New Jersey Turnpike

[storm2k]

Drove past exit 9 and new sign structures are in place (2 and 1 mile advance signs). They took out East Brunswick from the sign. These have exit tabs too.

So just 1 and 18 and New Brunswick is the only control city?

[J Route Z]

Drove past exit 9 and new sign structures are in place (2 and 1 mile advance signs). They took out East Brunswick from the sign. These have exit tabs too.

So just 1 and 18 and New Brunswick is the only control city?

From what I remember seeing (I was looking in my side mirror because I was going southbound and the sign was posted northbound), yes just one city listed with Route 1 and 18 shields.

[cpzilliacus]

I agree with J & N. Baltimore would solve the whole issue. Who cares if it's two states away? It still makes sense.

Or take a cue from Illinois, and sign the southbound Turnpike between 6 and 1 as Delaware.

[SignBridge]

Can't do that. On Interstate highways, the MUTCD requires the names of control-cities.  Of course you could argue that the NJT from exits 1 thru 6 is not an Interstate highway............LOL

[cpzilliacus]

Can't do that. On Interstate highways, the MUTCD requires the names of control-cities.  Of course you could argue that the NJT from exits 1 thru 6 is not an Interstate highway............LOL

Apparently Illinois DOT and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority did not get the memo about the use of states as control cities.

[swbrotha100]

IIRC "New Jersey" is still listed as a control city on various highways in DE, PA, and NY. I know, the MUTCD requires actual cities to be listed, but me personally I can see some states keep using state names as control cities and not have a problem with it.

[ixnay]

IIRC "New Jersey" is still listed as a control city on various highways in DE, PA, and NY. I know, the MUTCD requires actual cities to be listed,

What's the logic behind prohibiting anything other than cities to be used as control targets?  I mean, the MUTCD's UK counterpart has no qualms with using "The North" and "Channel Tnl" as control whatchamacallits.

but me personally I can see some states keep using state names as control cities and not have a problem with it.

Same here.  Same with bridges and tunnels (as I hinted with the aforementioned Channel Tunnel).

ixnay

[storm2k]

New 1 mile approach sign for Exit 11 NB. Now has a GSP logo (finally!) but still lists "Garden State Parkway" as a destination along with Woodbridge.

Also interesting to see that they went with one sign in the median between inner and outer roadways in more classic style, not with individual signs in each roadway as they've done with the 6-9 extension.

[thenetwork]

IIRC "New Jersey" is still listed as a control city on various highways in DE, PA, and NY. I know, the MUTCD requires actual cities to be listed, but me personally I can see some states keep using state names as control cities and not have a problem with it.

Utah is the default control city on I-70 from Grand Junction west to the CO/UT line, although there is still a handful of Green River control cities on the older BGSs.

[SignBridge]

To try and answer ixnay's question; I'm guessing that the people who spec the MUTCD envision the Interstate system of highways as connecting widely spaced major cities across the USA, hence the rule requiring control cities.  I personally agree that their thinking may be narrow minded, and that in some cases other types of destinations are reasonable. Such as state names, bridges & tunnels, etc. We've discussed this at length in other threads on this board.

[PHLBOS]

I agree with J & N. Baltimore would solve the whole issue. Who cares if it's two states away? It still makes sense.

Or take a cue from Illinois, and sign the southbound Turnpike between 6 and 1 as Delaware.

Sherman, set the WABAC Machine to 2007: Pardon the blurry GSV.  Delaware was indeed used as a southbound NJTP destination.

[bzakharin]

To try and answer ixnay's question; I'm guessing that the people who spec the MUTCD envision the Interstate system of highways as connecting widely spaced major cities across the USA, hence the rule requiring control cities.  I personally agree that their thinking may be narrow minded, and that in some cases other types of destinations are reasonable. Such as state names, bridges & tunnels, etc. We've discussed this at length in other threads on this board.

But many control cities on Interstates are anything but major. Very often it's the last municipality in the state or the first in a neighboring state. See Mahwah on I-287 for example. Also the Turnpike is not an Interstate (in the relevant area) and serves to *bypass* some of the very major cities that serve as control points (Trenton, Camden, Philadelphia, Wilmington)

[roadman65]

New 1 mile approach sign for Exit 11 NB. Now has a GSP logo (finally!) but still lists "Garden State Parkway" as a destination along with Woodbridge.

Also interesting to see that they went with one sign in the median between inner and outer roadways in more classic style, not with individual signs in each roadway as they've done with the 6-9 extension.

