News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

New Jersey Turnpike

Started by hotdogPi, December 22, 2013, 09:04:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jeffandnicole

Quote from: 1 on December 22, 2013, 09:04:24 PM
2. At one point, the speed limit was 35. There was traffic, too. If the speed limit had been 65, as normal, there would have been much less traffic!

Quote from: stridentweasel on December 28, 2013, 03:58:41 PMBut 35!?  I remember seeing that last month, and all I could think was, "Surely you can't be serious!"  Does anyone at the NJTA even expect people to slow down to below 55?  I seem to remember traffic going closer to 65 when I saw that 35 zone.

A lot of this depends where and why the limit was reduced to 35 mph. 

2 unknowns here:

A) If the normal limit is only 55 mph, which would be North of Interchange 12, along with the construction zone between Interchanges 6 & 9, there very well could be 35 mph limits. 

B) What was the incident that brought the speed limit to 35 mph?

It's easy to say "there was nothing going on"...when one sees nothing.  But there could've been a car accident, construction, or other incident that resulted in the speed reduction, which was cleared up prior to passing that point.  The turnpike wouldn't have simply reduced the limit to 35 without reason.  After the point where traffic has resumed normal speeds, the limit is returned to the normal limit as well.

Now, that may beg the question...if the limit is 35 mph, shouldn't traffic remain at that speed until they see a 65 (or 55) limit sign?  Of course.  But, reality is different than theory.

QuoteAlso, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the old-school variable speed limits only drop from 65 to 45 when there was a "REDUCE SPEED" condition?

Not always.  Along with the 35 mph limit mentioned above, I've seen 55 mph and 50 mph limits on occasion.  I've even seen a speed limit on those changeable speed limit signs that generally isn't used in NJ: 60 mph.


jemacedo9

There was a bad accident that day southbound just north of Exit 7...an overturned tractor-trailer in the left lane.  I got on at Exit 7A around 1:30 and the backup was already north of Exit 7A.  Speed Limit 35 was already posted though traffic was stop and go...it took me almost an hour to go the 7 miles to get to the scene.  After the scene, Speed Limits were posted at the normal 65.

Ned Weasel

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2013, 12:37:44 AM
A lot of this depends where and why the limit was reduced to 35 mph. 

2 unknowns here:

A) If the normal limit is only 55 mph, which would be North of Interchange 12, along with the construction zone between Interchanges 6 & 9, there very well could be 35 mph limits. 

B) What was the incident that brought the speed limit to 35 mph?

It's easy to say "there was nothing going on"...when one sees nothing.  But there could've been a car accident, construction, or other incident that resulted in the speed reduction, which was cleared up prior to passing that point.  The turnpike wouldn't have simply reduced the limit to 35 without reason.  After the point where traffic has resumed normal speeds, the limit is returned to the normal limit as well.

I should have phrased the question, "Why 35 as opposed to 45 or 55?"  That pushes the boundary of temporary speed limit conventions.  From what I've observed, most DOTs and toll road authorities, when signing a construction zone on a freeway, only drop the speed limit by between 10 and 20 MPH.  A 10 MPH reduction is commonly used for minor construction, while a 20 MPH reduction is sometimes employed for more extreme cases, such as reducing traffic to one lane in a given direction.  And even at that, the lowest construction zone speed limit I've seen for a freeway that is normally signed for 55 or higher, has been 45.  (The largest difference between normal speed limit and construction zone speed limit I've observed has been a 25 MPH reduction from 70 to 45.)

Now, I do realize that, currently, a 35 zone between Exits 6 and 9 would be a reduction of an already extant reduction, as that is a construction zone with a temporary speed limit of 55.  But the question still stands, why drop it by 20 instead of simply another 10?  35 may be warranted for extreme cases where traffic is reduced to a single lane and drivers are mere feet from construction workers, but why is it deemed necessary for more typical occurrences?  Another thing: if the issue is a collision that brings traffic to stop-and-go conditions, why does the speed limit matter?  The speed limit won't even be reached, regardless of whether it's 35, 45, or 55.

