bridge built in the mid aughts.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2023, 11:46:21 AM
The Morris Goodkind Bridge on US 1 between Edison and New Brunswick has them. However that bridge was built in the 1930's. This here is a modern bridge built in the mid aughts.
What Mr. Matte said above.
Quote from: Rothman on May 03, 2023, 06:42:00 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2023, 01:41:47 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/bEsYoxgsRbfkqLxQ6
What are these? The large concrete structure on both sides of Route 36 and both sides of the Shrewsbury River, that is along with the route number written at the base.
Tombstones.
They just look like decorative elements to me.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on May 03, 2023, 11:32:18 AM
They're probably meant to replicate the pillars on the previous bridge too.
Quote from: famartin on May 03, 2023, 11:48:00 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2023, 11:46:21 AM
The Morris Goodkind Bridge on US 1 between Edison and New Brunswick has them. However that bridge was built in the 1930's. This here is a modern bridge built in the mid aughts.
What Mr. Matte said above.
All correct answers.
Hidden on NJDOT's website remains their construction update page dedicated to this bridge's replacement.
On https://nj.gov/transportation/commuter/roads/route36highlands/faq.shtm , about midway down the page, they discuss the monuments:
Q. What will the fixed bridge look like?
Among the answers are: Two monuments (pylons) at the west abutment in Highlands and two monuments (pylons) at the east abutment in Sea Bright. The pylons will feature decorative fish tiles replicated from those on the existing bridge.
https://nj.gov/transportation/commuter/roads/route36highlands/renderings.shtm also shows renderings of the monuments that they had proposed. (Note, just below the renderings they reference a toll plaza rendering. NJDOT, as part of the project, rebuilt the toll booths entering the Sandy Hook Gateway National Recreation Area, where users pay a fee to enter the park for the day when fees are collected.)
https://goo.gl/maps/Gb5NXk5e71mxouw19
Found this concrete section of Higgins Avenue in Brielle that was the original NJ 35 no doubt before the current Manasquan River Bridge was built.
Plus being NJ 35 curves out of the way at Higgins Avenue with Higgins in a straight line carrying the electrical lines, it’s obvious that whole interchange with Route 71 was built as part of the current bridge project.
Interesting to see as all NJ highways once were all concrete or at least the majority of them were.
Edit: Bridgehunter is out, but found that the bridge over Route 71 was built in 1950 per date stamped on the parapet from GSV. So the Brielle Bridge is also a 1950 constructed bridge I would say. Though in 2009 it was rehabilitated according to NJDOT’s webpage.
https://goo.gl/maps/ppPyqGaJM75xmxpE8
https://goo.gl/maps/JLhvQZ3UsBJCzrU38
Interesting. A no left turn sign inside the street blade
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2023, 09:13:41 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/JLhvQZ3UsBJCzrU38
Interesting. A no left turn sign inside the street blade
Another example: https://goo.gl/maps/BSU79jLFr4NhKbWe9
https://goo.gl/maps/VM92VoRtgubNLbos9
Interesting shield. Virginia once used these.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2023, 08:14:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Gb5NXk5e71mxouw19
Found this concrete section of Higgins Avenue in Brielle that was the original NJ 35 no doubt before the current Manasquan River Bridge was built.
Plus being NJ 35 curves out of the way at Higgins Avenue with Higgins in a straight line carrying the electrical lines, it's obvious that whole interchange with Route 71 was built as part of the current bridge project.
Interesting to see as all NJ highways once were all concrete or at least the majority of them were.
Edit: Bridgehunter is out, but found that the bridge over Route 71 was built in 1950 per date stamped on the parapet from GSV. So the Brielle Bridge is also a 1950 constructed bridge I would say. Though in 2009 it was rehabilitated according to NJDOT's webpage.
https://goo.gl/maps/ppPyqGaJM75xmxpE8
just gonna note a lot of county highways are also concrete from when they were built
Quote from: Alps on May 07, 2023, 09:23:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2023, 08:14:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Gb5NXk5e71mxouw19
Found this concrete section of Higgins Avenue in Brielle that was the original NJ 35 no doubt before the current Manasquan River Bridge was built.
Plus being NJ 35 curves out of the way at Higgins Avenue with Higgins in a straight line carrying the electrical lines, it's obvious that whole interchange with Route 71 was built as part of the current bridge project.
Interesting to see as all NJ highways once were all concrete or at least the majority of them were.
Edit: Bridgehunter is out, but found that the bridge over Route 71 was built in 1950 per date stamped on the parapet from GSV. So the Brielle Bridge is also a 1950 constructed bridge I would say. Though in 2009 it was rehabilitated according to NJDOT's webpage.
https://goo.gl/maps/ppPyqGaJM75xmxpE8
just gonna note a lot of county highways are also concrete from when they were built
Thought of that too, but the way it parts from Route 35 suggests it was the old alignment of either 35 itself or its predecessor. With Bridgehunter down is harder to research what was there before 1950.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 07, 2023, 10:01:27 PM
Thought of that too, but the way it parts from Route 35 suggests it was the old alignment of either 35 itself or its predecessor. With Bridgehunter down is harder to research what was there before 1950.
Historic Aerials has the answers you seek (and you're right).
They go back before 1950? Didn't think they did.
I have to admit, Bridgehunter was a very useful tool went it lasted.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 07, 2023, 11:00:01 PM
They go back before 1950? Didn't think they did.
Depends on the location, but yes.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 07, 2023, 11:00:01 PM
I have to admit, Bridgehunter was a very useful tool went it lasted.
Can't comment on Bridgehunter as I'd never heard of it until recently on AARoads, but BridgeReports.com was very useful while *it* lasted. I just emailed BridgeReports' webmaster asking if it's ever coming back.
https://goo.gl/maps/Ra5MqZykZKxzWGHs9
Odd that the Garden State Parkway Shield on SB US 9W at its terminus directs motorists to use Route 4 instead of I-80.
However being a left turn prohibition prohibits a turn into the SB I-95 ramp to I-80, it's probably a better route to use Route 4 to Paramus.
What's more interesting is that the I-95 trailblazing on the US 1-9-46 guide doesn't differentiate north or south for the interstate. Considering that the ramp to I-95 north is just beyond the US 1-9-46 ramp and US 46 west ( that leads to I-95 and I-80) has no entrance to I-95 NB, it should have a SOUTH header for it.
Here are some pictures of some new structures and signs spotted around NJ. Most are triangular truss replacements but there are some other goodies here too:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875239129_1c748cd36d_z.jpg)
I really don't know why NJDOT won't just let the Parkway shield exist on its own without a text legend. It identifies the road just fine alone.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072736_20d07fb11a_z.jpg)
These were pretty much all replace-in-kind without modification and all look good.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072721_c0145bfb1c_z.jpg)
These are all replace-in-kind as well. The crossover sign adds text legend for the Parkway in the weird two line form since they don't want to abbreviate it.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072606_b7ef95e469_z.jpg)
The "tabs" for each side (express and local lanes) is an interesting addition. Also, NJDOT has reverted to the standard MUTCD airport icon for Newark Airport. They already stopped the brown backgrounds a while ago.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875238949_19c11f62f3_z.jpg)
Not sure why they don't put a 21 shield next to the legend for Downtown Newark since that's the road that will take you there.
These are all on the new roadways that lead to the new Terminal A at EWR. Interesting aside: the PA has commissioned a custom font called Helvetica Now for PANYNJ (https://wayfinding.panynj.gov/design-elements/typeface/typeface) that you can download from the PA for your sign creation needs.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875238904_90f5252ba4_z.jpg)
It looks like there is still a bunch of blue out on this sign as though it will eventually reveal more legend.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875238879_1bc8e0b609_z.jpg)
This is using the new shorter APL arrows that is coming in the next MUTCD revision. Also interesting that the sign for the South Area is still on a brown background even though they've moved away from any brown in signage for the main terminals.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875452785_2d1ed2770d_z.jpg)
This one also uses the shorter APL arrows. I like how these look, especially because it means you don't need signs that are as tall as they need to be now.
Back to NJDOT territory:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875515328_8048ea11f0_z.jpg)
I do not understand what NJDOT is doing here. This is the site of the old overhead that's been gone for over 15 years, but why put up just a cantilever to put this sign up and not a full structure to have a proper overhead for the exit to Rt 81. Makes no sense to me at all.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072526_ea6475b43e_z.jpg)
Now over to 287. This replaces the sign that used to be mounted to the River Road overpass which had to go away for the overpass renovation project. Very obviously replace-in-kind for the old one, but I do not like how the CR-527 shield looks.
Re: adding Garden State Parkway wording in text... well, if you're from out of state there's a 0 percent chance you can read the words on the trailblazer at highway speed, so otherwise won't know what road it means.
Re: CR 527 shield, actually I think that's an improvement on their recent work, since it seems easier to read the numbers, but I am curious if it's a permanent change or a one-time change. New signs for CR's elsewhere don't look like that and are harder to read.
Quote from: famartin on May 13, 2023, 02:33:49 AM
Re: adding Garden State Parkway wording in text... well, if you're from out of state there's a 0 percent chance you can read the words on the trailblazer at highway speed, so otherwise won't know what road it means.
Re: CR 527 shield, actually I think that's an improvement on their recent work, since it seems easier to read the numbers, but I am curious if it's a permanent change or a one-time change. New signs for CR's elsewhere don't look like that and are harder to read.
Yet a new BGS on NJ 42 with the ACX Trailblazer doesn't also say "Atlantic City Expressway", despite being equally unreadable. One of the control cities is Atlantic City, so the may have decided that was good enough.
My nickel's worth on the matter (inflation . . . )
I have noticed a lot of inconsistency in how much additional message is added with the toll road pictograph, from none to repeating the road name in text. This happens with the Turnpike, Parkway, AC Expressway and even Palisades Parkway. I even see control cities with some of the newer sign installations. Occasionally, I will see the road name without the pictograph.
It also varies whether the signs are agency (i.e. NJTA, SJTA, etc.) mounts or NJDOT (or other outside-agency) mounts. The agencies are generally using the pictograph by itself with control cities, whereas off-system usage is more with the accompanying roadway text in lieu of control cities.
The inconsistency has gotten worse with newer sign installations.
The issue is the how agencies are interpreting the MUTCD's take on the use of pictographs. To me, it does not specifically address the use of a pictograph as the equivalent of a route marker.
Complicating matters, perhaps, is the proliferation of the ground-mounted trailblazer assemblies on many roadways throughout the state. None have corresponding text plaques explaining what they mean.
I know New Jersey best, but I imagine similar issues are in other states with similarly pictographed roadways.
Not sure there is a "one size fits all" solution . . .
On 4265^^^ the last sign for I-287 needs to either nix the road name or control cities as having them both is information overload.
The US 1-9 pull through at NJ 81 is an oddity for sure as guide signs are for the exits not so much through traffic.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 13, 2023, 01:24:01 PM
On 4265^^^ the last sign for I-287 needs to either nix the road name or control cities as having them both is information overload.
The US 1-9 pull through at NJ 81 is an oddity for sure as guide signs are for the exits not so much through traffic.
4265 (287 exit 10) was a replacement with no alteration... ie been that way for decades.
I wonder if that 1/9 gantry is half finished? It looks... odd.
Part of the problem with toll road signing is NJDOT simply doesn't want to sign the control cities that NJTA now finally posts on their roadways. NJ-70 at the GSP has proper signs courtesy of the NJTA. Only two Turnpike interchanges with NJDOT roads have control cities posted on the intersecting crossroad, I-195 and US-206 northbound.
I don't know why NJTA refuses to post ACE shields at Exit 37 of the Parkway, but that is an issue for SJTA to deal with.
I think a lot of headache would be saved if they simply abbreviated "Garden State Parkway" to "GS Pkwy" and kept it down to one line. Although if it were up to me I would just use the shield and control cities like any other highway.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 13, 2023, 05:23:40 PM
I think a lot of headache would be saved if they simply abbreviated "Garden State Parkway" to "GS Pkwy" and kept it down to one line. Although if it were up to me I would just use the shield and control cities like any other highway.
Using only a blazer without the name, or even an abbreviated version, handicaps non-locals trying to navigate. Control cities would be useful tho. A style other states use but which seems foreign to NJDOT would have the shield left, Road name right, and controls beneath, but I don't think I've ever seen that in NJ. NY, MD and VA are all about it, tho.
Quote from: famartin on May 13, 2023, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 13, 2023, 05:23:40 PM
I think a lot of headache would be saved if they simply abbreviated "Garden State Parkway" to "GS Pkwy" and kept it down to one line. Although if it were up to me I would just use the shield and control cities like any other highway.
Using only a blazer without the name, or even an abbreviated version, handicaps non-locals trying to navigate. Control cities would be useful tho. A style other states use but which seems foreign to NJDOT would have the shield left, Road name right, and controls beneath, but I don't think I've ever seen that in NJ. NY, MD and VA are all about it, tho.
99% of non-locals trying to navigate are using GPS guidance and I doubt the abbreviation would cause problems.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 13, 2023, 05:45:02 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 13, 2023, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 13, 2023, 05:23:40 PM
I think a lot of headache would be saved if they simply abbreviated "Garden State Parkway" to "GS Pkwy" and kept it down to one line. Although if it were up to me I would just use the shield and control cities like any other highway.
Using only a blazer without the name, or even an abbreviated version, handicaps non-locals trying to navigate. Control cities would be useful tho. A style other states use but which seems foreign to NJDOT would have the shield left, Road name right, and controls beneath, but I don't think I've ever seen that in NJ. NY, MD and VA are all about it, tho.
99% of non-locals trying to navigate are using GPS guidance and I doubt the abbreviation would cause problems.
Yes, but they are hearing things like "take the exit for the Garden State Parkway" , which doesn't work so well if they don't recognize the blazer and it isn't written out.
Re: the sign for Easton Ave: having the street name in there makes a lot of sense. Most people know the roadway as Easton Ave, I will bet that there are plenty of people who drive on that road every day and have for years that have no real idea that it's CR-527. Especially because New Brunswick doesn't really sign any reassurance shields for it (it does exist on the overhead sign blades at traffic lights put up by Middlesex County). I think it is useful information for drivers.
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2023, 07:19:41 PM
Re: the sign for Easton Ave: having the street name in there makes a lot of sense. Most people know the roadway as Easton Ave, I will bet that there are plenty of people who drive on that road every day and have for years that have no real idea that it's CR-527. Especially because New Brunswick doesn't really sign any reassurance shields for it (it does exist on the overhead sign blades at traffic lights put up by Middlesex County). I think it is useful information for drivers.
Easton Avenue could be on supplemental signs.
New Brunswick should be replaced with Somerset as nearby NJ 18 is more faster into that city. Besides the exit for NJ 18 uses Highland Park as it's a holdover to before the extension of Route was built. Even before the extension Highland Park was a bad choice as Hoes Lane ended originally at Meltars Lane.
Look how long it took them to replace Newark for New York City at I-78. For years you had Newark for I-78 EB but had New York for US 22 EB. Considering the former is a freeway and the latter is an arterial and we're dealing with the nations largest city verses the state's largest city it was odd from 1986 to 1994 when NJDOT realized that odd situation during a road widening project.
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2023, 01:17:48 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072526_ea6475b43e_z.jpg)
Now over to 287. This replaces the sign that used to be mounted to the River Road overpass which had to go away for the overpass renovation project. Very obviously replace-in-kind for the old one, but I do not like how the CR-527 shield looks.
Oof that CR-527 sign looks awful. I thought backplates on shields are no longer allowed? Would have looked much better if it was just the shield
Quote from: roadman65 on May 14, 2023, 04:46:57 PM
Easton Avenue could be on supplemental signs.
New Brunswick should be replaced with Somerset as nearby NJ 18 is more faster into that city. Besides the exit for NJ 18 uses Highland Park as it's a holdover to before the extension of Route was built. Even before the extension Highland Park was a bad choice as Hoes Lane ended originally at Meltars Lane.
Look how long it took them to replace Newark for New York City at I-78. For years you had Newark for I-78 EB but had New York for US 22 EB. Considering the former is a freeway and the latter is an arterial and we're dealing with the nations largest city verses the state's largest city it was odd from 1986 to 1994 when NJDOT realized that odd situation during a road widening project.
Depending on where in New Brunswick you are going, 18 is quite possibly not the fastest route. For example (and this will vary by time of day no doubt):
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Morristown,+New+Jersey+07960/40.4963608,-74.446161/@40.4959774,-74.4575354,15.33z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c309932196222d:0x43b079beb16f21a1!2m2!1d-74.4815438!2d40.7967667!1m0!3e0
Also, here's what I mean about other states and supplemental road names. This could easily be done in NJ, but I never see it anywhere.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3895609,-76.5337507,3a,75y,110.18h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy5bVK7HSWKp_m_sFTu_vcg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
There's still some Newark references on I-78.
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on May 14, 2023, 09:55:18 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2023, 01:17:48 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072526_ea6475b43e_z.jpg)
Now over to 287. This replaces the sign that used to be mounted to the River Road overpass which had to go away for the overpass renovation project. Very obviously replace-in-kind for the old one, but I do not like how the CR-527 shield looks.
Oof that CR-527 sign looks awful. I thought backplates on shields are no longer allowed? Would have looked much better if it was just the shield
This was the old sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.541515,-74.5067113,3a,75y,238.87h,90.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_AnT0i5Cu49RMUh2viSug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm gonna be frank: I completely prefer the new version here as opposed to, say, this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0468737,-74.8322857,3a,75y,228.02h,92.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slVXqjoFh7FpaaDcqXGvfOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
In some lighting situations, you will struggle to even make out the shape of the shield, while those small numbers don't lend themselves to easy reading.
Back in the days of the diagramical arrows, Easton Avenue was not included on those guides. It was CR 527 and both New Brunswick and South Bound Brook (NB) and just New Brunswick ( SB).
Easton Avenue made it to a temporary sign in 1983 when the main guide got knocked down and a substandard sign was assigned as its replacement. Sort of like Orange Street exit on I-280 using small substandard guides still because NJDOT hasn’t yet planned a route wide sign replacement project for I-280 to address standard replacements for that ramp.
Another exit on. a freeway with substandard signs are for the Morganville exit to Tennant Road NB on SB Route 18 in Marlboro. It has a small un numbered exit guide while the exit right before it has a normal freeway guide with exit number for CR 520 to Tennant and Red Bank. It’s still waiting for NJDOT to remember it exists as all exits on Route 18 freeway were replaced back in the late eighties except for that one. Heck I remember when that ramp had no guides and was a ramp to nowhere. The small signs there now are an improvement.
https://goo.gl/maps/1VAvshbvRK3kaHhv8
https://goo.gl/maps/S4kEyS7GjUeuhjHFA
https://goo.gl/maps/biZjHVNnR9Y3f8qW9
CR 520 is also signed Exit 29 and not 29 B as Morganville should be 29 A as it’s part of the same interchange. So it’s obvious engineers have no clue the exit exists at all.
Quote from: famartin on May 14, 2023, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on May 14, 2023, 09:55:18 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2023, 01:17:48 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072526_ea6475b43e_z.jpg)
Now over to 287. This replaces the sign that used to be mounted to the River Road overpass which had to go away for the overpass renovation project. Very obviously replace-in-kind for the old one, but I do not like how the CR-527 shield looks.
Oof that CR-527 sign looks awful. I thought backplates on shields are no longer allowed? Would have looked much better if it was just the shield
This was the old sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.541515,-74.5067113,3a,75y,238.87h,90.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_AnT0i5Cu49RMUh2viSug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm gonna be frank: I completely prefer the new version here as opposed to, say, this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0468737,-74.8322857,3a,75y,228.02h,92.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slVXqjoFh7FpaaDcqXGvfOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
In some lighting situations, you will struggle to even make out the shape of the shield, while those small numbers don't lend themselves to easy reading.
NJDOT has moved away from putting the yellow backplates on county shields the same as state and US route shields. It would be easier to see if they made the yellow border thicker so it stood out from the background of the sign more.
Quote from: storm2k on May 16, 2023, 01:28:22 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 14, 2023, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on May 14, 2023, 09:55:18 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2023, 01:17:48 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072526_ea6475b43e_z.jpg)
Now over to 287. This replaces the sign that used to be mounted to the River Road overpass which had to go away for the overpass renovation project. Very obviously replace-in-kind for the old one, but I do not like how the CR-527 shield looks.
Oof that CR-527 sign looks awful. I thought backplates on shields are no longer allowed? Would have looked much better if it was just the shield
This was the old sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.541515,-74.5067113,3a,75y,238.87h,90.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_AnT0i5Cu49RMUh2viSug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm gonna be frank: I completely prefer the new version here as opposed to, say, this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0468737,-74.8322857,3a,75y,228.02h,92.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slVXqjoFh7FpaaDcqXGvfOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
In some lighting situations, you will struggle to even make out the shape of the shield, while those small numbers don't lend themselves to easy reading.
NJDOT has moved away from putting the yellow backplates on county shields the same as state and US route shields. It would be easier to see if they made the yellow border thicker so it stood out from the background of the sign more.
Yes, virtually all new signs (and all signs made by the internal NJDOT sign shop, as opposed to a contractor install) have had no back plates since early 2016. For State and US routes, its not a big deal, since highway sign green and white are a good contrast. However, it doesn't work so well between highway sign green and county route blue.
Florida tends to use stretched county route shields on BGSes. They also use backplates on them as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/MAowDgJ7ca1rNBDB8
https://goo.gl/maps/hPJveUDa6YzqG2877
I recall reading somewhere that back plates were actually encouraged for county routes.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2023, 10:40:41 PM
Florida tends to use stretched county route shields on BGSes. They also use backplates on them as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/MAowDgJ7ca1rNBDB8
https://goo.gl/maps/hPJveUDa6YzqG2877
I recall reading somewhere that back plates were actually encouraged for county routes.
NJDOT must not have gotten that memo. In fact, the oddest thing about Exit 47 on 295 is that on some signs, actually removed backplated CR signs and installed non-backplated ones WITHOUT REPLACING THE ENTIRE SIGN.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0494539,-74.8286546,3a,88.7y,248.17h,90.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbyxcSrtOLEj1gXbxX7l7RA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0352459,-74.8392491,3a,76.1y,28.58h,91.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJiiron_qOdoGTRb97YPFLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That seemed rather...pointless.
I remember in 1985 when NJDOT converted the old button copy diagramical I-287 signs in Middlesex and Somerset counties to reflective signs. They kept the signs and found a way to repaint them on spot.
I thought that was odd, but odder was that only three exits along the stretch ( River Road, CR 527, and Weston Canal Road) only received exit numbers while the others US 1, NJ 27, CR 501, Durham Avenue, CR 529, S. Washington Ave, Randolphville Rd, Possumtown Rd, NJ 28, and US 22 didn’t receive them.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2023, 01:16:30 PM
I remember in 1985 when NJDOT converted the old button copy diagramical I-287 signs in Middlesex and Somerset counties to reflective signs. They kept the signs and found a way to repaint them on spot.
I thought that was odd, but odder was that only three exits along the stretch ( River Road, CR 527, and Weston Canal Road) only received exit numbers while the others US 1, NJ 27, CR 501, Durham Avenue, CR 529, S. Washington Ave, Randolphville Rd, Possumtown Rd, NJ 28, and US 22 didn't receive them.
No doubt that some of that exit number restriction was due to the 95 plans, tho by 1985 they were cancelled. Maybe NJDOT still had some hope at that point. Or just forgot.
Well in 85, the exit number for River Road was 5, for CR 527 was 6, and for Weston Canal Road was 7. Those, of course, were pre I-95 numbering. Yet like you said the cancellation was before that, but later in 1985 NJDOT did change the mileposts to extend I-287 four extra miles over the part that was to eventually become I-95 in Edison.
Why does I-78 have traffic signals?
Since this is the terminus, why not just have it end before the signals?
Quote from: bluecountry on May 17, 2023, 08:15:32 PM
Why does I-78 have traffic signals?
It doesn't help anything to remove them, and will greatly hurt those who've set up shop there, so no reason to remove them, other than "rules".
Quote from: bluecountry on May 17, 2023, 08:15:32 PM
Since this is the terminus, why not just have it end before the signals?
Politics - New York wants to keep its tiny portion of I-78. If they would relinquish it, then I'm sure they'd truncate.
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2023, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 17, 2023, 08:15:32 PM
Since this is the terminus, why not just have it end before the signals?
Politics - New York wants to keep its tiny portion of I-78. If they would relinquish it, then I'm sure they'd truncate.
Citation needed.
Just saying "politics" is vague and doesn't really explain motivations.
Makes me wonder if the NY portion on Manhattan is NHPP eligible at 90%, or if the small section is under PANYNJ jurisdiction.
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2023, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2023, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 17, 2023, 08:15:32 PM
Since this is the terminus, why not just have it end before the signals?
Politics - New York wants to keep its tiny portion of I-78. If they would relinquish it, then I'm sure they'd truncate.
Citation needed.
That's fair, but what other reason could there be? There's no good reason for it to remain 78... I suppose "inertia" but how many people really think of the Holland Tunnel as I-78? The number could disappear and most wouldn't notice.
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2023, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2023, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2023, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 17, 2023, 08:15:32 PM
Since this is the terminus, why not just have it end before the signals?
Politics - New York wants to keep its tiny portion of I-78. If they would relinquish it, then I'm sure they'd truncate.
Citation needed.
That's fair, but what other reason could there be? There's no good reason for it to remain 78... I suppose "inertia" but how many people really think of the Holland Tunnel as I-78? The number could disappear and most wouldn't notice.
I gave you one possible reason in my post...
I don't see the harm with keeping the status quo. It was designated eons ago; no need to mess around with it.
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2023, 11:20:10 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2023, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2023, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2023, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 17, 2023, 08:15:32 PM
Since this is the terminus, why not just have it end before the signals?
Politics - New York wants to keep its tiny portion of I-78. If they would relinquish it, then I'm sure they'd truncate.
Citation needed.
That's fair, but what other reason could there be? There's no good reason for it to remain 78... I suppose "inertia" but how many people really think of the Holland Tunnel as I-78? The number could disappear and most wouldn't notice.
I gave you one possible reason in my post...
Pretty sure the entire Manhattan approach is Port Authority (the NJ approach from the end of the turnpike is also entirely Port Authority per NJDOT) so doubt its getting money from the feds.
Quote from: famartin on May 18, 2023, 03:46:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2023, 11:20:10 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2023, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 17, 2023, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 17, 2023, 08:56:02 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on May 17, 2023, 08:15:32 PM
Since this is the terminus, why not just have it end before the signals?
Politics - New York wants to keep its tiny portion of I-78. If they would relinquish it, then I'm sure they'd truncate.
Citation needed.
That's fair, but what other reason could there be? There's no good reason for it to remain 78... I suppose "inertia" but how many people really think of the Holland Tunnel as I-78? The number could disappear and most wouldn't notice.
I gave you one possible reason in my post...
Pretty sure the entire Manhattan approach is Port Authority (the NJ approach from the end of the turnpike is also entirely Port Authority per NJDOT) so doubt its getting money from the feds.
All the more reason the status quo will be kept. There's no benefit to removing the designation or any official discussion to do so. Therefore, it's not even on anyone's list of priorities.
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2023, 01:17:48 AM
Here are some pictures of some new structures and signs spotted around NJ. Most are triangular truss replacements but there are some other goodies here too:
Some answers for you:
* Newark Airport no longer uses the old tri-color airplane logo. Which I will always miss, but it's not NJDOT's decision to go green/airplane, it's Port Authority's.
* Speaking of which, the blue signs were also their decision. I had a hand in these and can answer literally any questions for you. For example, that overlay? The rental car facilities around the airport are going to be consolidated into a single location, at which point all of the messages currently up will be altered as needed to reflect this final configuration. Look for that soon, but I don't know exactly how soon. That'll also change the lane configuration from 3 = 2+1 to 3 = 2+2 (center lane split) at the first blue overhead you photoed.
* North/South Area, or cargo areas in general (including at JFK), are the only color-coded message left at Port Authority airports. Well, that and terminal logos. Everything else will be white on blue.
* I designed that DMS message you see. In Microsoft Paint :D :D
Quote from: Alps on May 18, 2023, 07:27:57 PM
* I designed that DMS message you see. In Microsoft Paint :D :D
😂
Quote from: famartin on May 16, 2023, 01:33:01 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 16, 2023, 01:28:22 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 14, 2023, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on May 14, 2023, 09:55:18 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2023, 01:17:48 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52875072526_ea6475b43e_z.jpg)
Now over to 287. This replaces the sign that used to be mounted to the River Road overpass which had to go away for the overpass renovation project. Very obviously replace-in-kind for the old one, but I do not like how the CR-527 shield looks.
Oof that CR-527 sign looks awful. I thought backplates on shields are no longer allowed? Would have looked much better if it was just the shield
This was the old sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.541515,-74.5067113,3a,75y,238.87h,90.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_AnT0i5Cu49RMUh2viSug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I'm gonna be frank: I completely prefer the new version here as opposed to, say, this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0468737,-74.8322857,3a,75y,228.02h,92.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slVXqjoFh7FpaaDcqXGvfOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
In some lighting situations, you will struggle to even make out the shape of the shield, while those small numbers don't lend themselves to easy reading.
