News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Garden State Parkway

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

Previous topic - Next topic

SignBridge

Thanks Roadman. Yes, I almost always prefer a street name over town names by themselves which are too general for me. A street name is very specific so better in my opinion. And as you noted also, supplemental signs are effective for the town names. Best of all worlds that way.

As I've said in other threads, I don't really know why the Manual makes an issue over not wanting street names and town names on the same sign. New York State DOT's Region-10 on Long Island has always used them together and it's not a problem. Just like the original GSP signs in the old days.


Alps

Quote from: storm2k on July 07, 2016, 12:31:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 06, 2016, 10:41:13 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 06, 2016, 10:07:21 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 06, 2016, 08:47:56 PM
At a minimum put a CR 655 shield up there, but really no one knows the designation. I feel like this one will confuse drivers a tad.

Even the Turnpike Authority more or less followed the "No 6XX county routes on BGS's" rule. Not always 100%, but most of the time.

As for the elimination of the street names from the signs, I have mixed feelings about it. I never saw a problem with it, especially when a road is more known by it's name (and I think both Bloomfield and Belleville Aves qualify) than its destinations, but what can you do. Yet, they kept street names at 2 places I know of: South Orange Ave and Wood Ave South at 131/A (even though I think there are more useful things for that exit).
6xx are signed sparingly on the southern Parkway. Also South Orange Avenue could easily be signed as 510.

In this case, it's signed as both 510 and South Orange Ave. Still quite surprised they didn't use South Orange as a control city.
The name is probably good enough.

OldJerseyGuy

#752
155P (now 155A) and 155 (now 155B) have been replaced. The exit tab on the new advance sign has been uncovered and the existing tabs on other signs have had A and B affixed. The Hazel Street advance sign is still in place, but I suspect that will be replaced by Passaic, as I believe it already has been at the exit itself. The advance sign for 155A-B is still signed NJ 19/To I-80 West/Paterson, but has Passaic added.

roadman65

Quote from: SignBridge on July 07, 2016, 07:09:02 PM
Thanks Roadman. Yes, I almost always prefer a street name over town names by themselves which are too general for me. A street name is very specific so better in my opinion. And as you noted also, supplemental signs are effective for the town names. Best of all worlds that way.

As I've said in other threads, I don't really know why the Manual makes an issue over not wanting street names and town names on the same sign. New York State DOT's Region-10 on Long Island has always used them together and it's not a problem. Just like the original GSP signs in the old days.
I used to like the street names and town names together and NJ and NY both kept them for ages even though places like FL( who was starting to do that signing practice).  I grew up here and I was used to the crossings names and regional names.

I am not a fan either of the "New York City" thing that NJDOT has recently been doing. "New York" is just fine IMO, but the state wants that "City" added to it because some people can not decyper the city name from the state name, in which for years the signs never were that ambiguous to motorists.

The NJDOT did the opposite on the 129-140 section when they had it before 1986, before the 1980 widening.  It had the city names on the main guides and the street names on supplemental guides.  For NJ 27 and NJ 28 the route names were on stand alone shields and on supplemental signs as well.  For example NJ 27 was signed Rahway- Metuchen- The Plainfields on the Exit 131 (now 132) main guides and NJ 27 & Iselin were on a supplemental sign going each way.  Then long side the gore exit guide (yes the signs that were at 140 and 140A that were in place instead of the standard exit sign) were shields for NJ 27 with an arrow.

Remnants of the old pre 1980 sign practice still existed in Toms River at 82-82A where NJ 37 was on stand alone shields and the guide signs had only the destinations on them only up to the mid maybe late 90's.

Also I miss the old Parkway exitgore signs on the NJHA sections with the circle around the arrow until the late 80's when the MUTCD said "No" to that unique signing.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

storm2k

Rode the Parkway both ways between 129 and 98 yesterday. Sign replacement is in full swing on this stretch.

-Everything is overhead, as for the rest of the replacement projects thusfar.
-Exit 98 signs now only for Belmar and Trenton. Brielle is on small ground-mount aux signs. No more mention of Pt Pleasant at all.
-100/A/B getting renumbered in both directions. will be 100A, 100B, 100C going NB, 100B and 100A SB (flipped the A and B to be proper)
-102 now has advanced signs in both the express and local lanes. Sign in the local lanes has an exit only placard on the bottom.
-Monmouth service area now has left tabs on the advanced signs. Signs also look standardized more like the signs the Turnpike uses.
-PNC Bank Arts Center is now numberless. Blue signs replaced with brown since it's a cultural venue. RIP Exit 116.
-Could not tell if they were renumbering 117 and 117A SB, but I would imagine that will eventually become 117B and 117A.
-Cheesequake State Park now has a proper brown aux sign. I imagine that the replacement signs for 120 will not show the brown tab on the bottom for it anymore.
-No new signs for 124 or 123 SB, but they're not that old. May still be replaced, like signs at 142 were, despite being MUTCD-ish and also new.
-Did not see new signs for 125 either, but those may come as part of the upcoming Interchange 125 project work.

roadman65

Point Pleasant was also removed from NB Exit 90.  Its now for Brick only and even is signed for SB CR 549, being no left turns are allowed on that specific ramp to NB CR 549, despite the jughandle being there nearby.

