News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

New Jersey Turnpike

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

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

Quote from: SignBridge on June 16, 2024, 08:34:10 PMI'm surprised they are calling the Turnpike's eastern alignment a Loop route when in fact it is the original Turnpike.If anything you'd think the western route would be the Loop route.
I was surprised too since I had thought that the eastern was the "real"/official I-95, but it makes sense given how it's signed - they have thru traffic use the western and local traffic for either I-80 or the Lincoln Tunnel use the eastern.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


lstone19

Quote from: SignBridge on June 16, 2024, 08:34:10 PMI'm surprised they are calling the Turnpike's eastern alignment a Loop route when in fact it is the original Turnpike.If anything you'd think the western route would be the Loop route.

But ever since the western alignment was built, through I-95 traffic has been encouraged to use the western alignment and the road between the north merge and I-80 is setup to allow western to 95 and eastern to 80 moves to occur without interfering with each other (they share no pavement).

jeffandnicole

Quote from: SignBridge on June 16, 2024, 08:34:10 PMI'm surprised they are calling the Turnpike's eastern alignment a Loop route when in fact it is the original Turnpike.If anything you'd think the western route would be the Loop route.

No different than the original 95 in PA is now 295 looping around Trenton.  Or the many people that seem to want 95 to use 495 around Wilmington, and giving current 95 a 3di thru Wilmington.

storm2k

Quote from: roadman65 on June 15, 2024, 09:01:27 AMhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/BkbB7cavJfNuE5vM8

No more US 46 or NJ 3 shields at the Eastern and Western Split in Newark.  Plus only the crossings. No exit numbers anymore.  Interesting.


https://maps.app.goo.gl/twDaBRBhDvh4EmX98
Plus the old sign assembly on the ground.

Haven't seen them flip the flippy part since I don't drive on that section of the Turnpike much anymore since I moved away from Carteret a few years ago, but I don't think the lack of exit numbers really matters. Wants to move traffic on the western spur towards the GWB and traffic on the eastern towards the Lincoln Tunnel. Shows a "to 280" shield on the western. Everything else (Rt 3 and the Meadowlands Complex and Secaucus Jct) could be easily handled with supplementary signs. I think this increases readability and makes it easier for drivers to interpret the signs moving at highway speeds.

SignBridge

There isn't a "TO" on the 280 West sign. But maybe there should be.....

roadman65

Quote from: SignBridge on June 17, 2024, 08:00:15 PMThere isn't a "TO" on the 280 West sign. But maybe there should be.....

There should be as also one for I-80 on the East Spur.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

roadman65

#5356
https://maps.app.goo.gl/XsZat6ZKE9aWLWdTA
This sign explains it best. Both spurs are I-95 leading to either I-280 via west and I-80 via east.  Plus US 46 via the eastern spur and NJ 3 via either.

However looks like the permanent sign assembly is ready to be placed and this removed.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9K3WvrKWpWiuSfGv9
Looks like the same set up as the two main carriageways, but not yet flipped.

As quick and to the point the new ones are, I grew up with the exit numbers and route numbers so it to me seems like original isn't bothering anyone so why do this.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

artmalk

Will the Eastern spur be I-695 unsigned?

SignBridge

I believe it will be shown on those new signs in the above posts. There is now a blank box on the top line of the sign next to the I-80 shield that will probably be I-695, which in my opinion will just create more confusion for drivers, given all the other route numbers in that area. Drivers may not realize that the new I-695 is the NJ Turnpike ( eastern leg-original alignment) and think it's some other highway in that area. 

roadman65

Will NJDOT sign I-695 on Routes 3 and 495?

Talk about confusion, when it gets signed in Secaucus people may wonder what happened to I-95 in New Jersey.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

FLAVORTOWN

They gotta do a PR blitz to tell the public about 695 right? Otherwise its gonna be a messy transition

jeffandnicole

Motorists not familiar with the area are just going to go the way their GPS tells them to go.

Those familiar with the area may be slightly shocked to see 695 signage, but they'll figure it out in a day or so.

It's just like any other highway signing.  95 was resigned as 295 around Trenton, and other than a newspaper reporter or two trying to find people who can't wayfind their way out of their driveway acting as if they're totally confused by a highway that they didn't even realize changed numbers, no one had any issues.

Oh, BTW, related to that area, NJDOT took down the "Former I-95 Exit XX" signage a few months ago.  PennDOT...don't expect them to do the same anytime soon.

roadman65

They should just leave the signs say NJ Turnpike only like they have for decades. Everyone calls it that anyway.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SignBridge

Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on June 23, 2024, 09:16:40 PMThey gotta do a PR blitz to tell the public about 695 right? Otherwise its gonna be a messy transition

At least I-695 will presumably still be posted as North and South. Unlike in Pennsylvania where they changed I-95 North/South to I-295 East/West.  !?!?!?!?

jeffandnicole

Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2024, 09:48:23 PMThey should just leave the signs say NJ Turnpike only like they have for decades. Everyone calls it that anyway.

Quote from: SignBridge on June 23, 2024, 09:54:12 PMAt least I-695 will presumably still be posted as North and South. Unlike in Pennsylvania where they changed I-95 North/South to I-295 East/West.  !?!?!?!?

Two opposite reactions to road signage changes.

Let me know when people actually had issues. I mean, people not on this forum.  It really wasn't that big of a deal to most.

bmitchelf

Quote from: SignBridge on June 23, 2024, 09:54:12 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on June 23, 2024, 09:16:40 PMThey gotta do a PR blitz to tell the public about 695 right? Otherwise its gonna be a messy transition

At least I-695 will presumably still be posted as North and South. Unlike in Pennsylvania where they changed I-95 North/South to I-295 East/West.  !?!?!?!?