NJDOT has moved away from putting the yellow backplates on county shields the same as state and US route shields. It would be easier to see if they made the yellow border thicker so it stood out from the background of the sign more.
Yes, virtually all new signs (and all signs made by the internal NJDOT sign shop, as opposed to a contractor install) have had no back plates since early 2016. For State and US routes, its not a big deal, since highway sign green and white are a good contrast. However, it doesn't work so well between highway sign green and county route blue.
The black background behind the US and state route shields (and also the yellow behind the CR shields) is what set NJ apart from the other states. I admittedly thought it was cool and unique, despite it being far from the only place where those kinds of signs would exist (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2947646,-76.6246585,3a,17.4y,262.98h,97.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMkWAezX_8vEpAziQ0cUETg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DMkWAezX_8vEpAziQ0cUETg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D334.5157%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). And I wouldn't be surprised if the newer signs were made because the FHWA ordered the former practice discontinued.
I think backplates were occasional elsewhere (I've seen a few in PA and VA as well as MD), but yeah, NJ is the only place where they seem to have been very common, at least of late.
Man, I must be the only weirdo that doesnt like backplates anywhere. To me, the signs look so much cleaner and better with no backplates, even on county route shields.
Back before GSV was a thing, Delaware would occasionally post shields with backplates, and occasionally post shields without, to a point where I thought there was some sort of meaning behind them. There were numerous instances, but one I remember in the 1990's was on US 40 near DE 1 & 7, where one had it and one didn't. At the time DE 1 was a new freeway there. I can't recall which one had the backplate, but I also recall it didn't really match up with other shields in the general vicinity.
In reality, I think it was just Delaware being Delaware at the time, and they just put one route shield up with a backplate, and one without.
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on May 21, 2023, 12:00:44 AM
Man, I must be the only weirdo that doesnt like backplates anywhere. To me, the signs look so much cleaner and better with no backplates, even on county route shields.
You're not the only one - I feel the same way!
I don't think I've had any trouble reading any of the county route shields on guide signs in NY, even though we don't use the backplates here.
Although the backplates were somewhat unique in NJ, I think the new signs without them look better. I know this may be a minority view but I think even the county pentagons look better without the yellow backplate.
The Garden State Parkway used them at some locations and not at others like DelDOT.
The Parkway always had different signs than NJDOT did and realized it a long time ago when the exit tabs used to only feature a number only where as other roads were standard. However, the former NJHA did use non back plates long before the MUTCD amended its signing practice.
Well the MUTCD wants positive and negative contrast, and the backplate becomes dark on dark, which isn't a contrast, so out it shall go.
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2023, 11:32:02 PM
Well the MUTCD wants positive and negative contrast, and the backplate becomes dark on dark
Except its not dark on dark for CR's
Quote from: roadman65 on May 07, 2023, 06:14:55 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/VM92VoRtgubNLbos9
Interesting shield. Virginia once used these.
And the font on the route number is akin to Clearview.
Morristown needs to have its main square shields updated as many have been removed over the course of time. On the SE corner there used to be a US 202 shield telling motorists to turn left from the beginning of present day NJ 124. It fell off but the arrow remains.
On the NE corner where CR 510 EB leaves the square the NB US 202 shield is on the far corner out of sight almost and could use another on the near corner. Plus no mention of CR 510 EB heading east on Morris Street and the guide for Whipppany and Florham Park is been long gone at that location as well.
I get why they were canned, but I loved the backplates and hate the white on green. It looks so empty. Of course, I grew up in Jersey so I am biased. Even black outlines would be an improvement.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51663453697/in/album-72157719881439968
Found a taste of NJ in Kansas.
Have people always referred to New Jersey as just Jersey? I always thought that was kind of odd.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2023, 05:17:51 PM
Have people always referred to New Jersey as just Jersey? I always thought that was kind of odd.
Define "always". For a long time, for sure.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2023, 05:17:51 PM
Have people always referred to New Jersey as just Jersey? I always thought that was kind of odd.
I occasionally do. It's kinda an abbreviation that doesn't work with York, Hampshire or Mexico. To expand that...
"When I'm leaving Jersey and entering PA, I'll take the North-South Freeway from 295 for a few miles then head over the Walt Whitman, jumping on the Schuylkill then take the Turnpike west".
famartin will know exactly what I'm talking about. Someone else may not know what I'm talking about, then once you look at a map, you'll go, WTF man, you literally were only on one route the entire time. (I-76) :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2023, 06:58:31 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 25, 2023, 05:17:51 PM
Have people always referred to New Jersey as just Jersey? I always thought that was kind of odd.
I occasionally do. It's kinda an abbreviation that doesn't work with York, Hampshire or Mexico. To expand that...
"When I'm leaving Jersey and entering PA, I'll take the North-South Freeway from 295 for a few miles then head over the Walt Whitman, jumping on the Schuylkill then take the Turnpike west".
famartin will know exactly what I'm talking about. Someone else may not know what I'm talking about, then once you look at a map, you'll go, WTF man, you literally were only on one route the entire time. (I-76) :-D
😂
To elaborate a little on my reply, here's a verbatim line of dialogue from Star Trek in 1988, spoken by a women who had been cryogenically frozen, upon being asked where her children were born such that she might try to find living relatives:
"They were born in "˜caucus, that's in Jersey."
("˜Caucus is shorthand for Secaucus, tho not sure if I've ever heard anyone use that particular turn-of-phrase)
I'm surprised no New Jerseyan has responded to this with a stereotypical Jersey response.
Quote from: famartin on May 23, 2023, 02:45:37 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 22, 2023, 11:32:02 PM
Well the MUTCD wants positive and negative contrast, and the backplate becomes dark on dark
Except its not dark on dark for CR's
Right, CRs can have square backgrounds but we are trying to steer away from that through standardization
I've been tracking the US 46/ NJ 3/ Valley Road interchange construction virtually and seen GSV hasn't captured it since 2021.
The map part shows the initial alignment of the new configuration but lacks and EB US 46 ramp to Valley Road or a WB entrance to US 46 from Valley Road. Either those ramps haven't been rebuilt or both Clove Road and Great Notch Road will be the permanent connection to and from the west?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 30, 2023, 12:03:55 PM
I've been tracking the US 46/ NJ 3/ Valley Road interchange construction virtually and seen GSV hasn't captured it since 2021.
The map part shows the initial alignment of the new configuration but lacks and EB US 46 ramp to Valley Road or a WB entrance to US 46 from Valley Road. Either those ramps haven't been rebuilt or both Clove Road and Great Notch Road will be the permanent connection to and from the west?
I think this is the accepted design
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt46/pdf/Proposed_Improvement_Plan.pdf
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
The SLD and signage disagree with each other. This isn't the only place in New Jersey this happens. I know US 9 was rerouted and signed to follow the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor Bay after the Beesley's Point Bridge was demolished but the SLD still inventories US 9 following the roads to the removed bridge, with a gap in the route.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
I heard a rumor that the city wanted the bus 1 signage to continue, but it fades away downtown southbound and is almost 100% absent northbound.
Honestly 1 bus in the city should be removed and 206 bus assigned to the current 206, with 206 realigned to follow 1 bus, 1, 129, 29 and 195 to the section near White Horse Circle. You could even completely remove it since 206 north of the circle is municipal already.
This trailblazer has seen better days...
https://tinyurl.com/5xuc5rny
Quote from: ixnay on June 01, 2023, 09:17:19 PM
This trailblazer has seen better days...
https://tinyurl.com/5xuc5rny
Its not that old, its poor quality. In 2012 it looked fine.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.818725,-74.5359768,3a,17.7y,129.58h,87.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD3lig94UR6yU7e9KrTKNZg!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e4!1e1?entry=ttu
Quote from: famartin on June 01, 2023, 10:12:06 PM
Quote from: ixnay on June 01, 2023, 09:17:19 PM
This trailblazer has seen better days...
https://tinyurl.com/5xuc5rny
Its not that old, its poor quality. In 2012 it looked fine.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.818725,-74.5359768,3a,17.7y,129.58h,87.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD3lig94UR6yU7e9KrTKNZg!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m2!1e4!1e1?entry=ttu
Guess the county public works departments don't have as good a sign budget as NJDOT.
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 01, 2023, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
The SLD and signage disagree with each other. This isn't the only place in New Jersey this happens. I know US 9 was rerouted and signed to follow the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor Bay after the Beesley's Point Bridge was demolished but the SLD still inventories US 9 following the roads to the removed bridge, with a gap in the route.
While the SLD is a great resource, it's not THE most absolute accurate reference document. There are other sources found within the NJDOT website that are of better accuracy, although much more boring to read. That said, on an overall level, the SLD is one of the better state-wide documents available to get a good overall inventory of a roadway and its various features.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2023, 11:37:43 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 01, 2023, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
The SLD and signage disagree with each other. This isn't the only place in New Jersey this happens. I know US 9 was rerouted and signed to follow the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor Bay after the Beesley's Point Bridge was demolished but the SLD still inventories US 9 following the roads to the removed bridge, with a gap in the route.
While the SLD is a great resource, it's not THE most absolute accurate reference document. There are other sources found within the NJDOT website that are of better accuracy, although much more boring to read. That said, on an overall level, the SLD is one of the better state-wide documents available to get a good overall inventory of a roadway and its various features.
I should also note there are US 9 milemarkers along Shore Road between CR 623 (where signed US 9 splits for the Garden State Parkway) and the site of the Beesley's Point Bridge.
Quote from: famartin on June 01, 2023, 07:02:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
I heard a rumor that the city wanted the bus 1 signage to continue, but it fades away downtown southbound and is almost 100% absent northbound.
Honestly 1 bus in the city should be removed and 206 bus assigned to the current 206, with 206 realigned to follow 1 bus, 1, 129, 29 and 195 to the section near White Horse Circle. You could even completely remove it since 206 north of the circle is municipal already.
Also an enhanced Mile marker on Brunswick Avenue acknowledges that it's US 206 in both directions, even though it's only NB US 206. Southbound uses MLK Blvd south of the Brunswick Circle. Plus US 1 ALT never used Brunswick Avenue in its day. Instead both directions used Present Day MLK and the concurrency with US 206 was SB only. Why both routes NB were on separate alignments is a mystery.
However, I agree with US 206 being out of Downtown and following Business US 1, US 1, NJ 129, and NJ 29 to I-195 with the short stretch to the Whitehorse Circle an extended CR 533 and Broad Street unnumbered.
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 02, 2023, 12:14:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2023, 11:37:43 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 01, 2023, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
The SLD and signage disagree with each other. This isn't the only place in New Jersey this happens. I know US 9 was rerouted and signed to follow the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor Bay after the Beesley's Point Bridge was demolished but the SLD still inventories US 9 following the roads to the removed bridge, with a gap in the route.
While the SLD is a great resource, it's not THE most absolute accurate reference document. There are other sources found within the NJDOT website that are of better accuracy, although much more boring to read. That said, on an overall level, the SLD is one of the better state-wide documents available to get a good overall inventory of a roadway and its various features.
I should also note there are US 9 milemarkers along Shore Road between CR 623 (where signed US 9 splits for the Garden State Parkway) and the site of the Beesley's Point Bridge.
Yes, whatever the SLD may be wrong about, NJDOT obviously still, at least in some sense, considers the stub to be part of US 9.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.279137,-74.6333491,3a,75y,39.57h,78.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfrrvXmKAOaofgczpGaE1vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2023, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 02, 2023, 12:14:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2023, 11:37:43 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 01, 2023, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
The SLD and signage disagree with each other. This isn't the only place in New Jersey this happens. I know US 9 was rerouted and signed to follow the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor Bay after the Beesley's Point Bridge was demolished but the SLD still inventories US 9 following the roads to the removed bridge, with a gap in the route.
While the SLD is a great resource, it's not THE most absolute accurate reference document. There are other sources found within the NJDOT website that are of better accuracy, although much more boring to read. That said, on an overall level, the SLD is one of the better state-wide documents available to get a good overall inventory of a roadway and its various features.
I should also note there are US 9 milemarkers along Shore Road between CR 623 (where signed US 9 splits for the Garden State Parkway) and the site of the Beesley's Point Bridge.
Yes, whatever the SLD may be wrong about, NJDOT obviously still, at least in some sense, considers the stub to be part of US 9.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.279137,-74.6333491,3a,75y,39.57h,78.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfrrvXmKAOaofgczpGaE1vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
the changeover happened since 2019
Quote from: Alps on June 02, 2023, 10:18:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2023, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 02, 2023, 12:14:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2023, 11:37:43 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 01, 2023, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
The SLD and signage disagree with each other. This isn't the only place in New Jersey this happens. I know US 9 was rerouted and signed to follow the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor Bay after the Beesley's Point Bridge was demolished but the SLD still inventories US 9 following the roads to the removed bridge, with a gap in the route.
While the SLD is a great resource, it's not THE most absolute accurate reference document. There are other sources found within the NJDOT website that are of better accuracy, although much more boring to read. That said, on an overall level, the SLD is one of the better state-wide documents available to get a good overall inventory of a roadway and its various features.
I should also note there are US 9 milemarkers along Shore Road between CR 623 (where signed US 9 splits for the Garden State Parkway) and the site of the Beesley's Point Bridge.
Yes, whatever the SLD may be wrong about, NJDOT obviously still, at least in some sense, considers the stub to be part of US 9.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.279137,-74.6333491,3a,75y,39.57h,78.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfrrvXmKAOaofgczpGaE1vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
the changeover happened since 2019
Not sure what you mean exactly. Signage has long directed us 9 traffic to the parkway, but the last SLD update is from 2013. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000009__-.pdf
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2023, 10:51:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 02, 2023, 10:18:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2023, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 02, 2023, 12:14:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2023, 11:37:43 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 01, 2023, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven’t they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It’s almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it’s entirety instead of it’s decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
The SLD and signage disagree with each other. This isn’t the only place in New Jersey this happens. I know US 9 was rerouted and signed to follow the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor Bay after the Beesley’s Point Bridge was demolished but the SLD still inventories US 9 following the roads to the removed bridge, with a gap in the route.
While the SLD is a great resource, it's not THE most absolute accurate reference document. There are other sources found within the NJDOT website that are of better accuracy, although much more boring to read. That said, on an overall level, the SLD is one of the better state-wide documents available to get a good overall inventory of a roadway and its various features.
I should also note there are US 9 milemarkers along Shore Road between CR 623 (where signed US 9 splits for the Garden State Parkway) and the site of the Beesley’s Point Bridge.
Yes, whatever the SLD may be wrong about, NJDOT obviously still, at least in some sense, considers the stub to be part of US 9.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.279137,-74.6333491,3a,75y,39.57h,78.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfrrvXmKAOaofgczpGaE1vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
the changeover happened since 2019
Not sure what you mean exactly. Signage has long directed us 9 traffic to the parkway, but the last SLD update is from 2013. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000009__-.pdf
https://goo.gl/maps/NdnBurVy8a9UgiHC9
No signs at all indicate US 9 turns right onto Roosevelt Blvd.
As of November 2022, signs on Roosevelt show US 9 heads north to Beesly Point still.
https://goo.gl/maps/6QpyPAEwHjjZvQASA
No signage has been changed as of yet.
Southbound it does
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3075915,-74.6191528,3a,75y,208.11h,78.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbHksFj-d9CTMj2xhFV6Aig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Quote from: famartin on June 03, 2023, 10:57:40 AM
Southbound it does
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3075915,-74.6191528,3a,75y,208.11h,78.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbHksFj-d9CTMj2xhFV6Aig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
US 9 is also signed at the northbound ramp to the Garden State Parkway along CR 623.
You can all post whatever you want, but I live in New Jersey, have been to that area several times in the last couple of years, and can vouch that all US 9 signs have disappeared from that stretch of dead end. I do not know if it has been downloaded to Cape May County yet or not, but I'm sure that's the plan. Any remaining mile markers are legacy items at this point.
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2023, 10:51:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 02, 2023, 10:18:26 PM
Quote from: famartin on June 02, 2023, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 02, 2023, 12:14:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2023, 11:37:43 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 01, 2023, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2023, 06:30:48 PM
In Lawrence Township I noticed that US 1 Business is still signed to follow US 206 SB at the Brunswick Circle and a reassurance shield still remains along MLK Blvd in Trenton.
The circle is part of NJ DOT jurisdiction, so why haven't they removed these being that the route follows Strawberry Street into US 1 to terminate there? It's almost like the department thinks that the business route just replaced the alternate in it's entirety instead of it's decommissioning with a truncated replacement.
The SLD and signage disagree with each other. This isn't the only place in New Jersey this happens. I know US 9 was rerouted and signed to follow the Garden State Parkway across Great Egg Harbor Bay after the Beesley's Point Bridge was demolished but the SLD still inventories US 9 following the roads to the removed bridge, with a gap in the route.
While the SLD is a great resource, it's not THE most absolute accurate reference document. There are other sources found within the NJDOT website that are of better accuracy, although much more boring to read. That said, on an overall level, the SLD is one of the better state-wide documents available to get a good overall inventory of a roadway and its various features.
I should also note there are US 9 milemarkers along Shore Road between CR 623 (where signed US 9 splits for the Garden State Parkway) and the site of the Beesley's Point Bridge.
Yes, whatever the SLD may be wrong about, NJDOT obviously still, at least in some sense, considers the stub to be part of US 9.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.279137,-74.6333491,3a,75y,39.57h,78.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfrrvXmKAOaofgczpGaE1vw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
the changeover happened since 2019
Not sure what you mean exactly. Signage has long directed us 9 traffic to the parkway, but the last SLD update is from 2013. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000009__-.pdf
The last SLDs were posted online in 2015. The change in official routing was much more recent.
FWIW, in February, I missed the turn onto CR 623 mainly because of the US 9 NB turn not being posted. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218301151080672&set=a.10218301431447681)
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2023, 07:37:10 PM
You can all post whatever you want, but I live in New Jersey, have been to that area several times in the last couple of years, and can vouch that all US 9 signs have disappeared from that stretch of dead end. I do not know if it has been downloaded to Cape May County yet or not, but I'm sure that's the plan. Any remaining mile markers are legacy items at this point.
I wonder what CR number Cape May County would assign the former alignment of US 9 between CR 623 and the former Beesleys Point Bridge. Or do you think NJDOT may keep it and assign it a different state route number (similar to NJ 167 to the north)?
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2023, 07:37:10 PM
You can all post whatever you want, but I live in New Jersey, have been to that area several times in the last couple of years, and can vouch that all US 9 signs have disappeared from that stretch of dead end. I do not know if it has been downloaded to Cape May County yet or not, but I'm sure that's the plan. Any remaining mile markers are legacy items at this point.
If I didn't have a 4 month old, I'd go and check since I'm not *that* far away now...
Quote from: Dough4872 on June 05, 2023, 08:11:10 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2023, 07:37:10 PM
You can all post whatever you want, but I live in New Jersey, have been to that area several times in the last couple of years, and can vouch that all US 9 signs have disappeared from that stretch of dead end. I do not know if it has been downloaded to Cape May County yet or not, but I'm sure that's the plan. Any remaining mile markers are legacy items at this point.
I wonder what CR number Cape May County would assign the former alignment of US 9 between CR 623 and the former Beesleys Point Bridge. Or do you think NJDOT may keep it and assign it a different state route number (similar to NJ 167 to the north)?
This is gonna remain to be seen. I _think_ it'll be downloaded but there's no way to know until the next Straight Line Diagrams. (I feel like my office has later than 2015, but 2015 is all the website offers.)
Whether the SLD is eight years old is irrelevant. The fact is the signage NB hasn’t been amended to inform drivers to turn at Roosevelt Blvd. for the Parkway North. The trapezoid entry sign for the GSP NB features US 9 co signed, but the lack of sign on Shore Road at Roosevelt ignoring the turn is the issue as it breaks the continuity.
Plus WB Roosevelt at US 9 having NB US 9 shields from last GSV pass still showing ( whether inventoried or not) shows that US 9 still exists into the former Beesly Point Bridge. Ditto for the overhead street blades.
Also AASHTO isn’t been notified of the change. Even with US 322 at Mullica Hill and US 206 at Hillsborough are not even AASHTO approved nor is the decommissioning of US 1 ALT in Trenton also not official as last application to the Feds was in 1970 circa when US 206 was realigned through Roxbury and Stanhope.
Is the Tunnel along the Brigantine Connector below Sea Level?
https://goo.gl/maps/Nx97tcPVQqSYkwaX9
Looks like it may be so. The Back Thorofare is a tidal estuary that is at sea level and looks like it's above the freeway as it drops below grade.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 05, 2023, 10:36:16 PM
Is the Tunnel along the Brigantine Connector below Sea Level?
https://goo.gl/maps/Nx97tcPVQqSYkwaX9
Looks like it may be so. The Back Thorofare is a tidal estuary that is at sea level and looks like it's above the freeway as it drops below grade.
Yes, I'm pretty sure the tunnel is below sea level.
Why all this barbed wire protection around the area under US 9 in Keasbey on Smith Street?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4k1matWDtWhs6AM6
That's way overkill for open space under a highway.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2023, 09:28:30 AM
Why all this barbed wire protection around the area under US 9 in Keasbey on Smith Street?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4k1matWDtWhs6AM6
That's way overkill for open space under a highway.
To keep people out, obviously.
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2023, 10:00:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2023, 09:28:30 AM
Why all this barbed wire protection around the area under US 9 in Keasbey on Smith Street?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4k1matWDtWhs6AM6
That's way overkill for open space under a highway.
To keep people out, obviously.
Like they need to keep people out. Really it's shameful to walk under a bridge or like they're obstacles under there to create a liability.
Come on, the barbed wire makes it look like you're driving through a police state like Berlin was once upon a time.
Even so, a simple fence will suffice. Don't need the wire like it's a prison yard.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2023, 04:51:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 21, 2023, 10:00:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2023, 09:28:30 AM
Why all this barbed wire protection around the area under US 9 in Keasbey on Smith Street?
https://goo.gl/maps/i4k1matWDtWhs6AM6
That's way overkill for open space under a highway.
To keep people out, obviously.
Like they need to keep people out. Really it's shameful to walk under a bridge or like they're obstacles under there to create a liability.
Come on, the barbed wire makes it look like you're driving through a police state like Berlin was once upon a time.
Even so, a simple fence will suffice. Don't need the wire like it's a prison yard.
if i had to hazard a guess, [homeless/drug users/insert other undesirable group here] were making use of the space and locals complained about the [eyesore/danger/other]. regular fences didn't do the job, hence that "beautiful" bouquet of barbed wire.
I think the fencing was more put up because of Buttery Terrorism. Other NJTA bridges like the Delaware River 95 bridge and formerly the Great Egg Harbor (removed due to complaints as it lined the roadway along the marshes) use it.
https://goo.gl/maps/iGxz4vM6qSv1Y9eu6
I love how there is no 42B, as the two US 202 exits are 42A and 42C on I-80 c/d roadway.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2023, 08:59:06 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/iGxz4vM6qSv1Y9eu6
I love how there is no 42B, as the two US 202 exits are 42A and 42C on I-80 c/d roadway.
42B is on the WB side (https://goo.gl/maps/u2YmTAXpyL5Lyywv7). That's pretty typical of NJDOT, they'll try to keep the suffixes the same on both sides of the same interchange.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2023, 08:59:06 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/iGxz4vM6qSv1Y9eu6
I love how there is no 42B, as the two US 202 exits are 42A and 42C on I-80 c/d roadway.
42B is Cherry Hill Road, which doesn't have an eastbound exit...
Quote from: NE2 on June 22, 2023, 08:39:06 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 22, 2023, 08:59:06 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/iGxz4vM6qSv1Y9eu6
I love how there is no 42B, as the two US 202 exits are 42A and 42C on I-80 c/d roadway.
42B is Cherry Hill Road, which doesn't have an eastbound exit...
MUTCD would now suggest you need to make it A-B and B-A even if it's different ramps. I'm against this but *shrug* let's see what comes out a month ago
Here is one other thing interesting. NJ 15 mileposts still exist along Bergen Street even though the route got truncated to the current at grade intersection with US 46.
https://goo.gl/maps/kj8ZVZ9gkcYR3o2x7
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 08:30:19 AM
Here is one other thing interesting. NJ 15 mileposts still exist along Bergen Street even though the route got truncated to the current at grade intersection with US 46.
https://goo.gl/maps/kj8ZVZ9gkcYR3o2x7 (https://goo.gl/maps/kj8ZVZ9gkcYR3o2x7)
no the route is not truncated. see straight line diagrams
I'm not surprised. All they did was break the continuity when they eliminated the grade separation and created the dead end from the south ( east). Figure that they would do that.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202. As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.
Quote from: artmalk on June 24, 2023, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202. As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.
What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.
Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:18:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on June 24, 2023, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202. As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.
What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.
I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split :spin: I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.
Quote from: interstate73 on June 28, 2023, 01:15:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:18:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on June 24, 2023, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202. As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.
What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.
I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split :spin: I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.
That is not the only example of when a road agency spent millions to improve a traffic nightmare to not make an impression at all. Florida has plenty of examples of spending millions to not at improve a bad situation. I-4 and I-75 interchange is a prime example by creating a cattle chute that still creates the same problem it was promised to alleviate.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 28, 2023, 12:02:09 AM
Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part
Clearly someone must know? Or is there a place to find plans online? Between the NJTP and NJ-19?
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 30, 2023, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 28, 2023, 12:02:09 AM
Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part
Clearly someone must know? Or is there a place to find plans online? Between the NJTP and NJ-19?
Could try an OPRA request if you want the plans badly
Quote from: interstate73 on June 28, 2023, 01:15:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:18:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on June 24, 2023, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202. As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.
What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.
I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split :spin: I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.
The exit closest to my house has this same 'feature': 2 lanes, merge to 1 for several hundred feet, then splits off into two distinctive turning lanes. And there's no constraints - the ramp is still 1.5 lanes wide, and it's grass off to the side where the 2nd lane could've been built.
Another NJ irritation: 2 traffic lights fairly close together, with a lane drop in-between. If the area is even remotely subjected to high traffic volumes, congestion will result. NJ 29 South near the Trenton Thunder stadium does this. Could've easily extended 3 lanes thru both lights with a drop afterwards where it becomes free-flowing before the tunnel. Instead, it's a 10-15 minute traffic jam every rush hour.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 01, 2023, 02:48:37 PM
Quote from: interstate73 on June 28, 2023, 01:15:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:18:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on June 24, 2023, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202. As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.
What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.
I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split :spin: I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.
The exit closest to my house has this same 'feature': 2 lanes, merge to 1 for several hundred feet, then splits off into two distinctive turning lanes. And there's no constraints - the ramp is still 1.5 lanes wide, and it's grass off to the side where the 2nd lane could've been built.
Another NJ irritation: 2 traffic lights fairly close together, with a lane drop in-between. If the area is even remotely subjected to high traffic volumes, congestion will result. NJ 29 South near the Trenton Thunder stadium does this. Could've easily extended 3 lanes thru both lights with a drop afterwards where it becomes free-flowing before the tunnel. Instead, it's a 10-15 minute traffic jam every rush hour.
Not looking into specific cases, but this often becomes a question of right-of-way, drainage, and utilities. The merge may be located where it is to avoid or minimize property acquisition, whether temporary or permanent; it may be a question of limiting new or reconstructed impervious surface so that there are not larger drainage impacts (such as basins) or environmental permits required; or there may be significant utility relocations required by widening the roadway and it was chosen to avoid or minimize that.
It could be the case that none of these apply here and it's simply a decades-old design decision that would require more work now to resolve. But that is a case-by-case consideration.
Quote from: Alps on July 01, 2023, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 01, 2023, 02:48:37 PM
Quote from: interstate73 on June 28, 2023, 01:15:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:18:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on June 24, 2023, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202. As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.
What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.
I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split :spin: I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.
The exit closest to my house has this same 'feature': 2 lanes, merge to 1 for several hundred feet, then splits off into two distinctive turning lanes. And there's no constraints - the ramp is still 1.5 lanes wide, and it's grass off to the side where the 2nd lane could've been built.
Another NJ irritation: 2 traffic lights fairly close together, with a lane drop in-between. If the area is even remotely subjected to high traffic volumes, congestion will result. NJ 29 South near the Trenton Thunder stadium does this. Could've easily extended 3 lanes thru both lights with a drop afterwards where it becomes free-flowing before the tunnel. Instead, it's a 10-15 minute traffic jam every rush hour.
Not looking into specific cases, but this often becomes a question of right-of-way, drainage, and utilities. The merge may be located where it is to avoid or minimize property acquisition, whether temporary or permanent; it may be a question of limiting new or reconstructed impervious surface so that there are not larger drainage impacts (such as basins) or environmental permits required; or there may be significant utility relocations required by widening the roadway and it was chosen to avoid or minimize that.
It could be the case that none of these apply here and it's simply a decades-old design decision that would require more work now to resolve. But that is a case-by-case consideration.
In this particular case, there's certainly plenty of median width. https://goo.gl/maps/GSQMzyAiM62MJqJQA There's a drainage pond to the south of Cass. There would've been about 500 feet to end the left lane and taper it down. In the wider median there's a fenced off area that has some historic significance. On the NB side the fence comes close to the road; on the SB side there's a shoulder that's widened out from nearly nothing, and about 10-15 feet of room before the fence. The most restraining feature may be the roadway on Cass between the NB & SB lanes, which would've lost another 12 feet of space if another lane came in.
In this particular case, maybe it was any of those issues that they decided was the issue that kept 29 SB from continuing as 3 lanes thru Cass.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 01, 2023, 04:23:56 PM
Quote from: Alps on July 01, 2023, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 01, 2023, 02:48:37 PM
Quote from: interstate73 on June 28, 2023, 01:15:41 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 27, 2023, 06:18:08 PM
Quote from: artmalk on June 24, 2023, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2023, 05:58:36 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fuFWkjSdiFY3N7Wm8
I see that engineers managed to fit an entire ramp between the freeway and frontage road. Previously the ramp to I-80 east was from the frontage road splitting off to the right.
https://goo.gl/maps/7nZTH1dGuWq2ewue9
Now I see they reconfigured the entrance to the freeway to restrict the EB frontage road to local access only.
https://goo.gl/maps/sj9GdfjmsGzQCt9G8
Good job of placing a ramp in a tight area. I see it was done between 2013 and 2016 per street view archives.
The new ramp was supposed to address the weaving between cars going to the right to get on 287, and traffic getting to the left to stay on 80 after entering from 202. As a resident of Parsippany I can say that the problem was not solved.
What might solve the problem is, oh, HAVING THE SECOND LANE SPLIT TO THE EXIT instead of cramming everyone in a single lane, only to open up to two lanes IN THE EXIT GORE. Seriously.
I remember many years ago as a young lad being so excited to see construction on that ramp, thinking there would finally be relief for the massive queues that would always form for that ramp. Imagine my shock when they finally wrapped it up and they had widened the ramp all the way to like 3 inches short of the lane split :spin: I really why this decision was made because it is truly baffling, I really can't think of any reason NJDOT would spend all that money and effort on the construction they did but still not fix the main problem with it.
The exit closest to my house has this same 'feature': 2 lanes, merge to 1 for several hundred feet, then splits off into two distinctive turning lanes. And there's no constraints - the ramp is still 1.5 lanes wide, and it's grass off to the side where the 2nd lane could've been built.
Another NJ irritation: 2 traffic lights fairly close together, with a lane drop in-between. If the area is even remotely subjected to high traffic volumes, congestion will result. NJ 29 South near the Trenton Thunder stadium does this. Could've easily extended 3 lanes thru both lights with a drop afterwards where it becomes free-flowing before the tunnel. Instead, it's a 10-15 minute traffic jam every rush hour.
Not looking into specific cases, but this often becomes a question of right-of-way, drainage, and utilities. The merge may be located where it is to avoid or minimize property acquisition, whether temporary or permanent; it may be a question of limiting new or reconstructed impervious surface so that there are not larger drainage impacts (such as basins) or environmental permits required; or there may be significant utility relocations required by widening the roadway and it was chosen to avoid or minimize that.
It could be the case that none of these apply here and it's simply a decades-old design decision that would require more work now to resolve. But that is a case-by-case consideration.
In this particular case, there's certainly plenty of median width. https://goo.gl/maps/GSQMzyAiM62MJqJQA There's a drainage pond to the south of Cass. There would've been about 500 feet to end the left lane and taper it down. In the wider median there's a fenced off area that has some historic significance. On the NB side the fence comes close to the road; on the SB side there's a shoulder that's widened out from nearly nothing, and about 10-15 feet of room before the fence. The most restraining feature may be the roadway on Cass between the NB & SB lanes, which would've lost another 12 feet of space if another lane came in.
In this particular case, maybe it was any of those issues that they decided was the issue that kept 29 SB from continuing as 3 lanes thru Cass.
Right - and again, building into the median would be an environmental/drainage condition, plus right now the right lane merge looks to be of standard length and standard taper. That is not something you want to compromise.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 30, 2023, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 28, 2023, 12:02:09 AM
Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part
Clearly someone must know? Or is there a place to find plans online? Between the NJTP and NJ-19?
NJDOT is replacing the older triangular truss overhead structures across the state. It's not necessarily entire stretches of various highways getting all new signs, just specific structures. A lot of those structures are from the early 1980s or earlier and have reached the end of their service life. You'll see one structure get replaced and get new signs and the next set of signs will be untouched because the structure they're on is newer. If you look at some of my posts in this thread, I've been documenting ones I have found during trips around the state.
Quote from: storm2k on July 05, 2023, 09:05:41 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 30, 2023, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 28, 2023, 12:02:09 AM
Last time in NJ I saw new signage going up on the ramp from Leonia going to I-80 west or 95 South.
Is there a sign project on I-80 between there and NJ-19?
There were a lot of button copy signs on that part
Clearly someone must know? Or is there a place to find plans online? Between the NJTP and NJ-19?
NJDOT is replacing the older triangular truss overhead structures across the state. It's not necessarily entire stretches of various highways getting all new signs, just specific structures. A lot of those structures are from the early 1980s or earlier and have reached the end of their service life. You'll see one structure get replaced and get new signs and the next set of signs will be untouched because the structure they're on is newer. If you look at some of my posts in this thread, I've been documenting ones I have found during trips around the state.
They are replacing some signage throughout the state as needed as well on existing gantries.
It depends. Sometimes they will do a select amount on a certain stretch of one freeway or they'll do a random spot replacement if the gantry was due for a replacement.
Once on I-295, they replaced the entire stretch from US 130 at Westville to NJ 38 at Moorestown. They gave all new overheads to existing ones and erected some new ones where none has had any before for that project. This was early eighties when exit numbers were being introduced to I-295 between those two points.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 06, 2023, 01:47:22 PM
It depends. Sometimes they will do a select amount on a certain stretch of one freeway or they'll do a random spot replacement if the gantry was due for a replacement.
Once on I-295, they replaced the entire stretch from US 130 at Westville to NJ 38 at Moorestown. They gave all new overheads to existing ones and erected some new ones where none has had any before for that project. This was early eighties when exit numbers were being introduced to I-295 between those two points.
295 got a lot of new signage back in the very early 2000s, the fully retroflective stuff that NJDOT was putting everywhere in those days. A lot of those were just signage replacements on existing structures, so they've been slowly disappearing as time has worn on and NJDOT has had to replace the gantries themselves, but a lot still survives in various states of repair. They did the same thing on 280 west of the Oranges. In the case of that roadway, the triangle truss structure at 5B westbound had to come down and was only replaced in the last 2 years.
Quote from: storm2k on July 06, 2023, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 06, 2023, 01:47:22 PM
It depends. Sometimes they will do a select amount on a certain stretch of one freeway or they'll do a random spot replacement if the gantry was due for a replacement.
Once on I-295, they replaced the entire stretch from US 130 at Westville to NJ 38 at Moorestown. They gave all new overheads to existing ones and erected some new ones where none has had any before for that project. This was early eighties when exit numbers were being introduced to I-295 between those two points.
295 got a lot of new signage back in the very early 2000s, the fully retroflective stuff that NJDOT was putting everywhere in those days. A lot of those were just signage replacements on existing structures, so they've been slowly disappearing as time has worn on and NJDOT has had to replace the gantries themselves, but a lot still survives in various states of repair. They did the same thing on 280 west of the Oranges. In the case of that roadway, the triangle truss structure at 5B westbound had to come down and was only replaced in the last 2 years.
The I-280 signs in Roseland have a lot to be desired. Not only listing the endpoint routes of the Turnpike and I-95 as part of the New Jersey DOT thing ( but here listing those works out well unlike I-195), but skipping over Newark for Kearny heading EB is totally wrong just because the route ends there and to support the I-95 and Turnpike shields.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 05:09:04 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 06, 2023, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 06, 2023, 01:47:22 PM
It depends. Sometimes they will do a select amount on a certain stretch of one freeway or they'll do a random spot replacement if the gantry was due for a replacement.
Once on I-295, they replaced the entire stretch from US 130 at Westville to NJ 38 at Moorestown. They gave all new overheads to existing ones and erected some new ones where none has had any before for that project. This was early eighties when exit numbers were being introduced to I-295 between those two points.
295 got a lot of new signage back in the very early 2000s, the fully retroflective stuff that NJDOT was putting everywhere in those days. A lot of those were just signage replacements on existing structures, so they've been slowly disappearing as time has worn on and NJDOT has had to replace the gantries themselves, but a lot still survives in various states of repair. They did the same thing on 280 west of the Oranges. In the case of that roadway, the triangle truss structure at 5B westbound had to come down and was only replaced in the last 2 years.
The I-280 signs in Roseland have a lot to be desired. Not only listing the endpoint routes of the Turnpike and I-95 as part of the New Jersey DOT thing ( but here listing those works out well unlike I-195), but skipping over Newark for Kearny heading EB is totally wrong just because the route ends there and to support the I-95 and Turnpike shields.
I agree that Newark makes more sense as a control city than Kearny. But I also see your point about why they use Kearny re: the I-95/Turnpike interchange. Once again I suggest that both names could be shown on the entrance and pull-thru signs to have the best of both worlds.
There is a sign that says Newark and Kearny.
Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.
For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.
I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 09, 2023, 09:08:24 PM
Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.
For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.
I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way.
You mean this https://goo.gl/maps/6J3FaWX1TrXj9rTL9
I'm not sure why, but at least they acknowledge now, I-95 that wasnt done before.
https://goo.gl/maps/MX5G1eaQQ7TfH9a2A
This one still shows Kearny only.
https://goo.gl/maps/iDNQKzHu3GF4nZYx6
This one shows both with all the Essex County communities with Orange in the name.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 11:28:50 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 09, 2023, 09:08:24 PM
Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.
For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.
I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way.
You mean this https://goo.gl/maps/6J3FaWX1TrXj9rTL9
I'm not sure why, but at least they acknowledge now, I-95 that wasnt done before.
Yup, that's the location. While it is good that they finally posted I-95, I'm more concerned with drivers being forced into an exit they didn't mean to take because of NJDOT's not properly signing the lane-drop in advance of the exit.
Of course. The 1 mile guide says nothing. It looks like an ordinary diverge from there.
I-78 at I-287 in Bedminster used to do that until they added KEEP LEFT to the pull through, which still doesn't warn of a lane drop as the right lane defaults to Exit 29 and the freeway drops to two lanes between the off and on ramps there.
At least on I-78 in Bedminster, the final overhead sign at the split has the yellow Exit Only panel that the whole series of signs should have. And yes, the Keep Left on the pull-thru signs helps. In Kearny on I-280, they didn't even do that much.
I wonder what NJDOT's reasoning is for not following the format in the Federal Manual. I'd expect this in Massachusetts, but not in New Jersey.
NJ used to do that on US 1-9 in Elizabeth before they rebuilt the Elizabeth River Viaduct. The right lane used to default onto Elizabeth Avenue with no Right Lane Exit Only Signs or even guide signs for the ramp. You would see two flashing lights at the split as you’re only wake up to the right lane defaulting to a ramp.
Oh yes and Woodbridge on US 9 NB at the NJ Turnpike / Garden State Parkway NB left exit. There the left lane of US 9 defaults into the Parkway c/d roadway with no guides overhead or ground mounts with EXIT ONLY warnings. You get rinky dink shields at the exit, but since 1972 when NJDOT built the current dual US 9/ Parkway carriage ways, no overheads were ever added there. Just a gore Parkway and Turnpike Entrance Sign. Now replaced with substandard signs. In fact a APL would work well here being the second to left lane is for both exit and straight through Route 9.
https://goo.gl/maps/Euy8AkZq3UcPooZ87
I see the original Garden State Parkway Bridge that once carried its NB carriage way over US 9 ( later converted to Exit 127) is being replaced.
Sadly I can't find anything on the NJTA website about the project.
Considering the bridge opened with the Driscoll Bridge in 1954, it's about lived more than its service life.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 09, 2023, 09:08:24 PM
Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.
For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.
I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way.
I get the feeling it was a straight replacement of the original 1970-ish signs (the ones that survived into this decade in a couple of spots at the interchange).
Quote from: Alps on July 14, 2023, 09:44:45 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 09, 2023, 09:08:24 PM
Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.
For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.
I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way.
I get the feeling it was a straight replacement of the original 1970-ish signs (the ones that survived into this decade in a couple of spots at the interchange).
Well the time line is actually a little later. That road was under construction thru Harrison in 1977 and probably opened around 1979-80 so the 1971 MUTCD would have been in effect. But anyway, when they replaced the signs someone should have caught that deficiency and instead of doing a one-for-one replacement, the new signs should have been designed as per the newer standards for improved guidance and safety.
I'm not making any excuses but I believe engineers thought that the exit is more of an equal split than a specific exit. Remember a lot of folks exit here than go for the Turnpike as commuters to Lower Manhattan do utilize this freeway and exit.
Well then they should have signed it that way. The engineers who did the original signing should have made sure to indicate that traffic going thru to the NJ Turnpike has to be in the two left lanes. They could solve the problem now with one overhead sign around the beginning of the deceleration lane with a message to that affect. It's unsafe the way they signed it because it can cause a sudden last minute lane change.
Oh I'm not agreeing with the poor signage at all. There should be better guides to promote an equal split if that is what they were going for.
Why isn't the Garden State Parkway shown on the exit sign for Exit 57A on the eastbound I-80?
Route 19 is the only direct connection to the southbound Parkway from the eastbound I-80. There is none at Exit 62.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 21, 2023, 02:38:33 PM
Why isn't the Garden State Parkway shown on the exit sign for Exit 57A on the eastbound I-80?
Route 19 is the only direct connection to the southbound Parkway from the eastbound I-80. There is none at Exit 62.
From where to where is inconvenienced without that connection?
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 21, 2023, 02:38:33 PM
Why isn't the Garden State Parkway shown on the exit sign for Exit 57A on the eastbound I-80?
Route 19 is the only direct connection to the southbound Parkway from the eastbound I-80. There is none at Exit 62.
I don't disagree with you, but it's probably up to the Turnpike Authority to speak up and ask for it to be signed. (And I don't think it's signed to I-80 West from GSP North)
Most people from I-80 East to the GSP South use I-280 at Exit 47A, so many don't make it that far to be considered an issue.
Although Exit 62 should state that it's for GSP north only, as no direct ramps to the SB GSP going EB. That said, you can, though, access the SB Parkway via the streets of Saddle Brook, but with NJ 19 being a more direct connection, it should be altered to show this.
NJDOT appears to finally using control cities for the GSP vs. "G. S. Parkway". This name sign was finally installed recently: https://goo.gl/maps/k86GHnpMvqpsZywZ7
Odd that they put I-95/NJTP on the US-22 East signs.
Not much more to report in that area as the rest of the signing is still not finished. The button copy on the eastbound approach appears to be still hanging on, but not for much longer. RIP 1950s concrete pavement in the area though.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 23, 2023, 04:49:57 PM
NJDOT appears to finally using control cities for the GSP vs. "G. S. Parkway". This name sign was finally installed recently: https://goo.gl/maps/k86GHnpMvqpsZywZ7
Odd that they put I-95/NJTP on the US-22 East signs.
Not much more to report in that area as the rest of the signing is still not finished. The button copy on the eastbound approach appears to be still hanging on, but not for much longer. RIP 1950s concrete pavement in the area though.
There are other places in New Jersey where the Garden State Parkway is signed with control cities. The NJ 70 interchange with the parkway has Woodbridge and Toms River as control cities.
Quote from: Dough4872 on July 23, 2023, 06:57:32 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 23, 2023, 04:49:57 PM
NJDOT appears to finally using control cities for the GSP vs. "G. S. Parkway". This name sign was finally installed recently: https://goo.gl/maps/k86GHnpMvqpsZywZ7
Odd that they put I-95/NJTP on the US-22 East signs.
Not much more to report in that area as the rest of the signing is still not finished. The button copy on the eastbound approach appears to be still hanging on, but not for much longer. RIP 1950s concrete pavement in the area though.
There are other places in New Jersey where the Garden State Parkway is signed with control cities. The NJ 70 interchange with the parkway has Woodbridge and Toms River as control cities.
I wonder how they’re going to sign the u turn for US 22 West now that it’s been eliminated after the NJ 82 EB exit? Are they going to sign NJ 82 EB for both NJ 82 directions and for US 22 west using the Lowe’s Jughandle as a means to turn left onto NJ 82 WB being the present ramp is a right out?
It’s needed being the NB GSP lacks a connection to US 22 WB and relied solely on that u turn ramp to complete that movement.
https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.
It appears the ramp is still under NJTA control (judging by the long dashes and those particular streetlights), I'm surprised NJDOT installed gantries there in the first place.
Quote from: plain on July 24, 2023, 10:59:40 AM
It appears the ramp is still under NJTA control (judging by the long dashes and those particular streetlights), I'm surprised NJDOT installed gantries there in the first place.
That ramp always had NJTA signs. Only the split where the ramps depart for the two freeways had NJDOT old style triangular gantries. Don't know why NJTA let them replace their signs and not inspect them to see that the control cities match.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 23, 2023, 04:49:57 PM
NJDOT appears to finally using control cities for the GSP vs. "G. S. Parkway". This name sign was finally installed recently: https://goo.gl/maps/k86GHnpMvqpsZywZ7
Odd that they put I-95/NJTP on the US-22 East signs.
Not much more to report in that area as the rest of the signing is still not finished. The button copy on the eastbound approach appears to be still hanging on, but not for much longer. RIP 1950s concrete pavement in the area though.
I was slightly involved with sign design. But not enough to know where the I-95/NJTP shields came from.
Quote from: Alps on July 21, 2023, 03:16:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 21, 2023, 02:38:33 PM
Why isn't the Garden State Parkway shown on the exit sign for Exit 57A on the eastbound I-80?
Route 19 is the only direct connection to the southbound Parkway from the eastbound I-80. There is none at Exit 62.
I don't disagree with you, but it's probably up to the Turnpike Authority to speak up and ask for it to be signed. (And I don't think it's signed to I-80 West from GSP North)
I verified yesterday morning that
Route 19 to I-80 West appears on three signs approaching and at the exit.
There should be reciprocal signage on I-80 eastbound.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 10:10:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.
I believe the MUTCD does recommend (if not require) message consistency thru sign sequences of that sort. But good luck with that in the real world.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 10:10:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.
I believe the MUTCD does recommend (if not require) message consistency thru sign sequences of that sort. But good luck with that in the real world.
Not only that but Woodbridge is for CR 514 EB. I-287 don't get anything here even Mahwah. You figure an interstate to interstate ramp would acknowledge a control city for the connecting route. Guess not.
https://goo.gl/maps/roRe3HtZNyE1zsnJA
I lived in the Edison/ Fords area for three years in the late eighties. We never had issues with overheight vehicles hitting this low bridge.
WTF are truckers really getting so dumb that they need to idiot proof this underpass. Heck, Durham, NC proves warning flashers don't grab attention of the most ignorant.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2023, 08:28:23 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/roRe3HtZNyE1zsnJA
I lived in the Edison/ Fords area for three years in the late eighties. We never had issues with overheight vehicles hitting this low bridge.
WTF are truckers really getting so dumb that they need to idiot proof this underpass. Heck, Durham, NC proves warning flashers don't grab attention of the most ignorant.
Yes, it looks like truckers are getting dumber by the year. We have an ever increasing problem on Long Island with big rigs getting onto our restricted parkways with their low bridges. This is despite signage, flashing lights, etc. The problem as I understand it is that they are relying on passenger car type GPS's instead of reading the signs or using the more expensive commercial truck GPS's.
Question for anyone in the loop with NJDOT: According to recent Google Street View imagery on a nearby slip road between US 322 and US 130, the mileposts at 1.5 on NJ 324 have been removed. When I inspected the closed section of the route in 2019, the mileposts at 0.5 had been removed. I always thought the ones at 0.5 came down either because they interfered with Atlantic Subsea’s dredging equipment or NJDOT didn’t want to encourage travel on the closed section. Has NJDOT downloaded NJ 324, do they plan to, or have they disavowed responsibility for it?
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on July 26, 2023, 09:09:44 PM
Question for anyone in the loop with NJDOT: According to recent Google Street View imagery on a nearby slip road between US 322 and US 130, the mileposts at 1.5 on NJ 324 have been removed. When I inspected the closed section of the route in 2019, the mileposts at 0.5 had been removed. I always thought the ones at 0.5 came down either because they interfered with Atlantic Subsea's dredging equipment or NJDOT didn't want to encourage travel on the closed section. Has NJDOT downloaded NJ 324, do they plan to, or have they disavowed responsibility for it?
Given that someone in this very forum has one of these signs (not me), I assume that is why they disappeared.
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on July 26, 2023, 09:09:44 PM
Question for anyone in the loop with NJDOT: According to recent Google Street View imagery on a nearby slip road between US 322 and US 130, the mileposts at 1.5 on NJ 324 have been removed. When I inspected the closed section of the route in 2019, the mileposts at 0.5 had been removed. I always thought the ones at 0.5 came down either because they interfered with Atlantic Subsea's dredging equipment or NJDOT didn't want to encourage travel on the closed section. Has NJDOT downloaded NJ 324, do they plan to, or have they disavowed responsibility for it?
The most recent GSV I'm seeing is from 10 years ago, prior to the installation of the milemarkers, including the 1.5.
As Alps mentioned, one of the 0.5 mms went walking. The others may have walked as well.
This is still under NJDOTs jurisdiction, but they don't do much with it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2023, 07:57:24 PM
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on July 26, 2023, 09:09:44 PM
Question for anyone in the loop with NJDOT: According to recent Google Street View imagery on a nearby slip road between US 322 and US 130, the mileposts at 1.5 on NJ 324 have been removed. When I inspected the closed section of the route in 2019, the mileposts at 0.5 had been removed. I always thought the ones at 0.5 came down either because they interfered with Atlantic Subsea's dredging equipment or NJDOT didn't want to encourage travel on the closed section. Has NJDOT downloaded NJ 324, do they plan to, or have they disavowed responsibility for it?
The most recent GSV I'm seeing is from 10 years ago, prior to the installation of the milemarkers, including the 1.5.
As Alps mentioned, one of the 0.5 mms went walking. The others may have walked as well.
This is still under NJDOTs jurisdiction, but they don't do much with it.
The imagery I'm referring to is from two months ago. It's on the slip road from US 322 east to US 130 south, which passes by the southern terminus of NJ 324. The road is almost exactly one and a half miles long, so the markers were visible from the slip road in the imagery before that.
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on July 27, 2023, 09:45:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2023, 07:57:24 PM
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on July 26, 2023, 09:09:44 PM
Question for anyone in the loop with NJDOT: According to recent Google Street View imagery on a nearby slip road between US 322 and US 130, the mileposts at 1.5 on NJ 324 have been removed. When I inspected the closed section of the route in 2019, the mileposts at 0.5 had been removed. I always thought the ones at 0.5 came down either because they interfered with Atlantic Subsea's dredging equipment or NJDOT didn't want to encourage travel on the closed section. Has NJDOT downloaded NJ 324, do they plan to, or have they disavowed responsibility for it?
The most recent GSV I'm seeing is from 10 years ago, prior to the installation of the milemarkers, including the 1.5.
As Alps mentioned, one of the 0.5 mms went walking. The others may have walked as well.
This is still under NJDOTs jurisdiction, but they don't do much with it.
The imagery I'm referring to is from two months ago. It's on the slip road from US 322 east to US 130 south, which passes by the southern terminus of NJ 324. The road is almost exactly one and a half miles long, so the markers were visible from the slip road in the imagery before that.
Ah, ok. You're referring to the interchange ramp from 322 East to 130 South. From that, I can see one post where there's no longer a sign, and the other location where both the post and sign is missing completely. This portion of NJ 324 remains open for vehicular use.
For what it's worth, the section from 0.00 to 0.95 was dedesignated and vacated by state statute in 2018 and local ordinance in 2019: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2016/S3556 and https://ecode360.com/LO0702/laws/LF1132426.pdf
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2023, 10:02:01 PM
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on July 27, 2023, 09:45:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2023, 07:57:24 PM
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on July 26, 2023, 09:09:44 PM
Question for anyone in the loop with NJDOT: According to recent Google Street View imagery on a nearby slip road between US 322 and US 130, the mileposts at 1.5 on NJ 324 have been removed. When I inspected the closed section of the route in 2019, the mileposts at 0.5 had been removed. I always thought the ones at 0.5 came down either because they interfered with Atlantic Subsea's dredging equipment or NJDOT didn't want to encourage travel on the closed section. Has NJDOT downloaded NJ 324, do they plan to, or have they disavowed responsibility for it?
The most recent GSV I'm seeing is from 10 years ago, prior to the installation of the milemarkers, including the 1.5.
As Alps mentioned, one of the 0.5 mms went walking. The others may have walked as well.
This is still under NJDOTs jurisdiction, but they don't do much with it.
The imagery I'm referring to is from two months ago. It's on the slip road from US 322 east to US 130 south, which passes by the southern terminus of NJ 324. The road is almost exactly one and a half miles long, so the markers were visible from the slip road in the imagery before that.
Ah, ok. You're referring to the interchange ramp from 322 East to 130 South. From that, I can see one post where there's no longer a sign, and the other location where both the post and sign is missing completely. This portion of NJ 324 remains open for vehicular use.
For what it's worth, the section from 0.00 to 0.95 was dedesignated and vacated by state statute in 2018 and local ordinance in 2019: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2016/S3556 and https://ecode360.com/LO0702/laws/LF1132426.pdf
Now that is news to me. I'm glad I clinched it when it was open.
Noticed that NJ-18 near Neptune still has BGSes with Clearview font and some that looks like Arial. Was this a testing area in the past?
I started checking out some Palisades Interstate Parkway scenes on Google Maps, and I spotted an electonic toll sign of some kind at the old toll booth:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8566152,-73.9618838,3a,15y,205.21h,83.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJRMA5hMRoI7dzGI9nT56AQ!2e0!5s20141001T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&entry=ttu
I know there used to be an older one of these which contained colored light bars for each fare, and had rates for vehicles that aren't allowed of the parkway in the 1970's. I'm so sorry I've never found or taken a picture of those.
https://goo.gl/maps/XmdffNMmTAAihguL9
Interesting that they spelled out completely the entire George Washington Bridge name instead of using G. Washington Br. or Geo Washington Br. abbreviations.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2023, 08:48:08 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/XmdffNMmTAAihguL9
Interesting that they spelled out completely the entire George Washington Bridge name instead of using G. Washington Br. or Geo Washington Br. abbreviations.
They've been doing the same with Delaware Memorial Bridge lately also.
https://goo.gl/maps/9MEEfAkCEdzJUJyL7
The same for the Parkway. No more GS Parkway on this assembly either.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2023, 04:29:20 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/9MEEfAkCEdzJUJyL7
The same for the Parkway. No more GS Parkway on this assembly either.
I don't believe the old sign mentionedd the Parkway at all. However, if you're going to change something about how the Parkway is signed, add some control cities. It will be a lot more useful than spelling out "Garden State Parkway".
NJ, PA, and NY were big on not using destinations for toll roads. Don't know why, but that's how these three states were. Just use the text form of the toll road name as a control.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 12:52:23 PM
NJ, PA, and NY were big on not using destinations for toll roads. Don't know why, but that's how these three states were. Just use the text form of the toll road name as a control.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike uses control cities, with Ohio, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New Jersey along the mainline (New York City is starting to replace New Jersey since the I-95 interchange was built) and Philadelphia, Allentown, and Scranton along the Northeast Extension.
Quote from: Dough4872 on August 08, 2023, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 12:52:23 PM
NJ, PA, and NY were big on not using destinations for toll roads. Don't know why, but that's how these three states were. Just use the text form of the toll road name as a control.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike uses control cities, with Ohio, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New Jersey along the mainline (New York City is starting to replace New Jersey since the I-95 interchange was built) and Philadelphia, Allentown, and Scranton along the Northeast Extension.
New York State
certainly does use control cities/destinations on its toll roads such as the NY Thruway and the New England Thruway.
Quote from: Dough4872 on August 08, 2023, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 12:52:23 PM
NJ, PA, and NY were big on not using destinations for toll roads. Don't know why, but that's how these three states were. Just use the text form of the toll road name as a control.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike uses control cities, with Ohio, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New Jersey along the mainline (New York City is starting to replace New Jersey since the I-95 interchange was built) and Philadelphia, Allentown, and Scranton along the Northeast Extension.
after the ticket machines yes. However it was rare to see controls used before the turnpike entrance ramps. Signs for Harrisburg and Pittsburgh later started to appear in the eighties. Most side roads use the giant PA Turnpike shield at entrances with no cities.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 08, 2023, 09:53:21 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on August 08, 2023, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 12:52:23 PM
NJ, PA, and NY were big on not using destinations for toll roads. Don't know why, but that's how these three states were. Just use the text form of the toll road name as a control.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike uses control cities, with Ohio, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New Jersey along the mainline (New York City is starting to replace New Jersey since the I-95 interchange was built) and Philadelphia, Allentown, and Scranton along the Northeast Extension.