I'm not questioning the practice of reducing the speed limit.  I'm not even questioning the idea of a reduction from an already reduced speed limit.  I'm questioning the specific number 35.  What calculation produced this number?  It seems that most typical incidents would warrant a reduction from 65 to 55 or 55 to 45.  Whether it's an collision, a traffic jam, or a minor construction zone, a 10 MPH reduction would send the message to drivers that there may be a reason to slow down ahead, although the variable message signs are really better suited to this task.  I think a 20 or 30 MPH reduction in the speed limit introduces the potential for some drivers to see "SPEED LIMIT 35" and immediately try to slow down to that while the rest of traffic is cruising by at 70, which could simply result in further tie-ups, although this may be an unfounded fear, because most people don't read signs anyway.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2013, 12:37:44 AM
Now, that may beg the question...if the limit is 35 mph, shouldn't traffic remain at that speed until they see a 65 (or 55) limit sign?  Of course.  But, reality is different than theory.

Isn't setting unrealistic speed limits considered bad traffic engineering?
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

jeffandnicole

The speed limit in this stretch of the Turnpike is 65 mph.  Because of construction, the limit is reduced to 55 mph.

As for further reductions (and these are generally true in 65 or 55 limit zones on the Turnpike), generally: if there is a lane taken out due to construction the limit usually falls to 45 mph.  If there is construction in the middle of the highway that warrants a lane split (ie: 1 lane to the left, 2 lanes to the right) the limit falls to 35 mph.  Variations do occur - I've seen limits of 55 mph in construction zones, 50 mph in snowy conditions, etc

As for other limit reductions, it's dealt with case-by-case, based on the circumstances. 

cpzilliacus

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
As for other limit reductions, it's dealt with case-by-case, based on the circumstances. 

My sample size is admittedly small, but when I have seen wrecks on the New Jersey Turnpike (resulting in one or more lanes blocked), the 85th percentile speed has got to be less than 35 MPH in the queue that results.

Most-recently, I saw one on the northbound side north of 6 in the construction area that blocked the right lane (a tractor-trailer and an SUV had crashed) - taking away 1/3 of the capacity on a Sunday afternoon assures that traffic will be slow up to the point where the lane is blocked.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Ned Weasel

Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 30, 2013, 01:07:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
As for other limit reductions, it's dealt with case-by-case, based on the circumstances. 

My sample size is admittedly small, but when I have seen wrecks on the New Jersey Turnpike (resulting in one or more lanes blocked), the 85th percentile speed has got to be less than 35 MPH in the queue that results.

Most-recently, I saw one on the northbound side north of 6 in the construction area that blocked the right lane (a tractor-trailer and an SUV had crashed) - taking away 1/3 of the capacity on a Sunday afternoon assures that traffic will be slow up to the point where the lane is blocked.

I suppose I wouldn't be so skeptical of the 35-MPH speed limit if it wasn't for my having recalled seeing an ignored 35 zone in both directions on separate days and hearing from other people who seem to have encountered similar situations.
"I was raised by a cup of coffee." - Strong Bad imitating Homsar

Disclaimer: Views I express are my own and don't reflect any employer or associated entity.

jeffandnicole

Realize the 65 mph limit is ignored daily as well.  Realize that nearly every highway speed limit is ignored daily. 

And then realize that everyone who has talked about it, you will probably find no one that has received a ticket (or even given a warning) in a drastically reduced speed zone area.

roadman65

Does anybody know what is up with the "NO TRUCKS IN LEFT LANE OF THIS ROADWAY" signs on the outer roadways of the dual carriageways?  I know that Jersey law states that the left lane on three or more lane highways is to prohibit trucks for obvious reasons on all roads with three or more general use lanes. However, being that a  whole roadway is dedicated to cars only that lies next to it and the fact the three outer lanes are so that trucks can have their own (sort of) roadway, it makes no sense at all. 

I mean why bother to give three lanes away to trucks and only allow them to use two of them.  It would have been better to make the dual section a 2-4-4-2 instead of 3-3-3-3.

Also, on to something else I noticed interesting.  The PA Extension does not have a Jersey Barrier median like the rest of the Turnpike does.  It actually has a grass median and all underpasses are actual two bridges.  I doubt if anyone knows the answer to this one, but it is interesting to point out as parts of the original 118 mile Turnpike also had a wide median.  In fact the Garden State Parkway underpass (with CR 514) had a very wide median with the same structure which is how the dual roadway was constructed without having to tear down the Main Street wrought iron bridge and the GSP bridge.

Another thing to note is on the PA Extension, the same truck prohibition signs are posted as the rest of the Turnpike used a No Truck and Buses restriction.  It is odd that the NJTA does not care about buses on the short 6 mile extension like they do the 4-18 stretch.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

signalman

Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2013, 10:18:00 PM
Does anybody know what is up with the "NO TRUCKS IN LEFT LANE OF THIS ROADWAY" signs on the outer roadways of the dual carriageways?  I know that Jersey law states that the left lane on three or more lane highways is to prohibit trucks for obvious reasons on all roads with three or more general use lanes. However, being that a  whole roadway is dedicated to cars only that lies next to it and the fact the three outer lanes are so that trucks can have their own (sort of) roadway, it makes no sense at all. 