It would make more sense if the connecting part in NJ was also East/West

bzakharin

Quote from: bmitchelf on June 24, 2024, 11:27:21 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 23, 2024, 09:54:12 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on June 23, 2024, 09:16:40 PMThey gotta do a PR blitz to tell the public about 695 right? Otherwise its gonna be a messy transition

At least I-695 will presumably still be posted as North and South. Unlike in Pennsylvania where they changed I-95 North/South to I-295 East/West.  !?!?!?!?

It would make more sense if the connecting part in NJ was also East/West
NJ doesn't like routes changing direction within the state. They even re-designated the western segment of NJ 440 as North-South despite it being physically East-West.

SignBridge

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 23, 2024, 09:59:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2024, 09:48:23 PMThey should just leave the signs say NJ Turnpike only like they have for decades. Everyone calls it that anyway.

Quote from: SignBridge on June 23, 2024, 09:54:12 PMAt least I-695 will presumably still be posted as North and South. Unlike in Pennsylvania where they changed I-95 North/South to I-295 East/West.  !?!?!?!?


Two opposite reactions to road signage changes.

Let me know when people actually had issues. I mean, people not on this forum.  It really wasn't that big of a deal to most.

JeffandNicole: I actually agree with Roadman65. But (LOL) I'm trying to adapt to this Brave New World. Are you saying most drivers didn't seem to care if I-295 was signed East-West? Well okay, then maybe we should just follow the German Autobahn model and do away with cardinal directions, just showing route shields and city names if the direction doesn't matter.....

roadman65

Quote from: bzakharin on June 24, 2024, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: bmitchelf on June 24, 2024, 11:27:21 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 23, 2024, 09:54:12 PM
Quote from: FLAVORTOWN on June 23, 2024, 09:16:40 PMThey gotta do a PR blitz to tell the public about 695 right? Otherwise its gonna be a messy transition

At least I-695 will presumably still be posted as North and South. Unlike in Pennsylvania where they changed I-95 North/South to I-295 East/West.  !?!?!?!?

It would make more sense if the connecting part in NJ was also East/West
NJ doesn't like routes changing direction within the state. They even re-designated the western segment of NJ 440 as North-South despite it being physically East-West.

Also Route 439 in Elizabeth.  It was changed to N- S from E-W along Elmora Avenue while it was N-S always at NJ 28 and NJ 82.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

Quote from: SignBridge on June 24, 2024, 08:31:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 23, 2024, 09:59:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2024, 09:48:23 PMThey should just leave the signs say NJ Turnpike only like they have for decades. Everyone calls it that anyway.

Quote from: SignBridge on June 23, 2024, 09:54:12 PMAt least I-695 will presumably still be posted as North and South. Unlike in Pennsylvania where they changed I-95 North/South to I-295 East/West.  !?!?!?!?


Two opposite reactions to road signage changes.

Let me know when people actually had issues. I mean, people not on this forum.  It really wasn't that big of a deal to most.

JeffandNicole: I actually agree with Roadman65. But (LOL) I'm trying to adapt to this Brave New World. Are you saying most drivers didn't seem to care if I-295 was signed East-West? Well okay, then maybe we should just follow the German Autobahn model and do away with cardinal directions, just showing route shields and city names if the direction doesn't matter.....

And there we go...

I never said it didn't matter.  Nor did I say cardinal directions as a whole matters.  It's the fallacy that we can't change anything because everyone knows it the way it is today.

Anytime I go on about this, I put out the request to have people locate a large group of people (non-roadgeeks) that care, or have a tough time with the new number/direction.  I'm still waiting.

There's many people that also want change - even on the NJ Turnpike.  Many want the Interchange 1 - 6 area to have an Interstate number, for example.

It could be that there may actually be an issue where the roadways split up into the eastern and western roadways.  Why would the Turnpike select that for a 3 digit loop route?

The various transporation departments came up with the various ideas. There's often public comment periods.  No one here ever appears to go to them.  Yet, 5 years after the changes are made, somehow there's no actual issue that a few people here try to claim there is an issue.

The Ghostbuster

I for one would like the New Jersey Turnpike between Exits 1 and 6 to be Interstate 895, since the 695 designation is going to the Eastern Spur. Of course, I realize that Exits 1 through 6 getting an Interstate designation is as likely as NJ 42 and the Atlantic City Expressway becoming an eastern extension of Interstate 76.

roadman65

Ideally I-87 should be it, but Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia won't interstate the Delmarva.  However, I'm not crying over it, nor advocating, but connecting the two I-87's would be a feat and improve traffic on the Delmarva.

North of 1-6 an overlap to Exit 13, then renumber I-278 to I-87 and extend I-295 in NY to take over I-278 in The Bronx.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Henry

I'm surprised that there's talk of making the Eastern split into I-695. Do they not realize that there's already another I-695 across the Hudson in New York? Since I-895 no longer exists anywhere in the area, a better idea would be to reuse that number for the split. (And I really had such high hopes for I-95E and I-95W.)
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

bluecountry

If you ask me, I-695 should be what I-295 is starting in Delaware, with I-295 beginning at the current NJTP/295 interchange.  It really is silly how I-295 'continues' at this exit even though it is so marginalized.  While we are it, can we please have I-295 and I-95 in Bordentown connect?  I hate having an offspring 3 digit road not connect to its parent.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Henry on June 27, 2024, 03:05:29 PMI'm surprised that there's talk of making the Eastern split into I-695. Do they not realize that there's already another I-695 across the Hudson in New York? Since I-895 no longer exists anywhere in the area, a better idea would be to reuse that number for the split. (And I really had such high hopes for I-95E and I-95W.)

695 was already approved.  It's up to the NJTA to sign it.



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.