New Jersey

[bzakharin]

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).

[Zeffy]

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:

"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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[bzakharin]

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".

[vdeane]

Weather warnings are also given by county.

[D-Dey65]

Am I the only person here who thinks the intersection between US 9W and Linwood Avenue in Fort Lee should be completely eliminated?

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[D-Dey65]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[D-Dey65]

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!

[Alps]

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?

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[Zeffy]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[D-Dey65]

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?

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[Zeffy]

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.

[Pete from Boston]

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?

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[NJRoadfan]

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."

[roadman65]

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!

[Duke87]

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.

[Alps]

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.