In addition I believe that Spring Lake, Wall, and Manasquan are no longer signed at Exit 98 as well. 

That is surprising that Exit 116 is no longer an exit, despite it is an interchange.  Though not connected to the local road network, it still is an exit and a point of reference.

I would imagine that Aberdeen is not going to be used NB on 117, being only two destinations can now be used.  Keyport and Hazlet are the two main places and being that NJDOT eliminated the u turn ramp that allowed access to NB NJ 35 from the 117 interchange via the SB NJ 35 roadway, that, too. would play into not using Aberdeen anymore either.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

mrsman

Quote from: SignBridge on July 06, 2016, 08:29:11 PM
Re: Storm2k's post pointing out the elimination of street names on signs, ya' wonder why they couldn't sign the exit using the street name, and then have a supplemental sign naming the towns. For example Exit-151 could be signed for Watchung Ave. (like it was for about 60 years) and then a supplemental sign reading:  Montclair, Nutley, Exit 151. That would be MUTCD compliant.

But I guess what's happening here is the inevitable result of stirring up a hornets nest, forcing the NJTA to convert to MUTCD signing, and now they're doing it to the letter, and the hell with whether it's good guidance or not. Now when they get deluged with complaints about inadequate sign info, they can say: "We told you so; our old Turnpike sign system was so much better, but this is what the Feds forced us to do."

I completely agree.  A lot of this is due to MUTCD concerns about message loading, but IMO, the important factor is to give the driving public useful information.

And this is happening all over the country, especially California.

In my view, if an E-W freeway interchanges with one off-ramp (diamond, parclo a4, DDI, SPUI, etc.) to a N-S street that carries a state highway number, the BGS should read as follows:

<#> STREET NAME                 ex.  <97> Georgia Ave
         NORTH CITY                          Wheaton
         SOUTH CITY                           Silver Spring

If there are two off-ramps (cloverleaf, parclo b4), then two separate signs:

NORTH                                       NORTH
<#>    STREET NAME                   <97>  Georgia Ave
           NORTH CITY                       Wheaton

SOUTH                                        SOUTH
<#>    STREET NAME                   <97>  Georgia Ave
           SOUTH CITY                      Silver Spring


[This is in fact how the signs read on the Capital Beltway @ Georgia Ave in Silver Spring, MD]

This is not too much for drivers to handle.  And it is so much better for wayfinding.

Pete from Boston

Quote from: OldJerseyGuy on July 07, 2016, 08:39:36 PM
155P (now 155A) and 155 (now 155B) have been replaced. The exit tab on the new advance sign has been uncovered and the existing tabs on other signs have had A and B affixed. The Hazel Street advance sign is still in place, but I suspect that will be replaced by Passaic, as I believe it already has been at the exit itself. The advance sign for 155A-B is still signed NJ 19/To I-80 West/Paterson, but has Passaic added.


Just noticed this yesterday.  The era of local character continues to fade in favor of standardization, for better or for worse.


jwolfer

Quote from: mrsman on July 26, 2016, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 06, 2016, 08:29:11 PM
Re: Storm2k's post pointing out the elimination of street names on signs, ya' wonder why they couldn't sign the exit using the street name, and then have a supplemental sign naming the towns. For example Exit-151 could be signed for Watchung Ave. (like it was for about 60 years) and then a supplemental sign reading:  Montclair, Nutley, Exit 151. That would be MUTCD compliant.

But I guess what's happening here is the inevitable result of stirring up a hornets nest, forcing the NJTA to convert to MUTCD signing, and now they're doing it to the letter, and the hell with whether it's good guidance or not. Now when they get deluged with complaints about inadequate sign info, they can say: "We told you so; our old Turnpike sign system was so much better, but this is what the Feds forced us to do."

I completely agree.  A lot of this is due to MUTCD concerns about message loading, but IMO, the important factor is to give the driving public useful information.

And this is happening all over the country, especially California.

