News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Garden State Parkway

Started by Roadrunner75, July 30, 2014, 09:53:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NJRoadfan

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 29, 2015, 03:55:48 PM
However, it is not a municipality and is not required to be put on the sign. Argument can also be made to the fact that Winfield Park, a section of Winfield Township, has been removed from Exit 136.

Winfield Township = Winfield Park, its not like the place is big or anything. The latter is what everyone calls the town.

What you are seeing is the signing differences between NJDOT and NJTPA. NJDOT almost always signs place names on exits when they are used frequently by the locals. I think Colonia landed up on a new ground mounted auxiliary sign where it wasn't signed at all before. Iselin will likely land up on Exit 131A/B somewhere, remember that the NJ-27 exit used to serve the entire area before those Metropark exits were built.


NE2

Iselin is a place. Who gives a fuck if it won the incorporation lottery?
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Pete from Boston


Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 29, 2015, 03:55:48 PMYes, Iselin is not a municipality, but a section of Woodbridge. I agree though that Iselin is a census-designated place with a population in the mid-18,000s (18,695). (Like its sister communities: Avenel (17,011), Fords (15,187), Colonia (17,795)). What justification does Iselin have to be on the BGS if the other three do not, and you can get to Colonia easily from Exit 131 (to be 132)?

How about rather than population, studying trip destinations from the exit and labeling it accordingly?  A large employment center may be a more reasonable destination to sign than comparably-populated places.

storm2k

Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 29, 2015, 04:42:05 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 29, 2015, 03:55:48 PM
However, it is not a municipality and is not required to be put on the sign. Argument can also be made to the fact that Winfield Park, a section of Winfield Township, has been removed from Exit 136.

Winfield Township = Winfield Park, its not like the place is big or anything. The latter is what everyone calls the town.

What you are seeing is the signing differences between NJDOT and NJTPA. NJDOT almost always signs place names on exits when they are used frequently by the locals. I think Colonia landed up on a new ground mounted auxiliary sign where it wasn't signed at all before. Iselin will likely land up on Exit 131A/B somewhere, remember that the NJ-27 exit used to serve the entire area before those Metropark exits were built.

Iselin is on a ground mounted auxiliary sign going NB after the Turnpike on-ramp and before the Colonia gas stations SB.

roadman65

Wow Winfield Park is removed from the Exit 136 guide!  Hopefully they replaced Cranford back on it as it was removed by NJDOT back in the 1980 during the 6 lane upgrade project in Union and Northern Middlesex.

Also going SB it was never followed up at the jughandle on CR 619 anyway.  As we all know you cannot turn left onto CR 619 directly from the ramp, so traffic is forced to turn right onto CR 619 and u turn at Concord Street.  That jughandle did not even have Roselle listed on the guide sign as much as Winfield Park was not there, so drivers to two of the three listed control cities were not aided once off the ramp.

In fact all three control cities of Linden, Roselle, and Winfield Park were all to the left of SB Exit 136 in which that ramp was a right turn only.  Ironic to say the least.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Roadgeek Adam

Quote from: roadman65 on January 31, 2015, 12:40:06 PM
Wow Winfield Park is removed from the Exit 136 guide!  Hopefully they replaced Cranford back on it as it was removed by NJDOT back in the 1980 during the 6 lane upgrade project in Union and Northern Middlesex.

Also going SB it was never followed up at the jughandle on CR 619 anyway.  As we all know you cannot turn left onto CR 619 directly from the ramp, so traffic is forced to turn right onto CR 619 and u turn at Concord Street.  That jughandle did not even have Roselle listed on the guide sign as much as Winfield Park was not there, so drivers to two of the three listed control cities were not aided once off the ramp.

In fact all three control cities of Linden, Roselle, and Winfield Park were all to the left of SB Exit 136 in which that ramp was a right turn only.  Ironic to say the least.

Signs only say Linden & Roselle.

Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

NJRoadfan

#231
Their math isn't adding up, the old sign has 1.5 miles to Exit 136 at the 135 ramp itself. :P

http://goo.gl/maps/yJ5TG

Didn't there used to be a Exit 137 sign in the now empty spot on the left of this gantry?

I also suspect there was an Exit 135 sign on this gantry as well: http://goo.gl/maps/lxSrH

roadman65

No these were all HOV lanes that were only used a short while back in 1980 and 1981.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SignBridge

Why are there no road names on those signs?

Roadgeek Adam

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2015, 08:18:57 PM
Why are there no road names on those signs?

They are two county routes each, I see no need for them. Plus both exits have numerous roads.
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

storm2k

Quote from: roadman65 on January 31, 2015, 07:35:59 PM
No these were all HOV lanes that were only used a short while back in 1980 and 1981.

Thanks for finally answering a question that I've had for years about the blank spots on all of those NJDOT spec sign bridges on the free section.

NJRoadfan

What was the extent of those HOV lanes? NJDOT controlled the "free" section still in 1980-82 when they were built, but news reports of the time said it was a NJHA lead venture.

roadman65

I think they might of had influence over that.  It was started when the left (4th) lane was opened after a long widening project took place that completed in 1980.  It was to induce carpooling at the time, but was an immediate flop and it was abandoned with the signs coming down within a couple of years.

I-80 in Morris County had something similar that was abandoned a short time later.  In fact along I-80 in the Denville- Dover area you will see blank sign gantries from the center still there (or at least the time that some enthusiasts here last shot that part of I-80 for their websites). 