New York State certainly does use control cities/destinations on its toll roads such as the NY Thruway and the New England Thruway.
In some places, but not always. Perhaps western New York, but even in many places the I-87 or I-90 shields with Thruway in text was popular at Thruway entrances.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 08, 2023, 09:53:21 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on August 08, 2023, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 12:52:23 PM
NJ, PA, and NY were big on not using destinations for toll roads. Don't know why, but that's how these three states were. Just use the text form of the toll road name as a control.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike uses control cities, with Ohio, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New Jersey along the mainline (New York City is starting to replace New Jersey since the I-95 interchange was built) and Philadelphia, Allentown, and Scranton along the Northeast Extension.
New York State certainly does use control cities/destinations on its toll roads such as the NY Thruway and the New England Thruway.
On the Thruway? Yes. On intersecting roads? Not always. (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0584054,-77.6421561,3a,75y,210.61h,90.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1cD_tMxEhMdo_VYvopNWMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Quote from: vdeane on August 09, 2023, 12:56:38 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 08, 2023, 09:53:21 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on August 08, 2023, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2023, 12:52:23 PM
NJ, PA, and NY were big on not using destinations for toll roads. Don't know why, but that's how these three states were. Just use the text form of the toll road name as a control.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike uses control cities, with Ohio, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New Jersey along the mainline (New York City is starting to replace New Jersey since the I-95 interchange was built) and Philadelphia, Allentown, and Scranton along the Northeast Extension.
New York State certainly does use control cities/destinations on its toll roads such as the NY Thruway and the New England Thruway.
On the Thruway? Yes. On intersecting roads? Not always. (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0584054,-77.6421561,3a,75y,210.61h,90.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1cD_tMxEhMdo_VYvopNWMw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
I stand corrected. LOL I was basing my observations on what I've seen in the downstate area.
To get back on topic, the Turnpike uses control cities now and the Parkway appears to be growing into it. So let's get back on topic.
Yes, so it does seem more Parkway signs are getting control cities as sign replacements are happening.
What gets me is why the recent NJ 440 signs never included control cities on them. Even US 9 South should have included either Sayreville or South Amboy on the exit guides. Mainly, being both Route 440 and the Parkway meeting is a major junction, the use of at least " Shore Points" could have been given for the Parkway Southbound, but wasn't.
Anyone here have any contacts at DOT or Turnpike?
I've noticed the past few months that both NJDOT and NJTA have stopped posting travel times on VMSes. Wondering if there is a reason for that as it is actually useful information.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 13, 2023, 06:05:14 PM
Anyone here have any contacts at DOT or Turnpike?
I've noticed the past few months that both NJDOT and NJTA have stopped posting travel times on VMSes. Wondering if there is a reason for that as it is actually useful information.
It stopped back in December 2022. Never heard a reason why.
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 10:10:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.
I believe the MUTCD does recommend (if not require) message consistency thru sign sequences of that sort. But good luck with that in the real world.
That only applies for the sequence of Advance Guide signs prior to an exit and the Exit Direction sign after the exit itself. Signs after the exit are allowed to have additional destinations that were not included on the Advance Guide/Exit Direction signs.
Quote from: ran4sh on August 20, 2023, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 10:10:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.
I believe the MUTCD does recommend (if not require) message consistency thru sign sequences of that sort. But good luck with that in the real world.
That only applies for the sequence of Advance Guide signs prior to an exit and the Exit Direction sign after the exit itself. Signs after the exit are allowed to have additional destinations that were not included on the Advance Guide/Exit Direction signs.
There isn't an issue that Outerbridge Crossing or Staten Island ( or Woodbridge ) are used. Just that Perth Amboy or Metuchen
are not used at all to follow up at the 287/440 freeways.
Ditto from Exit 129 on the nearby Parkway South using Philadelphia now. Once on the ramp to the Turnpike it changes to Trenton being inconsistent with previous signage.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 09:03:06 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 20, 2023, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 10:10:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.
I believe the MUTCD does recommend (if not require) message consistency thru sign sequences of that sort. But good luck with that in the real world.
That only applies for the sequence of Advance Guide signs prior to an exit and the Exit Direction sign after the exit itself. Signs after the exit are allowed to have additional destinations that were not included on the Advance Guide/Exit Direction signs.
There isn't an issue that Outerbridge Crossing or Staten Island ( or Woodbridge ) are used. Just that Perth Amboy or Metuchen are not used at all to follow up at the 287/440 freeways.
Ditto from Exit 129 on the nearby Parkway South using Philadelphia now. Once on the ramp to the Turnpike it changes to Trenton being inconsistent with previous signage.
Both Perth Amboy and Metuchen were there until 2020 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5255532,-74.3341047,3a,75y,125.62h,104.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sueRe6U8b0ROgy1KTTAVaow!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
Were the old signs NJTA and the new ones NJDOT? Also, Perth Amboy is a control city for NJ 440 elsewhere (NJDOT territory), though Metuchen, to my knowledge, has never been used by NJDOT for I-287.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 23, 2023, 05:13:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 09:03:06 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 20, 2023, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 10:10:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.
I believe the MUTCD does recommend (if not require) message consistency thru sign sequences of that sort. But good luck with that in the real world.
That only applies for the sequence of Advance Guide signs prior to an exit and the Exit Direction sign after the exit itself. Signs after the exit are allowed to have additional destinations that were not included on the Advance Guide/Exit Direction signs.
There isn't an issue that Outerbridge Crossing or Staten Island ( or Woodbridge ) are used. Just that Perth Amboy or Metuchen are not used at all to follow up at the 287/440 freeways.
Ditto from Exit 129 on the nearby Parkway South using Philadelphia now. Once on the ramp to the Turnpike it changes to Trenton being inconsistent with previous signage.
Both Perth Amboy and Metuchen were there until 2020 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5255532,-74.3341047,3a,75y,125.62h,104.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sueRe6U8b0ROgy1KTTAVaow!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
Were the old signs NJTA and the new ones NJDOT? Also, Perth Amboy is a control city for NJ 440 elsewhere (NJDOT territory), though Metuchen, to my knowledge, has never been used by NJDOT for I-287.
That was an NJTA assembly. The signs were replaced when NJTA moved to the MUTCDish signage in 2015-16 but the structure was older and I am guessing it reached the end of its service life. The new assemblies on the other side of that underpass are NJDOT assemblies. Everything past there was always NJDOT.
Metuchen was signed for Exit 10 because it was built when 287 was early in its days of construction and only made it as far as Metuchen. For whatever reason even after it was completed further north, the Turnpike Authority is the Turnpike Authority and never changed it.
Route 287 ramp to Route 78 toward Newark Airport will be closed this weekend. (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/traffic/2023/08/24/nj-traffic-route-287-78/70667914007/)
QuoteThe closure is necessary for final paving of the reconstructed permanent ramp and installation of guiderail, signage and permanent lighting.
They're finally at the finish line for reconstruction of the ramp at 21A after the sinkhole last year.
Quote from: storm2k on August 24, 2023, 04:24:55 PM
Route 287 ramp to Route 78 toward Newark Airport will be closed this weekend. (https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/traffic/2023/08/24/nj-traffic-route-287-78/70667914007/)
QuoteThe closure is necessary for final paving of the reconstructed permanent ramp and installation of guiderail, signage and permanent lighting.
They're finally at the finish line for reconstruction of the ramp at 21A after the sinkhole last year.
but they're so awful with telling motorists what to do. heaven forbid you should u-turn at Exit 22B.
Quote from: storm2k on August 23, 2023, 09:58:00 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 23, 2023, 05:13:52 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 09:03:06 AM
Quote from: ran4sh on August 20, 2023, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 24, 2023, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 10:10:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.
I believe the MUTCD does recommend (if not require) message consistency thru sign sequences of that sort. But good luck with that in the real world.
That only applies for the sequence of Advance Guide signs prior to an exit and the Exit Direction sign after the exit itself. Signs after the exit are allowed to have additional destinations that were not included on the Advance Guide/Exit Direction signs.
There isn't an issue that Outerbridge Crossing or Staten Island ( or Woodbridge ) are used. Just that Perth Amboy or Metuchen are not used at all to follow up at the 287/440 freeways.
Ditto from Exit 129 on the nearby Parkway South using Philadelphia now. Once on the ramp to the Turnpike it changes to Trenton being inconsistent with previous signage.
Both Perth Amboy and Metuchen were there until 2020 https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5255532,-74.3341047,3a,75y,125.62h,104.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sueRe6U8b0ROgy1KTTAVaow!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu
Were the old signs NJTA and the new ones NJDOT? Also, Perth Amboy is a control city for NJ 440 elsewhere (NJDOT territory), though Metuchen, to my knowledge, has never been used by NJDOT for I-287.
That was an NJTA assembly. The signs were replaced when NJTA moved to the MUTCDish signage in 2015-16 but the structure was older and I am guessing it reached the end of its service life. The new assemblies on the other side of that underpass are NJDOT assemblies. Everything past there was always NJDOT.
Metuchen was signed for Exit 10 because it was built when 287 was early in its days of construction and only made it as far as Metuchen. For whatever reason even after it was completed further north, the Turnpike Authority is the Turnpike Authority and never changed it.
I wonder why it was decided to move the sign from NJTA to NJDOT jurisdiction.
Speaking of 287, does anyone know of or have some decent quality pictures of the old experimental diagrammatic signage that existed between Rt 1 and Rt 22? I've seen some grainy ones that were scans or pictures of old newspaper pictures and one or two random shots that someone may have taken, but that's been it. Would be cool to see some picture of it again.
Quote from: storm2k on August 27, 2023, 03:51:56 PM
Speaking of 287, does anyone know of or have some decent quality pictures of the old experimental diagrammatic signage that existed between Rt 1 and Rt 22? I've seen some grainy ones that were scans or pictures of old newspaper pictures and one or two random shots that someone may have taken, but that's been it. Would be cool to see some picture of it again.
Do you know Michael Suma?
https://goo.gl/maps/7dhZ9XPxnySbg6F87
Does anyone have a photo of the uncovered sign bridge that is in the GSV Caption?
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2023, 08:23:45 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 27, 2023, 03:51:56 PM
Speaking of 287, does anyone know of or have some decent quality pictures of the old experimental diagrammatic signage that existed between Rt 1 and Rt 22? I've seen some grainy ones that were scans or pictures of old newspaper pictures and one or two random shots that someone may have taken, but that's been it. Would be cool to see some picture of it again.
Do you know Michael Suma?
I know of him, I've seen his pictures on numerous sites and I know some post them in the threads from time to time. I don't know him personally.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 28, 2023, 07:19:37 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/7dhZ9XPxnySbg6F87
Does anyone have a photo of the uncovered sign bridge that is in the GSV Caption?
Give me a few days and I'll try to get out there and grab some new pictures. I've been getting shots of all of the replacements along this stretch of 78.
Also interesting to me that NJDOT has basically decided that any cantilever structure is going to be one length regardless of the size of the sign that goes on it. That's a marked change from how they've done these structures in the past.
NJDOT has released a public information center page for the 202/First Ave (https://gpi1966.wixsite.com/njdotroute202-1stint) interchange improvements in Raritan Boro in Somerset County. Basically will be building a more modern jughandle ramp from 202 SB to First Ave that comes out further north so cars will have more space to queue up and make the left onto First Ave SB and extending the third lane in both directions to just south of First Ave on 202 (so it's not a lane drop). Also there are plans to change the timing of the lights on First Ave from split phase to protected/permissive to keep traffic moving.
That First Ave intersection would really benefit from grade separation, but the land taking alone makes that unfeasible (they have to deal with 22 different properties as it is for what they want to do now--6 full takings and then a bunch of easements). Traffic would flow a lot better thru here if that intersection could be grade separated. At least they're going to try and make the intersection as better as they can for now.
Quote from: storm2k on August 28, 2023, 01:42:08 PM
NJDOT has released a public information center page for the 202/First Ave (https://gpi1966.wixsite.com/njdotroute202-1stint) interchange improvements in Raritan Boro in Somerset County. Basically will be building a more modern jughandle ramp from 202 SB to First Ave that comes out further north so cars will have more space to queue up and make the left onto First Ave SB and extending the third lane in both directions to just south of First Ave on 202 (so it's not a lane drop). Also there are plans to change the timing of the lights on First Ave from split phase to protected/permissive to keep traffic moving.
That First Ave intersection would really benefit from grade separation, but the land taking alone makes that unfeasible (they have to deal with 22 different properties as it is for what they want to do now--6 full takings and then a bunch of easements). Traffic would flow a lot better thru here if that intersection could be grade separated. At least they're going to try and make the intersection as better as they can for now.
There were once plans to make US 202 into a freeway from the Delaware River to I-287.
Quote from: storm2k on August 28, 2023, 01:25:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 28, 2023, 07:19:37 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/7dhZ9XPxnySbg6F87
Does anyone have a photo of the uncovered sign bridge that is in the GSV Caption?
Give me a few days and I'll try to get out there and grab some new pictures. I've been getting shots of all of the replacements along this stretch of 78.
Also interesting to me that NJDOT has basically decided that any cantilever structure is going to be one length regardless of the size of the sign that goes on it. That's a marked change from how they've done these structures in the past.
What they need to do is post exit numbers to match EB I-78. Plus why does the Frontage Road Exit gets substandard signs. It should get on the overhead too with an exit number as well.
Some pictures of new signs on 78WB in the local/express section between Newark and Summit.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53164977611_cc11abbac5_c.jpg)
At the entrance to the local lanes just past the Exit 14 tollbooth. Of interest is that the North/South areas of the airport get a brown background, but the sign for the main terminals is just "Newark Airport" with no brown background. Also note that NJDOT is using the standard MUTCD airport symbol now.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53164390132_be88c2f50a_c.jpg)
The alignment of the various parts of that sign on the right feel wrong. Also, the "To Parkway" part just needs to be the to and a GSP shield. Don't think they need the text legend. Just put that on the same line as the 78 shield and then put the Newark Airport legend underneath.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53165179179_719d0e199e_c.jpg)
The crossover sign is basically the same as seen on the eastbound side. NJDOT is very committed to not using any abbreviations for Garden State Parkway anymore.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53164390127_1aa0f260fb_c.jpg)
At Exit 48. NJDOT went with two cantilever structures instead of a full sign bridge here. As I've noted in the past, they seem to have settled on the cantilever structure being the same length without regard to the sign(s) that they're putting on them.
Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.
In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.
Third photo, the Exit 55 sign should have a road name on it in addition to the two town names, but that's a whole other controversial subject. I get that they're following MUTCD recommendations that I disagree with. And on the Crossover sign, I think G S Parkway would be fine. I don't get why they won't abbreviate it anymore.
And in the last photo, the Exit 48 sign again should have had arrows at the split instead of right 3 lanes legend.
I really don't understand NJDOT's way of doing things.........
I sill wish that the TO I-287 would be TO NORTH I-287 at Exit 48. If this were any other state it would just be Route 24 West and no TO ending interstates.
It seems NJDOT doesn't sign indirect control cities anymore without the connecting route just like I-195 EB in Central Jersey using a TO NJ 138 shield because the interstate does not enter the Belmar Borough Limits.
That maybe why the new signs at the WB Express Local split separate Newark Airport from I-78 WB on the pull through as technically the interstate don't go to the airport proper.
I don't see the need for the U TURN header at US 1-9 South. It's not a common thing people are doing as a U Turn past the Exit 14 plaza would take motorists back onto the Turnpike. It seems NJDOT is using local expressway signing practices on roads that have businesses along them needing u turn signs to circumvent the lack of median breaks like on NJ 3 or NJ 4.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 04, 2023, 09:24:30 PM
Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.
In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.
Not obvious in the first photo is that the two right lanes exiting the toll plaza both go to the Newark destination.
Agree on the second photo, though there is a ramp that enters just behind the camera view and the roadway is only two lanes before that. It is true that both lanes exit (so "BOTH LANES" may be better on the advance sign), but "through" traffic has to shift right to stay on I-78 local. Markings are not intuitive there.
Almost begs for an APL sequence.
Not sure why the u-turn message . . . only traffic that enters is from the frontage road ramp, referenced above, but none of the movements from there would be a u-turn, except to go back to the hotels.
Quote from: akotchi on September 05, 2023, 01:23:04 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 04, 2023, 09:24:30 PM
Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.
In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.
Not obvious in the first photo is that the two right lanes exiting the toll plaza both go to the Newark destination.
Agree on the second photo, though there is a ramp that enters just behind the camera view and the roadway is only two lanes before that. It is true that both lanes exit (so "BOTH LANES" may be better on the advance sign), but "through" traffic has to shift right to stay on I-78 local. Markings are not intuitive there.
Almost begs for an APL sequence.
Not sure why the u-turn message . . . only traffic that enters is from the frontage road ramp, referenced above, but none of the movements from there would be a u-turn, except to go back to the hotels.
Following the "U-Turn" message, the next split has a half a sign remaining indicating U-turns to the right.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hpiGHGPd8pSjjq3S8 Then after that is a BGS for the NJ Turnpike.
My only guess is that with the large number of options that could lead someone to the Exit 14 plaza, there was enough people that took the wrong option that there was a need to sign a u-turn. Although that doesn't explain a lack of a u-turn blade on the first BGS after the toll plaza.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 04, 2023, 09:24:30 PM
Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.
In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.
Third photo, the Exit 55 sign should have a road name on it in addition to the two town names, but that's a whole other controversial subject. I get that they're following MUTCD recommendations that I disagree with. And on the Crossover sign, I think G S Parkway would be fine. I don't get why they won't abbreviate it anymore.
And in the last photo, the Exit 48 sign again should have had arrows at the split instead of right 3 lanes legend.
I really don't understand NJDOT's way of doing things.........
1) mainline BGS do not typically get arrows. not needed here, reduced messaging.
2) This one I agree with you on.
3) No. No need for local street names. MUTCD all the way.
4) No. These are cantilevers. You're not getting a gigantic sign with arrows over all 3 lanes. This is fine as is.
Quote from: Alps on September 05, 2023, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 04, 2023, 09:24:30 PM
Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.
In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.
Third photo, the Exit 55 sign should have a road name on it in addition to the two town names, but that's a whole other controversial subject. I get that they're following MUTCD recommendations that I disagree with. And on the Crossover sign, I think G S Parkway would be fine. I don't get why they won't abbreviate it anymore.
And in the last photo, the Exit 48 sign again should have had arrows at the split instead of right 3 lanes legend.
I really don't understand NJDOT's way of doing things.........
1) mainline BGS do not typically get arrows. not needed here, reduced messaging.
2) This one I agree with you on.
3) No. No need for local street names. MUTCD all the way.
4) No. These are cantilevers. You're not getting a gigantic sign with arrows over all 3 lanes. This is fine as is.
Thanks
Alps. Good to hear the rationale from someone on the inside. But you didn't mention; would you know why they're not using the abbreviation
G S Parkway anymore and insisting on full wording there? What happened to the words you used above:
Not needed, reduced messaging ?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2023, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: akotchi on September 05, 2023, 01:23:04 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 04, 2023, 09:24:30 PM
Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.
In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.
Not obvious in the first photo is that the two right lanes exiting the toll plaza both go to the Newark destination.
Agree on the second photo, though there is a ramp that enters just behind the camera view and the roadway is only two lanes before that. It is true that both lanes exit (so "BOTH LANES" may be better on the advance sign), but "through" traffic has to shift right to stay on I-78 local. Markings are not intuitive there.
Almost begs for an APL sequence.
Not sure why the u-turn message . . . only traffic that enters is from the frontage road ramp, referenced above, but none of the movements from there would be a u-turn, except to go back to the hotels.
Following the "U-Turn" message, the next split has a half a sign remaining indicating U-turns to the right.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hpiGHGPd8pSjjq3S8 Then after that is a BGS for the NJ Turnpike.
My only guess is that with the large number of options that could lead someone to the Exit 14 plaza, there was enough people that took the wrong option that there was a need to sign a u-turn. Although that doesn't explain a lack of a u-turn blade on the first BGS after the toll plaza.
After doing a GSV tour of the area I found this.
https://goo.gl/maps/sx6ihCbmfQracFjBA
If you exit NB US 1 & 9 to Frontage Road, to U Turn you must enter the opposing direction of US 1 & 9 via the local lanes of I-78 WB to reach the SB lanes.
So the U Turn mentioned on the left exit for US 1 & 9 on I-78 local is most likely the follow up to the sign in the link I just provided.
That would explain the lack of U Turn posted previously at the post Exit 14 gantry. It's not for those mistakenly exiting at 14 to get back to I-78 EB or I-95, although you can return to I-78 EB from US 1 & 9 SB after you exit onto it if that scenario does happen.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about these new signs is that some of them have lighting. Thought that was phased out decades ago at this point.
I think part of the confusion westbound right after the toll plaza is that you don't know what the US-1-9-22 sign is for at that point. Are you on US-1&9 South already, or is it an exit ahead? Perhaps some exit tabs (it IS Exit 58A-B) and better signing that its mainline I-78 West Local would help. The roadway configuration kinda sucks there. After all, you have a mainline interstate dropping down to one lane!
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 05, 2023, 11:15:58 PM
Perhaps the most surprising thing about these new signs is that some of them have lighting. Thought that was phased out decades ago at this point.
Jersey, for a short period of time, didn't include lighting on new overhead signage. But nearly every overhead constructed over the past 2 decades has included lighting.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 05, 2023, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2023, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: akotchi on September 05, 2023, 01:23:04 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 04, 2023, 09:24:30 PM
Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.
In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.
Not obvious in the first photo is that the two right lanes exiting the toll plaza both go to the Newark destination.
Agree on the second photo, though there is a ramp that enters just behind the camera view and the roadway is only two lanes before that. It is true that both lanes exit (so "BOTH LANES" may be better on the advance sign), but "through" traffic has to shift right to stay on I-78 local. Markings are not intuitive there.
Almost begs for an APL sequence.
Not sure why the u-turn message . . . only traffic that enters is from the frontage road ramp, referenced above, but none of the movements from there would be a u-turn, except to go back to the hotels.
Following the "U-Turn" message, the next split has a half a sign remaining indicating U-turns to the right.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hpiGHGPd8pSjjq3S8 Then after that is a BGS for the NJ Turnpike.
My only guess is that with the large number of options that could lead someone to the Exit 14 plaza, there was enough people that took the wrong option that there was a need to sign a u-turn. Although that doesn't explain a lack of a u-turn blade on the first BGS after the toll plaza.
After doing a GSV tour of the area I found this.
https://goo.gl/maps/sx6ihCbmfQracFjBA
If you exit NB US 1 & 9 to Frontage Road, to U Turn you must enter the opposing direction of US 1 & 9 via the local lanes of I-78 WB to reach the SB lanes.
So the U Turn mentioned on the left exit for US 1 & 9 on I-78 local is most likely the follow up to the sign in the link I just provided.
That would explain the lack of U Turn posted previously at the post Exit 14 gantry. It's not for those mistakenly exiting at 14 to get back to I-78 EB or I-95, although you can return to I-78 EB from US 1 & 9 SB after you exit onto it if that scenario does happen.
Makes more sense now, as that is the only BGS in the I-78 local sequence that has the U-turn sign in it. Good catch.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 05, 2023, 11:15:58 PM
Perhaps the most surprising thing about these new signs is that some of them have lighting. Thought that was phased out decades ago at this point.
I think part of the confusion westbound right after the toll plaza is that you don't know what the US-1-9-22 sign is for at that point. Are you on US-1&9 South already, or is it an exit ahead? Perhaps some exit tabs (it IS Exit 58A-B) and better signing that its mainline I-78 West Local would help. The roadway configuration kinda sucks there. After all, you have a mainline interstate dropping down to one lane!
It was phased out for quite a while, but has made a comeback in the past few years, especially now that they have LED standards they use on the structures now.
Quote from: SignBridge on September 05, 2023, 08:52:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 05, 2023, 08:39:31 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 04, 2023, 09:24:30 PM
Re: the first photo, you have to wonder why there isn't a down arrow over the center lane on the Newark sign. It would give greater clarity and make all three signs uniform in height, which isn't strictly necessary but does make for a better appearance.
In the second photo, the Newark sign should have two left-angled up arrows instead of left 2 lanes. That legend could be used before the split but not at the gore point where arrows would be better.
Third photo, the Exit 55 sign should have a road name on it in addition to the two town names, but that's a whole other controversial subject. I get that they're following MUTCD recommendations that I disagree with. And on the Crossover sign, I think G S Parkway would be fine. I don't get why they won't abbreviate it anymore.
And in the last photo, the Exit 48 sign again should have had arrows at the split instead of right 3 lanes legend.
I really don't understand NJDOT's way of doing things.........
1) mainline BGS do not typically get arrows. not needed here, reduced messaging.
2) This one I agree with you on.
3) No. No need for local street names. MUTCD all the way.
4) No. These are cantilevers. You're not getting a gigantic sign with arrows over all 3 lanes. This is fine as is.
Thanks Alps. Good to hear the rationale from someone on the inside. But you didn't mention; would you know why they're not using the abbreviation G S Parkway anymore and insisting on full wording there? What happened to the words you used above: Not needed, reduced messaging ?
I am not on the inside - these signs are not on any project of mine, so I can't speak to why any specific decisions were made.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 05, 2023, 11:15:58 PM
Perhaps the most surprising thing about these new signs is that some of them have lighting. Thought that was phased out decades ago at this point.
I think part of the confusion westbound right after the toll plaza is that you don't know what the US-1-9-22 sign is for at that point. Are you on US-1&9 South already, or is it an exit ahead? Perhaps some exit tabs (it IS Exit 58A-B) and better signing that its mainline I-78 West Local would help. The roadway configuration kinda sucks there. After all, you have a mainline interstate dropping down to one lane!
I agree. It should be signed as an exit with a number. However NJDOT thinks within the box that these are follow up signs for Exit 14 of the Turnpike and therefore distributing all the 14 toll plaza traffic to the many different highways.
The fact that US 1-9-22 are signed as the pull through and I-78 mainline is down to a single lane goes back to before I-78 was completed. Originally all traffic from Exit 14 went mainly to US 1 & 9 SB after exiting the toll road. So this is a holdover from that. Plus NJDOT believes the express I-78 is the mainline like they did on I-95 SB in Fort Lee from the GWB Upper level. If you go from the upper level of the GWB and to the I-95 local you have at NJ 4 the local through lane drop down into a single lane ramp giving you the feeling that you exited I-95 to NJ 4 and then are reentering the freeway again. Of course now it's NJTA that inherited it, but they, like NJDOT think then, that most traffic on the Upper Level is using the express lanes and people generally use the Lower Level for local traffic.
Ditto leaving the Exit 14 toll plaza.
Almost half a billion dollars in fed money coming to NJ for various projects: https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562023/approved/20230906a.shtml
Was Industrial Hwy in Carteret ever a 600 county route in Middlesex? One traffic light gantry near the western terminus just has 6, but with the middle and right numbers blanked out.
There is no mention of Industrial Hwy on the Wikipedia article.
Also, Bridge St in Metuchen was formerly signed as CR 669, which was and is Central Avenue in Metuchen. Did CR 669 have multiple spurs like the utter mess that is CR 657?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on September 14, 2023, 12:05:57 AM
Was Industrial Hwy in Carteret ever a 600 county route in Middlesex? One traffic light gantry near the western terminus just has 6, but with the middle and right numbers blanked out.
There is no mention of Industrial Hwy on the Wikipedia article.
Also, Bridge St in Metuchen was formerly signed as CR 669, which was and is Central Avenue in Metuchen. Did CR 669 have multiple spurs like the utter mess that is CR 657?
IIRC when the Industrial Hwy was planned there was talk about it being under Middlesex County jurisdiction. However, it ended up staying local with Carteret. However, this was also around the time Exit 12 was redesigned and part of that work was the connection to the Industrial Hwy. Hence they erected the signs with the CR shield on them. Those signs were replaced around 2016-17 and none of them have CR shields on them. They also have the "West Carteret" sign which isn't technically a place (it's just the western half of the borough that's on the other side of the Turnpike, but is not a separate municipality).
One interesting note is that at the two intersections with Roosevelt Ave (it basically does a backwards C around the Industrial Hwy) those signals are maintained by Middlesex County since Roosevelt Ave is a county road. The street name blades on the signal arms show "Industrial Rd" and not "Industrial Hwy"
Quote from: storm2k on September 14, 2023, 03:31:08 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on September 14, 2023, 12:05:57 AM
Was Industrial Hwy in Carteret ever a 600 county route in Middlesex? One traffic light gantry near the western terminus just has 6, but with the middle and right numbers blanked out.
There is no mention of Industrial Hwy on the Wikipedia article.
Also, Bridge St in Metuchen was formerly signed as CR 669, which was and is Central Avenue in Metuchen. Did CR 669 have multiple spurs like the utter mess that is CR 657?
IIRC when the Industrial Hwy was planned there was talk about it being under Middlesex County jurisdiction. However, it ended up staying local with Carteret. However, this was also around the time Exit 12 was redesigned and part of that work was the connection to the Industrial Hwy. Hence they erected the signs with the CR shield on them. Those signs were replaced around 2016-17 and none of them have CR shields on them. They also have the "West Carteret" sign which isn't technically a place (it's just the western half of the borough that's on the other side of the Turnpike, but is not a separate municipality).
One interesting note is that at the two intersections with Roosevelt Ave (it basically does a backwards C around the Industrial Hwy) those signals are maintained by Middlesex County since Roosevelt Ave is a county road. The street name blades on the signal arms show "Industrial Rd" and not "Industrial Hwy"
I'll just add that when a road is built, it initiates under the jurisdiction of whoever built it. Any transfer of jurisdiction requires a signed agreement by both parties. Even if the intent all along was to transfer to the 2nd party, a change in leadership, changes in revenue, or just a change of heart can quash it. It's a risk taken on by the constructing agency.
It was supposed to be CR-643. The portion in Woodbridge, which is signed Prologis Way, is county maintained.
CR 663 (Clinton Ave) is also signed as CR 669 erroneously.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on September 17, 2023, 01:59:37 AM
CR 663 (Clinton Ave) is also signed as CR 669 erroneously.
That's been signed erroneously for over a decade. I remember seeing it too.
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2023, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Right. I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2023, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Right. I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.
You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2023, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2023, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Right. I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.
You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?
Pfft. People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2023, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2023, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Right. I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.
You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?
Pfft. People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.
Can you show me another intersection in the US with a similar layout? I'm curious so I'm going to OPRA crash records for this one as well. Maybe the engineers at Bergen county have a similar attitude to you but I don't like it. It's clearly dangerous.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2023, 02:57:54 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2023, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2023, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Right. I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.
You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?
Pfft. People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.
Can you show me another intersection in the US with a similar layout? I'm curious so I'm going to OPRA crash records for this one as well. Maybe the engineers at Bergen county have a similar attitude to you but I don't like it. It's clearly dangerous.
While not to this extreme, any five-way intersection with at least three legs controlled by stop signs will have a similar issue. The left side is a leg coming from a cul-de-sac with about 9 homes, so it's not really much of a traffic generator, and they're used to the issue. Sure, they'll have occasional visitors, but again, light traffic. Drivers give each other a little wave if necessary, and everyone is fine.
This is one of those situations where the condition has existed for decades, at least since 1966 per historicaerials.com, but you're seeing it for the first time and immediately think it causes deadly mayhem.
My bigger issue is the left turn off Ackerman coming to an immediate stop. Could leave a vehicle sticking out into free-flow traffic.
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2023, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2023, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Right. I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.
You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?
Pfft. People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.
It's sad how true this is. It's why I will not be upset if the rumors that Somerset County wants to replace this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7wN2e47yguUHcikX7) with a roundabout are true. When there are a decent amount of cars on all four legs of this intersection, it's dicey because people really have no idea what to do.
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2023, 07:16:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2023, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2023, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Right. I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.
You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?
Pfft. People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.
It's sad how true this is. It's why I will not be upset if the rumors that Somerset County wants to replace this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7wN2e47yguUHcikX7) with a roundabout are true. When there are a decent amount of cars on all four legs of this intersection, it's dicey because people really have no idea what to do.
Heh? In my town there's a 4-way stop and everyone alternates politely. Has been no issue, and I did suggest a roundabout to the town but it got no legs.
Quote from: storm2k on September 30, 2023, 07:16:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 25, 2023, 02:48:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 25, 2023, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2023, 09:53:22 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 24, 2023, 11:38:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZd7a1oeqp98sW6M9)?
Looks insanely dangerous to me. There's two stop signs. What happens when a person on the left wants to turn right and the person on the right wants to turn left? Who has the right of way?
The one on the right.
Quote
39:4-90. Right of way at intersections
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection. When 2 vehicles enter an intersection at the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the vehicle on the right.
Right. I'm having trouble seeing the issue being raised with this intersection.
You are stopped at the right stop sign, waiting to turn left, and a vehicle is beside you stopped on your left. You are both waiting for a gap in busy traffic and then it clears up. You can't see the turn signals of the of the other vehicle and they can't see yours because you're right beside each other. You both see the gap and decide to go at the same time. Do you trust that, the minute you both decide to go, the other car will slam on their brakes and yield to you?
Pfft. People have problems enough with regular four-way stops to where defensive driving is always warranted.
It's sad how true this is. It's why I will not be upset if the rumors that Somerset County wants to replace this intersection (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7wN2e47yguUHcikX7) with a roundabout are true. When there are a decent amount of cars on all four legs of this intersection, it's dicey because people really have no idea what to do.
All way Stops are good for light traffic, but for heavier traffic it can create confusion as it's hard to tell who arrived first. We had an issue in Orlando in the early nineties that was such, but Orange County fixed it with a traffic signal to make it better.
Don't know this intersection well, but if it's become too congested, then the roundabout might be a viable solution here.
apologies if this was already noted elsewhere, but the signage for the soon-to-open Missing Moves exit from 295 NB to 42 SB is up (albeit still covered) - drove through the area for the first time in months today).
I was noticing that NJ does have somewhat of a grid with 500 series routes. With the exception of CR 505 and CR 571, you do have a pattern.
Look at Bergen from the Hudson westward. 501, 503, 507, and 509. Then in Passaic County you continue with 511 and 513. Go to Sussex and it's 515, 517, 519, and 521 heading westward.
Then from the NY Border it's 502 going south into 504. Then 506, 508, 510, 512 etc.
It's not perfect, but it has some consistency.
There is a grid system for 500 series routes. The high numbered ones (570-580) were added to the system later and are out of grid.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 03, 2023, 05:12:04 PM
There is a grid system for 500 series routes. The high numbered ones (570-580) were added to the system later and are out of grid.
It also reverses after 521 as above 521 to 537, it increases W to E.
Also 505 is out of place east of 501 and 503.
505 is not out of place. Look north.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2023, 01:23:16 PM
I was noticing that NJ does have somewhat of a grid with 500 series routes. With the exception of CR 505 and CR 571, you do have a pattern.
Look at Bergen from the Hudson westward. 501, 503, 507, and 509. Then in Passaic County you continue with 511 and 513. Go to Sussex and it's 515, 517, 519, and 521 heading westward.
Then from the NY Border it's 502 going south into 504. Then 506, 508, 510, 512 etc.
It's not perfect, but it has some consistency.
NJ historically treated the 5xx routes as more or less a secondary state highway network. They're county maintained, but it's why they're 5xx and don't change numbers as they cross county lines and why Monnmouth and Bergen Counties have them even though they don't subscribe to the whole 6xx-7xx county route numbering scheme. Hence the grid aspect makes perfect sense. IDK if NJDOT still officially considers them as such, but the network remains.
I noticed on Eastcoast Roads that a mileage sign was erected on the I-80 Express Lanes as it commences from the I-95 SB Express lanes.
It lists Stroudsburg as the final control rather than the Delaware Water Gap. It has Paterson listed as 9 miles away and Stroudsburg is 72 miles out. No other cities like Dover or Netcong, just those two.
I'm wondering if that is a NJTA install or did NJDOT erect it. Evidence would suggest the former as NJDOT loves the Water Gap as its westbound control point. Plus NJDOT usually uses small mileage signs, but this one is a large sign similar to what the NJTA has on other parts of the Turnpike, or at least lately. Originally the Turnpike used single destination mileage sign at 10 mile intervals at the 10th mile with what is now Michigan's abbreviation following the number of miles and didn't erect the few it has until recently.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 06, 2023, 08:01:48 AM
I noticed on Eastcoast Roads that a mileage sign was erected on the I-80 Express Lanes as it commences from the I-95 SB Express lanes.
It lists Stroudsburg as the final control rather than the Delaware Water Gap. It has Paterson listed as 9 miles away and Stroudsburg is 72 miles out. No other cities like Dover or Netcong, just those two.
I'm wondering if that is a NJTA install or did NJDOT erect it. Evidence would suggest the former as NJDOT loves the Water Gap as its westbound control point. Plus NJDOT usually uses small mileage signs, but this one is a large sign similar to what the NJTA has on other parts of the Turnpike, or at least lately. Originally the Turnpike used single destination mileage sign at 10 mile intervals at the 10th mile with what is now Michigan's abbreviation following the number of miles and didn't erect the few it has until recently.
This is a NJTA install. The very eastern end of I-80 (generally east of Teaneck Road) is under NJTA jurisdiction.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XFP52dhsjQ1fMEJp8
I-80 West at the Express Local Split in Parsippany.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XVRmgcSZsDVwpsWSA
I-280 approaching the same split.
Why does the former state that I-80 Express is solely I-80 with the local lanes signed for I-287 and US 46, but the new signs on I-280 show that I-80 is either express or local?
I would figure that both would be signed exactly the same.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RKdJhew5YY7KLK5u5
Then just shortly after the Express/ Local split, your directed back to the one carriageway I-80 via a crossover ramp signing.
The I-80 signing is actually the better way. I-280 misleads you into thinking the Express / Local setup is indefinite.
I agree with you. It's not really an Express/Local split. I-80 signs it correctly. I can't understand why NJDOT would sign it as Express/Local on I-280 when the supposed local lanes are really the exit to Rts. 280-46.
I can see two possibilities. Either there is an engineering reason for that set-up on I-280 that's not readily apparent to us mere drivers, OR the engineers who spec'd the 280 signs weren't paying attention and made an error of sorts.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z9WVYorYzKHYFnqN9
Yet the actual split gets it right. The " temporary " ( which for NJ means permanently as they don't like to shell out money for replacement gantries) signs do not show and express- local deviation and are uniform with I-80's signage.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QnpK7BuFwu5Rbqd5A
I see as of some time between this past Spring and last August, the PANYNJ replaced the directional guide for Manhattan Eastside Traffic for this APL for the left NY 9A.
What is interesting is no mention of US 9 exiting from the NY 9A exit. Being this is US 9 proper here, it should get priority over NY 9A. Not to mention no guides for Manhattan Eastside either anymore.
US-9 hasn't been signed there since the 2002 replacement program. The old signs, at least on the upper level, had a US-9 shield for the W 178th St. exit. The good news is that they seem to be finally correcting the sequential exit numbers they put up in 2002. That ramp is now, for the first time ever, signed as Exit 1A as the pre-2002 signs had no number posted.
Another bad issue with signs are on SB US 9W, as left turns onto SB I-95 are prohibited, traffic for both I-80 and The NJ Turnpike must use US 46 WB to access either. Sure, that way is no hardship, but NJDOT on the ramp for US 46 copies the NJTA error of signing US 1-9 South TO US 46 and no SB header for I-95 either. It appears that US 1/9/46 all access both directions in that it doesn't. Of course the frontage road that accesses the GWB Lower Level from US 9W at its technical end is missing any I-95 North shields or guides as well.
Signage for routes suck at all the approaches to the GWB. Yes I'm aware that trucks are now prohibited from using the lower level and the ramp from Fletcher to the GWB is lower level only with the further ramp to the upper level having only access during non peak travel from the EB frontage road.
Then the PANYNJ erroneously signs the Hudson Terrace Exit as for US 9W and NJ 67 which neither are aligned on Hudson Terrace nor trailblazing at the end of the ramp for either route. Plus the Lower Level Fletcher Avenue Exit ( 72-74) is also signed erroneously for Route 67. Most likely cause there is no exit from the Lower Level to Lemoine Avenue and they want you to use Fletcher across the freeway and then EB on the Frontage Street. However, no trailblazing from the end of the Fletcher ramp to follow suit.
Regarding I-80 Express/Local, it's true that at least westbound, there is no reason for this to exist. All through traffic should be Express. Eastbound, it makes a lot more sense because you have access to return to I-80 that way - but then again it only serves a single exit.
Honestly, the whole thing could just as easily be a straight merge/split to a 5-lane section without separate roadways. But what do I know.
Quote from: Alps on October 16, 2023, 06:30:43 PM
Regarding I-80 Express/Local, it's true that at least westbound, there is no reason for this to exist. All through traffic should be Express. Eastbound, it makes a lot more sense because you have access to return to I-80 that way - but then again it only serves a single exit.
Honestly, the whole thing could just as easily be a straight merge/split to a 5-lane section without separate roadways. But what do I know.
A
five-lane section!!?? Shades of California!
I-80 between I-287 and I-280 has the same set up, basically, as I-287 between US 202/206 and I-78 in Bridgewater has. It has a dual set up for separation of different traffic needs that appears to be an express local configuration, but is not.
Like Alps said, EB the inner ( through) roadway really only bypasses one exit and has a return at the end. WB is more of a c/d roadway collecting traffic from US 46 and later Beverwyck Road and distributing traffic to I-287. Plus they added that crossover at Beverwyck Road for US 46 entry traffic to use and no longer remain on the outer roadway to the end, so it's not at all even close to a local lane at all.
Doing what NJDOT did in South Jersey for I-76, which removed a barrier separating two roadways, wouldn't be a bad idea at all considering it's short in length. Having five lanes for a couple miles isn't a bad thing.
Plus they could eliminate the EB left I-280 exit for a proper right side exit and it would eliminate the weaving between the current end merge and Exit 47B this way as well. Currently to use Exit 47 B, one must contend with merging traffic from that so called local lane roadway.
Update: Not in NJ, but I-405 in LA is what Alps suggested in practice. https://maps.app.goo.gl/dJc1ZH9HFyXgrL4C6
A nice new gantry on NJ-440.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53270523494_a423cdcaaa_k.jpg)
Too much legend on that new gantry. I would remove the following: The words Outerbridge Crossing from the 440 North sign. And the word Downtown from the middle sign.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 19, 2023, 08:48:15 PM
Too much legend on that new gantry. I would remove the following: The words Outerbridge Crossing from the 440 North sign. And the word Downtown from the middle sign.
Doesn't need a pull-thru sign on this gantry.
Well J&N, I think a pull-thru is a good idea at this location. Reason being the road is changing here from I-287 southbound to SR 440 northbound. So a confirmation here might be a good idea.
Quote from: SignBridge on October 19, 2023, 09:26:17 PM
Well J&N, I think a pull-thru is a good idea at this location. Reason being the road is changing here from I-287 southbound to SR 440 northbound. So a confirmation here might be a good idea.
There's a pull-thru sign on the previous gantry at the CR 514 exits after 287 ended and 440 began, and on next gantry at the 1st exit for the GSP. They're the proper places to put pull-thru signs.
I'm just saying you're saying there's too much legend on the gantry, and the pull thru sign is already on 2 other sign gantries. Take it off here so motorists can concentrate on the upcoming exit signage, as there's still 2 reminders before and after this location.
Point taken J&N. I had not realized that the other gantries in the area had similar pull-thru's so maybe eliminating this one would be a reasonable way to reduce the sign clutter at that spot. Thanks!
Quote from: SignBridge on October 19, 2023, 08:48:15 PM
Too much legend on that new gantry. I would remove the following: The words Outerbridge Crossing from the 440 North sign. And the word Downtown from the middle sign.
I would go with your suggestion as you have it.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on October 19, 2023, 07:13:51 PM
A nice new gantry on NJ-440.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53270523494_a423cdcaaa_k.jpg)
These were erected back in 2021. I documented all of them along this stretch of 440 at the time. Most signs from this round of signage replacements feature a maddening feature of current NJDOT signage design: information overload. This is one of the worst offenders of this:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51787490752_b7d17a1fb2_c.jpg)
Looks like the ramp from US-1/US-9 has been changed to two lanes via GSV. Which means a lane from the main line ends to allow the two-lane ramp from US-1/US-9 to be two. Good idea or no?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8576706,-73.9742574,3a,75y,147.21h,102.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_jcgDfQuWVnVYR4QERLmIQ!2e0!5s20230801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8577405,-73.9743482,3a,75y,303.26h,66.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRiSXKfDUMRYI72M32JYZqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
It also means this sign has been replaced:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52984701860_c6b1b374e4_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oJ5rUq)
It would have been nice if the signs had included an End US 46 on them.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 20, 2023, 01:03:14 PM
It would have been nice if the signs had included an End US 46 on them.
The problem is the PANYNJ seem to have forgotten that US Route exist along with I-95 on the GWB and it's approaches.
Even NJDOT to an extent as the Route 4 ramp to the upper level just lists I-95 despite the access to the lower level does include both US 1 and US 9 on it.
Plus on the US 1/9/46 triplex there are no shields of reassurance on that particular overlap either.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 20, 2023, 05:23:10 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 20, 2023, 01:03:14 PM
It would have been nice if the signs had included an End US 46 on them.
The problem is the PANYNJ seem to have forgotten that US Route exist along with I-95 on the GWB and it's approaches.
Even NJDOT to an extent as the Route 4 ramp to the upper level just lists I-95 despite the access to the lower level does include both US 1 and US 9 on it.
Plus on the US 1/9/46 triplex there are no shields of reassurance on that particular overlap either.
On the I-95 NB off ramp to W 178 St had a US-9 shield but according to GSV that's now gone
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.
https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 03, 2023, 05:04:25 AM
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.
https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
ACE, specifically.
Quote from: Rothman on November 03, 2023, 06:42:28 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 03, 2023, 05:04:25 AM
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.
https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
ACE, specifically.
That's old news.
If the ACE were to take a stand against society and say FU, that would be news.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 03, 2023, 05:04:25 AM
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.
https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
Never mind that it's already there at the Hudson River crossings ... in NJ.
Had a chance to drive 195 basically end to end (east to west) today. Here are some pictures of new sign structures I captured:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53308571264_f6af08046e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdGmZE)
They completely forgot the 1 Mile distance indicator on the sign for Exit 21. Also, I'd prefer if 526 came before 527 on that sign. I love that The Exit 22 sign is for two unincorporated parts of larger townships.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53307348352_2af5b58267_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdA6sY)
I know the Exit 16 sign is a replace-in-kind for what came before, but I'd still prefer if Six Flags came below the two control cities and had a brown background since it's an attraction, and not a city. Also, putting up a sign for an exit that's 5 miles away is very ISTHA-esque.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53308457668_b3a6d67033_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdFMe7)
Always loved the names on this exit. Two more unincorporated areas. Did you know there are three Coxs Corners in NJ? I didn't. Also another advance sign that's more than 2 miles distant.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53307348362_4a1a7d2bb5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdA6t9)
One thing you see in all of these is that older NJ thing where they put "County" on the bottom of the shield without naming the county in the top part. At this point, just leave the pentagon shape with the route number and omit writing out any of it if you're not going to put up a straight spec county shield, NJDOT!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53308208826_03128f9d5f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdEvfJ)
It is nice to see a 95 shield here. Years ago there wasn't one and the sign referred to the Del Mem Br.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53308457688_15b166db67_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdFMes)
Just sharing this one because look how nice it is to see real control cities for an NJDOT issue NJ Turnpike interchange sign. More of this, please!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53308208841_4c497b553b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdEvfZ)
Having Hamilton Square fully written out on two lines makes this sign flow in a weird way. I would have made it wider enough to just squeeze in the Sq abbreviation on the same line.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53307348367_5ed38483a4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pdA6te)
The 206 exit continues to get street names only instead of control cities.
195 has always been, and always will be, where NJDOT's weirdest people are assigned. "Just go have fun, we'll approve it" are what the chiefs must say.
You'll see a few questionable signs and designs on other highways, but nothing like what is found on 195.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 04, 2023, 08:19:44 AM
195 has always been, and always will be, where NJDOT's weirdest people are assigned. "Just go have fun, we'll approve it" are what the chiefs must say.
You'll see a few questionable signs and designs on other highways, but nothing like what is found on 195.
Does NJDOT even do BGS design in house or are they done by consultants?
Exits being posted in excess of 2 miles are usually found on toll roads, which of course I-195 has never been.
I will never like Camden being used as a control city for the Turnpike. For all that, might as well list Philadelphia instead, since they actually placed I-95 on the sign anyway.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 04, 2023, 08:19:44 AM
195 has always been, and always will be, where NJDOT's weirdest people are assigned. "Just go have fun, we'll approve it" are what the chiefs must say.
You'll see a few questionable signs and designs on other highways, but nothing like what is found on 195.
These are actually pretty good given what we're getting on other roads, especially on 440 in Perth Amboy.
Quote from: storm2k on November 05, 2023, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 04, 2023, 08:19:44 AM
195 has always been, and always will be, where NJDOT's weirdest people are assigned. "Just go have fun, we'll approve it" are what the chiefs must say.
You'll see a few questionable signs and designs on other highways, but nothing like what is found on 195.
These are actually pretty good given what we're getting on other roads, especially on 440 in Perth Amboy.
How about the ACE? Is the South Jersey Transportation Authority ever going to replace all the guide signs on the Expressway? To this day most signs are still upper case with out of date controls not up to current demands. The Exit 7 cloverleaf needs better signs and to cut back on the several control cities EB for SB and remove the Exit 7N PARKWAY NORTH guide EB for NB.
Plus swap New York for Toms River to comply with the NJTA using Toms River north of Atlantic City and make the US 9 exit have the same control cities both East and West instead of using Pleasantville ( EB) and Smithfield- Northfield (WB). Then Exit 2 should be US 40/322
East Black Horse Pike and not US 40/322 Atlantic City via Blackhorse Pike.
Quote from: storm2k on November 05, 2023, 12:56:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 04, 2023, 08:19:44 AM
195 has always been, and always will be, where NJDOT's weirdest people are assigned. "Just go have fun, we'll approve it" are what the chiefs must say.
You'll see a few questionable signs and designs on other highways, but nothing like what is found on 195.
These are actually pretty good given what we're getting on other roads, especially on 440 in Perth Amboy.
Yeah there's an error or two there but nothing really bad.
Some local road updates. Bonnie Burn Rd. in Watchung Boro, Somerset County, was maintained by neighboring Union County for nearly 100 years. I don't know the history behind it, but it was certainly an interesting quirk of the local roadway network. Best I can guess is that it was maintained as an access road for Runnells Hospital. As of October it is now officially Somerset CR-695 and signs have been posted.
Resolution R23-1938 details the new route here: https://www.co.somerset.nj.us/home/showpublisheddocument/52551/638337736742570000
It should be noted that Union County still maintains Plainfield Ave. north of there as CR-641, which crosses the county line a few times. So you still have one county maintaining routes in another county.
Has NJDOT replaced the firm they fired to widen the rest of US 206 from the new bypass to where the four lane ends in Hillsborough?
I was reading a news article that the state let Konkus out of their contract due to bad publicity within that company and another article says that the state hasn't come up with a plan to replace the NS Railroad overpass and it could be until 2027 until US 206 is four lanes from the Somerville Circle to the Bypass and the initial work from Browns Road to Camplain Way is still being figured out as Hillsborough Township leaders are pushing to get it done due to safety concerns.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 12, 2023, 05:37:31 PM
Some local road updates. Bonnie Burn Rd. in Watchung Boro, Somerset County, was maintained by neighboring Union County for nearly 100 years. I don't know the history behind it, but it was certainly an interesting quirk of the local roadway network. Best I can guess is that it was maintained as an access road for Runnells Hospital. As of October it is now officially Somerset CR-695 and signs have been posted.
Resolution R23-1938 details the new route here: https://www.co.somerset.nj.us/home/showpublisheddocument/52551/638337736742570000
It should be noted that Union County still maintains Plainfield Ave. north of there as CR-641, which crosses the county line a few times. So you still have one county maintaining routes in another county.
Time for these unique signs (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EN8qQs6s16nXGgB28) to be retired. Union County continuing to maintain Plainfield Ave makes sense, as it does jump back and forth between the two counties.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 12, 2023, 09:49:18 PM
Has NJDOT replaced the firm they fired to widen the rest of US 206 from the new bypass to where the four lane ends in Hillsborough?
I was reading a news article that the state let Konkus out of their contract due to bad publicity within that company and another article says that the state hasn't come up with a plan to replace the NS Railroad overpass and it could be until 2027 until US 206 is four lanes from the Somerville Circle to the Bypass and the initial work from Browns Road to Camplain Way is still being figured out as Hillsborough Township leaders are pushing to get it done due to safety concerns.
Sounds like they have not named a new firm, yet. I don't know if the lawsuits from Konkus have slowed this down. However, there has been at least a small bit of movement as NJDOT started working with PSEG to relocate some utility poles (https://www.tapinto.net/towns/hillsborough/sections/transportation-1/articles/route-206-construction-update-pse-g-to-install-49-utility-poles-in-hillsborough) through part of the project area. It's not much, but at least it's something. Sounds like there's a lot of finger pointing and obviously a lot of frustration by local government and businesses in Hillsborough, as driving through there is unpleasant with no end in site, instead of being in hopefully the final phases of construction.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2tUV9tsvGQ57rXxs8
Noticed that along Plainfield Avenue at Drift Road in Watchung, that there is a Union County traffic signal erected there despite Watchung being part of Somerset County.
Union County adopted their own style of mast arm that has been aesthetically pleasing to them and the public and this is their design. So it holds true that Plainfield Avenue is still Union County maintained.
However, I wonder if the Boro of Watchung is maintaining Drift Road despite it being part of the ramp system that connects I-78 to Plainfield Avenue which NJDOT should really be responsible for.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 06, 2023, 06:35:34 PM
How about the ACE? Is the South Jersey Transportation Authority ever going to replace all the guide signs on the Expressway? To this day most signs are still upper case with out of date controls not up to current demands. The Exit 7 cloverleaf needs better signs and to cut back on the several control cities EB for SB and remove the Exit 7N PARKWAY NORTH guide EB for NB.
There actually aren't that many all-caps signs left. SJTA have been replacing them piecemeal with more MUTCD-compliant signage, but they're quite flimsy and still rely on nearly all-wood supports. These are expected to be replaced with gantries when the Atlantic City Expressway is widened past exit 31. The signage near the Garden State Parkway hasn't been replaced, but they anticipate a flyover being built in the future.
Also, back in 2020 the SJTA started sharing responsibility for maintaining US 30 and I-676 (https://www.sjta.com/sjta/publish/library/Public_Notices/October%2021,%202020%20Board%20Agenda.pdf) with NJDOT and have even erected their own signage on both roads. From the language in the board meeting minutes, it seems like SJTA might take on full responsibility for both roads in the future.
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on November 13, 2023, 02:17:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 06, 2023, 06:35:34 PM
How about the ACE? Is the South Jersey Transportation Authority ever going to replace all the guide signs on the Expressway? To this day most signs are still upper case with out of date controls not up to current demands. The Exit 7 cloverleaf needs better signs and to cut back on the several control cities EB for SB and remove the Exit 7N PARKWAY NORTH guide EB for NB.
There actually aren't that many all-caps signs left. SJTA have been replacing them piecemeal with more MUTCD-compliant signage, but they're quite flimsy and still rely on nearly all-wood supports. These are expected to be replaced with gantries when the Atlantic City Expressway is widened past exit 31. The signage near the Garden State Parkway hasn't been replaced, but they anticipate a flyover being built in the future.
Here's one such example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/PPBfcnVwLpXdSeF96
The Garden State Parkway interchange has a lot to be desired in the signage. The overhead gantry eastbound at Exit 7S lacks a NB Exit 7N panel and gives the impression that there is only a SB exit as the pull through says Thru Traffic like it don't have another ramp ahead.
Overall the whole expressway needs a sign overhaul and Exit 2 needs to amend that it only connects to EB US 40/322 and not both directions as it don't unless you count the High School cloverleaf U Turn.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hEm5uJZEKajRHoPZ7
Plus the supplemental sign being overhead is not only Non MUTCD, but it's got way too much information. Plus with the at exit guide being removed ( no doubt knocked down), this appears to be the main guide lacking an exit tab. And why is a hotel name a control city here?
Oh yes the pull through listing a gambling winning jackpot? Looks more like a billboard than a guide sign. The ACE guides are a joke.
You got that right roadman65 ! The one time I ever drove the whole length of the ACE back in 2011, I was amazed at the bad non-MUTCD signage. Never seen that anywhere else in modern times on a major road like that. Even New York City with all its issues has pretty good MUTCD signage including on its older roads.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2023, 08:29:46 PM
You got that right roadman65 ! The one time I ever drove the whole length of the ACE back in 2011, I was amazed at the bad non-MUTCD signage. Never seen that anywhere else in modern times on a major road like that. Even New York City with all its issues has pretty good MUTCD signage including on its older roads.
And no upgrades. Maybe a sign here or two. The EB exit for US 9 is as close to norm as it gets as it was an added ramp as originally the US 9 exchange was a half diamond from the east. That is why the mismatching control cities as Pleasantville is used EB while Smithfield and Northfield going WB. The engineer who expanded the US 9 exit, felt Pleasantville was good choice, but the original expressway designers felt that using Smithfield / Northfield was good to satisfy a need for both directions( as The Parkway already was constructed serving the further cities on US 9 already) at the time.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2023, 02:24:16 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2023, 08:29:46 PM
You got that right roadman65 ! The one time I ever drove the whole length of the ACE back in 2011, I was amazed at the bad non-MUTCD signage. Never seen that anywhere else in modern times on a major road like that. Even New York City with all its issues has pretty good MUTCD signage including on its older roads.
And no upgrades. Maybe a sign here or two. The EB exit for US 9 is as close to norm as it gets as it was an added ramp as originally the US 9 exchange was a half diamond from the east. That is why the mismatching control cities as Pleasantville is used EB while Smithfield and Northfield going WB. The engineer who expanded the US 9 exit, felt Pleasantville was good choice, but the original expressway designers felt that using Smithfield / Northfield was good to satisfy a need for both directions( as The Parkway already was constructed serving the further cities on US 9 already) at the time.
Another overlooked MUTCD issue: Exit numbers go Westbound, not Eastbound.
Other upgrades:
Interchange 9, from a partial to full interchange.
Interchange 17, from a partial to full interchange.
Interchange 41, built new about 20 years ago.
Widening of the Expressway from Exit 7 to 31.
Addition of a 2nd gas station/convenience store near AC.
Addition of a welcome center near AC (since closed).
Construction of express toll lanes.
Construction of the ACX Connector.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2023, 07:21:14 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2023, 02:24:16 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2023, 08:29:46 PM
You got that right roadman65 ! The one time I ever drove the whole length of the ACE back in 2011, I was amazed at the bad non-MUTCD signage. Never seen that anywhere else in modern times on a major road like that. Even New York City with all its issues has pretty good MUTCD signage including on its older roads.
And no upgrades. Maybe a sign here or two. The EB exit for US 9 is as close to norm as it gets as it was an added ramp as originally the US 9 exchange was a half diamond from the east. That is why the mismatching control cities as Pleasantville is used EB while Smithfield and Northfield going WB. The engineer who expanded the US 9 exit, felt Pleasantville was good choice, but the original expressway designers felt that using Smithfield / Northfield was good to satisfy a need for both directions( as The Parkway already was constructed serving the further cities on US 9 already) at the time.
Another overlooked MUTCD issue: Exit numbers go Westbound, not Eastbound.
Other upgrades:
Interchange 9, from a partial to full interchange.
Interchange 17, from a partial to full interchange.
Interchange 41, built new about 20 years ago.
Widening of the Expressway from Exit 7 to 31.
Addition of a 2nd gas station/convenience store near AC.
Addition of a welcome center near AC (since closed).
Construction of express toll lanes.
Construction of the ACX Connector.
The New York Thruway says hi.
It is more longer East- West than North- South, but uses east to west numbering of mileposts and sequencing of exit numbers using its N- S nature from NYC to Albany as the originator.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2023, 08:29:46 PM
You got that right roadman65 ! The one time I ever drove the whole length of the ACE back in 2011, I was amazed at the bad non-MUTCD signage. Never seen that anywhere else in modern times on a major road like that. Even New York City with all its issues has pretty good MUTCD signage including on its older roads.
Honestly, a lot of Parkway signage before the 2010s was all over the place and of much varying levels of what you would call MUTCD compliance. Plenty of photos of classic NJ Highway Authority signage exists to be found out there (ALPSRoads has a ton of it (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/gsp/)), it really was a wild assortment of signage practices that would never pass muster. Now the signage is mostly consistent and uses the same "mostly MUTCD" standards that the Turnpike Autority has adopted.
Quote from: storm2k on November 14, 2023, 11:10:41 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2023, 08:29:46 PM
You got that right roadman65 ! The one time I ever drove the whole length of the ACE back in 2011, I was amazed at the bad non-MUTCD signage. Never seen that anywhere else in modern times on a major road like that. Even New York City with all its issues has pretty good MUTCD signage including on its older roads.
Honestly, a lot of Parkway signage before the 2010s was all over the place and of much varying levels of what you would call MUTCD compliance. Plenty of photos of classic NJ Highway Authority signage exists to be found out there (ALPSRoads has a ton of it (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/gsp/)), it really was a wild assortment of signage practices that would never pass muster. Now the signage is mostly consistent and uses the same "mostly MUTCD" standards that the Turnpike Autority has adopted.
I grew up along the Parkway and thought the substandard signage was the norm in highway signage. Plus before 1980, when the Parkway was six lanes from 129-140, the NJDOT had small substandard guides they use on arterials as guides. Exit 135 in Clark had a small sign at the current maintenance yard on SB side that read RAHWAY CLARK WESTFIELD NEXT RIGHT as the only advanced guide in that direction and the Exit 135 at exit guide ( as all at exit guides) was in the gore.
In fact up until 2010, the Exit 82 guide for NJ 37 East was in the gore using Island Heights and Seaside Heights with no shield on it ( as the NJ 37 shields were on stand alone signs across the ramps) and even a JCT shield was in use prior to Exits 82-82A.
That was how NJDOT signed the free sections. The tolled sections used the gore exits of today but with an arrow in a circle outside the top right corner of the sign. Plus exit numbers on the NJHA sections used a number atop the sign but no Exit X tabs. You could tell what sections the NJ Highway Authority maintained from the state parts as the Highway Authority at least used larger signs as NJDOT used small upper case signs and stand alone shields for route numbers.
Even I-78 in Greenwich Township for Exit 6 had a small ASBURY NEXT RIGHT guide as well as a gore ASBURY with an upward right arrow and no exit numbers then as NJDOT didn't follow protocol on freeway guides all the way. In fact I-80 still uses substandard signs along the old US 611 part in Knowlton to this day. Hainesburg Road is still signed without an exit number on a typical off freeway sign and no advanced mention.
Those small NJDOT guide signs were a thing all over the place. Prior to the 1998 signage replacement project on 287 between 440 and Exit 14 (that also eliminated all the experimental directional signage in that stretch), there was nothing but a tiny LGS with an Exit 6 tab for the Easton Ave exit that persisted for decades.
Quote from: storm2k on November 14, 2023, 11:48:47 AM
Those small NJDOT guide signs were a thing all over the place. Prior to the 1998 signage replacement project on 287 between 440 and Exit 14 (that also eliminated all the experimental directional signage in that stretch), there was nothing but a tiny LGS with an Exit 6 tab for the Easton Ave exit that persisted for decades.
And the SB US 202/206 exit ( present Exit 17) had no control cities on those experimental signs, but small SOMERVILLE PRINCETON signs for ages even after NJDOT erected the newer gantries that started the phase out of those experimental signs that added Somerville and Flemington as the official control cities with a West US 22 shield on them. Prior to that US 22 West had ground mount shields at present day Exit 17.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/C4JrGbzQ8skizEze7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nfUSuQ4DarSw8baE6
Looks like history is repeating itself. A newer version of the old diagram signs has returned. However, the small upper case Somerville and Princeton signs are gone, but Princeton needs to be signed on supplementary signs to follow up as Princeton is still being used from US 202/206 SB to I-287 SB in Bedminster to control motorists interest to bypass Pluckemin on US 202/206.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hdijErrwgEGt3wTx5
They removed the NORTH header for US 202/206 on the NB I-287 guide as you can also access US 202/206 SB as well as NB if you go north on I-287. However the past way of signing NB only probably was better as most I-78 EB traffic for US 202/206 SB are headed for Somerville and points south along either route.
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on November 13, 2023, 02:17:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 06, 2023, 06:35:34 PM
How about the ACE? Is the South Jersey Transportation Authority ever going to replace all the guide signs on the Expressway? To this day most signs are still upper case with out of date controls not up to current demands. The Exit 7 cloverleaf needs better signs and to cut back on the several control cities EB for SB and remove the Exit 7N PARKWAY NORTH guide EB for NB.
There actually aren't that many all-caps signs left. SJTA have been replacing them piecemeal with more MUTCD-compliant signage, but they're quite flimsy and still rely on nearly all-wood supports. These are expected to be replaced with gantries when the Atlantic City Expressway is widened past exit 31. The signage near the Garden State Parkway hasn't been replaced, but they anticipate a flyover being built in the future.
Also, back in 2020 the SJTA started sharing responsibility for maintaining US 30 and I-676 (https://www.sjta.com/sjta/publish/library/Public_Notices/October%2021,%202020%20Board%20Agenda.pdf) with NJDOT and have even erected their own signage on both roads. From the language in the board meeting minutes, it seems like SJTA might take on full responsibility for both roads in the future.
That's an interesting one I didn't know about. That explains some of what I've seen there though! (US 30 west of US 130 only)
Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2023, 12:14:45 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 14, 2023, 11:48:47 AM
Those small NJDOT guide signs were a thing all over the place. Prior to the 1998 signage replacement project on 287 between 440 and Exit 14 (that also eliminated all the experimental directional signage in that stretch), there was nothing but a tiny LGS with an Exit 6 tab for the Easton Ave exit that persisted for decades.
And the SB US 202/206 exit ( present Exit 17) had no control cities on those experimental signs, but small SOMERVILLE PRINCETON signs for ages even after NJDOT erected the newer gantries that started the phase out of those experimental signs that added Somerville and Flemington as the official control cities with a West US 22 shield on them. Prior to that US 22 West had ground mount shields at present day Exit 17.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/C4JrGbzQ8skizEze7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nfUSuQ4DarSw8baE6
Looks like history is repeating itself. A newer version of the old diagram signs has returned. However, the small upper case Somerville and Princeton signs are gone, but Princeton needs to be signed on supplementary signs to follow up as Princeton is still being used from US 202/206 SB to I-287 SB in Bedminster to control motorists interest to bypass Pluckemin on US 202/206.
These signs have been there since 1997.
Quote from: storm2k on November 14, 2023, 10:04:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 14, 2023, 12:14:45 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 14, 2023, 11:48:47 AM
Those small NJDOT guide signs were a thing all over the place. Prior to the 1998 signage replacement project on 287 between 440 and Exit 14 (that also eliminated all the experimental directional signage in that stretch), there was nothing but a tiny LGS with an Exit 6 tab for the Easton Ave exit that persisted for decades.
And the SB US 202/206 exit ( present Exit 17) had no control cities on those experimental signs, but small SOMERVILLE PRINCETON signs for ages even after NJDOT erected the newer gantries that started the phase out of those experimental signs that added Somerville and Flemington as the official control cities with a West US 22 shield on them. Prior to that US 22 West had ground mount shields at present day Exit 17.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/C4JrGbzQ8skizEze7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nfUSuQ4DarSw8baE6
Looks like history is repeating itself. A newer version of the old diagram signs has returned. However, the small upper case Somerville and Princeton signs are gone, but Princeton needs to be signed on supplementary signs to follow up as Princeton is still being used from US 202/206 SB to I-287 SB in Bedminster to control motorists interest to bypass Pluckemin on US 202/206.
These signs have been there since 1997.
Whether it's 1997 or 2017, they didn't abandoned the idea totally.
Obviously to some degree that experiment worked and NJDOT copied it over.
https://whyy.org/articles/trenton-route-29-boulevard-project-funding/ It appears they want to convert part of the NJ 29 freeway in Trenton into a realigned boulevard to restore access to the Delaware River waterfront.
Quote from: Dough4872 on November 16, 2023, 06:30:56 PM
https://whyy.org/articles/trenton-route-29-boulevard-project-funding/ It appears they want to convert part of the NJ 29 freeway in Trenton into a realigned boulevard to restore access to the Delaware River waterfront.
As mentioned in the article it's been talked about before, most recently early last decade. Then, they mostly wanted to convert 29 to a urban boulevard between US 1 & Calhoun Streets...which is as far away from Trenton's population as one could get. They would use a parking lot off of Market Street to build housing. Yet, there's two office buildings there, and that lot is for their parking. No word on where they would park, other than the urbanism "make them take mass transit".
The picture in the article of the Trenton Tunnel does, ironically, have a park on top. And is near housing. So how is that bringing people back to Trenton?
Trenton has many problems. No one left because 29 was built. And no one is going to move in because they have access to the river to walk along. Which often, isn't part of the proposed projects - that would need to come later from other sources of funding that never seems to be mentioned.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 16, 2023, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on November 16, 2023, 06:30:56 PM
https://whyy.org/articles/trenton-route-29-boulevard-project-funding/ It appears they want to convert part of the NJ 29 freeway in Trenton into a realigned boulevard to restore access to the Delaware River waterfront.
As mentioned in the article it's been talked about before, most recently early last decade. Then, they mostly wanted to convert 29 to a urban boulevard between US 1 & Calhoun Streets...which is as far away from Trenton's population as one could get. They would use a parking lot off of Market Street to build housing. Yet, there's two office buildings there, and that lot is for their parking. No word on where they would park, other than the urbanism "make them take mass transit".
The picture in the article of the Trenton Tunnel does, ironically, have a park on top. And is near housing. So how is that bringing people back to Trenton?
Trenton has many problems. No one left because 29 was built. And no one is going to move in because they have access to the river to walk along. Which often, isn't part of the proposed projects - that would need to come later from other sources of funding that never seems to be mentioned.
From a traffic POV it's not the end of the world - 29 really isn't that bad at peak hours compared to so many other roads across the state, and there are traffic lights to deal with already at either end of the freeway part they're looking at.
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2023, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 16, 2023, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on November 16, 2023, 06:30:56 PM
https://whyy.org/articles/trenton-route-29-boulevard-project-funding/ It appears they want to convert part of the NJ 29 freeway in Trenton into a realigned boulevard to restore access to the Delaware River waterfront.
As mentioned in the article it's been talked about before, most recently early last decade. Then, they mostly wanted to convert 29 to a urban boulevard between US 1 & Calhoun Streets...which is as far away from Trenton's population as one could get. They would use a parking lot off of Market Street to build housing. Yet, there's two office buildings there, and that lot is for their parking. No word on where they would park, other than the urbanism "make them take mass transit".
The picture in the article of the Trenton Tunnel does, ironically, have a park on top. And is near housing. So how is that bringing people back to Trenton?
Trenton has many problems. No one left because 29 was built. And no one is going to move in because they have access to the river to walk along. Which often, isn't part of the proposed projects - that would need to come later from other sources of funding that never seems to be mentioned.
From a traffic POV it's not the end of the world - 29 really isn't that bad at peak hours compared to so many other roads across the state, and there are traffic lights to deal with already at either end of the freeway part they're looking at.
Two things make the lights at Cass & Warren bad:
1) The offset. The heavier flow of traffic in the morning is Northbound into Trenton. Prior to the pandemic, the offset allowed nearly all of the traffic that made it thru the 1st light (At Cass) to make it thru the 2nd light (At Warren). During the pandemic, the offset changed, where most of the traffic that makes it thru the first light hits the red at the 2nd light, decreasing throughput in the morning rush. The only reason why traffic isn't worse currently is due to most state workers being allowed to work 3 days in the office and 2 days at home. If there was no remote work-at-home program, congestion would be significantly worse. The fix: modify the signal timing, should be easy. I tried writing DOT about the offset issue, including referencing the pre-pandemic flow of traffic, to no avail.
2) The afternoon rush, as traffic leaves Trenton, is constrained by the 3 lanes of traffic at the Warren light reducing to 2 lanes at the Cass Street light, creating congestion here. Don't know why they didn't keep it 3 lanes thru both lights then lose a lane before the tunnel when traffic free-flows towards 195/295. Obviously, a lot more expensive to fix.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2023, 11:43:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2023, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 16, 2023, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on November 16, 2023, 06:30:56 PM
https://whyy.org/articles/trenton-route-29-boulevard-project-funding/ It appears they want to convert part of the NJ 29 freeway in Trenton into a realigned boulevard to restore access to the Delaware River waterfront.
As mentioned in the article it's been talked about before, most recently early last decade. Then, they mostly wanted to convert 29 to a urban boulevard between US 1 & Calhoun Streets...which is as far away from Trenton's population as one could get. They would use a parking lot off of Market Street to build housing. Yet, there's two office buildings there, and that lot is for their parking. No word on where they would park, other than the urbanism "make them take mass transit".
The picture in the article of the Trenton Tunnel does, ironically, have a park on top. And is near housing. So how is that bringing people back to Trenton?
Trenton has many problems. No one left because 29 was built. And no one is going to move in because they have access to the river to walk along. Which often, isn't part of the proposed projects - that would need to come later from other sources of funding that never seems to be mentioned.
From a traffic POV it's not the end of the world - 29 really isn't that bad at peak hours compared to so many other roads across the state, and there are traffic lights to deal with already at either end of the freeway part they're looking at.
Two things make the lights at Cass & Warren bad:
1) The offset. The heavier flow of traffic in the morning is Northbound into Trenton. Prior to the pandemic, the offset allowed nearly all of the traffic that made it thru the 1st light (At Cass) to make it thru the 2nd light (At Warren). During the pandemic, the offset changed, where most of the traffic that makes it thru the first light hits the red at the 2nd light, decreasing throughput in the morning rush. The only reason why traffic isn't worse currently is due to most state workers being allowed to work 3 days in the office and 2 days at home. If there was no remote work-at-home program, congestion would be significantly worse. The fix: modify the signal timing, should be easy. I tried writing DOT about the offset issue, including referencing the pre-pandemic flow of traffic, to no avail.
2) The afternoon rush, as traffic leaves Trenton, is constrained by the 3 lanes of traffic at the Warren light reducing to 2 lanes at the Cass Street light, creating congestion here. Don't know why they didn't keep it 3 lanes thru both lights then lose a lane before the tunnel when traffic free-flows towards 195/295. Obviously, a lot more expensive to fix.
I guess "offset" is one of those traffic engineer/anaylist's terms. What does it mean?
Quote from: ixnay on November 18, 2023, 07:18:47 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2023, 11:43:43 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2023, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 16, 2023, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: Dough4872 on November 16, 2023, 06:30:56 PM
https://whyy.org/articles/trenton-route-29-boulevard-project-funding/ It appears they want to convert part of the NJ 29 freeway in Trenton into a realigned boulevard to restore access to the Delaware River waterfront.
As mentioned in the article it's been talked about before, most recently early last decade. Then, they mostly wanted to convert 29 to a urban boulevard between US 1 & Calhoun Streets...which is as far away from Trenton's population as one could get. They would use a parking lot off of Market Street to build housing. Yet, there's two office buildings there, and that lot is for their parking. No word on where they would park, other than the urbanism "make them take mass transit".
The picture in the article of the Trenton Tunnel does, ironically, have a park on top. And is near housing. So how is that bringing people back to Trenton?
Trenton has many problems. No one left because 29 was built. And no one is going to move in because they have access to the river to walk along. Which often, isn't part of the proposed projects - that would need to come later from other sources of funding that never seems to be mentioned.
From a traffic POV it's not the end of the world - 29 really isn't that bad at peak hours compared to so many other roads across the state, and there are traffic lights to deal with already at either end of the freeway part they're looking at.
Two things make the lights at Cass & Warren bad:
1) The offset. The heavier flow of traffic in the morning is Northbound into Trenton. Prior to the pandemic, the offset allowed nearly all of the traffic that made it thru the 1st light (At Cass) to make it thru the 2nd light (At Warren). During the pandemic, the offset changed, where most of the traffic that makes it thru the first light hits the red at the 2nd light, decreasing throughput in the morning rush. The only reason why traffic isn't worse currently is due to most state workers being allowed to work 3 days in the office and 2 days at home. If there was no remote work-at-home program, congestion would be significantly worse. The fix: modify the signal timing, should be easy. I tried writing DOT about the offset issue, including referencing the pre-pandemic flow of traffic, to no avail.
2) The afternoon rush, as traffic leaves Trenton, is constrained by the 3 lanes of traffic at the Warren light reducing to 2 lanes at the Cass Street light, creating congestion here. Don't know why they didn't keep it 3 lanes thru both lights then lose a lane before the tunnel when traffic free-flows towards 195/295. Obviously, a lot more expensive to fix.
I guess "offset" is one of those traffic engineer/anaylist's terms. What does it mean?
I learned the term from talking with NJDOT about these lights in the past (and to be fair, this may not be the absolute term, but one that NJDOT uses).
Coordinated lights are programmed where if traffic goes thru one green light, then next light or lights in succession should also be green, allowing traffic to flow thru unimpeded. The offset is the timed, programmed intervals between intersections.
Tradephoric posted many years ago a video from Metro Detroit where a 20 mile stretch of road has traffic lights timed so one shouldn't hit a single red, or if they enter the roadway they may hit one red light at the next intersection, then the rest are green. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12835.msg310031#msg310031 .
It's easier said than done sometimes - if the lights are relatively close together with few access points between lights, the coordination should work. If we're talking over a mile between lights, coordination doesn't work as well. If there's numerous areas where traffic can be disrupted between lights (driveways, parking lots, minor intersections where traffic may be forced to slow on occasion), then it's tough for traffic to maintain the speed needed to hit each green light. If the lights are set for the speed limit but the average speed is significantly higher, then it doesn't work as well. If one direction of roadway has lights timed well, chances are the other direction won't, unless the lights are spaced at even intervals (think a city grid).
I have a road near me where there's about 5 or 6 lights at nearly evenly spaced intervals, just over 1/2 mile apart on a 45 & 50 mph roadway. If you happen to hit the first light mid-late in its green cycle, you probably will make it thru all the lights. If you happen to hit a red light at first, you're almost guaranteed to hit every red light. And they're not changing just before you get to the next intersection, they're changing 15 seconds before you get there, so speed isn't a factor. They were programmed better in the past, but for whatever reason, one of the offsets changed, and it's been a problem ever since. It doesn't help that one or two of the intersections have sensors that don't work, so the light cycles at max length regardless of traffic being present.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKd49HejNmz2XXkQ6
If NJDOT owned this sign, there would be a TO US 6 shield next to I-384 EAST being I-384 don't do directly to Providence.
Goes to show how bad engineers in the Garden State have evolved in signing techniques.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 20, 2023, 10:21:40 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKd49HejNmz2XXkQ6
If NJDOT owned this sign, there would be a TO US 6 shield next to I-384 EAST being I-384 don't do directly to Providence.
Goes to show how bad engineers in the Garden State have evolved in signing techniques.
NJDOT probably wouldn't sign Providence there at all, since it's out of state and not right on the state line.
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20231127_133335_MissingMovesrampstoopentomorrowasprojectcompletes.pdf The new ramps at I-295 and NJ 42 are opening tomorrow.
Quote from: Dough4872 on November 27, 2023, 05:40:17 PM
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20231127_133335_MissingMovesrampstoopentomorrowasprojectcompletes.pdf The new ramps at I-295 and NJ 42 are opening tomorrow.
Just heard the same thing on the local traffic report. One step closer to remedying that mess of an interchange.
Quote from: Dough4872 on November 27, 2023, 05:40:17 PM
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20231127_133335_MissingMovesrampstoopentomorrowasprojectcompletes.pdf The new ramps at I-295 and NJ 42 are opening tomorrow.
And I have therefore created a mini-meet around it. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34141.0
Why wasn't a full interchange between Interstate 76/Interstate 295/NJ 42 constructed in the first place?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 27, 2023, 06:21:06 PM
Why wasn't a full interchange between Interstate 76/Interstate 295/NJ 42 constructed in the first place?
In the 1950s full interchanges were omitted wherever convenient. See I-295 south of there for more examples.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 27, 2023, 06:21:06 PM
Why wasn't a full interchange between Interstate 76/Interstate 295/NJ 42 constructed in the first place?
A long answer - and one that can best be construed as an estimated example of what happened, because to be frank, most of the people involved in the design of the original interchange are dead and what's publicly available doesn't dive into the actual decision making that was done.
From what I can picture, there was a sense at the time that the great majority of traffic was coming up from south of the interchange, going towards Philadelphia. The Ben Franklin Bridge was there. The Walt Whitman Bridge just opened. The Commodore Barry Bridge
*wasn't* there. 295 was built to lead people to Philly, and to bring people back from Philly. Thus, the whole express and local lane configuration. And the former combined merges with 295 and Local I-76, rather than creating separate on and off ramps.
It wasn't imagined that motorists coming up from the south would want to get to Rt. 45 and Rt. 47 in significant volumes. They could use 130 for that (and even then it wasn't a direct drive; 130 North leads traffic away from Rt. 45, and requires a u-turn to get to Rt. 45). Rt. 42 was a relatively late addition to the road network, but engineers appeared to share the same thought process - that motorists coming up 295 would want to go to Philly, and not need access to 42. There were enough county roads to handle traffic, and other roads and widenings of existing roads would facilitate the east-west movements.
South Jersey, south of 76, grew. A need to replace the 322 Chester-Bridgeport Ferry occurred, and the Commodore Barry Bridge was built. The region was growing, but road widenings were tempering. Suburb-to-suburb commuting was growing at a faster rate than suburb-to-city traffic.
But all along, the directional interchanges on 295 remained and the mess of the 295/76/42 interchange existed. The residential population that had already been there, which of itself had some significant history, was carved thru for the new highway. A large cemetary also existed in the area (in fact, I have grandparents buried there). The original interchange, already shoehorned into the area, meant little room was available to easily resolve the problem. The resulting change to the main interchange that's still ongoing took out some homes, but relatively few for the area.
The Missing Moves ramps didn't result in any residential takings, but some commercial properties were acquired. There was one large company trying to build a shopping center that had some significant sway in the project, and caused about a 15 year delay. And they're still complaining, which is one of the reasons why NJDOT is looking at building a Leaf Ave extension to Creek Road to service traffic going to and from Rt. 42 from Creek Road.
So that's a very basic, high-level view of what happened 70 years ago, and how we got to where we are today.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 21, 2023, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 20, 2023, 10:21:40 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vKd49HejNmz2XXkQ6
If NJDOT owned this sign, there would be a TO US 6 shield next to I-384 EAST being I-384 don't do directly to Providence.
Goes to show how bad engineers in the Garden State have evolved in signing techniques.
NJDOT probably wouldn't sign Providence there at all, since it's out of state and not right on the state line.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zWDxTib9JSYpF7tM6
I say that cause of this here not signing I-195 to Trenton without a Route 29 shield because NJDOT has our very own Highwaystar's mentality. I-70 don't end in Baltimore so don't use Baltimore on I-70. I-195 don't end in Trenton, but continuing NJ 29 does go there so co-sign it with a transitional TO.
Thought I had posted this, but I guess I didn't. NJDOT finally completed the last bits of the Exit 21A ramp repairs from 287 NB to 78 EB. This was around 3 weeks ago. All barriers are removed, and the ramp is back to its original (reconstructed) configuration of two lanes, with hopefully no more sinkholes in its future.
Has anyone noticed if the US 22/ NJ 82 interchange erected any new signs yet besides WB 22 at Ingersoll Place for NJ 82 EB?
I see at Ingersoll they erected a new cantilever sign that now omits US 22 EB which they seem to be forgetting is how SB Parkway users access US 22 EB being there is no movement to US 22 EB from the SB Parkway. The sign reads "NJ 82 East Elizabeth."
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2023, 10:46:57 PM
Has anyone noticed if the US 22/ NJ 82 interchange erected any new signs yet besides WB 22 at Ingersoll Place for NJ 82 EB?
I see at Ingersoll they erected a new cantilever sign that now omits US 22 EB which they seem to be forgetting is how SB Parkway users access US 22 EB being there is no movement to US 22 EB from the SB Parkway. The sign reads "NJ 82 East Elizabeth."
I drove thru there in August or so. Not too many other signs yet that I saw at that time, save for this one on the ramp from Morris Ave onto 22 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/UZSSdahfticb4RnH7). Note that it uses Woodbridge for the Parkway control city, which is a nice change of pace.
As for not signing 22 east there, I think that's perfectly fine on some supplemental signs.
Let's talk about proper townships over unincorporated communities within the township.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/X1iDcnE4bvYi9EQx9
The guide signs on I-287 NB at Exits 22 A & B list Pluckemin for Exit 22A and Bedminster for Exit 22B. Both are listed as separate communities in opposing directions as control cities, but Pluckemin is an unincorporated part of Bedminster ( the other direction control) so it's almost like the guide is separating Pluckemin from Bedminster.
Although one could argue that there is a small business area in Bedminster at the intersection of US 202 and CR 523 to be considered the Downtown of Bedminster where signs are to direct motorists that happens to be north from Exit 22B. Also Bedminster is the home of AT & T and has its corporate offices on US 202/206 north of I-287 that is a factor in signing. However, it's still an oddity and defies the logic of the borders of the municipality of a said community verses an area of it.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 06, 2023, 01:42:27 PM
Let's talk about proper townships over unincorporated communities within the township.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/X1iDcnE4bvYi9EQx9
The guide signs on I-287 NB at Exits 22 A & B list Pluckemin for Exit 22A and Bedminster for Exit 22B. Both are listed as separate communities in opposing directions as control cities, but Pluckemin is an unincorporated part of Bedminster ( the other direction control) so it's almost like the guide is separating Pluckemin from Bedminster.
Although one could argue that there is a small business area in Bedminster at the intersection of US 202 and CR 523 to be considered the Downtown of Bedminster where signs are to direct motorists that happens to be north from Exit 22B. Also Bedminster is the home of AT & T and has its corporate offices on US 202/206 north of I-287 that is a factor in signing. However, it's still an oddity and defies the logic of the borders of the municipality of a said community verses an area of it.
I live here. Pluckemin is very much considered its own thing completely separate from Bedminster even though it's part of Bedminster Township. Pluckemin has its own post office and ZIP code and you talk about something being in Pluckemin. Bedminster has its own Main Street with some businesses and the like that's north of Pluckemin. The distinction of the two is correct here. Another example is how Exit 33 on 78 lists Martinsville as a control city even though it's an unincorporated part of Bridgewater Township. Exact same scenario. Has its own post office and ZIP code, is considered by all to be its own entity even though it's part of a larger township. The ultimate example is Woodbridge, which is basically ten small towns connected together into one large township. Each has its own distinct identity and most have their own post offices and ZIP codes and each area tends to be signed separately on a lot of highway signage (Exit 132 from the Parkway, for example, or the Smith Street exit from 440), but they are all overall part of one township.
I know that there is a distinction between the two. It's just ironic in the 22 signage is signing two parts of Bedminster with two different names.
I brought it up as Washington Twp. along Route 42 in South Jersey is the latest to fame control city on I-295 guides with that Direct Connection project and some were commenting how you can't really use unincorporated communities anymore on signs and not to mention that NJ has too many to use on signs these days. I suggested Williamstown but that place is a part of Monroe just as Pluckemin is part of Bedminster, but Jeff pointed out no can do. Yet here NJDOT still follows old school signing and will sign the unincorporated parts of a larger entity.
My hometown, Parsippany, is unincorporated, and
I am proud to see new BGS's for Parsippany on 280 West and 46 West.
Don't the names Parsippany-Troy Hills always go together? Are they signed that way on 280/46?
It's similar to the situation on the Garden State Parkway, where Exit 129 is signed for Woodbridge and Exit 132 for Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge. The thing is, there is Woodbridge proper, with its main street, train station, and mall, whereas Iselin (where I used to work) is centered around NJ 27, Wood Avenue, and Oak Tree Road, and is served by the Metropark train station.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 06, 2023, 10:25:53 PM
Don't the names Parsippany-Troy Hills always go together? Are they signed that way on 280/46?
Officially it is Parsippany-Troy Hills Township because Parsippany and Troy were founded as separate settlements in colonial days. LATER, Troy became Troy Hills so that postmasters would not confuse "Troy, NY" with "Troy, NJ." but the full name is not on any signs. Today, Troy Hills is just a place name within the township, not a separate community.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 06, 2023, 10:25:53 PM
Don't the names Parsippany-Troy Hills always go together? Are they signed that way on 280/46?
It goes together but it's invariably signed (and known) as just Parsippany to reduce sign width.
Looks like NJDOT copied ISTHA on I-195. So this is not so unusual signing practices.
(//)
https://www.aaroads.com/il/088/i-088-e-exit-094-10.jpg
https://www.aaroads.com/il/088/i-088-e-exit-094-6.jpg
I see they sign long gaps with a guide at previous exits first.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pTdj7HVKrkYfUZhc7
Was noticing this guide for NJ 42 South on Deptford Center Road at NJ 41. I see it's the ramp to the NJ 42 freeway as Deptford Center Road terminates at Route 41.
Not only would a Caltrans Freeway Entrance sign be perfect across the intersection, but NJDOT should sign Exit 58 on Route 55 for NJ 42 South instead of TO CR 621 since there is a missing move at Route 55's northern terminus.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 24, 2023, 09:11:52 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pTdj7HVKrkYfUZhc7
Was noticing this guide for NJ 42 South on Deptford Center Road at NJ 41. I see it's the ramp to the NJ 42 freeway as Deptford Center Road terminates at Route 41.
Not only would a Caltrans Freeway Entrance sign be perfect across the intersection, but NJDOT should sign Exit 58 on Route 55 for NJ 42 South instead of TO CR 621 since there is a missing move at Route 55's northern terminus.
NJDOT fairly recently replaced the sign gantry on Rt. 55 for Interchange 58, and for whatever reason elected not to post "TO 42 South" on the signage to coordinate with the signage on Rt. 42 referencing "TO Rt. 55". The Pull-Thru sign on 55 here should've also said "North 55 to North 42" since there are no other exits on 55 after Exit 58, IMO.
https://943thepoint.com/most-expensive-new-jersey-toll-road/
Again as from a previous post, this radio station seems to categorize a bunch of roads with something in common in a specific order that don't jive.
Look at the 25 most dangerous routes in NJ and see how Route 37 is the 25th most dangerous road in the state at 7 fatalities while I-78 makes number 24 with 36 fatal accidents. Are they going on average per mile as Route 37 is only 13.4 mile long verses 67.8 miles of Route 78?
https://943thepoint.com/most-expensive-new-jersey-toll-road/
:hmmm:https://maps.app.goo.gl/37Dv2KZ77rFdLFF56
Is there a specific reason why trucks a prohibited on the ramp from NJ 3 East to NJ 495 East in Secaucus?
Another question is why Kennedy Blvd traffic is requested to use the service road crossover from another location.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ETvpzYjknBVPtUH59
Yes I understand the weaving issue on Rte. 495, but if trucks can remain on Rte. 3 to the second loop ramp, I would think Kennedy Blvd traffic can too.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 26, 2023, 02:19:35 AM
:hmmm: https://maps.app.goo.gl/37Dv2KZ77rFdLFF56
Is there a specific reason why trucks a prohibited on the ramp from NJ 3 East to NJ 495 East in Secaucus?
Another question is why Kennedy Blvd traffic is requested to use the service road crossover from another location.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ETvpzYjknBVPtUH59
Yes I understand the weaving issue on Rte. 495, but if trucks can remain on Rte. 3 to the second loop ramp, I would think Kennedy Blvd traffic can too.
You raise a point about JFK Blvd. The other destinations apply, and I think this is trying to get traffic to exit onto Paterson Plank Road and take that to JFK instead of staying on 495 to the JFK exit. That reduces the chance of exit ramp traffic backing up onto the mainline (which it does during the AM peak, and maybe other peak times also).
As far as the truck prohibition, the first thought I have is because most trucks can't use the Tunnel, so it is mostly local and better served in the right lanes instead of left, clearing room for commuting cars to merge.
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2023, 07:24:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 26, 2023, 02:19:35 AM
:hmmm: https://maps.app.goo.gl/37Dv2KZ77rFdLFF56
Is there a specific reason why trucks a prohibited on the ramp from NJ 3 East to NJ 495 East in Secaucus?
Another question is why Kennedy Blvd traffic is requested to use the service road crossover from another location.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ETvpzYjknBVPtUH59
Yes I understand the weaving issue on Rte. 495, but if trucks can remain on Rte. 3 to the second loop ramp, I would think Kennedy Blvd traffic can too.
You raise a point about JFK Blvd. The other destinations apply, and I think this is trying to get traffic to exit onto Paterson Plank Road and take that to JFK instead of staying on 495 to the JFK exit. That reduces the chance of exit ramp traffic backing up onto the mainline (which it does during the AM peak, and maybe other peak times also).
As far as the truck prohibition, the first thought I have is because most trucks can't use the Tunnel, so it is mostly local and better served in the right lanes instead of left, clearing room for commuting cars to merge.
Alps, you say most trucks can't use the tunnel? The only restrictions I know of are those carrying hazardous cargo. Are some other types of trucks prohibited as well? Is there maybe a height restriction?
That's basically what he's saying.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 27, 2023, 08:42:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2023, 07:24:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 26, 2023, 02:19:35 AM
:hmmm: https://maps.app.goo.gl/37Dv2KZ77rFdLFF56
Is there a specific reason why trucks a prohibited on the ramp from NJ 3 East to NJ 495 East in Secaucus?
Another question is why Kennedy Blvd traffic is requested to use the service road crossover from another location.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ETvpzYjknBVPtUH59
Yes I understand the weaving issue on Rte. 495, but if trucks can remain on Rte. 3 to the second loop ramp, I would think Kennedy Blvd traffic can too.
You raise a point about JFK Blvd. The other destinations apply, and I think this is trying to get traffic to exit onto Paterson Plank Road and take that to JFK instead of staying on 495 to the JFK exit. That reduces the chance of exit ramp traffic backing up onto the mainline (which it does during the AM peak, and maybe other peak times also).
As far as the truck prohibition, the first thought I have is because most trucks can't use the Tunnel, so it is mostly local and better served in the right lanes instead of left, clearing room for commuting cars to merge.
Alps, you say most trucks can't use the tunnel? The only restrictions I know of are those carrying hazardous cargo. Are some other types of trucks prohibited as well? Is there maybe a height restriction?
The height limit is 13ft, which most trucks can't fit under since they are usually 13ft 6in
Quote from: chrisg69911 on December 27, 2023, 10:52:59 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 27, 2023, 08:42:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2023, 07:24:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 26, 2023, 02:19:35 AM
:hmmm: https://maps.app.goo.gl/37Dv2KZ77rFdLFF56
Is there a specific reason why trucks a prohibited on the ramp from NJ 3 East to NJ 495 East in Secaucus?
Another question is why Kennedy Blvd traffic is requested to use the service road crossover from another location.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ETvpzYjknBVPtUH59
Yes I understand the weaving issue on Rte. 495, but if trucks can remain on Rte. 3 to the second loop ramp, I would think Kennedy Blvd traffic can too.
You raise a point about JFK Blvd. The other destinations apply, and I think this is trying to get traffic to exit onto Paterson Plank Road and take that to JFK instead of staying on 495 to the JFK exit. That reduces the chance of exit ramp traffic backing up onto the mainline (which it does during the AM peak, and maybe other peak times also).
As far as the truck prohibition, the first thought I have is because most trucks can't use the Tunnel, so it is mostly local and better served in the right lanes instead of left, clearing room for commuting cars to merge.
Alps, you say most trucks can't use the tunnel? The only restrictions I know of are those carrying hazardous cargo. Are some other types of trucks prohibited as well? Is there maybe a height restriction?
The height limit is 13ft, which most trucks can't fit under since they are usually 13ft 6in
Yup, plus how many trucks are going into NYC midtown anyway?
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2023, 05:56:30 PM
Quote from: chrisg69911 on December 27, 2023, 10:52:59 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 27, 2023, 08:42:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2023, 07:24:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 26, 2023, 02:19:35 AM
:hmmm: https://maps.app.goo.gl/37Dv2KZ77rFdLFF56
Is there a specific reason why trucks a prohibited on the ramp from NJ 3 East to NJ 495 East in Secaucus?
Another question is why Kennedy Blvd traffic is requested to use the service road crossover from another location.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ETvpzYjknBVPtUH59
Yes I understand the weaving issue on Rte. 495, but if trucks can remain on Rte. 3 to the second loop ramp, I would think Kennedy Blvd traffic can too.
You raise a point about JFK Blvd. The other destinations apply, and I think this is trying to get traffic to exit onto Paterson Plank Road and take that to JFK instead of staying on 495 to the JFK exit. That reduces the chance of exit ramp traffic backing up onto the mainline (which it does during the AM peak, and maybe other peak times also).
As far as the truck prohibition, the first thought I have is because most trucks can't use the Tunnel, so it is mostly local and better served in the right lanes instead of left, clearing room for commuting cars to merge.
Alps, you say most trucks can't use the tunnel? The only restrictions I know of are those carrying hazardous cargo. Are some other types of trucks prohibited as well? Is there maybe a height restriction?
The height limit is 13ft, which most trucks can't fit under since they are usually 13ft 6in
Yup, plus how many trucks are going into NYC midtown anyway?
I'm always surprised by the semis I've seen on Manhattan.
If semis are too high for the Lincoln Tunnel, then they're more higher than the reach of the Holland Tunnel as that crossing is only 12'6" that is one half foot less headroom than the Lincoln.
https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/restrictions.html
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Cc4ewweZg9hd6Exw6
Found this mileage sign on Route 70 near Lakehurst to be interesting. NJDOT never used these, to my knowledge, on any roadway off of freeways, yet here they've chosen to erect this.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/w5sT471nfQzC8qvQ6
Found the Google Car to drive Route 495 on a weekday morning as the XBL is in use as well as those outdated pegs to close off the left lane. I thought by now, the PANYNJ or NJDOT would have installed a zipper barrier by now.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 24, 2024, 04:19:34 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/w5sT471nfQzC8qvQ6
Found the Google Car to drive Route 495 on a weekday morning as the XBL is in use as well as those outdated pegs to close off the left lane. I thought by now, the PANYNJ or NJDOT would have installed a zipper barrier by now.
You can see why they can't do that in the GSV you linked to. All the overpasses in that area have supports that come into the median. I have to imagine that makes it super difficult to get a zipper machine through. Also, I have no idea how you navigate one of those machines down the helix itself.
Being that the state applied to AASHTO for the Eastern Spur of the NJT to be an x95, why didn't they also apply to have US 9 across Great Egg Harbor to be removed from what was once the Beesly Point Bridge or see if they"ll accept both the Hillsborough and Mullica Hill bypasses into the US Route system for both US 206 and 322?
Quote from: roadman65 on February 03, 2024, 03:02:29 PM
Being that the state applied to AASHTO for the Eastern Spur of the NJT to be an x95, why didn't they also apply to have US 9 across Great Egg Harbor to be removed from what was once the Beesly Point Bridge or see if they"ll accept both the Hillsborough and Mullica Hill bypasses into the US Route system for both US 206 and 322?
US 9: I believe this is the plan and that US 9 south of the bridge is going to the County. It may have already been approved, I don't know the status, but it would require the state take over the connector east from US 9 to the Parkway. And I'm not sure such a minor change needs AASHTO approval.
Hillsborough bypass will someday be US 206, but right now they want to keep US 206 on the old route while they finish upgrading it to eventually be turned over to the town. At that time they'll make the switch official.
Mullica Hill is County maintained (as is the existing 322), so it's really up to the County to put that application in if it's not official. From what I've seen though, it's as official as it needs to be from County signing.
Another thing to note about some of the bridges that need replacing, but on hold due to priority needs as NJ has been far behind in bridge replacing. Look at how long it took the Elizabeth River Viaduct to be replaced on US 1 & 9 in Elizabeth. It was needing replacing in 1985, but the Star Ledger reported it was in queue as several other bridges were more in need of replacing at the time. However from GSV I noticed the US 46 bridge across NJ 17 is in need of replacing.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/WxAMffp2zL5rsohw8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/92ytCwuqaEuJcBFu7
The US 46 bridge in Hasbrouck Heights is currently with a safety net underneath to collect the falling concrete from the deteriorating structure from falling onto motorists on Route 17 below. A fixated Jersey barrier is a make do railing as the original concrete 1930s era railing had to be removed a few years ago as it was a safety hazard. I'm sure the structural integrity is okay that it's still open, but nonetheless it's old and obsolete for use.
To me I not only think that structure needs replacing, but the whole interchange needs to be redone moving NJ 17 into the wide median while moving the classic Bendix Diner across the highway. This would address the missing moves there that have to use nearby Summit Avenue to facilitate those particular moves. Plus add a c/d roadway on US 46 between NJ 17 and Green Street to avoid weaving between the ramps over the NJ Transit Passack Valley Line.
Down to South Jersey on another subject, I noticed that NJDOT has a NJ 45 mile post along US 130 in Westville.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PqHUXZfqmSDCDmwVA
I'm assuming it's to match the opposing side as directly across US 130's wide median here, but nonetheless it's past the merge point of NJ 45 North onto US 130.
Then US 130 at its split with NJ 45 SB gets no guides or shields but another milepost in the apex of the split.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fNYg5m5sz9Tz49xV6
This is very bad as NJDOT did a statewide guide and shield replacement in the late 90'svto ensure that the highway junctions were clearly marked.
On arterial roads, NJDOT installs enhanced mile markers every half-mile on the half-mile. Route 45 mileage, I guess, was close enough to a half-mile that NJDOT decided, in their judgment, to post the additional Route 45 mile markers.
At the south end of Route 55, M.P. 20 markers are on Route 47 right at the split.
Stuff like that happens. Gives us roadgeeks something to talk about . . .
Quote from: roadman65 on February 05, 2024, 10:16:14 PM
Down to South Jersey on another subject, I noticed that NJDOT has a NJ 45 mile post along US 130 in Westville.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/PqHUXZfqmSDCDmwVA
I'm assuming it's to match the opposing side as directly across US 130's wide median here, but nonetheless it's past the merge point of NJ 45 North onto US 130.
Then US 130 at its split with NJ 45 SB gets no guides or shields but another milepost in the apex of the split.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fNYg5m5sz9Tz49xV6
This is very bad as NJDOT did a statewide guide and shield replacement in the late 90'svto ensure that the highway junctions were clearly marked.
Per NJDOT traffic regulations, the northern limit of Rt. 45 is MP 28.51 (which would contain a slight overlap with US 130). You can find examples of milepost overlaps like this throughout the state. NJ 42 & 55, and NJ 73 & 90 have similar milepost signage that looks out of place.
The signage was there, as shown in this 2013 GSV:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fHkiQfSWWg5FBVof9 . Over the years I imagine wayward vehicles have knocked the signage down and it was never replaced. In my experiences NJDOT isn't very good at replacing some signage, unless its a Stop sign which receives top priority. On 130 itself, a 50 mph sign went missing many years ago. I used NJDOTs pothole repair/maintenance request form to inform then of the missing sign. 2 hours later, they marked the job as completed. It wasn't.
for those in the room: 17 @ 46 is actively in design and will be reconstructed relatively soon.
Hopefully they'll reconfigure the existing ramps there as that WB to SB was always dangerous coming in from the left with no proper merge area ( unless there is one now) and those left exits to go EB from either direction of Route 17.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2024, 03:49:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 05, 2024, 10:16:14 PM
Then US 130 at its split with NJ 45 SB gets no guides or shields but another milepost in the apex of the split.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fNYg5m5sz9Tz49xV6
This is very bad as NJDOT did a statewide guide and shield replacement in the late 90'svto ensure that the highway junctions were clearly marked.
The signage was there, as shown in this 2013 GSV:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fHkiQfSWWg5FBVof9 . Over the years I imagine wayward vehicles have knocked the signage down and it was never replaced. In my experiences NJDOT isn't very good at replacing some signage, unless its a Stop sign which receives top priority. On 130 itself, a 50 mph sign went missing many years ago. I used NJDOTs pothole repair/maintenance request form to inform then of the missing sign. 2 hours later, they marked the job as completed. It wasn't.
I found this out the hard way when I was clinching US-130 SB back in November.
I wonder if there is another/better way to contact NJDOT besides the pothole form...
Yes a better way to contact would be nice, as NJ does have a lot of missing signs that I'm sure they would replace if they were aware of the situations.
One thing they do great at is like they done in 1998. When they added the overhead street blades they also did sign intersections that had two routes coming to a junction.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8095/8501117633_b70d923b6c_k.jpg)
I did like that 1998 campaign that brought us these. The route directions and control destinations in one guide. Sort of like a Jersey trademark.
^Someone I know just photographed this sign this past Saturday. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219946657897314&set=a.10219946769140095) (yes, I meant me.)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53517683439_5bc8e82bb2_c.jpg)
Quote from: cockroachking on February 06, 2024, 11:50:56 PM
I wonder if there is another/better way to contact NJDOT besides the pothole form...
I contacted a state legislator of mine when a broken guide rail along Route 64 (yes the short route) hadn't been fixed for the longest time even after a couple reports to the pothole website and it was repaired shortly thereafter. Not sure how it could work with you since you're not a state resident (per your location on your display). Maybe if you list an address within the district of the problem sign (e.g. the 3rd for this Westville 130/45 sign (https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislative-roster/458/senator-burzichelli/contact)) you can use the state website to contact them.
Quote from: cockroachking on February 06, 2024, 11:50:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2024, 03:49:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 05, 2024, 10:16:14 PM
Then US 130 at its split with NJ 45 SB gets no guides or shields but another milepost in the apex of the split.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fNYg5m5sz9Tz49xV6
This is very bad as NJDOT did a statewide guide and shield replacement in the late 90'svto ensure that the highway junctions were clearly marked.
The signage was there, as shown in this 2013 GSV:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fHkiQfSWWg5FBVof9 . Over the years I imagine wayward vehicles have knocked the signage down and it was never replaced. In my experiences NJDOT isn't very good at replacing some signage, unless its a Stop sign which receives top priority. On 130 itself, a 50 mph sign went missing many years ago. I used NJDOTs pothole repair/maintenance request form to inform then of the missing sign. 2 hours later, they marked the job as completed. It wasn't.
I found this out the hard way when I was clinching US-130 SB back in November.
I wonder if there is another/better way to contact NJDOT besides the pothole form...
I find this can go in waves, and it may depend on the administration. In the past it was a lot easier to request repairs or to fix missing or wrong signage. The current administration isn't very 'customer oriented'. The Traffic Light repair option went missing from the dropdown list for the southern region a few years ago. And I've seen in the yard I worked at signage that should have been installed. When I went back a year later, that signage was still there.
On CR 561 ALT WB at CR 674 in Egg Harbor City. I wonder if there is any other county route signage in NJ like this. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218301206042046&set=a.10218301431447681)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53517508127_7ea30ebd6b_c.jpg)
Don't remember specifics (it's been too many years) but I believe I remember seeing signs like this near Mauricetown in Cumberland County. We used to drive on CR 670 between Bridgeton and Mauricetown when driving from Delaware to the far southern NJ ocean beaches.
CR 670 was (and I assume still is) a nice bypass of Millville and gets you from NJ 49 to NJ 47.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8095/8501117633_b70d923b6c_k.jpg)
This doesn't have anything to do with the traffic sign. But just what in the living hell is going on with that business street sign on the right end of the picture? I design commercial signs for a living. But I simply cannot recall ever seeing a business tenant sign that had listings divided up into four freaking columns. Two columns? That can be common. Three is a rarity. Never saw four until now. Holy shit. Those are little, completely ineffective, postage stamp sized "signs" all in a huge patchwork quilt of pure visual static. Totally laughable.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 10, 2024, 12:03:27 AM
This doesn't have anything to do with the traffic sign. But just what in the living hell is going on with that business street sign on the right end of the picture? I design commercial signs for a living. But I simply cannot recall ever seeing a business tenant sign that had listings divided up into four freaking columns. Two columns? That can be common. Three is a rarity. Never saw four until now. Holy shit. Those are little, completely ineffective, postage stamp sized "signs" all in a huge patchwork quilt of pure visual static. Totally laughable.
Might be the town's ordinances placing a maximum area on the individual business's sign. Here's Hazlet Township's code with sign size highlighted (https://ecode360.com/36910395?highlight=sign,sign%20sign,sign%20signs,signs,size&searchId=16563841435989102#search-highlight-36910395-0). Looks like the other shopping centers in Hazlet have similarly small signs for the non anchors.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 08, 2024, 04:23:56 PM
Yes a better way to contact would be nice, as NJ does have a lot of missing signs that I'm sure they would replace if they were aware of the situations.
One thing they do great at is like they done in 1998. When they added the overhead street blades they also did sign intersections that had two routes coming to a junction.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8095/8501117633_b70d923b6c_k.jpg)
I did like that 1998 campaign that brought us these. The route directions and control destinations in one guide. Sort of like a Jersey trademark.
IIRC, this style of sign long predates 1998. They may have added/replaced a lot of these in that timeframe, but the design is much older than that. These vintage of signs need to be replaced. Most of them are peeling badly, and to me the size of the legend text and arrows were a bit too small for the size of the roads they are on. It was an early era of fully retroflective signage sheeting and the stuff did not last the way it was likely supposed to. It was like how they introduced the traffic signal street name blades around 1994 and within 4-5 years most of them were so badly faded that they were useless (happened a lot on 22 in Somerset and Union counties, that was a corridor that got them early on).
Street signs with multi-listing tenant cabinets are becoming more and more of a relic. Some retail centers are replacing those cluttered looking tenant cabinets with LED-based electronic variable message displays. Or they just get rid of the street sign entirely and make the tenants rely only on signs mounted to store fronts.
The biggest problem with these multi-listing street signs is they quickly end up looking like shit. That is due to the shopping center not maintaining control of who touches the sign. They'll let just anybody work on it. Different tenants hire different sign companies to make their faces. Some sign companies do a great job. Most others are very shitty at it and simply do not care. They have no standards at all on who they hire as a "graphic designer." If the person has a pulse, shows up regularly to work and is willing to work for burger-flipper wages that is good enough. They couldn't give a rat's ass about talent or technical proficiency. They just need a body to crank out junky looking graphics.
Eventually a community gets tired of seeing the shit that gets produced and enacts a Draconian anti-signs code. Whole categories of signs get banned in an attempt at city beautification.
As you can probably tell, I have a pretty serious hatred for a bunch of other people in my industry.
Quote from: Mr. MattéMight be the town's ordinances placing a maximum area on the individual business's sign. Here's Hazlet Township's code with sign size highlighted. Looks like the other shopping centers in Hazlet have similarly small signs for the non anchors.
Square footage limits on signs typically apply to the entire sign structure, not individual tenant panels on a multi-listing street sign.
Local city councils have to be very careful how they draft sign ordinances. If they wander into areas such as trying to dictate color schemes or other content on the sign the city can get sued on free speech grounds.
Cities can pass height limits and square footage limits for signs. They can even ban entire categories of signs, which does seem more and more common in a lot of upper middle class and upper income locations. Huge free-standing signs are a rarity in newly built suburbs and upper income enclaves. Businesses are often limited to only building-mounted signs of particular types (such as lighted channel letters instead box cabinet signs). If they can install a street sign the city will try hard to limit it to a low profile monument not much bigger than a friggin' tombstone.
I never thought of those shopping center signs as being unreadable as much. Not saying it's a bad point to discuss, but now that it's brought up, I now see the illogical thinking of creating the clusterfuck.
Airport airline listing upon airport road guides isn't any better either.
Shopping center signs street signs that have a dozen or more tenant listings can end up being very ineffective. A passing motorist can glance at only so many pieces of information in an instant. If a sign has too many elements the whole thing gets drowned in visually noisy static. It becomes something that is actually very easy to ignore.
The problem is further complicated by individual tenants. A bunch of these people have never paid attention to signs before, much less have any idea of the factors that make a good sign effective. So they want their tenant sign face to be a phonebook ad. Include the logo, phone number, address, bullet points of services offered, etc. It doesn't occur to them the letter sizes might be tiny in order to fit all that crap into a certain geometric space. It also doesn't occur to them letters have to be at least so many inches tall in order for a motorist to be able to read a message at a desirable viewing distance. This factor varies greatly by typeface choice.
Various charts are available showing legibility distances for a standard sans serif, medium weight typeface. Sign customers rarely ever see these charts and I suspect many sign designers don't look at them either. I'll use big green highway signs as one reference for my work.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 15, 2024, 10:11:58 PM
The problem is further complicated by individual tenants. A bunch of these people have never paid attention to signs before, much less have any idea of the factors that make a good sign effective. So they want their tenant sign face to be phonebook ad. Include the logo, phone number, address, bullet points of services offered, etc. It doesn't occur to them the letter sizes might be tiny in order to fit all that crap into a certain geometric space. It also doesn't occur to them letters have to be at least so many inches tall in order for a motorist to be able to read it at a desirable viewing distance. This factor varies greatly by typeface choice.
I say the same thing about yard sale signs. People use a piece of paper, use a pen or small marker to write too much stuff on the sign, hang it up, look at it from about 3 feet away, and think it's good. They never try passing their sign in a car at normal speeds on the roadway, where they would probably realize that the sign is unreadable and isn't going to draw any attention to the sale. Especially a few hours later when the sign probably curves inward, making it especially unreadable.
The funny thing is there are many rules and guidelines with how traffic signs are supposed to be designed. For instance, you'll only see so many elements on an overhead big green sign. If the panel has to display more than 6 or 7 pieces of information (route markers, street names, cities, etc) then the additional information will have to spill over onto another sign structure in the distance. And these are signs which are installed in the highway's right of way. Signs for commercial businesses have to be installed within the business' property line on the other side of the utility easement. Those kind of distance set-backs can make legibility requirements a lot more demanding.
Yard signs are typically only good for installing next to neighborhood streets where the speed limit is no more than 25mph. The kind of yard signs I'm talking about is the aluminum panels (either 24" X 18" or 36" X 24") installed in a steel frame. Pieces of paper or cardboard stapled to a wood telephone pole don't do so well. In many cities it's illegal to even post such things. Quite a few cities even require people to get a permit if they want to install a good yard sign in a yard.
Does anyone know the furthest north I can see a directional sign for the Atlantic City Expressway?
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:19:40 PM
Does anyone know the furthest north I can see a directional sign for the Atlantic City Expressway?
Rt. 42 North at the Expressway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFESZd8ef4Rr2RTSA
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2024, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:19:40 PM
Does anyone know the furthest north I can see a directional sign for the Atlantic City Expressway?
Rt. 42 North at the Expressway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFESZd8ef4Rr2RTSA
There is one further north on Route 206 in Southampton Township. I was curious if this was the furthest north it is seen.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxmNQuaVvV3BJDrS7?g_st=ic
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2024, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:19:40 PM
Does anyone know the furthest north I can see a directional sign for the Atlantic City Expressway?
Rt. 42 North at the Expressway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFESZd8ef4Rr2RTSA
There is one further north on Route 206 in Southampton Township. I was curious if this was the furthest north it is seen.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxmNQuaVvV3BJDrS7?g_st=ic
Ah, I thought you meant "East" or "West". The Expressway has posted "TO" signage all over the place recently. Some of it in convenient spots around intersections. Others spots were like, ok, why would someone at this location care?
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2024, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:19:40 PM
Does anyone know the furthest north I can see a directional sign for the Atlantic City Expressway?
Rt. 42 North at the Expressway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFESZd8ef4Rr2RTSA
There is one further north on Route 206 in Southampton Township. I was curious if this was the furthest north it is seen.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxmNQuaVvV3BJDrS7?g_st=ic
Historically, there was one a little further north on CR 630 eastbound at 206 seen here in 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.99731,-74.7341385,3a,75y,152.42h,82.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSzrnNrDjwh7lyciHzfImNA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) but per later GSV and me confirming that is still the case as of last weekend biking by this point, it's gone (with the defunct Burlington County College directional sign still there as well).
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 18, 2024, 06:31:40 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2024, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:19:40 PM
Does anyone know the furthest north I can see a directional sign for the Atlantic City Expressway?
Rt. 42 North at the Expressway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFESZd8ef4Rr2RTSA
There is one further north on Route 206 in Southampton Township. I was curious if this was the furthest north it is seen.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxmNQuaVvV3BJDrS7?g_st=ic
Historically, there was one a little further north on CR 630 eastbound at 206 seen here in 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.99731,-74.7341385,3a,75y,152.42h,82.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSzrnNrDjwh7lyciHzfImNA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) but per later GSV and me confirming that is still the case as of last weekend biking by this point, it's gone (with the defunct Burlington County College directional sign still there as well).
Here's what became of BCC...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_College_at_Burlington_County
Quote from: ixnay on February 18, 2024, 08:24:33 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 18, 2024, 06:31:40 PM
Historically, there was one a little further north on CR 630 eastbound at 206 seen here in 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.99731,-74.7341385,3a,75y,152.42h,82.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSzrnNrDjwh7lyciHzfImNA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) but per later GSV and me confirming that is still the case as of last weekend biking by this point, it's gone (with the defunct Burlington County College directional sign still there as well).
Here's what became of BCC...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_College_at_Burlington_County
The specific campus to which travelers are being directed (probably at the time of the original installation, the only campus) is now this:
Is NJDOT ever going to replace the aging bridge over Hamburg Turnpike, the NYS& W railroad, and Pequannock River between West Milford and Kinnelon on Route 23 soon?
It seems that bridge is needing to be replaced. The state knows it. Had plans in 2017 to do, but abandoned the project despite the bridge being a future danger.
On I-295, NJDOT is removing the yellow "Old I-95 Exit XX" signage from overhead signs around Trenton. This should include the signage on NJ 29 & I-195 at I-295 & US 206.
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20240213_155430_I-295laneandshoulderclosursforsignremovalinMercerCounty.pdf
The signage was originally installed in 2018 when the I-95 ramps from I-95 to the PA Turnpike were opened, allowing for the seamless 95 thru PA and NJ. Then-existing I-95 was redesignated as I-295 looping around Trenton.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2024, 09:28:13 AM
On I-295, NJDOT is removing the yellow "Old I-95 Exit XX" signage from overhead signs around Trenton. This should include the signage on NJ 29 & I-195 at I-295 & US 206.
https://www.nj.gov/transportation/uploads/comm/news/details/comm_np_20240213_155430_I-295laneandshoulderclosursforsignremovalinMercerCounty.pdf
The signage was originally installed in 2018 when the I-95 ramps from I-95 to the PA Turnpike were opened, allowing for the seamless 95 thru PA and NJ. Then-existing I-95 was redesignated as I-295 looping around Trenton.
Well PA will continue for the foreseeable future to have all of our "OLD EXIT XX" sign needs. :-D
Was there ever a South of the Border sign in NJ?
Quote from: ctnaes on February 19, 2024, 10:31:10 AM
Was there ever a South of the Border sign in NJ?
I recall them being on I-95 around Philly. I'm not sure if one was ever in NJ.
There is a Buc-ee's sign here in New Jersey. It is along the northbound lanes of the Turnpike and advises travelers to make a U-turn and travel over five hundred miles.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/is-a-beloved-southern-convenience-store-finally-coming-to-nj-here-s-what-we-know/ar-BB1isWtt
Quote from: roadman65 on February 19, 2024, 06:49:00 AM
Is NJDOT ever going to replace the aging bridge over Hamburg Turnpike, the NYS& W railroad, and Pequannock River between West Milford and Kinnelon on Route 23 soon?
It seems that bridge is needing to be replaced. The state knows it. Had plans in 2017 to do, but abandoned the project despite the bridge being a future danger.
Yes.
New York as a control city in Mercer County when approaching I-295 south in Lawrence - does this make sense?
This would assume the driver would be getting off at US-1 north OR get off on I-195 east towards the NJ turnpike. I'm surprised NY would be used. It lists New York and Camden at the approach for the I-295 S ramp.
Why not list Bordentown and Camden?
Quote from: ctnaes on February 21, 2024, 06:40:40 AM
New York as a control city in Mercer County when approaching I-295 south in Lawrence - does this make sense?
This would assume the driver would be getting off at US-1 north OR get off on I-195 east towards the NJ turnpike. I'm surprised NY would be used. It lists New York and Camden at the approach for the I-295 S ramp.
Why not list Bordentown and Camden?
It was guide motorists from then I-95 NB to the NJ Turnpike via I-195. It used to inform motorists to get off onto US 1 NB to either NJ 18 or I-287 as New York was US 1 NB control city before New Brunswick was later added.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 19, 2024, 01:35:56 PM
There is a Buc-ee's sign here in New Jersey. It is along the northbound lanes of the Turnpike and advises travelers to make a U-turn and travel over five hundred miles.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/is-a-beloved-southern-convenience-store-finally-coming-to-nj-here-s-what-we-know/ar-BB1isWtt
People read so much into this. It's a cheeky bit of advertising. If Bucees came to NJ, it would not be for many years, most likely. Reminds me of how there were Sonic Drive In ads that were shown in the NYC media market for nearly a decade before they began opening restaurants in the area.
Quote from: storm2k on February 22, 2024, 01:13:30 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on February 19, 2024, 01:35:56 PM
There is a Buc-ee's sign here in New Jersey. It is along the northbound lanes of the Turnpike and advises travelers to make a U-turn and travel over five hundred miles.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/is-a-beloved-southern-convenience-store-finally-coming-to-nj-here-s-what-we-know/ar-BB1isWtt
People read so much into this. It's a cheeky bit of advertising. If Bucees came to NJ, it would not be for many years, most likely. Reminds me of how there were Sonic Drive In ads that were shown in the NYC media market for nearly a decade before they began opening restaurants in the area.
Plus the hiring of many attendants to man 120 gas pumps is a huge endeavor. As long as NJ will keep full service, there will be no chance Bucees will enter the Garden State.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2024, 10:52:35 AM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 19, 2024, 10:31:10 AM
Was there ever a South of the Border sign in NJ?
I recall them being on I-95 around Philly. I'm not sure if one was ever in NJ.
I seem to remember one on I-95 closer to SotB than Philly, like around 95 and 395 in Baltimore.
Quote from: ixnay on February 22, 2024, 05:35:54 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2024, 10:52:35 AM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 19, 2024, 10:31:10 AM
Was there ever a South of the Border sign in NJ?
I recall them being on I-95 around Philly. I'm not sure if one was ever in NJ.
I seem to remember one on I-95 closer to SotB than Philly, like around 95 and 395 in Baltimore.
Via Google Searches, there's numerous mentions of the billboard in Philly on 95 South, just south of the Walt Whitman Bridge where I recall seeing it as well, and at least one reference to a billboard on 95 around Wilmington, DE. Unfortunately, I've yet to locate a picture of the sign online.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 18, 2024, 06:31:40 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2024, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:19:40 PM
Does anyone know the furthest north I can see a directional sign for the Atlantic City Expressway?
Rt. 42 North at the Expressway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFESZd8ef4Rr2RTSA
There is one further north on Route 206 in Southampton Township. I was curious if this was the furthest north it is seen.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxmNQuaVvV3BJDrS7?g_st=ic
Historically, there was one a little further north on CR 630 eastbound at 206 seen here in 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.99731,-74.7341385,3a,75y,152.42h,82.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSzrnNrDjwh7lyciHzfImNA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) but per later GSV and me confirming that is still the case as of last weekend biking by this point, it's gone (with the defunct Burlington County College directional sign still there as well).
There has historically been one on 206 South at the corner of Hedding Rd in Columbus, I guess meant to direct people who got off the Turnpike at Exit 7. The actual ACX shield fell off but the round arrow marker remains: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0801862,-74.718207,3a,75y,232.13h,89.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgXkX1JnoNRfLqFwgLGWcYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu .
Quote from: motorways on February 27, 2024, 06:42:36 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 18, 2024, 06:31:40 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2024, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: ctnaes on February 17, 2024, 10:19:40 PM
Does anyone know the furthest north I can see a directional sign for the Atlantic City Expressway?
Rt. 42 North at the Expressway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qFESZd8ef4Rr2RTSA
There is one further north on Route 206 in Southampton Township. I was curious if this was the furthest north it is seen.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HxmNQuaVvV3BJDrS7?g_st=ic
Historically, there was one a little further north on CR 630 eastbound at 206 seen here in 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.99731,-74.7341385,3a,75y,152.42h,82.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSzrnNrDjwh7lyciHzfImNA!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) but per later GSV and me confirming that is still the case as of last weekend biking by this point, it's gone (with the defunct Burlington County College directional sign still there as well).
There has historically been one on 206 South at the corner of Hedding Rd in Columbus, I guess meant to direct people who got off the Turnpike at Exit 7. The actual ACX shield fell off but the round arrow marker remains: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0801862,-74.718207,3a,75y,232.13h,89.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgXkX1JnoNRfLqFwgLGWcYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu .
Look further in the background...
https://apnews.com/article/hoboken-zero-traffic-deaths-daylighting-pedestrian-safety-007dec67706c1c09129da1436a3d9762
A New Jersey city that limited street parking hasn't had a traffic death in 7 years.
In this case Hoboken reduced parking spaces in some parts of the city.
Quote from: bing101 on March 02, 2024, 04:10:31 PM
https://apnews.com/article/hoboken-zero-traffic-deaths-daylighting-pedestrian-safety-007dec67706c1c09129da1436a3d9762
A New Jersey city that limited street parking hasn't had a traffic death in 7 years.
In this case Hoboken reduced parking spaces in some parts of the city.
No comparison to how many deaths per year in the past to see just how successful it's been.
Quote from: bing101 on March 02, 2024, 04:10:31 PM
https://apnews.com/article/hoboken-zero-traffic-deaths-daylighting-pedestrian-safety-007dec67706c1c09129da1436a3d9762
A New Jersey city that limited street parking hasn't had a traffic death in 7 years.
In this case Hoboken reduced parking spaces in some parts of the city.
And even if they've come a long way, Hoboken is still doing even more to increase pedestrian safety by targeting specific roadways and intersections for redesigns that are known for being the most dangerous in the city per crash analysis.
https://www.hobokennj.gov/news/city-of-hoboken-reaches-new-vision-zero-milestone-seven-consecutive-years-without-a-traffic-death
Quote from: boilerup25 on March 06, 2024, 11:02:11 AM
Quote from: bing101 on March 02, 2024, 04:10:31 PM
https://apnews.com/article/hoboken-zero-traffic-deaths-daylighting-pedestrian-safety-007dec67706c1c09129da1436a3d9762
A New Jersey city that limited street parking hasn't had a traffic death in 7 years.
In this case Hoboken reduced parking spaces in some parts of the city.
And even if they've come a long way, Hoboken is still doing even more to increase pedestrian safety by targeting specific roadways and intersections for redesigns that are known for being the most dangerous in the city per crash analysis.
https://www.hobokennj.gov/news/city-of-hoboken-reaches-new-vision-zero-milestone-seven-consecutive-years-without-a-traffic-death
They also have a 20 mph speed limit (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7393709,-74.0427913,3a,15y,202.63h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR3asH6Sr3UCAlUyCpWpjSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).
Quote from: vdeane on March 06, 2024, 12:56:36 PM
Quote from: boilerup25 on March 06, 2024, 11:02:11 AM
Quote from: bing101 on March 02, 2024, 04:10:31 PM
https://apnews.com/article/hoboken-zero-traffic-deaths-daylighting-pedestrian-safety-007dec67706c1c09129da1436a3d9762
A New Jersey city that limited street parking hasn't had a traffic death in 7 years.
In this case Hoboken reduced parking spaces in some parts of the city.
And even if they've come a long way, Hoboken is still doing even more to increase pedestrian safety by targeting specific roadways and intersections for redesigns that are known for being the most dangerous in the city per crash analysis.
https://www.hobokennj.gov/news/city-of-hoboken-reaches-new-vision-zero-milestone-seven-consecutive-years-without-a-traffic-death
They also have a 20 mph speed limit (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7393709,-74.0427913,3a,15y,202.63h,91.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR3asH6Sr3UCAlUyCpWpjSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).
Also an important contributing factor!
Well if you've ever driven through Hoboken, it's so congested that you can hardly get over 20mph on most streets.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 06, 2024, 08:39:15 PM
Well if you've ever driven through Hoboken, it's so congested that you can hardly get over 20mph on most streets.
THIS.
Why would you need to drive through Hoboken? All the main roads avoid it. :D
Also, why anyone would expect to drive through a small, dense city like that at more than 20 mph is beyond me. :D
All the major roads do bypass Hoboken, but I seem to remember you can get to the Lincoln Tunnel from Route 139 through that city. Some use it as an alternate and at one time there was a sign at Jersey Avenue for the Lincoln Tunnel with follow up signs throughout Hoboken telling you what streets to use. Don't remember which I used except for the 14th Street Viaduct, as that does stand out from the rest.
Of course this was over thirty years ago, so traffic volumes might of increased since then, but I'm sure there are some that might use it still to avoid Route 495 through Union City.
However 20 mph is better than slow crawl on 495. So I imagine those folks aren't complaining.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2024, 06:43:30 PM
All the major roads do bypass Hoboken, but I seem to remember you can get to the Lincoln Tunnel from Route 139 through that city. Some use it as an alternate and at one time there was a sign at Jersey Avenue for the Lincoln Tunnel with follow up signs throughout Hoboken telling you what streets to use. Don't remember which I used except for the 14th Street Viaduct, as that does stand out from the rest.
Of course this was over thirty years ago, so traffic volumes might of increased since then, but I'm sure there are some that might use it still to avoid Route 495 through Union City.
However 20 mph is better than slow crawl on 495. So I imagine those folks aren't complaining.
I had a guy in my carpool that used to get off the highway because it was congested. He said taking all the side roads was faster. I pointed out that he's generally doing about 25 mph on the highway in a straight path. On the side roads he's doing about 25 mph, with several left & right turns, and constantly stopped at lights and stop signs. When he drove, we consistently got home about 15 minutes later.
Yeah, I get it feels like someone is going slow on a congested highway because we're doing 30 or 40 below the limit. But it's still faster on average than a 25 mph roadway going 25 because there's a lot of extra stoppages to deal with. And chances are, the mileage is actually longer.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2024, 07:22:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2024, 06:43:30 PM
All the major roads do bypass Hoboken, but I seem to remember you can get to the Lincoln Tunnel from Route 139 through that city. Some use it as an alternate and at one time there was a sign at Jersey Avenue for the Lincoln Tunnel with follow up signs throughout Hoboken telling you what streets to use. Don't remember which I used except for the 14th Street Viaduct, as that does stand out from the rest.
Of course this was over thirty years ago, so traffic volumes might of increased since then, but I'm sure there are some that might use it still to avoid Route 495 through Union City.
However 20 mph is better than slow crawl on 495. So I imagine those folks aren't complaining.
I had a guy in my carpool that used to get off the highway because it was congested. He said taking all the side roads was faster. I pointed out that he's generally doing about 25 mph on the highway in a straight path. On the side roads he's doing about 25 mph, with several left & right turns, and constantly stopped at lights and stop signs. When he drove, we consistently got home about 15 minutes later.
Yeah, I get it feels like someone is going slow on a congested highway because we're doing 30 or 40 below the limit. But it's still faster on average than a 25 mph roadway going 25 because there's a lot of extra stoppages to deal with. And chances are, the mileage is actually longer.
I also remember using Hoboken as a cut-through from the NJ portal of the Lincoln Tunnel to access Jersey City when NY 9A to the Holland Tunnel and US 1-9, as well as the NJ 495 helix had major congestion. I recalled using Willow Street, 15th Street, and Madison/Monroe Street in the western half of Hoboken to then link up with Jersey City. While this potentially was slower, this ended up being a matter of perception versus reality because we felt that the Hoboken streets had an okay amount of flow compared to the alternate routes at the time which were congested (NY 9A/Holland Tunnel, NJ 495 to US 1-9). I guess perception won over in my case.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/U5TTz9Uhap3bAWix7
Bordentown for Route 29 South?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 23, 2024, 05:36:48 PMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/U5TTz9Uhap3bAWix7
Bordentown for Route 29 South?
29 to 295 South or to 195 East to 206 South both bring you to Bordentown. Makes sense.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2024, 07:22:38 PMQuote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2024, 06:43:30 PMAll the major roads do bypass Hoboken, but I seem to remember you can get to the Lincoln Tunnel from Route 139 through that city. Some use it as an alternate and at one time there was a sign at Jersey Avenue for the Lincoln Tunnel with follow up signs throughout Hoboken telling you what streets to use. Don't remember which I used except for the 14th Street Viaduct, as that does stand out from the rest.
Of course this was over thirty years ago, so traffic volumes might of increased since then, but I'm sure there are some that might use it still to avoid Route 495 through Union City.
However 20 mph is better than slow crawl on 495. So I imagine those folks aren't complaining.
I had a guy in my carpool that used to get off the highway because it was congested. He said taking all the side roads was faster. I pointed out that he's generally doing about 25 mph on the highway in a straight path. On the side roads he's doing about 25 mph, with several left & right turns, and constantly stopped at lights and stop signs. When he drove, we consistently got home about 15 minutes later.
Yeah, I get it feels like someone is going slow on a congested highway because we're doing 30 or 40 below the limit. But it's still faster on average than a 25 mph roadway going 25 because there's a lot of extra stoppages to deal with. And chances are, the mileage is actually longer.
I cut through Hoboken to get to the Skyway on my way to 78 to avoid the tolls on the Turnpike. No other reason for me.
Why when getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the NY control city is listed under Interstate 295 & the NJTP? After all the work to complete Interstate 95 as a direct route from Philly to NY, the suggestion is still to bypass I95 and opt for 295/NJTP if traveling to NY.
Quote from: ctnaes on March 30, 2024, 10:27:22 PMWhy when getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the NY control city is listed under Interstate 295 & the NJTP? After all the work to complete Interstate 95 as a direct route from Philly to NY, the suggestion is still to bypass I95 and opt for 295/NJTP if traveling to NY.
If you're going to NY, then follow those signs. No reason to go through Philly unless you have a destination on that side.
Quote from: ctnaes on March 30, 2024, 10:27:22 PMWhy when getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the NY control city is listed under Interstate 295 & the NJTP? After all the work to complete Interstate 95 as a direct route from Philly to NY, the suggestion is still to bypass I95 and opt for 295/NJTP if traveling to NY.
Almost always, the NJ Turnpike is still the shorter and faster route.
Quote from: ctnaes on March 30, 2024, 10:27:22 PMWhy when getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the NY control city is listed under Interstate 295 & the NJTP? After all the work to complete Interstate 95 as a direct route from Philly to NY, the suggestion is still to bypass I95 and opt for 295/NJTP if traveling to NY.
Georgia does it for Atlanta on I-75 North at I-475. They sign Atlanta for I-475 instead of straight through I-75 through Macon.
DelDOT does it to keep I-95 for regional traffic and to allow through motorists to bypass the Philly area traffic.
Quote from: ctnaes on March 30, 2024, 10:27:22 PMWhy when getting off the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the NY control city is listed under Interstate 295 & the NJTP? After all the work to complete Interstate 95 as a direct route from Philly to NY, the suggestion is still to bypass I95 and opt for 295/NJTP if traveling to NY.
The I-95 gap wasn't filled for long haul through traffic, it was to provide a more direct connection to the New Jersey Turnpike for traffic originating in the Philadelphia metro area, or vice versa. There is zero reason to follow I-95 through Philadelphia unless you want to travel through the city, the Turnpike route is more direct and faster for long haul traffic.
The Interstate 95 gap should have been filled long before its completion in 2018. It shouldn't have taken 35 years (1983-2018) to complete the 95 gap.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2024, 08:09:17 PMThe Interstate 95 gap should have been filled long before its completion in 2018. It shouldn't have taken 35 years (1983-2018) to complete the 95 gap.
It took longer than that. I found out the hard way enroute to Phila. in 1976 how I couldn't transition from the Penn. Tpk westbound to I-95 southbound. I couldn't believe there was no interchange there. In New York State there would have been an interchange.
Even if the original intended path of I-95 was completed, I believe that many long distance travelers (and especially trucks) would still use the Turnpike, simply to avoid having to go through Philly. Unless of course they're just that determined to shunpike.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 31, 2024, 10:11:27 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2024, 08:09:17 PMThe Interstate 95 gap should have been filled long before its completion in 2018. It shouldn't have taken 35 years (1983-2018) to complete the 95 gap.
It took longer than that. I found out the hard way enroute to Phila. in 1976 how I couldn't transition from the Penn. Tpk westbound to I-95 southbound. I couldn't believe there was no interchange there. In New York State there would have been an interchange.
Ohio once didn't have an interchange with I-75 and the Ohio Turnpike. Still the PA Turnpike lacks no interchange with I-70 at Breezewood,I-81 at Carlisle, I-99 at Bedford, and US 219 at Somerset.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 04, 2024, 07:00:29 PMQuote from: SignBridge on March 31, 2024, 10:11:27 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2024, 08:09:17 PMThe Interstate 95 gap should have been filled long before its completion in 2018. It shouldn't have taken 35 years (1983-2018) to complete the 95 gap.
It took longer than that. I found out the hard way enroute to Phila. in 1976 how I couldn't transition from the Penn. Tpk westbound to I-95 southbound. I couldn't believe there was no interchange there. In New York State there would have been an interchange.
Ohio once didn't have an interchange with I-75 and the Ohio Turnpike. Still the PA Turnpike lacks no interchange with I-70 at Breezewood,I-81 at Carlisle, I-99 at Bedford, and US 219 at Somerset.
And Ohio didn't have an interchange with I-77 and OH Tpk either. And don't forget the NE Extension lack no interchange with I-80.
There's a simple reason that there weren't interstate to toll road interchanges in many of these places.
From our friends at the FHWA talking about Breezewood (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm):
> This peculiar arrangement occurred because of Section 113 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Under Section 113(b), Federal-aid funds could be used for approaches to any toll road, bridge, or tunnel "to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel." In other words, a motorist could use the toll facility or not. Under Section 113 (c), the State highway agency and toll authority could use Federal-aid highway funds to build an interchange between a toll-free Interstate and an Interstate turnpike (i.e., the motorist would have no choice but to use the toll road). However, the State highway agency, the toll authority, and the BPR would have to enter into an agreement to stop collecting tolls when the bonds were retired.
> The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), which had no desire to stop collecting tolls, decided not to use the State's Federal-aid funds for the I-70 connection. The PTC also decided against using its own revenue for the interchanges.
It's why the interchange between 80 and the NE Extension technically goes thru an intermediary road. That was also evident in the interchange between 84 and the NY Thruway for so many years. That law has since been modified to allow this, obviously, but these are vestiges of it.
The New York Thruway, a toll road with Interstate designations had some interchanges connecting with toll-free interstates as far back as 1960. Notably in Westchester County, the Cross-Westchester Expwy, (I-287) connected at both ends with the NY Thruway main-line and the New England Thruway. And the Thruway Authority has never stopped collecting tolls.
^ NY might have decided to build/modify the interchanges without federal help (usually modify, but exit 36 was mostly replaced, exit 34A was new build, and exits 39 and 24 were eventually replaced; exit 25A actually did involve federal funds, along with widening the Thruway there, which is why there are some free movements in the area). It's weird they didn't with exit 17 until recently, doubly so given that NYSTA maintained I-84 for a while. The direct connection didn't open until around the time that I-84 was returned to NYSDOT. Irony.
Quote from: vdeane on April 05, 2024, 08:30:16 PM^ NY might have decided to build/modify the interchanges without federal help (usually modify, but exit 36 was mostly replaced, exit 34A was new build, and exits 39 and 24 were eventually replaced; exit 25A actually did involve federal funds, along with widening the Thruway there, which is why there are some free movements in the area). It's weird they didn't with exit 17 until recently, doubly so given that NYSTA maintained I-84 for a while. The direct connection didn't open until around the time that I-84 was returned to NYSDOT. Irony.
Yes, exactly! Thruway Auth. was apparently willing to pay for these interchanges themselves. My point is that if NYSTA could do it, then so could the Penn. Tpke. Commission with I-95 near Phila. I keep hearing that they couldn't do it because of the Federal law but obviously it could have been done if they wanted to. I will forever fault them for not building said interchange when I-95 was built. There is no excuse for them not having built it!
Quote from: SignBridge on April 05, 2024, 08:36:50 PMYes, exactly! Thruway Auth. was apparently willing to pay for these interchanges themselves. My point is that if NYSTA could do it, then so could the Penn. Tpke. Commission with I-95 near Phila. I keep hearing that they couldn't do it because of the Federal law but obviously it could have been done if they wanted to. I will forever fault them for not building said interchange when I-95 was built. There is no excuse for them not having built it!
NYSDOT too. The jurisdiction at most of the interchanges changes where the toll barriers were, and most of them were at the locations of interchanges with local roads where the ramps on the local side were redirected. Of course, NYSTA would have had to have been involved in 39, 36, and 34A (and 17, though that came later).
Quote from: SignBridge on April 05, 2024, 08:36:50 PMQuote from: vdeane on April 05, 2024, 08:30:16 PM^ NY might have decided to build/modify the interchanges without federal help (usually modify, but exit 36 was mostly replaced, exit 34A was new build, and exits 39 and 24 were eventually replaced; exit 25A actually did involve federal funds, along with widening the Thruway there, which is why there are some free movements in the area). It's weird they didn't with exit 17 until recently, doubly so given that NYSTA maintained I-84 for a while. The direct connection didn't open until around the time that I-84 was returned to NYSDOT. Irony.
Yes, exactly! Thruway Auth. was apparently willing to pay for these interchanges themselves. My point is that if NYSTA could do it, then so could the Penn. Tpke. Commission with I-95 near Phila. I keep hearing that they couldn't do it because of the Federal law but obviously it could have been done if they wanted to. I will forever fault them for not building said interchange when I-95 was built. There is no excuse for them not having built it!
They could have, but then that's money that wouldn't have gone to other PA Turnpike improvements people would've complained are needed.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 04, 2024, 08:30:48 PMQuote from: roadman65 on April 04, 2024, 07:00:29 PMQuote from: SignBridge on March 31, 2024, 10:11:27 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2024, 08:09:17 PMThe Interstate 95 gap should have been filled long before its completion in 2018. It shouldn't have taken 35 years (1983-2018) to complete the 95 gap.
It took longer than that. I found out the hard way enroute to Phila. in 1976 how I couldn't transition from the Penn. Tpk westbound to I-95 southbound. I couldn't believe there was no interchange there. In New York State there would have been an interchange.
Ohio once didn't have an interchange with I-75 and the Ohio Turnpike. Still the PA Turnpike lacks no interchange with I-70 at Breezewood,I-81 at Carlisle, I-99 at Bedford, and US 219 at Somerset.
And Ohio didn't have an interchange with I-77 and OH Tpk either. And don't forget the NE Extension lack no interchange with I-80.
And IL didn't have one with I-57 and I-294 ( Tri State Tollway) originally.
Quote from: storm2k on April 05, 2024, 08:07:41 PMThere's a simple reason that there weren't interstate to toll road interchanges in many of these places.
From our friends at the FHWA talking about Breezewood (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm):
> This peculiar arrangement occurred because of Section 113 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Under Section 113(b), Federal-aid funds could be used for approaches to any toll road, bridge, or tunnel "to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel." In other words, a motorist could use the toll facility or not. Under Section 113 (c), the State highway agency and toll authority could use Federal-aid highway funds to build an interchange between a toll-free Interstate and an Interstate turnpike (i.e., the motorist would have no choice but to use the toll road). However, the State highway agency, the toll authority, and the BPR would have to enter into an agreement to stop collecting tolls when the bonds were retired.
> The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), which had no desire to stop collecting tolls, decided not to use the State's Federal-aid funds for the I-70 connection. The PTC also decided against using its own revenue for the interchanges.
It's why the interchange between 80 and the NE Extension technically goes thru an intermediary road. That was also evident in the interchange between 84 and the NY Thruway for so many years. That law has since been modified to allow this, obviously, but these are vestiges of it.
So wait, according to the above, the interchange between I-70 and US 30 was federally funded, but the interchange between US 30 and the PA turnpike still had to be paid for by the PTC, right? So what's the difference whether the PTC built an interchange with US 30 or with I-70 if they had to fund it themselves either way (and the same question would apply for I-95 via US 13, I-78 via US 22, and I-80 via PA 940)?