In my view, if an E-W freeway interchanges with one off-ramp (diamond, parclo a4, DDI, SPUI, etc.) to a N-S street that carries a state highway number, the BGS should read as follows:

<#> STREET NAME                 ex.  <97> Georgia Ave
         NORTH CITY                          Wheaton
         SOUTH CITY                           Silver Spring

If there are two off-ramps (cloverleaf, parclo b4), then two separate signs:

NORTH                                       NORTH
<#>    STREET NAME                   <97>  Georgia Ave
           NORTH CITY                       Wheaton

SOUTH                                        SOUTH
<#>    STREET NAME                   <97>  Georgia Ave
           SOUTH CITY                      Silver Spring


[This is in fact how the signs read on the Capital Beltway @ Georgia Ave in Silver Spring, MD]

This is not too much for drivers to handle.  And it is so much better for wayfinding.
I like how Maryland has both street name and number as well as destination. I see the shield and street name as one piece of info

roadman65

The shield and the street name side by side always worked in NYC.  I do not know why that can't be used here as well.

The signs are being controlled way too much by the feds.  They even dislike the white on green NJ Turnpike Entrance ramp signs as well. To me I personally thought it was cool along with that curved arrow they used.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

bzakharin

Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2016, 10:31:59 PM
The shield and the street name side by side always worked in NYC.  I do not know why that can't be used here as well.

The signs are being controlled way too much by the feds.  They even dislike the white on green NJ Turnpike Entrance ramp signs as well. To me I personally thought it was cool along with that curved arrow they used.
What's the alternative for entrances from roads where overhead signs are impractical? If you just have a small Turnpike shield with an arrow a la Interstate signage, many out of state drivers will not be familiar with it, while the large "TURNPIKE" (and also "PARKWAY" and "EXPRESSWAY") entrance signs are harder to miss.

SignBridge

Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

Pete from Boston

Quote from: SignBridge on July 28, 2016, 04:12:48 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

The problem may be that the standard is flawed.  There are cultural approaches to referencing place that vary between jurisdictions, and countermanding those to create a uniform national culture may be as impossible as it is misguided.

dgolub

Quote from: SignBridge on July 28, 2016, 04:12:48 PM
BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

The problem with not doing this is that most roads in New York City and its nearby suburbs are known primarily by street names.  Many locals don't even know what the corresponding numbers are.  I grew up in Port Washington, NY, and I can guarantee you that a large percentage of people who have lived there their entire lives don't know that Port Washington Boulevard is NY 101.  I've seen people miss parkway exits for Sunrise Highway because it's only signed as NY 27 without the name.  The practice of including both the name and the number should be expanded to other areas where it would be helpful, such as Nassau County, not banned by the MUTCD.

odditude

Quote from: dgolub on July 28, 2016, 07:08:38 PMThe practice of including both the name and the number should be expanded to other areas where it would be helpful, [...] not banned by the MUTCD.
agreed.

Alps

Quote from: odditude on July 28, 2016, 07:13:24 PM
Quote from: dgolub on July 28, 2016, 07:08:38 PMThe practice of including both the name and the number should be expanded to other areas where it would be helpful, [...] not banned by the MUTCD.
agreed.
I know agencies that simply ignore that rule because of the necessity to sign street names and, say, destinations.

roadman65

Quote from: SignBridge on July 28, 2016, 04:12:48 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.
Its already getting there where street names are not even known by locals.  It surprises me that many who lived before the GPS forgot how to navigate a simple road trip.

Its scary, but yesterday Alex and I drove around South Florida and we discussed how the GPS is creating an evolution in our minds where we now rely on it to do simple thinking that our quest for knowing our surroundings are being replaced by the conclusion a small hand held device automatically comes up with.

No one reads signs even for EXIT ONLY and other stuff, as seen everyday and heard at the toll plaza I work at.  The GPS, as discussed before, it making us careless to even absorb the information.  The way the GPS is taking route numbers and street names will be for mail delivery only as those names and numbers are no longer needed with the device telling you which way to go.

Heck we get the GPS sending people to Orlando International Airport via FL 417 and back via FL 528 where the toll rates are totally different.  We get people saying "how come its one fifty one way and two twenty five the other?"  Of course one road looks like another as far as the modern man (and women) is concerned.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 28, 2016, 05:43:57 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 28, 2016, 04:12:48 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

The problem may be that the standard is flawed.  There are cultural approaches to referencing place that vary between jurisdictions, and countermanding those to create a uniform national culture may be as impossible as it is misguided.


Again, cultural differences are why we should have one standard. Someone from some other area of the country...or world...shouldn't have to figure out each state's or region's method of signing someone.

The biggest issue with the NJ Turnpike (especially South of Int 6) and GSP: They don't have route numbers that are signed...which is something motorists expect.

roadman65

Yes, the NJ Turnpike should have at least a state number if not I-895 or even I-695 as it does connect I-95 at both ends.

NJ has not applied to expand their interstate mileage in well over 35 years.  Heck I heard rumors that the only reason why I-195 got built was not because the never built NJ 37 or Driscoll Expressway were canned, but because they used the unused I-278 mileage.  So really you cannot say there even that.

NJ should ask for interstate status for NJ 24 as it does connect two interstates at both ends.  Of course there is the NJ 42 and ACE thing, but its old and we know NJDOT never thinks about that one, but should as well.

If North Carolina is allowed to make all their freeways an interstate, than NJ should be allowed to expand as well.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Pete from Boston

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2016, 10:16:02 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 28, 2016, 05:43:57 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 28, 2016, 04:12:48 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

The problem may be that the standard is flawed.  There are cultural approaches to referencing place that vary between jurisdictions, and countermanding those to create a uniform national culture may be as impossible as it is misguided.


Again, cultural differences are why we should have one standard. Someone from some other area of the country...or world...shouldn't have to figure out each state's or region's method of signing someone.

The biggest issue with the NJ Turnpike (especially South of Int 6) and GSP: They don't have route numbers that are signed...which is something motorists expect.

We could spend all day on where the happy medium lies. 

The aim should be to best accommodate the most users of a given road, with provisions for the minority.  My point is that the arbitrary assumption that one unadaptable standard can suffice (and do so well) over 4 million square miles may be flawed.

We're not talking about using different languages or even colors here.  These are relatively minor semantic differences.


roadman65

My point is no matter how standard you make the signs and how idiot proof you make the system, a whole bunch of people will find a flaw in it.

The elephant tracks at exit ramps, are standard and do stand out, but how many people are surprised to find the right lane default onto an exit ramp?  Plus at Exit 254 on the FL Turnpike how many see the elephant tracks block the entrance to the SunPass only lanes and still go there in confusion?  Plenty on both accounts.

The former I see with my own eyes each day.  The latter I hear about from worried customers in my booth as they often drive over the elephant tracks and claim the set up is confusing despite it being well signed and drive through the SunPass without one.

Lets face it we can put up standard signs everywhere and you will have people who will never see any of them, or if they do its nothing.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SignBridge

Roadman, everything you're saying is true, but we should still strive to make the system as reasonably consistent as possible.

roadman65

Yes, I believe in the signs completely.  Even though most cannot read the simple 50 state green guide that is on all the roads, I think that is their problem still.  If you are totally unfamiliar with an area, as most are here visiting Orlando, that should be something you would want to do is read every sign along the way, but many do not as they are surprised that they are encountering a toll booth.  Florida 528 is clearly marked as TOLL FL 528 on shields and unless you are very familiar with the area where the signs become the woodwork, then you should be looking at them from humility and the fact that they are important because you do not know where you are going.

We should not give up signing the roads despite the new wave of technology letting us be ignorant.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

bzakharin

I don't know about your GPS, but mines gives me the exit number, route numbers if any, and first destination on the BGS about 1/4 mile before the turn off, so there is every chance for the driver to look at the BGS and verify that it says what the GPS just said. I would prefer it did it a bit earlier, maybe 1 mile in advance. What it doesn't do is say "warning, toll road" or "pay toll ahead". There's no reason it couldn't. But I only use my GPS if I'm going to an unfamiliar area and even then only if there is some significant mileage or number of turns from the freeway exit (or the start of the trip if a freeway is not involved or it doesn't sign exits very well).

So if nothing else, the BGSs should be good enough for the GPS to scrape enough information of them to be useful. And by the way, NJ is the same way when it comes to route numbers. There are pretty much no county route numbers that are in the public consciousness. Even some (segments of) state routes and US routes are not really known by their numbers. For example, I bet not many people know that Brace Road is NJ 154 (though it doesn't cross any freeways, so I suppose it's not such a good example)

Alps

Quote from: bzakharin on August 01, 2016, 09:22:57 AM
I don't know about your GPS, but mines gives me the exit number, route numbers if any, and first destination on the BGS about 1/4 mile before the turn off, so there is every chance for the driver to look at the BGS and verify that it says what the GPS just said. I would prefer it did it a bit earlier, maybe 1 mile in advance. What it doesn't do is say "warning, toll road" or "pay toll ahead". There's no reason it couldn't. But I only use my GPS if I'm going to an unfamiliar area and even then only if there is some significant mileage or number of turns from the freeway exit (or the start of the trip if a freeway is not involved or it doesn't sign exits very well).

So if nothing else, the BGSs should be good enough for the GPS to scrape enough information of them to be useful. And by the way, NJ is the same way when it comes to route numbers. There are pretty much no county route numbers that are in the public consciousness. Even some (segments of) state routes and US routes are not really known by their numbers. For example, I bet not many people know that Brace Road is NJ 154 (though it doesn't cross any freeways, so I suppose it's not such a good example)
County routes are better known in South Jersey, outside of urban areas. In urban areas it's all street names, as you note even for highways (161/Clifton Ave. is one I'm more familiar with, or 159, or so many others). But OB:GSP, that's why you get them signed farther south but not up north, and for that matter, you may even see some 600s down south.



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.