New Jersey

[bzakharin]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[roadman]

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.

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?

[PHLBOS]

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.

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; that's the least of that sign's issues.

[roadman]

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.

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; 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.

[PHLBOS]

Was 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.

[Alps]

Was 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.

[PHLBOS]

Was 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.

[odditude]

Was 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?

[Alps]

Was 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.

[artmalk]

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.

[Alps]

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.

[roadman65]

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. 

[famartin]

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?

[jeffandnicole]

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!

[artmalk]

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!

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[akotchi]

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.

[roadman]

Was 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.

[roadman65]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[Alps]

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...

[famartin]

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...