I mean why bother to give three lanes away to trucks and only allow them to use two of them.  It would have been better to make the dual section a 2-4-4-2 instead of 3-3-3-3.
The signs are posted in the inner roadways because the outer roadways could be closed for some reason (bad accident, construction, congestion, etc.)  It may not happen frequently, but it can and does happen on occasion.  For the record,I have ever entered the Turnpike, and after passing through the toll plaza encountered the outer roadway closed and all traffic funneled to the inner roadway. 

SteveG1988

Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2013, 10:18:00 PM
Does anybody know what is up with the "NO TRUCKS IN LEFT LANE OF THIS ROADWAY" signs on the outer roadways of the dual carriageways?  I know that Jersey law states that the left lane on three or more lane highways is to prohibit trucks for obvious reasons on all roads with three or more general use lanes. However, being that a  whole roadway is dedicated to cars only that lies next to it and the fact the three outer lanes are so that trucks can have their own (sort of) roadway, it makes no sense at all. 

I mean why bother to give three lanes away to trucks and only allow them to use two of them.  It would have been better to make the dual section a 2-4-4-2 instead of 3-3-3-3.

Also, on to something else I noticed interesting.  The PA Extension does not have a Jersey Barrier median like the rest of the Turnpike does.  It actually has a grass median and all underpasses are actual two bridges.  I doubt if anyone knows the answer to this one, but it is interesting to point out as parts of the original 118 mile Turnpike also had a wide median.  In fact the Garden State Parkway underpass (with CR 514) had a very wide median with the same structure which is how the dual roadway was constructed without having to tear down the Main Street wrought iron bridge and the GSP bridge.

Another thing to note is on the PA Extension, the same truck prohibition signs are posted as the rest of the Turnpike used a No Truck and Buses restriction.  It is odd that the NJTA does not care about buses on the short 6 mile extension like they do the 4-18 stretch.

My theory as to why the PA extension is like that is simply, it was built later than the rest, and they had different standards by then, i think it is built to what the interstate highway standards are instead of NJTA standards, someone can correct me on that one. It also provides a massive contrast between the two turnpikes, PA with a narrow shoulder and jersey barrier with a toll booth on the bridge approach, to NJ with an exit before the barrier and a mi or two of road
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

jeffandnicole

Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 01, 2014, 05:10:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 31, 2013, 10:18:00 PM

Another thing to note is on the PA Extension, the same truck prohibition signs are posted as the rest of the Turnpike used a No Truck and Buses restriction.  It is odd that the NJTA does not care about buses on the short 6 mile extension like they do the 4-18 stretch.

My theory as to why the PA extension is like that is simply, it was built later than the rest, and they had different standards by then, i think it is built to what the interstate highway standards are instead of NJTA standards, someone can correct me on that one. It also provides a massive contrast between the two turnpikes, PA with a narrow shoulder and jersey barrier with a toll booth on the bridge approach, to NJ with an exit before the barrier and a mi or two of road

The original NJ plaza was very identical, location wise, to the PA side. What you see on the connector there is a rebuilt plaza that moved the tolling point further east of its original location. It was also NJ's first express EZ Pass location.

The new location has to do with the interchange with US 130. Originally, there was no connection between the 2 roads. On the PA side, if one wanted to exit at that first interchange,  one currently gets a ticket, immediately exits, then hands that ticket in. The NJ setup eliminates that short-distance ticket exchange.

As for the left lane restriction, I believe it's state law both buses & trucks can't use the left lane of a 3+ lane highway, unless posted otherwise. While "No Trucks in Left Lane" signs are common, buses are excluded as well.

Alps

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2014, 06:54:17 AM

As for the left lane restriction, I believe it's state law both buses & trucks can't use the left lane of a 3+ lane highway, unless posted otherwise. While "No Trucks in Left Lane" signs are common, buses are excluded as well.

Yes. Also, there are "left 2 lanes" signs for the 4-lane sections from 11-14.

SignBridge

#37
Jeffandnicole: Thank you for clarifying the location of the original NJ toll plaza. Every time I drive that road, I seem to remember that in the late 1950's when I first rode thru there with my parents as a little kid, that the toll was just before the bridge. And I figured in recent years that my memory must be wrong. Thanks again for validating my original memory from so long ago!

BTW, it's interesting that NJTA set up the toll plaza and the Route 130 interchange smarter than Penna. did re: the Levittown Interchange. Before E-Z Pass, I used to hate having to stop for the toll ticket in Penna. and then immediately pay the toll with the ticket a minute later on that first exit ramp. PTC should have thought a little smarter.

SteveG and Roadman, I too have often wondered why the Penna. Connector did not have a median barrier, especially given the NJTA's safety oriented engineering. I don't buy the idea that it was built to Interstate standards of the 1950's though. NJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc.  So if anything, you'd expect them to build more such barriers than the standards even call for. It remains a mystery to me why that section of the Turnpike is not suitably protected.


hbelkins

Quote from: SignBridge on January 01, 2014, 08:51:18 PMNJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc.

I wouldn't necessarily say those things exceed standards. "Different than," yes. "Exceed," not so much.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

SteveG1988

Quote from: SignBridge on January 01, 2014, 08:51:18 PM
Jeffandnicole: Thank you for clarifying the location of the original NJ toll plaza. Every time I drive that road, I seem to remember that in the late 1950's when I first rode thru there with my parents as a little kid, that the toll was just before the bridge. And I figured in recent years that my memory must be wrong. Thanks again for validating my original memory from so long ago!

BTW, it's interesting that NJTA set up the toll plaza and the Route 130 interchange smarter than Penna. did re: the Levittown Interchange. Before E-Z Pass, I used to hate having to stop for the toll ticket in Penna. and then immediately pay the toll with the ticket a minute later on that first exit ramp. PTC should have thought a little smarter.

SteveG and Roadman, I too have often wondered why the Penna. Connector did not have a median barrier, especially given the NJTA's safety oriented engineering. I don't buy the idea that it was built to Interstate standards of the 1950's though. NJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc.  So if anything, you'd expect them to build more such barriers than the standards even call for. It remains a mystery to me why that section of the Turnpike is not suitably protected.



Perhaps it was to future proof the road? that way if they wanted to add more lanes they would not have to clear more ROW, just build in the median. Also the only other major extension from that time period would be the newark bay, which was built to a different standard due to being mostly elevated.
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

roadman65

I often wondered about the NJTA using different areas of the road to experiment with different things.  Like the Penn Extension having the wide grassy medians and two bridge underpasses, you have the Newark Bay Extension having the bent pole street lamps as supposed to the traditional truss style mast arm poles. 

I remember the current Newark Bay Extension poles were added when the NJTA went from Mercury Vapor lights to High Pressure Sodium Vapor lamps.  I assumed that was an experiment and perhaps the NJTA wanted to try it out on that during the intitial construction period.

Bigger question I have is why the NJTA never used an overhead Exit sign like they used on all other interchanges.  The diverge exit number sign was always in the gore up until the current 6-9 widening project.  I do, however, liked the fact that on both extensions they did keep the art deco sign gantries over time.  I do not know if they are kept with the 6-9 project, especially on the extensions proper.  I do know that Grand Street in Jersey City was replaced with the new rusted sign gantries that NJTA has adopted as the norm, but on the 14A and 14B ramps if they're still there or not as well as the split in Mansfield for North and South.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Steve D

Quote from: SignBridge on January 01, 2014, 08:51:18 PM

SteveG and Roadman, I too have often wondered why the Penna. Connector did not have a median barrier, especially given the NJTA's safety oriented engineering. I don't buy the idea that it was built to Interstate standards of the 1950's though. NJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc.  So if anything, you'd expect them to build more such barriers than the standards even call for. It remains a mystery to me why that section of the Turnpike is not suitably protected.


The Penn extension was built between 1954 and 1956 and the median was designed the same way as the existing Turnpike median was then - no barrier at all.  The mainline did not receive the metal guard rails until the early 1960s (1962 I believe).  About a year ago I started a thread "Old NJ Turnpike Photos" and there are some picture there I think of the old medians without anything.  Yes the Turnpike seems ahead of others but this is not always the case -how long did it take to replace those old red neon signs with true full VMS?  That 3rd generation red neon set was installed way back in 1983!.

It's still surprising though that parts of the Penn extension still have no barriers - not even metal guard rails - even though some sections are as narrow as the mainline Turnpike median.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: SignBridge on January 01, 2014, 08:51:18 PM
SteveG and Roadman, I too have often wondered why the Penna. Connector did not have a median barrier, especially given the NJTA's safety oriented engineering. I don't buy the idea that it was built to Interstate standards of the 1950's though. NJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc.  So if anything, you'd expect them to build more such barriers than the standards even call for. It remains a mystery to me why that section of the Turnpike is not suitably protected.

Adding to Steve's comments:

Back in the 80's the grass median (with guardrail) was replaced with a paved median and concrete barrier.  The barrier is much thicker and a bit higher than a standard jersey barrier - it was designed to withstand a truck hitting it on a 15 degree angle at 55 mph (remember - the turnpike was 55 in the 80's).  I can't recall if the original mainline had dual bridges, with the center median area filled in when they added the concrete barrier.

In all but a very few instances, the wall has withstood those accidents.  I've seen cars knock out sections of normal jersey barrier, but the Turnpike barrier has remained intact quite well.

The real question is - why was the NJ/PA Connector roadway's never upgraded?

BTW - the median wouldn't be used to add a travel lane - it would result in a 4 lane roadway without a left shoulder.  The Turnpike won't even consider converting the left paved shoulder to a travel lane between Interchanges 1 & 4 because it'll result in a 3 lane roadway without a left shoulder.

Steve D

Quote from: roadman65 on January 01, 2014, 11:19:17 PM

Bigger question I have is why the NJTA never used an overhead Exit sign like they used on all other interchanges.  The diverge exit number sign was always in the gore up until the current 6-9 widening project.  I do, however, liked the fact that on both extensions they did keep the art deco sign gantries over time.  I do not know if they are kept with the 6-9 project, especially on the extensions proper.  I do know that Grand Street in Jersey City was replaced with the new rusted sign gantries that NJTA has adopted as the norm, but on the 14A and 14B ramps if they're still there or not as well as the split in Mansfield for North and South.

Both the Penn and Newark Bay extensions were opened in 1956 and featured the art deco overhead exit signs throughout, including at the gore for exit 6, 14, 14a, 14b, 14c.  At the time, it was state of the art - there were either no or very few overhead signs anywhere else on the Turnpike at the time, especially the exit gore signs.  The signs at each other exit at that time were ground mounted and only began to be replaced overhead in the mid 1960s with the now familiar traditional style.   Hope that answers your question.

jeffandnicole

BTW, here's the original location of the original toll plaza on the connector: http://goo.gl/maps/en09T .  Firehouse Road would've been used by the toll employees to access the plaza.  Using historicaerials.com, one can view the original plaza clearly in the 1995 photo - even the housing development just behind the plaza was there at that time.

Looking carefully on the historic aerials photo, you can see the Connector's EB rightmost plaza lane was a free or low-cost single toll lane (I can't remember which), which took motorists on a long access ramp to Cedar Lane, a relatively small side road that eventually intersects with US 130 in the Florence area.  There was no access to the WB connector (heading into PA) in the area at all.

When the plaza was rebuilt further east, that whole access road was removed.  The newly rebuilt EB exit is a free exit connecting directly into US 130, just before the newer plaza.

Steve D

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2014, 08:41:04 AM


Back in the 80's the grass median (with guardrail) was replaced with a paved median and concrete barrier.  The barrier is much thicker and a bit higher than a standard jersey barrier - it was designed to withstand a truck hitting it on a 15 degree angle at 55 mph (remember - the turnpike was 55 in the 80's).  I can't recall if the original mainline had dual bridges, with the center median area filled in when they added the concrete barrier.

In all but a very few instances, the wall has withstood those accidents.  I've seen cars knock out sections of normal jersey barrier, but the Turnpike barrier has remained intact quite well.

The real question is - why was the NJ/PA Connector roadway's never upgraded?

BTW - the median wouldn't be used to add a travel lane - it would result in a 4 lane roadway without a left shoulder.  The Turnpike won't even consider converting the left paved shoulder to a travel lane between Interchanges 1 & 4 because it'll result in a 3 lane roadway without a left shoulder.

The mainline concrete barrier was added in sections between 1983 and 1990 at a cost of $1 million per mile.  It was even added to the Newark Bay extension but as Jeff points out the Penn extension still is oddly without any upgrade in places.

It's interesting that you point out that the NJ Turnpike would never (EVER) sacrifice the left shoulder for a travel lane.  It's always fun to compare to how loose the Pennsylvania Turnpike is with their standards - on several widening projects in the 1980s that expanded the mainline from 2 to 3 lanes they simply took out both the left AND right shoulder to fit the mainline under existing bridges - something the NJ Turnpike would never allow in a million years.  It seems the Pa. Turnpike is getting better now with their standards and many newer widening projects go the full length to redo everything, but historically their efforts always seemed second class to that of the NJ Turnpike.

roadman65

Quote from: Steve D on January 02, 2014, 08:42:17 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 01, 2014, 11:19:17 PM

Bigger question I have is why the NJTA never used an overhead Exit sign like they used on all other interchanges.  The diverge exit number sign was always in the gore up until the current 6-9 widening project.  I do, however, liked the fact that on both extensions they did keep the art deco sign gantries over time.  I do not know if they are kept with the 6-9 project, especially on the extensions proper.  I do know that Grand Street in Jersey City was replaced with the new rusted sign gantries that NJTA has adopted as the norm, but on the 14A and 14B ramps if they're still there or not as well as the split in Mansfield for North and South.

Both the Penn and Newark Bay extensions were opened in 1956 and featured the art deco overhead exit signs throughout, including at the gore for exit 6, 14, 14a, 14b, 14c.  At the time, it was state of the art - there were either no or very few overhead signs anywhere else on the Turnpike at the time, especially the exit gore signs.  The signs at each other exit at that time were ground mounted and only began to be replaced overhead in the mid 1960s with the now familiar traditional style.   Hope that answers your question.
Actually my question was why NB Turnpike at Exit 6 never upgraded with the rest of the Turnpike mainline when overheads were introduced to the scene.  It was up until the 6 to 9 project that particular location is getting overhead signage. 

For years all the exits on the system received the overhead "EXIT X" sign in lieu of the traditional exit gore sign you see on interstates.  Yet, Exit 6 did not get them NB, nor did it have the "THRU TRAFFIC NEXT EXIT X MILES" neither.  It had all ground mounted signs and the only interchange to have them exclusively up until now.  Even 1-4 modernized in the 1980's when they added overheads to the system. Before the early 80's the Turnpike had all button copy signs on the side for Exits 2-3-4 on the two lane part, as the sign bridges north of Exit 4 were only included for 6 or more lane sections.  In fact both Exits 2 and 3 did not have route numbers and control cities at the 2 mile guides as well as Chester being not mentioned NB at Exit 2 either. 

It was why Exit 6 was overlooked when the 4 and up overheads were first added that I am questionable about.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Steve D

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
Looking carefully on the historic aerials photo, you can see the Connector's EB rightmost plaza lane was a free or low-cost single toll lane (I can't remember which), which took motorists on a long access ramp to Cedar Lane, a relatively small side road that eventually intersects with US 130 in the Florence area.  There was no access to the WB connector (heading into PA) in the area at all.

When the plaza was rebuilt further east, that whole access road was removed.  The newly rebuilt EB exit is a free exit connecting directly into US 130, just before the newer plaza.

Jeff, there was access westbound from the local road on the north side of the extension (the neighborhood) to the rightmost lane of the toll plaza heading towards Pa.  There was an exact change booth for this lane only.  This setup (including the eastbound one you described) is officially called (but unsigned) exit 6A and was in place from day one for the local residents to access Pennsylvania without backtracking all the way to exit 7 or 5.   Cars and trucks going beyond the neighborhood to/from route 130 had a very complex trip through the local streets, winding roads, and bridges.  The whole thing was re-done in the 1990s as you point out to provide a direct connection to route 130 and help grow the local area, which by the way I don't think happened as planned.

roadman65

Unsigned Exit 6A was indeed one toll booth of the Exit 6 plaza.  You had to use Cedar Lane, which has a pig tail turn over the former Penn Line Railroad which I never understood its purpose.  It was obviously designed by NJTA because the bridge over the tracks is a NJT design with those rounded pier caps underneath and green painted girders along with the typical NJT railing on top the concrete parapets.

Anyway, it was signed as US 130 Florence, but not TO US 130 either, even though you had a long drive through city streets before reaching the intrastate US highway and vise versa.  NJ at least thought of the right thing at the time than that stupid Delaware Valley Interchange set up where you grab a ticket and then pay just a few feet later and pay through the nose as the PTC charges you for the bridge use in addition to the small use of Turnpike ground pavement.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SignBridge

Roadman65's point about the toll for the Delaware Valley Interchange is well taken. (I had incorrectly called it the Levittown Interchange in my previous post)

And Jeffandnicole's explanation of the higher, stronger than usual Jersey Barrier used on the mainline Turnpike is a perfect example of what I referred to earlier about the NJTA building their infrastructure to exceed typical interstate standards. Which again makes the absence of such a barrier on the Penn. Connector all the more puzzling.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.