In Florida, I-4 had a similar set up near Orlando back in the late 80s and early 90s.  It had the left lane restricted during peak hours for HOV2 and near the Kirlman Interchange just those exiting on the left for part of it.  However, no one heeded the signs and it got to the point where FDOT and Florida Highway Patrol stopped enforcing it and just let the signs be until a road project removed them.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SignBridge

Roadgeek Adam, I disagree. If there are numbered county routes at those exits, the route shields should be on the signs. I hate not knowing what road I'm exiting on to. Town names by themselves are too general. A route number or road name is specific.

Roadgeek Adam

Quote from: SignBridge on February 01, 2015, 08:34:12 PM
Roadgeek Adam, I disagree. If there are numbered county routes at those exits, the route shields should be on the signs. I hate not knowing what road I'm exiting on to. Town names by themselves are too general. A route number or road name is specific.

Using Exit 136 as an example, no one up here knows what CR 615 (Stiles Street) and CR 607 (Raritan Road) are by their number.

NJTPA chose not to put Stiles Street on the sign. That's up to them.
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 02, 2015, 12:25:36 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 01, 2015, 08:34:12 PM
Roadgeek Adam, I disagree. If there are numbered county routes at those exits, the route shields should be on the signs. I hate not knowing what road I'm exiting on to. Town names by themselves are too general. A route number or road name is specific.

Using Exit 136 as an example, no one up here knows what CR 615 (Stiles Street) and CR 607 (Raritan Road) are by their number.

NJTPA chose not to put Stiles Street on the sign. That's up to them.

In general (at least in NJ), most people know street names, not route numbers.  But the MUTCD doesn't go by one person's opinion of what local people may or may not know; they are primarily for those that *don't* know the area.

From the MUTCD:
QuoteSection 2E.02 Freeway and Expressway Signing Principles
Support:
01 The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area.

PHLBOS

#241
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.  One exception There are some exceptions, however; one of them being NJTP signage for Exit 5 (CR 541).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:34:36 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.

NJ Turnpike Exit 5 for Rt. 541 wails in agony.

http://goo.gl/maps/fYy4H

Zeffy

#243
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:34:36 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.

There's an exception to that rule:



But on the whole, 6xx county roads are seldom signed on overheads and large ground-mounted signs.
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

PHLBOS

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 01:38:18 PMNJ Turnpike Exit 5 for Rt. 541 wails in agony.

http://goo.gl/maps/fYy4H
I was under the impression that replacement signage for that interchange was going to have CR 541 shields per MUTCD.  I guess not.

Quote from: Zeffy on February 02, 2015, 01:41:25 PMThere's an exception to that rule:

That's probably the only known exception that I'm aware of.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:34:36 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.

And as far as NJDOT goes, there's a LOT of 6xx signs posted.  Hell, Exit 21-22 North on 295 has FOUR  6xx on a single BGS! http://goo.gl/maps/DBJMX

Other examples:

2 exits with 6xx on I-295:  http://goo.gl/maps/eF8Rp

Creek Rd exit with 'To 7xx':  http://goo.gl/maps/ofdyA

NE2

5xx routes are intended for through travel, while 6xx routes are more for inventory purposes.

PS: doesn't I-78 have a 6xx signed at one of the former spur 5xxes? And yes, the part of I-295 that replaced US 130 on the spot has a bunch.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Pete from Boston


Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 01:28:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 02, 2015, 12:25:36 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 01, 2015, 08:34:12 PM
Roadgeek Adam, I disagree. If there are numbered county routes at those exits, the route shields should be on the signs. I hate not knowing what road I'm exiting on to. Town names by themselves are too general. A route number or road name is specific.

Using Exit 136 as an example, no one up here knows what CR 615 (Stiles Street) and CR 607 (Raritan Road) are by their number.

NJTPA chose not to put Stiles Street on the sign. That's up to them.

In general (at least in NJ), most people know street names, not route numbers.  But the MUTCD doesn't go by one person's opinion of what local people may or may not know; they are primarily for those that *don't* know the area.

From the MUTCD:
QuoteSection 2E.02 Freeway and Expressway Signing Principles
Support:
01 The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area.

Unfortunately, when you require an arbitrary standard that is not what locals use or even know, you don't give the unfamiliar user the best possible information to work with.

Roadgeek Adam

#248
Exit 135 has the issue of having three roads at the exit, Central Avenue, Brant Avenue and Valley Road. Signage off the exit goes to Central and Bryant.

Do we really want signs of:

EXIT 135
[CR 613]
Central Avenue
Bryant Avenue
Valley Road
Clark
Westfield
EXIT 1/2 MILE

or

EXIT 136
[CR 615] [CR 607]
Stiles Street
Raritan Road
Linden
Roselle
EXIT 1 1/2 MILES

I think that's a bit excessive if you ask me. I understand the MUTCD wants streets and stuff, but it's not exactly helpful.
Adam Seth Moss
M.A. History, Western Illinois University 2015-17
B.A. History, Montclair State University 2013-15
A.A. History & Education - Middlesex (County) College 2009-13

PHLBOS

Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on February 02, 2015, 02:08:40 PM
Exit 135 has the issue of having three roads at the exit, Central Avenue, Brant Avenue and Valley Road. Signage off the exit goes to Central and Bryant.

Do we really want signs of:

EXIT 135
[CR 613]
Central Avenue
Bryant Avenue
Valley Road
Clark
Westfield
EXIT 1/2 MILE

or

EXIT 136
[CR 615] [CR 607]
Stiles Street
Raritan Road
Clark
Westfield
EXIT 1 1/2 MILES

I think that's a bit excessive if you ask me. I understand the MUTCD wants streets and stuff, but it's not exactly helpful.
How about:

EXIT 135
[CR 613]
Clark
Westfield
1/2 MILE


The above would meet MUTCD criteria.  A supplemental BGS for the one street that isn't part of CR 613 could be added.
GPS does NOT equal GOD



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.