NJ always was redundant with shield and text for both the Parkway and the Turnpike.  As far as center post signs go, I believe, that the NJT did not want to budget for two new assemblies as they were able to do in the 6-9 widening.

[storm2k]

New 1 mile approach sign for Exit 11 NB. Now has a GSP logo (finally!) but still lists "Garden State Parkway" as a destination along with Woodbridge.

Also interesting to see that they went with one sign in the median between inner and outer roadways in more classic style, not with individual signs in each roadway as they've done with the 6-9 extension.

NJ always was redundant with shield and text for both the Parkway and the Turnpike.  As far as center post signs go, I believe, that the NJT did not want to budget for two new assemblies as they were able to do in the 6-9 widening.

Yes, NJDOT always has been (and continues to be) redundant about putting the Turnpike/Parkway name along with the shield on their signs. Given that a big part of the project for the TA was to include actual control cities, you would think they would have used them (after all, 129 gives control cities for the Turnpike).

As for the center post signs, I thought maybe they newer MUTCD disallowed them, but thumbing through it, I don't see any prohibition other than that signs should be within 10 feet of the nearest travel lane, which could go both ways.

[roadman]

As for the center post signs, I thought maybe they newer MUTCD disallowed them, but thumbing through it, I don't see any prohibition other than that signs should be within 10 feet of the nearest travel lane, which could go both ways.

The only stated MUTCD prohibition regarding BGS supports on freeways is for new 'butterfly' sign posts in unprotected exit gores.  As far as I'm concerned, a center post sign in the median between the cars only and cars/trucks lanes is no different than an overhead gantry upright that falls in the median between opposing lanes.  And it doesn't even have to be ten feet from the edge of roadway.  Provided you have additional guardrail posts within the area adjacent to the post to minimize deflection should a vehicle hit the guardrail, it should be OK.  And a single post is a much simpler design than a full gantry spanning twelve lanes, which is the only feasible alternative if you wish to totally avoid having obstructions within the medians separating the lanes.

[NJRoadfan]

How is exit number visibility with MUTCD signs on those center post setups? One advantage to the old style NJTP signs was the size of the numeral on those signs.

[SignBridge]

I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.

[roadman65]

GaDOT uses them a lot on both I-75 and I-95 and these two highways have the one direction carriageway.

Anyway, being that the GSP is sort of a bypass to NYC.  If you are going from Richmond, VA to Albany, NY, lets say, it is used to connect both I-95 and I-87 together.  You would figure that Albany would make it on there.  Yes the signage is so inconsistent here as the GSP uses control cities on 129 guide signs.  However, the pull through on the long c/d road still is redundant even though its right next to the ramp to the NJT with control cities on it.

[Alps]

I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.

I think it's the idea that exit advance signs should be on the right, and these were ending up on the left of the truck lanes. Trucks in the right lane can see signs overhead, but not necessarily two lanes over if there's another truck next to them.

[storm2k]

I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.

I think it's the idea that exit advance signs should be on the right, and these were ending up on the left of the truck lanes. Trucks in the right lane can see signs overhead, but not necessarily two lanes over if there's another truck next to them.

If that was their thinking for 6-9, why not also do that for the resigning project for 9-14?

[roadman65]

I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.

I think it's the idea that exit advance signs should be on the right, and these were ending up on the left of the truck lanes. Trucks in the right lane can see signs overhead, but not necessarily two lanes over if there's another truck next to them.

If that was their thinking for 6-9, why not also do that for the resigning project for 9-14?

Money?  Remember that separate sign thing was budgeted into the construction costs.  This is to be just a simple sign replacement, so the NJT is not going to add expenses to it.

[storm2k]

I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.

I think it's the idea that exit advance signs should be on the right, and these were ending up on the left of the truck lanes. Trucks in the right lane can see signs overhead, but not necessarily two lanes over if there's another truck next to them.

If that was their thinking for 6-9, why not also do that for the resigning project for 9-14?

Money?  Remember that separate sign thing was budgeted into the construction costs.  This is to be just a simple sign replacement, so the NJT is not going to add expenses to it.

Includes structure replacement as well, so they could have just as easily budgeted in the extra cost for the extra structures.

[jeffandnicole]

Being the agency is pretty flush with money right now, I don't think money was an issue here. It has the soundings of a simple in-kind structure and sign replacement.

[roadman65]

Usually when a contractor replaces, that is all they do.  In the case of the 6 to 9 widening the signs were not replacements but new signs from a brand new road.  It was planned out by an engineer, as supposed to a simple replacement, which a work order is given out to change something without anything new to be added.

[jeffandnicole]

 Well, that's not right!!   

https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr