AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Roadrunner75 on July 30, 2014, 09:53:00 PM

Title: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 30, 2014, 09:53:00 PM
With all the construction projects currently going on along the GSP, I think it's time for its own thread.  I get to enjoy the 83-100 widening work every day, and it looks like the end is in sight for at least the contract from 83 to 88, with 3 bridges left to complete. 

Does anyone know the current status of the upgrade of 91 to a full interchange?  The new full interchanges at 88 and 89 are in progress now along with the widening work, but I don't see anything going on at 91 other than the bridge replacement for the widening project.  For awhile Ocean County was really pushing 91 (seemingly over the far more important 88/89 project) and it still appears on the County Engineering website, although I don't think it's been updated in awhile. 

Also, I've been hearing about a southbound exit for 83 in Toms River for years, but haven't seen anything in awhile.  I can't see any good place to put it anyway without causing a major traffic problem.




Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2014, 10:00:05 PM
I see a straight ramp to CR 517 would be a good option.  Even a straight ramp to  US 9 that would T in to it just north of CR 571.   It should be signed for all the routes such as NB US 9, SB NJ 166, and CR 571 with the control point of Pleasant Plains.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on July 30, 2014, 10:05:00 PM
The construction on the Parkway in that area is absolutely crazy. We went on a Saturday for LBI, which is exit 63. From 98 to 63 took almost an hour. The shoulder installation still seems like it may wrap up by next year or so. I can't wait until the Bass River and Mullica River bridges are complete, as well as the new exits. Also further south, they are improving exits 41 and 37.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 30, 2014, 10:11:37 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 30, 2014, 10:00:05 PM
I see a straight ramp to CR 517 would be a good option.  Even a straight ramp to  US 9 that would T in to it just north of CR 571.   It should be signed for all the routes such as NB US 9, SB NJ 166, and CR 571 with the control point of Pleasant Plains.
It's pretty tight between the GSP and 9 for an exit ramp to 571.  This stretch is often backed up to the GSP overpass without the help of merging GSP traffic, although they are widening 571 under the bridge to 4 lanes finally.  Route 9 also can back up pretty good north of 571 approaching the light.  I've thought about an exit to Whitty Road a little bit north, but unless they widen Whitty and Route 9 south from there, it'll be a complete disaster.  There has been talk of widening 9 from Toms River to Lakewood over the years, so maybe if that ever happens, the exit might work.  Another more elaborate option that might work a little better is to have the exit cross over the GSP and tie into the new roadway that allows access on and off the GSP northbound (the recently completed Lomell Lane).  However, the wooded area just SE of the 571 overpasses that would be the best alignment for such a ramp is preserved land under the County Natural Lands Trust.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 10:49:25 AM
I would say the NJTA needs to help by widening US 9 between just north of CR 571 from 2 to 6 lanes.  That would eliminate the problem with extra traffic being dumped onto US 9.  The right lane SB would default onto the GSP with the center lane being either or for NJ 166 or the SB GSP. The left lane would be, of course, NJ 166 SB.  The 83 ramp going south would become two lanes and 166 would remain two lanes under the GSP overpass and then narrow to the overall two lanes shortly afterwards.  NB would widen to three after the overpass and could do a drastic drop north of the new SB off ramp.

As far as US 9 getting widened south of Lakewood, do not hold your breath.  US 206 from Bedminster to Netcong, NJ 31 from Clinton to Washington, US 9 from Beachwood to Barnegate, NJ 23 from Stockholm to Sussex, and many other roads also need widening, but NJ is too broke to address even these.  Heck look how long it took NJDOT to finally widen US 1 from I-287 to US 9 in Edison/ Woodbridge.  It needed to be done back in the 80's as that Ford Avenue intersection was always a major chokepoint for drivers.  I lived near there from 87 to 90  and dreaded to drive through that particular intersection every day.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 01:13:22 PM
I don't expect 9 to be widened from Lakewood to Toms River for a long time if at all.  The County brings it up from time to time and complains about it, but I don't see it happening any time soon.  To partly compensate, Ocean County has gradually improved the nearby and parallel New Hampshire Ave. (CR 623), with the northern section now mostly 4 lanes, as a bypass of sorts to Route 9.  I don't think exit 83 SB will ever happen without widening on 9 north of 571.

Does anybody else read the Asbury Park Press, and if so, does anyone remember the "Joe on the Go" column?  Every Sunday he'd answer a reader's questions about the roads in the area, construction, etc. and would reach out to the appropriate agency for an answer.  Regarding the GSP, someone complained about the implementation of the northbound Express EZ-Pass lanes at the Asbury Park tolls, and how it created a dangerous weaving situation beyond where express and cash toll users had to cross paths in a very short distance to get into the express and local lanes.  I fully agree with the reader, as the Express EZ-Pass users (like me) keeping right for the local lanes have to compete with cash toll users just accelerating from the tolls who want to weave left across two lanes for the express lanes.  I've almost been taken out by people on the right on a few occasions (usually with them on a cell phone).  The weaving area is dangerously short and should be lengthened by moving the split further north (there is room) or just forcing all the cash toll users to stay in the local lanes.  Of course the NJTA responded to Joe on the Go that the design was fine and there wasn't a problem.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2014, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on July 30, 2014, 10:05:00 PM
The construction on the Parkway in that area is absolutely crazy. We went on a Saturday for LBI, which is exit 63. From 98 to 63 took almost an hour.

35 miles and took about an hour?  Man, that's fast for a Saturday on the Parkway! 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2014, 05:27:05 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 01:13:22 PM
Of course the NJTA responded to Joe on the Go that the design was fine and there wasn't a problem.

Try telling that to my mother, who almost got hit by someone cutting her off trying to get to the express lanes. Its a problem at the Raritan Plaza too, I even caught it on video (watch the pickup dart across the gore point).

http://youtu.be/MNu4LWoMSPg?t=2m21s
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mtantillo on July 31, 2014, 07:25:31 PM
I think it would be a good idea to just make the cash people stay in the local lanes until the crossovers by Exit 116.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 08:35:06 PM
It's the usual case where codes and design manuals are pointed to as justification, while common sense goes out the window.  "The book says it works".  It clearly doesn't, and they're having much slower, accelerating traffic cross paths with people tooling along at 80.  There is room to push the gore back a bit at the Asbury tolls, but the easier option is to allow access to the express lanes only from the express EZ-Pass.  They could accomplish that with minimal effort - a signage change, some restriping and maybe dumping a few Jersey barriers down and we're good to go.  I invite the Turnpike's engineers to drive it sometime and see for themselves.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 09:44:29 PM
It does not surprise me at all that they are doing this.  Until a series of accidents happen, then they will take action.  Also they forget that at Exit 37 they are presently brading the ramps with the Exit 38 on ramp due to weaving concerns.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2014, 10:01:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 09:44:29 PM
It does not surprise me at all that they are doing this.  Until a series of accidents happen, then they will take action.  Also they forget that at Exit 37 they are presently brading the ramps with the Exit 38 on ramp due to weaving concerns.
They are only braiding the SB ramp. NB will remain as is.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 10:05:02 PM
I did not say that they were.  Yes the SB side is and my point was that if they consider that a concern than the plazas at Raritan and Asbury Park should be one as stated here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 11:09:18 PM
So when are we getting flyover ramps from GSP SB to AC Expressway EB and GSP NB to ACE WB?  That'll solve some weaving there for a few extra bucks.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on July 31, 2014, 11:27:43 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 11:09:18 PM
So when are we getting flyover ramps from GSP SB to AC Expressway EB and GSP NB to ACE WB?  That'll solve some weaving there for a few extra bucks.



But, but that's common sense!  It's needed! We can't have that! </sarc>

That would solve a LOT of problems, both for folks coming down from New York and folks coming up from Ocean City/The Wildwoods to get back to Philly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2014, 10:57:01 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 11:09:18 PM
So when are we getting flyover ramps from GSP SB to AC Expressway EB and GSP NB to ACE WB?  That'll solve some weaving there for a few extra bucks.


I think at least the NB-WB ramp is in long-term plans, but $ is currently going to widening projects; fixing bridges gets money first, and then remaining ramp improvements. At the end of widenings a few years out, there may be improvements beyond those planned in the short term; that depends on the NJTA's Capital Plan. (They last did one in 2010, and that laid out the projects over the next several years.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 02, 2014, 08:16:45 PM
I just looked at the project to braid the ramps SB at 37 and 38 on the NJTA's website as mentioned above - didn't know about this one, but this is definitely needed.  Although the SB exit at 37 is signed for US 322/40, I've always thought the signage once you get off the ramp is pretty terrible if you're actually trying to get to this road, as it actually dumps you onto CR 608.  Elimination of the old Cardiff Circle was a good move, but it made the route more circuitous to actually get to 322/40, and is poorly signed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 03, 2014, 01:35:17 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 02, 2014, 08:16:45 PM
I just looked at the project to braid the ramps SB at 37 and 38 on the NJTA's website as mentioned above - didn't know about this one, but this is definitely needed.  Although the SB exit at 37 is signed for US 322/40, I've always thought the signage once you get off the ramp is pretty terrible if you're actually trying to get to this road, as it actually dumps you onto CR 608.  Elimination of the old Cardiff Circle was a good move, but it made the route more circuitous to actually get to 322/40, and is poorly signed.
There was consideration to eliminating Exit 37 entirely (or either of the two ramps), since it sits so close to 38 and you have 36 not far away, but it was determined that 37 provided enough usefulness, and I guess traffic volumes really aren't that heavy at that point, that the consideration was dropped.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 04, 2014, 09:14:07 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 03, 2014, 01:35:17 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 02, 2014, 08:16:45 PM
I just looked at the project to braid the ramps SB at 37 and 38 on the NJTA's website as mentioned above - didn't know about this one, but this is definitely needed.  Although the SB exit at 37 is signed for US 322/40, I've always thought the signage once you get off the ramp is pretty terrible if you're actually trying to get to this road, as it actually dumps you onto CR 608.  Elimination of the old Cardiff Circle was a good move, but it made the route more circuitous to actually get to 322/40, and is poorly signed.
There was consideration to eliminating Exit 37 entirely (or either of the two ramps), since it sits so close to 38 and you have 36 not far away, but it was determined that 37 provided enough usefulness, and I guess traffic volumes really aren't that heavy at that point, that the consideration was dropped.

Exits 36/37 are incomplete. I could see combining them so that there is direct access to both directions of 40/322 from both directions of the Parkway. I'd prefer access to Tilton Road southbound be maintained as well, just because I'm using it, but I think the Black Horse Pike is more important and it would probably not lengthen anyone's drive a great deal if they had to use that to get to the local roads. As it stands, there is not a single full interchange on the GSP in all of Atlantic County, except 38. And none of the upcoming projects seem to change that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 06, 2014, 02:25:22 AM
Thought this would be a good place to also keep tabs on the sign replacement project for 129 and north. So far, only seen a couple of new overheads put up near 131A and a few new signs that were tacked onto the new VMS overheads. They've replaced most of the gore point exit signs with MUTCD compliant ones. I noticed though that the ones for 131 in both directions and for 131A going southbound were installed but left covered and the old signs remain for now. Is it possible they're going to renumber 131 to 132 and make 131A southbound just be 131 since that is more MUTCD compliant? Also, have noticed that most of the concrete footings for the new sign bridges are almost all installed along the stretch through the Union tolls. I'm wondering when we might see new signs finally go up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 06, 2014, 09:08:20 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 06, 2014, 02:25:22 AM
Thought this would be a good place to also keep tabs on the sign replacement project for 129 and north. So far, only seen a couple of new overheads put up near 131A and a few new signs that were tacked onto the new VMS overheads. They've replaced most of the gore point exit signs with MUTCD compliant ones. I noticed though that the ones for 131 in both directions and for 131A going southbound were installed but left covered and the old signs remain for now. Is it possible they're going to renumber 131 to 132 and make 131A southbound just be 131 since that is more MUTCD compliant? Also, have noticed that most of the concrete footings for the new sign bridges are almost all installed along the stretch through the Union tolls. I'm wondering when we might see new signs finally go up.
Why is the order 131A, 131B, 131 anyway? That doesn't make any sense. I would guess they were numbered in the order in which they were opened. Even if 131 opened first, why was it numbered 131 if the mile marker is beyond 132? Were the miles realigned? Was the exit moved?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 06, 2014, 09:47:25 AM
Did you know also that milepost 124 is south of Exit 123?  Mile 136 is closer to Exit 135 than it is to Exit 136 as well.  The 131 mess is not the only thing messy with exit numbers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 06, 2014, 02:58:23 PM
QuoteWhy is the order 131A, 131B, 131 anyway? That doesn't make any sense. I would guess they were numbered in the order in which they were opened. Even if 131 opened first, why was it numbered 131 if the mile marker is beyond 132? Were the miles realigned? Was the exit moved?

Fairly certain that it's because when the Parkway was first built (this was the Route 4 Parkway built by the state, not the NJHA), there was the exit for Rt 27. The Metropark exits didn't come until 1969 or 70 when the train station and office buildings started getting built. The numbering thing, well that's just one of those fun New Jersey Highway Authority things that is legacy for the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 06, 2014, 05:39:00 PM
The exit numbers are all off from about 123 through 161. 120 and 163 are spot-on. Miles are almost 2 off from exits through Essex Co. Never figured out why.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PurdueBill on August 07, 2014, 12:02:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 06, 2014, 09:08:20 AM
Why is the order 131A, 131B, 131 anyway? That doesn't make any sense. I would guess they were numbered in the order in which they were opened. Even if 131 opened first, why was it numbered 131 if the mile marker is beyond 132? Were the miles realigned? Was the exit moved?

Reminds me of the old Ohio Turnpike exit numbers going 2, 3, 3B, 3A, 4.  Exit 3A was added between 3 and 4, then 3B between 3 and 3A. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2014, 01:51:34 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on August 07, 2014, 12:02:49 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 06, 2014, 09:08:20 AM
Why is the order 131A, 131B, 131 anyway? That doesn't make any sense. I would guess they were numbered in the order in which they were opened. Even if 131 opened first, why was it numbered 131 if the mile marker is beyond 132? Were the miles realigned? Was the exit moved?

Reminds me of the old Ohio Turnpike exit numbers going 2, 3, 3B, 3A, 4.  Exit 3A was added between 3 and 4, then 3B between 3 and 3A. 
The exit on I-275 for Dale Mabry in Tampa had a similar situation back in the sequential exit numbering days where the A suffixed exit was the one for EB US 92 (NB Dale) and the B was for US 92 WB (SB Dale) where the A was farther away from the southern terminus where the exit numbers themselves go down.

Also FDOT District 5 thought of numbering the Saxton Boulevard Interchange with double suffixes.  EB Saxton was Exit 53CA and WB Saxton was Exit 53CB.  I wrote FDOT about it and they said because the exit was indeed Exit 53C having two separate ramps needed the extra alphabet soup.  However, it would have made more sense to just use Exit 53 A for EB and Exit 53 B for WB as there was already a Exit 53 for nearby Dirkson Drive.  You would have it as Exit 53, Exit 53A and Exit 53 B all in a row.  D5 always loved to skip A and B as well on I-95 as Palm Coast was Exit 91C and not Exit 91A as it should have been.

Thank God for milepost numbering as it is now all straight except for EB Kaley Street in Orlando having both Exit 81 A and Exit 81 B for the same exit ramp to be consistent with the two separate ramps WB for both directions which are respectively Exit 81 C for WB Kaley and Exit 81 B for EB Kaley.   Plus WB Michigan Street in which EB I-4 has no ramp for is Exit 81 A it is not that simple to just make it just plain ole Exit 81. With this added factor and being that ramp serves both directions from EB I-4 it needs to have two suffixes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: froggie on August 07, 2014, 07:22:29 AM
QuoteThe exit numbers are all off from about 123 through 161. 120 and 163 are spot-on. Miles are almost 2 off from exits through Essex Co. Never figured out why.

I've heard/read in the past that this was to minimize the need for suffixed exit numbers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 07, 2014, 11:42:21 AM
I wonder what the plan will be for exit numbering at 88 and 89 once they finish the widening work in that area.  They are building new C/D lanes that will serve both these exits.  Through traffic is actually currently using the new C/D lane roadways and bridges over NJ 70 while the bridges on the mainline are being replaced.  When construction is complete, the current SB 89 exit and tolls will serve both 88 and 89, while there will be a new NB exit for 88 and 89 as well (finally!).  Do they plan to sign both exits (NB and SB) as a single exit, or sign the exits for both 88 and 89?  I've seen plenty of situations with either scenario.  At 98, multiple ramps from the C/D roads are signed as a single exit.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 07, 2014, 09:05:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 07, 2014, 07:22:29 AM
QuoteThe exit numbers are all off from about 123 through 161. 120 and 163 are spot-on. Miles are almost 2 off from exits through Essex Co. Never figured out why.

I've heard/read in the past that this was to minimize the need for suffixed exit numbers.
Okay, so drop every number starting at 123 by one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 08, 2014, 08:52:53 AM
The numbers 138, 139, and 140 they did to avoid the suffixes as Mile 140 is at Exit 138.  All three of these exits are less than a mile apart, so I can see, but Exit 123 has no conflict.  Like Alps says it is not an issue there.

As far as Exit 131A goes, it was opened in 1975 even though Metropark was opened sooner.  I remember seeing the exit opened for the first time on a 4th Grade Class Trip to Rutgers Farm in New Brunswick.  It had small green signs then as the overheads were added by NJDOT in 1980 when the Parkway was widened from 6 overall lanes to 8. 

Exit 131B was created from when the NB Exit 131A was built in 1986.  The numbers were shifted as Exit 131B was the original 131A.  Southbound 131A was there before the trumpet was built but only slip ramps to Wood Avenue to and from the south.

Yes the numbers are off there and I agree should have been done much better.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 08, 2014, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2014, 08:52:53 AM
The numbers 138, 139, and 140 they did to avoid the suffixes as Mile 140 is at Exit 138.  All three of these exits are less than a mile apart, so I can see, but Exit 123 has no conflict.  Like Alps says it is not an issue there.

As far as Exit 131A goes, it was opened in 1975 even though Metropark was opened sooner.  I remember seeing the exit opened for the first time on a 4th Grade Class Trip to Rutgers Farm in New Brunswick.  It had small green signs then as the overheads were added by NJDOT in 1980 when the Parkway was widened from 6 overall lanes to 8. 

Exit 131B was created from when the NB Exit 131A was built in 1986.  The numbers were shifted as Exit 131B was the original 131A.  Southbound 131A was there before the trumpet was built but only slip ramps to Wood Avenue to and from the south.

Yes the numbers are off there and I agree should have been done much better.
If 131A was changed to 131B, why couldn't they change 131 to 131C at the same time, as long as they were already doing renumbering? Or 132 if they didn't want to have different numbers, or missing exits (131C and A southbound with no B) NB vs SB?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 08, 2014, 11:05:12 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 08, 2014, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2014, 08:52:53 AM
The numbers 138, 139, and 140 they did to avoid the suffixes as Mile 140 is at Exit 138.  All three of these exits are less than a mile apart, so I can see, but Exit 123 has no conflict.  Like Alps says it is not an issue there.

As far as Exit 131A goes, it was opened in 1975 even though Metropark was opened sooner.  I remember seeing the exit opened for the first time on a 4th Grade Class Trip to Rutgers Farm in New Brunswick.  It had small green signs then as the overheads were added by NJDOT in 1980 when the Parkway was widened from 6 overall lanes to 8. 

Exit 131B was created from when the NB Exit 131A was built in 1986.  The numbers were shifted as Exit 131B was the original 131A.  Southbound 131A was there before the trumpet was built but only slip ramps to Wood Avenue to and from the south.

Yes the numbers are off there and I agree should have been done much better.
If 131A was changed to 131B, why couldn't they change 131 to 131C at the same time, as long as they were already doing renumbering? Or 132 if they didn't want to have different numbers, or missing exits (131C and A southbound with no B) NB vs SB?
That is a good question.  It is just a good question is why is US 22 signed Exit 140 going NB and 140A going SB or even why there is no A-B-C altogether like at at Exits 38, 63, and 82?  You have an exit at those locations without suffix and the the others with an A suffix when other highways would be 38 A & B, 63 A & B, and 82 A & B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 08, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 10, 2014, 02:31:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2014, 08:52:53 AM
The numbers 138, 139, and 140 they did to avoid the suffixes as Mile 140 is at Exit 138.  All three of these exits are less than a mile apart, so I can see, but Exit 123 has no conflict.  Like Alps says it is not an issue there.

As far as Exit 131A goes, it was opened in 1975 even though Metropark was opened sooner.  I remember seeing the exit opened for the first time on a 4th Grade Class Trip to Rutgers Farm in New Brunswick.  It had small green signs then as the overheads were added by NJDOT in 1980 when the Parkway was widened from 6 overall lanes to 8. 

Exit 131B was created from when the NB Exit 131A was built in 1986.  The numbers were shifted as Exit 131B was the original 131A.  Southbound 131A was there before the trumpet was built but only slip ramps to Wood Avenue to and from the south.

Yes the numbers are off there and I agree should have been done much better.

I would love to see some pictures of this.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 10, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 08, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Do you mean exit 38? (AC Expressway).  I was looking to see if 82/82A (Route 37) were getting their suffixes updated, but nothing yet.  As much as the people on this forum would like to see this kind of thing cleaned up (admittedly myself included), I could see it being a big problem for local businesses who have their marketing materials (directions) based on the current exit numbers, not to mention the cost of changing the signage.  Also, New Yorkers/North Jerseyites heading for Seaside (to be filmed for MTV starting fights on the boardwalk) will flood downtown Toms River at exit 81 when they get 'recalculated' by their GPS units. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on August 10, 2014, 02:59:05 PM
They should do what Florida did when it renumbered their interstates; just put a small sign on the top left of the BGS with the old exit number on it, as in "Old Exit 81".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: signalman on August 10, 2014, 04:39:05 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on August 10, 2014, 02:59:05 PM
They should do what Florida did when it renumbered their interstates; just put a small sign on the top left of the BGS with the old exit number on it, as in "Old Exit 81".
NJDOT did use signs like that when they renumbered exits.  However, it was worded "Formerly Exit 25" (or whatever the old exit number was).  I am assuming NJTPC will opt for similar signs when a renumbering takes place.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 11, 2014, 01:46:46 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 10, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 08, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Do you mean exit 38? (AC Expressway).  I was looking to see if 82/82A (Route 37) were getting their suffixes updated, but nothing yet.  As much as the people on this forum would like to see this kind of thing cleaned up (admittedly myself included), I could see it being a big problem for local businesses who have their marketing materials (directions) based on the current exit numbers, not to mention the cost of changing the signage.  Also, New Yorkers/North Jerseyites heading for Seaside (to be filmed for MTV starting fights on the boardwalk) will flood downtown Toms River at exit 81 when they get 'recalculated' by their GPS units. 


Drove down to Toms River today. 82 and 82A are still the same. Even looks like some new BGS's have been put up with all the widening projects going on south of 91.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on August 11, 2014, 03:31:47 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 11, 2014, 01:46:46 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 10, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 08, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Do you mean exit 38? (AC Expressway).  I was looking to see if 82/82A (Route 37) were getting their suffixes updated, but nothing yet.  As much as the people on this forum would like to see this kind of thing cleaned up (admittedly myself included), I could see it being a big problem for local businesses who have their marketing materials (directions) based on the current exit numbers, not to mention the cost of changing the signage.  Also, New Yorkers/North Jerseyites heading for Seaside (to be filmed for MTV starting fights on the boardwalk) will flood downtown Toms River at exit 81 when they get 'recalculated' by their GPS units. 


Drove down to Toms River today. 82 and 82A are still the same. Even looks like some new BGS's have been put up with all the widening projects going on south of 91.

Ah yes, Toms River . . .

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1gWhKmL.png&hash=05e42410672d1df21713d4f4c09e8ba874bd6a9c)

Sorry, I know it's not related to the GSP, but it's always the first thing I think of when I think of Toms River (which is rare).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 11, 2014, 10:39:12 AM
Quote from: jake on August 11, 2014, 03:31:47 AM
Ah yes, Toms River . . .

Sorry, I know it's not related to the GSP, but it's always the first thing I think of when I think of Toms River (which is rare).

Yes - by the mall.  In New Jersey we'll take our cloverleaf interchanges with or without bridges in the middle.

With respect to Toms River and changing the GSP suffixes at 82, the township already went through a name change a few years ago from Dover Township.  It passed the vote, with the township implying that the costs would be minimal such as updating some stationery (I thought of all those police cars and Twp. vehicles with 'Dover Township' on them, not to mention all the businesses having to deal with it as well...)  Change the suffixes and there's going to be some businesses feeling like the Italian souvenir seller in Superman III, with his Leaning Tower of Pisa statues....

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2014, 11:22:30 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 10, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 08, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Do you mean exit 38? (AC Expressway).
Maybe I meant 63 and 63A. Something in that area of the shore.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 13, 2014, 10:36:20 PM
I was reminded recently of the "tollbooth graveyard" that is on the side of the NB GSP lanes right before the Asbury tolls, shown here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.249091,-74.081659&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.249198,-74.081891&panoid=2yFT93Wo2zd-LVMmS3oBkg&cbp=12,60.34,,1,-0.53 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.249091,-74.081659&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.249198,-74.081891&panoid=2yFT93Wo2zd-LVMmS3oBkg&cbp=12,60.34,,1,-0.53)
There is an interesting article about this that I remembered reading in the Star Ledger from 2012, with some photos here:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/as_fully_electronic_tolling_lo.html (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/as_fully_electronic_tolling_lo.html)
How soon before I see these on Ebay?



Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2014, 06:20:34 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 13, 2014, 10:36:20 PM
I was reminded recently of the "tollbooth graveyard" that is on the side of the NB GSP lanes right before the Asbury tolls, shown here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.249091,-74.081659&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.249198,-74.081891&panoid=2yFT93Wo2zd-LVMmS3oBkg&cbp=12,60.34,,1,-0.53 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.249091,-74.081659&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.249198,-74.081891&panoid=2yFT93Wo2zd-LVMmS3oBkg&cbp=12,60.34,,1,-0.53)


When you go out of GSV and into satalite mode, you see a big parking lot, which is now used by 1 or 2 vehicles.  The toll plaza, once about 15 lanes wide with maybe half or more of those lanes staffed, only needs  1 or 2 manned lanes anymore.  The EZ Pass effect. :-)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 12:22:26 PM
Exits 142 is now 142 A-B-C?  What is the NB US 22 exit 142A and B is for NJ 82 Westbound on the SB side with 142C being the SB US 22 ramp?

Also why is US 22 EB directed via the ramp for US 22 WB and navigating the NJ 82 off and on ramps instead of using Exit 141 and Vauxhall Road?  Going WB to NB the GSP northbound motorists are directed off of US 22 WB at Vauxhall Road, so why not do the opposite maneuver here?  In fact I believe it once was as back in the 80's as the control city for the US 22 EB ramp from EB Vauxhall Road had both "Newark Airport & New York" as other US 22 EB ramps always used "New York" in that general area.  Plus an old AAA exit directory guide from 1960 did refer to Exit 141 as being Vauxhall Road- To US 22 East- Union- Newark Airport, as I saw it as a youngster in my dad's belongings.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 02, 2014, 07:54:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 12:22:26 PM
gibberish

The first paragraph of your "opinions" are wrong. The second paragraph is also wrong. You should look at a map and only post facts, Richard Bullis.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 03, 2014, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 02, 2014, 07:54:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 12:22:26 PM
gibberish

The first paragraph of your "opinions" are wrong. The second paragraph is also wrong. You should look at a map and only post facts, Richard Bullis.
I got my exit numbers wrong just like you did as well in a previous post.  Sorry I am only human.

Anyway, in the second paragraph it is fact that US 22 east is signed from Exit 140 A and required that you u turn to US 22 East from US 22 West via NJ 82.  The 140A ramp is only for US 22 WB not for both directions. 

Also US 22 WB to NB GSP is directed via Vauxhall Road! That is not IMO, but fact easily proven by going to GSV.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on September 03, 2014, 05:18:05 PM
Does anyone have any information of the current status of the Parkway interchange construction between exits 5 and 13?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 03, 2014, 10:20:34 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on September 03, 2014, 05:18:05 PM
Does anyone have any information of the current status of the Parkway interchange construction between exits 5 and 13?
We're due for one of our Cape May day trips now that it's entering the off-season, so I should be able to report back sometime soon.  Just looking at GSV, the image dates of October of last year in the "exit" 10 and 11 vicinity look pretty much like I remember it most recently, with the lane shifts toward the outside to start grading for the overpasses.  I'm curious myself about the progress.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2014, 11:20:29 PM
I was there a week ago. The southbound sides of all the overpasses are done, but no traffic shifts have taken place.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 04, 2014, 11:58:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 03, 2014, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 02, 2014, 07:54:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 12:22:26 PM
gibberish

The first paragraph of your "opinions" are wrong. The second paragraph is also wrong. You should look at a map and only post facts, Richard Bullis.
I got my exit numbers wrong just like you did as well in a previous post.  Sorry I am only human.

Anyway, in the second paragraph it is fact that US 22 east is signed from Exit 140 A and required that you u turn to US 22 East from US 22 West via NJ 82.  The 140A ramp is only for US 22 WB not for both directions. 

Also US 22 WB to NB GSP is directed via Vauxhall Road! That is not IMO, but fact easily proven by going to GSV.
Let's go...
GSP NB, you take the one exit to US 22 EB, and then you keep left for the U-turn to 22 WB. Easy.
GSP SB, you would THINK you should take Vauxhall Rd. to 22 EB, but now you're dealing with two left turns. Using 82 keeps it as two right turns, so it makes sense.
22W to GSP N, of course you use Vauxhall. You're barely on it and it's a low-demand movement.
22E to GSP S, you just use the U-turn onto 22W.
That's it for the freeway to Jersey-freeway movements.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 05, 2014, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 04, 2014, 11:58:21 PM
22E to GSP S, you just use the U-turn onto 22W.
That's it for the freeway to Jersey-freeway movements.

The locals don't go this route, because its too far out of the way. There is a shortcut.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2014, 07:45:50 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 05, 2014, 05:15:42 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 04, 2014, 11:58:21 PM
22E to GSP S, you just use the U-turn onto 22W.
That's it for the freeway to Jersey-freeway movements.

The locals don't go this route, because its too far out of the way. There is a shortcut.
Just working the interchange itself, not shortcuts farther from it. There are others, of course.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 11, 2014, 11:37:26 AM
I've seen contractors putting up the supports for new overhead gantries between the 129 onramp and 131. Looks like we'll see some new MUTCD signs in the very near future.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 10:54:23 AM
I am anxious to see the new Exit 129 southbound signs with "Camden" as a control rather than "Del. Mem. Br." as it always was since the mid 80's.

Also is "Shore Points" still being kept or is the NJTA going to use "Toms River" as the selected control city south of Woodbridge is that?  Already the new Exit 89 signs have the Ocean County Seat as control point on the pull through signs there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on September 13, 2014, 11:00:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 10:54:23 AM
I am anxious to see the new Exit 129 southbound signs with "Camden" as a control rather than "Del. Mem. Br." as it has been since the mid 80's.

Maybe it's just me, but I think Bellmawr might work better then Camden heading south on the Turnpike. There are only a select few ways you can actually get to Camden from the Turnpike - Exit 4 (NJ 73) to NJ 38 West, or Exit 3 - (NJ 168) north into Camden.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 11:05:40 AM
The problem is that Bellmawr is not used on any exit signs. 
 
Yeah, it would work, but Exit 3 is now signed "Camden- Atlantic City Expressway"  It used to be "Camden- Woodbury" up until the NJTA updated its signs recently.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 13, 2014, 12:31:46 PM
The problem is also that most Turnpike travelers have never heard of Bellmawr, very few of the remainder are going there and potential confusion with Belmar along the shore.  Camden or Del. Mem. Br. are about the only reasonable controls.  Toms River is OK along the GSP, but Shore Points is a better description.  I do like the Toms River pull through at 89, but more so because I live close by and it's more like rooting for the home team.
Title: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 01:24:00 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 13, 2014, 12:31:46 PM
The problem is also that most Turnpike travelers have never heard of Bellmawr, very few of the remainder are going there and potential confusion with Belmar along the shore.  Camden or Del. Mem. Br. are about the only reasonable controls.  Toms River is OK along the GSP, but Shore Points is a better description.  I do like the Toms River pull through at 89, but more so because I live close by and it's more like rooting for the home team.

Bellmawr?  What's that?  I grew up in New Jersey and Bellmawr is meaningless to me.  Sounds like the next Brewster, NY, as control cities go.

Del Mem Br might be weird but it's where the Turnpike goes.  Camden is way off the Turnpike; I'd use "Wilmington, DE" if a control city well off the road is acceptable.  The best reason I could see justifying signing Camden is to promote Camden, which, while clearly a New Jersey state goal to a fault, shouldn't be the motivation for a control city.  If it's going to be Camden, it should instead be Philadelphia.  78 East is signed primarily for New York, not Jersey City.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:24:48 PM
Baltimore might work even better.  It has been suggested that it is a better control than Wilmington on past threads by some users here. Given the NJ Turnpike has no real cities directly along this path I think Baltimore should really be.

However, I have no real quarrel with Trenton, Camden, or even Wilmington as they are points served indirectly by the NJT like some  of us here do.  I only am stating that perfectly Baltimore, even from the GSP hundreds of miles away, is a great choice over all of them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on September 13, 2014, 01:28:29 PM
Driving on the Parkway the other day, several exit signs are being replaced, north of exit 129. I wonder if they will eventually replace the ones south of this. The old ones have the arrow next to the number, as opposed to beneath it. I like the new ones they put up better, where they are easier to see and not as cramped. Also the new ones have better wooden posts and brackets supporting them from the back, instead of just nailing them in directly into the post. I also noticed a lot of overhead signs being replaced too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:37:01 PM
I wish I can answer this one for you better, but I have not lived in NJ for almost a quarter of a century.  From what I hear on here it seems that NJTA is going MUTCD.

IMO about the wooden signs, those are nice and always gave the Parkway its own identity, but from what you say about the new supports behind the sign, maybe it might be because Sandy wakened engineers up to the possibility that another storm like that one could take out those.  I really do not know, but its possible.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on September 13, 2014, 01:38:37 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 01:24:00 PM

Bellmawr?  What's that?  I grew up in New Jersey and Bellmawr is meaningless to me.  Sounds like the next Brewster, NY, as control cities go.

Del Mem Br might be weird but it's where the Turnpike goes.  Camden is way off the Turnpike; I'd use "Wilmington, DE" if a control city well off the road is acceptable.  The best reason I could see justifying signing Camden is to promote Camden, which, while clearly a New Jersey state goal to a fault, shouldn't be the motivation for a control city.  If it's going to be Camden, it should instead be Philadelphia.  78 East is signed primarily for New York, not Jersey City.

Being that the State Aquarium is in Camden, among with other Waterfront attractions I can see why they signed Camden for the Turnpike, but I'd have a feeling most Aquarium users would take either 295 or they are coming from Philadelphia where they can take 676 from the get-go instead of the Turnpike. The pullthrough signs are new though for the Turnpike Authority so signing Camden when the Turnpike goes into the Camden area isn't the worst thing I guess. Unlike Trenton, there's really nothing to do in Camden but go to the Waterfront, because most of the city isn't exactly a bustling place to begin with.

Also, the Turnpike will have Trenton as a control city, and it doesn't go anywhere near Trenton, but it does provide access to I-195 which will take you directly to Trenton should you follow it all the way to the western terminus at NJ 29 and I-295. In the case of Camden, you can take 168 all the way up (albeit you will go through some sketchy areas) and if you kept staying the same road you would reach Camden.

Quote from: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:37:01 PM
I wish I can answer this one for you better, but I have not lived in NJ for almost a quarter of a century.  From what I hear on here it seems that NJTA is going MUTCD.

Yes, that is true. The FHWA pretty much forced them to, but I hope they continue using some of their signing practices on the MUTCD-spec signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I myself always liked the GSP wooden posts along with the rusted gantries.  I am only disappointed that they were indeed forced to abandon the original exit gore signs with the arrow inside a circle on the top right corners for right side exits and top left for left side exits.  That was neat back in the 70's to see them signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 13, 2014, 08:10:55 PM
Lewes, DE :)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on September 15, 2014, 11:44:22 AM
Driving along the parkway yesterday, they still have the old exit signs north of exit 142 at gore points such as these: http://goo.gl/maps/osc8d Hopefully they will move north and replace the remaining ones. That arrow should not be next to the word 'exit'. The new ones are much better and clearer.

Also some exit ramps such as the one in the link above, lack advisory speed signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 15, 2014, 12:08:51 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 15, 2014, 11:44:22 AM
Driving along the parkway yesterday, they still have the old exit signs north of exit 142 at gore points such as these: http://goo.gl/maps/osc8d Hopefully they will move north and replace the remaining ones. That arrow should not be next to the word 'exit'. The new ones are much better and clearer.

I disagree. I think the old signs were nice and had a bit of charm. I'm pretty sure they'll be replaced eventually, though. Right now the NJTA is focusing on the "free" section of the Parkway between 129 and 141, although they did replace a couple of signs for 144 going SB when they put up one of the new VMS gantries.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on September 15, 2014, 12:43:28 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 15, 2014, 12:08:51 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on September 15, 2014, 11:44:22 AM
Driving along the parkway yesterday, they still have the old exit signs north of exit 142 at gore points such as these: http://goo.gl/maps/osc8d Hopefully they will move north and replace the remaining ones. That arrow should not be next to the word 'exit'. The new ones are much better and clearer.

I disagree. I think the old signs were nice and had a bit of charm. I'm pretty sure they'll be replaced eventually, though. Right now the NJTA is focusing on the "free" section of the Parkway between 129 and 141, although they did replace a couple of signs for 144 going SB when they put up one of the new VMS gantries.

Yeah I suppose they make the parkway "unique" and such.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on September 28, 2014, 07:51:52 PM
Roadman65, I agree with you about those gore signs with the arrow in the circle. Wish they would have kept those!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on September 28, 2014, 08:07:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on September 28, 2014, 07:51:52 PM
I myself always liked the GSP wooden posts along with the rusted gantries.  I am only disappointed that they were indeed forced to abandon the original exit gore signs with the arrow inside a circle on the top right corners for right side exits and top left for left side exits.  That was neat back in the 70's to see them signs.

Roadman65, I agree with you about those gore signs with the arrow in the circle. Wish they would have kept those!

Are there any photos of what we are talking about here?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 30, 2014, 08:02:43 PM
Does anyone know if Michael Suma has them?  He used to always have vintage photos from the early 70's that he shared with many.  Maybe he might have some old GSP signs back when exit numbers were just numbers with no "EXIT" worded on the tabs and of the old exit gore signs as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 01, 2014, 02:15:48 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 30, 2014, 08:02:43 PM
Does anyone know if Michael Suma has them?  He used to always have vintage photos from the early 70's that he shared with many.  Maybe he might have some old GSP signs back when exit numbers were just numbers with no "EXIT" worded on the tabs and of the old exit gore signs as well.

I know someone posted a great vintage photo of the southbound Parkway approaching 145 from the 60s or early 70s. Ground mounted sign and everything. I think it was before they widened anything in that area. More pictures like that would be fascinating.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on October 01, 2014, 04:01:46 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 30, 2014, 08:02:43 PM
Does anyone know if Michael Suma has them?  He used to always have vintage photos from the early 70's that he shared with many.  Maybe he might have some old GSP signs back when exit numbers were just numbers with no "EXIT" worded on the tabs and of the old exit gore signs as well.

It appears that the GSP set the standard for...Ontario freeways? ("exit"-less exit tabs).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Brandon on October 01, 2014, 01:29:12 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 01:24:00 PM
Del Mem Br might be weird but it's where the Turnpike goes.

It's not much different than "Mackinac Bridge" for I-75 in Michigan.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 02, 2014, 12:02:36 AM
found this on a website about parkway history that the Turnpike Authority apparently has up. You can see one of the old ground mount BGS with the exit tab with just the number.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fadq4UYx.jpg&hash=113ab045490f2ccc9d5e11f0d7415d9b42203d4e) (http://imgur.com/adq4UYx)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 02, 2014, 08:16:08 AM
I grew up with those. Turns out I do have a modern photo or three:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fgsp%2Fn171.jpg&hash=6055c317d54014cbe6d2e16bb19f2b563e0693ac)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fgsp%2Fs165.jpg&hash=07b4cd970e6d66b09a03bfe63efdb31a6553af07)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fgsp%2Fs105l.jpg&hash=f2dcdb28e3fe28110af8465e4761070d7db2e164)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 02, 2014, 11:37:42 AM
Is the one for 165 still out there? I know when I drove up that part of the Parkway a few years back, there were still a few of the old signs with the old number only exit tabs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on October 02, 2014, 11:56:19 AM
Quote from: storm2k on October 02, 2014, 11:37:42 AM
Is the one for 165 still out there? I know when I drove up that part of the Parkway a few years back, there were still a few of the old signs with the old number only exit tabs.

The only thing I'm seeing on GMSV are signs that include the word EXIT in the exit tab (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.973954,-74.069363,3a,41.3y,168.91h,88.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sVnQ5LCJT1HP6EWSouQTIXQ!2e0).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2014, 12:02:06 PM
If you use the newer GSV, you can dial it back to 2007, and it says 'Exit 165' then as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2014, 01:44:06 PM
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/gsp/n2.html Scroll down to the bottom of the page as alpsroads.net has the old sign for Exit 171 without the word exit.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 03, 2014, 12:03:17 AM
Quote from: storm2k on October 02, 2014, 11:37:42 AM
Is the one for 165 still out there? I know when I drove up that part of the Parkway a few years back, there were still a few of the old signs with the old number only exit tabs.
I don't think any of these are left now. There MIGHT be one or two scattered in the northern reaches of the Pkwy.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 07, 2014, 11:17:35 PM
The Garden State Parkway is free of traffic lights southbound in Cape May County: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/news/court+house/103316-under+20+months+traffic+flows+southbound

Photos: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152197655945730.1073741830.62719310729&type=3
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 07, 2014, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 07, 2014, 11:17:35 PM
The Garden State Parkway is free of traffic lights southbound in Cape May County: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/news/court+house/103316-under+20+months+traffic+flows+southbound

Photos: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152197655945730.1073741830.62719310729&type=3
Wow...that's great!  I'm due for a trip south to check it out.  Nice photos on the Herald's site too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on October 08, 2014, 12:08:09 AM
^^^YesyesyesYES! Most likely I'll never drive it since the majority of my family up there is down South, but it was always the most aggravating part of the annual neighborhood bus trip to the Wildwoods. Magnificent pictures!

Don't think I'll see the freeway stub of 47 extend down anywhere near the Wildwoods in my lifetime, if ever...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 08, 2014, 12:32:05 AM
Good thing I filmed the whole area last year to preserve the "with traffic lights" experience. They are moving pretty fast with this project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on October 11, 2014, 08:36:52 PM
I read someplace they will be fixing/upgrading the GSP with Route 109 (the southern terminus). There is a traffic signal, where many accidents have occurred as well, but I am not sure about the details with this project. They should reconfigure this and eliminate the signal here, too if possible. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 11, 2014, 10:57:15 PM
Plans are online, I just have to find them again. They plan on putting in a jughandle and reconfiguring the Exit "0" setup.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 12:13:41 AM
This article describes it to some extent:
http://www.ocsentinel.com/oc_sureguide/community/project-aims-to-increase-safety-at-exit-on-garden-state/article_06022da4-ec0e-11e3-8177-0017a43b2370.html (http://www.ocsentinel.com/oc_sureguide/community/project-aims-to-increase-safety-at-exit-on-garden-state/article_06022da4-ec0e-11e3-8177-0017a43b2370.html)
It's not exactly clear, but it sounds like two jughandles in a row south of Exit 0 - the first to allow a U-turn for 109 SB to access GSP NB (which already exists now without a signal) and a second one further south for 109 SB to Ocean Drive (replacing the left turn).  Currently, there are two options to make the U-turn before the bridge - the U-turn loop on the left immediately after the GSP merges into 109, and a second existing jughandle a little further south without a signal.  Neither work that great with heavy traffic coming SB from the GSP.  I can't imagine having back to back jughandles at signals in such close proximity.  I would think one jughandle at Ocean Drive allowing the left turn and U-turn would work OK.

As for the traffic signal you encounter now at the end of the GSP (to allow 109 NB to cross GSP SB), that is relatively recent.  I remember when that was just a stop sign for 109 NB.  I think that signal is here to stay, just maybe with some better advance warning. 

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 12, 2014, 01:18:04 AM
http://www.capemaycountygov.net/FCpdf/Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Conference%20-%20Withers%2003122013.pdf

Page 13-15.

The signal at NJ-109 north has been there for at least 14 years now. Not really all that recent anymore.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 12, 2014, 01:18:04 AM
http://www.capemaycountygov.net/FCpdf/Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Conference%20-%20Withers%2003122013.pdf

Page 13-15.

The signal at NJ-109 north has been there for at least 14 years now. Not really all that recent anymore.
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

As for the signal at the end of the GSP, it still feels new to me, as my family would vacation in Cape May Point since I was a baby almost 40 years ago until I was about 17 or so.  I spent a lot of time going through an unsignalized intersection there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on October 12, 2014, 11:25:10 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

I can definitely forsee that happening, since sometimes on a heavy traffic day the jughandle into the Hamilton Center mall complex gets backed up for most of the loop. One thing I noticed are left exits and entrances, which seem to be a bit more popular than in the past. Unfortunately, I also feel like most people are worse at merging from a left than merging from the right.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2014, 06:12:05 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 12, 2014, 11:25:10 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

I can definitely forsee that happening, since sometimes on a heavy traffic day the jughandle into the Hamilton Center mall complex gets backed up for most of the loop. One thing I noticed are left exits and entrances, which seem to be a bit more popular than in the past. Unfortunately, I also feel like most people are worse at merging from a left than merging from the right.

I know nothing about traffic in the area, but I could foresee a flyover ramp. Unless it would be prohibitively expensive?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 08:09:22 PM
Quote from: jake on October 12, 2014, 06:12:05 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 12, 2014, 11:25:10 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

I can definitely forsee that happening, since sometimes on a heavy traffic day the jughandle into the Hamilton Center mall complex gets backed up for most of the loop. One thing I noticed are left exits and entrances, which seem to be a bit more popular than in the past. Unfortunately, I also feel like most people are worse at merging from a left than merging from the right.

I know nothing about traffic in the area, but I could foresee a flyover ramp. Unless it would be prohibitively expensive?
Probably yes...and the area is tight with surrounding wetlands.  Traffic is pretty light for the off-season down here too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2014, 09:13:27 PM

Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 08:09:22 PM
Quote from: jake on October 12, 2014, 06:12:05 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on October 12, 2014, 11:25:10 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

I can definitely forsee that happening, since sometimes on a heavy traffic day the jughandle into the Hamilton Center mall complex gets backed up for most of the loop. One thing I noticed are left exits and entrances, which seem to be a bit more popular than in the past. Unfortunately, I also feel like most people are worse at merging from a left than merging from the right.

I know nothing about traffic in the area, but I could foresee a flyover ramp. Unless it would be prohibitively expensive?
Probably yes...and the area is tight with surrounding wetlands.  Traffic is pretty light for the off-season down here too.

But it's important to build infrastructure for all times of the year. If we're going to spend money on rebuilding this junction, we should do it right.

Maybe a roundabout, Zeffy? Lol.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 09:09:46 PM
A few pics in the southern area of the GSP (taken at dusk thru a dirty windshield, so clarity isn't all that great):

The Travel Time Sign for Exit 0 (31 miles; 32 minutes).  Because of the LED issues, you can't really tell but the majority of the sign is green.  The digits for the minutes are actually on a black background...with room for 3 digits (I HOPE it's never over 100 minutes for that distance!)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F3F64E6F9-C7F8-4AB2-93C3-A9DAD6EA7710.jpg&hash=690c64fd3a1149536fd7f33ea5b376953b0deaa2) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/3F64E6F9-C7F8-4AB2-93C3-A9DAD6EA7710.jpg.html)

Construction of the new bridge over Great Egg Harbor.  I was zoomed in a bit much to capture the entire pier here, but you can see the height of the new bridge on the north side of the harbor will be considerably higher at this point.  Unlike the current bridge which remains flat for a bit then rises (from the perspective of a driver heading south), this bridge will rise earlier  At mid-point, the height will be a few feet higher, but nothing substantial.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F88850F5F-7951-4330-9105-53C4117B9405.jpg&hash=f4cfb64ee424263cd816f4446cef0aee8d4cdc51) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/88850F5F-7951-4330-9105-53C4117B9405.jpg.html)

On the south side, the slope will be about equivalent to what exists now, but again will be a few feet higher (maybe about 6 feet or so higher, when you factor in the bridge beams underneath the current bridge.  (When we got down to the base of the bridge, a cop had pulled into the median there.  Typical Jersey attitude...the traffic was flowing at about 60 mph in a 35 mph construction zone right past the cop...and that was considered completely normal).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F9A860467-4143-4D2A-B78D-1AF72F139AFE.jpg&hash=1228e742232596c93d51e05639e7ce97b57c979a) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/9A860467-4143-4D2A-B78D-1AF72F139AFE.jpg.html)

I won't show the pictures of the new overpasses at Exits 11, 10 & 9, because the ones shown previously are much better in quality.  Here's one pic of the new Exit 10 signage though.  Previously (and still true for the NB side), the traffic lights operated like a normal intersection: Left Turns kept left; Right Turns kept Right.  For some reason, only Exit 10 was signed 10A for left turns and 10B for right turns (and the opposite, of course, going in the opposite direction). 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F72f78a99-efcb-4799-b282-8f72336613e3.jpg&hash=ec2a84a1826122ce6d74a663886394480cb14e2d) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/72f78a99-efcb-4799-b282-8f72336613e3.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 25, 2014, 09:35:14 PM
Nice - We were thinking about taking a day trip down to Cape May, so these photos are about as close as I'll get.  Maybe next weekend, so I can see the 9/10/11 progress and the Great Egg Harbor Bridge work.  I assume when the bridge is finished, they will route all traffic onto it, so they can rehabilitate the original span next?

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 09:37:32 PM
I believe that's the plan - the new bridge will be wide enough for 4 lanes; good for the construction period, but when it's done it'll be 2 lanes wide, a wide shoulder (to accommodate a 3rd lane in the future) and a bike/ped path.

I didn't go northbound on the Parkway on this trip - we went to Wildwood for pizza and the Cape May Brewery for, well, brews...then took 47/55 back home.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 09:27:10 PM
If you like old button copy, better act quick. Many of the new signs between Exits 129 and 140 are in the shoulders awaiting installation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 03, 2014, 10:24:39 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 09:27:10 PM
If you like old button copy, better act quick. Many of the new signs between Exits 129 and 140 are in the shoulders awaiting installation.

Saw some signs in the median by Exit 130 tonight. A couple of things that caught my eye:

Exit 130 is getting suffixes (B and A for south and north). Exit 131A doesn't look like it will mention Metropark anymore going northbound. Just going to say S. Wood Ave. Makes sense to me to send traffic to the train station to use 131B which comes out right by the parking garages.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 03, 2014, 10:30:46 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 03, 2014, 10:24:39 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 09:27:10 PM
If you like old button copy, better act quick. Many of the new signs between Exits 129 and 140 are in the shoulders awaiting installation.

Saw some signs in the median by Exit 130 tonight. A couple of things that caught my eye:

Exit 130 is getting suffixes (B and A for south and north). Exit 131A doesn't look like it will mention Metropark anymore going northbound. Just going to say S. Wood Ave. Makes sense to me to send traffic to the train station to use 131B which comes out right by the parking garages.

130 has been open to having suffixes for years, so it's nice to finally see it getting them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 03, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 03, 2014, 10:30:46 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 03, 2014, 10:24:39 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 09:27:10 PM
If you like old button copy, better act quick. Many of the new signs between Exits 129 and 140 are in the shoulders awaiting installation.

Saw some signs in the median by Exit 130 tonight. A couple of things that caught my eye:

Exit 130 is getting suffixes (B and A for south and north). Exit 131A doesn't look like it will mention Metropark anymore going northbound. Just going to say S. Wood Ave. Makes sense to me to send traffic to the train station to use 131B which comes out right by the parking garages.

130 has been open to having suffixes for years, so it's nice to finally see it getting them.

I always felt that the signage that was installed when they built the ramp to 1 NB twenty years ago was always odd.

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey444/gsp_sb_exit_130_01.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey444/gsp_sb_exit_130_02.jpg)

The first one shows a weird configuration to show both directions and the second one didn't even have an exit tab for a couple of years until the NJSHA put one up as an afterthought.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 03, 2014, 11:19:45 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.

They are basically classic NJTA practices but to MUTCD standards. Turnpike signs have had rounded corners for as long as I can remember.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 04, 2014, 08:34:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.
NJ Highway Authority produced those signs, using NJDOT specs. They're instantly identifiable as NJHA designs, what with the centered exit tabs over multiple signs.
On another note, what's happening with the numbering at 131, 131A, 131B?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 04, 2014, 09:53:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 04, 2014, 08:34:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.
NJ Highway Authority produced those signs, using NJDOT specs. They're instantly identifiable as NJHA designs, what with the centered exit tabs over multiple signs.
On another note, what's happening with the numbering at 131, 131A, 131B?

They already put up new gore point signs. NB 131A and 131B were replaced. At 131, they put up a new one with an obvious plaque underneath but they're still covered, which leads me to believe that they're renumbering it, either to 131C or 132. SB 131 and 131A both have new gore point signs with plaques underneath, but are still covered. If they renumber 131 as 132, they may make 131A southbound just be 131 and then 130 will become 130B-A.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 05, 2014, 12:27:43 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 04, 2014, 09:53:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 04, 2014, 08:34:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.
NJ Highway Authority produced those signs, using NJDOT specs. They're instantly identifiable as NJHA designs, what with the centered exit tabs over multiple signs.
On another note, what's happening with the numbering at 131, 131A, 131B?

They already put up new gore point signs. NB 131A and 131B were replaced. At 131, they put up a new one with an obvious plaque underneath but they're still covered, which leads me to believe that they're renumbering it, either to 131C or 132. SB 131 and 131A both have new gore point signs with plaques underneath, but are still covered. If they renumber 131 as 132, they may make 131A southbound just be 131 and then 130 will become 130B-A.
I don't think 132 is happening. They've just been shuffling letters at interchanges, not numbers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 



How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
It's not really the 'Former' exit, since it has always been just 89.  The ramp location from the mainline for 88 is going to disappear completely in favor of it being within the C/D lanes after the toll barrier for 89.  In the short term, there's going to be a lot of angry people who 'missed' their exit when they zip past 89, expecting 88 a short distance beyond (not to mention businesses that need to reprint their marketing materials with directions on them).  But it is what it is, and I suppose 89 C/B/A is fine and makes the most sense.  Maybe a sign is warranted on the mainline where the exit used to be indicating "Former Exit 88 - Pay Attention Next Time - Next Exit 7 Miles".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on November 05, 2014, 06:51:25 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C.

The Southbound gore point exit sign is now Exit 89 C - B - Covered spot for A.  The entrance/exit ramp at Airport Road now has a traffic signal (not active at this time).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 08:48:34 PM
Quote from: sercamaro on November 05, 2014, 06:51:25 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C.
The Southbound gore point exit sign is now Exit 89 C - B - Covered spot for A.  The entrance/exit ramp at Airport Road now has a traffic signal (not active at this time).
I just saw that tonight - they must have put that up in the last 24 hours or maybe I just wasn't paying attention going through yesterday.  There were a couple of VMS's noting that 88 was going to be closed on 11/10 (If I recall), and that Route 70 would now be from 89.  The mainline SB traffic currently running on the future C/D lanes is kind of tight to do what they are doing in the NB direction (3 lanes through + Jersey Barrier + single on-ramp lane from 70).   Unless they plan on pushing into the current median, it looked like there wasn't enough room to jam a barrier and an 89B lane on the right side (the new light poles were pretty close to the barrier).  I hope they don't think they're going to get away with routing Route 70 traffic via Airport Road for awhile, which will be a disaster.  I can see that for a quick overnight session of moving barriers around and restriping but nothing longer than that...

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 08:49:09 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
It's not really the 'Former' exit, since it has always been just 89.  The ramp location from the mainline for 88 is going to disappear completely in favor of it being within the C/D lanes after the toll barrier for 89.  In the short term, there's going to be a lot of angry people who 'missed' their exit when they zip past 89, expecting 88 a short distance beyond (not to mention businesses that need to reprint their marketing materials with directions on them).  But it is what it is, and I suppose 89 C/B/A is fine and makes the most sense.  Maybe a sign is warranted on the mainline where the exit used to be indicating "Former Exit 88 - Pay Attention Next Time - Next Exit 7 Miles".


In theory, the argument about missing the 88 exit holds water, but in reality it doesn't assuming the new Advance guide signs will have the NJ 70 route marker on them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 05, 2014, 10:26:31 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 08:49:09 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
It's not really the 'Former' exit, since it has always been just 89.  The ramp location from the mainline for 88 is going to disappear completely in favor of it being within the C/D lanes after the toll barrier for 89.  In the short term, there's going to be a lot of angry people who 'missed' their exit when they zip past 89, expecting 88 a short distance beyond (not to mention businesses that need to reprint their marketing materials with directions on them).  But it is what it is, and I suppose 89 C/B/A is fine and makes the most sense.  Maybe a sign is warranted on the mainline where the exit used to be indicating "Former Exit 88 - Pay Attention Next Time - Next Exit 7 Miles".


In theory, the argument about missing the 88 exit holds water, but in reality it doesn't assuming the new Advance guide signs will have the NJ 70 route marker on them.

Many people call into one of two categories: those that use exit numbers, and those that use route numbers.

Those that use route numbers should be fine.

Those that use exit numbers will wonder what happened to exit 88, no matter how many advanced warning signs are out there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:40:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 05, 2014, 10:26:31 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 08:49:09 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
It's not really the 'Former' exit, since it has always been just 89.  The ramp location from the mainline for 88 is going to disappear completely in favor of it being within the C/D lanes after the toll barrier for 89.  In the short term, there's going to be a lot of angry people who 'missed' their exit when they zip past 89, expecting 88 a short distance beyond (not to mention businesses that need to reprint their marketing materials with directions on them).  But it is what it is, and I suppose 89 C/B/A is fine and makes the most sense.  Maybe a sign is warranted on the mainline where the exit used to be indicating "Former Exit 88 - Pay Attention Next Time - Next Exit 7 Miles".


In theory, the argument about missing the 88 exit holds water, but in reality it doesn't assuming the new Advance guide signs will have the NJ 70 route marker on them.

Many people call into one of two categories: those that use exit numbers, and those that use route numbers.

Those that use route numbers should be fine.

Those that use exit numbers will wonder what happened to exit 88, no matter how many advanced warning signs are out there.
Category #3:  Those that just do whatever the GPS tells them to do.  I fully expect to see some idiot 'exit' where 88 used to be, barreling through the grass / barrier / construction debris.

For the record, I use route numbers.  I suspect most people here do as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 06, 2014, 11:16:51 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:40:36 PM
Category #3:  Those that just do whatever the GPS tells them to do.  I fully expect to see some idiot 'exit' where 88 used to be, barreling through the grass / barrier / construction debris.

For the record, I use route numbers.  I suspect most people here do as well.


If the GPS has an exit number, yes this might be a problem, but there are mitigating factors in play:
1. The GPS warns the user in advance that their exit is coming up.
2. The GPS is often slightly off on the distances
The combination of the above will put the user on the alert at the first advanced warning. If the GPS mentions the exit number, or better yet, the text on the exit, then with adequate signing, the exit will not be missed.

I use a combination of exit numbers and route numbers (and occasionally GPS) because the same route can interchange with your freeway many times in different places (sometimes close together), for example many "companion" US routes to interstates.

Sometimes a destination can also help when you remember the route number, but not the exit number, or if there are no exit numbers. For example, there are 2 US-30 exits on NJ-73. The southern one lists Berlin, Camden, Atco, and Hammonton as destinations. The northern one is signed "TO US-30, CR-561" with just road names as destinations (Walker Ave, Berlin-Cross Keys Rd). Oddly enough, NJ-73 itself passes through Berlin and Atco, while Camden is closer to the northern interchange
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
That's how NY has done it in the past.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0669345,-76.1649978,3a,75y,292.72h,80.6t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sD8RuguXK1YscBjeoC-X6SQ!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0825607,-76.1726334,3a,75y,202.73h,78.35t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sf9rGtmUp9SaaCm0_r9hytQ!2e0

We even have c/d roads with NO suffixes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1132149,-76.142596,3a,75y,68.27h,78.37t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNQGme6Fs2hWQeE9iGce4kg!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1194642,-76.1292882,3a,75y,246.79h,80.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJcZja4iMko8oR9CezvQVpQ!2e0

There's also this thing on I-690.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0552494,-76.1627489,3a,75y,100.81h,85.39t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srSKU7snOOxkdpLv_oVKkdQ!2e0

And I just realized all these examples are from Region 3.  That might mean something.

Quote from: bzakharin on November 06, 2014, 11:16:51 AM
If the GPS has an exit number, yes this might be a problem, but there are mitigating factors in play:
1. The GPS warns the user in advance that their exit is coming up.
2. The GPS is often slightly off on the distances
The combination of the above will put the user on the alert at the first advanced warning. If the GPS mentions the exit number, or better yet, the text on the exit, then with adequate signing, the exit will not be missed.
You're assuming that people with GPS even notice that road signs still exist.

For what it's worth, the exit number setup as noted above solves the problem with people who navigate by exit number because then 88 would still exist... you'd just need to get on a c/d road first.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 06, 2014, 01:44:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
You're assuming that people with GPS even notice that road signs still exist.
My GPS routinely says things like "In one mile, take exit 4 toward NJ 73 Mount Laurel". It clearly assumes people with GPS will be looking for that information
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:49:42 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 06, 2014, 01:44:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
You're assuming that people with GPS even notice that road signs still exist.
My GPS routinely says things like "In one mile, take exit 4 toward NJ 73 Mount Laurel". It clearly assumes people with GPS will be looking for that information
Except the turn won't be in one mile, it will be right there.  And even something as simple as changing a left exit to a right exit causes GPS confusion these days.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2014, 02:04:22 PM
In my limited experiences with GPS, verbal highway instructions aren't an issue.  If the GPS is stating "in a mile", chances are it's about a mile.  A few feet here or there isn't an issue. 

The problems come up in a more localized area, where you have to figure out if it's this intersection or the next intersection, and the intersections are closely spaced together.

How many people use GPSs anyway?  The overall feeling on these forums make it out to be that nearly everyone has a GPS.  I think actual usage is way below that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 06, 2014, 02:31:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2014, 02:04:22 PM
In my limited experiences with GPS, verbal highway instructions aren't an issue.  If the GPS is stating "in a mile", chances are it's about a mile.  A few feet here or there isn't an issue. 

I think @vdeane was specifically talking about GSP's exit 88 moving by a mile, which would render the "1 mile" warning on the outdated GPS data too late

Quote
How many people use GPSs anyway?  The overall feeling on these forums make it out to be that nearly everyone has a GPS.  I think actual usage is way below that.
According to http://www.ceoutlook.com/2013/04/25/%C2%BE-of-smartphone-owners-often-use-phone-to-navigate/ 76% of all smartphone owners use them to navigate. Given smart phone penetration in the US is 56.4% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_smartphone_penetration), at least 42.3% of the public use GPS navigation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2014, 04:44:46 PM
You can't fix stupid. Any time you change a roadway configuration, people who are driving until their GPS tells them to stop will get lost.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2014, 04:50:49 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2014, 04:44:46 PM
You can't fix stupid. Any time you change a roadway configuration, people who are driving until their GPS tells them to stop will get lost.

+ about 1 billion.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 05:20:09 PM

Quote from: Alps on November 06, 2014, 04:44:46 PM
You can't fix stupid. Any time you change a roadway configuration, people who are driving until their GPS tells them to stop will get lost.

But as GPS has proven, you can indeed make stupid worse.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 08, 2014, 11:18:12 PM
Interesting thing I noted today. The new signage for 129 going southbound gives New York and Camden as the control cities. The signage for 129 going northbound shows New York and Trenton as control cities. I would have figured that they would have the same control cities going both directions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2014, 03:45:33 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 08, 2014, 11:18:12 PM
Interesting thing I noted today. The new signage for 129 going southbound gives New York and Camden as the control cities. The signage for 129 going northbound shows New York and Trenton as control cities. I would have figured that they would have the same control cities going both directions.
Interesting!  That sounds more than strange that two signs going up at the same time are different.

Then again, its about time control cities are used.  I wonder if the NJT will install control cities for the GSP post Exit 11 toll plaza?  Better yet on the NB guide for Exit 11 which only uses Woodbridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 09, 2014, 10:00:17 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 08, 2014, 11:18:12 PM
Interesting thing I noted today. The new signage for 129 going southbound gives New York and Camden as the control cities. The signage for 129 going northbound shows New York and Trenton as control cities. I would have figured that they would have the same control cities going both directions.

Isn't it because a southbound truss or two outside Metropark also says Trenton for Exit 130? If there is an Advance guide sign for both Exits 130 and 129 on the same truss, you can't have the same exact destination for two different exits.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2014, 10:11:58 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 09, 2014, 10:00:17 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 08, 2014, 11:18:12 PM
Interesting thing I noted today. The new signage for 129 going southbound gives New York and Camden as the control cities. The signage for 129 going northbound shows New York and Trenton as control cities. I would have figured that they would have the same control cities going both directions.

Isn't it because a southbound truss or two outside Metropark also says Trenton for Exit 130? If there is an Advance guide sign for both Exits 130 and 129 on the same truss, you can't have the same exact destination for two different exits.
Not necessarily.  I have seen many times when two different routes used the same exact control points.  Look at the sign in Battleboro, NC at the US 301 and NC 4 split.  Both NC 4 and US 301 use Richmond as control point and DelDOT used to use it for the signs leaving the Delaware Memorial Bridge.  Baltimore was used as control city for where US 40 left the I-295 freeway for US 13 on the same bridge that I-95 advanced guides were using Baltimore as well.

However, the fact that Trenton is control point for Exit 130 may be why Camden is used for the NJT SB as Northbound on the GSP there is no exit for Exit 130.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 09, 2014, 05:30:06 PM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on November 09, 2014, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 09, 2014, 05:30:06 PM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn
All the time. I live outside Trenton, and when heading northbound it's only up to traffic whether the right way to go is Route 1 or 195 to the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 03:24:46 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 09, 2014, 05:30:06 PM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn
Actually they did when I lived there over 20 years ago.  It is not that bad as the lights were pretty much timed right.

As far as Newark goes, yes it is dumb to use.  Considering the GSP just came from there 10 miles ago, but FDOT does the same thing in Florida.  Look at the Exit 414 SB I-75 sign for Lake City!  It was just passed over 15 miles ago and yet it is used as a control point.  Even better yet, the I-75/ US 27 interchange in Broward County, FL did the same going NB for Miami on I-75 using Miami for SB US 27.  Now its Hialeah, but still the same effect being that I-75 just came from there as its southern terminus is there.

You are right the NJTA could come up with better control points for Exit 130.  Woodbridge, Avenel, Rahway, and even Linden would work for NB US 1 and for SB you could use Edison or even New Brunswick.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 10, 2014, 07:54:37 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 03:24:46 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 09, 2014, 05:30:06 PM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn

You are right the NJTA could come up with better control points for Exit 130.  Woodbridge, Avenel, Rahway, and even Linden would work for NB US 1 and for SB you could use Edison or even New Brunswick.

None of these would be better. Maybe all, at best, would be equally as bad, but i personally find them all worse. I think NJTA used Trenton correctly and here's why.  Woodbridge is on the Exit 129 Advance guide sign. Notwithstanding the same reasons i would cite from other posts above, you now would put Woodbridge AND Trenton twice on the same truss, because as i understand it, you see zero potential in that disorienting the motorist.

I don't even know what Avenel is. Is that like a Johnson and Johnson cream and/or campus in the area?  So, exactly what benefit does Avenel serve as a destination? Who goes there?

Rahway and Linden are both signed for at Exit 131 i think.  So the U-Turn issue some may or may not think is worthy is the same logic here. So what criteria is to be used when picking a destination to U-Turn to?  There are several destinations all applicable along the US 1 corridor.

There is a dinky EDISON NEXT 4 EXITS sign somewhere southbound. Although it should be more prominent, when you use a Community Idetification Interchange sign or whatever they're called, you don't plop that same destination back up on an Advance gude sign as this WILL disorient the motorist. 

New Brunswick is currently sugned for as a Supplemental destination at southbound Exit 130. Now you can't use the same destination both as a supplemental destination AND as a primary destination for the same exit, but if you argue that New Brunswick should have replaced Trenton, i suspect New Brunswick is too long to fit on the available trusses when it had to fit with other contiguous signs like the Exit 129 Advance guide signs on the mainline or the US 1 northbound Exit guide sign on the ramp.

Not as straightforward as you make it out to be.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.

Secondly, Woodbridge can be used as a control point twice or even have it removed from the Exit 129 guide and have Staten Island replace it at its guide sign.  It would be Perth Amboy- Staten Island instead of Woodbridge- Perth Amboy.  Also as far as having a sign on a X Next Exit sign and then on the guide sign for the mentioned exit, it is done in many places.  Plus both exits for US 1 and  US 378 near Lexington, SC on I-20 both use West Columbia and Lexington as control points.  Heck look further south on the GSP!  Both Brick and Lakewood are used on Exits 91, 89, and 88.  That is three exits with the same guide (soon to be two as GSP is currently making Exits 88 and 89 into one interchange) that is doing what you think cannot be done.

Finally control cities do not have to be well known or famous either.   Lots of places are on exit guides that are not even on maps.  Avenel is the first town north on US 1 from Exit 130.  Though part of Woodbridge as Iselin is previously at Exit 131, it still is like its own entity.

It is straight forward as it is already in practice.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 10:10:38 AM

Quote from: odditude on November 09, 2014, 06:44:29 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 09, 2014, 05:30:06 PM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn
All the time. I live outside Trenton, and when heading northbound it's only up to traffic whether the right way to go is Route 1 or 195 to the Turnpike.

I'll see your Trenton and raise you a Philly.  This was the free alternative to the Turnpike when I lived in NJ.  I wouldn't sign for Philly this way, but Trenton for sure.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on November 10, 2014, 10:22:22 AM
Apart from a few annoying areas on US 1, it definitely isn't the worst road to use to get places. If I'm heading south towards Trenton, it takes me about 25 minutes or so to get to the I-95/I-295 interchange, and considering it isn't tolled, I'm not too angry with it either. The only quips I have with US 1 is the right lane endings where people speed up to get ahead of everyone nearly causing a wreck.

The control cities for US 1 are fine on the Parkway. The same two control cities are used at the US 1 interchange with NJ 18 in New Brunswick as well. Plus, US 1 both enter these cities fully, and in Trenton's case, it is the only full-freeway within the actual city itself. People can also use it to cross back into Pennsylvania if they heading south anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 10, 2014, 10:22:22 AM
Apart from a few annoying areas on US 1, it definitely isn't the worst road to use to get places. If I'm heading south towards Trenton, it takes me about 25 minutes or so to get to the I-95/I-295 interchange, and considering it isn't tolled, I'm not too angry with it either. The only quips I have with US 1 is the right lane endings where people speed up to get ahead of everyone nearly causing a wreck.

The control cities for US 1 are fine on the Parkway. The same two control cities are used at the US 1 interchange with NJ 18 in New Brunswick as well. Plus, US 1 both enter these cities fully, and in Trenton's case, it is the only full-freeway within the actual city itself. People can also use it to cross back into Pennsylvania if they heading south anyway.
Do not forget I-287 uses both Newark and Trenton as well as many side streets.  Woodbridge Center Drive also uses both.

I do think for regional freeways more local points should be used.  Yes US 1 does enter Newark, but also does the GSP.   I am more in favor of signing the GSP from US 1 for Newark like it was originally before the 130 NB ramp was added back in the 90's as many use the free section of the GSP to avoid the lights on US 1 in Woodbridge, Rahway, Linden, and Elizabeth by using it and US 22 together.  It makes sense to sign it that way, but the GSP SB should not use a place that someone has already been.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 10, 2014, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
Heck look further south on the GSP!  Both Brick and Lakewood are used on Exits 91, 89, and 88.  That is three exits with the same guide (soon to be two as GSP is currently making Exits 88 and 89 into one interchange) that is doing what you think cannot be done.

This is being corrected as I understand it.  A wrong being righted.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
Finally control cities do not have to be well known or famous either.   Lots of places are on exit guides that are not even on maps. 

You do know the BIG difference between a control city/point and a destination?

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
It is straight forward as it is already in practice.

Disagree.  Jut because you see in South Carolina or Battleboro, NC doesn't mean it is correct practice.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 10, 2014, 11:37:02 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 10, 2014, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0
That particular BGS was added when the ramp was modified.  Roadman65 was referring to the approach & exit BGS (many of them have since been replaced and/or being replaced) prior to the location shown. 

The previous message on those BGS' originally read:

EXIT 129 130
1 SOUTH
New Brunswick
Trenton


As far as the one in the pic being modified; that 1 SOUTH Trenton panel would have to be replaced with one that could use a 2-line listing for New Brunswick to keep the sign width in check.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 10, 2014, 03:26:34 PM
That would be amazing if US 1 was Exit 129, because I'd be one of millions who misread that as a 130.  :wave:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 10, 2014, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 10, 2014, 03:26:34 PM
That would be amazing if US 1 was Exit 129, because I'd be one of millions who misread that as a 130.  :wave:
That's what I get for typing too quick.  :)
My earlier post has since been corrected.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 10, 2014, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 10, 2014, 11:37:02 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 10, 2014, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0
That particular BGS was added when the ramp was modified.  Roadman65 was referring to the approach & exit BGS (many of them have since been replaced and/or being replaced) prior to the location shown. 

The previous message on those BGS' originally read:

EXIT 129 130
1 SOUTH
New Brunswick
Trenton


As far as the one in the pic being modified; that 1 SOUTH Trenton panel would have to be replaced with one that could use a 2-line listing for New Brunswick to keep the sign width in check.

It shan't be modified. They've had a ground mounted sign for New Brunswick as a secondary destination ever since they added the NB ramp in the early 90s. They just replaced it with a new one in this round of signage.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 10, 2014, 05:48:40 PM
Also, it looks like tonight is the night that Exit 88 goes bye-bye forever (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/parkway_exit_to_close_permanently_monday_night.html#incart_river).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on November 10, 2014, 10:10:08 PM
Technically it's not going bye-bye, it's moving to a service road and getting a new number.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 10:42:03 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 10, 2014, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
Heck look further south on the GSP!  Both Brick and Lakewood are used on Exits 91, 89, and 88.  That is three exits with the same guide (soon to be two as GSP is currently making Exits 88 and 89 into one interchange) that is doing what you think cannot be done.

This is being corrected as I understand it.  A wrong being righted.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
Finally control cities do not have to be well known or famous either.   Lots of places are on exit guides that are not even on maps. 

You do know the BIG difference between a control city/point and a destination?

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
It is straight forward as it is already in practice.

Disagree.  Jut because you see in South Carolina or Battleboro, NC doesn't mean it is correct practice.

The New Brunswick was there on another sign as before Exit 130 was reconfigured, the current panel was not needed because only the SB Ramp was present.  Think a little, why would this current sign be there before if the sole purpose of the current sign is for the current situation?  The original Exit 130 sign was different and used both New Brunswick and Trenton as control cities for both.

Exit 88 and 87 are being combined, but not to correct the wrong you suggested.   There is no law saying that exits cannot be the same as far as control cities or points go.  Florida also has two exits once (or still has) two exits signed just for North Port on Interstate 75.  Being Florida would rather put up street names on supplemental signs and many roads have no route numbers, FDOT left a blank space on top of most signs for future shields to be added later.  It just so happened that former exits 33 and 34 both went to North Port and was signed just plain "North Port."

I see your point, but also others do not see our points either.  Sometimes the DOT engineers do not see things in color but black and white.  Heck one engineer on the NJ Turnpike once told me back in the 90's that I-95 exit numbering north of US 46 on the free section was the way it is now because it continues I-80's scheme even though it does not.  Anyone here can tell you (and our very own NE 2 would provide the website link to information regarding route exit numbers in NJ) that those are from the mileage of I-95 had the Somerset Freeway been built.

Anyway, signing for local points (or cities however you want to say it) was changed in many places.  The US 46 interchange for one used to have Hackensack/ Fort Lee instead of The Ridgefields and Palisades Park like it does now.  That was carbon copied from when the NJT ended at US 46 prior to 1971 when the section from US 46 to I-80 was opened and US 46 was the major east west route to connect the Turnpike with the GWB and points along I-80.  Remember the NJT was built even before I-80 in that part of the state, so Hackensack (the seat of Bergen) was prominent even back then.  It was only in the last twenty years that more local points were added even though Fort Lee for US 46 EB was misleading motorists to a degree as I-95 does go there and most of the time quicker.

I am not saying that Newark and Trenton should not be used, but it is in many places on freeway signs for roads shadowing interstates or toll roads to use more local points.  Even US 22 on I-287 has New York City for the EB Exit 14 even when I-78 was only signed for Newark.  That one is in unison with other road signs that use New York for control cities, which I can see the need to sign it on I-287, but really being it was carbon copied from before I-78 was completed I would think that now if engineers had to come up with a from scratch sign assembly as if that I-287 was brand new, it would be either Green Brook or North Plainfield for EB US 22 just like Franklin Park is for NJ 208 several miles to the north where I believe that either Fair Lawn or Parmamus is used on other EB NJ 208 signs in the area.

Bottom line the MUTCD does not cover everything and there is no set rules for how many times a city can be used on exit signing or else multiple city exits on interstates would only sign one exit for the city even if there are five.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 11, 2014, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 10, 2014, 05:48:40 PM
Also, it looks like tonight is the night that Exit 88 goes bye-bye forever (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/parkway_exit_to_close_permanently_monday_night.html#incart_river).
Going NB this morning, I could see that the SB BGSs for exit 89 now have the Route 70 shields uncovered, so I assume everything was completed last night to close off 88.  I look forward to some good entertainment tonight going home, with people crawling in the right lane looking for their missing exit.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 11, 2014, 04:32:13 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 10, 2014, 10:22:22 AM
Apart from a few annoying areas on US 1, it definitely isn't the worst road to use to get places. If I'm heading south towards Trenton, it takes me about 25 minutes or so to get to the I-95/I-295 interchange, and considering it isn't tolled, I'm not too angry with it either. The only quips I have with US 1 is the right lane endings where people speed up to get ahead of everyone nearly causing a wreck.

The control cities for US 1 are fine on the Parkway. The same two control cities are used at the US 1 interchange with NJ 18 in New Brunswick as well. Plus, US 1 both enter these cities fully, and in Trenton's case, it is the only full-freeway within the actual city itself. People can also use it to cross back into Pennsylvania if they heading south anyway.

When I lived in Edison 5 years ago, I'd avoid US 1 like the plague even for local trips in the middle of the day, due to its always being congested. I did take it all the way from I 295 on occasion, but only Sunday nights when the infamous 6 to 8A congestion on the Turnpike required it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 08:46:14 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 10:42:03 PMAnyway, signing for local points (or cities however you want to say it) was changed in many places.  The US 46 interchange for one used to have Hackensack/ Fort Lee instead of The Ridgefields and Palisades Park like it does now.  That was carbon copied from when the NJT ended at US 46 prior to 1971 when the section from US 46 to I-80 was opened and US 46 was the major east west route to connect the Turnpike with the GWB and points along I-80.  Remember the NJT was built even before I-80 in that part of the state, so Hackensack (the seat of Bergen) was prominent even back then.  It was only in the last twenty years that more local points were added even though Fort Lee for US 46 EB was misleading motorists to a degree as I-95 does go there and most of the time quicker.

The Ridgefields has been there at least 35 years.  I'd have them tell you themselves, but they're dining with the Caldwells tonight.


Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2014, 09:53:12 PM
I guess the Oranges and the Amboys weren't invited again.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 11, 2014, 10:12:55 PM
New exit 89B is open for business, and I tried it out for myself tonight.  Good shoehorn job last night turning 3 lanes into 4 + Jersey barrier in a tight space.  I noticed some guy stopped partially in the left lane of the mainline just opposite the old 88 - hopefully a breakdown and not some idiot trying to figure out where the exit went. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mtantillo on November 11, 2014, 11:30:34 PM
Nah, but the Apples and Amgirls were :)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 11, 2014, 11:37:35 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 08:46:14 PM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 10:42:03 PMAnyway, signing for local points (or cities however you want to say it) was changed in many places.  The US 46 interchange for one used to have Hackensack/ Fort Lee instead of The Ridgefields and Palisades Park like it does now.  That was carbon copied from when the NJT ended at US 46 prior to 1971 when the section from US 46 to I-80 was opened and US 46 was the major east west route to connect the Turnpike with the GWB and points along I-80.  Remember the NJT was built even before I-80 in that part of the state, so Hackensack (the seat of Bergen) was prominent even back then.  It was only in the last twenty years that more local points were added even though Fort Lee for US 46 EB was misleading motorists to a degree as I-95 does go there and most of the time quicker.

The Ridgefields has been there at least 35 years.  I'd have them tell you themselves, but they're dining with the Caldwells tonight.



Northbound it was not there for 35 years.  The southbound lanes were not part of the original turnpike and those signs on that side were NJDOT when first erected as the Turnpike did not assume the maintenance on it until the mid 90's.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 11, 2014, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
Okay, that's interesting. Now I don't know what to expect. Definitely the right answer in this case - no Exit 132, north of MP 132, and north of 131A/B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 12, 2014, 12:33:13 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 11, 2014, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
Okay, that's interesting. Now I don't know what to expect. Definitely the right answer in this case - no Exit 132, north of MP 132, and north of 131A/B.

I didn't either. They already put up the first BGS bridge for 131A going south, but it would be easy to green out the A going SB (and adding the B-A suffices for 130). I have to take a ride further up that part of the Parkway to see if they're going to renumber anything else. Properly suffixing 140 and 140A going SB would come to mind (to be 140B-A even though they don't both go to 22).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 12, 2014, 12:44:30 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.

Which is what I figured. SLDs put this at 131.97 anyway, so just round up. Considering 131 was my home exit for 16 years, it's kind of sad to see it go, because it's not 131 anymore. Everyone in the area always knows it as Exit 131. I wonder what happens if when NJ Turnpike goes milepost and we get Exit 83 instead of Exit 9, because Exit 9 has a big local thing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2014, 12:18:58 PM
Wow this is so impressive!  Exit numbers on the Parkway are important reference terms used by New Jereyians for decades.  It is like baseball and apple pie, to the Garden State.  To have a major interchange move one whole number up the scale must be annoying and confusing many locals who relied on the 131 number for years.

It is not like I-78's change with only a slight adjustment of the letters as it still all is 142 not creating that much confusion, but a whole number is being changed here.

BTW, Exit 140 going SB was always a fluke.  I am surprised it lasted that long as going NB it was always for US 22 while its southbound counterpart was given the same number to NJ 82 WB while US 22 got alphabet soup.  This, if they change it, would be an improvement and just like I-78 would create minimal confusion.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 12, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on November 12, 2014, 04:44:36 PM
Okay Exit 89.

BGS just passed the toll plaza now shows Exit 89 B Rte 70 Brick/Lakehurst and Exit 89 C CR528 Lakewood

I took the collector ramp to rte 70 this morning.  Right now its single lane.  The toll plaza at Exit 88 has now been removed.



Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 12, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 12, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.

They haven't put the new signs up yet. They are sitting in the median by 130 which is where I saw that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 12, 2014, 06:17:23 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 12, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 12, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.

They haven't put the new signs up yet. They are sitting in the median by 130 which is where I saw that.
There are covered gore signs up at NJ 27. The other place I saw a covered gore sign? 140. So that pretty much tells you the 140/140A thing will disappear.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 12, 2014, 06:24:20 PM
Looks like Paragraph 3 of Section 3E.31 is at work here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 12, 2014, 07:15:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 12, 2014, 06:17:23 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 12, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 12, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.

They haven't put the new signs up yet. They are sitting in the median by 130 which is where I saw that.
There are covered gore signs up at NJ 27. The other place I saw a covered gore sign? 140. So that pretty much tells you the 140/140A thing will disappear.

Those covered up gores have been there for a couple months at 140/140A. I am hoping to see 140B/140A come out of it.

From August 5:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14849153155_9d9d96cf65_c.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3914/14849103375_09bb6d6e96_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 12, 2014, 07:35:39 PM
Don'tKnowYet, did you actually mean Section 2E-31?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 12, 2014, 08:59:58 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2014, 07:35:39 PM
Don'tKnowYet, did you actually mean Section 2E-31?

I did.  Thank you for noticing.  2E.31.03.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on November 12, 2014, 10:12:33 PM
Between exits 143 and 171 the exit signs are not even touched yet. Also between 117 and 100.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 09:29:38 AM
If they do touch the signs in those areas will the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge still be kept  at 153 and 159 or will they have to change them to "New York City" as the tone of the MUTCD seems to be going with these days of leaving out state names and waterway crossings?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 10:37:44 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 10, 2014, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
Heck look further south on the GSP!  Both Brick and Lakewood are used on Exits 91, 89, and 88.  That is three exits with the same guide (soon to be two as GSP is currently making Exits 88 and 89 into one interchange) that is doing what you think cannot be done.

This is being corrected as I understand it.  A wrong being righted.

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
Finally control cities do not have to be well known or famous either.   Lots of places are on exit guides that are not even on maps. 

You do know the BIG difference between a control city/point and a destination?

Quote from: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
It is straight forward as it is already in practice.

Disagree.  Jut because you see in South Carolina or Battleboro, NC doesn't mean it is correct practice.

https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0075ncga Visit here, and if you open Picture 16, you will see an overhead assembly recently installed in GA along I-75 with two different exits having panels on the same gantry both being signed for Perry, GA.  Now how would you sign it if you say that GDOT is wrong here?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 13, 2014, 11:07:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 10:37:44 AM
https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0075ncga Visit here, and if you open Picture 16, you will see an overhead assembly recently installed in GA along I-75 with two different exits having panels on the same gantry both being signed for Perry, GA.  Now how would you sign it if you say that GDOT is wrong here?

Don't know. I don't know shit about Georgia, but the fact that they are using EXIT to describe the distance in addition to the use of EXIT in the exit header sign leads me to believe that GDOT doesn't know shit about guide sign design, and thus the basic principles and needs of motorist navigation.  But the use of the same destination on the same truss has a high potential to disorient the non-familiar motorist.

The NJ Turnpike has a similar error from slapping Jersey City on every sign that a ramp of theirs happens to dump you off in.  To solve the Jersey City error, they should use a Jersey City NEXT X EXITS sign at the appropriate location and then sign for the neighborhood (or street as is othwise done). As you might know, Exchange Place and Communipaw for example are two completely different neighborhoods.  The non-familiar motorist or Manhattan visitor using mass transit from NJ would benefit from knowing that information.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 13, 2014, 11:07:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 10:37:44 AM
https://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0075ncga Visit here, and if you open Picture 16, you will see an overhead assembly recently installed in GA along I-75 with two different exits having panels on the same gantry both being signed for Perry, GA.  Now how would you sign it if you say that GDOT is wrong here?

Don't know. I don't know shit about Georgia, but the fact that they are using EXIT to describe the distance in addition to the use of EXIT in the exit header sign leads me to believe that GDOT doesn't know shit about guide sign design, and thus the basic principles and needs of motorist navigation.  But the use of the same destination on the same truss has a high potential to disorient the non-familiar motorist.

The NJ Turnpike has a similar error from slapping Jersey City on every sign that a ramp of theirs happens to dump you off in.  To solve the Jersey City error, they should use a Jersey City NEXT X EXITS sign at the appropriate location and then sign for the neighborhood (or street as is othwise done). As you might know, Exchange Place and Communipaw for example are two completely different neighborhoods.  The non-familiar motorist or Manhattan visitor using mass transit from NJ would benefit from knowing that information.
Lets see you have one Jersey City exit on the mainline and two on the Extension that are separated by Exits 14 and 14A.  You cannot have the Next X Exits before Exit 14, so being Exit 15E is not for one specific neighborhood as its located in Newark.  Oh yes, what about Newark being signed on both Exits 15E and 15W?  I guess that is totally wrong as well!

On the extension yes, approaching Exit 14 it could be signed as Garfield Avenue for Exit 14B, and for the Columbus Drive exit green out the "Jersey City" and perhaps use "Downtown" there.    Approaching 14B have a Next 3 Exits sign as the third would be the terminus of the Extension, or have a directory board like Newark has now on the GSP with the different areas as you say should have.  Sort of like PA does with city streets, as a big city on most freeways use the street name to the various exits and do not use the Next X Exits thing, but use the region or neighborhoods.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 13, 2014, 12:55:43 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 11:41:19 AM
On the extension yes, approaching Exit 14 it could be signed as Garfield Avenue for Exit 14B, and for the Columbus Drive exit green out the "Jersey City" and perhaps use "Downtown" there.    Approaching 14B have a Next 3 Exits sign as the third would be the terminus of the Extension, or have a directory board like Newark has now on the GSP with the different areas as you say should have.  Sort of like PA does with city streets, as a big city on most freeways use the street name to the various exits and do not use the Next X Exits thing, but use the region or neighborhoods.

Hence the word "appropriate".

Newark is a better example.  Thank you.  In fact, that southbound supplemental guide sign that says Newark Airport USE EXIT 14 or 13A is one of the most worthless signs ever in terms of helping motorists with navigation.

The Newark Bay Extension could benefit from a NEXT 5 EXITS sign at least.  14 A backtracking using Garfield Ave of via NJ 440 to the north takes you immediately into the Greenville section of Jersey City.  5 Exits would also include the slip ramp to Liberty State Park, Columbus Boulevard, and the Holland Tunnel in addition to 14 B.  Maybe the end of the viaduct could be Holland Tunnel or Pavonia-Newport as LAST EXIT IN NJ.

I'm exhausted.  I eagerly await to hear how i'm misinformed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 04:40:13 PM
I forgot about the new slip ramp to the Liberty Park and Park and Ride.  That would add four, unless, like you said, 14A would be a good way to reach Greenville to make five.

As far as Newark goes, Ironbound should be used for Exit 15E in small letters with the already mentioned Newark.  Then Downtown Newark should be used for Exit 15W via I-280 to NJ 21 SB.  Sign it as Newark in big letters and then in small letters use Downtown.

The airport needs to be more specific like for Air Cargo and Terminals C & B to use 14 while Terminal A and the South Area to use Exit 13A.  Of course then you run confusion to which terminal is a driver's airline in.   Anyway i do not see the use both exits sign as that much of safety threat as both exits will take you where you want to go.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 13, 2014, 08:22:04 PM
Isn't this the G.S. Parkway thread?
Title: Re: Not the Garden State Parkway thread
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2014, 08:23:51 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2014, 08:22:04 PM
Isn't this the G.S. Parkway thread?
Nope.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 13, 2014, 09:05:04 PM
God forbid there is a two- or three-post tangent because comparisons or other examples are never helpful. Jeez.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 13, 2014, 11:24:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 09:29:38 AM
If they do touch the signs in those areas will the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge still be kept  at 153 and 159 or will they have to change them to "New York City" as the tone of the MUTCD seems to be going with these days of leaving out state names and waterway crossings?
No, NJ is going to keep the crossing names to Manhattan, because it's critical for navigation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 14, 2014, 01:17:57 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKyWlS4n.jpg&hash=573293dd4b6123255240529c67cbca5b41abc345)

Snapped that this morning on my way to Metropark. Not sure why they covered the panels for 131A and B unless it's because they're not signing 131A as Metropark anymore (just S Wood Ave). 131B I believe is the same Metropark sign they're using for 131A SB except that it's green instead of blue (I never got the blue signs to begin with. Metropark Train Station is a destination, not a service if you want to really classify it properly). Also, no more Iselin on the (soon to be) 132 signage. They did put up an auxillary sign before the Rt 1 onramps that says Iselin Next 3 Exits so that's OK. I'll be curious to see some of the other signage that will go up soon. It looks like the sign bridge for 130 going SB is ready to go up shortly as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 14, 2014, 01:20:14 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on November 12, 2014, 07:15:07 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 12, 2014, 06:17:23 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 12, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 12, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.

They haven't put the new signs up yet. They are sitting in the median by 130 which is where I saw that.
There are covered gore signs up at NJ 27. The other place I saw a covered gore sign? 140. So that pretty much tells you the 140/140A thing will disappear.

Those covered up gores have been there for a couple months at 140/140A. I am hoping to see 140B/140A come out of it.

From August 5:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14849153155_9d9d96cf65_c.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3914/14849103375_09bb6d6e96_c.jpg)

I'm still not 100% sure why they didn't do that when they put up all the new signage for 142A-B since they replaced all the SB signage for 141 and 140/A at that time. Should have just fixed it to be 140B-A when they did that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 01:33:00 PM
I can understand why the put up Iselin on supplemental signs and signing it for 3 exits because I used to work at Prudential on S. Wood Avenue and it was addressed in Iselin as so are the other offices along S. Wood Avenue.  Many visitors frequent the companies as corporate executives from the home office someplace else, or clients so that is understandable to have now.

What gets me is now the control cities are not using the Downtown as the point for it, but are now taking in the city/town/area limits as we as citizens have evolved into something different from what we once were.  Not being negative about us as humans, but just pointing out that our demands have been changing over time, so now must signs on the roads catch up with us.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 14, 2014, 03:58:07 PM
NJTA or NJDOT took down the new carbon copy signs on the Exit 129 southbound service road at New Brunswick Ave. that showed NJ-440 EAST/WEST. Hopefully they get a correction. Also, NJDOT finally re-striped US-9 south there with an auxiliary lane from the end of the service road to the Exit for NJ-440 South/Riverside Ave. (another replacement sign with a now incorrect street name!).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 15, 2014, 11:59:33 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 14, 2014, 03:58:07 PM
NJTA or NJDOT took down the new carbon copy signs on the Exit 129 southbound service road at New Brunswick Ave. that showed NJ-440 EAST/WEST. Hopefully they get a correction. Also, NJDOT finally re-striped US-9 south there with an auxiliary lane from the end of the service road to the Exit for NJ-440 South/Riverside Ave. (another replacement sign with a now incorrect street name!).
Oh yeah, what does it say now?  Did they move the I-287 shield to the US 9 South guide finally as well?
I take that they still use "Industrial Avenue" then?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 15, 2014, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 14, 2014, 03:58:07 PM
NJTA or NJDOT took down the new carbon copy signs on the Exit 129 southbound service road at New Brunswick Ave. that showed NJ-440 EAST/WEST. Hopefully they get a correction. Also, NJDOT finally re-striped US-9 south there with an auxiliary lane from the end of the service road to the Exit for NJ-440 South/Riverside Ave. (another replacement sign with a now incorrect street name!).

That was a long time coming. They replaced those signs in like 1998 or so.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on November 16, 2014, 11:23:40 PM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 16, 2014, 11:46:21 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on November 16, 2014, 11:23:40 PM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8

If I read what NJRoadFan said correctly, that should be happening. I say should without any certainty, because NJTA isn't always known to make sure that legends are updated when signs are replaced. This is why we still have signs for 440 East on the circle ramp at Exit 10.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 16, 2014, 11:53:26 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on November 16, 2014, 11:23:40 PM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8

Those signs are the ones that went missing, they were put up about 2-3 years ago to replace the old NJHA ones from who knows how long ago (see below for a 2001 shot). Besides saying East/West, the left sign should be SOUTH 9 TO 440. Replacement is likely part of the larger signing project from 129 to 140 although no other signs (mainly the NJTP ramp signs on that service road) have been touched yet.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2Fnj-440_east_west.jpg&hash=74b5dbcdae3f1e6a1f379a990a855906d6644b81)

The other carbon copy replacement is at the exit ramp and was replaced around the same time, one reason why I suspect the above sign was replaced by NJDOT (its also on a NJDOT style gantry that matches the rest of the tangle). http://goo.gl/maps/JbUvE

It should say "Riverside Dr." as the road was renamed before that sign was replaced. The actual split got the correct name though and it looks like the signs were put in back in 2010. http://goo.gl/maps/0Rnfe
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on November 17, 2014, 12:18:51 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 16, 2014, 11:46:21 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on November 16, 2014, 11:23:40 PM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8

If I read what NJRoadFan said correctly, that should be happening. I say should without any certainty, because NJTA isn't always known to make sure that legends are updated when signs are replaced. This is why we still have signs for 440 East on the circle ramp at Exit 10.

Ah, true. I have yet to go up there to check it out. What's funny is, Rt 440 runs more east-west, than north-south, especially on the NJ side. I-287 is more north-south, anyhow.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 17, 2014, 11:56:58 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on November 17, 2014, 12:18:51 AM
Quote from: storm2k on November 16, 2014, 11:46:21 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on November 16, 2014, 11:23:40 PM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8

If I read what NJRoadFan said correctly, that should be happening. I say should without any certainty, because NJTA isn't always known to make sure that legends are updated when signs are replaced. This is why we still have signs for 440 East on the circle ramp at Exit 10.

Ah, true. I have yet to go up there to check it out. What's funny is, Rt 440 runs more east-west, than north-south, especially on the NJ side. I-287 is more north-south, anyhow.

They made it N-S so that it matched up both with NY440 and the northern section of NJ 440 in Bayonne, so you have one stretch of N-S road all the way through Middlesex County, SI NY, and Hudson County. It's also why you have the weird thing of 287 Southbound becoming 440 Northbound at the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 18, 2014, 11:39:32 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5794095,-74.4574375,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAAJERcmQ6V10KYduUASdCw!2e0 I was noticing this here when cruising GSV.  I see "Tuckerton" is now a control city for US 9 North at Exit 50 instead of Batso Village.  In addition I see "Toms River" is control city for the GSP pull through over Newark or New York at this location.

However, nice job they did here on replacing the overpass and with the signage on overheads here.  This image was prior to the construction complete, as the lanes are still shifted on to the shoulders, but still nice job they did.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 19, 2014, 12:45:37 AM
I noticed that on the NB C/D lanes at 98, the overhead BGS just before the on-ramp tolls appears to have eliminated text that indicated it as a toll road (or that the toll barrier was just ahead - can't recall exactly) just under the text "Parkway North".  The old text appears on the GSV here but is almost impossible to read:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.17143,-74.098309&spn=0.000008,0.004866&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.17152,-74.099317&panoid=CWMC9J4cMJmZhFhyaWNyUA&cbp=12,51.51,,0,1.88 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.17143,-74.098309&spn=0.000008,0.004866&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.17152,-74.099317&panoid=CWMC9J4cMJmZhFhyaWNyUA&cbp=12,51.51,,0,1.88)
The current text can be seen from the NJ 138 overpass here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.170567,-74.098926&spn=0.000004,0.002433&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.170569,-74.09907&panoid=htkxDWkJKPc8-iTtnmz1kw&cbp=12,357.28,,0,7.74 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.170567,-74.098926&spn=0.000004,0.002433&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.170569,-74.09907&panoid=htkxDWkJKPc8-iTtnmz1kw&cbp=12,357.28,,0,7.74)
I don't recall the exact text, but I'm not sure why they would eliminate this from the sign unless it specifically called out the toll price at the time (was $0.25, but I believe is now $0.50 - never know anymore with EZPass....).  Although anyone on the C/D lanes would have had to pass a standard GSP entrance sign with 'toll road' indicated, it was at least a good heads up that you were coming up on the booths.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on November 19, 2014, 12:57:00 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages195%2Fi-195_nj_et_13.jpg&hash=60ad8efff35b356051c713e65cab557c8571a5e8)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 19, 2014, 01:20:50 AM
Well that resolves that...  Guess I should've checked the photos on this same site.  They could've blanked out the '25c' for a more informative, if more stupid looking sign.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 19, 2014, 06:47:14 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 19, 2014, 01:20:50 AM
Well that resolves that...  Guess I should've checked the photos on this same site.  They could've blanked out the '25c' for a more informative, if more stupid looking sign.


They did that on the previous sign, which I just discovered is not yet uploaded.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2014, 12:59:37 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 19, 2014, 01:20:50 AM
Well that resolves that...  Guess I should've checked the photos on this same site.  They could've blanked out the '25c' for a more informative, if more stupid looking sign.


Not only is the GSP doing this, but many signs on Florida's many toll roads have been covering up the price of the tolls as well.   With everything going to electronic tolling, the price now is irrelevant in most minds.

Plus the constant rate increases, which now more than ever seem to take place, many toll road agencies do not want to keep hiring a crew to keep greening out a sign every other month or so.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 20, 2014, 01:09:33 PM
When I passed under the sign yesterday that was referenced in my earlier post, I could see that there is still a blanked out portion under "Parkway North", even though I think the current BGS is newer than the original one shown in the photo with the toll price (it now has the yellow "Only" section at the bottom rather than the arrows).  I think when they first put up this newer sign there was just "Toll Road" text which is now blanked out.  I remember passing it one day and thinking "Why would they bother blanking that out?".

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2014, 01:16:14 PM
Who knows with that one.  I like the one where they fail to mention that Wood Avenue in Iselin is DEAD END for truckers as it terminates at the trumpet of former Exit 131A.  I have seen so many 18 wheelers make u turns because it comes as a surprise to the drivers that Wood Avenue splits into two ramps for the GSP that prohibits trucks on it.   At Thornall Street, the last major intersection a sign should be placed saying LOCAL TRUCKS ONLY and at about 1000 feet before the end of Wood Avenue another sign should be placed saying LAST TURN FOR TRUCKS and also LAST TURN BEFORE PARKWAY for cars who, I am sure accidentally, end up on the Parkway because who would think a local street would default onto a toll road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 20, 2014, 01:22:37 PM
Ah, yes - Metro Park.  That does abruptly dump you onto the GSP.  They really do need a sign - a big sign - telling you that you are GSP bound beyond the light.  At least something like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on November 20, 2014, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 20, 2014, 01:22:37 PM
Ah, yes - Metro Park.  That does abruptly dump you onto the GSP.  They really do need a sign - a big sign - telling you that you are GSP bound beyond the light.  At least something like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20)

Yeah, what's the deal with 649 just dumping you onto the GSP once you're past the intersection with Hilton? I was following the road from the light with NJ 27 and there isn't even a hint of signage that suggests the GSP is straight ahead.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2014, 12:22:15 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on November 20, 2014, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 20, 2014, 01:22:37 PM
Ah, yes - Metro Park.  That does abruptly dump you onto the GSP.  They really do need a sign - a big sign - telling you that you are GSP bound beyond the light.  At least something like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20)

Yeah, what's the deal with 649 just dumping you onto the GSP once you're past the intersection with Hilton? I was following the road from the light with NJ 27 and there isn't even a hint of signage that suggests the GSP is straight ahead.
I have worked at Prudential back in the late 80's, which is right across a street from Hilton, and I have seen many tractor trailers making 4 point k turns to turn around because the lack of signage informing motorist that the road ends and defaults onto two freeway ramps that excludes trucks.

I am glad that I am not the only one to notice this mistake.  It should be marked at the Thornall Street intersection NO THRU TRUCKS and then just before the Hilton and Prudential Drives a LAST TURN FOR TRUCKS and post intersection maybe on overhead saying PARKWAY ONLY!

Also, I was noticing that on GSV at NB Exit 144 there is no guide sign for that exit.  Only the gore point exit sign and a 3/4 mile guide on the Madison Avenue Bridge prior to the ramp.  If the GSP can goof this one up, as guide signs are supposed to be at each exit as well as in advance, they can screw up things like this for Wood Avenue which is Middlesex County and not even their own roadway.

Middlesex County, is also the blame here, as they should be the ones to install signs along Wood Avenue as the GSP cannot do all of their dirty work.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 21, 2014, 12:27:58 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 20, 2014, 01:22:37 PM
Ah, yes - Metro Park.  That does abruptly dump you onto the GSP.  They really do need a sign - a big sign - telling you that you are GSP bound beyond the light.  At least something like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20)

Before clicking the link, I said, "If that's not Exit 105, I'll post that in response."
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2014, 02:22:50 PM
I just watched a new youtube video of the modified Exit 89 which takes motorists to the now defunct Exit 88 as well via a long service road.   However it is marked Exits 89 C-B and a covered A (for the completed EB cloverleaf) which is very interesting.  More so than the 131 saga is and the 140 sign coverup is this here, as we are now seeing a system wide change for exit numbers in the works.
http://patch.com/new-jersey/manchester-nj/parkway-exit-88-may-be-gone-89-will-still-get-you-manchesters-route-70-villages 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 03, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
So NJ.com has a gallery (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_winter_scenes_in_nj.html) about old snow storms in NJ, and it includes this gem of a Parkway sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7YCjok.jpg&hash=e3d48aa63ecad0d201ba9172224c181f39936479)

It looks like the CR-520 shield was attached after the fact. Wonder if it's covering a different shield.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on January 03, 2015, 10:31:04 AM
storm2k:  Now that's a Parkway sign!  Thanks.😊
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SidS1045 on January 03, 2015, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 03, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
So NJ.com has a gallery (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_winter_scenes_in_nj.html) about old snow storms in NJ, and it includes this gem of a Parkway sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7YCjok.jpg&hash=e3d48aa63ecad0d201ba9172224c181f39936479)

It looks like the CR-520 shield was attached after the fact. Wonder if it's covering a different shield.

I took that exit many times to visit my aunt, uncle and cousins in Little Silver.  I believe the original shield was a plain black-on-white rectangle:

MONMOUTH
  COUNTY
     520
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2015, 10:14:05 PM

Quote from: SidS1045 on January 03, 2015, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 03, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
So NJ.com has a gallery (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_winter_scenes_in_nj.html) about old snow storms in NJ, and it includes this gem of a Parkway sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7YCjok.jpg&hash=e3d48aa63ecad0d201ba9172224c181f39936479)

It looks like the CR-520 shield was attached after the fact. Wonder if it's covering a different shield.

I took that exit many times to visit my aunt, uncle and cousins in Little Silver.  I believe the original shield was a plain black-on-white rectangle:

MONMOUTH
  COUNTY
     520

Both words on top?  Bergen had/has a square with

BERGEN
    503
COUNTY

(small words above and below large numerals)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 06, 2015, 08:06:45 AM
All the blue pentagon county route shields were added slowly from the 70's to the 80's.  I remember when the white squares were used with the county names inside the independent shields and just plain on freeway guides except for Morris County which already had the present day shields in place as far as I can remember.   I am guessing that Morris was the first to implement them because as a kid visiting my aunt in Parsippany, NJ I remember seeing them while all the other counties had the white ones, which I thought was cool.  It was like Morris had their own neat little shields until slowly statewide I seen them pop up more and more.

In fact, Middlessex County did not start adding them until the very late 80's along their road system.  I was living in Fords, NJ when I seen them first go up on CR 514 and then CR 501 (at least from King George Road and westward) did not have them east of Downtown Fords, but did along Amboy Avenue, Middlessex Avenue (in Metuchen) and along New Durham Road.  I lived there from 1987 to 1990, so it goes to show how late NJ counties were in signing their own state secondary roads.  I believe Union was even after that as I did not see blue signs go up until after I moved here  to Florida except at some intersections in some bedroom communities when I used to travel to work up in the hills of Watchung. 

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SidS1045 on January 06, 2015, 11:46:43 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2015, 10:14:05 PM

Quote from: SidS1045 on January 03, 2015, 10:52:49 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 03, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
So NJ.com has a gallery (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_winter_scenes_in_nj.html) about old snow storms in NJ, and it includes this gem of a Parkway sign:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FS7YCjok.jpg&hash=e3d48aa63ecad0d201ba9172224c181f39936479)

It looks like the CR-520 shield was attached after the fact. Wonder if it's covering a different shield.

I took that exit many times to visit my aunt, uncle and cousins in Little Silver.  I believe the original shield was a plain black-on-white rectangle:

MONMOUTH
  COUNTY
     520

Both words on top?  Bergen had/has a square with

BERGEN
    503
COUNTY

(small words above and below large numerals)

It very well could be the way you remember it.  It was many, many moons ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on January 07, 2015, 10:34:18 AM
Old-style County Routes were signed like so (at least in Somerset County):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fus_202%2Fs620.jpg&hash=d3d7d930c20cdf5181584c0cdb1a9e50bb5ab304)

From: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_202/6.html
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on January 07, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 07, 2015, 10:34:18 AM
Old-style County Routes were signed like so (at least in Somerset County):
I miss those old county route signs.  Are there any still around in NJ? 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2015, 12:32:30 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 07, 2015, 10:34:18 AM
Old-style County Routes were signed like so (at least in Somerset County):
Also in Monmouth County:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fcr_13%2Fs520.jpg&hash=745b278a0b2a2f51bb8da01d4fa342db45486d35)
from http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_13/
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on January 07, 2015, 01:03:15 PM
I thought that first CR sign was a really old photo - but sure enough:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.647106,-74.640309&spn=0.000004,0.002575&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.647034,-74.640724&panoid=ce0bVOFfyYRyveV2PTEbZA&cbp=12,166.54,,0,6.51 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.647106,-74.640309&spn=0.000004,0.002575&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.647034,-74.640724&panoid=ce0bVOFfyYRyveV2PTEbZA&cbp=12,166.54,,0,6.51)
Good to see some still exist.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 07, 2015, 02:25:36 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on January 07, 2015, 01:03:15 PM
I thought that first CR sign was a really old photo - but sure enough:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.647106,-74.640309&spn=0.000004,0.002575&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.647034,-74.640724&panoid=ce0bVOFfyYRyveV2PTEbZA&cbp=12,166.54,,0,6.51 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.647106,-74.640309&spn=0.000004,0.002575&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.647034,-74.640724&panoid=ce0bVOFfyYRyveV2PTEbZA&cbp=12,166.54,,0,6.51)
Good to see some still exist.



Unfortunately, I think that gem is gone now, victim to construction to the buildings directly to the right of the original sign.

There used to be an old black and white CR-527 shield on the offramp from Exit 10 from 287 NB. I think that one met its maker as well, however.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2015, 07:01:29 PM
Still several on NJ 41 where it's signed as CR 573 (Kings Hwy.).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 17, 2015, 08:50:00 PM
They put up new signage for Exit 129 SB and in spite of the official designations found on this drawing (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/SD-NJTA-SL18.pdf), the pull through guide signs still use Shore Points as the control city. I'll try to grab a picture or two if I can at some point.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on January 07, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on January 07, 2015, 10:34:18 AM
Old-style County Routes were signed like so (at least in Somerset County):
I miss those old county route signs.  Are there any still around in NJ?

Here's another, in Hackensack.  There are a lot of these in Bergen, particularly on the non-500 routes.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8592/16307211781_aacac31874.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qR1HVP)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 20, 2015, 01:24:04 AM
I still see Bergen County still mounts the truss style mast arms up side down at some of their maintained signals.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on January 20, 2015, 09:37:12 PM
The exit sign for Exit 41 (future Jimmy Leeds Rd) is up but covered. Red lights at that exit are in place but also covered. Should be any week now that the exit is open, so we don't have to use a service plaza to get to the road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 22, 2015, 11:38:14 AM
How is the Exit 44 ramps coming along?

Also about Shore Points verses Toms River thing we should be grateful that the NJTA is using any control city as for years (well  anyway elsewhere on the GSP) there were no control cities listed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 22, 2015, 05:43:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 22, 2015, 11:38:14 AM
Also about Shore Points verses Toms River thing we should be grateful that the NJTA is using any control city as for years (well  anyway elsewhere on the GSP) there were no control cities listed.

Actually the pullthroughs at 129 listed Shore Points and the Cape May Ferry as control cities for at least 21 or 22 years, from whenever they replaced the signs along that stretch, which was when they put in those first generation VMS's that used the mechanical dots to display messages. I'm not old enough to concretely remember what was there before, but I'm pretty sure there was some designation for Shore Points there before as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on January 22, 2015, 11:46:23 PM
I heard that exit 40 would become a full interchange, it's needed since US 30 is a major artery to and from Atlantic City and such. But it's up to the residents of the community.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 23, 2015, 02:10:34 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 22, 2015, 05:43:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 22, 2015, 11:38:14 AM
Also about Shore Points verses Toms River thing we should be grateful that the NJTA is using any control city as for years (well  anyway elsewhere on the GSP) there were no control cities listed.

Actually the pullthroughs at 129 listed Shore Points and the Cape May Ferry as control cities for at least 21 or 22 years, from whenever they replaced the signs along that stretch, which was when they put in those first generation VMS's that used the mechanical dots to display messages. I'm not old enough to concretely remember what was there before, but I'm pretty sure there was some designation for Shore Points there before as well.
That is why I said elsewhere.  Shore Points and the Cape May Ferry have always been there as long as I can remember anyway.  I know the Tangle signs that were erected when the whole area between Exits 127 and 129 was redone to accommodate NJ 440 and the present day Exit 11 back in the early 70's.  However, pull through signing elsewhere on the Parkway always said either PARKWAY NORTH or PARKWAY SOUTH.  That always was an exception and not the norm.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 27, 2015, 08:43:49 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2015, 08:43:49 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 27, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2015, 08:43:49 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Some of them are up at 131, but the exit numbers are covered, and the old signs remain behind the new ones. The rest are close by, so it won't be too long. Not sure what the wait is. 140, other than a covered gore sign, I haven't seen anything new.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 11:31:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2015, 08:43:49 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Some of them are up at 131, but the exit numbers are covered, and the old signs remain behind the new ones. The rest are close by, so it won't be too long. Not sure what the wait is. 140, other than a covered gore sign, I haven't seen anything new.

He said unveiled. When I was there earlier this month, There was an Exit 132 sign on the side of an Exit 131A ramp that was uncovered. Wish I had a chance to get a shot.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 28, 2015, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 11:31:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2015, 08:43:49 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Some of them are up at 131, but the exit numbers are covered, and the old signs remain behind the new ones. The rest are close by, so it won't be too long. Not sure what the wait is. 140, other than a covered gore sign, I haven't seen anything new.

He said unveiled. When I was there earlier this month, There was an Exit 132 sign on the side of an Exit 131A ramp that was uncovered. Wish I had a chance to get a shot.

It's still there. Not sure what the wait is on getting the rest of the signs up. Either the cold weather slowed them down or they're waiting on some more signs to be manufactured. They did get the exit point sign up for the future 132 northbound. It's behind the old school button copy sign. No longer says Iselin on it, just Rahway and Metuchen. And it's higher up than the existing sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 29, 2015, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 28, 2015, 11:39:33 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 11:31:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 27, 2015, 08:43:49 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Some of them are up at 131, but the exit numbers are covered, and the old signs remain behind the new ones. The rest are close by, so it won't be too long. Not sure what the wait is. 140, other than a covered gore sign, I haven't seen anything new.

He said unveiled. When I was there earlier this month, There was an Exit 132 sign on the side of an Exit 131A ramp that was uncovered. Wish I had a chance to get a shot.

It's still there. Not sure what the wait is on getting the rest of the signs up. Either the cold weather slowed them down or they're waiting on some more signs to be manufactured. They did get the exit point sign up for the future 132 northbound. It's behind the old school button copy sign. No longer says Iselin on it, just Rahway and Metuchen. And it's higher up than the existing sign.
Iselin isn't a thing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 29, 2015, 02:57:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2015, 12:13:33 AM
Iselin isn't a thing.
I beg to differ. More than half of the business park in the area has Iselin addresses including where I used to work. Also Microsoft has its New Jersey office is in Iselin.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 29, 2015, 03:55:48 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 29, 2015, 02:57:27 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 29, 2015, 12:13:33 AM
Iselin isn't a thing.
I beg to differ. More than half of the business park in the area has Iselin addresses including where I used to work. Also Microsoft has its New Jersey office is in Iselin.

The post office will use the smallest of hamlets to have a location.

Yes, 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)?

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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on January 29, 2015, 05:28:51 PM
Iselin is a place. Who gives a fuck if it won the incorporation lottery?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 29, 2015, 05:40:16 PM

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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 30, 2015, 09:40:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 31, 2015, 04:37:51 PM
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.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7485/16311285882_6011669028_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 31, 2015, 06:54:23 PM
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
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 31, 2015, 08:18:57 PM
Why are there no road names on those signs?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 31, 2015, 10:44:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on February 01, 2015, 02:24:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 01, 2015, 02:32:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 01, 2015, 03:03:33 PM
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.
Title: Exit signs with town names only
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.  One exception There are some exceptions, however; one of them being NJTP signage for Exit 5 (CR 541).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 01:38:18 PM
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
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on February 02, 2015, 01:41:25 PM
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:

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey280/i-287_nb_exit_053_01.jpg)

But on the whole, 6xx county roads are seldom signed on overheads and large ground-mounted signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:47:19 PM
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:

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey280/i-287_nb_exit_053_01.jpg)
That's probably the only known exception that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 01:49:39 PM
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
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on February 02, 2015, 01:52:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2015, 01:52:35 PM

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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 03:20:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 02, 2015, 03:31:08 PM
The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:37:25 PM
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.  One exception being NJTP signage for Exit 5 (CR 541).

I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 04:25:50 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:37:25 PMI-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
Jeffandnicole on the previous page of this thread already posted a similar BGS near that interchange.

Nonetheless, I have since re-worded/corrected my original post.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 02, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
I'm more frustrated that the local radio reports (from Philadelphia) give route numbers instead of exit numbers or road names. That serves no one as those who are familiar with the area will not know the (county) route numbers, while those who are unfamiliar will only have looked up the destination and not some random place that might end up being congested, so have no idea if it's on the way. NJ 511 reports seem to mostly recite all of the information on overhead signs, so they are more understandable to everyone. For that matter, so do most GPS devices.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on February 02, 2015, 07:20:34 PM
 I agree with PHLBOS's suggestion on for the legend on that sign for Exit-135. That seems like a good compromise. Other road names/shields could be shown on a supplemental sign. BTW, the MUTCD specifies route shields should be used where they exist, not street names; so I wasn't suggesting all those street names be displayed with the town names. That would be an excessive amount of legend. Also, I did not know that New Jersey distinguished between primary and secondary county routes using a 500 series number vs. a 600/700 series number and that "normally" only the 500 routes were signed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 08:10:52 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 02, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
...NJ 511 reports seem to mostly recite all of the information on overhead signs, so they are more understandable to everyone. For that matter, so do most GPS devices.

511 basically takes from the NJDOT database, so they should always match up to (or give more info than) what is seen on the highway.

Quote from: SignBridge on February 02, 2015, 07:20:34 PM
...I did not know that New Jersey distinguished between primary and secondary county routes using a 500 series number vs. a 600/700 series number and that "normally" only the 500 routes were signed.

Throughout the state, on can encounter several duplicate 6xx's, although each county would only have 1 of each number (ie: there may be a 601 in Salem County & Mercer County, completely unrelated to each other). But, there will only be one 5xx, such as 501, in the state. They can be several counties long in distance.  7xx are relatively rare. I can't think of an example off the top of my head of a duped 7xx, although some seem to carry a good deal of traffic (such as my Creek Rd example on the previous page).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on February 02, 2015, 08:19:43 PM
Wow, a whole page of this before I get to it.
The official rule is that the NJTA will post all 5xx routes and no 6xx (etc.) routes. Any exceptions will be corrected in due course, including CR 541 at Exit 5 and any 6xx's on the southern Parkway.
No reason to sign 6xx's in North Jersey from any intersecting highway. Even if you're not from the area, you will be looking for street names, not numbers. This applies to Union, Essex, Passaic, Bergen, and Hudson Counties, as well as eastern Ocean and Monmouth Counties.
NJDOT has no policy. They'll sign 6xx routes if it makes sense to do so, i.e. outside of the above counties.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on February 03, 2015, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:37:25 PM
I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
I always thought the gratuitous use of four 600 series routes on this BGS was absolutely ridiculous.  I believe at one time, CR 534 was signed all the way to this interchange, and it would be just as well to continue to sign it here directly or with a "TO" (or just add yet another "TO 44" on the sign and be done with it).

They recently removed the 600 series shields from GSP exits 77 and 74 in Ocean County when they widened the roadway through that area.  I don't think the 600 shields were up for that long before that either.  Ocean County itself is very sloppy with signing 600 series routes, if they bother to sign them at all.  New Hampshire Ave. in the Lakewood area (CR 623) is only sporadically signed at certain intersections.  Why even bother?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 06:25:07 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on February 03, 2015, 12:16:52 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:37:25 PM
I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
I always thought the gratuitous use of four 600 series routes on this BGS was absolutely ridiculous.  I believe at one time, CR 534 was signed all the way to this interchange, and it would be just as well to continue to sign it here directly or with a "TO" (or just add yet another "TO 44" on the sign and be done with it).

The 4, 6xx routes on the sign is a new addition - there were 2 routes on the advanced signage, and as one entered the ramp area, the individual exits had the additional 6xx routes that could be accessed from the ramp.  Last summer or so is when they modified the advanced BGSs to show all 4, 6xx routes that could be accessed thru the interchange area.

Exit 21 (Delaware St) can also be used to get to the AC Expressway.  No, there's no sign on 295 for that.  But there's a single, lone sign along Delaware St that provides you this info.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.
Just because NJDOT maintains it doesn't mean it can't have a county route number.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 02:10:24 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.

The whole thing, or just the portion from the Exit 22 ramp to the Red Bank Ave light (CR 644)?  I think from Red Bank up to the ramp leading traffic back onto 130/295 is still county maintained.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 05:21:50 PM
The whole thing as per the county. Any signs that are up are old and likely won't be replaced.

Its also omitted from their map: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
and route log: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on February 04, 2015, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 02, 2015, 03:31:08 PM
The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!

I never really thought about that and I live about a half mile from the exit. Middlesex County indeed does not sign CR-602, but the Turnpike authority did when they rebuilt Exit 12. There are also county shields on the overhead street signs that the Turnpike Authority controls (Roosevelt and Harrison and from the Turnpike off-ramp). There's also a covered up county shield for the Industrial Highway because Carteret and the county could not come to an agreement about jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on February 04, 2015, 10:01:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 02, 2015, 01:52:17 PM
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.

Exit 36 certainly does have shields for CR-651 (https://goo.gl/maps/0OQXa). Holdover from the days when it had a spur route. When the spur route was replaced with a 600 route, they replaced the shield, and the contractor actually replaced it verbatim
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on February 04, 2015, 11:22:39 PM
Quote from: storm2k on February 04, 2015, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 02, 2015, 03:31:08 PM
The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!

I never really thought about that and I live about a half mile from the exit. Middlesex County indeed does not sign CR-602, but the Turnpike authority did when they rebuilt Exit 12. There are also county shields on the overhead street signs that the Turnpike Authority controls (Roosevelt and Harrison and from the Turnpike off-ramp). There's also a covered up county shield for the Industrial Highway because Carteret and the county could not come to an agreement about jurisdiction.
You can have 6xx signs on the ramps, just not the mainline guide signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 05, 2015, 08:12:38 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 05:21:50 PM
The whole thing as per the county. Any signs that are up are old and likely won't be replaced.

Its also omitted from their map: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
and route log: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882

Yet, per NJDOT's Straight Line Diagram, the portion I thought was county maintained does show to be under county jurisdiction: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/08000631__-.pdf

The traffic light at Crown Point/Hessian Ave is definitely county maintained, whereas the light at Crown Point/Red Bank is state maintained.  In Gloucester County, one easy way to tell is by the street signs hanging from the masts: State signs were printed with first letter capitalized; rest are small letters.  GloCo used all caps on their signs.

This is also in the area of my NJDOT plowing zone.  We salt and plow Crown Point on the west side of 295 (from Red Bank to Delaware), and Crown Point on the east side from Exit 22 down to Red Bank.  But we don't treat Crown Point from Red Bank thru Hessian to 295...the county comes by and gets that.

I'm thinking the county data sheet is wrong on this one, based on what I know of the area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 06, 2015, 09:43:53 AM
I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 06, 2015, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2015, 09:43:53 AM
I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
Saving space? Decreasing the time needed to process the info on the sign?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on February 06, 2015, 06:51:07 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 06, 2015, 09:43:53 AM
I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
"not mandatory" = "mandatory NOT to have"
It's just a policy. The NJTA has decided that 6xx routes are not important enough to sign by number, and they would rather sign the destinations it reaches.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 03, 2015, 11:09:06 PM
Update on sign replacement on the free section: They replaced the exit tabs at 131A SB (now shows 131 with a yellow "Former 131A" tab above it) and changed the 130 tabs to show 130B-A. They also replaced the signs at 131B NB. Interestingly, they reused the existing sign bridge, even though it looks like they put in the concrete base for at least a cantilever sign. Did not expect that. Also, the Metropark sign does not have the NJT or Amtrak logos on it, even though it looks like there is room for them. Not sure if they will add them later or just put up a ground mount sign for them. Curious because the sign is for a train station. I will try to grab some pics when I can.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman on March 04, 2015, 01:20:21 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 03, 2015, 11:09:06 PM
Also, the Metropark sign does not have the NJT or Amtrak logos on it, even though it looks like there is room for them. Not sure if they will add them later or just put up a ground mount sign for them.
Not sure what the exact policy in the NJ area is, but the FHWA region office that oversees Massachusetts have had a long time aversion to placing transit logos on overhead guide signs (despite the fact there is no such provision in the MUTCD), even if the exit serves a transit or rail station.  This is why the overhead signs on I-95 (MA 128) for University Avenue have "Amtrak/MBTA Station" spelled out instead of using logos.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on March 04, 2015, 03:50:33 PM
NJDOT has placed logo signs on I-295 (PATCO at Exit 31/Woodcrest Sta (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.876096,-75.015034,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdL4WMIHPeEZooja0K7F1LQ!2e0)) and NJ 29 (NJ Transit and Amtrak at the southbound exit TO NJ 33 / US 1 NORTH / Market St / NJ 129 Arena (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.214631,-74.768524,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbwICDCzVZY43XEpfawialA!2e0)), so there's precedent for NJTA to follow if they chose to do so.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on March 04, 2015, 03:59:19 PM
On the subject of transit logo/shields on BGS': PennDOT, at least for 30th St. Station placed both Amtrak & SEPTA logo shields for this exit BGS (http://goo.gl/maps/JWCoJ) off I-76 (this exit serves more than just 30th St. Station BTW) but yet there's still no PA 3 shield present whatsoever, not even a supplemental trailblazer.  :banghead:

We now bring you back to our regularly-scheduled GSP thread topic already in progress.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 04, 2015, 04:25:55 PM
The reason I find this curious is that the 131 sign SB (formerly 131A) says Metropark and has the NJT/Amtrak logos on it, so I figured they'd repeat it NB. The old blue signs for 131A and B had the logos on it. Given that 131B was built for the express purpose of accessing the train station, I don't know why they stayed away from it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 06, 2015, 12:14:40 AM
A correction that I did not realize. They have taken down the Metropark sign at 131 SB (former 131A) and now it's for Wood Ave South, no transit logos on it at all. I think they put up a ground mount sign before 132 (for Rt 27) saying Use next 2 exits for Metropark.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 06, 2015, 12:29:17 AM
Have the Exit 132 signs finally been uncovered?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 06, 2015, 12:47:10 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 06, 2015, 12:14:40 AM
A correction that I did not realize. They have taken down the Metropark sign at 131 SB (former 131A) and now it's for Wood Ave South, no transit logos on it at all. I think they put up a ground mount sign before 132 (for Rt 27) saying Use next 2 exits for Metropark.
I actually think that is a good move on their part.  As most people who exit at the former 131A trumpet are not destined for the station anyway.  In fact going NB I always saw the sign prior to the defunct Reading Railroad bridge, saying the two exits for Metro Park had 131A for Wood Avenue S. and 131B for the Parking Garage.  So going NB it was indirectly stating that the station proper was 131B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2015, 12:59:39 AM
What's the reasoning behind the MUTCD disallowing this?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on March 06, 2015, 12:59:06 PM
Speaking of the GSP and logos, was the logo (NJ in the "M") on the right side of the Turnpike exit BGS in this GSV link for the Meadowlands complex?  I think I used to see more of these in the past.  I may have the location wrong, but I think this is the spot where there is a new gantry and signage right in front of (and to replace) the bridge mounted signs.
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.534271,-74.300626&spn=0.000004,0.002615&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.534323,-74.301203&panoid=JOlodK3kAUR_fwhkxYreLA&cbp=12,309.47,,0,-3.38 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.534271,-74.300626&spn=0.000004,0.002615&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.534323,-74.301203&panoid=JOlodK3kAUR_fwhkxYreLA&cbp=12,309.47,,0,-3.38)

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 06, 2015, 03:36:44 PM
Yes, the M was for the Meadowlands. That logo was phased out a long time ago, this is the current one: https://goo.gl/maps/aUVGa
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 06, 2015, 06:16:37 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on March 06, 2015, 12:59:06 PM
Speaking of the GSP and logos, was the logo (NJ in the "M") on the right side of the Turnpike exit BGS in this GSV link for the Meadowlands complex?  I think I used to see more of these in the past.  I may have the location wrong, but I think this is the spot where there is a new gantry and signage right in front of (and to replace) the bridge mounted signs.
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.534271,-74.300626&spn=0.000004,0.002615&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.534323,-74.301203&panoid=JOlodK3kAUR_fwhkxYreLA&cbp=12,309.47,,0,-3.38 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.534271,-74.300626&spn=0.000004,0.002615&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.534323,-74.301203&panoid=JOlodK3kAUR_fwhkxYreLA&cbp=12,309.47,,0,-3.38)



It was for the Meadowlands Sports Complex. I believe they're being phased out for a lot of places. They're not on the new signs for 129 anymore. On the Turnpike proper, there are brown signs for MetLife and the Izod Center to use 16W (much more standard MUTCD). 16W always had "Sports Complex" as a destination in text. The random M's never made much sense if you ask me.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 06, 2015, 06:17:21 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 06, 2015, 12:29:17 AM
Have the Exit 132 signs finally been uncovered?

The new signs are up and the old ones removed, but the exit tab is still covered. Not sure what they're waiting for, but it hasn't happened yet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 06, 2015, 06:33:38 PM
have they finished the sign replacement project yet by exit 135 etc?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 07, 2015, 01:48:44 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on March 06, 2015, 06:33:38 PM
have they finished the sign replacement project yet by exit 135 etc?

In short, no.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 07, 2015, 02:54:00 PM
The one for Exit 144 is neat as I never saw the northern part of Irvington called N. Irvington.  Now, Newark is not even signed there anymore either as the Parkway just uses CR 510 and South Orange Avenue to sign it and no mention of any part of Irvington as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on March 08, 2015, 09:44:51 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 06, 2015, 12:47:10 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 06, 2015, 12:14:40 AM
A correction that I did not realize. They have taken down the Metropark sign at 131 SB (former 131A) and now it's for Wood Ave South, no transit logos on it at all. I think they put up a ground mount sign before 132 (for Rt 27) saying Use next 2 exits for Metropark.
I actually think that is a good move on their part.  As most people who exit at the former 131A trumpet are not destined for the station anyway.  In fact going NB I always saw the sign prior to the defunct Reading Railroad bridge, saying the two exits for Metro Park had 131A for Wood Avenue S. and 131B for the Parking Garage.  So going NB it was indirectly stating that the station proper was 131B.

Agreed. If i recall correctly, the rumor was that the Hilton and some other big outfit at that exit (Prudential maybe?) complained because for the Hilton rumor, non-familiar users were driving right by the exit because they incorrectly assumed the exit was only for a train station. With the sign now disseminating Wood Avenue South (that's South, not SOUTH by the way), all people seeking a destination with that address can be reassured that is their exit. I think that was the reason for the change. Hilton told NJTA that they were exhausted fielding complaints from hotel patrons when they arrived at the front desk.

Plus, they were misusing blue. The NJHA always overapplied blue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 08, 2015, 05:07:25 PM
I worked at Prudential from 1986 to 1990 and I can tell you that Prudential had some influence with the then NJHA.  The original sign that showed the upcomming split for the two ramps of the Parkway that Wood Avenue defaulted into, was confusing to motorists that the SB Parkway crowd would be riding around Prudential's Parking Lot dumbfounded expecting to be on the Parkway.  The interesting thing is the arrow was not erroneous in anyway.  It was on a LGS post Prudential Driveway with an up and right arrow pointing away from the driveway and at 2 o clock.  How anyone could turn before that sign is beyond me, but we all here are amazed at what non road geeks can do even with idiot proof signing as well.

Nonetheless, the Parkway replaced the sign at Pru's request and featured two up arrows side by side until the NJHA replaced the sign soon afterwards with all text lettering but carbon copied the lane control arrows.

So that theory is valid if the NJTA did go green for that and making it look like a normal street exit instead of it being just a special exit for train commuters.  If they did it then, they could have done it three decades later as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on March 09, 2015, 10:16:14 AM
The existence of Wood Avenue South and the house numbering on it is extremely confusing. First of all, nobody (in New Jersey anyway) cares about the directional suffixes on road names. Secondly, most people assume that within one town the house numbers will not repeat on the same road in the same municipality. I used to work in that Hilton (part of the building is office space) and people would confuse "120 Wood Avenue S" with "120 Wood Avenue" (3 blocks away from each other) all the time, especially since the businesses did not always mention that the building was the Hilton. Why couldn't they pick a different name when that portion was built?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 09, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
That is because Woodbridge Township, New Jersey does not use a base line for directional suffixed roads.  One line that the whole community uses that is.

Some towns do pat attention though. For example nearby Scotch Plains has two streets with directional prefixes (the same even though its ahead of the name). One is East Second Street and the other is West Broad Street.   East Second is on the West side of Martine/ Park Avenues and West Broad Street is on the east side of it.  Martine/ Park Avenues are not a regular base line for Scotch Plains, it is just that East Second is considered an extension of Plainfield's East Second Street and West Broad Street is an extension of Westfield's West Broad Street.  All are kept to keep continuity as people who live in Scotch Plains do use the whole name and no one ever says Broad Street.

I think Wood Avenue South is kept with the same name as the road it branches from because of continuity as well, but it ended up being one of those things.  So the address numbers are a bit screwed up, however I have seen worse.

Go to Franklin Township, NJ in Somerset and you will find 11 Campus Drive across a street from 399 Campus Drive.  Now why is a two digit number and a three digit in the same block, is beyond me?  Or better yet why a significant number jump just for crossing the street?  You would never think that 11 Campus and 399 Campus would be that close.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on March 13, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
Star Ledger article on exit number / signage changes at 131, as well as opening of 41 and later, a full interchange at 44.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/what_exit_parkway_exit_numbers_officially_change_today_as_new_exit_opens.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/what_exit_parkway_exit_numbers_officially_change_today_as_new_exit_opens.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 13, 2015, 09:38:48 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on March 13, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
Star Ledger article on exit number / signage changes at 131, as well as opening of 41 and later, a full interchange at 44.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/what_exit_parkway_exit_numbers_officially_change_today_as_new_exit_opens.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/what_exit_parkway_exit_numbers_officially_change_today_as_new_exit_opens.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)


I went through myself finally. One of the SB Exit 131/132 signs has been uncovered, but all the rest of the exit number panels remain covered for now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2015, 04:51:54 PM
What about the Exit 143 in Irvington and the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges?

I know that they are to have number changes as well, but the Star Ledger did not mention those changes as they focused just on the 131-131A thing only.  Have they done them yet?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 15, 2015, 07:30:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 15, 2015, 04:51:54 PM
What about the Exit 143 in Irvington and the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges?

I know that they are to have number changes as well, but the Star Ledger did not mention those changes as they focused just on the 131-131A thing only.  Have they done them yet?
In what world do you believe those are changing? Wait, I forgot, not ours.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 16, 2015, 10:45:14 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 15, 2015, 07:30:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 15, 2015, 04:51:54 PM
What about the Exit 143 in Irvington and the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges?

I know that they are to have number changes as well, but the Star Ledger did not mention those changes as they focused just on the 131-131A thing only.  Have they done them yet?
In what world do you believe those are changing? Wait, I forgot, not ours.
Ha Ha Steve.  You mean yours and NE 2's world.  Anyway did not we discuss here the MUTCD having effect on the Parkway now with so far the change at 142 going A and B from the 140, it was in fact mentioned that eventually all those including 38-38A going 38A-38B? 

I just asked the status of the other interchanges with some numbering offs as the article seemed to focus on the 131 issue.  There is nothing spacy about that.  What is more spacy is you going out of your way to protect an insane user on here that you only knew in person years ago when you were in college. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on March 16, 2015, 02:56:22 PM
What does this have to do with me?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 19, 2015, 03:36:22 AM
Rode up the Parkway NB from 131 thru 163 today. Couple of notes:
-137 and 138 are losing some control cities. 137 had 3, which is more frowned upon, so now it will only have Roselle Pk and Cranford I believe. I think 138 will just be Kenilworth.
-139AB will soon be ditching any mention of Chestnut St or NJ-82.
-140 is going to be be signed for US-22 and NJ-82 (not just 82 East). Makes sense to do this and have traffic access 82 WB via the U-turn. The way you would go via Chestnut St off 139B was always quite out of the way. And in one of the best things to happen with this project, they're finally taking Holland Tunnel off as the destination for 140. It never made any sense. It's going to be Hillside, even though I think Newark is still a better control city (since 22 ends at 1-9 and also has a ramp directly to NJ-21, which takes you into downtown Newark proper). It would have been nice to see Elizabeth as a control city also (as exists on the SB signs for 140 that were installed with the 142 work a few years back) since NJ-82 takes you straight into Elizabeth's central business district.
-163 has temp ground mounted signage while they work on that area. The temp signs are done in the current NJTP-MUTCD style, including shields with no black backing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: spooky on March 19, 2015, 07:35:37 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 16, 2015, 02:56:22 PM
What does this have to do with me?

It's your world.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 19, 2015, 03:36:22 AM
Rode up the Parkway NB from 131 thru 163 today. Couple of notes:
-137 and 138 are losing some control cities. 137 had 3, which is more frowned upon, so now it will only have Roselle Pk and Cranford I believe. I think 138 will just be Kenilworth.
-139AB will soon be ditching any mention of Chestnut St or NJ-82.
-140 is going to be be signed for US-22 and NJ-82 (not just 82 East). Makes sense to do this and have traffic access 82 WB via the U-turn. The way you would go via Chestnut St off 139B was always quite out of the way. And in one of the best things to happen with this project, they're finally taking Holland Tunnel off as the destination for 140. It never made any sense. It's going to be Hillside, even though I think Newark is still a better control city (since 22 ends at 1-9 and also has a ramp directly to NJ-21, which takes you into downtown Newark proper). It would have been nice to see Elizabeth as a control city also (as exists on the SB signs for 140 that were installed with the 142 work a few years back) since NJ-82 takes you straight into Elizabeth's central business district.
-163 has temp ground mounted signage while they work on that area. The temp signs are done in the current NJTP-MUTCD style, including shields with no black backing.
Disagree with most of your commentary.
* 139B always made sense to head west on 82. 140 adds distance and time and takes you through Union instead of around the downtown.
* 140 makes more sense for Holland Tunnel than 142. Not only is it a shorter distance, but it's TOLL FREE. Hey, I like that. Parkway is all cars, so everyone can use the Skyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 19, 2015, 06:42:13 PM
Pretty sure the Holland Tunnel destination is from an era before I-78 was built.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on April 07, 2015, 12:20:17 AM
Update, tonight I saw a pull thru sign with the control city of "Paterson" was installed northbound around interchange 140. Sorry, no picture this time...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:00:39 AM
"Parkway set to unveil plan to fix Exit 109"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/parkway_set_to_unveil_plan_to_fix_exit_109_heres_a_sneak_peak.html#incart_river

QuoteGarden State parkway officials will talk one-on-one with drivers and residents from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Middletown Public Library, 55 New Monmouth Road, about the proposed $60 million Exit 109 project. "It's in design now. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2017 and be completed in 2019," said Tom Feeney, a spokesman for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which runs the Parkway...The core of the project calls for replacing four aging bridges that carry the express and local lanes of the parkway over Newman Springs Road and widening the road, also known as county Route 520.   The project would move the Parkway's Northbound lanes to the west and toward the highway center median to improve conditions at the interchange and bring it to current design standards, Feeney said.

What's entertaining/irritating about the article are the photos used (as of 8:30am 4/22).  The first photo at the top of the article is just a generic G.S. Parkway sign over an area of single carriageway-per-direction roadway.  Exit 109 is in a dual carriageway section of the Parkway.

At the bottom of the article is a small series of photos of a construction truck accident...on the Parkway near Brick. 

All the pics have absolutely nothing to do with the interchange in question.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:00:39 AM
"Parkway set to unveil plan to fix Exit 109"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/parkway_set_to_unveil_plan_to_fix_exit_109_heres_a_sneak_peak.html#incart_river

Looking at a nearby intersection on GSV (http://goo.gl/maps/NWFEA) that's due to be reconstructed as part of the project (Half Mile at Newman), I noted this may be one of the few intersections in the state with 2 right turn lanes, which permits right turns on red from the right lane, but not the left.  In every other case I was familiar with, RTOR is prohibited from both lanes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 22, 2015, 01:12:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:00:39 AM
"Parkway set to unveil plan to fix Exit 109"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/parkway_set_to_unveil_plan_to_fix_exit_109_heres_a_sneak_peak.html#incart_river

Looking at a nearby intersection on GSV (http://goo.gl/maps/NWFEA) that's due to be reconstructed as part of the project (Half Mile at Newman), I noted this may be one of the few intersections in the state with 2 right turn lanes, which permits right turns on red from the right lane, but not the left.  In every other case I was familiar with, RTOR is prohibited from both lanes.
I like the signage in your example.  Here's another one in the Toms River area, with just a single text sign allowing RTOR from the right lane only: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.971955,-74.23747&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.972043,-74.2379&panoid=MmZugmkGDkIagvu8w4mYiw&cbp=12,49.41,,0,1.06 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.971955,-74.23747&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.972043,-74.2379&panoid=MmZugmkGDkIagvu8w4mYiw&cbp=12,49.41,,0,1.06)
And an example of dual right turn lanes both allowed to make a RTOR (outside of the morning rush hour) in Jersey City:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.717054,-74.054707&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.717002,-74.054796&panoid=3JCGfcekg9e1gVVAcBWnVA&cbp=12,31.66,,0,6.17 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.717054,-74.054707&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.717002,-74.054796&panoid=3JCGfcekg9e1gVVAcBWnVA&cbp=12,31.66,,0,6.17)

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 01:38:37 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 22, 2015, 01:12:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:17:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:00:39 AM
"Parkway set to unveil plan to fix Exit 109"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/parkway_set_to_unveil_plan_to_fix_exit_109_heres_a_sneak_peak.html#incart_river

Looking at a nearby intersection on GSV (http://goo.gl/maps/NWFEA) that's due to be reconstructed as part of the project (Half Mile at Newman), I noted this may be one of the few intersections in the state with 2 right turn lanes, which permits right turns on red from the right lane, but not the left.  In every other case I was familiar with, RTOR is prohibited from both lanes.
I like the signage in your example.  Here's another one in the Toms River area, with just a single text sign allowing RTOR from the right lane only: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.971955,-74.23747&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.972043,-74.2379&panoid=MmZugmkGDkIagvu8w4mYiw&cbp=12,49.41,,0,1.06 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.971955,-74.23747&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.972043,-74.2379&panoid=MmZugmkGDkIagvu8w4mYiw&cbp=12,49.41,,0,1.06)
And an example of dual right turn lanes both allowed to make a RTOR (outside of the morning rush hour) in Jersey City:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.717054,-74.054707&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.717002,-74.054796&panoid=3JCGfcekg9e1gVVAcBWnVA&cbp=12,31.66,,0,6.17 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.717054,-74.054707&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.717002,-74.054796&panoid=3JCGfcekg9e1gVVAcBWnVA&cbp=12,31.66,,0,6.17)

That does remind me - there's one intersection where the right lane turns right, the next lane over is dual straight/right: http://goo.gl/maps/Dwazt .  Per the (lack of) signage, RTOR is permitted from either lane.  Note the 'Stop Here On Red' sign, which sometimes people may interpret as "No Turn On Red" because they don't get it.  Thus, the supplemental sign above it (ignore the ugliness of it), stating yes, go turn on red. 

This was one of the Red Light Camera intersections, so some people refused to turn right on red after getting their violation notice in the mail.  Thankfully those days are over (for now).

FWIW, I've never seen anyone turn right from the dual-function lane.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 22, 2015, 03:03:37 PM
The first place I ever encountered a double right turn lane that permitted turning on red was in North Carolina, I honestly didn't know it was possible or safe for that matter. The cross street was configured as a "Super Street" and they had closed the median break, forcing a U-turn at the next light.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on April 22, 2015, 03:08:43 PM
Is it uncommon to have two right turn lanes that can both yield on red? I'm quite used to it out "west".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on April 22, 2015, 05:15:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 22, 2015, 03:08:43 PM
Is it uncommon to have two right turn lanes that can both yield on red? I'm quite used to it out "west".
Very uncommon. You usually have to stop before turning if the light's red.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on April 22, 2015, 05:25:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 22, 2015, 05:15:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 22, 2015, 03:08:43 PM
Is it uncommon to have two right turn lanes that can both yield on red? I'm quite used to it out "west".

Very uncommon. You usually have to stop before turning if the light's red.

You know what I meant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on April 22, 2015, 08:12:06 PM
We have a few double right turns that are allowed right on red in NY.  The two that come to mind are I-390 south to Brighton-Henrietta Town Line Rd and I-87 to NY 2 and NY 7 at the SPUI.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on April 23, 2015, 12:14:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:00:39 AM
All the pics have absolutely nothing to do with the interchange in question.

"So you've decided to visit NJ.com for the first time..."

(I only stay for the dummies in the comment section)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 25, 2015, 03:00:19 AM
Signage replacement from the Driscoll Bridge to the Union Tolls looks like it's almost complete. There are only a few signs left to erect, including the existing sign bridge at 135 going NB (one of the last 1980 NJDOT non-reflective button copy installs). I will try to grab some pictures at some point. I'm usually driving when I'm through that area, so it's not easy to try and get pics.

Of note, it looks like they're replacing signs on the ramps at 127 and 129. This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5417,-74.309372,3a,75y,152.48h,86.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ssc5dTRmKIcg0YbvLNGi_vQ!2e0) is now gone. This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.539688,-74.307977,3a,75y,156.87h,92.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sc5w7BczMfsFbX9Lpx9LuxA!2e0) will likely be gone in the next week or so (they just put the new signs on the gantry on Thursday, they just need to mount it now). Maybe this also means they'll replace the gantry for the New Brunswick Rd exit and actually refer to its connections to 440 properly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 25, 2015, 11:20:36 AM
The 129 ramp has "New York CitY" as a destination for the NJTP. Who knows how that happened. It would be nice if that whole exit got lettered ramps, it certainly has enough of them! Odd that they would rip down a basically new NJDOT sign at New Brunswick Ave. though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 25, 2015, 03:00:19 AM
Signage replacement from the Driscoll Bridge to the Union Tolls looks like it's almost complete. There are only a few signs left to erect, including the existing sign bridge at 135 going NB (one of the last 1980 NJDOT non-reflective button copy installs). I will try to grab some pictures at some point. I'm usually driving when I'm through that area, so it's not easy to try and get pics.

Of note, it looks like they're replacing signs on the ramps at 127 and 129. This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5417,-74.309372,3a,75y,152.48h,86.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ssc5dTRmKIcg0YbvLNGi_vQ!2e0) is now gone. This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.539688,-74.307977,3a,75y,156.87h,92.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sc5w7BczMfsFbX9Lpx9LuxA!2e0) will likely be gone in the next week or so (they just put the new signs on the gantry on Thursday, they just need to mount it now). Maybe this also means they'll replace the gantry for the New Brunswick Rd exit and actually refer to its connections to 440 properly.

The one at the split for the NJ Turnpike always irked me.  I am glad its coming down as its been there for years with the all upper case lettering and no destinations.  I do like that the NJT is finally getting destinations after all these years though.  I only hope that NJTA replaces the post toll plaza photos with follow up signs that show the same control cities as the Exit 129 guide signs now feature.

Another peeve of mine was when they changed out the button copy signs in the late 80's that used both Trenton in New York, for the interstate designations of I-95 with either TURNPIKE NORTH or TURNPIKE SOUTH with no more of New York AND North or Trenton AND South.

I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 28, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on April 28, 2015, 10:03:12 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.

This probably was brought up before, but they haven't even touched the signage between exits 143-172? Some of these should be updated as well. I haven't been up there for a while, so I am not sure what is going on in that area. Street view is still from 2012 in most areas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 28, 2015, 10:52:07 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on April 28, 2015, 10:03:12 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.

This probably was brought up before, but they haven't even touched the signage between exits 143-172? Some of these should be updated as well. I haven't been up there for a while, so I am not sure what is going on in that area. Street view is still from 2012 in most areas.
No, they haven't yet. Those signs are generally newer than the ones south of 142. The upcoming work at 145 will replace those signs, but there are a lot of nonstandard ones up in the 150s that need a thorough replacement.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on April 29, 2015, 11:32:08 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PMThe one at the split for the NJ Turnpike always irked me.  I am glad its coming down as its been there for years with the all upper case lettering and no destinations.  I do like that the NJT is finally getting destinations after all these years though.  I only hope that NJTA replaces the post toll plaza photos with follow up signs that show the same control cities as the Exit 129 guide signs now feature.

Another peeve of mine was when they changed out the button copy signs in the late 80's that used both Trenton in New York, for the interstate designations of I-95 with either TURNPIKE NORTH or TURNPIKE SOUTH with no more of New York AND North or Trenton AND South.
The new exit signs for the Turnpike, at least along the southbound GSP, now list Camden as a southbound destination (instead of Del. Mem. Bridge).

The rationale for skipping over Trenton is due to the preceeding US 1 interchange signage listing Trenton for a southbound destination.

Maybe New Brunswick (which is a supplemental BGS but it was on the primary BGS w/Trenton when the exit ramp was for US 1 southbound only) should be the southbound destination for the US 1 interchange signage; thereby allowing for a more consistent signing of Trenton for a southbound NJTP/I-95 destination in this vicinity.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 29, 2015, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on April 28, 2015, 10:03:12 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.

This probably was brought up before, but they haven't even touched the signage between exits 143-172? Some of these should be updated as well. I haven't been up there for a while, so I am not sure what is going on in that area. Street view is still from 2012 in most areas.

There's a new one for 144SB. 143A-B got new ones as part of the 142 project. 145 is going to get new signage. 163 will also. All the old signage there is gone (which makes sense). There are a lot of older vintage GSP oddities in the 150s and up which could use replacement.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 29, 2015, 10:36:33 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certain that "rusted" brown gantry on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge, just before the Metropark Amtrak/NJ Transit train station, wasn't there a few months ago? This was looking northward on a southbound train to Philadelphia on Tuesday morning, April 28th:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fd8EQr4U.jpg&hash=e51f2c47ae7d0e4d935806af9d072d4f4341aefb)

The same bridge, from January 28, 2012...for comparison's sake:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNLzD63d.jpg&hash=0d1c7733e836ed54912b2ea0d79a841b1665f033)

:hmmm:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 29, 2015, 10:51:14 PM
Brand new, holds advance signs for Exit 131, 130 and 129. Also note the new sign northbound for NJ-27 with a "formerly Exit 131" tab on it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on April 30, 2015, 12:54:37 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 29, 2015, 10:36:33 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certain that "rusted" brown gantry on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge, just before the Metropark Amtrak/NJ Transit train station, wasn't there a few months ago? This was looking northward on a southbound train to Philadelphia on Tuesday morning, April 28th:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fd8EQr4U.jpg&hash=e51f2c47ae7d0e4d935806af9d072d4f4341aefb)

Yeah! What's the deal with that, by the way?!?! I travel the GSP everyday and was wondering about all these new rusted gantries, myself. Why were they not painted or plated or something? Would it really have cost that much extra? Or is it some nostalgic throwback to the old wooden members they once used?

The same bridge, from January 28, 2012...for comparison's sake:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNLzD63d.jpg&hash=0d1c7733e836ed54912b2ea0d79a841b1665f033)

:hmmm:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 30, 2015, 02:09:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.
Then Exit 136 which uses three destinations as well (all three east of the Parkway, with the SB Parkway having to make a u turn on Centennial Avenue to access all three), I take, must of had one of them removed as well.

To me Roselle should not be used going SB anyway, as it is better served via NJ 28 as the borough is located just to the south of NJ 28 immediately east of the Parkway.   Also Cranford should be used (and it was used prior to 1980 for Exit 136) as NB Centennial Avenue happens to service Downtown Cranford.  It never seemed right that all three destinations were in one direction (east) only  and also with Winfield Park one of them that is a very small community that should be on an auxillary sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on April 30, 2015, 03:48:47 PM
Quote from: njunderground on April 30, 2015, 12:54:37 AM

Yeah! What's the deal with that, by the way?!?! I travel the GSP everyday and was wondering about all these new rusted gantries, myself. Why were they not painted or plated or something? Would it really have cost that much extra? Or is it some nostalgic throwback to the old wooden members they once used?


The GSP uses these sign gantries a lot. Also I-95 near Baltimore uses them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 30, 2015, 04:01:01 PM
Apparently some people in New Jersey don't know where Camden is. The MUTCD policy to eliminate river crossings as control cities is mentioned too: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commutinglarry_why_are_the_signs_on_the_parkway_are_changing.html

Who thought the most anti-MUTCD agency of all would become the strictest?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on April 30, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 30, 2015, 04:01:01 PM
Apparently some people in New Jersey don't know where Camden is. The MUTCD policy to eliminate river crossings as control cities is mentioned too: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commutinglarry_why_are_the_signs_on_the_parkway_are_changing.html

Who thought the most anti-MUTCD agency of all would become the strictest?

How the hell do you not know where Camden is if you live in this state? Just look next to Philadelphia, across the Delaware River and you'll find it soon enough.

Also, I thought the FHWA was literally forcing the NJTA to implement their standards into their signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on April 30, 2015, 08:11:01 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 30, 2015, 04:01:01 PM
Apparently some people in New Jersey don't know where Camden is. The MUTCD policy to eliminate river crossings as control cities is mentioned too: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commutinglarry_why_are_the_signs_on_the_parkway_are_changing.html

Who thought the most anti-MUTCD agency of all would become the strictest?

Oh for Christ sake. This guy claims it's a familiar sign, but drove right by the exit?  I call bullshit. What, did he think they moved his exit?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 30, 2015, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on April 30, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 30, 2015, 04:01:01 PM
Apparently some people in New Jersey don't know where Camden is. The MUTCD policy to eliminate river crossings as control cities is mentioned too: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commutinglarry_why_are_the_signs_on_the_parkway_are_changing.html

Who thought the most anti-MUTCD agency of all would become the strictest?

How the hell do you not know where Camden is if you live in this state? Just look next to Philadelphia, across the Delaware River and you'll find it soon enough.

Also, I thought the FHWA was literally forcing the NJTA to implement their standards into their signs.

Fact: Not everyone is good at geography.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 30, 2015, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2015, 02:09:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.
Then Exit 136 which uses three destinations as well (all three east of the Parkway, with the SB Parkway having to make a u turn on Centennial Avenue to access all three), I take, must of had one of them removed as well.

To me Roselle should not be used going SB anyway, as it is better served via NJ 28 as the borough is located just to the south of NJ 28 immediately east of the Parkway.   Also Cranford should be used (and it was used prior to 1980 for Exit 136) as NB Centennial Avenue happens to service Downtown Cranford.  It never seemed right that all three destinations were in one direction (east) only  and also with Winfield Park one of them that is a very small community that should be on an auxillary sign.

136 eliminated Winfield Park in both directions. Now just Linden and Roselle. I didn't know where Winfield Park even was until last year or so when I noticed some signs for it driving to the parkway at 136 from 27 in Linden.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 30, 2015, 11:56:38 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on April 29, 2015, 10:36:33 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certain that "rusted" brown gantry on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge, just before the Metropark Amtrak/NJ Transit train station, wasn't there a few months ago? This was looking northward on a southbound train to Philadelphia on Tuesday morning, April 28th:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fd8EQr4U.jpg&hash=e51f2c47ae7d0e4d935806af9d072d4f4341aefb)

The same bridge, from January 28, 2012...for comparison's sake:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNLzD63d.jpg&hash=0d1c7733e836ed54912b2ea0d79a841b1665f033)

:hmmm:

The rusted looking gantries are a GSP tradition. They are all over the place elsewhere on the Parkway. Now both the Turnpike and the Parkway are implementing them statewide. In fact, the aluminum gantries in the Middlesex-Union segment is one of the only places with those style gantries, as most of the signage was erected by NJDOT and not the NJHA in the early 80s (since NJDOT had jurisdiction over that section until 1987).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 01, 2015, 01:55:57 PM
Interesting development on the signage replacement project. They are replacing some of the signs erected during the 142 improvements. They've replaced the 1 mile approach sign for 142A-B going NB. Also new signage for 141 and 140/140A (or whatever they'll be numbered once the NJTA renumbers them) going SB. I'm surprised since they designed those signs to be MUTCD-ish compliant. They were only installed a few years ago. Not sure why they're being replaced, honestly.

The other thing that baffles me is why they're not taking the effort to move the advance signage for the Union Toll Plaza to an overhead gantry. Good luck seeing that "Union Toll Plaza 1 Mile" sign tucked away as an afterthought on the shoulder. Also, those dinky "Car toll $1.50" signs are worthless when you're on a road that's about 5-7 lanes wide approaching the toll plaza. I know we'll never get true MUTCD compliant toll signage on the Parkway, but they could do a bit better. I mean, they did it for all the EZ Pass Express plazas, why not the others?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:41:55 PM
I can tell you from living in New Jersey at one time.  The Parkway always had its own way of doing things, especially with tolls.  Other toll roads kept the attended lanes on the right and the coin drops to the left, they always scattered them except at Great Egg and Cape May where they got that one right.  Most likely cause those two toll plazas were the smallest of the 11 tolls it did not have much lanes to play with.

I am surprised that the GSP is going along with this, but they are.

BTW, is "Holland Tunnel" still the EB US 22 control point on Exit 140 going NB?  I do not have a problem with it as that was how I always went to the Tunnel when I lived in Clark and you have the same amount of traffic lights going 140 as you do going 142.  In fact the same 4 in Jersey City as both approaches use the signalized section of I-78 to reach the tunnel.  However, if the MUTCD frowns now upon crossings as control cities, I would think this would have to go.  Also Hillside is along the way and it gets no mention until after the Union Toll Plaza at Exit 142C for Union Avenue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 01, 2015, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 30, 2015, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2015, 02:09:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.
Then Exit 136 which uses three destinations as well (all three east of the Parkway, with the SB Parkway having to make a u turn on Centennial Avenue to access all three), I take, must of had one of them removed as well.

To me Roselle should not be used going SB anyway, as it is better served via NJ 28 as the borough is located just to the south of NJ 28 immediately east of the Parkway.   Also Cranford should be used (and it was used prior to 1980 for Exit 136) as NB Centennial Avenue happens to service Downtown Cranford.  It never seemed right that all three destinations were in one direction (east) only  and also with Winfield Park one of them that is a very small community that should be on an auxillary sign.

136 eliminated Winfield Park in both directions. Now just Linden and Roselle. I didn't know where Winfield Park even was until last year or so when I noticed some signs for it driving to the parkway at 136 from 27 in Linden.
Winfield Park was probably a legacy from the original Parkway signing in the early 50s.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 01, 2015, 09:15:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:41:55 PM
BTW, is "Holland Tunnel" still the EB US 22 control point on Exit 140 going NB?  I do not have a problem with it as that was how I always went to the Tunnel when I lived in Clark and you have the same amount of traffic lights going 140 as you do going 142.  In fact the same 4 in Jersey City as both approaches use the signalized section of I-78 to reach the tunnel.  However, if the MUTCD frowns now upon crossings as control cities, I would think this would have to go.  Also Hillside is along the way and it gets no mention until after the Union Toll Plaza at Exit 142C for Union Avenue.

Nope. 140 is signed for Hillside now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on May 01, 2015, 10:38:09 PM
Roadman re: the GSP's history of toll-lane configuration; back in the 1960's they used to have the "exact-change" lanes (coin-drops) all the way on the right, contrary to normal toll road practice. At least at the Essex Toll Plaza Northbound anyway. I assume they were all like that back then.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2015, 02:03:48 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 01, 2015, 10:38:09 PM
Roadman re: the GSP's history of toll-lane configuration; back in the 1960's they used to have the "exact-change" lanes (coin-drops) all the way on the right, contrary to normal toll road practice. At least at the Essex Toll Plaza Northbound anyway. I assume they were all like that back then.
Interesting, as I always wondered that one.  One thing I will admit that I like the Parkway does is have a steady green light for the attended lanes and flashing green for coin drops.  Then later when the tokens came in it was double green, and of course now its flashing yellow for EZ Pass.

If you know the lane control signals on the plazas itself, then finding an attendant for change was not that hard.  After I figured it out it made travel much easier through the plazas.  However, most of the motoring public has not figured these things out unfortunately.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2015, 03:54:10 PM
The old signs marking the lane types weren't the best, so the lights were helpful. For those who have never seen them, the pre-E-ZPass lane signing was as follows:

-Full Service: No banner
-Exact Change: "TOKEN OR EXACT CHANGE ONLY" Black text on orange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2FGSPSBjstaftrExit142.jpg&hash=63282175da047300c768417dfe0a8465633c0c81)
-Tokens Only: "TOKEN ONLY" Black text on White mounted above the plaza.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2FGSPSBbfExit17.jpg&hash=12b584d305920dc44572cc04d3902ba49e34883e)
Sign itself isn't viable, but you can see it mounted above.

These signs were phased out as E-ZPass was installed in 2001-2002.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 04, 2015, 10:44:42 AM
I also like how the Parkway has the lane assignment markings on the road. I'm not sure if they're the first to do this, but it makes things a lot easier. The Thruway now has this at the TZB toll plaza. Fair trade, I think, since I think the Parkway copped the "pick a lane" signage from the Thruway Authority (red for staffed cash lanes, blue for coin drop lanes, and green/purple for EZ-Pass).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 04, 2015, 05:01:21 PM
The lane assignment markings started on the Parkway. It was setup due to an optical illusion at the plaza, people thought they were in one lane, but were really in another because of the way the road curved before the plaza. This lead to last minute toll lane switches and accidents. The pick a lane signs are definitely from the Thurway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 04, 2015, 07:05:56 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 04, 2015, 10:44:42 AM
I also like how the Parkway has the lane assignment markings on the road. I'm not sure if they're the first to do this, but it makes things a lot easier. The Thruway now has this at the TZB toll plaza. Fair trade, I think, since I think the Parkway copped the "pick a lane" signage from the Thruway Authority (red for staffed cash lanes, blue for coin drop lanes, and green/purple for EZ-Pass).
The red/blue/green are MUTCD standards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Enginerd on May 04, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2015, 06:09:46 AM
Quote from: Enginerd on May 04, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.

Can you describe what is wrong with it?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 05, 2015, 06:11:48 PM
Likely the faithful reproduction of Mr Toad's Wild Ride if its still like it was last year.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2015, 08:27:34 AM
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/public_hearing_Interchange_0.html

Garden State Parkway Interchange 0 Improvement project public meeting - May 20, 4-6pm.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 06, 2015, 09:37:59 AM
Looks like new signage is up around 140-140A going SB with the exit tabs covered so the change in exit numbers will be happening there in the next few weeks.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Enginerd on May 06, 2015, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2015, 06:09:46 AM
Quote from: Enginerd on May 04, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.

Can you describe what is wrong with it?

It looks like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpronel.co.za%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2Fbumpy-road.jpg&hash=136aa16048bd413f8717a591068858c1a3a62ee2)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2015, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Enginerd on May 06, 2015, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2015, 06:09:46 AM
Quote from: Enginerd on May 04, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.

Can you describe what is wrong with it?

It looks like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpronel.co.za%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2Fbumpy-road.jpg&hash=136aa16048bd413f8717a591068858c1a3a62ee2)

It would be nice to have a serious discussion about it, rather than act like this forum is a comments section on a newspaper website.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Enginerd on May 06, 2015, 12:04:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2015, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Enginerd on May 06, 2015, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2015, 06:09:46 AM
Quote from: Enginerd on May 04, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.

Can you describe what is wrong with it?

It looks like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpronel.co.za%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2Fbumpy-road.jpg&hash=136aa16048bd413f8717a591068858c1a3a62ee2)

It would be nice to have a serious discussion about it, rather than act like this forum is a comments section on a newspaper website.

Gladly.  Do you know if the contractor is bound to a certain finish date?  Do you know when the cattle chute will be eliminated?  There is also a section from 83-87 that appears to be final paved - is that the final pavement or is the contractor going to do a complete superpave job the entire length of the job once all construction is completed? The section that appears complete is rather bumpy.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 07, 2015, 09:43:30 PM
Got a chance to get a bunch of pictures of the new Parkway signs from 135 to 142.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1uixLIw.jpg&hash=57f11f677edaf59791c4e87452f07cf20ae4c7a5) (http://imgur.com/1uixLIw)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlkhK4rQ.jpg&hash=b85ac38b75fa97af5cad771aea5bfe7bd1c91d40) (http://imgur.com/lkhK4rQ)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdC9639u.jpg&hash=5626e736f469ae210c6f5a054d0d30102491d5ff) (http://imgur.com/dC9639u)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1pMDsB0.jpg&hash=e0fc53f97dbba24fe6bc94e76c0e22b5bd9e4910) (http://imgur.com/1pMDsB0)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Frd1Hzur.jpg&hash=a7255f9ea881500e4944e5bfec128900c1b85df8) (http://imgur.com/rd1Hzur)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPj5Q0DY.jpg&hash=b91ea1529f392c2fd817d22effb9f6703021a58a) (http://imgur.com/Pj5Q0DY)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5My6zGw.jpg&hash=bce520e77ee589fcabd4087b413bb2779fab660c) (http://imgur.com/5My6zGw)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FC1jrHbv.jpg&hash=f0c8a1a4d041d1c7855a02c46bc9aea5fe8ba76e) (http://imgur.com/C1jrHbv)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPaRGpsL.jpg&hash=338aa3a02510f32b788a4bb1157c937b37a00d1f) (http://imgur.com/PaRGpsL)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fm0hm0gE.jpg&hash=5197d1c02fa4ece2be61381ab8682e62a44ecfa8) (http://imgur.com/m0hm0gE)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fj3i0N8v.jpg&hash=d87d262d10acfdfd9a88149739fcca9fa7393cf6) (http://imgur.com/j3i0N8v)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJDWC8BE.jpg&hash=082e4ef3044c64d0cf26ec267455b291307bb5ea) (http://imgur.com/JDWC8BE)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3rKNyqF.jpg&hash=5233cde643f88211f9e1da94e307e73819134f22) (http://imgur.com/3rKNyqF)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on May 07, 2015, 09:51:33 PM
Quote from: Enginerd on May 04, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.
Oh man! Yeah, you got that right!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on May 10, 2015, 09:01:20 AM
Exit 88 Stuff:

Rte 70 Eastbound:  the former ramp to Parkway North has been reopened. 
Rte 70 Westbound:   The entrance to parkway north at Shorrock St now has a BGS.  Parkway North Toll - Control City is Woodbridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 10, 2015, 11:44:59 AM
Nice pictures. They still have the old exit 138 sign, just 100 yards after the new signs. Wonder if that will be removed since it's redundant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2015, 04:45:20 PM
Nice photos.  Although I think they should follow Caltrans and use one panel for upcoming exits instead of three exits on separate panels spread across the roadway. 

I lived in NJ half of my life and liked that they had two exits listed on a sign as here in Florida they did away with that and now have one exit without the next exit advance guide on the same gantry. 

Also I liked how NJDOT always had at least three guide signs per exit.  Most states use only two being the one mile advanced and the at exit either arrow or former NEXT RIGHT.  However the Garden State used one mile, NEXT RIGHT, and at exit.  The NEXT RIGHT is now replaced with one quarter mile, but nonetheless still three.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 10, 2015, 08:50:21 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on May 10, 2015, 11:44:59 AM
Nice pictures. They still have the old exit 138 sign, just 100 yards after the new signs. Wonder if that will be removed since it's redundant.

It will be eventually. They've been taking down all the old signs after the new ones go up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2015, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: sercamaro on May 10, 2015, 09:01:20 AM
Exit 88 Stuff:

Rte 70 Eastbound:  the former ramp to Parkway North has been reopened. 
Rte 70 Westbound:   The entrance to parkway north at Shorrock St now has a BGS.  Parkway North Toll - Control City is Woodbridge.
I just noticed the on-ramp has reopened a few days ago - I thought it was just construction traffic at first, but sure enough there are cars running down the C/D lanes.  Just waiting for the southbound on/off to open, which will save a lot of time for me, and for the line of cars jammed up at 90 every morning.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2015, 11:24:22 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on May 10, 2015, 11:44:59 AM
Nice pictures. They still have the old exit 138 sign, just 100 yards after the new signs. Wonder if that will be removed since it's redundant.

It'll be removed.  Contractors rarely install and remove signage at the same time. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 11, 2015, 07:33:26 AM
I did notice that for some time now the Exit 140 ramp going NB was with the typical Parkway gantry.  I imagine that one was not replaced completely then, but just had its panel replaced then.

Also is "Morristown" still the control city for NJ 82 West at former SB Exit 140?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 15, 2015, 01:11:34 AM
Some more pictures, SB near 130 and 129, including the new Turnpike signs on the C-D road.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9t51jVH.jpg&hash=7f1692343f3bd9576970e1fe5d71b7ab20e78a50) (http://imgur.com/9t51jVH)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGULNXRe.jpg&hash=eca002b742539b45d844ae7156ae697b4bf0f64e) (http://imgur.com/GULNXRe)
note they haven't taken the older signs from 1994 down yet. not sure why.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVHMSpG3.jpg&hash=bab4ae00a984ecbe7427902c38a6da6bbdd3254d) (http://imgur.com/VHMSpG3)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTiWTyNm.jpg&hash=d774a9ae2ebff011955afe6e89f10b518291b080) (http://imgur.com/TiWTyNm)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEAeG9yh.jpg&hash=0787289b9497d62976267c33547e45ec9ca6268c) (http://imgur.com/EAeG9yh)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F674CyAj.jpg&hash=d9a77ed805e4d1b93b63c9566f79fcc5ce6016e5) (http://imgur.com/674CyAj)
raritan center gets a mention here. it's slowly popped up on njdot signs in the tangle over the years, now it's in njta signs too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 15, 2015, 08:41:19 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 15, 2015, 01:11:34 AM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGULNXRe.jpg&hash=eca002b742539b45d844ae7156ae697b4bf0f64e) (http://imgur.com/GULNXRe)
note they haven't taken the older signs from 1994 down yet. not sure why.
Is that a photo distortion or did the lower-part of the new Exit 129 BGS already get hit? 

Is that why the old gantry & BGS' are still up?  *sarcasm*
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2015, 09:08:01 AM
Yep, that looks like a hit there: (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2Fhit.png&hash=14dd4dd3fe81e73025a7a355fc34aec022fd6d86) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/hit.png.html)

Lesson learned: Don't stick a 2x4x16 vertically out your moonroof!  (I don't know how it actually happened)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2015, 09:59:24 AM
I like the "y" on one of the signs as it is above the other letters in "New York City."  Someone really goofed up on that one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on May 15, 2015, 10:37:10 AM
Interesting how they continued to use Shore Points as a control city for the Parkway southbound. To be fair, I'm not sure what control city I'd use since there's a lot of possibilities along the New Jersey Shore.

Also, shouldn't there be a TOLL banner next to the I-95 and NJTP shields since it's a toll road? Or does it not matter because you're already on a toll road?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 15, 2015, 11:00:09 AM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on May 15, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 15, 2015, 11:00:09 AM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

My bad, I thought that started a bit more northward. Even then, there should definitely be a TOLL banner next to the shields if it's on a "free" road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2015, 12:30:01 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 15, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 15, 2015, 11:00:09 AM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

My bad, I thought that started a bit more northward. Even then, there should definitely be a TOLL banner next to the shields if it's on a "free" road.
Quote from: Zeffy on May 15, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 15, 2015, 11:00:09 AM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

My bad, I thought that started a bit more northward. Even then, there should definitely be a TOLL banner next to the shields if it's on a "free" road.

Nope, you're right - there should be a 'Toll' banner next to Turnpike/95. 

As far as the Parkway goes, there should be a 'Toll' banner on all entrance ramps as well, regardless if you'll be on a free or tolled stretch.   Technically, the Parkway could add tolls at any time, which they have done to some ramps.  The Parkway Commission (I don't think it was NJTA at the time) had said long ago they would work on the Interchange 9/10/11 project earlier if they were permitted to put tolls on the ramps. When Cape May County said no, the Parkway said no problem, but you're going to have to wait until we can fund the project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2015, 12:31:21 PM
I thought too, when i first saw these, that a yellow TOLL plate should be used.  Then I remembered that here in Florida they do not use them on the Florida Turnpike signs from US 17, 92, and 441 in Orlando either.

This is the FREE section of the Parkway so it should be marked as a toll route.

At least they got rid of the redundant "NJ Turnpike" text in favor of control cities though.  One milestone they came about.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mrsman on May 15, 2015, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 15, 2015, 10:37:10 AM
Interesting how they continued to use Shore Points as a control city for the Parkway southbound. To be fair, I'm not sure what control city I'd use since there's a lot of possibilities along the New Jersey Shore.

Also, shouldn't there be a TOLL banner next to the I-95 and NJTP shields since it's a toll road? Or does it not matter because you're already on a toll road?

Control city ideas:

NB: New York City (until I-95 interchange); Clifton; Albany, NY
SB: Clifton; Woodbridge; Atlantic City; Cape May

Incidentally, the control city for the SB NJTP  should be Trenton instead of Camden at the point where the Parkway crosses the NJTP.


Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on May 15, 2015, 03:25:07 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 15, 2015, 03:17:31 PM
Incidentally, the control city for the SB NJTP  should be Trenton instead of Camden at the point where the Parkway crosses the NJTP.
i disagree - traffic to Trenton is better served by US 1.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2015, 04:27:03 PM
It always was both Trenton and New Brunswick before the NB US 1 ramp opened, but later added Newark and dropped New Brunswick in favor of Trenton.  Trenton is better served by US 1 no doubtingly.  However, Newark for US 1 north is dumb  considering you just left there already.   

I think Woodbridge should be used for US 1 North and on Exit 129, "Staten Island" should be added where Woodbridge is now.


As far as "Shore Points" goes, probably both "Toms River" and "Atlantic City" should be used as pull through on the 129 pull through.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 15, 2015, 05:57:31 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 15, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 15, 2015, 11:00:09 AM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

My bad, I thought that started a bit more northward. Even then, there should definitely be a TOLL banner next to the shields if it's on a "free" road.

Agree with you on that one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: TXtoNJ on May 15, 2015, 07:59:44 PM
I wonder if they'll change "Camden" to "Philadelphia" once the 95-PA Turnpike interchange is completed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 15, 2015, 10:15:03 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 15, 2015, 11:00:09 AM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

The entire overall Parkway is considered a Toll Road. The NJTA owns this segment of roadway, they have since 1987. They're just not allowed to put up ramp tolls in this section. Therefore, the Toll banner isn't really needed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on May 15, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
Seems like no matter how they set the signs up, it's always a compromise at these complex interchanges with multiple routes and destinations. I agree that Staten Island should be shown for Exit-129. But those signs at Exit-129 are already overloaded with too many shields and destinations to be read easily at highway speed. In fact the MUTCD recommends a maximum of only 3 destinations in any sign display and these signs far exceed that by necessity. And although I think the Toll banner should be used it would only add to the visual complexity of this series of signs.

And I agree that the GS Parkway would do better to show Toms River/Atlantic City/Cape May instead of Shore Points.

No easy solutions to any of these complex sign issues.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 12:29:44 AM
The replacement for this sign is sitting on the side of the road:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2Fnj-440_east_west.jpg&hash=74b5dbcdae3f1e6a1f379a990a855906d6644b81)

The new sign is almost right. The exit for New Brunswick Ave. is now signed for NJ-440 NORTH... the left sign.... NJ-440 WEST. Oops.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 12:37:27 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 15, 2015, 03:17:31 PM
Control city ideas:

NB: New York City (until I-95 interchange); Clifton; Albany, NY
SB: Clifton; Woodbridge; Atlantic City; Cape May

Control City Reality (direct from NJTA)
Albany (NB only)
Paterson
Newark
Woodbridge
Toms River
Atlantic City

Older signs have used Asbury Park (at the local-express split), and there is at least one sign showing Cape May southbound in the vicinity of US-40/322.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 03:23:27 PM
Should not Cape May be used south of AC?

Also the ACE uses "New York" as northbound control city at Exit 7N which are the ramps to the Parkway North.  So like it or not, the NJTA has "New York" because they have no control over the Expressway's signage.  I believe that will be (and has been) the only instance that NYC is used on the whole entire system.

Yes The Parkway does not go directly to NYC, but it enters its metro area though and being there are a lot of motorists going between AC and NYC it is fitting to use "New York" or even "New York City" at the Parkway and Expressway interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 03:48:21 PM
There are currently no pull-thru overhead signs south of the Atlantic City Expressway, that is why Cape May is not specified as a control city in NJTA's standard drawings. Northbound pull-thrus north of Atlantic City use Toms River.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 03:55:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 03:48:21 PM
There are currently no pull-thru overhead signs south of the Atlantic City Expressway, that is why Cape May is not specified as a control city in NJTA's standard drawings. Northbound pull-thrus north of Atlantic City use Toms River.
What about a pull through at the ACE interchange proper? Or they planning not to use one being its two lanes and US 40/322 exits soon after, especially now with the NJTA reconfiguring the ACE merge and Exit 37 off ramp?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mrsman on May 17, 2015, 06:50:06 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 03:23:27 PM
Should not Cape May be used south of AC?

Also the ACE uses "New York" as northbound control city at Exit 7N which are the ramps to the Parkway North.  So like it or not, the NJTA has "New York" because they have no control over the Expressway's signage.  I believe that will be (and has been) the only instance that NYC is used on the whole entire system.

Yes The Parkway does not go directly to NYC, but it enters its metro area though and being there are a lot of motorists going between AC and NYC it is fitting to use "New York" or even "New York City" at the Parkway and Expressway interchange.


Yes, this is why I recommended New York City on my earlier post. 

IMO, control cities should not list every city that a freeway passes through, but rather to the extent that they pass near or in the direction of a major city, those should be mentioned.

So the Parkway does serve as the connection from the NJ shore to NYC.  Traffic continuing to NYC should then take a bridge or a tunnel, most of which connect to the NJTP.  North of the NJTP, the northbound Parkway will serve Paterson and provide a connection to the NY Thruway to Albany.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 17, 2015, 01:16:39 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 12:37:27 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 15, 2015, 03:17:31 PM
Control city ideas:

NB: New York City (until I-95 interchange); Clifton; Albany, NY
SB: Clifton; Woodbridge; Atlantic City; Cape May

Control City Reality (direct from NJTA)
Albany (NB only)
Paterson
Newark
Woodbridge
Toms River
Atlantic City

Older signs have used Asbury Park (at the local-express split), and there is at least one sign showing Cape May southbound in the vicinity of US-40/322.
Makes one wonder where Shore Points came from.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 17, 2015, 06:20:48 PM
There is an unrestrained irrational attraction to the allurement of The Shore in this state.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 17, 2015, 06:39:56 PM
Here is the one Cape May sign: https://goo.gl/maps/AWAMb
Northbound is signed Toms River and Camden (for the ACE).

It's odd to see Shore Points considering NJDOT is getting away from using it. At least it doesn't say "Down the Shore".  :-D
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 17, 2015, 08:03:03 PM
That is on the entrance from Fire Road.  Yes, its very odd that "Camden" is used here, but many from AC get on the highway here and there is just as much from New York as there is for Philly that visit AC.

Also, there are no intermediate points along the ACE, so that is why "Camden" is used for that.  Because you have "Toms River" and "Woodbridge" in between AC and NYC, is why "New York" is not used here.

I must say, at least these are something, as for years the GSP only used control cities in two places: NJ 17 South in Paramus, and NJ 37 in Toms River.  The ACE signs there own so the control cities at Exit 7 is not GSP or NJTA so I did not count it.  The only reason why NJ 37 had them is cause US 9 is concurrent with the GSP at its interchange with the GSP so those signs were mainly for US 9 more than the GSP.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 17, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
The onramp at NJ-4 West has Saddle Brook as a control city for the GSP for some reason. Also can they make up their mind with what the maximum weight limit is for trucks? Some signs say 3.5 tons max and others (including the standard drawings) say 5 tons.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 18, 2015, 02:30:54 AM
Saddle Brook?  Really?  I mean who goes there.  Yes its the connection to I-80, but with Clifton or even better yet Newark would be the better choices.

What gets me is that Newark is the control point for NJ 17 all the way down, where NJ 17 stops way short of that city.  I believe on NJ 4,it says Newark just nearby  for Route 17 south when from Paramus, the GSP is the better route to NJ largest city.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 18, 2015, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2015, 08:03:03 PM
That is on the entrance from Fire Road.  Yes, its very odd that "Camden" is used here, but many from AC get on the highway here and there is just as much from New York as there is for Philly that visit AC.
It's interesting that Atlantic City is not mentioned, and exiting traffic here is routed onto Fire Road and the Black Horse Pike for AC. I've made the trip both ways, and there is a lot of local traffic on the Black Horse Pike (and even more on Fire Road) making teh extra 75 cents more than worth it. This despite my beach of choice being Albany Street beach, which is directly served by the Black Horse Pike.
Quote
Also, there are no intermediate points along the ACE, so that is why "Camden" is used for that.  Because you have "Toms River" and "Woodbridge" in between AC and NYC, is why "New York" is not used here.
There is an intermediate point signed elsewhere, the AC Airport, but the signage in that area routes you to Tilton Road for that, which might actually make sense (never did the drive in that direction, so don't know how badly Tilton Road backs up).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 18, 2015, 02:18:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 17, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
The onramp at NJ-4 West has Saddle Brook as a control city for the GSP for some reason. Also can they make up their mind with what the maximum weight limit is for trucks? Some signs say 3.5 tons max and others (including the standard drawings) say 5 tons.

I believe it's because 159 is signed for Saddle Brook and the idea is NJ-4 -> GSP SB -> Exit 159 for Saddle Brook.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on May 20, 2015, 11:57:25 AM
Turnpike Authority to Hold Hearing On Proposals For New Garden State Parkway Interchange 0 in Lower Township (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/05/have_a_thought_in_exit_0_head_south_today_and_let_the_turnpike_authority_know_it.html#incart_river)

QuoteDrivers who use the last exit on Garden State Parkway in Cape May will get a chance to comment about proposals to improve that interchange on Wednesday.

Officials from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which runs the Parkway, will hold a second hearing about the project, starting at 3 p.m. in the Lower Township hall meeting room, 2600 Bayshore Road.

QuoteA formal hearing will be held starting at 4 p.m. with a presentation about the project to improve the intersection and an opportunity for residents and drivers to comment on it, he said.

The plan calls for modifying the interchange by reconstructing the intersection of the Parkway and Route 109 and adding a different jug handle to accommodate vehicles destined for the northbound Parkway, Feeney said.




In the comments of the article, someone posted the following, and I'm wondering if it's someone from here.. :biggrin:
QuoteThey should build the long talked about Cape May - Lewis bridge-tunnel. Then upgrade US-13 through DE, MD, and VA to interstate standards, along with US-17 through VA and NC. Steal back the improperly numbered intrastate interstate highway, I-99 from PA, and make that the coastal expressway. Now you;ll have a full fledged limited access expressway from Montvale to Wilmington NC. I say stop the highway in NC because that's where all of our residents are escaping to anyway
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2015, 12:39:22 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 20, 2015, 11:57:25 AM
Turnpike Authority to Hold Hearing On Proposals For New Garden State Parkway Interchange 0 in Lower Township (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/05/have_a_thought_in_exit_0_head_south_today_and_let_the_turnpike_authority_know_it.html#incart_river)

The documents available on the Turnpike's website unfortunately don't really show much of a diagram, except for a small one on the cover page.

The most interesting feature of the design is a jughandle...in the median between the Northbound and Southbound lanes!  This is where the Parkway and 109 meet.  The uniqueness of this allows the northbound lanes from 109 to the Parkway to be free-flowing, while allowing enough storage capacity for both those continuing on 109 North (which turns west at this intersection), and using 109 South to the Parkway North.

It's a fairly tight area in which they had to reconstruct the intersection, but they are able to do it within existing NJTA/NJDOT right of way.  A grade-separated interchange was looked at, but environmental concerns and costs nixed the idea.

The comment about the bridge tunnel definitely sounds like something someone here would have knowledge of.  Let's look at that alias used there...  :spin:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 22, 2015, 08:18:58 AM
Latest proposed list of control cities seems most logical and well thought out.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 22, 2015, 04:26:23 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 21, 2015, 10:47:17 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 03:48:21 PM
There are currently no pull-thru overhead signs south of the Atlantic City Expressway, that is why Cape May is not specified as a control city in NJTA's standard drawings. Northbound pull-thrus north of Atlantic City use Toms River.
Here's my proposal for control cities along the GSP (to stop inconsistent control cities appearing)
NB: Atlantic City up to MP 41.2
Toms River up to MP 94.4
Asbury Park up to MP 101.5
Perth Amboy up to MP 131.2 - New York as a supplementary destination
Paterson up to MP 162.7
Albany for the rest of the GSP


SB: New York up to MP 160.4
Newark - Springfield (Springfield is a supplementary control city) up to MP 143
New Brunswick up to MP 129.4
Toms River up to MP 82.7
Atlantic City up to MP 39.2
Cape May for the rest

It's a great list. Though just one thing: take out New York on SB up to MP 160.4 and replace with Newark (maybe Springfield, or perhaps Union) and go up to MP 143. Most people I would think would use the NB Parkway to NY, even though a couple exits are for the tunnels.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
Have all the at-grade intersections in the southern portion been eliminated yet?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on May 22, 2015, 05:24:52 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on May 22, 2015, 04:26:23 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 21, 2015, 10:47:17 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 03:48:21 PM
There are currently no pull-thru overhead signs south of the Atlantic City Expressway, that is why Cape May is not specified as a control city in NJTA's standard drawings. Northbound pull-thrus north of Atlantic City use Toms River.
Here's my proposal for control cities along the GSP (to stop inconsistent control cities appearing)
NB: Atlantic City up to MP 41.2
Toms River up to MP 94.4
Asbury Park up to MP 101.5
Perth Amboy up to MP 131.2 - New York as a supplementary destination
Paterson up to MP 162.7
Albany for the rest of the GSP


SB: New York up to MP 160.4
Newark - Springfield (Springfield is a supplementary control city) up to MP 143
New Brunswick up to MP 129.4
Toms River up to MP 82.7
Atlantic City up to MP 39.2
Cape May for the rest

It's a great list. Though just one thing: take out New York on SB up to MP 160.4 and replace with Newark (maybe Springfield, or perhaps Union) and go up to MP 143. Most people I would think would use the NB Parkway to NY, even though a couple exits are for the tunnels.
I meant New York City. The reason why New York is up to MP 160.4 is because of I-80 is nearby. Albany was used as the last control city because the GSP ends at I-87 in NY (if the GSP connector would be part of the GSP). I didn't specify that because of Albany being used, so New York would be used in this situation, cause of I-80 (and we all know where I-80 eastbound ends at, and we know that route heads to NYC. It's I-95.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 22, 2015, 06:26:20 PM
I agree, New York should not be used as control city SB because most of the traffic there is from I-87, so I doubt anyone would exit the Thruway to go to NYC.  Newark is most appropriate for even the Exit 14A guide on The Thruway proper and should be up  until the Essex Toll Plaza where Woodbridge should take over.

BTW, I hate the fact the NYTA does not feel that NJ cities are worth mentioning on their signs.  Even Exits 15 and 13 use "New Jersey" as control points for I-287 and the PIP.  "Morristown" should be used at Exit 15, and either "Fort Lee" or even "New York" for the SB PIP as I am alright with that one as well.  Just do not refer to the Garden State as a whole city as its not.  It has places too and we sign all our roads into New York State with the cities in mind.

Sory about that last rant but you can take a man out of New Jersey, but you cannot take the New Jersey out of me.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on May 22, 2015, 06:52:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 22, 2015, 06:26:20 PM
I agree, New York should not be used as control city SB because most of the traffic there is from I-87, so I doubt anyone would exit the Thruway to go to NYC.  Newark is most appropriate for even the Exit 14A guide on The Thruway proper and should be up  until the Essex Toll Plaza where Woodbridge should take over.

BTW, I hate the fact the NYTA does not feel that NJ cities are worth mentioning on their signs.  Even Exits 15 and 13 use "New Jersey" as control points for I-287 and the PIP.  "Morristown" should be used at Exit 15, and either "Fort Lee" or even "New York" for the SB PIP as I am alright with that one as well.  Just do not refer to the Garden State as a whole city as its not.  It has places too and we sign all our roads into New York State with the cities in mind.

Sory about that last rant but you can take a man out of New Jersey, but you cannot take the New Jersey out of me.
Alright, I listened and replaced "New York" with "Delaware Water Gap". Seems more sensible.    :-D
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 22, 2015, 10:16:27 PM
I've heard of GPSs directing drivers heading southbound to NYC on the Thruway to exit onto the Parkway and then take the I-80 to the GWB!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 25, 2015, 07:01:53 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 12:29:44 AM
The replacement for this sign is sitting on the side of the road:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fraymondcmartinjr.com%2Fnjfreeways%2Fnjroadtrips%2Fnj-440_east_west.jpg&hash=74b5dbcdae3f1e6a1f379a990a855906d6644b81)

The new sign is almost right. The exit for New Brunswick Ave. is now signed for NJ-440 NORTH... the left sign.... NJ-440 WEST. Oops.

I drove past here today. I am surprised that this sign is being erected by NJDOT and not the NJTA. I thought it was NJTA property until the merge onto 9 past the New Brunswick Rd exit. But this is clearly an NJDOT sign, with the stainless steel gantry and shields with black backing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 25, 2015, 08:23:29 PM
I hope that they gave US 9 and NJ 440 Southbound the control city of "South Amboy" considering Exit 11 from the NJT uses "The Amboys" as control city for US 9 S Bound.  Also to include I-287 on the sign proper instead of on ground mounted shields like it has for well over 40 years.

Actually storm back in the 60's and 70's the GSP used gantries like this, and before the tangle was created this was an actual exit for New Brunswick Avenue from the Southbound Parkway carriageway.   I am not saying this is left over from that period, but a strong possibility that it might of been left over from then considering the reflective paint and lack of black border shields.  Just so you know before the tangle the GSP SB used current US 9 SB and the NB Parkway used the NB US 9 lanes.  US 9 ran through the middle of the Parkway with no access to or from New Brunswick Avenue. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 25, 2015, 11:34:38 PM
What I'd like to know is what happened to the brand new NJDOT signs that were there a year ago that later vanished.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 26, 2015, 11:16:37 AM
Being New Brunswick Avenue is in all caps, I would say this sign was put up by the Parkway.   NJDOT will use mix case, and always has as far as I know on BGSes.   Whether it was pre or post tangle I could not say for sure, but the GSP has always used all caps for street names and mix case for control cities or points until recently when the new signs started placing cities above the street names in a separate box.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SteveG1988 on May 26, 2015, 08:19:45 PM
The contractor for the new Great Egg Harbor bridge has been updating their website with photos of the progress. Amazing how far they've gotten. http://www.wagman.com/gafc/projects/Garden-State-Parkway-over-Great-Egg-Harbor-Bay.asp#1
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 11, 2015, 02:48:34 PM
The NJTA issued an advisory that the 89A ramps on the Parkway are opening this week: http://www.nj.gov/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_new_ramps_opening_at_gsp_exit_89_CX.pdf

This brings full access to all directions of Rt 70 and CR-528 from both directions of the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on June 11, 2015, 08:49:35 PM
Roadman, did you say that GSP is going back to putting city names above street names on their signs? Interesting 'cause that's what they had back in the 1960's on their "original" signing, with the street name in upper case letters. I seem to remember at Exit-145 (before I-280 was built) the signs read: "E. Orange, Newark, CENTRAL AVE, NEXT RIGHT". Many GSP exits were formatted that way back then.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 12, 2015, 12:23:40 AM
Quote from: storm2k on June 11, 2015, 02:48:34 PM
The NJTA issued an advisory that the 89A ramps on the Parkway are opening this week: http://www.nj.gov/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_new_ramps_opening_at_gsp_exit_89_CX.pdf

This brings full access to all directions of Rt 70 and CR-528 from both directions of the Parkway.
The northbound exit 89 ramps are open as of earlier this week.  Here's a photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FGSP%252089_zpsgxdldruw.jpg&hash=e6a80bf0c264e97a702968dc4c5cd84c0e8ce833)
There is also a nice video of the new exit ramps on the Asbury Park Press's website along with a schedule for the opening of all of the ramps at this link:
http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/06/10/gsp-exit-dead-long-live-exit/71040196/ (http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/06/10/gsp-exit-dead-long-live-exit/71040196/)
It looks like we have a few weeks to go before the southbound on-ramps are open. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 12, 2015, 06:37:33 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 12, 2015, 12:23:40 AM
Quote from: storm2k on June 11, 2015, 02:48:34 PM
The NJTA issued an advisory that the 89A ramps on the Parkway are opening this week: http://www.nj.gov/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_new_ramps_opening_at_gsp_exit_89_CX.pdf

This brings full access to all directions of Rt 70 and CR-528 from both directions of the Parkway.
The northbound exit 89 ramps are open as of earlier this week.  Here's a photo:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FGSP%252089_zpsgxdldruw.jpg&hash=e6a80bf0c264e97a702968dc4c5cd84c0e8ce833)
There is also a nice video of the new exit ramps on the Asbury Park Press's website along with a schedule for the opening of all of the ramps at this link:
http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/06/10/gsp-exit-dead-long-live-exit/71040196/ (http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/06/10/gsp-exit-dead-long-live-exit/71040196/)
It looks like we have a few weeks to go before the southbound on-ramps are open. 


Looks like quite a few APL's at this interchange. Also looks like they used them properly, unlike at 142B-C.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2015, 06:40:46 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 12, 2015, 06:37:33 PM
Looks like quite a few APL's at this interchange. Also looks like they used them properly, unlike at 142B-C.
That's because the best sign engineer in the business designed them (and that's not me).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on June 12, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Why did they go with 89A-B instead of 88-89?  In NY it's more typical to see exits joined by c/d roads like that retain their numbers, even if they are effectively joined into one interchange. Exits 26-28 on I-81 come to mind (as do exits 22/23/24) as well as exits 6-7 on I-87.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 12, 2015, 07:25:32 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 11, 2015, 08:49:35 PM
Roadman, did you say that GSP is going back to putting city names above street names on their signs? Interesting 'cause that's what they had back in the 1960's on their "original" signing, with the street name in upper case letters. I seem to remember at Exit-145 (before I-280 was built) the signs read: "E. Orange, Newark, CENTRAL AVE, NEXT RIGHT". Many GSP exits were formatted that way back then.
Well its been a thing since the mid 90's that every new road sign being added had that.  At Exit 124 it read Sayreville- South Amboy with a line across underneath it with Main St. (mixed casing) in a separate box.   The Exit 141 for Vauxhall Road is the same and so it southbound for Lyons Avenue in Irvington.  The last GSV image still showed them.

Edit: I fixed a typo.  Exit 131 was never for Vauxhall Road. Lol!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2015, 12:42:51 AM
Quote from: vdeane on June 12, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Why did they go with 89A-B instead of 88-89?  In NY it's more typical to see exits joined by c/d roads like that retain their numbers, even if they are effectively joined into one interchange. Exits 26-28 on I-81 come to mind (as do exits 22/23/24) as well as exits 6-7 on I-87.
Because in the Parkway mindset, this is now one joined interchange, so it gets one number. There was discussion about what to do and this is what they decided.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on June 13, 2015, 09:48:44 PM
You're right Roadman. I just looked at a bunch of GSP signs on Google Earth. I'm surprised they're continuing that signing format with the street name below the destinations. I'd thought that was a thing of the past. Funny how the toll-roads (GSP, NJT, NY Thruway) stubbornly stick to their old ways instead of going with the more standard formats.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2015, 09:25:20 PM
NJ is the only state to sign urban exits with rural type (route number- control cities) of wording instead of traditional urban (route number- street name) signing on their roads, Parkway included.

Yes in a way that are saying FU to the FHWA, and love to stay in their own ways.  To me I admire that some, but times have changed.  Is Maplewood really necessary to be included on the Lyons Avenue exit ramp?  Springfield Avenue is much more suited I think.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 15, 2015, 09:59:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2015, 09:25:20 PM
NJ is the only state to sign urban exits with rural type (route number- control cities) of wording instead of traditional urban (route number- street name) signing on their roads, Parkway included.

Yes in a way that are saying FU to the FHWA, and love to stay in their own ways.  To me I admire that some, but times have changed.  Is Maplewood really necessary to be included on the Lyons Avenue exit ramp?  Springfield Avenue is much more suited I think.
It's not universally done. For example, 287 has "Morristown Next 3 Exits" and lists road names only on individual exit signs. The parkway and I-280 through and around Newark have some signs with only street names on them as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2015, 02:24:19 PM
No its not universal, but most likely done.  Morristown is one of the rare things, as far as Newark goes only South Orange Avenue is street only.  Also Bloomfield Avenue going S Bound only.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 15, 2015, 05:17:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2015, 09:25:20 PM
NJ is the only state to sign urban exits with rural type (route number- control cities) of wording instead of traditional urban (route number- street name) signing on their roads, Parkway included.

Yes in a way that are saying FU to the FHWA, and love to stay in their own ways.  To me I admire that some, but times have changed.  Is Maplewood really necessary to be included on the Lyons Avenue exit ramp?  Springfield Avenue is much more suited I think.

It's changing, though. For example 131/131A now says Wood Ave South which a ground mount sign mentioning that the next X exits are for Iselin (which is what that exit serves). They're hewing much closer to the MUTCD now, even if they're not 100% compliant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 15, 2015, 09:44:56 PM
With the imminent opening of the SB onramps at 89, the GSP widening project will essentially be complete from 89 down to the southern end of the project at 83.  The only remaining significant work on the mainline in that stretch appears to be the addition of a third Express EZ Pass lane (former shoulder) at the Toms River tolls NB, including milling and new top course pavement in that immediate area.  In the northern stretch, there's still some bridge work to wrap up and a section where the grade is being raised, although only one cattle chute remains in the entire project NB at 90.

It looks like the last major project to complete along this stretch are the new ramps at 91, including a new NB exit / SB entrance.  A PDF of the 91 project can be found here on the Ocean County Engineering Dept. website:
http://www.co.ocean.nj.us//PDFs//Interchange91.pdf (http://www.co.ocean.nj.us//PDFs//Interchange91.pdf)
Clearing and grading for the new ramps is finally moving along quickly now.

The OC Engineering site also has a link to a somewhat dormant website for a study to look at a SB offramp at 83. 
http://gspint83.com/ (http://gspint83.com/)
Although this is badly needed, it doesn't look like this is going anywhere at the moment and there's never been a really good place to dump ramp traffic into what is already a very congested area (US 9 / CR 571 intersection).  There was talk in the past about a possible exit further north near Church Road.  Right nearby, Ocean County College has gone nuts with a new road network to serve some new buildings including a fairly long new access road currently under construction out to N. Bay Ave. right near the GSP overpass over Church Road.

The full interchange at 89 has been badly needed for years.  90 is (was) the only NB exit in the Brick area and routinely backed up out onto the mainline every morning.  Complicating matters was that a good amount of traffic from the ramp would clog in the jughandle at the bottom of the ramp to head N/W toward Lakewood.  I still can't believe it took this long for such a heavily populated area as Brick to get decent access to the GSP.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 16, 2015, 10:21:18 AM
Last time I was in that area, it looks liked construction at 91 was well underway. Also, 91 was one of the last signs with a number only tab on it. also looks like they had tacked a Exit Only placard on it. When I drove through, it was on the side of the road in a temp setup until they install new signage once the work is complete.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on June 16, 2015, 03:37:47 PM
They  do not mention very important information: rehabbing the Atlantic City service area. They do not say an exact date to when it reopens, and the project PDF is now gone.

They also forget the Interchange 30-80 Widening, even though the part from 48-80 is done. There is (hopefully) construction on this, I believe this will be done in 2016-2017.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 16, 2015, 10:02:41 PM
Just south of 89, on the SB side, new Speed Limit 65 signs have been uncovered.  Further down by the Toms River tolls, there are 55 Speed Zone Ahead signs, but the 55 limit signs beyond have not been installed.  I assume the stretch from 83 to 80 will remain at 55 after construction is complete (congested area / heavy weaving at 82).  I remember awhile before 83-100 started, the limit in the entire stretch was lowered to 55.  Was there language in the law to allow the phased reestablishment of 65 mph zones in this stretch as portions of the widening project were completed, or are they jumping the gun?  Some of the other signs NB remain covered.

Compared to what I recall on the 63-80 widening, the 83-100 project has been poorly signed for construction speed limits.  Every once in awhile a 45 limit sign will pop up and later disappear (now popular on Ebay?)

Quote from: noelbotevera on June 16, 2015, 03:37:47 PM
They also forget the Interchange 30-80 Widening, even though the part from 48-80 is done. There is (hopefully) construction on this, I believe this will be done in 2016-2017.
There's some clearing on the northern stretch so far if I recall, and of course 41 is now open.  I think we discussed this here before, but it's about time for some flyover ramps at the AC Expressway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 17, 2015, 07:28:04 PM
I think in addition to flyovers at the ACE, a completed interchange with US 40/322 is needed instead of using Fire and Tilton Roads or Washington Avenue to complete the movements.

Also Exit 82 in Toms River going SB to EB needs a flyover bad with that tight turn exit ramp where you must slow down to 10mph to make it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 18, 2015, 09:51:17 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 16, 2015, 10:02:41 PM
Just south of 89, on the SB side, new Speed Limit 65 signs have been uncovered.  Further down by the Toms River tolls, there are 55 Speed Zone Ahead signs, but the 55 limit signs beyond have not been installed.  I assume the stretch from 83 to 80 will remain at 55 after construction is complete (congested area / heavy weaving at 82).  I remember awhile before 83-100 started, the limit in the entire stretch was lowered to 55.  Was there language in the law to allow the phased reestablishment of 65 mph zones in this stretch as portions of the widening project were completed, or are they jumping the gun?  Some of the other signs NB remain covered.

Compared to what I recall on the 63-80 widening, the 83-100 project has been poorly signed for construction speed limits.  Every once in awhile a 45 limit sign will pop up and later disappear (now popular on Ebay?)

Quote from: noelbotevera on June 16, 2015, 03:37:47 PM
They also forget the Interchange 30-80 Widening, even though the part from 48-80 is done. There is (hopefully) construction on this, I believe this will be done in 2016-2017.
There's some clearing on the northern stretch so far if I recall, and of course 41 is now open.  I think we discussed this here before, but it's about time for some flyover ramps at the AC Expressway.


The construction is definitely ongoing at least in the 36-38 area which I frequent. There have been frequent changes in traffic patterns lately. I don't know what exactly they're doing now, but here's the current configuration:

Southbound exit 36 got a deceleration lane. There are intermittent lane closures on Tilton Road, so the exit often backs up.

Northbound, the entrance from exit 36 got its normal acceleration lane back. There is no longer a continuous third lane between exits 37 and 38A. Instead, the entrance from 37 merges into the main line, then an exit only lane for 38, and another single exit only lane for 38A which then opens up into 2 lanes after leaving the Parkway.

From the ACE Eastbound, the two-lane ramp at exit 7S merges into one lane shortly after exiting instead of right before entering the Parkway South.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 18, 2015, 11:35:33 AM
Aren't they braiding the Exit 38 on ramp SB with the Exit 37 off ramp SB to avoid the weaving issues generated there?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 18, 2015, 12:02:49 PM
That is in the project description, but I'm just reporting what I'm seeing now, and I can't tell what exactly they're doing. Currently the configuration is unchanged from before construction in that area, except everything is shifted to the left including the through lanes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
Eventually ACE EB to GSP SB (Exit 7) will have 2 uninterrupted lanes onto the GSP SB.

Traffic on GSP South to Exit 37 will have an exit ramp that will go under the ramp mentioned above. 

There will be an exit from that ACE Exit 7 to GSP's Exit 37 as well, so that movement will be preserved.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 20, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
Eventually ACE EB to GSP SB (Exit 7) will have 2 uninterrupted lanes onto the GSP SB.

Traffic on GSP South to Exit 37 will have an exit ramp that will go under the ramp mentioned above. 

There will be an exit from that ACE Exit 7 to GSP's Exit 37 as well, so that movement will be preserved.
I am glad they are including the small movements as in Orlando along I-4 when they braid two different ramps, they usually tell those entering who have been traveling that FU.  FDOT once told me in an email that they do that on purpose to keep local traffic off of I-4 when they prevented traffic entering I-4 westbound from Kirkman Road  to use the first interchange almost one mile away for FL 482.  The two ramps did not create weaving issues before the change when Universal Orlando expanded in the late 90's that had FDOT redo everything near the Theme Parks.

To me I think a slip ramp allowing that would have helped and could easily be done, but it never happened and continues to happen every time FDOT D-5 braids two interchange ramps.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 25, 2015, 09:50:03 PM
There is a public information session planned for this Tuesday 6/30 for the desperately needed SB exit 83 on the GSP in Toms River.  The meeting will be at the Ocean County Library in downtown Toms River from 4-7pm.  Here's some links, although they don't have much more info:
http://www.app.com/story/news/local/ocean-county/2015/06/25/new-toms-river-parkway-exit/29262787/ (http://www.app.com/story/news/local/ocean-county/2015/06/25/new-toms-river-parkway-exit/29262787/)
http://www.njtpa.org/Get-Involved/Calendar/Public-Information-Session-Parkway-Exit-Southbound.aspx (http://www.njtpa.org/Get-Involved/Calendar/Public-Information-Session-Parkway-Exit-Southbound.aspx)
Other than the easily missed releases to APP and Patch and NJTPA notice, no government entity is falling over themselves to advertise this meeting - nothing on the OC website I can find (even though the Engineering division has some maps and info on other GSP improvements), nothing on NJTA or elsewhere.  As usual, the goal is to have the design/PR team showing up to outnumber the amount of interested parties who will attend.  There is also a project website that hasn't been updated in a year - still showing a planned meeting for last year.

I assume I will see you all there around, let's say, 6pm?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 01, 2015, 03:00:12 PM
I went to the public info meeting for the new 83 SB exit.  The meeting presentation PDF can be viewed here:
http://gspint83.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Public-Information-Center-0630151.pdf (http://gspint83.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Public-Information-Center-0630151.pdf)

The preferred alternative is closest to 3A (pages 16 and 17 in the PDF).  Exiting traffic would need to go through the barrier tolls on the right at the Toms River plaza (and not via the Express EZ Pass) to a new light at 571.  Left turns from US 9 NB to CR 571 WB would be eliminated (SB 9 already uses a jughandle), requiring a long jughandle via Lomell Lane east of the GSP in order to make the left onto 571 (and to get to the Home Depot plaza).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 06, 2015, 08:01:02 PM
Does anyone know what the control cities are for Jimmie Leeds Road in Galloway Township now that the exit ramps are open?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 06, 2015, 08:13:40 PM
Pomona and Galloway
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 06, 2015, 10:13:41 PM
It looks like the SB entrance ramps at 89 are now finally open in Brick, finally bringing a full interchange to this area.  Other than some work on adding a third NB EZ Pass lane at the Toms River tolls, the 83-89 segment is complete - even the 65mph speed limit is back...


Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 06, 2015, 10:49:09 PM
As of Saturday, the northbound lanes were still split with the left lane doing a cattle chute. I was also reminded of how stupid the whole project is without adding a 4th lane.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on July 07, 2015, 06:22:35 PM
Is the headache still between 91 and 98?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 07, 2015, 06:24:09 PM
They still have lanes shifted for bridge widening and re-decking there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on July 07, 2015, 06:25:39 PM
So we are looking at, another year or so? Hoping sooner.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 07, 2015, 06:41:00 PM
Looks like to at least the end of the summer.

In other news, the traffic light elimination project appears to be really close to moving northbound traffic to the new overpasses.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152197655945730.1073741830.62719310729&type=3
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 07, 2015, 08:39:42 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 06, 2015, 10:49:09 PM
As of Saturday, the northbound lanes were still split with the left lane doing a cattle chute. I was also reminded of how stupid the whole project is without adding a 4th lane.
The cattle chute wasn't (isn't) actually that bad in the morning.  Surprisingly, slower traffic generally stayed clear and it made a quick 'bypass' of the 90 exit traffic and regular backups in the right lanes where the bridge work was still ongoing.  I expect the summer vacation crowd to ruin that shortly, so the fun of barreling through there is pretty much done.

Agreed on the 4th lane, but the section that is done south of 89 is a big improvement - finally feels like a modern highway and not the shoehorn job with the narrow lanes and no shoulders.  It looks like the 3rd NB Express EZ-Pass lane in Toms River is just about done, and they are paving the final course now through the plaza.  The cattle chute area between 90 and 91 is close to done, and the section between 91 and the bridge widening work near 98 is just awaiting final paving.  The new ramps at 91 are moving along now too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on July 07, 2015, 09:36:42 PM
UPDATE!!!!!!!!!
On the 90 mile stretch (where I was on) between exit 38 and exit 127, really the express local setup could be north of Toms River at MM 93 or so. Because between the middle to leftmost cash lane into the express lanes, there is hard weaving to get into the express lanes.
Construction on the 30-80 widening has reached MM 46 or 47 - there is certainly construction going on.
Atlantic City service plaza is almost done with reconstruction!!!
Cheesequake service area entrance from the express lanes is weird - really, make the express lanes enter from the south end of the parking lot rather than having to merge with people from the local lanes.

All of this was during June 25th, of when my family left AC towards NYC.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 08, 2015, 09:41:52 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 07, 2015, 09:36:42 PM
Because between the middle to leftmost cash lane into the express lanes, there is hard weaving to get into the express lanes.
This has always been a problem just north of the Asbury tolls since the addition of the express EZ-Pass lanes.  The weaving area needs to be lengthened considerably, or a divider should be installed preventing cash toll users from weaving over to the express lanes (but continuing to allow the right express EZ-Pass lane to feed into the left local lane).  They can always add a cross-over further north to allow cash users back to the express side.  Very poor design.

Quote
Cheesequake service area entrance from the express lanes is weird - really, make the express lanes enter from the south end of the parking lot rather than having to merge with people from the local lanes.
If you want weird, check out the SB entrance to the same service area from the local lanes.  Until a few years ago, the plaza could be accessed only from the express lanes.  With the addition of the Express EZ-Pass lanes at the Raritan tolls, they added a ramp from the local lanes, a signal, and sent entering traffic through some bad geometry into the narrow underpass formerly just used for traffic exiting the rest area.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 09, 2015, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.
Nice...another thing to look forward to on our next Cape May day trip.

I took a short diversion tonight to check out the new SB onramps at 89.  Both ramps from 70 are now open, with some nice advance overhead BGSs at the entrances (unlike the small, blink and you missed it, traditional ground mount GSP entrance signs).  70 under the new overpasses has some work to complete, but at least the ramps are open.  The third new SB on-ramp from Airport Road is not open yet, however, but it looks like that's gonna happen any day now.  I don't think too many people have figured out they have some new options with the ramps yet - until today I haven't seen a single car using them as I pass by, and I was the only car entering from an otherwise typically congested 70 tonight.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: civilmaher on July 10, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2015, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 10, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 10, 2015, 08:49:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2015, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 10, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.
What about this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.961899,-74.90352,3a,66.8y,182.46h,89.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5G7mHudM-mInTpailbyxyQ!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.961899,-74.90352,3a,66.8y,182.46h,89.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5G7mHudM-mInTpailbyxyQ!2e0)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 10, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 10, 2015, 08:49:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2015, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 10, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.
What about this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.961899,-74.90352,3a,66.8y,182.46h,89.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5G7mHudM-mInTpailbyxyQ!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.961899,-74.90352,3a,66.8y,182.46h,89.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5G7mHudM-mInTpailbyxyQ!2e0)

Yep, technically Mile 0 is south of the light at the 109 SB merge. I'll also note that there is a project in the works to improve the signal, but it's not going anywhere. I drew up a sketch on the side that easily gets rid of this and the next light (Shore Drive) with a single interchange. Shore Drive ties into the old road into Cape May (originally US 9's southern extension) and no one loses a house.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 11, 2015, 02:21:32 AM
They moved Milepost 0 for some reason. I have a 2001 photo showing it right at the light as opposed to being after it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on July 11, 2015, 07:53:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2015, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 10, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.

Either you have that wrinkle or users of the GSP outer sb roadway are denied access to Cheesequake.  OTOH users of the SB inner roadway can enter Cheesequake without a stoplight, but everyone resuming their southbound drive have to put up with the aforementioned stoplight before choosing which roadway to use.

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 12, 2015, 03:42:51 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 11, 2015, 07:53:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2015, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: civilmaher on July 10, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.

Either you have that wrinkle or users of the GSP outer sb roadway are denied access to Cheesequake.  OTOH users of the SB inner roadway can enter Cheesequake without a stoplight, but everyone resuming their southbound drive have to put up with the aforementioned stoplight before choosing which roadway to use.

ixnay
Yes but it is not on the freeway itself.  Yes it does effect you if you leave the Service Area going SB, but it is on ramps so therefore you cannot say that The Parkway now has stoplights anymore.  Its no different then the other ramp signals coming from adjacent roads to have to put up with.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on July 16, 2015, 08:15:05 PM
I am not sure if this has been mentioned before, but what exactly was the purpose of the Local/Express lanes located where they are? It seems like they would have been in the middle of nowhere when they were built. It would seem more logical for them to be located in a more urban section. Was this a test area for future implementation elsewhere on the GSP? I am curious about the history of this configuration.

Mike, (Home exit 117 GSP)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 16, 2015, 10:22:35 PM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2015, 03:03:40 AM
The Express lanes were added in the early 70's.  I think it has to do with the amount of commuters going between Monmouth and Ocean Counties to Newark/ New York. 

They had a wide enough median to do it, unlike from Exit 129 to Exit 165 where there is not much room to add an express lane setup might also be a reason.

I do remember in 1980, when they added the fourth lane between 129 and 140, it was needed and since they did that it improved traffic flow so much since that project took place.  Basically adding the express lanes added a total of four more lanes to an existing three lane freeway, only two more than the 129-140 did in 1980. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2015, 06:28:29 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2015, 10:22:35 PM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.

Below the Express/Local setup, the GSP dwindled down to 2 lanes per direction, so you can take Atlantic City out of that reasoning.  Only today are they finally getting to widening the highway in the south, and it's really for the benefit of the entire shore region, not just Atlantic City.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on July 17, 2015, 06:59:08 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2015, 06:28:29 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2015, 10:22:35 PM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.

Below the Express/Local setup, the GSP dwindled down to 2 lanes per direction, so you can take Atlantic City out of that reasoning.  Only today are they finally getting to widening the highway in the south, and it's really for the benefit of the entire shore region, not just Atlantic City.
Atlantic City is sort of the economic engine of South Jersey, and other shore communities such as Long Branch, Toms River, Ocean City, Cape May, and a whole lot more are mostly vacation communities for people from Pennsylvania (including Atlantic City). The 3 lane widening between exits 30-80 (including a full rehab of the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, so exit 25) was needed due to your reasoning, but also for connections to New York City and Connecticut.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on July 17, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 17, 2015, 06:59:08 AMAtlantic City is was sort of the economic engine of South Jersey
FTFY.

Casino gambling competition in neighboring states (especially PA) has taken a serious toll on Atlantic City's major economic engine.  Within the past year or two, as many as 5 AC casinos & adjoining hotels (including the recently-built Revel) have closed down (at least while searching for new owners).  The city's presently in a rethink mode in terms what they can do to attract more people to the city to fill in the void left by out-of-state gamblers no longer patronizing AC's casinos & hotels.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 17, 2015, 10:41:59 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 17, 2015, 06:59:08 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2015, 06:28:29 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2015, 10:22:35 PM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.

Below the Express/Local setup, the GSP dwindled down to 2 lanes per direction, so you can take Atlantic City out of that reasoning.  Only today are they finally getting to widening the highway in the south, and it's really for the benefit of the entire shore region, not just Atlantic City.
Atlantic City is sort of the economic engine of South Jersey, and other shore communities such as Long Branch, Toms River, Ocean City, Cape May, and a whole lot more are mostly vacation communities for people from Pennsylvania (including Atlantic City). The 3 lane widening between exits 30-80 (including a full rehab of the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, so exit 25) was needed due to your reasoning, but also for connections to New York City and Connecticut.
The mainland communities (including Long Branch and Toms River mentioned above), especially from mid-Ocean County and northward are primarily year-round communities with the vacationers mostly on the barrier islands (or beachfront in Monmouth Co.).  The vast majority of Toms River, for example, has year-round residents.  We have quite a large full time population in northern Ocean County alone - over 225,000 people in just the triangle of 3 towns - Toms River, Brick and Lakewood.  The barrier island communities can somewhat turn into ghost towns during the off-season, but we manage to clog our roads just fine during January on the mainland.  I commute daily the 80-100 widening portion of the GSP, and it can get congested year round, and very frustrating to drive on a Friday afternoon with all the vacation traffic.  As much as we like the dollars coming in from Schnooki and her gang, we hate the additional traffic. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 17, 2015, 06:59:08 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2015, 06:28:29 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 16, 2015, 10:22:35 PM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.

Below the Express/Local setup, the GSP dwindled down to 2 lanes per direction, so you can take Atlantic City out of that reasoning.  Only today are they finally getting to widening the highway in the south, and it's really for the benefit of the entire shore region, not just Atlantic City.
Atlantic City is sort of the economic engine of South Jersey, and other shore communities such as Long Branch, Toms River, Ocean City, Cape May, and a whole lot more are mostly vacation communities for people from Pennsylvania (including Atlantic City). The 3 lane widening between exits 30-80 (including a full rehab of the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, so exit 25) was needed due to your reasoning, but also for connections to New York City and Connecticut.

Technically, the Great Egg Harbor Bridge project is a replacement of the GSP Southbound bridge (actually, there are 2 bridges being replaced), not a rehab project.  While the finished bridges will still carry two lanes southbound, the bridges will be wider than the existing structures put together.  A 7' left shoulder and 24' wide shoulder will be part of the roadway, allowing for a 3rd lane widening to be included in the future.  A walking/bike path is included as well, similar to the Rt. 52 Causeway Bridge between Somers Point & OCNJ.

The former US 9 bridge is being demolished as part of this project as well, and will not be replaced.

There is no planned widening of the GSP between Exits 25 & 30 anytime soon.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 17, 2015, 01:34:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
The former US 9 bridge is being demolished as part of this project as well, and will not be replaced.
Maybe someday they'll get around to formally acknowledging the rerouting of US 9 (or has this finally been done?), and put up some proper signage.  If I recall, signage is very poor to non-existent on the south side of the bridge at CR 623 for the "temporary" rerouting while at one time soon after the closure there was a more prominent display of the detour.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on July 24, 2015, 03:12:17 PM
Active construction near exits 36-38 in Egg Harbor Twp: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/garden-state-parkway-construction-project-focuses-on-new-exits/article_7bfd4d8a-3187-11e5-9deb-3ff061500a54.html
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 24, 2015, 04:31:53 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on July 24, 2015, 03:12:17 PM
Active construction near exits 36-38 in Egg Harbor Twp: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/garden-state-parkway-construction-project-focuses-on-new-exits/article_7bfd4d8a-3187-11e5-9deb-3ff061500a54.html
This has been going on for awhile. I really wish they'd provide updates on lane closures on Tilton Road (as well as any others related to this project) in real time on VMSs and via 511 so drivers could make an intelligent choice about which exits to take. Similarly "2 lanes closed 1/2 mile ahead" doesn't cut it on the ACE when there's no exit before said closure. It's like they don't care about Atlantic County, but at the same time, they're doing these projects, so they do care? Make up your mind.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 02:29:06 PM
The Toms River tolls finally opened a third NB express EZ Pass lane in the former shoulder.  This should help the less aggressive drivers entering at 83 who want to get over to the express lanes.  Further north, the new overhead BGS for the future NB 91 interchange was sitting on the ground and partially obscured, but it looks like this exit will be signed for Herbertsville, a section of Brick.

Was it absolutely necessary (i.e. MUTCD requirement) to sign the single ramps to C/D lanes that serve multiple exits (SB new 89 and modified 91) with the exits in reverse alphabetical order.  Yes, going southbound through the C/D lanes you will hit in order, 89C, 89B and 89A, but I think it's a little silly to sign the single ramp from the mainline as 89 C-B-A and not 89 A-B-C.  My wife asked this question, and the best I could answer was that it was probably some new silly requirement or somebody being overly technical.  I don't recall this type of thing being signed this way for other C/D lane situations in the past (NJ 55 at exit 32 A-B, for example).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on July 25, 2015, 02:59:42 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 02:29:06 PM

Was it absolutely necessary (i.e. MUTCD requirement) to sign the single ramps to C/D lanes that serve multiple exits (SB new 89 and modified 91) with the exits in reverse alphabetical order.  Yes, going southbound through the C/D lanes you will hit in order, 89C, 89B and 89A, but I think it's a little silly to sign the single ramp from the mainline as 89 C-B-A and not 89 A-B-C.  My wife asked this question, and the best I could answer was that it was probably some new silly requirement or somebody being overly technical.  I don't recall this type of thing being signed this way for other C/D lane situations in the past (NJ 55 at exit 32 A-B, for example).

It is to obtain symmetry when symmetry can be obtained.  It is helpful for those that give directions to only have to give directions to the same exit.  For example, NJ 33 westbound is 100 in the NB direction and 100B in the SB direction because someone decided to count up the suffixes in the southbound direction. Lets assume the northbound exits didnt have the integer 100 and just started with 100A, then both directions to NJ 33 westbound would be 100A.  Now i presume someone, like a business, would have to explain why they are at different exit numbers in opposite directions instead of just saying, "I'm off Exit 100A".

Why it doesnt exactly provide symmetry at 89 is because they didnt build the NB to EB 70 direct connection.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2015, 03:19:16 PM
Exit letters and numbers will be in forward order going north, and reverse order going south. It's always been this way; nothing new.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 03:53:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2015, 03:19:16 PM
Exit letters and numbers will be in forward order going north, and reverse order going south. It's always been this way; nothing new.
In response to this and the comment above - I think you may be missing the point of my question.  Yes, the actual exits themselves would be in the order you describe, and I do agree that this makes sense and is required.  My question was specific to a single ramp that leads to the C/D lane that serves multiple exits.  For example, the single ramp at 89 has one BGS that indicates that it leads to 89 C-B-A.  Even though once you are in the C/D lanes (after the toll in this case) you will approach the exits in this order (C-B-A), I don't see why the single ramp sign can't list them as 89 A-B-C, regardless of the order you approach them once in the C/D lane.  I believe in the past I have seen (as in my NJ Route 55 example), the single ramp sign list them in alphabetical order regardless of the direction of approach.   Obviously, when there is not a C/D lane, you will typically have separate signage for each that will list them in their correct order for direction (i.e. if no C/D lanes, then there would be separate exits for C, B and then A).

Since the single ramp leads to all three exits, it doesn't really matter what order the letters are in, and I would think (and it seems to me has been more common in the past) for them to be listed in alphabetical order.  If the single ramp lead to separate exit numbers (say if 88 remained and the ramp led to 89 and 88) then I could see a better argument for reverse order (89 and 88) than with letter suffixes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 25, 2015, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 03:53:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2015, 03:19:16 PM
Exit letters and numbers will be in forward order going north, and reverse order going south. It's always been this way; nothing new.
In response to this and the comment above - I think you may be missing the point of my question.  Yes, the actual exits themselves would be in the order you describe, and I do agree that this makes sense and is required.  My question was specific to a single ramp that leads to the C/D lane that serves multiple exits.  For example, the single ramp at 89 has one BGS that indicates that it leads to 89 C-B-A.  Even though once you are in the C/D lanes (after the toll in this case) you will approach the exits in this order (C-B-A), I don't see why the single ramp sign can't list them as 89 A-B-C, regardless of the order you approach them once in the C/D lane.  I believe in the past I have seen (as in my NJ Route 55 example), the single ramp sign list them in alphabetical order regardless of the direction of approach.   Obviously, when there is not a C/D lane, you will typically have separate signage for each that will list them in their correct order for direction (i.e. if no C/D lanes, then there would be separate exits for C, B and then A).

Since the single ramp leads to all three exits, it doesn't really matter what order the letters are in, and I would think (and it seems to me has been more common in the past) for them to be listed in alphabetical order.  If the single ramp lead to separate exit numbers (say if 88 remained and the ramp led to 89 and 88) then I could see a better argument for reverse order (89 and 88) than with letter suffixes.

I like what VDOT does in Petersburg at the I-95/I-85/ US 460 tangle.  They do it in order and appears so neat even with four different suffixed ramps.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6819058447/in/album-72157629188899539/
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 04:03:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2015, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 03:53:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2015, 03:19:16 PM
Exit letters and numbers will be in forward order going north, and reverse order going south. It's always been this way; nothing new.
In response to this and the comment above - I think you may be missing the point of my question.  Yes, the actual exits themselves would be in the order you describe, and I do agree that this makes sense and is required.  My question was specific to a single ramp that leads to the C/D lane that serves multiple exits.  For example, the single ramp at 89 has one BGS that indicates that it leads to 89 C-B-A.  Even though once you are in the C/D lanes (after the toll in this case) you will approach the exits in this order (C-B-A), I don't see why the single ramp sign can't list them as 89 A-B-C, regardless of the order you approach them once in the C/D lane.  I believe in the past I have seen (as in my NJ Route 55 example), the single ramp sign list them in alphabetical order regardless of the direction of approach.   Obviously, when there is not a C/D lane, you will typically have separate signage for each that will list them in their correct order for direction (i.e. if no C/D lanes, then there would be separate exits for C, B and then A).

Since the single ramp leads to all three exits, it doesn't really matter what order the letters are in, and I would think (and it seems to me has been more common in the past) for them to be listed in alphabetical order.  If the single ramp lead to separate exit numbers (say if 88 remained and the ramp led to 89 and 88) then I could see a better argument for reverse order (89 and 88) than with letter suffixes.

I like what VDOT does in Petersburg at the I-95/I-85/ US 460 tangle.  They do it in order and appears so neat even with four different suffixed ramps.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6819058447/in/album-72157629188899539/
This sign is what I'm talking about - a single BGS for C/D lanes.  Regardless of direction of approach, it can list the suffixed letters in alphabetical order.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on July 25, 2015, 09:08:40 PM
I live in VA. Nothing VDOT does is a model for anything.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on July 26, 2015, 11:39:09 AM
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.256104,-74.694702,3a,75y,190.88h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sae7gWYker5_DNB4mSrFrIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) another example on I-295 SB - C/D lanes, exits listed in actual order.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 26, 2015, 01:14:32 PM
Yet, here's a few examples the other way:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.492578,-75.070774,3a,75y,211.08h,83.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snFYPiJN_uljNd7dkxVE96Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.492578,-75.070774,3a,75y,211.08h,83.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snFYPiJN_uljNd7dkxVE96Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.892967,-75.226449,3a,75y,322.86h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQfQhS3Mws1dqZlddR14K3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.892967,-75.226449,3a,75y,322.86h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQfQhS3Mws1dqZlddR14K3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I just took a quick look through MUTCD and don't see anything that specifically addresses this situation (their only example is in the NB/EB direction, with the exits increasing).  I do see a few other examples in Streetview of B-A signage, along the 95 NE corridor.  In one way it does make sense, but when it gets to 3 suffixes and the C/D lane exit is well in advance of the actual exits (like the GSP's 89), it just doesn't look right to me but I'll get over it.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 26, 2015, 01:56:56 PM
I'm surprised that Exit 129 southbound didn't get lettered exits. I guess they were dead set on the NJTP maintaining the same number in both directions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 26, 2015, 03:10:14 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 26, 2015, 01:56:56 PM
I'm surprised that Exit 129 southbound didn't get lettered exits. I guess they were dead set on the NJTP maintaining the same number in both directions.
Actually that would work well coming NB. If US 9 N Bound would get 127A and if NJ 440 S Bound would get 127B, and NJ 440 N Bound and the connector to Smith Street and Florida Grove Road would be 127C.

Also reverse exit numbering works perfect in Ocoee, FL for Exit 267 on the FL Tpk.  If you look at the interchange in both directions FL  50 comes first and then FL 429.  Its a neat situation where the A and B works well in both directions for the same exact exits.  Going NB it goes with the flow and SB goes against it, but it works out where A and B are in sequential order both ways.

What gets me is Exit 100 does have confusion.  Going SB Exit 100 A is for NJ 33 E Bound and going NB Exit 100A is for NJ 66.  Then going NB you have Exit 100 without a letter suffix for NJ 33 E Bound (typical GSP with a whole number plus letter suffixes like the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges) which I am surprised made out for well over 60 years.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2015, 12:47:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2015, 03:10:14 PM
What gets me is Exit 100 does have confusion.  Going SB Exit 100 A is for NJ 33 E Bound and going NB Exit 100A is for NJ 66.  Then going NB you have Exit 100 without a letter suffix for NJ 33 E Bound (typical GSP with a whole number plus letter suffixes like the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges) which I am surprised made out for well over 60 years.

That was pretty typical for the NJ Highway Authority (previous owner of the Parkway before it merged with the Turnpike Authority). It's also why there is 117 and 117A. These things are being corrected as the NJTA replaces signs and updates to a more MUTCD-compliant signage plan. The days for 100-100A-100B are likely numbered.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 02:27:42 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2015, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 02:27:42 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.

Another thing I'm sure will be fixed when they do a sign replacement project in those locations.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2015, 11:06:35 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on July 25, 2015, 09:08:40 PM
I live in VA. Nothing VDOT does is a model for anything.

I don't live in Virginia, but I believe you sell VDOT short (and it seems to me that bashing of VDOT should be considered the official state sport of the Commonwealth).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on July 29, 2015, 01:52:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 02:27:42 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.
Yep. This problem I've seen in PA too. On I-83 SB approaching the Eisenhower Interchange in Harrisburg, US 322 is signed as exit 47, then I-283 is signed as exit 46. I-83 NB here gets 46A for I-283, and 46B for US 322.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2015, 10:58:02 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 29, 2015, 01:52:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 02:27:42 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.
Yep. This problem I've seen in PA too. On I-83 SB approaching the Eisenhower Interchange in Harrisburg, US 322 is signed as exit 47, then I-283 is signed as exit 46. I-83 NB here gets 46A for I-283, and 46B for US 322.
Yes that is the challenge that engineers face.  Sometimes consistency can be so confusing because of ramp locations.  US 322 EB departs I-83 SB at a different location than the NB exit for the same road.  In fact US 322 EB does concur with the NB lanes of I-83 briefly and eventually exits again at the NB exit to continue.  So in essence US 322 EB actually uses both SB and NB exits.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadsguy on July 30, 2015, 11:42:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 30, 2015, 10:58:02 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 29, 2015, 01:52:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 02:27:42 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.
Yep. This problem I've seen in PA too. On I-83 SB approaching the Eisenhower Interchange in Harrisburg, US 322 is signed as exit 47, then I-283 is signed as exit 46. I-83 NB here gets 46A for I-283, and 46B for US 322.
Yes that is the challenge that engineers face.  Sometimes consistency can be so confusing because of ramp locations.  US 322 EB departs I-83 SB at a different location than the NB exit for the same road.  In fact US 322 EB does concur with the NB lanes of I-83 briefly and eventually exits again at the NB exit to continue.  So in essence US 322 EB actually uses both SB and NB exits.

Actually, loop carrying 322 EB doesn't merge in until after 83 exits itself. There's a short median-separated section (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2529708,-76.8122907,434m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:48:13 PM
Also, these (https://goo.gl/maps/xpRzz) signs were replaced even though they only date from the 142 construction in 2009.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 05, 2015, 09:54:14 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:48:13 PM
Also, these (https://goo.gl/maps/xpRzz) signs were replaced even though they only date from the 142 construction in 2009.
I hope they finally remove Morristown as that is been copied over from the pre I-78/ NJ 24 days.  They need to have it on a supplemental guide for Exit 142 and remove Springfield for Clinton and move Springfield to Exit 140A (former 140) for NJ 82 WB.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: CrystalWalrein on August 23, 2015, 03:24:01 PM
Exit 44 northbound is now open. The signs now reference both CR 561 Alternate and CR 575 (the old ones for southbound only reference the latter).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2015, 05:03:11 PM
I saw the drawings for the guide signs and it uses Port Republic and Smithville as control cities unlike the Southbound side that always used Pomona.  Also in the past no routes were used at SB Exit 44.  Just Pomona was only signed with no road names or route numbers at all.  So consider it something that only CR 575 is being used now.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Public-Info-Center-handout-41-44-August-2012.pdf
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 25, 2015, 05:02:42 PM
Expect new signs soon on the local-express section of the GSP, and along the Bergen and Passaic County sections. They also put up a fancy new "Welcome to NJ and the GSP" sign at the NY border.

In other news, the construction at Exit 163 for eliminating the left hand NJ-17 exits is quite impressive. They are constructing an entirely new mainline for the Parkway in the median.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on August 25, 2015, 08:07:59 PM
Good to see them eliminating left-exits where possible. Left-exits in general are bad idea and should be kept to a minimum. Notice that the New Jersey Turnpike, which is probably about the best engineered highway in the country, has only right exits, by intent.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2015, 09:26:32 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 25, 2015, 08:07:59 PM
Good to see them eliminating left-exits where possible. Left-exits in general are bad idea and should be kept to a minimum. Notice that the New Jersey Turnpike, which is probably about the best engineered highway in the country, has only right exits, by intent.

And the Turnpike has gone out of its way, at great expense, to do that.  It would be a lot cheaper just to combine ramps so that one roadway exits/enters on the right, and the other on the left, so that they use the same ramp structure.  But the Turnpike philosophy has always been to built all entrances & exits on the right.  In today's age of GPS equipment and online directions, it would be crucial to know if a motorist was using the inner roadway or outer roadway if the ramps differed based on the roadway.  As all exits are on the right, it doesn't matter which roadway one is using.

The Parkway is a different story.  In the era it was built, it was designed as a leisurely parkway.  The driving public though started treating it like the other limited access interstate highway that started to be built around the same time - hard, fast driving for commuting to work.  Some areas received upgrades to make it more like an interstate highway...and other areas received bandaid-type modifications just to keep the highway from becoming a day-long parking lot.  The NJTA has been pumping a great deal of cash into it to fix some of the issues, whether it be capacity or operational issues.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on August 25, 2015, 09:48:38 PM
Very good summary jeffandnicole. I've often noted that the Parkway in many ways was not built to the same exacting standards as the Turnpike. Shoulders are not continuous in all areas. And in Middlesex/Union Counties I can't believe they expanded it to five lanes in each direction with no left shoulder. Imagine you start having car trouble in the left lane and need to cross all the way over to the right shoulder. And are those lanes even the standard 12 feet wide, or slightly narrower? They must have been desperate for capacity improvement. And  to this day between Exits 151-153 there is no median-barrier protection in the vicinity of the State Police station at Bloomfield.

What's surprising is that back in the 1960's the Parkway boasted the lowest fatality rate of any toll-road in the country, even with it's design shortcomings. Maybe not having all the large trucks, especially in the Northern section helps with that. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2015, 06:15:01 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 25, 2015, 09:48:38 PM
Very good summary jeffandnicole. I've often noted that the Parkway in many ways was not built to the same exacting standards as the Turnpike. Shoulders are not continuous in all areas. And in Middlesex/Union Counties I can't believe they expanded it to five lanes in each direction with no left shoulder. Imagine you start having car trouble in the left lane and need to cross all the way over to the right shoulder. And are those lanes even the standard 12 feet wide, or slightly narrower? They must have been desperate for capacity improvement. And  to this day between Exits 151-153 there is no median-barrier protection in the vicinity of the State Police station at Bloomfield.

What's surprising is that back in the 1960's the Parkway boasted the lowest fatality rate of any toll-road in the country, even with it's design shortcomings. Maybe not having all the large trucks, especially in the Northern section helps with that. 

I'm sure some others up north may know more specifically when the highway was widened...back in the 50's and 60's, I would imagine that most of those shortcomings didn't exist.  Yeah, the 5 lane, no left shoulder (and I'm quite sure narrow lanes) aren't want you find on a typical highway.  Nor was the 3 lane, no-shoulder-whatsoever areas.  Back then, remember the GSP was its own authority, and the only connection it had with the Turnpike was Interchange 11 in Woodbridge...which is also where the GSP's Admin building was located.  The Turnpike took over the building after the two tollways merged.  Even today, except for the Turnpike's addition of the full-color VMS signage on the Parkway, the two toll roads have kept their own identity, as the Parkway still features short skip lines compared to the Turnpike's 25 foot long lines, and no variable speed limit signage.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 26, 2015, 11:37:43 AM
Most of the Parkway in Middlesex and Union Counties were three lanes especially on the free section between Exits 129 and 140.  In 1980 they widened the roadway adding pavement and widening the viaduct at Aldene in Union County over the three rail lines (now 2 being SIRT is abandoned), NJ 28, and South Avenue.  Then in the mid 1980's a fifth lane was added between Exits 136 and 140 by narrowing the shoulders and main travel lanes.  Then sometime in the 1990's it was restriped to add a fifth lane from Exits 129 to 136.

Most of the original Robert Moses Bridges between New Dover Road and Union County Route 615 were left wide enough to accommodate future widening projects and they did as even the former Reading Railroad overpass north of US 1, though not a stone arch structure, fits all of the current roadway comfortably even though built in the late 1940's when the Parkway was first built in that location.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on August 26, 2015, 04:28:19 PM
Actually the State built section that included the Robert Moses style overpasses was originally only 2 lanes in each direction. There are photos in the Images-of-America book about the G.S. Parkway's history. The book points out that the original road was built with future expansion in mind, as was the Driscoll Bridge. The proof of that is those wide original underpasses. Very smart thinking at the time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 26, 2015, 04:44:27 PM
Its also visible in this horrible quality telecine of a promotional film for the referendum to create the NJ Highway Authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JosR-zLLXmE

Somebody should find the original film and re-transfer it with modern equipment. I'm sure its buried in Woodbridge somewhere.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 27, 2015, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 26, 2015, 04:28:19 PM
Actually the State built section that included the Robert Moses style overpasses was originally only 2 lanes in each direction. There are photos in the Images-of-America book about the G.S. Parkway's history. The book points out that the original road was built with future expansion in mind, as was the Driscoll Bridge. The proof of that is those wide original underpasses. Very smart thinking at the time.
The Driscoll Bridge was built with the piers for future expansion that eventually became the SB Lanes.  Some historic aerials show that as well as vintage photos of the Parkway.

As far as the road being four lanes on the state built part, I only became aware of the road in 1968 or maybe 69. I was born in 65 so its usually until our 4th year of existence that we start retaining memory fully, so I cannot say that I ever saw the four lanes of the GSP.  However, until the widening project of 1980, the roadway was concrete.  I always remembered the concrete being old and the same texture in all lanes.  So therefore I must assume that the three lanes all were constructed at the same time as usually if a lane of any kind is added with like concrete as the other existing lanes, then one lane would always have a different wear pattern on it.

Just look at US 22 in Bridgewater where the WB lanes are concrete, you will see the left lane is still newer looking compared to the right two original WB Lanes.  The third left lane was added in 1988 when the Bridgewater Commons Mall opened as that was stipulated along with the reconconfiguration of the US 22 & US 202/206 interchange to handle the new mall traffic.

Now I am not saying you are lying, but the fact is all the lanes of the Parkway did not look like US 22 WB from I-287 to Commons Way does now some 27 years later after a lane was added considering the road in 1970 was only 22 years old. However, there could be the fact the concrete used back in the 1940's might of been different than the modern methods of mixing and the wear patterns must of been different.  On US 22 it might be that the concrete used for the left lane addition was not the same mixture that was used when US 22 was originally widened several years earlier.  In fact I do not know when US 22 was dualized but its obvious that the EB lanes of US 22 through Bridgewater east of US 202 & 206 were the original travel lanes even to us road geeks now.

It makes an interesting question though that unless we have a road geek born prior to 1948 by five or more years, we cannot really know why this is so unless someone has access to construction records and photos.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on August 27, 2015, 04:57:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 27, 2015, 12:06:19 AM
It makes an interesting question though that unless we have a road geek born prior to 1948 by five or more years, we cannot really know why this is so unless someone has access to construction records and photos.
Michael Summa?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 27, 2015, 05:24:27 PM
Looks like it was widened to 3 lanes between 1954 and 57. The part north of the state maintained section was originally 6 lanes, so they likely widened it to match that fairly quickly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 27, 2015, 05:27:17 PM
It must of been.  That might of been why the concrete aged the same on both roadways.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on September 27, 2015, 02:49:54 PM
They're making good progress on the expansion to three lanes from exits 36 to 38 (not exit 35!). Exit 37 is scheduled to be closed soon so they can incorporate the new overpass coming from the expressway. The southbound ramp from ACE to the GSP is paved already, just needs to tie into the main portion, hence why they are temporarily closing exit 37. I'll try and get pics next time.

Also some other updates for South Jersey. The bridges are open and the parkway is continuous for exits 9-11. Exit 10 (for Stone Harbor Blvd.) is temporarily closed, and the others are getting work for the northbound exit ramps. The Egg Harbor Bridge (mile 28) is making progress as well. The new bridge has the span complete about one-third the way up on the south side, but the columns are missing toward the center.

I ride these roads weekly, so I can give regular updates if any of you guys want.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 27, 2015, 03:49:31 PM
There is an Exit 35 now?   I also believe you made another typo as you said "temporarily closing Exit 36."
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on September 27, 2015, 05:53:42 PM
Quote from: hurricanehink on September 27, 2015, 02:49:54 PMThe bridges are open and the parkway is continuous for exits 9-11. Exit 10 (for Stone Harbor Blvd.) is temporarily closed, and the others are getting work for the northbound exit ramps.

Can you still get directly from Cape May C.H. (say, from Cape Regional Medical Center) to Stone Harbor via County 657?  And what exit(s) must one take from to the GSP itself to get to SH?

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 27, 2015, 09:22:43 PM
Detour is to take Exit 9 along with Shell Bay Ave. and US-9.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on September 28, 2015, 06:57:46 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 27, 2015, 09:22:43 PM
Detour is to take Exit 9 along with Shell Bay Ave. and US-9.

How about from points north?

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2015, 08:21:11 AM
Quote from: ixnay on September 28, 2015, 06:57:46 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 27, 2015, 09:22:43 PM
Detour is to take Exit 9 along with Shell Bay Ave. and US-9.

How about from points north?

ixnay

Since the exits are mileage based, Exits 9 & 11 are only about 1 mile from Exit 10.  Coming from the North, simply exit the GSP at Exit 11, turn right onto 609 for about 1/4 mile, turn left onto US 9 South for a mile, then left onto 657.

If you pass it, just continue to Exit 9, turn right onto Shellbay Ave, turn right onto US 9 North for a mile, then right onto 657.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 28, 2015, 03:56:16 PM
Southbound side is open already.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on September 29, 2015, 11:55:20 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 27, 2015, 03:49:31 PM
There is an Exit 35 now?   I also believe you made another typo as you said "temporarily closing Exit 36."
Sorry, thanks for the fixes!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 03, 2015, 05:07:55 PM
The 83-100 widening project is nearing completion.  Other than some top course repaving, final striping and reflectors, it's essentially down to just the new ramps at the 91 interchange and the bridge construction across the Manasquan River.  I'll have to take some photos.  From roughly 90 south to 83 the improvements are complete.  North of this, there are some spot areas with nighttime lane closures for final striping.  Final paving is basically done except for the area immediately around the bridge construction and the southbound lanes leading into it from around 98.  It feels pretty much complete regardless.  Looking forward to the new 91 ramps, but the new ramps at 89 are already a huge improvement for the area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on October 03, 2015, 05:20:42 PM
They renumbered southbound Exit 91 to Exits 91 B-A for the impending C-D road. The new northbound exit must be Exit 91 since i had seen no other new ramp being built earlier this summer.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on October 04, 2015, 10:34:18 PM
What about all the way to exit 30? I heard they may be widening to the Ocean City exit, or just to the ACE?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 04, 2015, 11:48:59 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on October 04, 2015, 10:34:18 PM
What about all the way to exit 30? I heard they may be widening to the Ocean City exit, or just to the ACE?
Right now, the widening ends at the bottom of Interchange 36, tied in with the ACE improvements. From 30 to 36 is not currently part of construction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 04, 2015, 11:58:31 PM
They did widen the Patcong Creek bridge to 3 lanes when they rebuilt it. Don't see much of a need to widen south of 36 until they decide to replace the northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge. Whats interesting is that bridge is now starting to backup during the summer, although the construction isn't helping.

Are there any plans to convert the New Gretna and Great Egg plazas to express E-ZPass? I would have thought the widening project would have taken care of New Gretna, but nope.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2015, 01:29:14 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 04, 2015, 11:58:31 PM
They did widen the Patcong Creek bridge to 3 lanes when they rebuilt it. Don't see much of a need to widen south of 36 until they decide to replace the northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge. Whats interesting is that bridge is now starting to backup during the summer, although the construction isn't helping.

Are there any plans to convert the New Gretna and Great Egg plazas to express E-ZPass? I would have thought the widening project would have taken care of New Gretna, but nope.

There's a need to widen the GSP to Exit 30, for Ocean City, which was part of the original widening plans.  There is a significant amount of summertime congestion from the ACE to the OCNJ exit. 

While the new SB Great Egg Harbor Bridge will be 2 lanes wide, it is being built to accommodate a 3rd lane in the future if ever needed.  The NB Great Egg Harbor Bridge will remain 2 lanes wide.

As for the toll plazas, don't expect it anytime soon. 

The Great Egg Plaza was understandable, due to the 2 lane, 45 mph overpass just afterwards. They wouldn't want traffic going thru the plaza too quickly, so at least slowing traffic under 40 mph thru the plaza to 15 mph allows for a semi-natural buffer.

The New Gretna plaza was a mistake.  There should've been express lanes built there.  Maybe they would justify the lack of it due to the overpass about 3/4 mile ahead, but that would be a fairly weak argument, since in most cases the express/cash lanes would merge together within 1/2 mile.  Otherwise, I wouldn't have a clue what they wouldn't have implemented the express lanes here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on November 03, 2015, 10:19:23 PM
The Exit 0 project is in gear: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/traffic/article_1243f3e4-826d-11e5-a9c0-f7bdc94ef812.html
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:43:44 PM
Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 07, 2015, 02:41:56 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:43:44 PM
Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.

I just drove through there and it looks like there was a new SB overpass from 36 done with new signage that mentions Woodbridge and Toms River, but other work is still in progress.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 08, 2015, 08:02:29 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 07, 2015, 02:41:56 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:43:44 PM
Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.
I just drove through there and it looks like there was a new SB overpass from 36 done with new signage that mentions Woodbridge and Toms River, but other work is still in progress.
This project is now complete, or at least mostly complete with possibly a little work to go on the north side of 36 at the third new signal on Hope Road if anything (WB 36 ramp to Hope Road signal).  I've driven the NB exit from the GSP a few times through the new signal across Hope Road and it works pretty well.  Big improvement, and as usual major improvements are always made once my job moves to a new location so I can't benefit from it on a daily basis.  Hope Road south of 36 still needs a widening to 4 lanes past Wyckoff Road.  The proposed new NB GSP offramp at 105 to Wayside Road has not started - not sure where that stands.

The 83-100 project is nearly complete with just the bridge widening over the Manasquan River getting close to completion and the new ramps at 91 coming along nicely.  The majority of the stretch has final pavement and they're finishing up with the final striping and reflectors now.  It feels complete, with the exception of the short stretch at the bridge work.  The 91 NB exit to Burrsville Road is paved and waiting for final striping, guardrails and the activation of the signal at the end of the ramp.  The NB on-ramp here is also close, but probably will stay closed until the relocation of the existing NB onramp from its current location to the park and ride lot a little to the north.  The new SB onramp needs some work, but the C/D lanes along the side of the GSP are basically complete.

I'm a little surprised with the somewhat tight geometry down at the new 89 ramps.  The ramps from Route 70 are a little abrupt, and the NB exits to 70 and Cedar Bridge Ave. are going to have a rollover or two.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 09, 2015, 03:07:27 PM
Question I was curious about: I noticed (due to sitting in heavy traffic) that some of the bridge structures on the former NJ-4 section of the Parkway in the Woodbridge/Clark area still have NJDOT structure identification signs on them (with the XXXX-XXX structure ID and the milage) rather than NJTA ones (just the mileage). I know the Highway Authority took over that stretch of road some 20 years ago from the state. Does the state still have a hand in maintaining some of these structures? Just curious because some of the signs don't look that old.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 09, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
Doing some spot checks on readable GSV signs and this 2007 document (PDF) (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/attachment1highwaycarryingbridges.pdf), the Parkway bridges in this area appear to be maintained by the Turnpike Authority.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 07:42:05 PM
I keep seeing references on this board to the GSP being NJ Route-4. How can the GSP have that number when there is already a NJ-4 that goes west from the George Washington Bridge and has been there since the 1930's, twenty years before any of the Parkway was built?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 09, 2015, 08:00:02 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 07:42:05 PM
I keep seeing references on this board to the GSP being NJ Route-4. How can the GSP have that number when there is already a NJ-4 that goes west from the George Washington Bridge and has been there since the 1930's, twenty years before any of the Parkway was built?
The parkway was NJ Parkway 4 before 1957. After NJ Parkway 4 was deleted, the state maintained (free section) section had become the Highway Authority and called the Garden State Parkway until the Highway and Turnpike Authority merged in 2000.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 08:06:28 PM
You're saying NJ Parkway-4 is different than NJ-4?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 09, 2015, 08:12:27 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 08:06:28 PM
You're saying NJ Parkway-4 is different than NJ-4?
Yup. It was signed as NJ Parkway 4 for a short time after the state built the 11 mile free section until the Highway Authority took over construction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 08:25:44 PM
So were there also 3 other numbered Parkways?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2015, 09:20:16 PM
The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:09:00 AM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 09, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
Doing some spot checks on readable GSV signs and this 2007 document (PDF) (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/attachment1highwaycarryingbridges.pdf), the Parkway bridges in this area appear to be maintained by the Turnpike Authority.
They definitely are. These are holdovers, possibly from when the NJTA took over the NJHA. For all I know the NJHA kept the state's bridge numbering. No way to check now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 08:25:44 PM
So were there also 3 other numbered Parkways?
No.

NJ State Highway 4 followed what's now US 9 all the way up the state from Cape May to NJ 88. 4 followed original US 9 across 88 to 35, then up 35 all the way into 27. This original highway was intended to connect to the northern segment of NJ 4 that leaves Paterson.

NJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2015, 10:43:31 AM

Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 AMNJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.

Somewhat true on the Paterson bank of the Passaic, too, but is there really something to this, or is this just the general style of a state highway built in that era that hasn't outgrown it?  I read decades ago that the park-like setting immediately east of Hackensack is a direct result of Teaneck prohibiting development along 4 in that town (or any road expansion) either by zoning or outright ownership of the abutting land.  It's worth noting that as soon as one enters Englewood, the road is fully lined with commercial property.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on November 10, 2015, 01:13:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2015, 09:20:16 PM
The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
U.S. 9 was once aligned separately from the GSP Mullica River Bridge (48-50 overlap), on what is now known as Route 167.  Route 167 is now in two small pieces at either end of the former alignment, because the old bridges along the alignment were removed and never replaced.  At that time, U.S. 9 was moved to the Parkway.  Almost an earlier parallel to the Beesley's Point circumstance now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2015, 06:29:04 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2015, 10:43:31 AM

Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 AMNJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.

Somewhat true on the Paterson bank of the Passaic, too, but is there really something to this, or is this just the general style of a state highway built in that era that hasn't outgrown it?  I read decades ago that the park-like setting immediately east of Hackensack is a direct result of Teaneck prohibiting development along 4 in that town (or any road expansion) either by zoning or outright ownership of the abutting land.  It's worth noting that as soon as one enters Englewood, the road is fully lined with commercial property.
No, NJ 4 to the bridge was built as part of regular 4, not Parkway 4, but I just find it interesting that the character of the road would have fit with the extension of the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 11, 2015, 10:28:26 AM
Quote from: akotchi on November 10, 2015, 01:13:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2015, 09:20:16 PM
The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
U.S. 9 was once aligned separately from the GSP Mullica River Bridge (48-50 overlap), on what is now known as Route 167.  Route 167 is now in two small pieces at either end of the former alignment, because the old bridges along the alignment were removed and never replaced.  At that time, U.S. 9 was moved to the Parkway.  Almost an earlier parallel to the Beesley's Point circumstance now.
I heard from my cousin, as my Uncle Al used to own the home at the northern terminus of NJ 167 in New Gretna and he was his son, told me a camper fire from a fisherman destroyed the original US 9 Bridge across the Mullica.  I do not know how accurate that is as he told me back when we were kids, but my dad who was around for years confirmed it.  He said NJDOT or its former agency at the time decided that having two river crossings, the Parkway and US 9, was redundant so they opted to have the Parkway bridge carry both routes rather than rebuild.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 11, 2015, 11:19:11 AM
I just thought of this, the parkway has strange exit numbers at some places. I believe there is three examples:

Exits 38-38A rather than Exits 38A-B
Exits 82-82A rather than Exits 82A-B
Exits 100-100A-100B rather than Exits 100A-100B-100C

Why haven't these been fixed yet?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2015, 03:22:54 PM
They are working on it. Expect Exit 38-38A to be fixed within the year when construction is complete in the area. The other two will be fixed with the next sign replacement contract.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 11, 2015, 09:31:45 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2015, 03:22:54 PM
They are working on it. Expect Exit 38-38A to be fixed within the year when construction is complete in the area. The other two will be fixed with the next sign replacement contract.
I was surprised that 98 didn't get suffixed when they recently replaced the signs there as part of the 83-100 work.  It's really not much different than the new 89A/B/C and the 91A/B SB conversion (when complete) with the C/D lanes at 98 (NB at least).  I would think it would've been an easier sell splitting an existing non-suffixed exit than changing suffixes on already established exits with the effect on businesses and GPS units.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 11, 2015, 09:57:10 PM
There are no suffixes at 98 because there is no entry or re-entry to the south. 98 northbound should entertain suffixes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 11, 2015, 09:59:07 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 11, 2015, 11:19:11 AM
I just thought of this, the parkway has strange exit numbers at some places. I believe there is three examples:

Exits 38-38A rather than Exits 38A-B
Exits 82-82A rather than Exits 82A-B
Exits 100-100A-100B rather than Exits 100A-100B-100C

Why haven't these been fixed yet?

If i remember correctly, 82 isn't in any program.  I don't think it will address the suffixes anytime soon.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2015, 10:17:34 PM
They didn't bother to suffix Exit 129 S/B or 127 N/B, both of which could have used it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 12, 2015, 07:48:52 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2015, 10:17:34 PM
They didn't bother to suffix Exit 129 S/B or 127 N/B, both of which could have used it.

Again, there is no entry or re-entry at 127 or 129 meaning that a C-D road doesn't exist--these ramps don't "collect" so there is only one exit and it departs from the mainline.  In a C-D road, the departure from the system is from the C-D road, not the mainline.  I think that's the easiest way to explain it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2015, 09:45:34 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 12, 2015, 07:48:52 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2015, 10:17:34 PM
They didn't bother to suffix Exit 129 S/B or 127 N/B, both of which could have used it.

Again, there is no entry or re-entry at 127 or 129 meaning that a C-D road doesn't exist--these ramps don't "collect" so there is only one exit and it departs from the mainline.  In a C-D road, the departure from the system is from the C-D road, not the mainline.  I think that's the easiest way to explain it.

Not necessarily, it depends on the DOT and the politics of the designer.  I have seem some A-B-C suffixes on split ramps, look at the new SB Exit for I-87 on the Cross Bronx for one.  Then look at the FL 417 and World Drive interchange in Celebration, FL on I-4.  It has long C/D roads and yet has only the one number for the ramp to the C/D road.  Exit 62 is for the C/D system for both World Drive and FL 417 (E Bound Only) yet the C/D road is very long.  In fact in the sequential numbering days both ramps to World Drive had Exits 24 C & D, and Exit 24 E was for the departure of FL 417 from the C/D road.

Also the C/D is not used everywhere as the NJTA for the NJ 70 and CR 528 exits is called a Service Road where most would call it a C/D roadway.  In fact in many places a service road is an off freeway road that sits next to the freeway itself graded separate from the super highway.

Its all politics!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 23, 2015, 11:48:06 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Union,+NJ/@40.6983571,-74.2533771,382m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c3ad9f6f9daa9b:0x570322a196f054c!6m1!1e1
I was noticing that the Westbound exit ramp to Vauxhall Road in Union, NJ is very close to the Northbound GSP ramp.  As many of you already know, that is who live in North Jersey, that to access the GSP NB from US 22 WB you have to exit on Vauxhall Road and then turn right briefly on Vauxhall itself to then turn into the Parkway's northbound ramp.

To me there is nothing in between the US 22 WB off ramp to Vauxhall Road and the Parkway North Ramp from Vauxhall Road but green area.  I would figure by now that either the NJTA or NJDOT would build a ramp between the two ramps to eliminate you having to use Vauxhall Road to make the connection.

I guess no one cannot figure out that one simple little thing they could do to make US 22 Westbound have an almost direct ramp to the Parkway Northbound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on November 26, 2015, 12:01:02 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?
Because if we don't sign them the terrorists won't blow them up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 26, 2015, 08:31:02 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

Thre's one southbound at Exit 80.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on November 26, 2015, 08:43:52 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 26, 2015, 08:31:02 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

Thre's one southbound at Exit 80.

Image?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on November 26, 2015, 11:36:28 AM
When will they fully go MUTCD?

Quote from: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on November 26, 2015, 12:34:58 PM
Just drove past exit 38/37 (going south from ACE), and there was a sign saying "New Traffic Pattern Dec. 3" I'm guessing this is when the traffic from ACE east goes onto a new ramp to GSP south.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 12:41:20 PM
Quote from: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.
Detonations?  Are they planning to blow up Atlantic City and Cape May?

Yes, I know the typo.  Done it many of times myself.  The Parkway has started at Exit 80 already and the CR 502 exit in Bergen County.  I do not know if they progressed since then though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 11:36:28 AM
When will they fully go MUTCD?

Quote from: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.

If they just go on a normal sign replacement cycle, probably around 2035 or so.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 26, 2015, 01:48:46 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 08:43:52 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on November 26, 2015, 08:31:02 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

Thre's one southbound at Exit 80.

Image?

There's a D2-3 sign northbound after Exit 168 and there is a D2-3 sign northbound somewhere around the John Fenwick Service Area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 11:36:28 AM
When will they fully go MUTCD?

Quote from: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.

If they just go on a normal sign replacement cycle, probably around 2035 or so.
That is why it took so long to replace the guide signs at Exits 140 & 140 A as they only got replaced in the mid 1990's with the overhead at Exit 140 until a few years ago.

Then look how long it took Exit 82 to get all of its overheads.  Some started in the early 90's while the rest took up until the late 90's or early 00's.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 30, 2015, 10:41:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 11:36:28 AM
When will they fully go MUTCD?

Quote from: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:20:40 AM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.

If they just go on a normal sign replacement cycle, probably around 2035 or so.
That is why it took so long to replace the guide signs at Exits 140 & 140 A as they only got replaced in the mid 1990's with the overhead at Exit 140 until a few years ago.

Then look how long it took Exit 82 to get all of its overheads.  Some started in the early 90's while the rest took up until the late 90's or early 00's.
They don't need to wait for replacement cycles to put up distance signs, though. Speaking of which, I don't recall seeing distance signs on NJ interstates. I've seen them on US and some state routes, though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on November 30, 2015, 11:30:48 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 30, 2015, 10:41:04 AM
Speaking of which, I don't recall seeing distance signs on NJ interstates. I've seen them on US and some state routes, though.
they are present on I-95(M), I-195, and I-295. i can't speak for north jersey.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 30, 2015, 03:16:38 PM
They sparingly post them, usually at major junctions. Occasionally you will get a single destination distance sign with the true terminus of the route on it (ex: Verona for NJ-23 south).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 05:55:05 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?

Is it cost effective to disrupt every personal and business reference to the exit to make it one mile more accurate?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 05:57:33 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2015, 06:11:01 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 30, 2015, 03:16:38 PM
They sparingly post them, usually at major junctions. Occasionally you will get a single destination distance sign with the true terminus of the route on it (ex: Verona for NJ-23 south).
They are on I-80, I-280, I-287, and on I-78 as part of a project statewide back in 1998 or circa.  They are at random spots usually after each city listed gets surpassed.  Hence I-78 E Bound at Delaware River uses Clinton- Bedminster- Newark and then after Clinton at Exit 18 its Bedminster- Watchung- Newark.  After Bedminster it updates to Watchung- Newark and then just east of Exit 41 at the Watchung and Berkley Heights border  a Newark only sign appears.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 06:43:06 PM
Red Bold emphasis added in below-quoted post:

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 05:55:05 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?

Is it cost effective to disrupt every personal and business reference to the exit to make it one mile more accurate?
The personal & business references that you speak of are already being disrupted by the recent change; especially if one makes reference to Exit 140A (old 140/new 140B).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 07:22:48 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 06:43:06 PM
Red Bold emphasis added in below-quoted post:

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 05:55:05 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?

Is it cost effective to disrupt every personal and business reference to the exit to make it one mile more accurate?
The personal & business references that you speak of are already being disrupted by the recent change; especially if one makes reference to Exit 140A (old 140/new 140B).

I'm talking about for the general population, not the agency.  I didn't realize the exit number was already being changed.  Still, lessened confusion should be the goal over system consistency.  These two are not always the same.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 30, 2015, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 05:57:33 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase is supposed to indicate. Have you ever traveled the Parkway or even looked at aerials? There is absolutely no need to widen south of Great Egg Harbor, and possibly not even south of the Atlantic City Expressway area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 30, 2015, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 05:57:33 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase is supposed to indicate. Have you ever traveled the Parkway or even looked at aerials? There is absolutely no need to widen south of Great Egg Harbor, and possibly not even south of the Atlantic City Expressway area.
Between the ACE and NJ 440 is the section I traveled, and a bit of aerials north of I-280.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 30, 2015, 11:20:12 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 30, 2015, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 05:57:33 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase is supposed to indicate. Have you ever traveled the Parkway or even looked at aerials? There is absolutely no need to widen south of Great Egg Harbor, and possibly not even south of the Atlantic City Expressway area.
Between the ACE and NJ 440 is the section I traveled, and a bit of aerials north of I-280.
Here is the Parkway.

2 lanes: 0-35*
3 lanes: 35*-90
4 lanes: 90-98
5 lanes: 98-117
6 lanes: 117-123
7/8 lanes: 123-127
4/5 lanes: 127-129
3 lanes: inside 129
5 lanes: 129-140
4 lanes: 140-145
3 lanes: 145-168
2 lanes: 168-172

*pending ongoing construction
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:46:52 PM
Does anyone know if the SB exits for 143 are redone to eliminate the 143-143A-143B situation?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on December 04, 2015, 04:34:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:46:52 PM
Does anyone know if the SB exits for 143 are redone to eliminate the 143-143A-143B situation?
I drove by there this past Sunday; no changes were made.  The only GSP renumbering (more like a reshuffling) in that area recently done was between (but not including) I-78 and US 1.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on December 04, 2015, 04:52:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?
If I recall correctly all the exits are offset by a mile because mile 0 was moved south at some point
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2015, 08:13:03 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 04, 2015, 04:52:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?
If I recall correctly all the exits are offset by a mile because mile 0 was moved south at some point
Other than 63 being at 64 and 91 being at 93, most of the mileposts are in pretty good agreement south of 135 (now that 131 became 132). Whatever discrepancy there was, arose sometime after exits were numbered on the free section in Middlesex Co.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 05, 2015, 01:54:08 PM
I heard they are off by a mile to avoid the alphabet soup scenario.  Like Exit 138 is at mile 140 exactly to avoid having 140 A for County Road 509, 140 B for SB Chestnut Street, 140 C for NB Chestnut Street, and 140 D for Route 22.

The Exits 143 alphabet was allowed because all ramps serve Irvington unlike the current 138, 139, and 140 which serve three different roadways and are in fact three separate interchanges.  Where 143 is actually one interchange spread out over a mile.   

Edit: I searched around to find the article where I read that piece of info.  I read it someplace after the question was raised, and without looking I was reading articles on the Parkway and its exit system.  It explained the mile off and used the three Union exits together within a mile as an example of what would have had to been done to number them under traditional practices.  Whether its true or not, it does make sense, and really who other than us here, notices the inaccuracy of the mileposts verses the exit numbers.  People have used the 140 number to exit for Route 22 for years and have used 138 for Kenilworth for ages as well.  It works and nothing really is 100 percent perfect.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2015, 07:06:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 05, 2015, 01:54:08 PM
I heard
No you didn't. You made it up. It's wrong. Shifting everything by -1 number wouldn't change the scenario.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on December 14, 2015, 11:17:13 AM
Quote from: hurricanehink on November 26, 2015, 12:34:58 PM
Just drove past exit 38/37 (going south from ACE), and there was a sign saying "New Traffic Pattern Dec. 3" I'm guessing this is when the traffic from ACE east goes onto a new ramp to GSP south.
I believe that VMS was changed to say the 9th and then 15th. Now it's off. There is no new traffic pattern as far as I can tell (except occasional lane closures). I go through that interchange 3 times a week in both directions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 14, 2015, 04:55:36 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 14, 2015, 11:17:13 AM
Quote from: hurricanehink on November 26, 2015, 12:34:58 PM
Just drove past exit 38/37 (going south from ACE), and there was a sign saying "New Traffic Pattern Dec. 3" I'm guessing this is when the traffic from ACE east goes onto a new ramp to GSP south.
I believe that VMS was changed to say the 9th and then 15th. Now it's off. There is no new traffic pattern as far as I can tell (except occasional lane closures). I go through that interchange 3 times a week in both directions.
We get that too in Florida.  A sign will say NEW PATTERN DECEMBER 15, and then when the 15th comes, no change.  Then it is amended to say DECEMBER 21st, to not have any change.  Then the message is updated to say JANUARY 3rd.   

Construction workers these days keep a job going longer than it needs to be.  On John Young Parkway, through Hunters Creek area has been having over a month and a half a milling the section of roadway from Osceola County to FL 528.  They still have some turn lanes in Hunters Creek proper that need to be milled, instead the contractor is redoing pavements that have been milled already.  Yes they close off lanes and have done so since Thanksgiving to grind up new asphalt to lay down another treatment of asphalt instead of finishing the right turn lanes at Teal Point Drive and at the apartment complex just south of FL 417 as well as Substation Road just north of FL 417. 

If they worked at the whole project each day, they could have had the final coat of asphalt laid down already and all completed, but no they have to goof around doing meaningless work.  Then another part of the project they cannot do is around FL 528 due to the HOT lanes construction on FL 528 which is over some of their project area as it ends just north of the FL 528 overpass.  That of course is understandable, but then again the County of Orange could have let the contractor for FL 528 cover that when it was decided to have the work done as that would save a lot of trouble for this company to have to wait around more for them to get the FL 528/ JYP intersection done for the 528 expansion completed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2015, 10:26:21 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.624885,-74.3064495,3a,75y,48.03h,105.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AjyhEfPDQ30WZrfqga5Aw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Google now has the new GSP signage on Street View.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on December 31, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 30, 2015, 10:26:21 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.624885,-74.3064495,3a,75y,48.03h,105.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AjyhEfPDQ30WZrfqga5Aw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Google now has the new GSP signage on Street View.
It's about damn time they updated street view images. I noticed if you go further north, they are about to install newer signage above exit 145. You can see the sign bases put in. It's a shame that the new images don't go all the way up the Parkway and stops around exit 168.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 12:13:42 PM
I wonder if they will remove that I-80 New York sign that misleads motorists to use the GWB into the city that is in Clifton at the NJ 3 exit?   I think the Lincoln Tunnel should be on a supplemental sign and NJ 3 should use New York City for its E Bound (Exit 153A) guide, and maybe finally give back NJ 3 a control city like it once had.  I cannot remember if it was Dover or something else, but Little Falls or Wayne would work well.

Also glad to see Rahway is now signed with two exits N Bound at Exit 132 with a "Rahway Next 2 Exits" as well as "Cranford Next 2 Exits" in Clark north of 135, and then now Roselle Park gets the next 3 exits north of 136 due to it being removed from the 137 and 138 guides.  A sign near the Aldene hill has that particular Next X Exit sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 01, 2016, 12:58:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 12:13:42 PM
I wonder if they will remove that I-80 New York sign that misleads motorists to use the GWB into the city that is in Clifton at the NJ 3 exit?   I think the Lincoln Tunnel should be on a supplemental sign and NJ 3 should use New York City for its E Bound (Exit 153A) guide, and maybe finally give back NJ 3 a control city like it once had.  I cannot remember if it was Dover or something else, but Little Falls or Wayne would work well.

Also glad to see Rahway is now signed with two exits N Bound at Exit 132 with a "Rahway Next 2 Exits" as well as "Cranford Next 2 Exits" in Clark north of 135, and then now Roselle Park gets the next 3 exits north of 136 due to it being removed from the 137 and 138 guides.  A sign near the Aldene hill has that particular Next X Exit sign.

It will probably change as they replace signage since the new signage follows the MUTCD rules much more closely. They should put the tunnel on a supplemental ground mount sign. They will likely use Clifton or Secaucus as the destinations.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 08:36:33 PM
There used to be Passaic before 1981 or circa.  The original signs were Caltrans text shield circles and used both the Tunnel and Passaic as EB Points.  Like I said I cannot remember the WB city.  I want to say Dover, but could not be sure.  Before the diagramical signs, there were carbon copy signs with Passaic on them, but the W B exit had the control city not copied over for some reason.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:17:51 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 30, 2015, 11:20:12 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 30, 2015, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 05:57:33 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase is supposed to indicate. Have you ever traveled the Parkway or even looked at aerials? There is absolutely no need to widen south of Great Egg Harbor, and possibly not even south of the Atlantic City Expressway area.
Between the ACE and NJ 440 is the section I traveled, and a bit of aerials north of I-280.
Here is the Parkway.

2 lanes: 0-35*
3 lanes: 35*-90
4 lanes: 90-98
5 lanes: 98-117
6 lanes: 117-123
7/8 lanes: 123-127
4/5 lanes: 127-129
3 lanes: inside 129
5 lanes: 129-140
4 lanes: 140-145
3 lanes: 145-168
2 lanes: 168-172

*pending ongoing construction

Would be a nice of having a list of the toll plazas as well. I know there is the Bergen toll plaza which is annoying
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 07, 2016, 01:24:19 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:58:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2016, 01:24:19 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2016, 02:28:19 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:17:51 PM

Would be a nice of having a list of the toll plazas as well. I know there is the Bergen toll plaza which is annoying

www.state.nj.us/turnpike

There are links to the GS Parkway's toll plazas there, including all the ramp plazas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 09, 2016, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:58:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2016, 01:24:19 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Agreed as its way too close to Pasack Valley.  Also to note just south of it is Exit 157 that is the midway point to the Essex Toll plaza though not by a long shot half way.  The Parkway likes to place ramp tolls most NB for off and SB on north of Union due to the amount of commuters using the highway.  The same goes south of the Raritan River, where the ramp tolls are all SB off and NB on due to commuters and shore patrons traveling in that direction instead of going north.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on January 11, 2016, 09:30:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 09, 2016, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:58:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2016, 01:24:19 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Agreed as its way too close to Pasack Valley.  Also to note just south of it is Exit 157 that is the midway point to the Essex Toll plaza though not by a long shot half way.  The Parkway likes to place ramp tolls most NB for off and SB on north of Union due to the amount of commuters using the highway.  The same goes south of the Raritan River, where the ramp tolls are all SB off and NB on due to commuters and shore patrons traveling in that direction instead of going north.

$1.50 toll is ridiculous as well... 25 cents should be enough
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2016, 03:05:04 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 11, 2016, 09:30:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 09, 2016, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:58:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2016, 01:24:19 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Agreed as its way too close to Pasack Valley.  Also to note just south of it is Exit 157 that is the midway point to the Essex Toll plaza though not by a long shot half way.  The Parkway likes to place ramp tolls most NB for off and SB on north of Union due to the amount of commuters using the highway.  The same goes south of the Raritan River, where the ramp tolls are all SB off and NB on due to commuters and shore patrons traveling in that direction instead of going north.

$1.50 toll is ridiculous as well... 25 cents should be enough

And I should be able to see a double feature movie, get a popcorn and soda for 50 cents as well.
Title: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 11, 2016, 03:38:31 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 11, 2016, 09:30:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 09, 2016, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:58:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2016, 01:24:19 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Agreed as its way too close to Pasack Valley.  Also to note just south of it is Exit 157 that is the midway point to the Essex Toll plaza though not by a long shot half way.  The Parkway likes to place ramp tolls most NB for off and SB on north of Union due to the amount of commuters using the highway.  The same goes south of the Raritan River, where the ramp tolls are all SB off and NB on due to commuters and shore patrons traveling in that direction instead of going north.

$1.50 toll is ridiculous as well... 25 cents should be enough

Based on what?  It was 25¢ for 37 years, meaning that when it went up in 1989, motorists had already received an 80% discount thanks to inflation.  A 25¢ toll today would be 3¢ in 1952 dollars. 

Furthermore, to compare apples to apples, this is a $1.50 toll that used to be 50¢, since it is now a "round-trip" toll.  And with reality factored in (that pesky inflation factor), you're still paying 66 percent less than in 1952.

Why is the automatic answer to everything always "I should have to pay less"?  Society works better when we decide to be adults about public policy.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 11, 2016, 04:47:04 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 11, 2016, 03:38:31 PM

Based on what?  It was 25¢ for 37 years, meaning that when it went up in 1989, motorists had already received an 80% discount thanks to inflation.  A 25¢ toll today would be 3¢ in 1952 dollars. 

Furthermore, to compare apples to apples, this is a $1.50 toll that used to be 50¢, since it is now a "round-trip" toll.  And with reality factored in (that pesky inflation factor), you're still paying 66 percent less than in 1952.

Why is the automatic answer to everything always "I should have to pay less"?  Society works better when we decide to be adults about public policy.

The tolls are still cheap by standard, so I'm content with $1.50 on the mainline barriers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on January 11, 2016, 05:02:19 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 11, 2016, 04:47:04 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 11, 2016, 03:38:31 PM

Based on what?  It was 25¢ for 37 years, meaning that when it went up in 1989, motorists had already received an 80% discount thanks to inflation.  A 25¢ toll today would be 3¢ in 1952 dollars. 

Furthermore, to compare apples to apples, this is a $1.50 toll that used to be 50¢, since it is now a "round-trip" toll.  And with reality factored in (that pesky inflation factor), you're still paying 66 percent less than in 1952.

Why is the automatic answer to everything always "I should have to pay less"?  Society works better when we decide to be adults about public policy.

The tolls are still cheap by standard, so I'm content with $1.50 on the mainline barriers.
Not to mention that those are one-way tolls.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 05:32:55 PM
The GSP is the cheapest toll road to drive when factoring in the toll cost per mile. I think the NJ Turnpike is 2nd or 3rd, even after the recent increases! At least there is visible major investment of the tolls back into the roadways unlike some other agency's roadways.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 11, 2016, 05:52:51 PM
The AC Expressway is $3.75 for the entire length (44 miles). That's 8.5 cents per mile. The turnpike is 11.8 cents per mile (northern half is a lot more expensive than southern half, though). Calculating the total for the parkway is harder, so I won't do that now. But at the very least the ACE is cheaper than the Parkway, and still, paying $6 per day (I don't drive the length, obviously) every day adds up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 06:40:57 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2016, 09:04:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 06:40:57 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 11, 2016, 09:33:07 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 06:40:57 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.
Parkway costs are much lower than the other roadways due to the truck prohibitions. Even south of exit 105 where trucks are allowed, their percentages are minimal.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2016, 09:04:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 06:40:57 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!

Yeah, I've always wondered what the logic with GSP's tolls was. At least with the ACE it sort of makes sense. The biggest irregularity is Exit 9 which adds 75 cents regardless of which direction you are exiting or entering. They advertise gas at that exit too, so if you take exit to get gas and get back on it's $1.50 extra. Of course you could travel 2 more miles and pay nothing to exit and re-enter (via Exit 7 on the ACE to GSP Exit 37)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2016, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2016, 09:04:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 06:40:57 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!

Yeah, I've always wondered what the logic with GSP's tolls was. At least with the ACE it sort of makes sense. The biggest irregularity is Exit 9 which adds 75 cents regardless of which direction you are exiting or entering. They advertise gas at that exit too, so if you take exit to get gas and get back on it's $1.50 extra. Of course you could travel 2 more miles and pay nothing to exit and re-enter (via Exit 7 on the ACE to GSP Exit 37)

You could go from Exit 14 to 17 or 17 to 14, which would be $3.00 each way ($1/mile).

The cheapest toll per mile is Exit 44 to Exit 28, 16 miles, 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile).  Or, you could drive Eastbound from any exit west of the Farley Service Plaza, make a U-turn, then exit Westbound without paying anything.  At minimum though, that will add about 16 miles to the trip.  Gas would need to be under $1 to even consider making that worthwhile.

For truckers taking Exit 28 Eastbound (or entering Exit 28 Westbound), the savings are huge.  The ramp plazas used to be one rate for cars; one rate for trucks, and each had their own toll lane.  When the Expressway started accepting EZ Pass, they decided to do away with the truck rate, and made one lane EZ Pass Only, one lane cash.  Since it's all coins, the truck rate dropped to be the same as the car rate.  This is not true at the barrier plazas, where trucks are charged rates based on their axles.

Thus, a truck of any size going from Rt. 42 to Exit 28 pays 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile; probably by far the cheapest truck toll rate anywhere).  But, a truck continuing beyond Exit 28 goes thru the Egg Harbor tolls, and will have to pay $9, which brings it up to 33 cents a mile!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on January 12, 2016, 11:24:17 AM
So basically going from Bergen County (Paramus) to Atlantic City; how much will tolls cost round-trip?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 12, 2016, 11:54:28 AM

Quote from: NJ on January 12, 2016, 11:24:17 AM
So basically going from Bergen County (Paramus) to Atlantic City; how much will tolls cost round-trip?

This much:

https://turnpikeinfo.com/toll-calculator.php?road_name=garden-state-parkway&state=new-jersey

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 12:39:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2016, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2016, 09:04:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 06:40:57 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!

Yeah, I've always wondered what the logic with GSP's tolls was. At least with the ACE it sort of makes sense. The biggest irregularity is Exit 9 which adds 75 cents regardless of which direction you are exiting or entering. They advertise gas at that exit too, so if you take exit to get gas and get back on it's $1.50 extra. Of course you could travel 2 more miles and pay nothing to exit and re-enter (via Exit 7 on the ACE to GSP Exit 37)

You could go from Exit 14 to 17 or 17 to 14, which would be $3.00 each way ($1/mile).

The cheapest toll per mile is Exit 44 to Exit 28, 16 miles, 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile).  Or, you could drive Eastbound from any exit west of the Farley Service Plaza, make a U-turn, then exit Westbound without paying anything.  At minimum though, that will add about 16 miles to the trip.  Gas would need to be under $1 to even consider making that worthwhile.

For truckers taking Exit 28 Eastbound (or entering Exit 28 Westbound), the savings are huge.  The ramp plazas used to be one rate for cars; one rate for trucks, and each had their own toll lane.  When the Expressway started accepting EZ Pass, they decided to do away with the truck rate, and made one lane EZ Pass Only, one lane cash.  Since it's all coins, the truck rate dropped to be the same as the car rate.  This is not true at the barrier plazas, where trucks are charged rates based on their axles.

Thus, a truck of any size going from Rt. 42 to Exit 28 pays 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile; probably by far the cheapest truck toll rate anywhere).  But, a truck continuing beyond Exit 28 goes thru the Egg Harbor tolls, and will have to pay $9, which brings it up to 33 cents a mile!
Despite what has been said on this board before, I'm 99% sure there is no way to make a (legal) U-tun at the service plaza. All stores, gas station, etc have separate entrances / parking for eastbound and westbound traffic.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2016, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 12:39:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2016, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 10:11:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2016, 09:04:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 06:40:57 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!

Yeah, I've always wondered what the logic with GSP's tolls was. At least with the ACE it sort of makes sense. The biggest irregularity is Exit 9 which adds 75 cents regardless of which direction you are exiting or entering. They advertise gas at that exit too, so if you take exit to get gas and get back on it's $1.50 extra. Of course you could travel 2 more miles and pay nothing to exit and re-enter (via Exit 7 on the ACE to GSP Exit 37)

You could go from Exit 14 to 17 or 17 to 14, which would be $3.00 each way ($1/mile).

The cheapest toll per mile is Exit 44 to Exit 28, 16 miles, 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile).  Or, you could drive Eastbound from any exit west of the Farley Service Plaza, make a U-turn, then exit Westbound without paying anything.  At minimum though, that will add about 16 miles to the trip.  Gas would need to be under $1 to even consider making that worthwhile.

For truckers taking Exit 28 Eastbound (or entering Exit 28 Westbound), the savings are huge.  The ramp plazas used to be one rate for cars; one rate for trucks, and each had their own toll lane.  When the Expressway started accepting EZ Pass, they decided to do away with the truck rate, and made one lane EZ Pass Only, one lane cash.  Since it's all coins, the truck rate dropped to be the same as the car rate.  This is not true at the barrier plazas, where trucks are charged rates based on their axles.

Thus, a truck of any size going from Rt. 42 to Exit 28 pays 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile; probably by far the cheapest truck toll rate anywhere).  But, a truck continuing beyond Exit 28 goes thru the Egg Harbor tolls, and will have to pay $9, which brings it up to 33 cents a mile!
Despite what has been said on this board before, I'm 99% sure there is no way to make a (legal) U-tun at the service plaza. All stores, gas station, etc have separate entrances / parking for eastbound and westbound traffic.

Sure there is:  https://goo.gl/maps/dqEq3h95n462  There's even line striping to help guide one around the gas station.  And this GSV image on the EB side of the plaza shows signage directing motorists to the WB direction.  https://goo.gl/maps/yPMqZowjyRA2
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 12:54:29 PM
My memory must be playing tricks on me. I'm not going to verify since the GSV is from just last year.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2016, 01:13:25 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 12:54:29 PM
My memory must be playing tricks on me. I'm not going to verify since the GSV is from just last year.

There's a few service plazas on the PA Turnpike that, although used by both directions, are barriered to prevent traffic from making a U-turn.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ekt8750 on January 12, 2016, 01:54:29 PM
Drive any considerable distance on the PA Turnpike and then comeback to me with how expensive the GSP.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on January 12, 2016, 03:45:06 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on January 12, 2016, 01:54:29 PM
Drive any considerable distance on the PA Turnpike and then comeback to me with how expensive the GSP.  :rolleyes:
Now do it again with today's prices!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 18, 2016, 06:07:04 PM
The southern part of the GSP from Exit 30 down to the end is having sign replacements done. All ground mounted. US-9 shields on a majority of the signs as well. Very little of the "cracker jack" NJHA signs remain.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on January 19, 2016, 01:11:33 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 18, 2016, 06:07:04 PM
The southern part of the GSP from Exit 30 down to the end is having sign replacements done. All ground mounted. US-9 shields on a majority of the signs as well. Very little of the "cracker jack" NJHA signs remain.
So are you saying US 9 is now routed in GSP? Or just TO 9 on BGS
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:43:02 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on January 19, 2016, 01:11:33 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 18, 2016, 06:07:04 PM
The southern part of the GSP from Exit 30 down to the end is having sign replacements done. All ground mounted. US-9 shields on a majority of the signs as well. Very little of the "cracker jack" NJHA signs remain.
So are you saying US 9 is now routed in GSP? Or just TO 9 on BGS

Per the latest Straight Line Diagrams (which may not be absolutely completely accurate), US 9 still follows the Beesleys Point Bridge, which doesn't exist.  For all effective purposes though, US 9 multiplexes with the GSP from Exit 30 to Exit 25.

If you are heading north on US 9 south of the Beesleys Point Bridge, there isn't any signage directing motorists to/from former US 9's route.  The best you get (as of the latest GSV) is a sign stating the bridge is closed; use the Parkway instead: https://goo.gl/maps/Kf7yuDkHaLn

The rest of the way, US 9 and the Parkway are close enough that I could see some 'To US 9' signage being used on the BGSs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 19, 2016, 11:53:56 AM
I do not know why they just do not build another new interchange south of the bridge.  The roads are close enough and they could use the old ROW from the previous days before the Great Egg Bridge was built to avoid the EPA studies as the area is been graded for several decades. 

However, look how long it took SCDOT to sign US 15/301 over I-95 in Santee, SC when they closed its bridge over Lake Marion.  The same situation exists, except the old bridge is still in use for fishing and recreation.  There is, although, no US 15 shield at the SB Exit 97 where US 15 leaves I-95 with US 301.  So even there is still not accurate for following US 15 southbound anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hubcity on January 19, 2016, 12:10:16 PM
It's almost tempting to suggest that US 9 be routed to close the gap by having it serve Ocean City, via NJ 52, County 656 and Roosevelt Boulevard.

Almost.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 03:07:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 19, 2016, 11:53:56 AM
I do not know why they just do not build another new interchange south of the bridge.  The roads are close enough and they could use the old ROW from the previous days before the Great Egg Bridge was built to avoid the EPA studies as the area is been graded for several decades. 

However, look how long it took SCDOT to sign US 15/301 over I-95 in Santee, SC when they closed its bridge over Lake Marion.  The same situation exists, except the old bridge is still in use for fishing and recreation.  There is, although, no US 15 shield at the SB Exit 97 where US 15 leaves I-95 with US 301.  So even there is still not accurate for following US 15 southbound anyway.

New studies would be required anyway, regardless of what's taken place in the past.  There's really no significant room to build an interchange, and it would be expensive due to the bay's location.   Since everything on former Rt. 9 can be accessed at Exit 25, there's no need to build such an interchange anyway, as there's not a significant demand where people *must* follow Rt. 9's former routing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 19, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
Exit 25 southbound is now signed "US-9 South/Ocean City", there are reassurance markers on the GSP showing the multiplex as well. Exit 29 northbound was always signed for US-9 North, although that sign with the silly shield is gone.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on January 19, 2016, 07:28:09 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 19, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
Exit 25 southbound is now signed "US-9 South/Ocean City", there are reassurance markers on the GSP showing the multiplex as well. Exit 29 northbound was always signed for US-9 North, although that sign with the silly shield is gone.

I'll need to find an excuse to get down there again some time, since my pictures from back in October still have the old signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 19, 2016, 11:01:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 19, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
Exit 25 southbound is now signed "US-9 South/Ocean City", there are reassurance markers on the GSP showing the multiplex as well. Exit 29 northbound was always signed for US-9 North, although that sign with the silly shield is gone.

Interstate Black 9 is gone? Boo.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 24, 2016, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 19, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
Exit 25 southbound is now signed "US-9 South/Ocean City", there are reassurance markers on the GSP showing the multiplex as well. Exit 29 northbound was always signed for US-9 North, although that sign with the silly shield is gone.

There was at least one "reassurance marker" that had a Temporary banner.  Is that gone now as well?  (I think it was southbound just north of the bridge.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 24, 2016, 02:12:49 PM
Anything that said "temporary" is gone.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on January 24, 2016, 02:30:11 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 24, 2016, 02:12:49 PM
Anything that said "temporary" is gone.
The 2 mile advance for the Beesley's Point Bridge on US 9 in Somers Point is still there. Then again, that's of late June 2015.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 23, 2016, 10:55:44 AM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 23, 2016, 05:36:06 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 23, 2016, 10:55:44 AM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.
I take Philadelphia solely will be the control now under new signs.

Is 38A still that or did they adjust it to be 38A and 38B like they did 140 and 140A in Union?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 09:01:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 23, 2016, 05:36:06 PMIs 38A still that or did they adjust it to be 38A and 38B like they did 140 and 140A in Union?
Given that the effort that was made to renumber those interchanges (along with a few others) in Union County and the more stricter adherence to MUTCD being displayed; my guess would be yes.

Quote from: roadman65 on February 23, 2016, 05:36:06 PMI take Philadelphia solely will be the control now under new signs.
As far as the exit signs for the westbound ACE is concerned; IMHO, NJTA could still cheat and keep both the Camden & Philadelphia listings on the main panels (per the existing BGS'); but they're more likely to use Philadelphia for the main signage and have supplemental signage for Camden.  Again, such is only personal speculation.  Someone else on this site may have more accurate information regarding the final signage for this interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 09:44:55 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 23, 2016, 10:55:44 AM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.

1.5 lanes?  It's always been a full 2 lane cloverleaf.

The NJ Turnpike Authority map of the project doesn't show any lane reduction on the ramp. http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/4_2014_map_improve_36_37_38.pdf

When I was down there recently I took some pictures.  I'll try to look them up to see if I happened to get a current pic of the signage.  That said, as the project has a lot going on, anything current may not be permanent.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 02:37:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 23, 2016, 05:36:06 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 23, 2016, 10:55:44 AM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.
I take Philadelphia solely will be the control now under new signs.

Is 38A still that or did they adjust it to be 38A and 38B like they did 140 and 140A in Union?

Actually, Camden is the sole WB control city!

And while the signs currently still show Exit 38 then 38A, it seems this is clearly just temporary, as a blacked out sign above Exit 38, along with the extra room next to Exit 38, indicates that this will be changed to 38A & 38B.  What's interesting is if it will be the wrong way though (38B before 38A, whereas going northbound it should be 38A then 38B), as there isn't any current indication 38A will be changed.


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F0214161603_resized.jpg&hash=471e32d0d41a44bd62e583e5df091b607b57f3d8) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0214161603_resized.jpg.html)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2F0214161603b_resized.jpg&hash=b11868c988da2dbbf176aaf206abbf80e0474821) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0214161603b_resized.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 02:37:35 PM
I'm surprised that the AC Expressway logo shield isn't used on the BGS'.  The full-text A C Expressway listing makes for some wide sign boards.

I guess that using Camden instead of Philly allows for a narrower BGS in that first pic (layout style looks similar to what one sees at Maryland cloverleafs).

I'm assuming that there will be a supplemental Philadelphia sign for Exit 38A (Future Exit 38B) erected in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 03:40:09 PM
I think there's already a supplemental Philly sign prior to the 322 & AC Expressway exits.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 24, 2016, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 09:44:55 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 23, 2016, 10:55:44 AM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.

1.5 lanes?  It's always been a full 2 lane cloverleaf.

The NJ Turnpike Authority map of the project doesn't show any lane reduction on the ramp. http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/4_2014_map_improve_36_37_38.pdf

When I was down there recently I took some pictures.  I'll try to look them up to see if I happened to get a current pic of the signage.  That said, as the project has a lot going on, anything current may not be permanent.
What I meant by 1.5 lanes was that the right lane was "Exit Only" while the lane to the left of it split into a second exit lane and a thru lane (which ended almost immediately, though). As you see in the now posted photo, the new sign just has an "Exit Only" lane with no mention of another lane.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on February 24, 2016, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 02:37:35 PM
I'm surprised that the AC Expressway logo shield isn't used on the BGS'.  The full-text A C Expressway listing makes for some wide sign boards.

I guess that using Camden instead of Philly allows for a narrower BGS in that first pic (layout style looks similar to what one sees at Maryland cloverleafs).

I'm assuming that there will be a supplemental Philadelphia sign for Exit 38A (Future Exit 38B) erected in the foreseeable future.
The ACE is a separate agency. Why would the NJTA want to promote them? In seriousness, I imagine they would have had to spell out the name in addition to providing the logo, because it's not as recognizable as the GSP and NJTP (and even then the name is usually spelled out as well). As for destinations, I'd have to think the ACE NB gets signed for Philly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 09:41:40 PM
The ramp is still two lanes.  The configuration at takeoff is a bit different now due to the construction.  In the future, that .5 lane you refer to will remain a true lane. 

At the top of the cloverleaf when on the AC Expressway, the inner lane becomes the ramp to the GSP South.  The outer lane ends and tapers off just after that GSP South Ramp.

A small thing to note:  While these GSP signs show "A C Expressway", over on the NJ Turnpike for Exit 3, they use "Atlantic City Exp" (Personally, they should've just used "Atlantic City"). 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 24, 2016, 09:47:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 09:41:40 PM
(Personally, they should've just used "Atlantic City"). 

Personally, this Breezewood should be removed in favor of a Turnpike Exit 2A.  ;-)

Atlantic City could use the improved highway access from the south and west, and if anyone has the chops to design and build an Exit 2A, it's NJTA.

;-)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 24, 2016, 10:50:16 PM
Wonder if they are just going to change Exit 38 to 38B and leave 38A as-is. Not very MUTCD, but they already have a similar setup at Exit 4. At least the new signs have cardinal directions, the old signs used just control cities. They look bare without the trailblazer though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 24, 2016, 10:50:16 PM
Wonder if they are just going to change Exit 38 to 38B and leave 38A as-is. Not very MUTCD, but they already have a similar setup at Exit 4. At least the new signs have cardinal directions, the old signs used just control cities. They look bare without the trailblazer though.

That's what it appears to be, at least judging on what they've done so far.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 24, 2016, 09:47:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 09:41:40 PM
(Personally, they should've just used "Atlantic City"). 

Personally, this Breezewood should be removed in favor of a Turnpike Exit 2A.  ;-)

Atlantic City could use the improved highway access from the south and west, and if anyone has the chops to design and build an Exit 2A, it's NJTA.

;-)

Yeah!

Access will be improved soon (within 5 years) once the 295 to 42 connections are built, although that won't help those that insist on taking the Turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.  But really, and more importantly, the general circulation of traffic for the general region would be greatly better if the NJ Turnpike and 42 connection (along with tying in 55) existed.  It would resolve a lot of issues, and will be much better at dispersing traffic between 295 & the Turnpike.  Widening the Turnpike, at least between Exits 4 & 3 (or Exit 4 down to Rt. 42, if such a connection was built), would assist as well.

But, that's another issue that's been beated down over the years, and even though we have a powerful state senator in the area (Sweeney), he doesn't seem to be all that interested in forcing this to get done.  Maybe a letter to him is in order! :-)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 25, 2016, 01:52:01 PM
US 40 is a better way to the NJ 55 corridor (and even Atlantic City depending on traffic) from points south. If you're dreaming up new freeways, making US 40 a freeway to NJ 55 and then connecting it to the ACE would be faster anyway. Connecting the Turnpike to 76/42 won't accomplish much for Northbound traffic when 295 already has (or will have) the same connections. For Southbound traffic to Atlantic City, if you must use the Turnpike, take exit 4 and NJ 73. It will be as fast as 295 to 42 anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 25, 2016, 01:52:01 PM
US 40 is a better way to the NJ 55 corridor (and even Atlantic City depending on traffic) from points south. If you're dreaming up new freeways, making US 40 a freeway to NJ 55 and then connecting it to the ACE would be faster anyway. Connecting the Turnpike to 76/42 won't accomplish much for Northbound traffic when 295 already has (or will have) the same connections. For Southbound traffic to Atlantic City, if you must use the Turnpike, take exit 4 and NJ 73. It will be as fast as 295 to 42 anyway.

While you're mostly correct (295 N to 42 S connections will occur in 2021...hopefully), there's an amazing number of people that do take the turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.  Never mind that the Turnpike actually has exits signed both north and southbound to highly suggest other routes (NB: US 40 is signed for Atlantic City; Southbound, a few exits are signed for Shore Points), many people do travel to Exit 3.

Rt. 73 from the Turnpike to the ACX can be quite congested at times.  Mileage wise there's some savings.  Time wise, it's just as fast or faster quite often to take 295 to 42 to the ACX, even though the mileage is much longer. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 25, 2016, 03:31:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 25, 2016, 01:52:01 PM
US 40 is a better way to the NJ 55 corridor (and even Atlantic City depending on traffic) from points south. If you're dreaming up new freeways, making US 40 a freeway to NJ 55 and then connecting it to the ACE would be faster anyway. Connecting the Turnpike to 76/42 won't accomplish much for Northbound traffic when 295 already has (or will have) the same connections. For Southbound traffic to Atlantic City, if you must use the Turnpike, take exit 4 and NJ 73. It will be as fast as 295 to 42 anyway.

While you're mostly correct (295 N to 42 S connections will occur in 2021...hopefully), there's an amazing number of people that do take the turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.  Never mind that the Turnpike actually has exits signed both north and southbound to highly suggest other routes (NB: US 40 is signed for Atlantic City; Southbound, a few exits are signed for Shore Points), many people do travel to Exit 3.

Rt. 73 from the Turnpike to the ACX can be quite congested at times.  Mileage wise there's some savings.  Time wise, it's just as fast or faster quite often to take 295 to 42 to the ACX, even though the mileage is much longer. 
I make this trip daily (not from the Turnpike, I live in that area). I decide on which way to go based on whether there is heavy traffic reported on 295 and/or 42. If there is, I take 73 (traffic on 73 seems to be pretty constant, so no need to check). It takes at most 5 minutes more and sometimes less time to take 73 vs non-congested 295. Granted I do this during rush hour, but I've done it a few times during beach season and the same ratio seems to apply
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 25, 2016, 06:26:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 24, 2016, 10:50:16 PM
Wonder if they are just going to change Exit 38 to 38B and leave 38A as-is. Not very MUTCD, but they already have a similar setup at Exit 4. At least the new signs have cardinal directions, the old signs used just control cities. They look bare without the trailblazer though.
Exit 143 is the same way.  Exit 143A (after 143) comes first and then Exit 143B where the B suffix is south of the A suffix.

However, the cardinal directions is now a great feature instead of the cities.   

Also I take that the three control points for Exit 40 (all three for US 30 EB) will be narrowed to one soon.  I would say that both Brigantine and AC will get the ax as Brigantine is not along US 30, and AC is already listed on a guide sign previously giving out the three exit numbers of the Casino City.  That leaves Absecon which is not only on US 30, but the first town one encounters along the route.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 07:52:46 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 25, 2016, 03:31:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 25, 2016, 01:52:01 PM
US 40 is a better way to the NJ 55 corridor (and even Atlantic City depending on traffic) from points south. If you're dreaming up new freeways, making US 40 a freeway to NJ 55 and then connecting it to the ACE would be faster anyway. Connecting the Turnpike to 76/42 won't accomplish much for Northbound traffic when 295 already has (or will have) the same connections. For Southbound traffic to Atlantic City, if you must use the Turnpike, take exit 4 and NJ 73. It will be as fast as 295 to 42 anyway.

While you're mostly correct (295 N to 42 S connections will occur in 2021...hopefully), there's an amazing number of people that do take the turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.  Never mind that the Turnpike actually has exits signed both north and southbound to highly suggest other routes (NB: US 40 is signed for Atlantic City; Southbound, a few exits are signed for Shore Points), many people do travel to Exit 3.

Rt. 73 from the Turnpike to the ACX can be quite congested at times.  Mileage wise there's some savings.  Time wise, it's just as fast or faster quite often to take 295 to 42 to the ACX, even though the mileage is much longer. 
I make this trip daily (not from the Turnpike, I live in that area). I decide on which way to go based on whether there is heavy traffic reported on 295 and/or 42. If there is, I take 73 (traffic on 73 seems to be pretty constant, so no need to check). It takes at most 5 minutes more and sometimes less time to take 73 vs non-congested 295. Granted I do this during rush hour, but I've done it a few times during beach season and the same ratio seems to apply

They did a great job straightening out the 70/73 mess, but it can be a bitch from there down to the ol' Berlin Circle area. South of that I'm not in that area too often.

Back towards the Turnpike, they are looking at the 73/Church Rd intersection again, although it's going to be years before they can do anything significant with it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 29, 2016, 10:50:11 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 07:52:46 PM
They did a great job straightening out the 70/73 mess, but it can be a bitch from there down to the ol' Berlin Circle area. South of that I'm not in that area too often.
It's not so bad considering that on a good day I-295 is moving at 45 MPH on average between NJ 73 and NJ 42 (with stop and go traffic common), while NJ 73 is moving at 40 MPH on a typical day (plus traffic lights, of course) between NJ 70 and US 30 and full speed south of that.
Quote
Back towards the Turnpike, they are looking at the 73/Church Rd intersection again, although it's going to be years before they can do anything significant with it.
73 South is pretty good south of Church (at least not worse than south of 70). That's where I get on, so not sure about the segment between the Turnpike and Church. Northbound, though, it's jammed from Lincoln Drive, so I get off at 70 instead. I'm not sure if doing anything at Church itself will alleviate that. Lately, though, Church Road itself has become a bottleneck for me going East, often starting just east of Kings Highwayall the way to Springdale. I don't really have a good alternative to get onto 73, though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on March 01, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.


That would be great, though I wonder if I'll even be living and/or working in the same area if/when this is complete, not to mention even more delays during construction
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on March 02, 2016, 01:22:55 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on March 01, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.


That would be great, though I wonder if I'll even be living and/or working in the same area if/when this is complete, not to mention even more delays during construction
We may not even be alive when that happens..I sure hope to be around to see such a project. Something definitely needs to be done in that area. The Route 73 bridge over I-295 is also in poor shape needing to be replaced.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2016, 09:36:18 AM
As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 03, 2016, 01:13:06 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2016, 09:36:18 AM
As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.
I can tell you that NJDOT definitely does not turn a deaf ear to the public. They usually err on the side of overcompensating for public statements. Each statement on record needs a response.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 06:32:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2016, 01:13:06 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2016, 09:36:18 AM
As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.
I can tell you that NJDOT definitely does not turn a deaf ear to the public. They usually err on the side of overcompensating for public statements. Each statement on record needs a response.

I wish I was recording the last meeting I went to.  One of the guys at the meeting (and I have no idea who it was) was having a conversation with someone.  When he saw me looking at the displays, he came over and started talking to me.  He asked where I resided on the map.  When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

My official TIP questions this past goaround were also a bit lackluster in their responses as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on March 03, 2016, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 06:32:02 AM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2016, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 06:32:02 AM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.

Oh, he wasn't talking to other members of the public.  He was talking to guys he works with.  It was a small meeting about an overpass project, and I was the only one from the public in the room at the time.

Again, I'll try to record this stuff for you, to eliminate all the theories everyone wants to come up with.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 03, 2016, 07:47:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2016, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 06:32:02 AM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.

Oh, he wasn't talking to other members of the public.  He was talking to guys he works with.  It was a small meeting about an overpass project, and I was the only one from the public in the room at the time.

Again, I'll try to record this stuff for you, to eliminate all the theories everyone wants to come up with.
Very possible he was with a consultant and not DOT. But who knows.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 28, 2016, 10:27:32 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCQevDo6.jpg&hash=0920192d7ebd87ebc647ac8d62fc588d268a9f42)

I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 29, 2016, 07:14:15 AM
Typical to have them do this.  But, hey if it works then that is the main thing.  The NJTA has done it in Elizabeth where they were doing bridge deck work north of Exit 13 with one car lane shifted over to the truck lanes and then back.

Also the long Exit 127 ramp has its left lane as an extra Parkway NB lane crossing the Driscoll Bridge that is sort of the same concept as what they are planning here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on April 29, 2016, 08:51:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2016, 10:27:32 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCQevDo6.jpg&hash=0920192d7ebd87ebc647ac8d62fc588d268a9f42)

I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on April 29, 2016, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: dgolub on April 29, 2016, 08:51:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2016, 10:27:32 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCQevDo6.jpg&hash=0920192d7ebd87ebc647ac8d62fc588d268a9f42)

I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?
The only reasons why Camden is listed as a southbound control city are (and such was probably mentioned several pages back):

1.  The listing of bridges as a control destination on major signs is now either discouraged or no longer allowed per MUTCD & FHWA.

2.  When the new southbound Parkway interchange BGS' (north of where this pic was taken) were erected; Camden was chosen over Trenton because the preceding US 1 interchange already uses Trenton for a southbound US 1 destination.  Personally, I would have used New Brunswick for the major US 1 south signage & Trenton for the I-95/Turnpike signage but whatever.

The temporary change on that BGS in the pic must've been very recent.  I drove by there 4 weeks ago and the previous diagrammatic BGS was still present the new separate BGS' were present.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 29, 2016, 04:02:42 PM
It really should be Philadelphia after the interchange is complete *ducks*.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on April 29, 2016, 07:04:02 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 29, 2016, 04:02:42 PM
It really should be Philadelphia after the interchange is complete *ducks*.

Amen.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 29, 2016, 08:48:46 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 29, 2016, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: dgolub on April 29, 2016, 08:51:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2016, 10:27:32 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCQevDo6.jpg&hash=0920192d7ebd87ebc647ac8d62fc588d268a9f42)

I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?
The only reasons why Camden is listed as a southbound control city are (and such was probably mentioned several pages back):

1.  The listing of bridges as a control destination on major signs is now either discouraged or no longer allowed per MUTCD & FHWA.

2.  When the new southbound Parkway interchange BGS' (north of where this pic was taken) were erected; Camden was chosen over Trenton because the preceding US 1 interchange already uses Trenton for a southbound US 1 destination.  Personally, I would have used New Brunswick for the major US 1 south signage & Trenton for the I-95/Turnpike signage but whatever.

The temporary change on that BGS in the pic must've been very recent.  I drove by there 4 weeks ago and the previous diagrammatic BGS was still present.

They actually took down the signs that were put up last year for this one, and removed the illumination.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEAeG9yh.jpg&hash=0787289b9497d62976267c33547e45ec9ca6268c)

As for Camden being the destination, the MUTCD project standardized the control cities for both the Parkway and the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 30, 2016, 08:20:17 AM
Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2016, 08:20:17 AM
Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.

I think it was a matter of historical context.  With no control cities originally for the Turnpike, I would speculate that the next most major roadway (U.S. 1) got the major control cities (Trenton, Newark).  If the initial signing for Turnpike interchange had control cities, then perhaps the control cities would have been done differently originally, perhaps as we are speculating here.

I would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 02, 2016, 03:05:29 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2016, 08:20:17 AM
Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.

The control cities thing was set by the Turnpike Authority. NJDOT does its own thing and doesn't use control cities for the Parkway or Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI think it was a matter of historical context.  With no control cities originally for the Turnpike, I would speculate that the next most major roadway (U.S. 1) got the major control cities (Trenton, Newark).  If the initial signing for Turnpike interchange had control cities, then perhaps the control cities would have been done differently originally, perhaps as we are speculating here.
It should be noted, that the only Turnpike signage that listed cities were ones located beyond the toll plazas, where one needed to decide which direction on the Turnpike to go.  Prior to the current 95 NORTH/TURNPIKE NORTH, 95 SOUTH/TURNPIKE SOUTH BGS' beyond the Exit 11 toll plaza; the previous (70s(?) vintage) BGS' read Trenton SOUTH, New YORK NORTH.

Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:16:22 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 10:40:15 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:16:22 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
The point I was trying to make was that there was enough traffic demand to justify adding the northbound US 1 exit ramp from the southbound Parkway and, hence, that ramp's a Johnny-Come-Lately.  The reasoning for using Newark for a northbound US 1 destination, despite other exits parkway southbound users have available for such, was likely due to Newark is the nearest major city along US 1 northbound from Parkway interchange.  What would you suggest for a nearby northbound US 1 destination at this location instead: Woodbridge, Linden?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 10:40:15 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:16:22 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
The point I was trying to make was that there was enough traffic demand to justify adding the northbound US 1 exit ramp from the southbound Parkway and, hence, that ramp's a Johnny-Come-Lately.  The reasoning for using Newark for a northbound US 1 destination, despite other exits parkway southbound users have available for such, was likely due to Newark is the nearest major city along US 1 northbound from Parkway interchange.  What would you suggest for a nearby northbound US 1 destination at this location instead: Woodbridge, Linden?
I would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AMI would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AMI would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AMI would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?

According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 01:37:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AMI would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?

According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...
I don't think there is any widely known name for US 1 in NJ, at least south of the Pulasky Skyway. North of that you get signed local street names along US 1/9.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 02, 2016, 01:55:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AMI would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?

According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

I've never heard it called anything other than Rt 1 or 1&9 south of the Skyway in my 35 years on this planet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2016, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

Even that isn't correct. Its Spring St. in Elizabeth and Edgar Rd. in Linden and maybe even Rahway. Both names are still used by the towns for various functions (property records, police dispatch, etc.). Old maps tend to have the original street name for divided highways on them, but NJDOT would rather it be referred to as the number.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2016, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

Even that isn't correct. Its Spring St. in Elizabeth and Edgar Rd. in Linden and maybe even Rahway. Both names are still used by the towns for various functions (property records, police dispatch, etc.). Old maps tend to have the original street name for divided highways on them, but NJDOT would rather it be referred to as the number.
I wonder how widely this policy is applied. For a long time NJ 38 and NJ 70 had just numbers posted, and only printed maps would give them names, but when they started deploying large street blades on traffic lights, Caign Ave and Marlton Pike made an appearance everywhere.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2016, 11:13:28 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 10:56:51 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2016, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

Even that isn't correct. Its Spring St. in Elizabeth and Edgar Rd. in Linden and maybe even Rahway. Both names are still used by the towns for various functions (property records, police dispatch, etc.). Old maps tend to have the original street name for divided highways on them, but NJDOT would rather it be referred to as the number.
I wonder how widely this policy is applied. For a long time NJ 38 and NJ 70 had just numbers posted, and only printed maps would give them names, but when they started deploying large street blades on traffic lights, Caign Ave and Marlton Pike made an appearance everywhere.

Then there's John D Rockefeller for NJ 70, as seen on the NJ Turnpike.  https://goo.gl/maps/gXz48bGVH5J2

(I've yet to get a good picture driving under it due to its small size!)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 03, 2016, 01:04:40 PM
Google Maps has US 1 listed as Brunswick Pike around Trenton/Princeton.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2016, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2016, 05:50:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

Even that isn't correct. Its Spring St. in Elizabeth and Edgar Rd. in Linden and maybe even Rahway. Both names are still used by the towns for various functions (property records, police dispatch, etc.). Old maps tend to have the original street name for divided highways on them, but NJDOT would rather it be referred to as the number.
Only north of the Elizabeth River Viaduct and up to the Newark City Line is it Spring Street.  Its Carlton Street south of the viaduct into where Edgar Road merges in south of the Bayway Circle.

Another note is some maps show US 22 as Albert Street in Hilliside but local businesses use Route 22 as their mailing address.  Some older RN maps show US 1 & 9 south of US 22 into Elizabeth as Caranagie Avenue and even show US 46 in Totawa as Pellington Blvd.

Also to note that even though NJ 23 is the Hamburg Turnpike between the Hamburg Turnpike split in Kinnelon to Hamburg itself, my cousin who owned the now defunct Outdoorsman Sports Shop on Route 23 in Oak Ridge used Route 23 as his street names on his documents as West Milford did not recognize the road as that.  The same in Wayne as the part of NJ 23 that is Newark- Pompton Turnpike is not recognized by Wayne Township as such and used the route number as street name as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2016, 01:32:36 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 10:40:15 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:16:22 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
The point I was trying to make was that there was enough traffic demand to justify adding the northbound US 1 exit ramp from the southbound Parkway and, hence, that ramp's a Johnny-Come-Lately.  The reasoning for using Newark for a northbound US 1 destination, despite other exits parkway southbound users have available for such, was likely due to Newark is the nearest major city along US 1 northbound from Parkway interchange.  What would you suggest for a nearby northbound US 1 destination at this location instead: Woodbridge, Linden?
I already suggested Woodbridge as its already on Exit 129 for US 9.  Have that moved back and BTW people do not consider Iselin to be Woodbridge despite it being part of it.  Its like Staten Island being part of NYC, but people tend to use the borough names for the outer boroughs and consider Manhattan to be NYC proper. 

All of Woodbridge's areas are generally thought of as independent towns for reference.  Its Colonia, Iselin, Fords, Keasbey, Woodlawn, Sewaren, and Port Reading.  When people think of Woodbridge they think of Downtown and its immediate areas which is all around the mall.

For the record, before 1980, Exit 130 had no control cities for US 1 there.  It was signed US 1 despite it being only SB at the time, as there was a sign on the ramp suggesting that US 1 NB use Ford Avenue to compensate for lack of ramp.  It was removed in 1980 when the Parkway got widened and all new overhead signs installed. 

However, Exit 140 is still listed for both directions of US 22 despite it being for US 22 E Bound only and Exit 157 is listed for US 46 with no cardinal directions as the SB ramp there is exclusively for US 46 Westbound.  Both cases do not have follow up signs either to tell you to use U turn ramps as you would need to reverse yourself to the other direction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 03, 2016, 03:30:40 PM
The signs at Exit 156 and 157 are close to being replaced. Hopefully they acknowledge NJ-21 15 years after it was completed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 03:44:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2016, 01:32:36 PM
I already suggested Woodbridge as its already on Exit 129 for US 9.  Have that moved back and BTW people do not consider Iselin to be Woodbridge despite it being part of it.  Its like Staten Island being part of NYC, but people tend to use the borough names for the outer boroughs and consider Manhattan to be NYC proper. 
I'm not sure I understand. Are you advocating for changing the destination for Exit 129? Have both Exit 130 and 129 be signed for Woodbridge? Combining the two exits somehow? Combining the signage for the two exits somehow?
Quote
All of Woodbridge's areas are generally thought of as independent towns for reference.  Its Colonia, Iselin, Fords, Keasbey, Woodlawn, Sewaren, and Port Reading.  When people think of Woodbridge they think of Downtown and its immediate areas which is all around the mall.
I don't know how much of this is "thought" and how much the post office telling you where you live. And you forgot Avenel and Metuchen (Part of Woodbridge is under Metuchen's USPS jurisdiction). Also, I assume you mean Hopelawn, not Woodlawn.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2016, 06:49:34 PM
Yes Hopelawn.  Its been 26 years since I left Fords.  As far as Avenel, yes shoot me because I forgot that one.  And only the post office considers one part of Woodbridge as Metuchen.  My cousin lives there two blocks from US 1 so I know that one.

If you read my first post, you would see I suggested replacing Woodbridge on the Exit 129 guide with Staten Island and just using Exit 130 for that part of Woodbridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 03, 2016, 11:02:23 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 03, 2016, 03:30:40 PM
The signs at Exit 156 and 157 are close to being replaced. Hopefully they acknowledge NJ-21 15 years after it was completed.
I doubt they would post anything northbound (156), since 21 only heads south and there's no convenient connection. Southbound at 157 there's a chance of posting 46 to 21 (or to 20/21), but now you're talking about a free alternative to the Parkway so they still might not.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 04, 2016, 04:38:16 AM
I like the new signs at Exit 105 along NJ 36.  It now features Toms River and Woodbridge.  In addition the new Parkway signs along NJ 70 now feature both of those at the new ramps for both directions of travel.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 05, 2016, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 04, 2016, 04:38:16 AM
I like the new signs at Exit 105 along NJ 36.  It now features Toms River and Woodbridge.  In addition the new Parkway signs along NJ 70 now feature both of those at the new ramps for both directions of travel.
Those signs are awesome.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2871151,-74.0787173,3a,16.7y,241.78h,91.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ4emzNEbG9GV0z25rh_jig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2016, 08:49:34 AM
Quote from: J Route Z on May 05, 2016, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 04, 2016, 04:38:16 AM
I like the new signs at Exit 105 along NJ 36.  It now features Toms River and Woodbridge.  In addition the new Parkway signs along NJ 70 now feature both of those at the new ramps for both directions of travel.
Those signs are awesome.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2871151,-74.0787173,3a,16.7y,241.78h,91.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ4emzNEbG9GV0z25rh_jig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Should've used a black on white 'No Trucks' banner, but otherwise not bad.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on May 05, 2016, 12:32:25 PM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 05, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: akotchi on May 05, 2016, 12:32:25 PM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
That would be redundant. Are there "All Trucks" signs at every place where "No Trucks" is posted (I don't mean just on the GSP, I mean nationwide)?

Also, why is there a "Parkway Entrance" sign in the background for the Southbound direction only?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on May 05, 2016, 01:09:30 PM
At either end of the Pulaski Skyway there are examples.  I do not know if this is a New Jersey practice or nationwide.

This location also happens to be the dividing line for trucks -- all trucks south, no trucks north -- so the extra treatment might be reasonable here.  It was at one time.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7082032,-74.1716113,3a,75y,81.43h,90.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG3leOzeV__t3PEBj2N6RUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7082032,-74.1716113,3a,75y,81.43h,90.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG3leOzeV__t3PEBj2N6RUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7393407,-74.0641125,3a,60y,276.51h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szLs-_OrH3OvINFLoTEn3MA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7393407,-74.0641125,3a,60y,276.51h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szLs-_OrH3OvINFLoTEn3MA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

(Please let me know if these come in properly . . . I am not the most adept at inserting images or url's on this board.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2016, 01:10:14 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 05, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: akotchi on May 05, 2016, 12:32:25 PM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
That would be redundant. Are there "All Trucks" signs at every place where "No Trucks" is posted (I don't mean just on the GSP, I mean nationwide)?

Here's coming off the NJ Turnpike Interchange 11, approaching the GSP North & Rt. 1, 9 & 440 ramps: https://goo.gl/maps/j3AeXpyZRez

Quote
Also, why is there a "Parkway Entrance" sign in the background for the Southbound direction only?

Here's the old view approaching that split:  https://goo.gl/maps/wm4QbjawQDs  (You can see the old sign had 'All Trucks', so maybe it's something they're doing away with).

Previously, the GSP South ramp was more like an exit than a lane split.  I'm thinking that ground-mounted sign remains there today only because it's historically been there. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 06, 2016, 05:26:08 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 05, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: akotchi on May 05, 2016, 12:32:25 PM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
That would be redundant. Are there "All Trucks" signs at every place where "No Trucks" is posted (I don't mean just on the GSP, I mean nationwide)?

Also, why is there a "Parkway Entrance" sign in the background for the Southbound direction only?
Actually at the split in Woodbridge on the US 9 to NJT and Parkway North Connector the old dark button copy overheads had both a NO TRUCKS and ALL TRUCKS there for both respected toll roads.

The yellow TOLL banner is nice, however the question is how effective is that going to be to drivers as people here in Florida ignore the hell out of them and of course show up at the toll booth claiming they have no money and being the GPS is guiding them they had no idea it was a toll road.

I will bet that the ramp toll at 105 gets people who ignore that large PARKWAY ENTRANCE sign just after Hope Road, and claim they have no money because they were unaware of where they were at.  If we get the crackpots here I am sure some will end up there especially being NJ 36 starts out a free arterial and defaults into the Parkway interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2016, 09:07:20 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 06, 2016, 05:26:08 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 05, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: akotchi on May 05, 2016, 12:32:25 PM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
That would be redundant. Are there "All Trucks" signs at every place where "No Trucks" is posted (I don't mean just on the GSP, I mean nationwide)?

Also, why is there a "Parkway Entrance" sign in the background for the Southbound direction only?
Actually at the split in Woodbridge on the US 9 to NJT and Parkway North Connector the old dark button copy overheads had both a NO TRUCKS and ALL TRUCKS there for both respected toll roads.

The yellow TOLL banner is nice, however the question is how effective is that going to be to drivers as people here in Florida ignore the hell out of them and of course show up at the toll booth claiming they have no money and being the GPS is guiding them they had no idea it was a toll road.

I will bet that the ramp toll at 105 gets people who ignore that large PARKWAY ENTRANCE sign just after Hope Road, and claim they have no money because they were unaware of where they were at.  If we get the crackpots here I am sure some will end up there especially being NJ 36 starts out a free arterial and defaults into the Parkway interchange.

The conditions you describe have been in existence for 60 years. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 07, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
If you are referring to people being unaware of a toll situation yes.  If you are talking about the yellow TOLL, yes NJ had them for as long as I can remember, and I always liked it as other states would just write TOLL ROAD in white on the green sign which is not that effective.

Those dark signs were there when Exit 11 became the connection to the Parkway as Exit 11 was originally an interchange with US 9.  It was circa 1971 when the change took place so those dark button copy signs came into place there and were NJT signs and not GSP or NJDOT.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 07, 2016, 10:28:16 PM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2016, 01:19:04 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 07, 2016, 10:28:16 PM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.

I'm a little surprised the NJTA didn't upgrade the GSP to Variable Speed Limit Signs, as they have added and replaced all (or nearly all) of their variable message signs.  Even though the two toll roads have been under one authority for well over a decade now, they have curiously kept the historic features of each roadway, with minor exceptions such as the speed limit signs you mentioned.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 08, 2016, 10:36:58 AM
Is the mileage signs at both Exits 80 (SB) and 168 (NB) the only signs on the Parkway of that nature?  Or have they added any more to the roadway?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 09, 2016, 12:18:12 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2016, 01:19:04 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 07, 2016, 10:28:16 PM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.

I'm a little surprised the NJTA didn't upgrade the GSP to Variable Speed Limit Signs, as they have added and replaced all (or nearly all) of their variable message signs.  Even though the two toll roads have been under one authority for well over a decade now, they have curiously kept the historic features of each roadway, with minor exceptions such as the speed limit signs you mentioned.

I'm actually curious about that myself. VSLS is actually MUTCD friendly these days. Don't know if it's a legislation thing, or one of those unique historical things as you've said (although the biggest one -- the signage on both roadways -- is slowly going away). I have noticed that for a lot of things, even though one authority runs it, they keep a lot of things between both highways separate.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 09, 2016, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 07, 2016, 10:28:16 PM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.
Isn't there some sort of state law that treats signs that say "conditions permitting" differently from one that don't, maybe as far as enforcement? I vaguely recall hearing that somewhere. The ACE has them too, but it looks like they're slowly going away there too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2016, 11:45:02 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 09, 2016, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 07, 2016, 10:28:16 PM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.
Isn't there some sort of state law that treats signs that say "conditions permitting" differently from one that don't, maybe as far as enforcement? I vaguely recall hearing that somewhere. The ACE has them too, but it looks like they're slowly going away there too.

No.  By law, the speed limit itself is based on conditions, in as much as if the Speed Limit is 65 mph, and you're going 65 during a snowstorm with several inches of snow covering the road, you can be cited for driving too fast, unsafe for conditions, etc.  The fact that you weren't exceeding the speed limit is irrelevant.  The "Conditions Permitting" sign didn't add or take anything away from the posted speed limit.

Quote from: storm2k on May 09, 2016, 12:18:12 AM
VSLS is actually MUTCD friendly these days. Don't know if it's a legislation thing, or one of those unique historical things as you've said (although the biggest one -- the signage on both roadways -- is slowly going away). I have noticed that for a lot of things, even though one authority runs it, they keep a lot of things between both highways separate.

It's not legislation.  There are some state laws that are specific to toll roads, but variable speed limits aren't one of them (some of them are similar to other state laws, such as no u-turns).




Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2016, 11:34:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 09, 2016, 11:56:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 09, 2016, 11:34:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.
I don't drive a truck, and I'm happy using the GSP frequently between Toms River and the Driscoll truck-free, but the alternative for trucks along the coastal north-south corridor is a bit crummy between the end of the truck portion at 105 and the 287/440/Turnpike interchanges.  Route 18 covers part of the more direct alternate route rather well, but US 9 from Old Bridge to the Raritan crossing is a bit lousy with the traffic and the lights - and probably especially bad for truck traffic.  The 9 / 35 interchange in South Amboy can be a particularly bad bottleneck with NB traffic filing into a loop ramp  / merge-or-die combo.  Has there been any studies of the corridor for truck traffic, or planned improvements at 9/35?  The truck ban results in a pretty big gap for what I would think would be an important trucking corridor.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 10, 2016, 07:09:37 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 09, 2016, 11:56:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 09, 2016, 11:34:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.
I don't drive a truck, and I'm happy using the GSP frequently between Toms River and the Driscoll truck-free, but the alternative for trucks along the coastal north-south corridor is a bit crummy between the end of the truck portion at 105 and the 287/440/Turnpike interchanges.  Route 18 covers part of the more direct alternate route rather well, but US 9 from Old Bridge to the Raritan crossing is a bit lousy with the traffic and the lights - and probably especially bad for truck traffic.  The 9 / 35 interchange in South Amboy can be a particularly bad bottleneck with NB traffic filing into a loop ramp  / merge-or-die combo.  Has there been any studies of the corridor for truck traffic, or planned improvements at 9/35?  The truck ban results in a pretty big gap for what I would think would be an important trucking corridor.
From time to time they've considered allowing trucks north of 105, but nothing has come to fruition. I don't know any details.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 11, 2016, 07:16:46 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

Yes, the GSP had its foundational anti-truck "policies" because it was a Parkway and that's what parkways did back then. But I think Express-Local opened in the early 70s. The Driscoll Expressway--the truck solution to the Jersey Shore--wasn't killed until 1973 or so. So the Express-Local project specifically didn't need to accommodate for trucks, but as you see and guesstimate blew up in our  collective face.

Another piece of history is that the truck ban originally went north to Exit 98 when I-195 was finally finished.  In about 1982/1984, Johnson and Johnson demanded that it be moved to 105 when route 18 was finished. Governor Kean when faced with losing them as a major economic power to another state, ordered the NJHA to relocate the northern terminus.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 11, 2016, 08:05:29 AM
Now I also wanted to say that I remember when Exit 98 was the truck terminus, but I had no idea that it was even further south before that.  I imagine it was at US 9 in Pleasant Plains as I know for sure that the US 9 overlap had to originally allow trucks even though motorcycles were banned there as well as the rest of the Parkway.

That is also something that the GSP did not allow motorcycles at one time either.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on May 11, 2016, 09:03:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 09, 2016, 11:34:44 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.
So when it was completely reconstructed in 2009, truck loading wasn't anticipated, and so a cheaper structure was used, cutting down the costs. Makes sense, I'll have to admit.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 11, 2016, 12:23:46 PM
I can't imagine that they'd use a cheaper / weaker structure just because of the existing truck ban there. I doubt the Turnpike Authority would want to take the risk of a premature replacement or failure and built it to lower specifications. The bridge was completely reconstructed a few years ago and the consideration of trucks through there was proposed circa 2011; based on this quote, the new bridge was built with heavier vehicles in mind:

"One major roadblock has been removed, with the reconstruction of the existing Driscoll Bridge and construction of a new third span in 2009. 'The old bridge . . . wasn't physically capable of handling (the weight of) commercial trucks,' said John O'Hern, New Jersey Turnpike Authority deputy executive director." (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/nj_to_consider_allowing_truck.html)

I know that nowadays when the little county-owned bridges around here are rebuilt, they are built to handle the heavier traffic, though weight restrictions established prior to reconstruction are often left in place so big rigs aren't driving around neighborhood roads.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2016, 04:54:10 PM
The other concern with the Driscoll Bridge is lane width. It isn't the standard 12ft, more like 10-11ft.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2016, 05:03:03 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2016, 04:54:10 PM
The other concern with the Driscoll Bridge is lane width. It isn't the standard 12ft, more like 10-11ft.

That was before they rebuilt the bridge 7 years ago. Today it's 12' lanes with full shoulders.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 11, 2016, 05:14:02 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 11, 2016, 07:16:46 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

Yes, the GSP had its foundational anti-truck "policies" because it was a Parkway and that's what parkways did back then. But I think Express-Local opened in the early 70s. The Driscoll Expressway--the truck solution to the Jersey Shore--wasn't killed until 1973 or so. So the Express-Local project specifically didn't need to accommodate for trucks, but as you see and guesstimate blew up in our  collective face.

Another piece of history is that the truck ban originally went north to Exit 98 when I-195 was finally finished.  In about 1982/1984, Johnson and Johnson demanded that it be moved to 105 when route 18 was finished. Governor Kean when faced with losing them as a major economic power to another state, ordered the NJHA to relocate the northern terminus.

Express-Local opened to traffic on November 27, 1974.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2016, 05:28:49 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2016, 05:03:03 PM
That was before they rebuilt the bridge 7 years ago. Today it's 12' lanes with full shoulders.

Source: http://tollroadsnews.com/news/washington-dc-metro-area-has-americas-widest-bridge---a-tale-of-two-bridges-toll-and-tax
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on May 11, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
Re: the truck ban locations and dates. As per an old official Parkway brochure from 1966, trucks were at that time banned north of Exit-97A, which was Route 38. Now Exit-98? 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2016, 06:23:58 AM
Does anyone remember the pre 1980 days of signing on the NJDOT maintained section between the NJT and US 22?  Its hard to believe, but there were no one mile advance guides except for Exit 140 going NB that was attached to the CR 509 overpass in Kenilworth.

The NJDOT used LGSes and not BGSes either, and they had one at one quarter mile saying Exit xxx NEXT RIGHT followed by one again at one eight of a mile listing the route number or street name.

At Exit 139B there was the only overhead assembly there only because both Chestnut Street and US 22 were within 200 feet of each other.  Another thing of note the at exit sign for US 22 going NB had the control cities of Airport and Tunnel as space limitations prevent the full names of both the Newark Airport and Holland Tunnel from being displayed fully on the one LGS there.

Its interesting how that worked on freeway, which now with the MUTCD stating larger and overhead signs how people now are still having trouble seeing them.  In fact left over copies of the old gore guides were kept at Toms River for NJ 37 for a long time, which is how the 129 to 140 section was all signed back then.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on May 12, 2016, 10:40:20 AM
Yesterday, I drove across the Great Egg Harbor parkway bridge (between Atlantic and Cape May County). Traffic has shifted onto a portion of the new roadway. From the toll plaza at mile marker 29, it goes down to one lane, and about a mile south, the traffic shifts back onto the older portion. There are still two spans that haven't been bridged yet, but it appears to be making quick progress. I also got a close look of what'll be part of a future bike path on the western side. I'll try to get pics next time.

Also, I've been on the construction in Atlantic County from exits 35-37, and that's making progress as well. Over Tilton Road, the new wider bridge is almost done, which will allow for deceleration lanes on Tilton, and three lanes for the parkway portion. Lots of construction, but the part that looks closest to being open is the span going from Expressway east to Parkway south at Exit 38 (Exit 7S on ACE).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2016, 10:59:31 AM
Glad to see that part near the ACE is being addressed.  I wonder though if the SB on ramp from the EB ACE and the SB off ramp to Washington Avenue are going to be completely braided like we do here in Florida.  I am hoping not as we do as the ACE travelers would then have to pay an extra toll at Exit 9 as the SJTA for some reason has a ramp toll there when its not going into a mainline plaza EB.  In fact the Parkway is free to exit at, but the previous exit is tolled.

Yeah, I know they are suckering the airport customers, an old story, but still have a heart though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2016, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2016, 10:59:31 AM
Glad to see that part near the ACE is being addressed.  I wonder though if the SB on ramp from the EB ACE and the SB off ramp to Washington Avenue are going to be completely braided like we do here in Florida.  I am hoping not as we do as the ACE travelers would then have to pay an extra toll at Exit 9 as the SJTA for some reason has a ramp toll there when its not going into a mainline plaza EB.  In fact the Parkway is free to exit at, but the previous exit is tolled.

Yeah, I know they are suckering the airport customers, an old story, but still have a heart though.

You will still be able to access Washington Ave from the Atlantic City Expressway.  The ramp to the GSP South will have a separate exit for Washington Ave.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/4_2014_map_improve_36_37_38.pdf
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: swbrotha100 on May 12, 2016, 05:24:12 PM
I was wondering what kind of progress was going on around Exit 163 (NJ 17). According to the NJTA, there may be changes as soon as this weekend:

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_northbound_exit_163_GSP.pdf
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on May 13, 2016, 01:17:54 AM
Just a note, I noticed tonight that there is now a Pull Through Sign just before 145 that features the control city "Paramus". This is different than the one before the Union Tolls that uses "Paterson"
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 13, 2016, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2016, 06:23:58 AM
Does anyone remember the pre 1980 days of signing on the NJDOT maintained section between the NJT and US 22?  Its hard to believe, but there were no one mile advance guides except for Exit 140 going NB that was attached to the CR 509 overpass in Kenilworth.

The NJDOT used LGSes and not BGSes either, and they had one at one quarter mile saying Exit xxx NEXT RIGHT followed by one again at one eight of a mile listing the route number or street name.

At Exit 139B there was the only overhead assembly there only because both Chestnut Street and US 22 were within 200 feet of each other.  Another thing of note the at exit sign for US 22 going NB had the control cities of Airport and Tunnel as space limitations prevent the full names of both the Newark Airport and Holland Tunnel from being displayed fully on the one LGS there.

Its interesting how that worked on freeway, which now with the MUTCD stating larger and overhead signs how people now are still having trouble seeing them.  In fact left over copies of the old gore guides were kept at Toms River for NJ 37 for a long time, which is how the 129 to 140 section was all signed back then.

I wish we had pictures of this.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 13, 2016, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: njunderground on May 13, 2016, 01:17:54 AM
Just a note, I noticed tonight that there is now a Pull Through Sign just before 145 that features the control city "Paramus". This is different than the one before the Union Tolls that uses "Paterson"
I'm pretty sure that should all be Paterson. Someone grabbed the wrong P town.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 13, 2016, 01:08:10 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2016, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 12, 2016, 06:23:58 AM
Does anyone remember the pre 1980 days of signing on the NJDOT maintained section between the NJT and US 22?  Its hard to believe, but there were no one mile advance guides except for Exit 140 going NB that was attached to the CR 509 overpass in Kenilworth.

The NJDOT used LGSes and not BGSes either, and they had one at one quarter mile saying Exit xxx NEXT RIGHT followed by one again at one eight of a mile listing the route number or street name.

At Exit 139B there was the only overhead assembly there only because both Chestnut Street and US 22 were within 200 feet of each other.  Another thing of note the at exit sign for US 22 going NB had the control cities of Airport and Tunnel as space limitations prevent the full names of both the Newark Airport and Holland Tunnel from being displayed fully on the one LGS there.

Its interesting how that worked on freeway, which now with the MUTCD stating larger and overhead signs how people now are still having trouble seeing them.  In fact left over copies of the old gore guides were kept at Toms River for NJ 37 for a long time, which is how the 129 to 140 section was all signed back then.

I wish we had pictures of this.
Back in 1980 or before I was only a kid then.  Did not have my own camera then and was too young to drive just for road sign observing.  Its a shame the internet was not up then for the GP, as a lot of good signs were up then and the fact we did not have the fast paced replacements we have now.

Hopefully someone documented it and put them up some place.  Sometimes crazy things happen, and some road agency has a photo or two in the archives like NJDOT had some old Route 1 & 9 photos around Newark Airport of the old wrought iron gantries that used to be there back before they were removed.  Photos with the original panels on them were shared here in the NJ forum not too long ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2016, 11:58:12 AM
Another thing from memory lane is that before the great 1980 widening, there was a dirt mound in the middle of the Parkway from just north of the Union County Line to US Route 22.  Some old postcard photos show it as even back in the fourth grade, Mrs. Katchen, told us that when the GSP was first built engineers had in mind the glare of headlights at night.  So they put up the mound, to block oncoming headlight glare as well as the wide medians elsewhere.

Of course that was only part of the design feature of the Parkway as it was made also to be with hardly any horizontal sight issues thus making it one of the safest roads around for its time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 10:43:07 AM
Per a NJTA Press Release ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Asbury_tolls_traffic.pdf ), the lane stripping between this toll plaza and Express/Local lane split ( https://goo.gl/maps/jtHWjwE4W9C2 ) has been revised and repainted.

Previously, the 3 EZ Pass lanes split so that the left 2 lanes went into the express lanes, and the right lane directed motorists to the local lanes.  Additionally, the stripping was as such so motorists using the traditional lanes could merge left into the express lanes.

Now, the left EZ Pass lane will take motorists into the express lane.  The center EZ Pass lane splits to both the express & local lanes, and the right EZ Pass lane goes to the local lanes.  In addition, the stripping will be as such where motorists using the traditional booths will not be permitted to cross into the Express lanes.  (Without a barrier, I can't see how this is going to stop some motorists from merging left anyway.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 16, 2016, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 10:43:07 AM
Per a NJTA Press Release ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Asbury_tolls_traffic.pdf ), the lane stripping between this toll plaza and Express/Local lane split ( https://goo.gl/maps/jtHWjwE4W9C2 ) has been revised and repainted.

Previously, the 3 EZ Pass lanes split so that the left 2 lanes went into the express lanes, and the right lane directed motorists to the local lanes.  Additionally, the stripping was as such so motorists using the traditional lanes could merge left into the express lanes.

Now, the left EZ Pass lane will take motorists into the express lane.  The center EZ Pass lane splits to both the express & local lanes, and the right EZ Pass lane goes to the local lanes.  In addition, the stripping will be as such where motorists using the traditional booths will not be permitted to cross into the Express lanes.  (Without a barrier, I can't see how this is going to stop some motorists from merging left anyway.)
They are not saying what percentage of the regular toll plaza traffic goes to the express lanes, or what percentage of total traffic uses the non-EZ Pass lanes, but it sounds like they are punishing the exact sort of people who would not have EZ Pass, the long distance travelers who would presumably want access to the express lanes
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 12:10:49 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 16, 2016, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 10:43:07 AM
Per a NJTA Press Release ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Asbury_tolls_traffic.pdf ), the lane stripping between this toll plaza and Express/Local lane split ( https://goo.gl/maps/jtHWjwE4W9C2 ) has been revised and repainted.

Previously, the 3 EZ Pass lanes split so that the left 2 lanes went into the express lanes, and the right lane directed motorists to the local lanes.  Additionally, the stripping was as such so motorists using the traditional lanes could merge left into the express lanes.

Now, the left EZ Pass lane will take motorists into the express lane.  The center EZ Pass lane splits to both the express & local lanes, and the right EZ Pass lane goes to the local lanes.  In addition, the stripping will be as such where motorists using the traditional booths will not be permitted to cross into the Express lanes.  (Without a barrier, I can't see how this is going to stop some motorists from merging left anyway.)
They are not saying what percentage of the regular toll plaza traffic goes to the express lanes, or what percentage of total traffic uses the non-EZ Pass lanes, but it sounds like they are punishing the exact sort of people who would not have EZ Pass, the long distance travelers who would presumably want access to the express lanes

This report ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/EZPass_Usage_GSP_March_2016.pdf ) doesn't break it down by plaza, but it shows a consistent 78-79% of traffic has been using EZ Pass on the GSP in general, with the exception of July where it dips slightly.  Over 90% of commercial vehicles for the past 5 months of the report has paid their tolls via EZ Pass.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on May 16, 2016, 01:36:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 10:43:07 AMlane stripping
is that what happens when the clubs in AC shut down and the dancers move onto the parkway? :p
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 16, 2016, 02:47:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 10:43:07 AM
Per a NJTA Press Release ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Asbury_tolls_traffic.pdf ), the lane stripping between this toll plaza and Express/Local lane split ( https://goo.gl/maps/jtHWjwE4W9C2 ) has been revised and repainted.

Previously, the 3 EZ Pass lanes split so that the left 2 lanes went into the express lanes, and the right lane directed motorists to the local lanes.  Additionally, the stripping was as such so motorists using the traditional lanes could merge left into the express lanes.

Now, the left EZ Pass lane will take motorists into the express lane.  The center EZ Pass lane splits to both the express & local lanes, and the right EZ Pass lane goes to the local lanes.  In addition, the stripping will be as such where motorists using the traditional booths will not be permitted to cross into the Express lanes.  (Without a barrier, I can't see how this is going to stop some motorists from merging left anyway.)
It's about time they did this.  But I'm surprised for the reason stated, and not the fact that the previous condition created a terrible weave situation, with cash toll users just accelerating from the booths weaving two lanes across high speed traffic into the express lanes in a short distance.  I've been cut off many times here when staying in the right Express EZ-Pass lane to stay on the local side.  Someone even complained to the Asbury Park Press's old "Joe on the Go" feature about this a few years ago.  "Joe" spoke with the NJTA, which replied that their engineers found the weave area sufficient (ridiculous).

If there is an issue with access to the express lanes, they can always add a cross-over where there is sufficient room further down the road, similar to the crossovers further north by the PNC Arts Center.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2016, 03:16:51 PM
I've had a few close calls with weaving motorists at that split. Ideally they would put up some sort of barrier involving those pylons to discourage weaving as we all know solid white lines don't stop idiots. Of course the best solution long term would be to phase in AET.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on May 17, 2016, 07:57:40 PM
Saw this on NJ101.5's app today! :D
http://nj1015.com/what-the-garden-state-parkway-looked-like-when-it-opened-video/?trackback=fbshare_mobile_top

What the Parkway looked like in 1952.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2016, 12:04:40 AM
The Asbury Park Plaza should have its AET lanes (the ones NJ calls express lanes) dedicated to only Express Lanes while the cash lanes have the option.  Of course those wishing to use the local lanes will have to stop, but do many people from south of Asbury Park go to places like Eatontown, Red Bank, and Holmdel that much?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 19, 2016, 01:17:34 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 19, 2016, 12:04:40 AM
The Asbury Park Plaza should have its AET lanes (the ones NJ calls express lanes) dedicated to only Express Lanes while the cash lanes have the option.  Of course those wishing to use the local lanes will have to stop, but do many people from south of Asbury Park go to places like Eatontown, Red Bank, and Holmdel that much?
Yes - Absolutely.  There is a lot of commuter traffic from south of Asbury Park that exits at those locations - myself included for many years.  The press release posted above even supports this with the percentage split from the Express EZ-Pass heading for the local lanes (although 80% as referenced seems high) and the reasoning for now allowing the center lane to exit to local lanes as well.  The reconstruction at 105 to fix the merge/weave and provide a separate signal and ramp for the NB exiting traffic at Hope Road (which was a complete mess when I used to commute through it) is a result of the significant amount of traffic that uses this route.  The occasional toll road drivers and those too paranoid or lazy to get EZ Pass can pay the price of staying in the local lanes. 

Even now, when I'm taking the GSP north or south between the Asbury Tolls and the Driscoll, I always use the local lanes anyway to have the ability to exit (escape a jam) and get 3 lanes to the express lane's 2.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 19, 2016, 10:16:45 AM
I assume there is a correlation between people wanting to use express lanes and those not having EZ Pass. Both are likely to be out of state travelers bringing much needed cash to the Jersey shore   
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2016, 10:26:01 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 19, 2016, 01:17:34 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 19, 2016, 12:04:40 AM
The Asbury Park Plaza should have its AET lanes (the ones NJ calls express lanes) dedicated to only Express Lanes while the cash lanes have the option.  Of course those wishing to use the local lanes will have to stop, but do many people from south of Asbury Park go to places like Eatontown, Red Bank, and Holmdel that much?
Yes - Absolutely.  There is a lot of commuter traffic from south of Asbury Park that exits at those locations - myself included for many years.  The press release posted above even supports this with the percentage split from the Express EZ-Pass heading for the local lanes (although 80% as referenced seems high) and the reasoning for now allowing the center lane to exit to local lanes as well.  The reconstruction at 105 to fix the merge/weave and provide a separate signal and ramp for the NB exiting traffic at Hope Road (which was a complete mess when I used to commute through it) is a result of the significant amount of traffic that uses this route.  The occasional toll road drivers and those too paranoid or lazy to get EZ Pass can pay the price of staying in the local lanes. 

Even now, when I'm taking the GSP north or south between the Asbury Tolls and the Driscoll, I always use the local lanes anyway to have the ability to exit (escape a jam) and get 3 lanes to the express lane's 2.
A lot of people do that.  My friend Frank used to do it coming back from Seaside.  He never took the express lanes at all, as he liked more lanes to weave as he was one that loved to show off! At the time NJ had the National 55 limit, and even with traffic at 65, it was still too slow for him.

Plus the local lanes does not really add more time either as its really the same as its express counterparts.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 19, 2016, 10:16:45 AM
I assume there is a correlation between people wanting to use express lanes and those not having EZ Pass. Both are likely to be out of state travelers bringing much needed cash to the Jersey shore   

The toll lanes are on the Northbound side.  The Jersey Shore already got their money!  :-D

What's the speed differential between the Express & Local lanes?  In general, there probably isn't much of a difference.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 19, 2016, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
What's the speed differential between the Express & Local lanes?  In general, there probably isn't much of a difference.

Per this guy on Reddit, (https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/4jeufi/have_any_of_you_gotten_pulled_over_for_speeding/) you're not expected to go the speed limit in the express lanes so there has to be a huge difference.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 20, 2016, 10:10:16 AM
There is a new traffic pattern Northbound between exits 36 and 38A as of last night. Everything is shifted to the right, to the newly paved roadway. The entrance from Fire Road finally has a decent acceleration lane again. Otherwise the layout is unchanged, just shifted, 2 through lanes, no shoulders, single exit lanes for 38 and 38A.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 02, 2016, 01:50:48 PM
"Ask Commuting Larry" article today on NJ.com about why a full interchange was never built between the Parkway and NJ 18:

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/why_was_a_full_parkway_interchange_to_route_18_never_built.html#incart_river_home (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/why_was_a_full_parkway_interchange_to_route_18_never_built.html#incart_river_home)

To me, it seems pretty obvious that one major factor was that the Parkway didn't want to encourage shunpiking on the free, parallel portion of 18 south of the interchange.  A direct SB GSP to SB 18 ramp would send a lot more evening commuter and shore traffic onto 18, who would use that road to at least avoid the tolls at exit 98.  Same goes for the NB commute.  The DOT might not have wanted to add that much GSP traffic onto that portion of 18 either. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 02, 2016, 02:59:36 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on June 02, 2016, 01:50:48 PM
"Ask Commuting Larry" article today on NJ.com about why a full interchange was never built between the Parkway and NJ 18:

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/why_was_a_full_parkway_interchange_to_route_18_never_built.html#incart_river_home (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/why_was_a_full_parkway_interchange_to_route_18_never_built.html#incart_river_home)

To me, it seems pretty obvious that one major factor was that the Parkway didn't want to encourage shunpiking on the free, parallel portion of 18 south of the interchange.  A direct SB GSP to SB 18 ramp would send a lot more evening commuter and shore traffic onto 18, who would use that road to at least avoid the tolls at exit 98.  Same goes for the NB commute.  The DOT might not have wanted to add that much GSP traffic onto that portion of 18 either. 

There's probably a long, complicated history behind it.  NJ 18 didn't exist when the GSP was built, as mentioned in the article.  There was already an interchange right where 18 does cross over the GSP.  18 was never completed south of 195...and 195 wasn't there when the GSP was built either. 

It looks like they did try doing something which only involved a single intersection with a traffic light light at the time - Entering/Exiting at Interchange 105, going thru the tolls, turning onto/off of Hope Rd., and then using 18.  Today, that movement is completely free going south, but encounters a ramp plaza going north.

Remember, in the 1990's and prior the barrier tolls as the southern end of the local/express lanes were for both directions  In the early 00's, they were converted to 1 way tolls Northbound only.  Today, Southbound GSP motorists can exit at Exit 102 & 100B free of the tolls one encounters exiting at Exits 105 & 98, giving them access to 18, but it doesn't exactly give them easy, direct access to 18.

I took a look at Historic Aerials.  In 1979 you can see they were building Rt. 18 to the west of the GSP, but nothing to the east in that immediate area.  There's never anything available in the 80's on that website.  In 1995, you can see the area completely built up, with the road network all there. 

My guess is there's more to it than just shunpiking, because they could've just added some more ramp tolls.  There seems to be a relatively easy connection as mentioned above, involving tolls. There's probably some answers in the planning materials if someone took the time to dig, but to answer a general question for Larry's column no one's going to take the time and the money to look that up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2016, 07:45:22 PM
I think it had to do with... :drumroll: environmental issues. They wanted a smaller interchange footprint and so only put in some ramps. They are in the process of modifying the interchange and adding another ramp (SB to Wayside Road) that will help ease access to 18 South. (NB is still SOL.) I don't think NJTA is opposed to studying a couple of additional flyover ramps, but they would have to see a net benefit to justify them. At least the NB flyover would be tolled.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 02, 2016, 11:53:12 PM
I remember the gap in 18 east of the GSP, when they were building the interchange with 36 in the early 90s.  I certainly have no doubt environmental issues were a major factor - dealing with DEP is definitely not fun - as well as cost.  I would think though there would have been some lack of enthusiasm on the NJHA and DOT's part for providing those direct movements to not dump that traffic on 18 as well.  Hope Road could be a very poor connector at times.  I used to commute on Hope between 105 and Wyckoff Road and this stretch was typically a backed-up mess and desperately needed 4 lanes and some signal timing adjustments at Wyckoff.  As usual, the ramp improvements at 105 to fix the merge at Hope came just after I could have benefitted from them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 12, 2016, 10:13:54 PM
Signage update: they're making a lot of progress (and quickly) north of 142. SB, it looks like 143 will be renumbered to 143C and they are going to reverse 143B and 143A so they're in the correct order.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2016, 12:39:13 AM
Quote from: storm2k on June 12, 2016, 10:13:54 PM
Signage update: they're making a lot of progress (and quickly) north of 142. SB, it looks like 143 will be renumbered to 143C and they are going to reverse 143B and 143A so they're in the correct order.
Its about time!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 13, 2016, 08:24:03 PM
Also, fot 156 NB, it doesn't mention 46 anymore, just NJ-20 NB and Elmwood Park for a control city.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 13, 2016, 08:59:53 PM
Pictures I saw on Facebook note that 155 (Hazel Street) is being switched. My bet is to 155B while 155P becomes A, permanently putting the Paterson Peripheral system to bed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 13, 2016, 10:58:40 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 13, 2016, 08:59:53 PM
Pictures I saw on Facebook note that 155 (Hazel Street) is being switched. My bet is to 155B while 155P becomes A, permanently putting the Paterson Peripheral system to bed.

Not sure, they had the exit tabs covered, I could tell there were "Formerly exit XXX" tabs as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 14, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
Looks like they're finally getting ready to open the new on-ramp from the AC Expressway East onto Parkway South (Exit 7S) and the new separate Exit 37 ramps from that on-ramp and the Parkway mainline in time for the July 4 weekend. Last I heard, it was planned for "a week or so after Memorial Day", but now VMSs went up warning of exit closures at all of the above exit ramps starting June 26.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2016, 01:00:08 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 13, 2016, 08:24:03 PM
Also, fot 156 NB, it doesn't mention 46 anymore, just NJ-20 NB and Elmwood Park for a control city.
Well considering that Exit 157 less than one mile ahead also connects to the same route, it makes sense to do that.    Just keep 156 for NJ 20 traffic as well as those for CR 507. 

Maryland did something similar years back on the Harbor Tunnel Thruway with MD2.  The two exits that accessed the SB MD 2 had only one signed for it, as the one signed accessed the state route further down the line while the first one served the city of Brooklyn, MD.  So for traffic to MD 2 South, just the Glen Burnie Bypass was signed to allow the MD 2 exit proper be used for local traffic only.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2016, 01:03:25 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 13, 2016, 08:24:03 PM
Also, fot 156 NB, it doesn't mention 46 anymore, just NJ-20 NB and Elmwood Park for a control city.
Well considering that Exit 157 less than one mile ahead also connects to the same route, it makes sense to do that.    Just keep 156 for NJ 20 traffic as well as those for CR 507. 

Maryland did something similar years back on the Harbor Tunnel Thruway with MD2.  The two exits that accessed the SB MD 2 had only one signed for it, as the one signed accessed the state route further down the line while the first one served the city of Brooklyn, MD.  So for traffic to MD 2 South, just the Glen Burnie Bypass was signed to allow the MD 2 exit proper be used for local traffic only.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 27, 2016, 09:31:44 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 14, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
Looks like they're finally getting ready to open the new on-ramp from the AC Expressway East onto Parkway South (Exit 7S) and the new separate Exit 37 ramps from that on-ramp and the Parkway mainline in time for the July 4 weekend. Last I heard, it was planned for "a week or so after Memorial Day", but now VMSs went up warning of exit closures at all of the above exit ramps starting June 26.
The new ramp is now open. After you leave the Expressway, you are routed onto a new three-lane ramp. The new BGS tells you that the right lane leads to Exit 37 (although that designation is tacked on with a temporary orange sign; presumably it will not be called that since you never enter the Parkway proper anymore) while the left two lanes enter the GS Parkway just ahead of the old Exit 37 ramp (which is still there, but is blocked off with an "exit closed" sign). Presumably the new main line Exit 37 which leaves the GSP and passes under the new ramp is now open as well. I will probably know for sure this afternoon.

Edit: yes, it's open
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 27, 2016, 04:30:27 PM
Exit 156 is pretty dangerous to actually use for NJ-20 these days. The ramp has a stop sign at the end and traffic on US-46 East and coming off of NJ-21 make darting across 3 lanes to NJ-20 a "fun and exciting" experience. I never take it, preferring to take Exit 154 instead. Honestly, that ramp should be closed. There is no way to add an acceleration lane due to the bridge that is right there.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZhTqdJRpMT12
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 02, 2016, 08:49:05 PM
Despite the NJTA documents saying otherwise, a pullthru using the control city of "Cape May" has appeared at the Atlantic City Expressway on the GSP southbound. All sign replacements in Cape May County have been finished. Exit 4A-B has been switched to comply with MUTCD requirements. Further north, Exit 100 will be next to get corrections judging by covered up signs. Nothing at Exit 82 yet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 02, 2016, 10:07:13 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 02, 2016, 08:49:05 PM
Despite the NJTA documents saying otherwise, a pullthru using the control city of "Cape May" has appeared at the Atlantic City Expressway on the GSP southbound. All sign replacements in Cape May County have been finished. Exit 4A-B has been switched to comply with MUTCD requirements. Further north, Exit 100 will be next to get corrections judging by covered up signs. Nothing at Exit 82 yet.
NJTA documents do not say otherwise. They say to consult in case of destinations being needed. Cape May is what you will ever see, but the reason is that there are no pull-through signs beyond that point.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 03, 2016, 07:48:58 AM
In a way its good to see pull throughs on the GSP wherever they are as the GSP for years was not that into having them and if so it was always "PARKWAY NORTH" or "PARKWAY SOUTH" or the Shore Points and Cape May Ferry sign in Woodbridge.  There even were yellow "THRU TRAFFIC" signs in a few places.

That Exit 4A and 4B thing always got me as A was the NB Exit and B was for Wildwood (or Wildwoods) totally opposite of what it should be.  Then again FL did it on FL 528 at Exit 11 Westbound before the Airport flyover was added and on I-275 at Dale Mabry during the sequential number days with A closer to the north and B closer to the south.

Glad its changed as well as the much needed overheads at SB Exit 140 instead of those gore guides that were so out of date and substandard for a freeway of its width.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 04, 2016, 02:34:18 AM
Quote from: storm2k on June 12, 2016, 10:13:54 PM
Signage update: they're making a lot of progress (and quickly) north of 142. SB, it looks like 143 will be renumbered to 143C and they are going to reverse 143B and 143A so they're in the correct order.

This is indeed what has happened. Also, 143C (former 143) is now signed as "To NJ-124/Irvington" instead of Springfield Ave/Irvington. They have removed street names from every sign on the Irvington/Newark/E Orange section (between Union and Essex tolls) except for 144, which is S. Orange Ave, not for Newark or Vailsburg or South Orange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2016, 07:47:46 AM
How is Lyons Avenue signed now?  Just Maplewood and Hillside I presume?  Being they no longer like using 600 series routes anymore, hence the removal of them in Ocean County during the 63 to 80 project and later the extensions southward, they probably won't include them here either.

BTW Exit 144 has omitted Vailsburg and South Orange for some time.  Some leftovers and carbon copies remained, however NB never used them and in fact the 18th Avenue overpass was lacking an at exit guide for some time now since they started signing the separate neighborhoods of Newark and used that particular overpass to post some directory board signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 05, 2016, 02:59:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 04, 2016, 07:47:46 AM
How is Lyons Avenue signed now?  Just Maplewood and Hillside I presume?  Being they no longer like using 600 series routes anymore, hence the removal of them in Ocean County during the 63 to 80 project and later the extensions southward, they probably won't include them here either.

BTW Exit 144 has omitted Vailsburg and South Orange for some time.  Some leftovers and carbon copies remained, however NB never used them and in fact the 18th Avenue overpass was lacking an at exit guide for some time now since they started signing the separate neighborhoods of Newark and used that particular overpass to post some directory board signs.

New signs not up yet. They just changed the letters on each side. I imaginge it will just be Hillside and Maplewood in the end.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 05, 2016, 05:29:42 PM
What is the verdict on the exit numbers for the Atlantic City Expressway? The new advance signs northbound clearly show Exit 38-38A and no "Formerly Exit" tabs, yet there appears to be one at the interchange itself.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 05, 2016, 09:22:03 PM
As per the MUTCD they can't have Exits 38 & 38A. It has to be 38A and 38B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 05, 2016, 09:47:23 PM
Also, Exit 116 might be vanishing soon. All the new BROWN PNC Bank Arts Center signs lack exit tabs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 06, 2016, 12:28:10 AM
I would like to know how they are going to sign Bloomfield Avenue.  Are they going to just use the township name or just the street name?  That should be interesting along with Hoover Avenue and Springdale Avenue.

I will bet, though Watchung Avenue will be just for Nutley and Montclair and most likely NJ 3 East will finally get "New York City" instead of the Lincoln Tunnel.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2016, 02:34:49 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 05, 2016, 09:22:03 PM
As per the MUTCD they can't have Exits 38 & 38A. It has to be 38A and 38B.

That's been well established.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 06, 2016, 02:57:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 06, 2016, 12:28:10 AM
I would like to know how they are going to sign Bloomfield Avenue.  Are they going to just use the township name or just the street name?  That should be interesting along with Hoover Avenue and Springdale Avenue.

I will bet, though Watchung Avenue will be just for Nutley and Montclair and most likely NJ 3 East will finally get "New York City" instead of the Lincoln Tunnel.

Bloomfield Ave now signed as CR 506/Bloomfield.
Belleville Ave now signed as CR 509/SPUR CR 506/Belleville.
Watchung Ave no longer referenced at 151, just Nutley and Montclair.
Springdale Ave will just be East Orange.
Rt 3 EB signed for Secaucus now, I'm betting there will be some ground mounted aux signs for the Lincoln Tunnel and the Sports Complex, similar to what they did on the western spur of the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 06, 2016, 03:08:29 PM
Also of interest, the BGS on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7525987,-74.2111493,3a,48.1y,25.02h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQR3C1xB4OMiT4chwOui2dA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was replaced, but the structure was not. So you have a new sign (no longer mentions Harrison) next to that 3 lanes ahead sign which dates to the early 80s at least. I vaguely remember the older signs on there but I was a little kid in the early 80s. You can see how the illuminations do not match the current sign positions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 06, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
Secaucus is not a good place considering its practically inches from the largest city in the US.  Also being the Lincoln Tunnel is a primary route crossing across the Hudson.

Let me guess also, NYC will be the new EB I-80 control city instead of the GWB though. 

NJ 3 is actually the better choice to get to Midtown NY, from the GSP over I-80 as the GWB puts you uptown and far away from most of the main parts of the city and Brooklyn.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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."
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 07, 2016, 07:50:56 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."
New Jersey always had its own way of signing.  I grew up there and I always thought this way the Parkway did it using urban cities on the main guide was normal until I moved here to Florida.

If this was Florida, Springfield Avenue would be signed as such and "Irvington" would be on a supplemental and most likely being signed as "Next 3 Exits" as both Lyons Avenue ramps do serve the township as well.

Also, at one time SB on the Parkway did not feature Bloomfield on the Exit 148 signs but only Bloomfield Avenue.  Actually at Exit 151 there was a Bloomfield Next 3 Exits assembly there as Watchung Avenue, Bellville Avenue, and Bloomfield Avenue are all within the borders of the Newark Suburb.

You are right though, maybe its time that the NJTA uses just street names and supplemental signs for the towns around the interchange.  Also for I-280, I would think that "TO I-80 WEST" shields should be there just as much as the NJT shields are and change the WB I-280 control city of "The Oranges" to either "Parsipany" or even "Delaware Water Gap" to reflect that I-80 goes there afterward.  IMO, for the latter NJDOT should make I-80's westbound control city "Stroudsburg" over the Gap as its more of a proper city than a cut in a mountain.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2016, 07:14:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 07, 2016, 10:39:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 19, 2016, 01:03:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 22, 2016, 10:09:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 26, 2016, 11:39:14 AM
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.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on July 26, 2016, 01:48:51 PM
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
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 28, 2016, 09:05:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on July 28, 2016, 07:08:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 28, 2016, 07:13:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 28, 2016, 07:34:20 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.
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 29, 2016, 12:30:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 29, 2016, 04:56:13 PM
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.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2016, 10:00:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 30, 2016, 08:58:07 PM
Roadman, everything you're saying is true, but we should still strive to make the system as reasonably consistent as possible.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2016, 10:26:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 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)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2016, 07:56:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2016, 11:20:33 PM
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)
What are you talking about, some people do not even know that Tonnelle Avenue is US 1 & 9.  My uncle used to work in Secaucus and lived in Linden.  He said he used US 1 & 9 (Route 1 & 9 as NJ people always say route no matter what the designation is ) to Tonnelle Avenue and then to County Road.

For years some people thought that I-78 ended at I-287 because NJDOT would sign I-78 East as "Local Traffic" and direct motorists to both the Parkway and Turnpike to Newark and New York to use I-287 South from Exit 29. Then the same for I-78 leading into NJ 24, as most were calling Route 78 from Springfield to Newark as Route 24, because no I-78 West shields were up at all entrance ramps due to the road defaulting into the NJ 24 freeway. 

Even after I-78 was finally opened to traffic through the Watchung Reservation, some were still calling the I-78 local lanes as Route 24 and thinking the express lanes were only the interstate.

Also St. George Avenue in Rahway and Linden are not known to locals as Route 27 either.  Many think it terminates at NJ 35 at the Rahway & Colonia Border where the alignment changes.  Some, like my friend Frank, thinks Route 35 goes all the way to Elizabeth on St. George Avenue too.

Wonder, also, how many think that Rahway Avenue in Elizabeth is part of St. George Avenue?  Because Elizabeth wants to be different than the rest, the name changes from St. George to Rahway at the city line, but the majority considers Rahway Avenue to be St. George Avenue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 01:06:35 AM
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).

What brand GPS are you using?  That's much too late for reasonable driving.  Heck, for it to even read back all of that will practically take the 10 seconds or so before you reach the decal lane.  With GPSs I'm familiar with, they usually start at least 1 mile prior to the interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 02, 2016, 10:13:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 01:06:35 AM
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).

What brand GPS are you using?  That's much too late for reasonable driving.  Heck, for it to even read back all of that will practically take the 10 seconds or so before you reach the decal lane.  With GPSs I'm familiar with, they usually start at least 1 mile prior to the interchange.

The HERE app on my phone. The typical sequence is:
"Follow the course of the road for X Miles" (right after entering the highway)
"After 2 miles, keep right and take the exit"
"After 0.7 miles, keep right and take the exit"
"After 0.25 miles, keep right, take exit X, Route X (usually no direction given), [first destination on BGS]"
"[Now] Keep right and take the exit"

Sometimes there is no 2 miles warning. Sometimes there is a 1 mile instead of 0.7. Sometimes 0.25 is replaced by 0.5 or 0.2, but usually it's as above.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 10:21:12 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 02, 2016, 10:13:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 01:06:35 AM
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).

What brand GPS are you using?  That's much too late for reasonable driving.  Heck, for it to even read back all of that will practically take the 10 seconds or so before you reach the decal lane.  With GPSs I'm familiar with, they usually start at least 1 mile prior to the interchange.

The HERE app on my phone. The typical sequence is:
"Follow the course of the road for X Miles" (right after entering the highway)
"After 2 miles, keep right and take the exit"
"After 0.7 miles, keep right and take the exit"
"After 0.25 miles, keep right, take exit X, Route X (usually no direction given), [first destination on BGS]"
"[Now] Keep right and take the exit"

Sometimes there is no 2 miles warning. Sometimes there is a 1 mile instead of 0.7. Sometimes 0.25 is replaced by 0.5 or 0.2, but usually it's as above.


Looked it up. Noticed in the description it says 'Effortless city navigation'.  So if it's mainly to help get around cities where blocks are measured in 1/8th mile (or less) intervals and someone's driving 25 mph or so, I can see where info will only be important close to where one would turn.  No need to tell someone to prepare to turn 10 blocks away, when the info is only pertinent a block or two away.  But I guess they use that same setup on high-speed highways, where a quarter-mile flies by at 70 mph without any other intersecting roads.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 18, 2016, 08:17:24 PM
I was just on street view and noticed so much that the new signs at Exit 89 is shown. NJ 70 is signed for Brick and Lakehurst and CR 528 is signed for Lakewood.  The GSP southbound overall has the combined interchange as both directions signed for Brick (naturally) and NB Lakewood and SB Lakehurst.  Due to MUTCD only two destinations are not only allowed so sacrifices must be made of course.

However, I moved up to Exit 91 to see if the interchange got completed and only saw the widened shoulder NB where the future NB deceleration lane will be eventually striped for exit, but no signs or any indication the ramp (or ramps) will be opened. So I did some research and it appears to be set for February 2017 to be all open with a completely reconfigured interchange allowing full movement.  I take that the Exit 90 sign that now specifies SB CR 549 is signed that way not only cause that ramp now forbids left turns on to NB CR 548, but as the new Exit 91 will have the NB route signed after upcoming Winter.

I was wondering how accurate that really is as most links provided by google to the topic seemed to have bias by angry Brick residents who seem to have been waiting for decades just to see the missing ramps a reality?  It do not seem like most residents believe it like they seem to think it may take longer.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on August 20, 2016, 03:53:38 PM
I usually take exit 90 on a daily basis.  Exit 90 is marked as 549 South - Brick

Exit 91 signs are up but covered going north.  They have 549 North - Herbertsville (which is also part of Brick).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on August 20, 2016, 04:01:01 PM
Here's a relic from 1952, when the Parkway opened.


Also exit 117 for some reason, dated 1956.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 08, 2016, 06:27:05 PM
Word is the new southbound Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is completely open to traffic. Now they have all winter to remove the old bridge and the charred remains of the Beesley's Point Bridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on September 08, 2016, 09:26:55 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 08, 2016, 06:27:05 PM
Word is the new southbound Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is completely open to traffic. Now they have all winter to remove the old bridge and the charred remains of the Beesley's Point Bridge.

Can confirm, it looks really good.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff301%2FKherm2208%2F0902161315e_HDR_zps0thvyee2.jpg&hash=159d989260d1dd2aabf0d62630afd908ff673caf)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff301%2FKherm2208%2F0902161314_HDR_zpszjwsjtkt.jpg&hash=d3f63de8855a06f6ebc76af6511e72441eb0e240)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 14, 2016, 11:14:19 AM
I like it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on September 14, 2016, 02:48:25 PM
Very nice improvement over the old bridge!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 15, 2016, 07:14:17 PM
Higher too and the vertical climb is more gradual. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 15, 2016, 08:54:07 PM
Wonder how long until they start replacing the northbound bridge? Its pretty obvious the new bridge is designed to handle 3 lanes+shoulder or any detour traffic.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 16, 2016, 01:41:46 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on September 15, 2016, 08:54:07 PM
Wonder how long until they start replacing the northbound bridge? Its pretty obvious the new bridge is designed to handle 3 lanes+shoulder or any detour traffic.

No time soon.  The new southbound bridge can actually handle 4 lanes (without shoulders) on its own.  In its final configuration, it'll have 2 travel lanes, a 7' left shoulder, and an ultra-wide 24' right shoulder.  And a barrier separated walking/biking path.

The Northbound bridge will basically remain the same.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Handout-for-Sept-2012-public-hearing.pdf

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 16, 2016, 03:37:24 PM
I'm surprised that they're not replacing the NB bridge. I would have figured it was suffering from most of the same ailments as its SB counterpart. Thought they'd do the whole move all traffic onto the new one while they knock down and build the other side and then have two again.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 16, 2016, 09:26:39 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 16, 2016, 03:37:24 PM
I'm surprised that they're not replacing the NB bridge. I would have figured it was suffering from most of the same ailments as its SB counterpart. Thought they'd do the whole move all traffic onto the new one while they knock down and build the other side and then have two again.
Two different ages. The Parkway was built one carriageway at a time down here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on September 16, 2016, 09:30:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 16, 2016, 01:41:46 PM
The Northbound bridge will basically remain the same.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Handout-for-Sept-2012-public-hearing.pdf

As a result, the GSP at Beesley's Point will basically resemble http://tinyurl.com/hcot8mr ...

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on September 17, 2016, 12:25:08 PM
Quote from: ixnay on September 16, 2016, 09:30:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 16, 2016, 01:41:46 PM
The Northbound bridge will basically remain the same.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Handout-for-Sept-2012-public-hearing.pdf

As a result, the GSP at Beesley's Point will basically resemble http://tinyurl.com/hcot8mr ...

ixnay
Route 37 Mathis and Tunney bridges
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 17, 2016, 11:40:20 PM
So This set of signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced. On its own bridge now, as the NJTA seems to have moved away from mounting signs directly on bridge structures. The sign on the left (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has also been replaced, and I saw the pier for the right hand structure to be replaced as well. The 9 NB signs now have proper left tabs attached to the signs instead of that weird "left lane" panels they had before.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 18, 2016, 10:20:20 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 17, 2016, 11:40:20 PM
So This set of signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced. On its own bridge now, as the NJTA seems to have moved away from mounting signs directly on bridge structures. The sign on the left (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has also been replaced, and I saw the pier for the right hand structure to be replaced as well. The 9 NB signs now have proper left tabs attached to the signs instead of that weird "left lane" panels they had before.
What about the panels on the split?  They ammended the one on the right to just include info on EB 440 only and therefore the 440 WB is left without a panel there.  Hope they put a full sign bridge there to have all three.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 18, 2016, 09:18:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 18, 2016, 10:20:20 AM
Quote from: storm2k on September 17, 2016, 11:40:20 PM
So This set of signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced. On its own bridge now, as the NJTA seems to have moved away from mounting signs directly on bridge structures. The sign on the left (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has also been replaced, and I saw the pier for the right hand structure to be replaced as well. The 9 NB signs now have proper left tabs attached to the signs instead of that weird "left lane" panels they had before.
What about the panels on the split?  They ammended the one on the right to just include info on EB 440 only and therefore the 440 WB is left without a panel there.  Hope they put a full sign bridge there to have all three.

I just realized that I put the same GSV link for both of them. this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5198206,-74.3003347,3a,75y,33.79h,82.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPh8nY6HOWD76_IFx_Qi-7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the second sign i referred to. the one on the left was replaced. the concrete pier for the one on the right is done, but there isn't a new sign yet. we will see if it references both sides of 440.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 10, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
Looks like the new Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is going to see northbound detour traffic already. The bridge is setup with a jersey wall and coned off crossovers on each end.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 17, 2016, 03:56:14 PM
So they've been doing deck repairs or something to the GSP overpass over the Turnpike. To maintain 3 lanes of traffic, they're been doing some interesting cattle chute configurations to route traffic around the work. This has led to this sign, just past 131 going SB.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F30iSXaZ.jpg&hash=7aa556f3524fa95fe443a5fdd811b4ba6dc1a6b8)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 23, 2016, 01:00:09 PM
I used to cross that overpass everyday between August 1987 to August 1990 on the way to work when I worked at nearby Prudential in the Food Service area.  I lived in Kessington Appartments on US 1 and commuted the Parkway every weekday between 130 and 131A to go to work.

Hopefully I will get to see the sign changes on the Parkway that now are more MUTCD that rid the old gantries that many were erected by NJDOT in 1980 and some in the 90's when 130 was added the SB to NB ramps.

Also NJ was my home for 25 years and would love to get back to see the old homestead anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 24, 2016, 07:53:16 PM
Northbound traffic has been diverted to the new Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge. They are either rehabbing the northbound bridge, or using it for equipment to remove the old southbound bridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 08, 2016, 08:35:44 PM
NJDOT does APLs: https://goo.gl/maps/PfAL6YReTQs

Note the back plate shields and lack of a control city on the GSP (should be Atlantic City). Also, local/express median exit signs have appears on the GSP northbound for Exit 125. A bit of the Turnpike on the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2016, 09:10:49 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 08, 2016, 08:35:44 PM
NJDOT does APLs: https://goo.gl/maps/PfAL6YReTQs

Note the back plate shields and lack of a control city on the GSP (should be Atlantic City). Also, local/express median exit signs have appears on the GSP northbound for Exit 125. A bit of the Turnpike on the Parkway.

Actually, it's not a NJDOT APL, it's a NJTA APL!

NJDOT has used APLs since at least early 2014, as they installed 2 as part of the 295/42/76 interchange project (https://goo.gl/maps/ou654173Esx).

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 08, 2016, 09:33:31 PM
On the topic of control cities, someone took my advice.... the pull thru at Exit 145 uses Paramus: https://goo.gl/maps/YLT17wW2axy

Odd considering Paterson is used northbound at Exit 140. NJ-3/Exit 153 also gained control cities, Wayne and Secaucus.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 08, 2016, 09:43:48 PM
That APL sign at the 295/42 interchange is horrible. Maybe if they moved the dividing line a little to the right so the format looked more balanced it would work better. But I don't like APL to begin with.

I'm surprised they added CR-508 to that Exit-145 sign. That's new I think. And I agree with Paramus as a good destination for GSP North once you pass Newark.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2016, 09:55:30 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 08, 2016, 09:43:48 PM
That APL sign at the 295/42 interchange is horrible. Maybe if they moved the dividing line a little to the right so the format looked more balanced it would work better. But I don't like APL to begin with.

I'm surprised they added CR-508 to that Exit-145 sign. That's new I think. And I agree with Paramus as a good destination for GSP North once you pass Newark.

They can't move the dividing line to the right. By doing so, the left option arrows would appear that you can get to 76 both by going straight and to the right. And you see how tight the space is that they have to work with, preventing them from giving more room to the Camden/Philly portion of the sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 08, 2016, 10:28:33 PM
J&N, how would you improve that sign then? Do you agree it looks horrible the way it is? Totally unbalanced. Maybe reduce the amount of legend on the left by taking out the "to 130, 676" and the "500 ft", so it would just read "676, Camden, Phila". Then enlarge the legend on the right, that looks ridiculously small. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2016, 08:56:18 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 08, 2016, 10:28:33 PM
J&N, how would you improve that sign then? Do you agree it looks horrible the way it is? Totally unbalanced. Maybe reduce the amount of legend on the left by taking out the "to 130, 676" and the "500 ft", so it would just read "676, Camden, Phila". Then enlarge the legend on the right, that looks ridiculously small. 

Well, first, that would indicate I think the sign needs improving.  It doesn't.  If you were to force me to make a change, it would be to remove US 130.  But there's more to it than that.  There's a continuity issue as well.

Also, it can't just read 676/Camden/Phila, because the highway is 76.  So you would have meant for it to be 76/Camden/Phila.  But all the signs from all directions approaching this area (295 North, 295 South, 42 North) place an important on 676, so they all say 76 to 676.  So you need both highway shields at minimum.

Prior to this sign, on 295 North near Exit 26, there's a "Exit 27, 76 to 676/130, 1/2 Mile" sign.  So for continuity reasons, you need to sign 130 on the APL as well.

The 500 Ft label is applied a little sloppy, but kinda needed to show the short distance.

As far as balance goes, it's just the nature of the interchange.  A lot goes on for that single exit.

If there's anything that'll make you more comfortable, the sign is only temporary.  Once the interchange is fully reworked, this exact configuration won't exist anymore, and the APLs that'll be on 295 North and South will be much larger, with much more room for full destination and control cities.

As far as I can tell driving thru here though, motorists understand the signs.  The worst of it used to be is traffic on 295 North never had a good indication that to merge onto 76 West, they needed to be in the left lane.  That has now been fixed with the advanced signage and this APL.  And that's the most important thing...if the motorists understand the signage...then it's good.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 09, 2016, 07:54:58 PM
Thanks J&N. You're right, I did mix up I-76 and 676. And I agree with you re: the continuity issue. The legend should be consistent thru the series of signs for an exit; no additions or deletions as per the Manual. But if like you say the lane configuration will be changed soon, then I guess it's moot, if a new sign will be needed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2016, 08:46:56 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 08, 2016, 09:33:31 PM
On the topic of control cities, someone took my advice.... the pull thru at Exit 145 uses Paramus: https://goo.gl/maps/YLT17wW2axy

Odd considering Paterson is used northbound at Exit 140. NJ-3/Exit 153 also gained control cities, Wayne and Secaucus.
This is much better than the old Black on Yellow THRU TRAFFIC sign that was there previously.

And yes, why not Paterson?  Its used at 140 and  has not been reached.  Plus the only significance that Paramus has is that it is the retail capital of state. Otherwise its useless. 

It should be Paterson, and then Albany afterwards. 

BTW, there is a thread for the NJ 42/ I-76/ I-295 project.  It is not anywhere near nor connected to The Parkway. :bigass:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 12, 2016, 01:28:19 PM
The old THRU TRAFFIC sign is still up at the actual exit. They have only done spot replacements on that stretch.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
It appears the New Gretna toll plaza will be reconstructed to allow for Express EZ Pass lanes.

See pages 10/11 of the pdf (it will show as page 8 & 9 on the paper itself): http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/BM_Minutes_10-25-2016.pdf

This should've been done in the first place many years ago, as they did with nearly every other toll plaza.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 15, 2016, 04:38:08 PM
Finally.....

Perhaps the biggest news in those minutes is Murray Bodin saying that he is going to retire!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2016, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 15, 2016, 04:38:08 PM
Finally.....

Perhaps the biggest news in those minutes is Murray Bodin saying that he is going to retire!

Lol. Go to the previous month's meeting minutes. He said that he was never going to return because the Turnpike won't listen to his suggestions. He didnt even miss a meeting!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 24, 2016, 10:47:50 PM
Some new signing changes on the GSP

-Southbound at the Cheesequake Service Area, a new distance sign went in. Mileage points are I-195 West (with shield), Toms River, and Atlantic City
-Exit 117A has been officially changed to Exit 118
-Northbound pull-thrus at the Driscoll Bridge have been altered to include "TO I-95/NJTP". The big arrow diagram depicting the split before the bridge is gone.
-Eventually Exit 100 will have new exit numbers. Southbound is going from Exit 100A/100 to 100B/A. Northbound is going from Exit 100/100A/100B to 100A/B/C.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 25, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
That will create confusion at NJ 33 with WB being B for SB and C for NB.

The mileage signs at the Service Area are a surprise, but Exit 118 for Lloyd Road is odd.  Its part of the same interchange and should get 117B while the NJ 35 & 36 ramp gets the A suffix.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 25, 2016, 01:52:37 PM
They wanted to avoid changing Exit 117's number. Its a major interchange and would have resulted in different numbers north and south since there is only one exit going north. Also one has to keep in mind the express lanes going south since they only have access to 117 and not the new 118.

Note, the mileage sign is on the parkway itself in the median between the local and express lanes, it just happens to be near the on/off ramps for the service area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2016, 01:25:10 PM
I wonder why I-195 alone is used and not all the routes that Exit 98 services?  Or why cannot Belmar be used or even Asbury Park.  Toms River and Atlantic City, I can see.

Also I wonder what the placement intervals will be, or is this another stand alone like the LBI and AC south of Exit 80.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 28, 2016, 03:59:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 25, 2016, 01:52:37 PM
They wanted to avoid changing Exit 117's number. Its a major interchange and would have resulted in different numbers north and south since there is only one exit going north. Also one has to keep in mind the express lanes going south since they only have access to 117 and not the new 118.

Note, the mileage sign is on the parkway itself in the median between the local and express lanes, it just happens to be near the on/off ramps for the service area.

It's not unheard of, though. They did that at 131A (it's now 131A NB and just 131 SB), but I guess that's not considered a "major" interchange. I think it's more about the inner and outer roadways and having the outer be 117A while the inner was 117 would be even more confusing? Or having 117A on the inner with no corresponding B?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 28, 2016, 04:33:49 PM
Exit 132 was kind of a hard one to avoid. It didn't help they added 131 south of the NJ-27 interchange and they couldn't use Exit 130 without confusing more people. Either way, its a done deal :P
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 28, 2016, 08:29:08 PM
When one is motoring north of the Bergen toll plaza, there is a toll collected at Exit 165A&B.  However, if one continues further to Exit 168, 171, 172, or onto the New York State Thruway, there is no further toll collected.  What is the reason/justification for this illogical toll at Exit 165A&B?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 28, 2016, 08:47:17 PM
02 Park Ave, I'll take a guess that the Pascack Valley Toll Plaza used to collect both south and north-bound and that these ramp tolls were to collect that same toll even if you exited or entered just south of the toll plaza. A lot of the GSP tolls are/were set up that way.  But maybe someone from that area would know more about it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 28, 2016, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 28, 2016, 08:47:17 PM
02 Park Ave, I'l take a guess that the Pascack Valley Toll Plaza used to collect both south and north-bound and that these ramp tolls were to collect that same toll even if you exited or entered just south of the toll plaza. A lot of the GSP tolls are/were set up that way.  But maybe someone from that area would know more about it.

Until about 2012 there was a northbound toll as it was the end of the line. However, the decision was made that the paying the toll at a barrier twice in the span of 9 miles was not worth it and demolished the northbound.

That said, there's no tolls north of 165 at this point. The 165 toll was to prevent shunpiking.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2016, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 28, 2016, 03:59:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 25, 2016, 01:52:37 PM
They wanted to avoid changing Exit 117's number. Its a major interchange and would have resulted in different numbers north and south since there is only one exit going north. Also one has to keep in mind the express lanes going south since they only have access to 117 and not the new 118.

Note, the mileage sign is on the parkway itself in the median between the local and express lanes, it just happens to be near the on/off ramps for the service area.

It's not unheard of, though. They did that at 131A (it's now 131A NB and just 131 SB), but I guess that's not considered a "major" interchange. I think it's more about the inner and outer roadways and having the outer be 117A while the inner was 117 would be even more confusing? Or having 117A on the inner with no corresponding B?
What are you talking about FDOT has EB I-4 signed Exit 74A without a 74B.  As 74B is a WB only ramp for Universal Studios.  To keep the same numbers in both directions for Sand Lake Road they used the lone suffix in the other way.

Also talk about confusion, the Universal Studios exit EB is Exit 75A, only because the same exit for the theme park is that of FL 435 S Bound that is also Exit 75A going W Bound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: OracleUsr on November 29, 2016, 07:09:22 AM
I-40 in Asheville has that, too.  I-26 East from i-40 West is numbered Exit 46A, but there is no 46B westbound.  Eastbound has both 46A and 46B for I-26/240
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 29, 2016, 08:26:27 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 28, 2016, 08:29:08 PM
When one is motoring north of the Bergen toll plaza, there is a toll collected at Exit 165A&B.  However, if one continues further to Exit 168, 171, 172, or onto the New York State Thruway, there is no further toll collected.  What is the reason/justification for this illogical toll at Exit 165A&B?

Because Parkway.

There are numerous places where you can enter and exit without paying a toll, and other numerous places where you could be on the road for a mile or two and get stuck with a toll.  On the Southern end, one can enter the Turnpike at Interchange 0, exit at Interchange 4 and pay a toll, or continue on to 9, 10, 11, 13 or make the U-turn at the service plaza to exit at 17, and never pay a toll.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2016, 04:30:54 PM
Quote from: OracleUsr on November 29, 2016, 07:09:22 AM
I-40 in Asheville has that, too.  I-26 East from i-40 West is numbered Exit 46A, but there is no 46B westbound.  Eastbound has both 46A and 46B for I-26/240
US 322 in Swedesboro, NJ always had one too, the SB exit for US 322 E Bound on I-295 was Exit 11A, yet no ramp for 11B is present there due to the fact previous Exit 13 fills in the missing movement via US 130.  Nonetheless, in this scenario it is a lone A suffix.

Then with I-4 I had forgotten about Exit 50A that was between Exits 49 and 50 and not 50 and 51 back when FL used sequential exit numbers.

Then FDOT would skip A and B on I-95 in Palm Coast for Exit 91.  Then who knows why the A and B on I-275 were once backwards at the Dale Mabry exit during the sequential number days.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 29, 2016, 05:54:09 PM
The US-322 exit is signed as just Exit 11, no letters. As for GSP Exits. The previously mentioned Exit 165 is now 165A-B (since you can re-enter the roadway). Exit 155P is finally dead, its now Exit 155A with Exit 155 becoming 155B, now signed as "Passaic" instead of Hazel St. NJ-20/Elmwood Park is now the only route signed at Exit 156 even though its really an exit for US-46 East (which Exit 157 is signed for). Haven't had a chance to see what Exit 157 south is signed for. Hopefully they added NJ-21, its only been 16 years since it opened.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 29, 2016, 08:53:24 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 29, 2016, 05:54:09 PM
The US-322 exit is signed as just Exit 11, no letters. As for GSP Exits. The previously mentioned Exit 165 is now 165A-B (since you can re-enter the roadway). Exit 155P is finally dead, its now Exit 155A with Exit 155 becoming 155B, now signed as "Passaic" instead of Hazel St. NJ-20/Elmwood Park is now the only route signed at Exit 156 even though its really an exit for US-46 East (which Exit 157 is signed for). Haven't had a chance to see what Exit 157 south is signed for. Hopefully they added NJ-21, its only been 16 years since it opened.
I am excited for the replacement of the old 156 signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2016, 09:14:40 PM
11A was on it at one time.  My bad, as NJ (or any other road agencies) do manage to make corrections.

And omitting US 46 on 156 sounds good as its redundant being 157 again connects to it.

155B now, seems funny to use only Passaic.  I would imagine though that at 160 the local road name is no longer used either.  I am guessing either Fair Lawn or Hackensack- Fair Lawn still keeping NJ 208 as that is important route in the area.  That is if they got up that far yet.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 11, 2016, 06:23:57 PM
Another new mileage sign northbound at Exit 44. This one with Toms River, Woodbridge, and Newark..... the last is shown as being 105 miles away. I guess they are using connecting mileage on I-78 or something for that as the GSP enters Newark proper around MP144.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on December 12, 2016, 12:53:50 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 29, 2016, 09:14:40 PM
11A was on it at one time.  My bad, as NJ (or any other road agencies) do manage to make corrections.

And omitting US 46 on 156 sounds good as its redundant being 157 again connects to it.

155B now, seems funny to use only Passaic.  I would imagine though that at 160 the local road name is no longer used either.  I am guessing either Fair Lawn or Hackensack- Fair Lawn still keeping NJ 208 as that is important route in the area.  That is if they got up that far yet.



Signage at 160 hasn't used the local road name in a long time. It's been To 208/Hackensack/Fair Lawn for quite a while.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on December 22, 2016, 10:59:09 AM
Article on nj.com today about Exit 125's SB ramp being EZ-Pass only: New Parkway exit will force drivers to pay with E-ZPass or face fine (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/using_the_new_exit_125_from_the_parkway_dont_bring.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Comments section is pure gold, as always, with all the people complaining what a cash grab this is (which is funny since you're already driving on a toll road).

At some point, the real question needs to be: why not go to a completely cashless collection system? They half do it with Express EZ-Pass at various Parkway plazas. PATP and the MTA are moving this way. Why isn't the NJTA?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2016, 11:07:40 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 22, 2016, 10:59:09 AM
Article on nj.com today about Exit 125's SB ramp being EZ-Pass only: New Parkway exit will force drivers to pay with E-ZPass or face fine (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/using_the_new_exit_125_from_the_parkway_dont_bring.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Comments section is pure gold, as always, with all the people complaining what a cash grab this is (which is funny since you're already driving on a toll road).

At some point, the real question needs to be: why not go to a completely cashless collection system? They half do it with Express EZ-Pass at various Parkway plazas. PATP and the MTA are moving this way. Why isn't the NJTA?

Really, they are simply appeasing the unions at this point.  They will eventually, but are giving it some time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 01:16:36 PM
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2016, 01:42:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 01:16:36 PM
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 01:16:36 PM
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Int_125_Public_Hearing_FINAL.pdf

I guess there's a bit of demand for a full interchange in that area per the NJTA.  Motorists could continue to connect with US 9 from the Parkway at Exit 129, which is their only current toll-free option now, if they don't want to pay the new toll.

The PA Turnpike has been using EZ Pass Only Slip Ramps for several years now, with a full admin penalty of $25 or $50 if they don't have EZ Pass.  As these ramps are newer in nature, those without EZ Pass can always go the other way that has been available for probably the history of the Turnpike!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2016, 07:04:31 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 22, 2016, 10:59:09 AM
Article on nj.com today about Exit 125's SB ramp being EZ-Pass only: New Parkway exit will force drivers to pay with E-ZPass or face fine (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/using_the_new_exit_125_from_the_parkway_dont_bring.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Comments section is pure gold, as always, with all the people complaining what a cash grab this is (which is funny since you're already driving on a toll road).

At some point, the real question needs to be: why not go to a completely cashless collection system? They half do it with Express EZ-Pass at various Parkway plazas. PATP and the MTA are moving this way. Why isn't the NJTA?
If they never built the ramp, everyone would pay the toll, exit at 124, and use Main Street Extension to U-turn back to the new development. This is just to divert 3/4 of that traffic away from such a circuitous route, keeping 124 clear and thus preserving a local through street without congestion. Same toll, less distance. But if you don't have E-ZPass, you would follow the exact same route as if no ramp were built at all.
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 01:16:36 PM
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?
I think it has to do with traffic volumes generated by the site. They would quickly overwhelm the US 9/NJ 35/Main St. circlesection into lockdown conditions. Anyone who wants to shunpike - and this shoots down any arguments about ethics or social justice - can easily use US 9 across the Edison Bridge and not pay a toll, with nearly identical site access (free right turn off the ramp). Coming back, they can hop right onto the Parkway for free, which 100% of NB traffic is going to do, so left turns aren't going to clog up 9/35. I don't know how much was considered here, but I'd offer up that if the Parkway built nothing, it would lose a lot of traffic to 9 and NJDOT would be pissed. If the Parkway built a full interchange with manual tolls, they're now adding toll collectors and infrastructure at a time when they're trying to figure out how to go cashless, as well as eating up valuable land for development. I'm sure there was a back and forth on the matter, since they've never done something like this before. I would agree with you though, Valerie, that if the interchange were not already redundant with multiple other ramps and roadways, not allowing access by all would be... I'll say "improper" because engineering involves a specific definition of ethics that I'm not willing to apply here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 08:41:47 PM
I never liked the E-ZPass-only interchanges on the PTC either.  That said, the PTC is a ticket system.  The GSP is a barrier system - so pay by mail should be possible, they just aren't doing it for reasons I don't understand.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: swiftdo on December 22, 2016, 10:16:55 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 22, 2016, 07:04:31 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 22, 2016, 10:59:09 AM
Article on nj.com today about Exit 125's SB ramp being EZ-Pass only: New Parkway exit will force drivers to pay with E-ZPass or face fine (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/using_the_new_exit_125_from_the_parkway_dont_bring.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Comments section is pure gold, as always, with all the people complaining what a cash grab this is (which is funny since you're already driving on a toll road).

At some point, the real question needs to be: why not go to a completely cashless collection system? They half do it with Express EZ-Pass at various Parkway plazas. PATP and the MTA are moving this way. Why isn't the NJTA?
If they never built the ramp, everyone would pay the toll, exit at 124, and use Main Street Extension to U-turn back to the new development. This is just to divert 3/4 of that traffic away from such a circuitous route, keeping 124 clear and thus preserving a local through street without congestion. Same toll, less distance. But if you don't have E-ZPass, you would follow the exact same route as if no ramp were built at all.
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 01:16:36 PM
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?
I think it has to do with traffic volumes generated by the site. They would quickly overwhelm the US 9/NJ 35/Main St. circlesection into lockdown conditions. Anyone who wants to shunpike - and this shoots down any arguments about ethics or social justice - can easily use US 9 across the Edison Bridge and not pay a toll, with nearly identical site access (free right turn off the ramp). Coming back, they can hop right onto the Parkway for free, which 100% of NB traffic is going to do, so left turns aren't going to clog up 9/35. I don't know how much was considered here, but I'd offer up that if the Parkway built nothing, it would lose a lot of traffic to 9 and NJDOT would be pissed. If the Parkway built a full interchange with manual tolls, they're now adding toll collectors and infrastructure at a time when they're trying to figure out how to go cashless, as well as eating up valuable land for development. I'm sure there was a back and forth on the matter, since they've never done something like this before. I would agree with you though, Valerie, that if the interchange were not already redundant with multiple other ramps and roadways, not allowing access by all would be... I'll say "improper" because engineering involves a specific definition of ethics that I'm not willing to apply here.

As someone who commutes from Freehold to Metuchen and back daily, I NEVER pay the $1.50 toll going southbound. I just get off 440 NB onto 9 SB, cross the Edison Bridge, then exit to 9 SB. There's no point paying $1.50 to drive 3 miles. It would be cheaper to drive the turnpike from Exit 10 to Exit 8 ($1.45). Even on days where I enter the Parkway from NJ 27 (Exit 132), I still exit at 129 onto 9. Even with the obnoxious amount of traffic during rush hour on 9/35 from the old Victory Circle to the 9/35 split, it still isn't worth the $1.50 for Old Bridge/Marlboro/Manalapan/Freehold, etc residents/travelers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 23, 2016, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: storm2k on December 22, 2016, 10:59:09 AM
Article on nj.com today about Exit 125's SB ramp being EZ-Pass only: New Parkway exit will force drivers to pay with E-ZPass or face fine (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/using_the_new_exit_125_from_the_parkway_dont_bring.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Comments section is pure gold, as always, with all the people complaining what a cash grab this is (which is funny since you're already driving on a toll road).

At some point, the real question needs to be: why not go to a completely cashless collection system? They half do it with Express EZ-Pass at various Parkway plazas. PATP and the MTA are moving this way. Why isn't the NJTA?
They will because they can sucker people being that most are careless now when driving.  At least if they are the very same people who come to my plaza in Florida, who claim they do not know they are on a toll road and "everybody" nowadays does not carry cash on them!  It is easy to make money off of these kind of uninformed kind of people!

We have signs all over the place at entrance ramps with all shields stating that 528 (408, 417, and 429) are toll roads and even the LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL warning at Exit 4 I get people going that way who have no clue that a toll booth was coming.  I imagine that you have them there too, and if things are like they were when I lived in NJ years ago where the only notice for the Parkway being tolled is on the ramp entrance signs in upper case on top,the the average that seems to pass my way (remember my customers come from NJ & NY as well as pretty much everywhere in the US and Europe), they are not going to see it.  Heck it can be large letters and today's drivers will not see it!

Those with the GPS are even worse, so $ in the bank for the NJTA with the many uninformed of our times for all of this for going completely cashless and all  EZ Pass tags.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jerseyguy on December 26, 2016, 12:57:59 AM
How common is this (Google Maps referring to the Parkway by its unsigned designation)? It then told me to merge onto the Garden State Parkway after I made the turn onto the ramp.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trentonairportinfo.com%2Ffiles%2Fresized%2F112021%2F360%3B598%3B5797b3192fc9f23eea3ff69cbb6728ea28de3a4d.png&hash=bc5476bd7675c171824f0fef129ec3dac97890a7)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on December 26, 2016, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: jerseyguy on December 26, 2016, 12:57:59 AM
How common is this (Google Maps referring to the Parkway by its unsigned designation)? It then told me to merge onto the Garden State Parkway after I made the turn onto the ramp.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trentonairportinfo.com%2Ffiles%2Fresized%2F112021%2F360%3B598%3B5797b3192fc9f23eea3ff69cbb6728ea28de3a4d.png&hash=bc5476bd7675c171824f0fef129ec3dac97890a7)

There was a time when they had shown some of the reference route in New York, but I think they've moved away from that at this point.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on December 26, 2016, 06:19:50 PM
At least two NY reference routes are still shown (Berkshire Spur and Glenridge Road).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on December 27, 2016, 10:46:47 AM
It appears the next phase in exit 38 to 36 construction is complete. They are just about ready to shift Southbound traffic onto a new stretch of roadway in that area. The roadway is striped and overhead signs are up. There was a "New Traffic Pattern starting December 24" sign which was replaced with just "New Traffic Pattern", but the shift has not actually happened yet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on December 28, 2016, 03:55:10 PM
The Exit 100 switchover has occurred.  There are electric signs ahead notifying motorists of the change and the formerly exit signs are now uncovered.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2017, 01:26:32 PM
Speaking of Exit 100, they did get rid of the left side ramp for NJ 66 going NB in 1988 in favor of the right side ramp, but for what?  Yes no more left side exit from the fast lane as that is now a thing of the past, but now you have the weaving issues of those entering from NJ 33 WB conflicting with those exiting for Route 66.

Trading the snake for a serpent.  They should have built either a braided ramp or just built a service road between the two state highways on the east ROW of the Parkway with two signalized intersections at both routes. 

Anyway, not to be a rant, but to point out something interesting in what engineers did. :bigass:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 02, 2017, 01:36:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 01, 2017, 01:26:32 PM
Speaking of Exit 100, they did get rid of the left side ramp for NJ 66 going NB in 1988 in favor of the right side ramp, but for what?  Yes no more left side exit from the fast lane as that is now a thing of the past, but now you have the weaving issues of those entering from NJ 33 WB conflicting with those exiting for Route 66.

Trading the snake for a serpent.  They should have built either a braided ramp or just built a service road between the two state highways on the east ROW of the Parkway with two signalized intersections at both routes. 

Anyway, not to be a rant, but to point out something interesting in what engineers did. :bigass:

It's not uncommon for the former NJHA. They built the onramp from Middlesex-Essex Turnpike to the SB GSP in Iselin in the early aughts and it shares a mostly short accel/decel lane for 131 (old 131A) in an area which is already sketchy with all the SB traffic trying to get off at 130. It's what they did.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2017, 09:30:04 AM
Heck in Florida that is short of being concern for weaving.  I guess the old NJHA stereotyped Jersey drivers as aggressive that the closeness is not an issue for weaving.  Here if two ramps are within a half a mile they get braided as that is considered a weave issue.

I still like how they refer to c/d roads as service roads when the rest of the nation calls a service road a local road running parallel to the main road like in Texas with their freeways.  I remember thinking that when I first heard the Exit 88-89 consolidation project, I thought that there would be two local at grade one way streets built on both sides of the Parkway for traffic to facilitate there.  Then when I saw the project result, I felt compelled to write to the NJTA and give them the 101 that the proper name for that parallel roadway is the collector distributor roadway as whoever published the documents on the work to be done misused the term "Service Road" to inform the public on what was being done.

Anyway opinions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
The design standards for the NJHA probably lagged far behind what was generally accepted for highways throughout the nation.  Remember, it was the early 80's.  What happened then with road engineering, even though it was 3 decades into modern highway building, still was a bit different than what's accepted today.

Since the NJTA took over, nearly everything built on the GSP is up to modern standards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2017, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
The design standards for the NJHA probably lagged far behind what was generally accepted for highways throughout the nation.  Remember, it was the early 80's.  What happened then with road engineering, even though it was 3 decades into modern highway building, still was a bit different than what's accepted today.

Since the NJTA took over, nearly everything built on the GSP is up to modern standards.
Also note that the NJHA was dealing with a (generally) cars-only facility, so they may have felt able to reduce certain design standards that accommodate a heavier vehicle mix. The NJTA certainly doesn't think that way anymore.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 07:31:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
The design standards for the NJHA probably lagged far behind what was generally accepted for highways throughout the nation.  Remember, it was the early 80's.  What happened then with road engineering, even though it was 3 decades into modern highway building, still was a bit different than what's accepted today.

Since the NJTA took over, nearly everything built on the GSP is up to modern standards.
However, not the GSP South Entrance ramp from Middlesex- Essex Turnpike.  That was built well after the 80's.

Anyway, they did braid the ramps further south, so they have to be realizing (and now following typical standards) for them to do that.  However, no insult but Jersey drivers are more aggressive as I learned to drive here.  It was fun being that way and some here in FL love to drive that way.  Hey, some people floor it just to go one car length here at the toll booth, with many not being in a hurry either.  Some will floor it into the next spot in the queue and then dig for their money to pay me.

If the whole world was aggressive, of course, spacing ramps apart would not be an issue, but I am sure that some engineers in the NJTA do have the thought cross their minds though that spacing is a waste.  I myself gotten so used to it, I sometimes forget its not the norm too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2017, 08:44:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 07:31:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
The design standards for the NJHA probably lagged far behind what was generally accepted for highways throughout the nation.  Remember, it was the early 80's.  What happened then with road engineering, even though it was 3 decades into modern highway building, still was a bit different than what's accepted today.

Since the NJTA took over, nearly everything built on the GSP is up to modern standards.
However, not the GSP South Entrance ramp from Middlesex- Essex Turnpike.  That was built well after the 80's.

The Turnpike & Parkway authorities merged in 2003.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 03, 2017, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 07:31:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
The design standards for the NJHA probably lagged far behind what was generally accepted for highways throughout the nation.  Remember, it was the early 80's.  What happened then with road engineering, even though it was 3 decades into modern highway building, still was a bit different than what's accepted today.

Since the NJTA took over, nearly everything built on the GSP is up to modern standards.
However, not the GSP South Entrance ramp from Middlesex- Essex Turnpike.  That was built well after the 80's.

Anyway, they did braid the ramps further south, so they have to be realizing (and now following typical standards) for them to do that.  However, no insult but Jersey drivers are more aggressive as I learned to drive here.  It was fun being that way and some here in FL love to drive that way.  Hey, some people floor it just to go one car length here at the toll booth, with many not being in a hurry either.  Some will floor it into the next spot in the queue and then dig for their money to pay me.

If the whole world was aggressive, of course, spacing ramps apart would not be an issue, but I am sure that some engineers in the NJTA do have the thought cross their minds though that spacing is a waste.  I myself gotten so used to it, I sometimes forget its not the norm too.

The braided ramps at 37-36 are because the NJTA designed that stretch of roadway and they use stricter design standards. The entrance ramp at 131B was done in the early aughts (I want to say it opened in 2003?) and was a NJHA project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 03, 2017, 04:37:42 PM
Despite being "new", that ramp originally didn't have the full auxiliary lane running from it to Exit 131 (formerly Exit 131A). It was quite obvious when that ramp opened that it was needed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: CrystalWalrein on January 03, 2017, 07:32:41 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 03, 2017, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 07:31:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
The design standards for the NJHA probably lagged far behind what was generally accepted for highways throughout the nation.  Remember, it was the early 80's.  What happened then with road engineering, even though it was 3 decades into modern highway building, still was a bit different than what's accepted today.

Since the NJTA took over, nearly everything built on the GSP is up to modern standards.
However, not the GSP South Entrance ramp from Middlesex- Essex Turnpike.  That was built well after the 80's.

Anyway, they did braid the ramps further south, so they have to be realizing (and now following typical standards) for them to do that.  However, no insult but Jersey drivers are more aggressive as I learned to drive here.  It was fun being that way and some here in FL love to drive that way.  Hey, some people floor it just to go one car length here at the toll booth, with many not being in a hurry either.  Some will floor it into the next spot in the queue and then dig for their money to pay me.

If the whole world was aggressive, of course, spacing ramps apart would not be an issue, but I am sure that some engineers in the NJTA do have the thought cross their minds though that spacing is a waste.  I myself gotten so used to it, I sometimes forget its not the norm too.

The braided ramps at 37-36 are because the NJTA designed that stretch of roadway and they use stricter design standards. The entrance ramp at 131B was done in the early aughts (I want to say it opened in 2003?) and was a NJHA project.

But they let the cloverleaf at the Atlantic City Expressway remain, and they're doing nothing with true Parkway's northbound side. There was a proposal in the regional master plan to build a flyover from the Parkway northbound to Expressway northbound, but it seems like that's not been accounted for in current construction. That project, of it does materialise, will be fun to watch.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 03, 2017, 12:56:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 07:31:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2017, 11:03:45 AM
The design standards for the NJHA probably lagged far behind what was generally accepted for highways throughout the nation.  Remember, it was the early 80's.  What happened then with road engineering, even though it was 3 decades into modern highway building, still was a bit different than what's accepted today.

Since the NJTA took over, nearly everything built on the GSP is up to modern standards.
However, not the GSP South Entrance ramp from Middlesex- Essex Turnpike.  That was built well after the 80's.

Anyway, they did braid the ramps further south, so they have to be realizing (and now following typical standards) for them to do that.  However, no insult but Jersey drivers are more aggressive as I learned to drive here.  It was fun being that way and some here in FL love to drive that way.  Hey, some people floor it just to go one car length here at the toll booth, with many not being in a hurry either.  Some will floor it into the next spot in the queue and then dig for their money to pay me.

If the whole world was aggressive, of course, spacing ramps apart would not be an issue, but I am sure that some engineers in the NJTA do have the thought cross their minds though that spacing is a waste.  I myself gotten so used to it, I sometimes forget its not the norm too.

The braided ramps at 37-36 are because the NJTA designed that stretch of roadway and they use stricter design standards. The entrance ramp at 131B was done in the early aughts (I want to say it opened in 2003?) and was a NJHA project.
The always NJTA was pretty good about ramps.  The GSP was not as there were always exits with substandard designs on the NJHA built ramps.  Exit 123 comes to mind as that never had the proper deceleration lane it should have back in the day.  I do not know about now.  Also the NJHA would have shoulderless bridges and of course the shoulderless mainline from 98 to 80, which the NJTA would never allow, but, however, inherited it from the NJHA. 

Then of course some were mentioning the weave issue at the Asbury Park Toll Plaza between the Express EZ Pass lane merging so close to the split of the Express roadway.   I do not know the exact date that was done, as if it was before the NJTA takeover it was the NJHA again, but after the NJTA slipped on that one for sure.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2017, 09:05:27 AM
Story on nj.com today about the various projects that will be starting, or continue to take place on the Parkway (and NJ Turnpike).   The list isn't complete, but does come with links for previous stories in reference to the projects.  http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/01/construction_to_look_out_for_in_2017_on_the_parkway_and_turnpike.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on January 04, 2017, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 10:09:32 PM
Also the NJHA would have shoulderless bridges and of course the shoulderless mainline from 98 to 80, which the NJTA would never allow, but, however, inherited it from the NJHA. 
(Emphasis mine)  The NJTA did not allow it for long, as they have upgraded this section of the Parkway over the last few years . . .
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 04, 2017, 07:10:55 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 04, 2017, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 10:09:32 PM
Also the NJHA would have shoulderless bridges and of course the shoulderless mainline from 98 to 80, which the NJTA would never allow, but, however, inherited it from the NJHA. 
(Emphasis mine)  The NJTA did not allow it for long, as they have upgraded this section of the Parkway over the last few years . . .
For how long though?  It was years if I remember. I say it cause it was like that when I left over 26 years ago and this shoulder addition was rather recently.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on January 05, 2017, 10:12:27 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 04, 2017, 07:10:55 PM
Quote from: akotchi on January 04, 2017, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 03, 2017, 10:09:32 PM
Also the NJHA would have shoulderless bridges and of course the shoulderless mainline from 98 to 80, which the NJTA would never allow, but, however, inherited it from the NJHA. 
(Emphasis mine)  The NJTA did not allow it for long, as they have upgraded this section of the Parkway over the last few years . . .
For how long though?  It was years if I remember. I say it cause it was like that when I left over 26 years ago and this shoulder addition was rather recently.
Yes - the widening from 83 to 100 to add shoulders was recent - 2013/2014.  I drive that stretch every day, and it's night and day compared to how it was before. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 23, 2017, 03:25:55 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 27, 2016, 10:46:47 AM
It appears the next phase in exit 38 to 36 construction is complete. They are just about ready to shift Southbound traffic onto a new stretch of roadway in that area. The roadway is striped and overhead signs are up. There was a "New Traffic Pattern starting December 24" sign which was replaced with just "New Traffic Pattern", but the shift has not actually happened yet.
GSP South traffic has finally been moved to the newly constructed piece of roadway, a month after it was supposed to, and without any warning about the new traffic pattern. I assume the old roadway will be torn down and rebuilt to provide space for the extra lane on Tilton Road. As it stands, the "Exit Only" signs for Exit 36 are now over the wrong lane. The newly built one has "exit only" covered up, but the one right near the exit, which I believe was always there, is not.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 23, 2017, 04:17:42 PM
There were a few signs heading northbound indicating the pending traffic pattern change two weekends ago. I don't recall seeing any southbound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 25, 2017, 09:35:19 AM
I would like to really see the Parkway & I-280 get the proper interchange instead of the double  directional like a ticket system, but that would be next to impossible being in a heavily populated area and, of course, the Morristown Line of NJ Transit being right next to the interstate there.

Glad they got the ROW to widen the Parkway under Central Avenue with the fact they have to adjust Oraton Parkway to do it and it least make do with what they have already.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 20, 2017, 03:24:07 PM
The ramp from local Exit 105 southbound to Wayside Rd. is now open and signed as JCT NJ-18/Tinton Falls. The main ramp to NJ-36 (from the local lanes only) is closed for construction, signs direct traffic to the express lanes at the moment.

The widening work in Atlantic County has changed traffic patterns finally. Traffic has been shifted back to the outside of the roadway,

The northbound Great Egg Harbor Bay Bridge is being torn down to the piers. Looks to be a pretty extensive rehabilitation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 22, 2017, 06:20:05 PM
Is not the SB span the one to be removed?  Or are they rebuilding the NB span and temporarily shifting traffic onto the old SB span until it gets completed?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 22, 2017, 06:55:00 PM
All traffic is using the newly built southbound span right now. The new bridge is wide enough for 3 southbound lanes + full width shoulders.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 23, 2017, 07:54:06 AM
So all the traffic is on the new structure, while one of the two other bridges gets reahabilitated which I saw in the project notes, but I thought it was the original SB span while the NB was to be kept as that one was not in bad shape.
When you say ripped down to the piers, I was wondering if you meant as part of demolition or rehab for that structure?

I will look up the project details again, but figure why not have a discussion too at the same time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 23, 2017, 05:12:42 PM
The project says the northbound bridge is being rehabbed. I wouldn't be surprised if its like the Edison Bridge rehab, which involved the entire bridge being torn down to the piers, piers repaired, and new deck installed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: CrystalWalrein on February 23, 2017, 09:41:54 PM
It's a full deck replacement with the piers refurbished or replaced where needed. One of the project managers there is a regular at the store where I work, so I get information on the bridge from him. I was also out there today and saw that most of the deck had been dismantled. The piers seem to be in fair condition as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 23, 2017, 11:41:21 PM
Do they plan on keeping the old southbound span at all? The northbound bridge on its own lacks shoulders. Was kinda hoping they use the piers from both bridges to create something somewhat modern with shoulders.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2017, 09:35:42 AM
The old SB span will be entirely demolished.  While I can't find any reference to it, I wonder if the old span had underground issues serious enough that prevented the piers from being used in any way.  The Southbound span was built before the Northbound span, and had some small design differences:  https://goo.gl/maps/ibA2LkrMTqQ2 .  Based on the plans, it appears the Northbound span will continue to be shoulder-less.

Here was the NJ Turnpike Powerpoint presentation from several years ago: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Public-Hearing-Presentation-Great-Egg.pdf  (Based on the timeline given, the project is clearly a bit behind schedule)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 28, 2017, 08:02:52 AM
We should be looking as shoulders as a treat as many crossings lack them.  The NB CBBT in VA, the Goethals and Outerbridge, the Driscoll Bridge Bridge for decades, and many places.  Yes they are helpful and should have them, but we should realize that we as human drivers do take a lot for granted.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on February 28, 2017, 08:51:15 PM
Roadman65, I believe the new Goethals Bridge currently under construction will have full-width shoulders. I think I saw that on the Port Authority's website.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 01, 2017, 07:45:45 AM
I was referring to the current one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 01, 2017, 12:22:30 PM
Signage note: this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.523464,-74.3002577,3a,75y,195.08h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AS24Ti2cmC8KPq3eRifCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced recently. No more diagramatic for the lane configration. Now 2 signs. for the Express EZ-Pass, it now calls it toll plaza bypass, I think. I need to go past again to get the exact verbage and a picture. Very different from what we've had in the past.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: civilmaher on March 01, 2017, 01:29:54 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 01, 2017, 12:22:30 PM
Signage note: this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.523464,-74.3002577,3a,75y,195.08h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AS24Ti2cmC8KPq3eRifCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced recently. No more diagramatic for the lane configration. Now 2 signs. for the Express EZ-Pass, it now calls it toll plaza bypass, I think. I need to go past again to get the exact verbage and a picture. Very different from what we've had in the past.

This is due to recent striping changes to prevent toll plaza barrier traffic from crossing over to the Express Lanes. Same has been implemented at the Asbury Park toll plaza in the NB direction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 01, 2017, 06:16:10 PM
The Raritan plaza still permits full access to the express lanes from the standard toll lanes. The change was due to the construction just north of there that has some of the southbound lanes shifted to the northbound roadway for bridge work and expanding Exit 125.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 02, 2017, 08:34:29 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 01, 2017, 12:22:30 PM
Signage note: this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.523464,-74.3002577,3a,75y,195.08h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AS24Ti2cmC8KPq3eRifCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced recently. No more diagramatic for the lane configration. Now 2 signs. for the Express EZ-Pass, it now calls it toll plaza bypass, I think. I need to go past again to get the exact verbage and a picture. Very different from what we've had in the past.
Is not the info for Exits 123 & 124 non MUTCD now?  To me personally we used the exit numbers more than the route and destinations so its not so odd, even though not set up like most road agencies would do so.

Anyway, someone told me that there is a big development going up that is the real reason for the Exit 125 being converted to full movement instead of NB off and SB on like it was for centuries.   
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 03, 2017, 09:38:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 02, 2017, 08:34:29 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 01, 2017, 12:22:30 PM
Signage note: this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.523464,-74.3002577,3a,75y,195.08h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AS24Ti2cmC8KPq3eRifCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced recently. No more diagramatic for the lane configration. Now 2 signs. for the Express EZ-Pass, it now calls it toll plaza bypass, I think. I need to go past again to get the exact verbage and a picture. Very different from what we've had in the past.
Is not the info for Exits 123 & 124 non MUTCD now?  To me personally we used the exit numbers more than the route and destinations so its not so odd, even though not set up like most road agencies would do so.

Anyway, someone told me that there is a big development going up that is the real reason for the Exit 125 being converted to full movement instead of NB off and SB on like it was for centuries.   

They were pretty clear in saying that the reason they were doing this was for development along the river-front down there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 03, 2017, 09:39:33 AM
Short article on NJ.Com today about the GEH bridge: Huge new Garden State Parkway bridge includes walkway spanning 2 counties (http://www.nj.com/atlantic/index.ssf/2017/03/new_bridge_will_let_you_walk_over_great_egg_harbor.html#incart_river_home).

Nothing ground-breaking to report from the article, but it does mention that there will be a walkway on the new span.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on March 03, 2017, 11:54:18 AM
Centuries eh.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: shadyjay on March 03, 2017, 08:50:05 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 03, 2017, 11:54:18 AM
Centuries eh.

20th and 21st ;-)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on March 05, 2017, 01:08:28 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 01, 2017, 12:22:30 PM
Signage note: this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.523464,-74.3002577,3a,75y,195.08h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AS24Ti2cmC8KPq3eRifCA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced recently. No more diagramatic for the lane configration. Now 2 signs. for the Express EZ-Pass, it now calls it toll plaza bypass, I think. I need to go past again to get the exact verbage and a picture. Very different from what we've had in the past.
I noticed the "Toll Plaza Bypass" signage too recently.  I think that's kind of bad wording.  Just "Express Only EZ-Pass" was fine.  It's not like the toll is optional here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 05, 2017, 08:13:37 PM
I agree. Toll Plaza Bypass might cause some drivers to think they can bypass paying the toll. NJTA is usually a little smarter than this.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 06, 2017, 12:55:17 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 05, 2017, 08:13:37 PM
I agree. Toll Plaza Bypass might cause some drivers to think they can bypass paying the toll. NJTA is usually a little smarter than this.

Agreed. If anything, they should follow the MUTCD guidelines for open road tolling and used signs that said EZ-Pass only. Which is actually more like what they had than what they have now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on March 06, 2017, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 06, 2017, 12:55:17 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 05, 2017, 08:13:37 PM
I agree. Toll Plaza Bypass might cause some drivers to think they can bypass paying the toll. NJTA is usually a little smarter than this.

Agreed. If anything, they should follow the MUTCD guidelines for open road tolling and used signs that said EZ-Pass only. Which is actually more like what they had than what they have now.

They did. Paragrapgh 6 of Section 2G.16.

And the signs do say E-ZPass only, and rather largely.

And the signs do say Pay Toll across the top so no one thinks its a free ride.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 08, 2017, 07:32:56 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on March 06, 2017, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: storm2k on March 06, 2017, 12:55:17 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 05, 2017, 08:13:37 PM
I agree. Toll Plaza Bypass might cause some drivers to think they can bypass paying the toll. NJTA is usually a little smarter than this.

Agreed. If anything, they should follow the MUTCD guidelines for open road tolling and used signs that said EZ-Pass only. Which is actually more like what they had than what they have now.

They did. Paragrapgh 6 of Section 2G.16.

And the signs do say E-ZPass only, and rather largely.

And the signs do say Pay Toll across the top so no one thinks its a free ride.
Become a toll collector and you will see  differently :sombrero:. I already had that one man who came to me who thought "Prepaid Tolls Only" meant exemption due to just paying a toll on the previous road at my location in Orlando.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 08, 2017, 08:00:07 PM
There you go! I rest my case
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2017, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 08, 2017, 08:00:07 PM
There you go! I rest my case

Yeah...there's also the guy that after he passes the "Pay Toll Ahead" sign, then enters the booth with the "Stop Pay Toll", then proceeds to say "can I go now" without actually attempting to pay anything...It really doesn't matter what the signs say.  There's always going to be someone that'll have no idea what the big building in the middle of the road that they are driving thru is for.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 08, 2017, 10:01:37 PM
I'm sure you're right, J&N.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 10, 2017, 10:01:05 AM
I love the one "What is this toll for?" 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 10, 2017, 09:31:01 PM
Parkway reconsidering cash ban at new exit (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/03/parkway_reconsidering_cash_ban_at_new_exit.html)

QuoteNew Jersey Turnpike Authority officials may add an exact change lane to a toll plaza at new Exit 125, which was originally planned E-ZPass-only exit on the Garden State Parkway in Sayreville.

Honestly, I hope they don't and just use this as the first move to cashless tolling.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on March 11, 2017, 05:22:58 PM
Is there anything wrong with bill by mail?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 11, 2017, 10:14:39 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 11, 2017, 05:22:58 PM
Is there anything wrong with bill by mail?
Needs to be done systemwide. That is a policy and procedural change on the back end. So they can't just do it at one exit.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2017, 11:26:50 PM
The current policy at unmanned exits are you must have exact change or EZ Pass...otherwise it's a toll violation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 12, 2017, 12:45:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2017, 11:26:50 PM
The current policy at unmanned exits are you must have exact change or EZ Pass...otherwise it's a toll violation.
They no longer let you take an envelope?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2017, 01:47:56 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 12, 2017, 12:45:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2017, 11:26:50 PM
The current policy at unmanned exits are you must have exact change or EZ Pass...otherwise it's a toll violation.
They no longer let you take an envelope?

That was discountinued in October, 2011!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 12, 2017, 12:00:23 PM
The problem is nobody is even scared anymore of the term violation anymore as I get business men and truckers who collect them on a regular basis as some just do not carry cash and are not about to.  They will gladly pay the money to the state, toll agency, whatever so they can leave their wallets empty and the rest of the world eliminate all cash transactions as long as they can mail it in.  Their egos think that toll roads are the bad guys and despite popular belief we have many who never heard of a toll road still after centuries who travel Florida roads as that has never gotten to them.

Also reading road signs is for us road geeks as well, as all FL 528 shields have TOLL on them, plus going EB on an overhead (a sign that is hard to miss) says LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL and yet they will be surprised there is a toll still.  Some who even read signs say "Oh I am not from this area, what am I supposed to do" where I don't want to even answer that one as its obvious to the fact if you have no money and the sign says toll you find another route!

I wish every person gets a big fat ticket for showing up without money on a well marked facility as I hear it from the motorists behind the broke individual saying that we let people not ready for a common toll road get away with murder which we (and obviously NJ and probably now NYC) get off with a get out of jail free card for not being a responsible driver!  Plus that damned GPS, that tells people to bypass tolls is another instigator among the ignorant, and the fact the old timers forgot to tell the young how we lived before those stupid devices were norm, and the older crowd not teaching their young how to drive period!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 12, 2017, 08:43:05 PM
Say what you think Roadman65; don't hold back! LOL
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2017, 09:09:23 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 12, 2017, 08:43:05 PM
Say what you think Roadman65; don't hold back! LOL

But he makes a great point about GPSs (and any online mapping program).  They are still atrociously bad when it comes to toll plazas.  They rarely (if ever) indicate which way to go if you have EZ Pass and express lanes are available, or if they should go towards the cash lanes and pay a toll.  While the GPSs don't know if you have an EZ Pass, it could say "Toll Plaza in 1 mile. Stay Left if you have EZ Pass, Stay Right to pay cash".

Sure, the motorist should be able to read the signs and figure that out themselves.  Then again, you're dealing with people that should also be able to drive the majority of their trip without needing the GPS to begin with. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 12, 2017, 09:24:05 PM
Completely agree with your last paragraph J&N. I do not own a GPS. Paper road maps and overhead signs still work very well for me, as they have going back to the pre E-Z Pass era.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2017, 09:38:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2017, 09:09:23 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 12, 2017, 08:43:05 PM
Say what you think Roadman65; don't hold back! LOL

But he makes a great point about GPSs (and any online mapping program).  They are still atrociously bad when it comes to toll plazas.  They rarely (if ever) indicate which way to go if you have EZ Pass and express lanes are available, or if they should go towards the cash lanes and pay a toll.  While the GPSs don't know if you have an EZ Pass, it could say "Toll Plaza in 1 mile. Stay Left if you have EZ Pass, Stay Right to pay cash".

Sure, the motorist should be able to read the signs and figure that out themselves.  Then again, you're dealing with people that should also be able to drive the majority of their trip without needing the GPS to begin with. 
Amen on that one. 

I wonder how long its going to take before you see your first semi north of 105 being truckers now need the GPS as they no longer know the roads like us anymore and the death of the CB use among them?  If one made it to the Merrit Parkway with ultra low overpasses the day should come, if it has not already.

Heck on I-4 we do not allow Trucks in the left lane from SR 528 to I-75 with large white signs unlike NJ with the standard rectangular signs, yet I have seen truckers ignore them and just pass slower trucks and cars a few times already.  You would figure that because the North-East had that left lane ban for centuries seeing that sign on I-4 would trigger something in the mind with the truckers, but obviously not.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2017, 12:02:39 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 15, 2017, 09:38:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2017, 09:09:23 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 12, 2017, 08:43:05 PM
Say what you think Roadman65; don't hold back! LOL

But he makes a great point about GPSs (and any online mapping program).  They are still atrociously bad when it comes to toll plazas.  They rarely (if ever) indicate which way to go if you have EZ Pass and express lanes are available, or if they should go towards the cash lanes and pay a toll.  While the GPSs don't know if you have an EZ Pass, it could say "Toll Plaza in 1 mile. Stay Left if you have EZ Pass, Stay Right to pay cash".

Sure, the motorist should be able to read the signs and figure that out themselves.  Then again, you're dealing with people that should also be able to drive the majority of their trip without needing the GPS to begin with. 
Amen on that one. 

I wonder how long its going to take before you see your first semi north of 105 being truckers now need the GPS as they no longer know the roads like us anymore and the death of the CB use among them?  If one made it to the Merrit Parkway with ultra low overpasses the day should come, if it has not already.

Heck on I-4 we do not allow Trucks in the left lane from SR 528 to I-75 with large white signs unlike NJ with the standard rectangular signs, yet I have seen truckers ignore them and just pass slower trucks and cars a few times already.  You would figure that because the North-East had that left lane ban for centuries seeing that sign on I-4 would trigger something in the mind with the truckers, but obviously not.

It's always happened, well before the GPS days.  Heck, they even have toll rates for truckers at the plazas north of 105.  They just collect the toll...and either let them know they don't belong there, or let the State Police take care of them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 22, 2017, 02:31:56 PM
Crews were out doing signage work beyond the Raritan toll plaza last night. The lane split (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4809953,-74.3020322,3a,34.6y,157.17h,96.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgf1l_7pBHNF7tSdaLSu67A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) sign was being replaced. Looks like the new sign had the same legend, it's just smaller and no VMS in the middle of it (which they never did much with anyway). Also, this Parkway divides sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4867824,-74.3024255,3a,31.5y,10.56h,100.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHP-UnbQi_vTybxajRe3COQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was replaced with a much simpler "North Parkway to 95/NJ Turnpike" (in shields, not words) with 4 down arrows.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on March 22, 2017, 04:18:23 PM
So...how do people know to stay right for the Exit 127 with the new signage?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 22, 2017, 09:50:49 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2017, 04:18:23 PM
So...how do people know to stay right for the Exit 127 with the new signage?

The following sets of signs show Exit 127 to use the right 3 lanes and the Parkway to Turnpike to use the left lanes. It actually makes much more sense now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 26, 2017, 12:24:06 PM
At least its down to two control cities for the exits which is one less than total shields for the exit.  :bigass:

Anyway, that is a big exit to sign is simple is difficult but can't wait to see it.

The ramp split on 127 needs better signs as now it appears that the right ramp is exclusively for NJ 440 EB ( yes NB, but it used to EB and that direction was more suited for it IMO) as major post foundations would need to be installed for a full gantry that is really needed. However the NJ 440 overpass signs do well to aid in the missing panel.  The bridge on the 127 ramp is the original Parkway NB alignment when it used to be east of US 9 as the US highway ran the median of the Parkway with the New Brunswick Avenue interchange on US 9 being a former Parkway interchange then.  The bridge was barely equipped with supporting the two side mast gantries that are there for US 9 NB and NJ 440 EB hence why the way that awkward set up is.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 27, 2017, 12:23:41 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 26, 2017, 12:24:06 PM
At least its down to two control cities for the exits which is one less than total shields for the exit.  :bigass:

Anyway, that is a big exit to sign is simple is difficult but can't wait to see it.

The ramp split on 127 needs better signs as now it appears that the right ramp is exclusively for NJ 440 EB ( yes NB, but it used to EB and that direction was more suited for it IMO) as major post foundations would need to be installed for a full gantry that is really needed. However the NJ 440 overpass signs do well to aid in the missing panel.  The bridge on the 127 ramp is the original Parkway NB alignment when it used to be east of US 9 as the US highway ran the median of the Parkway with the New Brunswick Avenue interchange on US 9 being a former Parkway interchange then.  The bridge was barely equipped with supporting the two side mast gantries that are there for US 9 NB and NJ 440 EB hence why the way that awkward set up is.

Those signs were replaced late last year. Just MUCTD-ified versions of the originals. They did put up an actual sign bridge for them, with big concrete supports so the signs aren't on the overpass anymore. 440SB signs include Raritan Center now.

Never knew that the Parkway was on the outer lanes (now Rt 9) before! It looks so weird to see what that was all like before the tangle was built.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 27, 2017, 08:43:27 AM
Raritan Center is worthless as its mainly a destination for Truckers who are not allowed on the Parkway.  I think that Somerville should be used as its I-287's first main city as 440 has none in its 2 miles of freeway in that direction.

Yes the interchange looks a lot different back then in historic aerials.  Left hand exits for US 9 and only the NB  US 9 to the GSP was right side right after the now removed Smith Street ramp.  As a kid, my dad who shunpiked the Parkway used Routes 9 and 35 a lot to go down the shore, and we would cross the Edison Bridge to enter the Parkway right after.  The tangle changed everything now, and hard to imagine it without it especially the lack of direct connection to the NJ Turnpike from the NB Parkway which is one of the busiest ramps in the tri-state area. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 27, 2017, 03:25:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 27, 2017, 08:43:27 AM
Raritan Center is worthless as its mainly a destination for Truckers who are not allowed on the Parkway.  I think that Somerville should be used as its I-287's first main city as 440 has none in its 2 miles of freeway in that direction.

Yes the interchange looks a lot different back then in historic aerials.  Left hand exits for US 9 and only the NB  US 9 to the GSP was right side right after the now removed Smith Street ramp.  As a kid, my dad who shunpiked the Parkway used Routes 9 and 35 a lot to go down the shore, and we would cross the Edison Bridge to enter the Parkway right after.  The tangle changed everything now, and hard to imagine it without it especially the lack of direct connection to the NJ Turnpike from the NB Parkway which is one of the busiest ramps in the tri-state area. 

Somerville isn't really a useful control city if you ask me. It's only served by one signed exit (13B). Raritan Center is a pretty sprawling office complex these days with a lot of traffic in and out, so I'm fine with it. It's way better than Bonhamtown which used to be NJDOT's preferred slice of nowhere to sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 27, 2017, 09:27:59 PM
Seems to me both Somerville and Raritan Ctr. are good destinations, though I'm not sure Raritan Ctr. would be MUTCD approved 'cause it's not an official place name. But who cares as long as it's useful at that location.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on March 27, 2017, 09:43:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 27, 2017, 03:25:29 PM
It's only served by one signed exit (13B).
What a silly criterion. Wilmington is only served by one exit from the New Jersey Turnpike. Harrisburg by only one from I-78.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2017, 09:43:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 27, 2017, 03:25:29 PM
It's only served by one signed exit (13B).
What a silly criterion. Wilmington is only served by one exit from the New Jersey Turnpike. Harrisburg by only one from I-78.
New York City is served by only one exit from I-80.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on March 27, 2017, 10:45:03 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
New York City is served by only one exit from I-80.
I thought about that example but it's arguably signed at exit 53 (Lincoln Tunnel).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2017, 10:57:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 27, 2017, 10:45:03 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 27, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
New York City is served by only one exit from I-80.
I thought about that example but it's arguably signed at exit 53 (Lincoln Tunnel).
There are any number of exits you can TAKE to get there, but only one really SERVES it. Exit 53 serves Wayne and Clifton more than anything else. Anyway yes, point being that a control city is about importance, not service.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 28, 2017, 07:55:11 AM
Somerville is served by one exit on US 22 and that is its primary control city from Hillside westward.

It may not be major but many others used are far less importance.  Remember, you can't use Morristown from that location due to I-78 and NJ 24 are the better way to go.  Mahwah is too far out and better reached from Exit 163 and NJ 17.

Raritan Center is maybe the booming office park that was once industrial only, but its not a destination for a freeway especially so close.  I will admit its important, but not for the NJ 440/ I-287 to use for a long range control city.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 30, 2017, 10:24:14 PM
NJTA hearing scheduled for new toll rate at SB Exit 125 (http://www.nj.gov/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_exit_125_toll_hearing.pdf).

I think this is one of those legally required things before they can start charging tolls at the new ramp.

Key takeaway from the release is that they are sticking with it being an EZ-Pass only ramp. The idea of any kind of cash collections at that ramp seem to be off the table (as they should be).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 28, 2017, 05:58:27 PM
I was finally able to grab a picture of the new advance signage for the Raritan toll plaza. This is the one just before the Driscoll Bridge.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAE2hO1H.jpg&hash=fbeea67d883ba012bf2c58244a326bff0fb3c165)

If you're actually going by the MUTCD (in this case, 2F.15), the legend "Toll Plaza ByPass" should not be included. Even if there's a giant EZ-Pass logo underneath it, it looks like you get out of the toll otherwise. Not sure why they went with that in the slightest. Also, they should have omitted "Full Service" on the right hand side, as that's redundant. Basically, they quasi-followed the MUTCD requirements on this one. Also interesting, they don't mention 123 on the right hand side anymore. It's sometimes difficult to roll through the Express EZ-Pass and get over to the local lanes to the right for 123, so I would have figured they'd leave it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 29, 2017, 11:39:58 AM
Yeah toll plaza bypass is the wrong thing to say, as really say NO CASH.    Full service is a no no unless they take debit/credit which I am sure they get many now who drive without cash.  I do know that even with the word cash people whip out the old card to pay for tolls in Florida to only get mad that FDOT should be in the 21st Century and accept them.

I do not know if the Parkway and Turnpike accept MC and Visa, but I will bet no  becasuethat credit cards are not mentioned here and the fact the NJTA would lose money because the fees that MC and Visa collect from transactions.  I know ISTA and KTA take em out west, but many roads still rely on cash or prepaid tolls. I guess Illinois and Kansas are willing to sacrifice some revenue or whatever.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2017, 12:56:06 PM
They don't take any credit cards...unless you want to consider EZ Pass, which accepts credit cards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 30, 2017, 11:37:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 29, 2017, 11:39:58 AM
Yeah toll plaza bypass is the wrong thing to say, as really say NO CASH.    Full service is a no no unless they take debit/credit which I am sure they get many now who drive without cash.  I do know that even with the word cash people whip out the old card to pay for tolls in Florida to only get mad that FDOT should be in the 21st Century and accept them.

I do not know if the Parkway and Turnpike accept MC and Visa, but I will bet no  becasuethat credit cards are not mentioned here and the fact the NJTA would lose money because the fees that MC and Visa collect from transactions.  I know ISTA and KTA take em out west, but many roads still rely on cash or prepaid tolls. I guess Illinois and Kansas are willing to sacrifice some revenue or whatever.

They certainly don't. If they would have just omitted the top lines on both parts of the sign, it would be been perfect MUTCD compliant signage, and actually a bit less confusing than the signage they used to use for Express EZ-Pass.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: compdude787 on May 03, 2017, 02:30:16 PM
What?! They don't accept debit or credit cards? That's pretty stupid. I don't ever carry cash with me, ever since I got my debit card a few years ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 03, 2017, 03:37:04 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 03, 2017, 02:30:16 PM
What?! They don't accept debit or credit cards? That's pretty stupid. I don't ever carry cash with me, ever since I got my debit card a few years ago.
Side bar question: outside of E-ZPass (or equivalent) accounts; how many toll road agencies actually accept credit/debit card toll payment on-the-spot (i.e. at the tollbooth)? 

My guess would be none for the simple reason that such transactions at a toll booth would be more time-consuming than simple cash exchanges.  Cash tolls & tollbooths have been around well (read: decades) before E-ZPass and AET.

Here's some advice; if you don't have E-ZPass and the tolled facility is not AET, check out on-line what the tolls rates are prior to your trip and bring the appropriate amount of cash with you.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Beeper1 on May 03, 2017, 07:00:41 PM
Only toll facility I know of that takes credit cards is the Confederation Bridge to PEI.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 03, 2017, 07:41:41 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html

There are even automatic machines on some roads - I want to say either Texas or California features this.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 03, 2017, 08:21:08 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 03, 2017, 03:37:04 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 03, 2017, 02:30:16 PM
What?! They don't accept debit or credit cards? That's pretty stupid. I don't ever carry cash with me, ever since I got my debit card a few years ago.
Side bar question: outside of E-ZPass (or equivalent) accounts; how many toll road agencies actually accept credit/debit card toll payment on-the-spot (i.e. at the tollbooth)? 

My guess would be none for the simple reason that such transactions at a toll booth would be more time-consuming than simple cash exchanges.  Cash tolls & tollbooths have been around well (read: decades) before E-ZPass and AET.

Here's some advice; if you don't have E-ZPass and the tolled facility is not AET, check out on-line what the tolls rates are prior to your trip and bring the appropriate amount of cash with you.

The Indiana Toll Road accepts credit cards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 PM
There are change machines on the JFK highway in Maryland.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: OracleUsr on May 03, 2017, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: Beeper1 on May 03, 2017, 07:00:41 PM
Only toll facility I know of that takes credit cards is the Confederation Bridge to PEI.

At 45CAD I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on May 03, 2017, 10:38:06 PM
The Thruway and Thousand Island Bridge both take credit cards as well, as does Autoroute 30 (whether Autoroute 30 takes American cards is another question).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2017, 10:55:02 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 03, 2017, 02:30:16 PM
What?! They don't accept debit or credit cards? That's pretty stupid. I don't ever carry cash with me, ever since I got my debit card a few years ago.

So any toll road that doesn't accept cash because you got a debit card a few years ago is stupid?  Glad to know the world started revolving around you when you turned 18. I guess you better stay off the toll roads then, especially out east. Or get an EZ Pass...which you can link to your few year old debit card.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on May 03, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2017, 10:38:06 PM
The Thruway and Thousand Island Bridge both take credit cards as well, as does Autoroute 30 (whether Autoroute 30 takes American cards is another question).
You sure about the Thruway accepting cards?  I am skeptical.  I looked into it at least somewhat recently and they did not.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 04, 2017, 02:31:37 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 03, 2017, 07:41:41 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html

There are even automatic machines on some roads - I want to say either Texas or California features this.

Texas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 04, 2017, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 03, 2017, 07:41:41 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/Pennsylvania-Turnpike-toll-collectors-will-accept-credit-cards.html
Interesting.  Having used the PA Turnpike at least once a month; I have never seen any signs or advertising for such like I have for the AET at the Delaware River Bridge (when it wasn't closed for emergency repairs).  PTC clearly wants to keep this on a need to know basis per the below-quote (bold emphasis added):

Quote from: Philly.com ArticleCard readers were initially issued as a pilot program and were made available throughout the state on Sept. 19. DeFebo emphasized, though, that people without E-ZPass should just carry cash. "The credit card really is not a preferred payment method," he said.

Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2017, 08:21:08 PMThe Indiana Toll Road accepts credit cards.
At the toll booths?  Are there are designated booths to handle such transactions?

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 PM
There are change machines on the JFK highway in Maryland.
I'm assuming those are at the service plazas and not at the tollbooths themselves.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2017, 09:37:29 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2017, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 PM
There are change machines on the JFK highway in Maryland.
I'm assuming those are at the service plazas and not at the tollbooths themselves.

That one I'm confused about as well, being the only toll is the mainline toll, which is $8.  No need for change there.

The AC Expressway has change machines at some of their ramp tolls, but not all of them (the 40c Berlin/Crosskeys Rd ramp doesn't have change machines).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 04, 2017, 11:26:33 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2017, 09:37:29 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2017, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 PM
There are change machines on the JFK highway in Maryland.
I'm assuming those are at the service plazas and not at the tollbooths themselves.

That one I'm confused about as well, being the only toll is the mainline toll, which is $8.  No need for change there.
Maybe he's referring to ATMs.  If one is heading northbound, where the toll is charged, without cash; a stop at the Maryland House Service Plaza beforehand would be needed in order to get cash from an ATM.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: signalman on May 04, 2017, 11:35:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2017, 09:37:29 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2017, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 03, 2017, 10:21:38 PM
There are change machines on the JFK highway in Maryland.
I'm assuming those are at the service plazas and not at the tollbooths themselves.

That one I'm confused about as well, being the only toll is the mainline toll, which is $8.  No need for change there.
Unless he means that there's unmanned booths that accept larger bills (10s, 20s) and dispense the appropriate change.  Otherwise, I have no idea what he's referring to either.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on May 04, 2017, 09:10:37 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 03, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2017, 10:38:06 PM
The Thruway and Thousand Island Bridge both take credit cards as well, as does Autoroute 30 (whether Autoroute 30 takes American cards is another question).
You sure about the Thruway accepting cards?  I am skeptical.  I looked into it at least somewhat recently and they did not.
Interesting.  I just checked and found the same thing.  Yet I could have sworn that I read an article about them accepting cards sometime in the past few years.  Did they consider it and then quietly decide not to?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 04, 2017, 11:55:39 PM
The Detroit-Windsor Tunnel also accepts debit and credit cards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2017, 07:29:25 AM
I know the Kansas Turnpike does, as my friend used it when we both went to a retreat that was two states away.  They processed his card and gave it right back to him.  I know I was the driver and he was shotgun, so I passed it between the two.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 05, 2017, 09:22:28 AM
The only issue I see, which relates to additional traffic backups at the booths, is when the credit/debit card readers are down for whatever reason.  Such a scenario is where cash becomes king.

For those who don't think the above can't happen; I've seen such occur at supermarkets and at a Boston Market.  Many years ago when those readers first came out; if such malfunctioned, the old-school swiper with its cardon-copy receipts came to the rescue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2017, 12:58:28 PM
The problem is people don't care if they hold up traffic or are waiting.  I get hold ups for looking for change and putting their wallets away and nobody behind gets anal.  In fact people do not seem to care the toll booth experience holds them up, and in most people's minds we're the bad guys for charging tolls.  Even with signs informing of the tolls to come, most people never look at them or most people now forgot they can easily figure out how to get around the facilities, they still think that the toll roads are the only way to get from A to B that leads them to tolerate the wait of the slowpoke ahead of them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: plain on May 05, 2017, 03:17:51 PM
The Pocahontas Pkwy accepts credit cards as well. As they should given the ridiculously high toll.. at least they provide drivers with that convenience. No chance of backing up traffic on this road because traffic counts are way too low for that. Accepting cards at ANY tollbooth in Jersey will never be a good idea though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2017, 07:44:58 PM
Quote from: plain on May 05, 2017, 03:17:51 PM
The Pocahontas Pkwy accepts credit cards as well. As they should given the ridiculously high toll.. at least they provide drivers with that convenience. No chance of backing up traffic on this road because traffic counts are way too low for that. Accepting cards at ANY tollbooth in Jersey will never be a good idea though.

The Dulles Greenway part of VA-267 (in Loudoun County) accepts credit cards.  At the ramps west of the main  toll barrier, which are always unstaffed, the only ways to pay are with E-ZPass (some still have SmarTag signs) or a credit card.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PurdueBill on May 06, 2017, 08:06:15 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 04, 2017, 08:59:45 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 03, 2017, 08:21:08 PMThe Indiana Toll Road accepts credit cards.
At the toll booths?  Are there are designated booths to handle such transactions?

Using the ITR sometimes but paying with E-ZPass and not stopping long enough to take a photo, I don't have my own photo of the payment station, but my recall of the setup was confirmed by a photo I could find. 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.duo-gard.com%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fspecialty-enclosures%2FIndiana-Tollway-DSC_0113-3x4.JPG&hash=6cc9db394f52b9de7c462798c3f5b49fbfb7eebd)
They have them at any lane that isn't always E-ZPass.  Note that they even have two sets of card readers and slots to insert your ticket into, for tall and lower vehicles.  It operates similarly to the self-pay of an airport parking garage or something where you insert your magnetic stripe ticket you were issued on entry.  They have the machines at every lane that offers "CASH/CREDIT" as a payment option on the electronic sign above the lane.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2017, 01:22:19 PM
Look, I think most toll road agencies would rather collect the toll from a credit card as opposed to not at all. As such, it is smart of them to take plastic (at least where there is staffed toll collection or a card reader is available even if the toll point is not staffed).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 13, 2017, 06:55:11 AM
Not Florida they want to go completely cashless so their overall objective is to remove the plazas, which they have done in Tampa and Miami already.

Anyway, does anyone know how the Exit 125 SB will be signed?  Will it also have both NJ 35 and US 9 using both Sayreville and South Amboy as control points?  If so using US 9 there might create some confusion as some may think that is for the current 123 ramp for US 9.  Plus then it would be redundant to Exit 124 with control cities as that currently uses those two places.

NB is okay to  use them being there is no NB Exit 123 or 124, and even Old Bridge Twp was added to 123 guides after 124 opened as before that 123 was signed for both South Amboy and Sayreville.  To avoid redundancy and the fact getting to South Amboy from 123 required you to take exit on US 9 to use Bordentown Avenue into that city, they removed South Amboy for Old Bridge.  Plus that move was more wiser as US 9 serves that township just a mile south of that interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 16, 2017, 09:53:16 PM
Article in the Asbury Park Press about additional ramps opening at exit 91 on the GSP:

http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2017/05/15/garden-state-parkway-exit-91-improvements-construction/322340001/ (http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2017/05/15/garden-state-parkway-exit-91-improvements-construction/322340001/)

This is actually kind of a big nothing, as the only real result today was the opening of the southbound entrance ramp.  Other than the traffic signals along Lanes Mill Road being activated, generally the same traffic patterns exist.  I tried out "Ramp C" on the commute home today:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbrick.shorebeat.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2FInterchange91.jpg&hash=bc43b77f9c6279dde828e9125d9d39e167a172e4)

There's plenty of work to do still on the east side of the Parkway, with the opening of the northbound exit ramp (can't wait) and the new northbound on-ramps.  On the west side, I still haven't figured out what the point of the Herborn Ave. extension is, if they were just going to leave the segment of Burnt Tavern in between Herborn and Lanes Mill intact.  It makes a couple moves slightly easier, but still leaves some tightly spaced signals and does nothing much for the heavy traffic exiting the GSP SB to Burnt Tavern every night.  We'll see how it goes...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 17, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Look at the image. It answers questions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 17, 2017, 07:25:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Look at the image. It answers questions.

The image does however have one critical error.  The small piece of Burnt Tavern Road between the SB GSP off ramp and the Herborn Street Extension/Herborn Street intersection is one way westbound.  It is not two-way travel like the layout shows.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 17, 2017, 07:52:24 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 17, 2017, 07:25:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Look at the image. It answers questions.

The image does however have one critical error.  The small piece of Burnt Tavern Road between the SB GSP off ramp and the Herborn Street Extension/Herborn Street intersection is one way westbound.  It is not two-way travel like the layout shows.

I see it but find it hard to believe about .  Though it is good probably a good idea.

Alps I usually ignore you but that feature don't work on but really.  Yes I can see the diagram which is why I commented. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 17, 2017, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 17, 2017, 07:25:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Look at the image. It answers questions.

The image does however have one critical error.  The small piece of Burnt Tavern Road between the SB GSP off ramp and the Herborn Street Extension/Herborn Street intersection is one way westbound.  It is not two-way travel like the layout shows.

These are final plans.  2 way traffic there seems critical...I couldn't see them routing all the traffic around into a single lane on the extension when 2 thru lanes are shown on the plan.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 17, 2017, 12:43:10 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 17, 2017, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 17, 2017, 07:25:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Look at the image. It answers questions.

The image does however have one critical error.  The small piece of Burnt Tavern Road between the SB GSP off ramp and the Herborn Street Extension/Herborn Street intersection is one way westbound.  It is not two-way travel like the layout shows.

These are final plans.  2 way traffic there seems critical...I couldn't see them routing all the traffic around into a single lane on the extension when 2 thru lanes are shown on the plan.
I'll check it out in the next couple of days.  I think they could have gotten away with closing off the section of Burnt Tavern between Lanes Mill/GSP SB exit ramp and Herborn Ave. - maybe with a cul-de-sac coming from the west for local access - and just had all traffic use the new extension.  Herborn Ave. is the main route from the north/west through here as Burnt Tavern comes to a dead-end in a residential neighborhood a short distance to the west.  With the removal of that section of Burnt Tavern, they might have been able to eliminate two signals in the process - Burnt Tavern/Lanes Mill and Burnt Tavern/Herborn. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 17, 2017, 08:17:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 17, 2017, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 17, 2017, 07:25:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Look at the image. It answers questions.

The image does however have one critical error.  The small piece of Burnt Tavern Road between the SB GSP off ramp and the Herborn Street Extension/Herborn Street intersection is one way westbound.  It is not two-way travel like the layout shows.

These are final plans.  2 way traffic there seems critical...I couldn't see them routing all the traffic around into a single lane on the extension when 2 thru lanes are shown on the plan.
I remember seeing it as one-way in earlier plans and probably had some comments on it... so maybe they actually listened! :D
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 17, 2017, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 08:17:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 17, 2017, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 17, 2017, 07:25:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Look at the image. It answers questions.

The image does however have one critical error.  The small piece of Burnt Tavern Road between the SB GSP off ramp and the Herborn Street Extension/Herborn Street intersection is one way westbound.  It is not two-way travel like the layout shows.

These are final plans.  2 way traffic there seems critical...I couldn't see them routing all the traffic around into a single lane on the extension when 2 thru lanes are shown on the plan.
I remember seeing it as one-way in earlier plans and probably had some comments on it... so maybe they actually listened! :D
The plans shown on these two Patch news stories are probably what you're talking about.  They show that stretch as one way.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/brick/parkway-interchange-91-southbound-brick-opening-tuesday (https://patch.com/new-jersey/brick/parkway-interchange-91-southbound-brick-opening-tuesday)
https://patch.com/new-jersey/tomsriver/photos-maps-of-parkway-plans-for-miles-83-to-100 (https://patch.com/new-jersey/tomsriver/photos-maps-of-parkway-plans-for-miles-83-to-100)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 18, 2017, 10:03:03 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on May 17, 2017, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 08:17:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 17, 2017, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 17, 2017, 07:25:22 AM
Quote from: Alps on May 17, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
So the new NB Ramp will be moved to Lanes Mill Road and the one from Burnt Store going bye bye forever?
Look at the image. It answers questions.

The image does however have one critical error.  The small piece of Burnt Tavern Road between the SB GSP off ramp and the Herborn Street Extension/Herborn Street intersection is one way westbound.  It is not two-way travel like the layout shows.

These are final plans.  2 way traffic there seems critical...I couldn't see them routing all the traffic around into a single lane on the extension when 2 thru lanes are shown on the plan.
I remember seeing it as one-way in earlier plans and probably had some comments on it... so maybe they actually listened! :D
The plans shown on these two Patch news stories are probably what you're talking about.  They show that stretch as one way.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/brick/parkway-interchange-91-southbound-brick-opening-tuesday (https://patch.com/new-jersey/brick/parkway-interchange-91-southbound-brick-opening-tuesday)
https://patch.com/new-jersey/tomsriver/photos-maps-of-parkway-plans-for-miles-83-to-100 (https://patch.com/new-jersey/tomsriver/photos-maps-of-parkway-plans-for-miles-83-to-100)
I checked out the west side of 91 today.  The short stretch of Burnt Tavern between Herborn and Lanes Mill is indeed now one-way westbound.  Here's some photos:

1. Burnt Tavern westbound at the Lanes Mill / 91 SB exit signal, coming down off the bridge over the GSP:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FGSP91A_zpswozn8yle.jpg&hash=46ebeba01da627524a700cb69ef83daacb399649)

2. Burnt Tavern eastbound at the new Herborn signal:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FGSP91B_zpsyvsiwjzu.jpg&hash=998dd9e4d6eff05158d65d71c51a65d4316a73e8)

3. Herborn Ave. extension at new signal with Lanes Mill Rd., facing the new GSP SB entrance:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2FGSP91C_zps19tktxkq.jpg&hash=5993ec0f41ca2e3b801f7c48d30e62bf869ffe4f)

I still don't understand the point of maintaining the left turn from Lanes Mill NB at the Burnt Tavern signal.  Drivers can turn left at the new Herborn extension signal a short distance before it, and get to the same exact place.  It's completely redundant and adds an unnecessary phase to the signal.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 18, 2017, 10:49:07 PM
Since southbound 549 essentially turns truly south at the GSP SB off ramp, does Ocean County or Brick own Burnt Tavern Rd west of the off ramp?  Possibly something bizarre like it's Ocean County between the off ramp and Herborn and then Brick west of Herborn?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 18, 2017, 11:10:29 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 18, 2017, 10:49:07 PM
Since southbound 549 essentially turns truly south at the GSP SB off ramp, does Ocean County or Brick own Burnt Tavern Rd west of the off ramp?  Possibly something bizarre like it's Ocean County between the off ramp and Herborn and then Brick west of Herborn?

It's still a county road west of there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 31, 2017, 03:21:56 PM
From NJ.com: New Parkway toll will be cashless after only 3 people objected to plan (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/05/new_parkway_toll_will_be_cashless_after_only_3_people_objected_to_plan.html)

Basically, they're sticking to the plan to be completely cash free, EZ-Pass only, no video tolling or the like.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 03, 2017, 07:57:49 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 31, 2017, 03:21:56 PM
From NJ.com: New Parkway toll will be cashless after only 3 people objected to plan (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/05/new_parkway_toll_will_be_cashless_after_only_3_people_objected_to_plan.html)

Basically, they're sticking to the plan to be completely cash free, EZ-Pass only, no video tolling or the like.

I am not a fan of "you must have a transponder or you will be hit with a civil citation" line of reasoning. 

Toll-by-plate is not that expensive to process (and charging a toll that is doubled seems fair), especially since the Turnpike Authority has to have cameras there anyway to identify toll violators and deal with E-ZPass misreads.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 20, 2017, 09:12:31 PM
This Parkway entrance sign at Exit 36 (Fire Road North)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3913125,-74.5631065,3a,75y,22.5h,93.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smbHdFSqZSiIYi-zc9ma9GQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
has been replaced with this
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4283/34626588313_ba3e30a9b4.jpg)
The Southbound sign is still there. Have they done this anywhere else?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 20, 2017, 09:20:04 PM
Interesting new sign.  Not like the classic ones, but definitely amazing!

However, like the new NJT Exit 129 signs though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5245386,-74.2990635,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWrhPAqaWmUy_ydw1qVTN2g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWrhPAqaWmUy_ydw1qVTN2g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D118.81082%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 20, 2017, 11:21:00 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 20, 2017, 09:12:31 PM
This Parkway entrance sign at Exit 36 (Fire Road North)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3913125,-74.5631065,3a,75y,22.5h,93.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smbHdFSqZSiIYi-zc9ma9GQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
has been replaced with this
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4283/34626588313_ba3e30a9b4.jpg)
The Southbound sign is still there. Have they done this anywhere else?
Oh, no, no, no. They're still using the trapezoid.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 21, 2017, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 20, 2017, 09:12:31 PM
This Parkway entrance sign at Exit 36 (Fire Road North)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3913125,-74.5631065,3a,75y,22.5h,93.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smbHdFSqZSiIYi-zc9ma9GQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
has been replaced with this
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4283/34626588313_ba3e30a9b4.jpg)
The Southbound sign is still there. Have they done this anywhere else?

They still use the trapezoid. Here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5708681,-74.3260814,3a,15y,280.15h,91.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW4jiqM5YqUWY-FMStXHp1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) is a typical example of a modern one, at 132.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 23, 2017, 11:20:18 AM
I would sure hate to see the old trapezoid signs go, as they are so neoclassical and the Parkway's own signature signage.  Bad enough the NJTA rid themselves of their neoclassical signs to please the feds, I would loathe to see another tradition pass as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on June 23, 2017, 08:38:25 PM
Again I agree with roadman65. Although I usually favor standardization and MUTCD compliance, I too am unexpectedly missing the old New Jersey Tpk signing and would feel the same way about the GS Parkway. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 25, 2017, 09:38:47 AM
That trapezoid has helped me not have to count lights when I first started using this interchange. The shape was visible from a lot further away than the text (and shield) on it. It hasn't been necessary for over 3 years, but it's still too bad that it's gone.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2017, 10:25:53 AM
People clearly get too freaked out when it's possible this was just a contractor error.  Numerous other signs have been installed in this project...are they standard GPS signage or not?  Or, better yet, what does the contract specifications show as to what should've been installed here?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 25, 2017, 12:34:06 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 23, 2017, 08:38:25 PM
Again I agree with roadman65. Although I usually favor standardization and MUTCD compliance, I too am unexpectedly missing the old New Jersey Tpk signing and would feel the same way about the GS Parkway. 
It was a way of identifying like the Exit numbers have always been,

Quote from: bzakharin on June 25, 2017, 09:38:47 AM
That trapezoid has helped me not have to count lights when I first started using this interchange. The shape was visible from a lot further away than the text (and shield) on it. It hasn't been necessary for over 3 years, but it's still too bad that it's gone.
Yes the shape is like no other freeway entrance.  Though the NJDOT portion from 129 to 140 did not use them cause NJDOT had their own way of doing things, but I think now its been added there to pretty much all of the ramps.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 07, 2017, 01:45:46 PM
The new Exit 125 ramp opens Sunday morning, 7/9 at 6am. The Turnpike Authority put up what looks like a rendering of one of the exit signs on their Facebook page:

(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19702495_1387945041281785_7885477938915526339_n.jpg?oh=5d0df5e1554c66b306bd87641c3abec5&oe=5A0B1A26)

They sort of mashed the standard for ETC roadway exit signs in with an APL. I'll be interested to see how this looks in person. Might have to take a drive down there early next week.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2017, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 07, 2017, 01:45:46 PM
The new Exit 125 ramp opens Sunday morning, 7/9 at 6am. The Turnpike Authority put up what looks like a rendering of one of the exit signs on their Facebook page:

(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19702495_1387945041281785_7885477938915526339_n.jpg?oh=5d0df5e1554c66b306bd87641c3abec5&oe=5A0B1A26)

They sort of mashed the standard for ETC roadway exit signs in with an APL. I'll be interested to see how this looks in person. Might have to take a drive down there early next week.

Hopefully they'll have additional signs in regards to stating that the exit is truly EZ Pass Only.  I'm not sure this one does it too well.

The other rendering I saw shows the 2 lane exit with EZ Pass gantry overhead, which leads into 5 lanes approaching the intersection.  At least they did it right...unlike PA's insistence of separating the two lanes on their EZ Pass only ramps for no reason, NJTA kept them together, like every other conventional 2 lane exit in the world.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 07, 2017, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2017, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 07, 2017, 01:45:46 PM
The new Exit 125 ramp opens Sunday morning, 7/9 at 6am. The Turnpike Authority put up what looks like a rendering of one of the exit signs on their Facebook page:

(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19702495_1387945041281785_7885477938915526339_n.jpg?oh=5d0df5e1554c66b306bd87641c3abec5&oe=5A0B1A26)

They sort of mashed the standard for ETC roadway exit signs in with an APL. I'll be interested to see how this looks in person. Might have to take a drive down there early next week.

Hopefully they'll have additional signs in regards to stating that the exit is truly EZ Pass Only.  I'm not sure this one does it too well.

The other rendering I saw shows the 2 lane exit with EZ Pass gantry overhead, which leads into 5 lanes approaching the intersection.  At least they did it right...unlike PA's insistence of separating the two lanes on their EZ Pass only ramps for no reason, NJTA kept them together, like every other conventional 2 lane exit in the world.

Yes, that gantry is pretty Turpike Authority standard. Most of the Express EZ-Pass lanes on the Parkway use them. The Raritan plaza gantry looks like a bigger version of this. The 18W EEP gantry on the Turnpike looks like this as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 07, 2017, 08:04:04 PM
How big of an interchange is the Chevalier Ave. exit? According to the MUTCD Sec. 2E.20, arrow-per-lane signs are only for use at major and heavier use/intermediate interchanges. Minor and lighter use/intermediate interchanges are to be signed using conventional lane-drop signing combined with lane-use signs and pavement markings.

Not that I necessarily agree, but that's what the Manual specifies. Also see fig. 2E-11 on page 204.   
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on July 07, 2017, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 25, 2017, 09:38:47 AM
That trapezoid has helped me not have to count lights when I first started using this interchange. The shape was visible from a lot further away than the text (and shield) on it. It hasn't been necessary for over 3 years, but it's still too bad that it's gone.

I hope heaven's highways are signed with squiggly arrows and trapezoidal signs and button copy text.  And populated with free flowing, non polluting traffic...

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 07, 2017, 08:04:04 PM
How big of an interchange is the Chevalier Ave. exit? According to the MUTCD Sec. 2E.20, arrow-per-lane signs are only for use at major and heavier use/intermediate interchanges. Minor and lighter use/intermediate interchanges are to be signed using conventional lane-drop signing combined with lane-use signs and pavement markings.

Not that I necessarily agree, but that's what the Manual specifies. Also see fig. 2E-11 on page 204.   
They're projecting over 1,000 vehicles per hour, possibly even into the 2's, during peak times once the site is fully built out.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 08, 2017, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 07, 2017, 08:04:04 PM
How big of an interchange is the Chevalier Ave. exit? According to the MUTCD Sec. 2E.20, arrow-per-lane signs are only for use at major and heavier use/intermediate interchanges. Minor and lighter use/intermediate interchanges are to be signed using conventional lane-drop signing combined with lane-use signs and pavement markings.

Not that I necessarily agree, but that's what the Manual specifies. Also see fig. 2E-11 on page 204.   

While the Turnpike Authority has followed the MUTCD rules for the most part, they don't necessarily follow them to the letter. There's this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7047956,-74.2459223,3a,15y,55.92h,100.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-cdMtu8D4FJNTttEluNKnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a sign that I think provides more confusion than guidance that could have been done better.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on July 08, 2017, 05:12:32 PM
Chevalier Ave.... is it named for Maurice or Jack?

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ekt8750 on July 08, 2017, 05:21:23 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 08, 2017, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 07, 2017, 08:04:04 PM
How big of an interchange is the Chevalier Ave. exit? According to the MUTCD Sec. 2E.20, arrow-per-lane signs are only for use at major and heavier use/intermediate interchanges. Minor and lighter use/intermediate interchanges are to be signed using conventional lane-drop signing combined with lane-use signs and pavement markings.

Not that I necessarily agree, but that's what the Manual specifies. Also see fig. 2E-11 on page 204.   

While the Turnpike Authority has followed the MUTCD rules for the most part, they don't necessarily follow them to the letter. There's this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7047956,-74.2459223,3a,15y,55.92h,100.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-cdMtu8D4FJNTttEluNKnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a sign that I think provides more confusion than guidance that could have been done better.

That sign is a hot mess. I'm pretty sure this violates everything an APL is meant for starting with applying it to a multiple movement exit. Secondly I can't tell if that option arrow is trying to say you can get to 78 from that lane or not. Finally the two exit tabs just look stupid and would better be served with one tab reading "EXIT 142 C-D".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 08, 2017, 10:14:37 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on July 08, 2017, 05:21:23 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 08, 2017, 04:18:58 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 07, 2017, 08:04:04 PM
How big of an interchange is the Chevalier Ave. exit? According to the MUTCD Sec. 2E.20, arrow-per-lane signs are only for use at major and heavier use/intermediate interchanges. Minor and lighter use/intermediate interchanges are to be signed using conventional lane-drop signing combined with lane-use signs and pavement markings.

Not that I necessarily agree, but that's what the Manual specifies. Also see fig. 2E-11 on page 204.   

While the Turnpike Authority has followed the MUTCD rules for the most part, they don't necessarily follow them to the letter. There's this abomination (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7047956,-74.2459223,3a,15y,55.92h,100.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-cdMtu8D4FJNTttEluNKnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a sign that I think provides more confusion than guidance that could have been done better.

That sign is a hot mess. I'm pretty sure this violates everything an APL is meant for starting with applying it to a multiple movement exit. Secondly I can't tell if that option arrow is trying to say you can get to 78 from that lane or not. Finally the two exit tabs just look stupid and would better be served with one tab reading "EXIT 142 C-D".
You can indeed get to 78 from that lane. The sign actually doesn't look that bad. 142C is a separate exit that leaves after 78.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 09, 2017, 03:42:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 07, 2017, 01:45:46 PM
The new Exit 125 ramp opens Sunday morning, 7/9 at 6am. The Turnpike Authority put up what looks like a rendering of one of the exit signs on their Facebook page:

(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19702495_1387945041281785_7885477938915526339_n.jpg?oh=5d0df5e1554c66b306bd87641c3abec5&oe=5A0B1A26)

They sort of mashed the standard for ETC roadway exit signs in with an APL. I'll be interested to see how this looks in person. Might have to take a drive down there early next week.

Drove past the new exit this morning. The sign at the exit looks just like the rendering above. Terrible sign. Looks confusing and hard to see what you're exiting for. Would have been better off doing a standard exit sign design with two arrows and the purple banner for EZ-Pass only above. Due to the design of the APL, that purple banner is too big and doesn't make it all that clear what you're exiting for. Also, with the stupid "can't have the street name and a destination on the same sign" thing, it looks dumb just being for Chevallier Ave instead of Sayreville waterfront or something like that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ekt8750 on July 09, 2017, 09:08:47 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 09, 2017, 03:42:51 PMAlso, with the stupid "can't have the street name and a destination on the same sign" thing, it looks dumb just being for Chevallier Ave instead of Sayreville waterfront or something like that.

So you're saying a sign like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9708391,-75.192971,3a,28.7y,343.5h,101.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC7l05CMrSYpZ6kFkDE7CbQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is a no-no now?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 09, 2017, 09:38:13 PM
Not exactly. The MUTCD has always stated (Sec. 2E-10) that "a city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided". However that is only a recommendation, not a mandatory standard. Some agencies like NJ DOT do follow that theory. Others like New York State DOT's Region-10 on Long Island have (wisely) never followed it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 09, 2017, 11:46:36 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 09, 2017, 09:38:13 PM
Not exactly. The MUTCD has always stated (Sec. 2E-10) that "a city name and street name on the same sign should be avoided". However that is only a recommendation, not a mandatory standard. Some agencies like NJ DOT do follow that theory. Others like New York State DOT's Region-10 on Long Island have (wisely) never followed it.
NJDOT doesn't always follow it - because it's "should", engineering judgment can always prevail if needed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on July 10, 2017, 07:32:16 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 09, 2017, 03:42:51 PM
Also, with the stupid "can't have the street name and a destination on the same sign" thing, it looks dumb just being for Chevallier Ave instead of Sayreville waterfront or something like that.

You can't put "Sayreville" on all the Sayreville exits or or any town on all of that town's exits or the motorist will become quite confused.  This is why Exit 124 has always been just "Main Street".  See Section 2E.42 in the MUTCD.  Maybe the NEXT 3 EXITS sign (125, 124 and 123) is forthcoming in that contract if they went "Chevalier Ave".

As a comparative example, one can tell the Parkway applied this methodology in both directions of the Toms River section.  In fact, "Toms River" only makes it to the Exit 81 signs because that's where the downtown section is.  Think about if "Toms River" ended up on all the exits in Toms River.

Assuming a Sayreville NEXT 3 EXITS sign is applied or will be applied, i like "Chevalier Ave".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 10, 2017, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on July 07, 2017, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 25, 2017, 09:38:47 AM
That trapezoid has helped me not have to count lights when I first started using this interchange. The shape was visible from a lot further away than the text (and shield) on it. It hasn't been necessary for over 3 years, but it's still too bad that it's gone.

I hope heaven's highways are signed with squiggly arrows and trapezoidal signs and button copy text.  And populated with free flowing, non polluting traffic...

ixnay
I'm not sure what you mean here. Is that some sort of veiled threat on my life?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2017, 11:27:39 PM
The downtown area of Sayreville is via Main Street.  The same for South Amboy.  Chevalier Avenue is the best way to sign it IMO, as its not the main part of town.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 12, 2017, 01:48:53 AM
Here is the sign at the new exit 125:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLil8zzW.jpg&hash=80cf4458aef83641325d967a362eb77335ba8f05)

Something I didn't think of, I wonder if they're going to put a barrier up ahead of the exit itself with an option lane back on to the Parkway to basically make a C/D lane, they way they do going NB headed to 127. If that's the case, the APL layout makes more sense. The Parkway has done this in a lot of places over the years (89, 91, 98, 165 to name a few), they may end up doing it here as part of the overall work at this exit.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 12, 2017, 06:11:48 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 12, 2017, 01:48:53 AM
Here is the sign at the new exit 125:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLil8zzW.jpg&hash=80cf4458aef83641325d967a362eb77335ba8f05)

Something I didn't think of, I wonder if they're going to put a barrier up ahead of the exit itself with an option lane back on to the Parkway to basically make a C/D lane, they way they do going NB headed to 127. If that's the case, the APL layout makes more sense. The Parkway has done this in a lot of places over the years (89, 91, 98, 165 to name a few), they may end up doing it here as part of the overall work at this exit.

Here are the plans: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Int_125_Public_Hearing_Flyer.pdf . There's no c/d barrier for this exit.

Nice picture though!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 12, 2017, 07:13:26 AM
There is a toll involved with using the C/D lane at 165.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 12, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
That sign is confusing. It's hard to tell whether the E-Z Pass Only applies to the Parkway South or to the exit. Maybe Chevalier Ave. should be on the top-line with the E-Z Pass message under it?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 12, 2017, 11:27:10 PM
The words "NO CASH" should be on there somewhere.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: plain on July 12, 2017, 11:43:22 PM
Maybe if it had the words "EXIT" or "RAMP" either after or below "ONLY", it would look a lot better to the general public. Though we get what the sign is saying I can definitely see the confusion it might cause to non highway warriors.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 12, 2017, 11:45:58 PM
Quote from: plain on July 12, 2017, 11:43:22 PM
Maybe if it had the words "EXIT" or "RAMP" either after or below "ONLY", it would look a lot better to the general public. Though we get what the sign is saying I can definitely see the confusion it might cause to non highway warriors.
The problem is that the logo is entirely too large, so by the time you get to the bottom of the purple space there's almost no divider left to see that it belongs to the street name. A smaller logo would also let you get ONLY (which should really be yellow, mind you) up next to the logo instead of under it, further cutting down on the height and giving plenty of room to that divider.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: seicer on July 12, 2017, 11:53:19 PM
Even having the street name with "EZ-PASS" Only under it would be far better.

It reminds me of this: https://goo.gl/maps/55gcrVtuRRQ2

The signs make it not clear that the tolls apply only to trucks, buses and cars with trailers. The left sign should read "Cars, Trucks, Buses, Cars with Trailers with EZ-PASS" with a minimum toll amount listed. The right sign should be amended to read the same with CASH ONLY (or a symbol as is used elsewhere) instead of "WITHOUT EZ-PASS."

Wasn't the FHWA studying (and soliciting opinions) on these type of topics?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: plain on July 13, 2017, 12:20:46 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 12, 2017, 11:53:19 PM
Even having the street name with "EZ-PASS" Only under it would be far better.

It reminds me of this: https://goo.gl/maps/55gcrVtuRRQ2

The signs make it not clear that the tolls apply only to trucks, buses and cars with trailers. The left sign should read "Cars, Trucks, Buses, Cars with Trailers with EZ-PASS" with a minimum toll amount listed. The right sign should be amended to read the same with CASH ONLY (or a symbol as is used elsewhere) instead of "WITHOUT EZ-PASS."

Wasn't the FHWA studying (and soliciting opinions) on these type of topics?

Agreed about having the street name over the EZ-PASS, along with a smaller logo like Alps said.

Those signs at that toll plaza in your example are all sorts of fucked up... it looks like the cars in that Street View are braking because they realize they are in trouble.. it would've been a lot better if the NYSTA would've done something similar to how ISTHA does its signage at its toll plazas
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 13, 2017, 01:21:59 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 12, 2017, 11:45:58 PM
Quote from: plain on July 12, 2017, 11:43:22 PM
Maybe if it had the words "EXIT" or "RAMP" either after or below "ONLY", it would look a lot better to the general public. Though we get what the sign is saying I can definitely see the confusion it might cause to non highway warriors.
The problem is that the logo is entirely too large, so by the time you get to the bottom of the purple space there's almost no divider left to see that it belongs to the street name. A smaller logo would also let you get ONLY (which should really be yellow, mind you) up next to the logo instead of under it, further cutting down on the height and giving plenty of room to that divider.

I agree that the proportions aren't right which really makes things look weird. The white ONLY keeps with MUTCD practice. I think they would have been better off just doing a standard two arrow sign without the APL. Would have looked a lot cleaner.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 13, 2017, 06:14:02 AM
Quote from: plain on July 13, 2017, 12:20:46 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 12, 2017, 11:53:19 PM
Even having the street name with "EZ-PASS" Only under it would be far better.

It reminds me of this: https://goo.gl/maps/55gcrVtuRRQ2

The signs make it not clear that the tolls apply only to trucks, buses and cars with trailers. The left sign should read "Cars, Trucks, Buses, Cars with Trailers with EZ-PASS" with a minimum toll amount listed. The right sign should be amended to read the same with CASH ONLY (or a symbol as is used elsewhere) instead of "WITHOUT EZ-PASS."

Wasn't the FHWA studying (and soliciting opinions) on these type of topics?

Agreed about having the street name over the EZ-PASS, along with a smaller logo like Alps said.

Those signs at that toll plaza in your example are all sorts of fucked up... it looks like the cars in that Street View are braking because they realize they are in trouble.. it would've been a lot better if the NYSTA would've done something similar to how ISTHA does its signage at its toll plazas

The cars are braking because the car in front is slowing down.  A fairly common practice (unfortunately) at open road tolling.  In the Northeast where it's not uncommon for 90% of toll road usage is paid via EZ Pass, I wouldn't say they are in trouble - they're probably daily commuters and go thru these toll plazas daily.  But when the car in front slows down, you can't just continue at the same speed and ram into them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 13, 2017, 10:35:24 AM
They finally opened the acceleration lane (actually more of an extra thru lane, since it doesn't end) onto Tilton Road coming from Parkway South (Exit 36). I don't know if it's the final design (it's not striped and seems unprofessionally paved), but it sure is welcome. No backup whatsoever at that exit this morning.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 13, 2017, 12:28:23 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 13, 2017, 10:35:24 AM
They finally opened the acceleration lane (actually more of an extra thru lane, since it doesn't end) onto Tilton Road coming from Parkway South (Exit 36). I don't know if it's the final design (it's not striped and seems unprofessionally paved), but it sure is welcome. No backup whatsoever at that exit this morning.

The project still has a year to go, so probably in 'good enough' condition.  Final paving generally will occur near the end of the project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on July 13, 2017, 01:09:52 PM
Quote from: plain on July 13, 2017, 12:20:46 AM
Those signs at that toll plaza in your example are all sorts of fucked up... it looks like the cars in that Street View are braking because they realize they are in trouble.. it would've been a lot better if the NYSTA would've done something similar to how ISTHA does its signage at its toll plazas
People tend to slow down when they get to open road tolling gantries because the transponder readers can see how fast they're going, and NYSTA HAS been known to issue fines or even revoke the E-ZPass of people who go too fast.  It's a wide threshold, but people are cautious, which is why many people go through the 20 mph E-ZPass lanes at 5 mph (which is the standard speed limit for them; 20 mph is a rarity for some lanes that are wider and do not have toll collectors crossing across the lane).  They do the same thing when they see a cop; even traffic going close to the speed limit (or even under it!) will brake when they see one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on July 14, 2017, 06:12:15 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 10, 2017, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on July 07, 2017, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 25, 2017, 09:38:47 AM
That trapezoid has helped me not have to count lights when I first started using this interchange. The shape was visible from a lot further away than the text (and shield) on it. It hasn't been necessary for over 3 years, but it's still too bad that it's gone.

I hope heaven's highways are signed with squiggly arrows and trapezoidal signs and button copy text.  And populated with free flowing, non polluting traffic...

ixnay
I'm not sure what you mean here. Is that some sort of veiled threat on my life?

No.  Why would you believe that?  I miss those kind of GSP entrance signs (not to mention button copy) too.   I believe in an afterlife.

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 14, 2017, 07:36:22 AM
Quote from: ixnay on July 14, 2017, 06:12:15 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 10, 2017, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on July 07, 2017, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 25, 2017, 09:38:47 AM
That trapezoid has helped me not have to count lights when I first started using this interchange. The shape was visible from a lot further away than the text (and shield) on it. It hasn't been necessary for over 3 years, but it's still too bad that it's gone.

I hope heaven's highways are signed with squiggly arrows and trapezoidal signs and button copy text.  And populated with free flowing, non polluting traffic...

ixnay
I'm not sure what you mean here. Is that some sort of veiled threat on my life?

No.  Why would you believe that?  I miss those kind of GSP entrance signs (not to mention button copy) too.   I believe in an afterlife.

ixnay
I guess I took your post to potentially mean that you're mocking my perceived affection for the trapezoid and insinuating that soon I'll dead, so you hope I'll get my squiggly arrows and trapezoids in heaven.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2017, 11:12:05 AM
I heard from a friend of mine that a new development is going at the interchange real soon.  Is this interchange for the GP to have better access to the surrounding area or is it primarily inspired by commercial development to have access to one's business venture to supposedly stir up the economy to bring much needed or not needed growth to a specific area?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on July 14, 2017, 09:05:27 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 14, 2017, 07:36:22 AM
Quote from: ixnay on July 14, 2017, 06:12:15 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 10, 2017, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: ixnay on July 07, 2017, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 25, 2017, 09:38:47 AM
That trapezoid has helped me not have to count lights when I first started using this interchange. The shape was visible from a lot further away than the text (and shield) on it. It hasn't been necessary for over 3 years, but it's still too bad that it's gone.

I hope heaven's highways are signed with squiggly arrows and trapezoidal signs and button copy text.  And populated with free flowing, non polluting traffic...

ixnay
I'm not sure what you mean here. Is that some sort of veiled threat on my life?

No.  Why would you believe that?  I miss those kind of GSP entrance signs (not to mention button copy) too.   I believe in an afterlife.

ixnay
I guess I took your post to potentially mean that you're mocking my perceived affection for the trapezoid and insinuating that soon I'll dead, so you hope I'll get my squiggly arrows and trapezoids in heaven.

No malice was intended at all.  I like those sign images too.  They say "New Jersey".  Guess I was being tongue in cheek.  Please forgive me.

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 14, 2017, 11:19:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 14, 2017, 11:12:05 AM
I heard from a friend of mine that a new development is going at the interchange real soon.  Is this interchange for the GP to have better access to the surrounding area or is it primarily inspired by commercial development to have access to one's business venture to supposedly stir up the economy to bring much needed or not needed growth to a specific area?

I believe it was part of an overall redevelopment strategy for that area to make it easier to get in and out of that area, which also has a bunch of industrial development.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 15, 2017, 01:23:58 AM
Yes, its a big development.

This was the original grand plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcKCxDam-N0

This is the revised plan, note the change in the mall design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG1m81dWfuY

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/realestate/commercial/a-project-reclaims-an-abandoned-stretch-of-new-jersey-coast.html

Its questionable if any of this is actually going to be built given the general malaise of retail lately. Gotta love all those buzzwords. Still waiting for that American Dream mall to get finished too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 7/8 on July 15, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 12, 2017, 01:48:53 AM
Here is the sign at the new exit 125:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLil8zzW.jpg&hash=80cf4458aef83641325d967a362eb77335ba8f05)

I guess I'm in the minority by thinking this sign is okay. I agree the EZ-Pass logo could be a bit smaller, but at least it puts a strong emphasis on the fact that non-EZ Pass users will be in trouble if they exit here. I think this is important since people from certain areas (such as myself) aren't used to having exits where some cars aren't allowed to use certain exits. I'll also point out that I just tried using Google Maps to see if it would suggest for me to use this exit and it did. I think that makes it that much more important to put emphasis on "EZ Pass only" on the signs since Google will tell people to exit there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2017, 02:41:16 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 15, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
I'll also point out that I just tried using Google Maps to see if it would suggest for me to use this exit and it did.

Electronic mapping and GPS directions tend to be horrendous when it comes to areas where traffic is segregated.  I believe every one of them, when it gets to toll plazas where one could use EZ Pass bypass lanes or a toll plaza, will tell you to use just the EZ Pass lanes or just the cash lanes.  They need to somehow relay that if you have an EZ Pass to use certain lanes, and if you're using cash to use other lanes.  In cases like this ramp, it would be nice if there was a programmable option that would alert the GPS/Electronic Map to know if you have an EZ Pass.  No to an EZ Pass?  The directions won't bother with this interchange then.  The clueless driver needing the GPS to begin with won't even realize it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ekt8750 on July 15, 2017, 04:03:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2017, 02:41:16 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 15, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
I'll also point out that I just tried using Google Maps to see if it would suggest for me to use this exit and it did.

Electronic mapping and GPS directions tend to be horrendous when it comes to areas where traffic is segregated.  I believe every one of them, when it gets to toll plazas where one could use EZ Pass bypass lanes or a toll plaza, will tell you to use just the EZ Pass lanes or just the cash lanes.  They need to somehow relay that if you have an EZ Pass to use certain lanes, and if you're using cash to use other lanes.  In cases like this ramp, it would be nice if there was a programmable option that would alert the GPS/Electronic Map to know if you have an EZ Pass.  No to an EZ Pass?  The directions won't bother with this interchange then.  The clueless driver needing the GPS to begin with won't even realize it.

Yep. God forbid anyone ever reads a sign these days.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman on July 15, 2017, 04:14:47 PM
Quote from: plain on July 13, 2017, 12:20:46 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 12, 2017, 11:53:19 PM
Even having the street name with "EZ-PASS" Only under it would be far better.

It reminds me of this: https://goo.gl/maps/55gcrVtuRRQ2

The signs make it not clear that the tolls apply only to trucks, buses and cars with trailers. The left sign should read "Cars, Trucks, Buses, Cars with Trailers with EZ-PASS" with a minimum toll amount listed. The right sign should be amended to read the same with CASH ONLY (or a symbol as is used elsewhere) instead of "WITHOUT EZ-PASS."

Wasn't the FHWA studying (and soliciting opinions) on these type of topics?

Agreed about having the street name over the EZ-PASS, along with a smaller logo like Alps said.
MUTCD standard is that the ETC banner is to be placed above, not beneath, the destination information.  Plus, APL signs are supposed to show ALL lanes - not just the exit lane and the option lane.  E-ZPass logo should be smaller, 'ONLY' should be to the right of the logo, and a 'NO CASH (or 'NO CASH OPTION' like Massachusetts uses) banner should be placed beneath.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 15, 2017, 10:25:40 PM
Florida has these partial APLs on FL 528 at the Orlando Airport. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 06, 2017, 12:49:38 AM
Drove the Parkway all the way from 129 to 0 this week on vacation.

Some notes:
-1 mile advance for the new SB 125. Has an oversized EZ-Pass logo again but without the APL arrows, it's easier to understand. I wish they had not used them for the other sign.
-109 has not gotten any new MUTCD signage. Are they going to do it as part of the 109 reconstruction project? Everything else in that section (from the Monnmouth toll to the Raritan Toll) has new signage.
-Not a lot of new signage in the Toms River area. 82-82A hasn't been redesignated as 82A-B as of yet.
-The new Atlantic Service Area is actually kind of nice.
-The completed lane expansion through the ACE is NICE. Makes a big difference in slowdowns through a lot of areas, especially around LBI. They're stopping at 36. Did they determine that the AADT south of there wasn't worth the expansion even with summer vacationer traffic? The new GEH bridge is clearly wide enough for added lanes once they finish the other bridge (I mean, the new bridge could have been the only bridge for both sets of lanes, but they did not build it that way).
-The new Exit 0 improvements are nice. NJDOT put up a gorgeous APL on 109 for the new interchange.
-Question I've been curious about for years. Why are the tolls at Exit 4 to and from the South? I mean, they've been there since the inception of the roadway, I'm pretty sure. Those toll booths look original. Why not to and from the North, where you get a large number of vacation traffic coming from northern Jersey/NY/Quebec to the Wildwoods. Are they making enough tolls with traffic coming to and from Cape May to make it worth it?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 06, 2017, 01:28:10 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 06, 2017, 12:49:38 AM
-Question I've been curious about for years. Why are the tolls at Exit 4 to and from the South? I mean, they've been there since the inception of the roadway, I'm pretty sure. Those toll booths look original. Why not to and from the North, where you get a large number of vacation traffic coming from northern Jersey/NY/Quebec to the Wildwoods. Are they making enough tolls with traffic coming to and from Cape May to make it worth it?

Formerly, the last toll plaza going south was between Interchanges 20 & 17.  After that, I guess they determined that motorists 'paid' their way to the end.  Now, it's only a 1 way toll, going North.  Again, I guess they figure that there aren't many alternative options and that motorist on the southern 17 miles going North don't have many options, especially if they want to continue to go along the shoreline.

That said, Parkway users between 0 & 17 have multiple opportunities to use the Parkway free of charge.  If someone got on the Parkway at 0, they could pay a toll exiting at 4, but not at 9, 10, 11 or 13.  I'm sure they had their reasons for this strange setup way back when, but doubtful anyone today would know the exact reason.  Probably some sort of agreement with Cape May County when the Parkway was first built.

QuoteDid they determine that the AADT south of there wasn't worth the expansion even with summer vacationer traffic? The new GEH bridge is clearly wide enough for added lanes once they finish the other bridge (I mean, the new bridge could have been the only bridge for both sets of lanes, but they did not build it that way).

Yep.  The original plan was to widen the Parkway down to Interchange 30 (Somers Point/9th Street Ocean City) but I believe they've abandoned those plans for now. It'll narrow from 3 lanes to 2 just after Interchange 36.  A bridge over a river/marshland was widened several years ago around MP 32 to accommodate 3 lanes per direction, but won't be used as such for the time being.  Since they had to replace the tall bridge over Great Egg Harbor Bay anyway, they decided to make it wide enough for 3 lanes, but there's no plans in the future to widen the rest of the roadway to 3 lanes in the area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on August 06, 2017, 12:23:44 PM
The toll at 4 dates to when they added the south-facing ramps to what was a partial interchange. Presumably they figured they needed a toll to help pay for the construction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2017, 01:28:16 PM
Its amazing how sprawl in Ocean and Atlantic Counties changed it all, but I remember when the road narrowed to 2 lanes each way starting at Exit 98.  I was driving to the shore in High School then and it was just about okay.  It was widened to three lanes each way in the mid 80's and then from 91 to 88 the shoulder removed to add a third lane there and then eventually to 80 the same thing.

Now its four lanes to 91 and three to Pleasantville.  If they widen it all the way to Cap May only Bergen County north of Paramus will be the original two lanes each way then.

Its a shame I live way down here to have not seen all of this transpire as well as get photos of the new signs that have gone up as a result of MUTCD and the construction projects.  NJ was my home for 25 years of my life and you can't rid yourself of the memories.  And always it will be home to me.   The Parkway was a major road I used as I lived in Clark at 135 and saw many changes to it while a resident, but these latest are the ultimate from what I hear and see from photos.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on August 14, 2017, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2017, 01:28:16 PM
Its amazing how sprawl in Ocean and Atlantic Counties changed it all, but I remember when the road narrowed to 2 lanes each way starting at Exit 98.  I was driving to the shore in High School then and it was just about okay.  It was widened to three lanes each way in the mid 80's and then from 91 to 88 the shoulder removed to add a third lane there and then eventually to 80 the same thing.

Now its four lanes to 91 and three to Pleasantville.  If they widen it all the way to Cap May only Bergen County north of Paramus will be the original two lanes each way then.

Its a shame I live way down here to have not seen all of this transpire as well as get photos of the new signs that have gone up as a result of MUTCD and the construction projects.  NJ was my home for 25 years of my life and you can't rid yourself of the memories.  And always it will be home to me.   The Parkway was a major road I used as I lived in Clark at 135 and saw many changes to it while a resident, but these latest are the ultimate from what I hear and see from photos.
Exit 91 is a full exit now.. Of course with a mess of jughandles...

Lakewood has nearly 100k people. I am from Pt Pleasant Beach, which was fully built out in the 1950s but Brick and Toms River changed rural backwaters to suburbia without the urb

LGMS428

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2017, 10:47:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2017, 01:28:16 PM
Now its four lanes to 91 and three to Pleasantville.  If they widen it all the way to Cap May only Bergen County north of Paramus will be the original two lanes each way then.

I don't see them widening it all the way to Cape May.  When the overpasses were built for interchanges 9, 10 & 11, no allowances were made for a 3rd lane in each direction.

The new bridge over Egg Harbor was built wide enough for a 3rd lane, although the width probably helps more for the current construction traffic pattern than for any short or long term plans to widen the GSP south of that area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 15, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2017, 10:47:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2017, 01:28:16 PM
Now its four lanes to 91 and three to Pleasantville.  If they widen it all the way to Cap May only Bergen County north of Paramus will be the original two lanes each way then.

I don't see them widening it all the way to Cape May.  When the overpasses were built for interchanges 9, 10 & 11, no allowances were made for a 3rd lane in each direction.

The new bridge over Egg Harbor was built wide enough for a 3rd lane, although the width probably helps more for the current construction traffic pattern than for any short or long term plans to widen the GSP south of that area.

I believe the original 3 laning was supposed to go to 30, so having the bridge have 3 lanes makes sense from a future proofing angle if the idea is to maybe take it to be 3 lanes down to 25 or so to cover the southern end of Ocean City. I don't see the AADT being high enough, even during summer season, to go any further south from there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 15, 2017, 08:20:53 PM
Quote from: storm2k on August 15, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2017, 10:47:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2017, 01:28:16 PM
Now its four lanes to 91 and three to Pleasantville.  If they widen it all the way to Cap May only Bergen County north of Paramus will be the original two lanes each way then.

I don't see them widening it all the way to Cape May.  When the overpasses were built for interchanges 9, 10 & 11, no allowances were made for a 3rd lane in each direction.

The new bridge over Egg Harbor was built wide enough for a 3rd lane, although the width probably helps more for the current construction traffic pattern than for any short or long term plans to widen the GSP south of that area.

I believe the original 3 laning was supposed to go to 30, so having the bridge have 3 lanes makes sense from a future proofing angle if the idea is to maybe take it to be 3 lanes down to 25 or so to cover the southern end of Ocean City. I don't see the AADT being high enough, even during summer season, to go any further south from there.
30 is correct. The volume goes down from 30-29 and then up a bit from 29-25, which you'd expect because that's the stretch multiplexed wtih 9.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 17, 2017, 08:22:11 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 15, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2017, 10:47:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2017, 01:28:16 PM
Now its four lanes to 91 and three to Pleasantville.  If they widen it all the way to Cap May only Bergen County north of Paramus will be the original two lanes each way then.

I don't see them widening it all the way to Cape May.  When the overpasses were built for interchanges 9, 10 & 11, no allowances were made for a 3rd lane in each direction.

The new bridge over Egg Harbor was built wide enough for a 3rd lane, although the width probably helps more for the current construction traffic pattern than for any short or long term plans to widen the GSP south of that area.

I believe the original 3 laning was supposed to go to 30, so having the bridge have 3 lanes makes sense from a future proofing angle if the idea is to maybe take it to be 3 lanes down to 25 or so to cover the southern end of Ocean City. I don't see the AADT being high enough, even during summer season, to go any further south from there.

I read on the GSP website ( I think it was that one or a good sourced road enthusiast web page) that it was to be 80 to 30 with 80 to 63 being the first phase while 63 to 30 being the second half.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2017, 08:24:26 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 17, 2017, 08:22:11 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 15, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2017, 10:47:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 13, 2017, 01:28:16 PM
Now its four lanes to 91 and three to Pleasantville.  If they widen it all the way to Cap May only Bergen County north of Paramus will be the original two lanes each way then.

I don't see them widening it all the way to Cape May.  When the overpasses were built for interchanges 9, 10 & 11, no allowances were made for a 3rd lane in each direction.

The new bridge over Egg Harbor was built wide enough for a 3rd lane, although the width probably helps more for the current construction traffic pattern than for any short or long term plans to widen the GSP south of that area.

I believe the original 3 laning was supposed to go to 30, so having the bridge have 3 lanes makes sense from a future proofing angle if the idea is to maybe take it to be 3 lanes down to 25 or so to cover the southern end of Ocean City. I don't see the AADT being high enough, even during summer season, to go any further south from there.

I read on the GSP website ( I think it was that one or a good sourced road enthusiast web page) that it was to be 80 to 30 with 80 to 63 being the first phase while 63 to 30 being the second half.

that was the original plan.  They've cut that back though to around MP 35/Interchange 36.  MP 30-35 won't be widened for the time being.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 17, 2017, 08:35:59 AM
So that answers that.  It was to be original and my sources were accurate then.  It appears that way then as I have seen other projects get scaled back in some form.  I guess its not worth selling more bonds over and traffic to Cape May County is not that much of a demand.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 17, 2017, 09:29:07 PM
The Great Egg Harbor Bridge seems to back up from time to time. I don't remember that happening at all 15 years ago. Heck, I got stuck in a backup there in the middle of the winter!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2017, 12:28:59 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 17, 2017, 09:29:07 PM
The Great Egg Harbor Bridge seems to back up from time to time. I don't remember that happening at all 15 years ago. Heck, I got stuck in a backup there in the middle of the winter!
Construction does things.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on October 10, 2017, 09:14:45 AM
Looks like the Exit 36 to 38 section construction has moved into a new phase. There are now three paved and striped thru lanes on this entire segment in both directions, though the left lane is blocked off by cones. The off-ramp from the Atlantic City Expressway Westbound to the Parkway Southbound is now fully open. It has two thru lanes, the right of which ends after entering the Parkway, but the left lane becomes the exit lane for Exit 36, which is convenient for me since that's exactly where I'm going. Oddly enough, the overhead for Exit 36 has a second arrow greened out. It doesn't look like a two-lane exit now, and there are no signs of additional work now that the new ramp is fully paved and the new lane on Tilton Rd is intermittently open when they are not doing work on the GSP overpass there, so not sure what the intention is there.

Northbound, the entrance from Fire Road now has a normal acceleration again.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2017, 01:45:26 PM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/10/the_oddity_of_the_twin_parkway_service_areas_that_are_on_private_property.html#incart_river_home

On the Garden State Parkway, there's actually 2 privately owned gas stations that don't follow any of the NJ Turnpike Authority's normal rules about service areas, pricing and such.  This article mentions how that came to be.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on October 31, 2017, 03:35:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2017, 01:45:26 PM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/10/the_oddity_of_the_twin_parkway_service_areas_that_are_on_private_property.html#incart_river_home

On the Garden State Parkway, there's actually 2 privately owned gas stations that don't follow any of the NJ Turnpike Authority's normal rules about service areas, pricing and such.  This article mentions how that came to be.
Interesting. Why were the service areas built along the NJDOT section private property? Weren't they on the parkway's ROW? Also, back when I worked up in that area, the Exxon price seemed to always be identical to the NJTA service areas, while the Shell price varied (sometimes lower, sometimes higher).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 19, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Drove through Exit 129 today, and there are new small green signs marking ramps and the frontage/service (not sure what we should really call them) roads. Those green signs have mileage on them. No idea what their purpose is, but it's a new thing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 19, 2017, 10:02:15 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 19, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Drove through Exit 129 today, and there are new small green signs marking ramps and the frontage/service (not sure what we should really call them) roads. Those green signs have mileage on them. No idea what their purpose is, but it's a new thing.
That's new to me, and I'm supposed to know all the signs on that road. Someone get me a photo, STAT!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2017, 03:03:01 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 19, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Drove through Exit 129 today, and there are new small green signs marking ramps and the frontage/service (not sure what we should really call them) roads. Those green signs have mileage on them. No idea what their purpose is, but it's a new thing.
The Parkway likes to call what everybody else calls C/D roads as service roads hence the project report on the 88 and 89 consolidation for the C/D roadways when it was being told to the public before construction.  I though they were doing the Texas thing at grade, but apparently it meant the common collector distributor system.

The 129 frontage roads may be just service roads as far as the NJTA is concerned.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 25, 2017, 05:27:38 PM
Here is a slightly blurry shot I managed to get of one of the new signs when I drove through the interchange today. This one is on the NB frontage road at the split for the Turnpike ramp.

(https://i.imgur.com/4xFqFXP.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 25, 2017, 09:54:19 PM
Quote from: storm2k on November 25, 2017, 05:27:38 PM
Here is a slightly blurry shot I managed to get of one of the new signs when I drove through the interchange today. This one is on the NB frontage road at the split for the Turnpike ramp.

(https://i.imgur.com/4xFqFXP.jpg)
Well, that's interesting. I'll have to bring this up to see if there's a new standard to add to their drawings.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 25, 2017, 10:06:02 PM
I think I get what it means. The "129 NBE" is probably the NJTA's designation for that specific service road. It might mean 'Northbound East" or something like that. On the Turnpike they have similar designations for the dual roadways in each direction.

For instance NSO means North-to-South Outer roadway. And SNI means South-to-North Inner roadway. Similarly, at the "mixing-bowl" just south of Exit-15E there is a separate designation for every connector-ramp. SNOE means South-to-North Outer to East leg. And I believe WNSI means West (leg) to North-to-South Inner roadway. Or something like that. If anyone knows different, please correct me.

But getting back to the GSP, that's probably what those mileage markers are, and show the mileage from the beginning of that particular roadway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mrsman on November 26, 2017, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 15, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 12, 2017, 01:48:53 AM
Here is the sign at the new exit 125:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLil8zzW.jpg&hash=80cf4458aef83641325d967a362eb77335ba8f05)

I guess I'm in the minority by thinking this sign is okay. I agree the EZ-Pass logo could be a bit smaller, but at least it puts a strong emphasis on the fact that non-EZ Pass users will be in trouble if they exit here. I think this is important since people from certain areas (such as myself) aren't used to having exits where some cars aren't allowed to use certain exits. I'll also point out that I just tried using Google Maps to see if it would suggest for me to use this exit and it did. I think that makes it that much more important to put emphasis on "EZ Pass only" on the signs since Google will tell people to exit there.

You probably think it's OK because at some level, it is similar to what is done in Ontario.  I agree.  I would simplify the sign by getting rid of the stuff on the left mentioning the parkway.  So the entire top banner will read EZ Pass Only.  And there will be two arrows (straight/right and right) and between the two arrows will be Chevalier Ave.  I believe it is well understood that going straight means staying on the Parkway, so let's not sign that and simplify the sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2017, 05:37:43 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 25, 2017, 10:06:02 PM
I think I get what it means. The "129 NBE" is probably the NJTA's designation for that specific service road. It might mean 'Northbound East" or something like that. On the Turnpike they have similar designations for the dual roadways in each direction.

For instance NSO means North-to-South Outer roadway. And SNI means South-to-North Inner roadway. Similarly, at the "mixing-bowl" just south of Exit-15E there is a separate designation for every connector-ramp. SNOE means South-to-North Outer to East leg. And I believe WNSI means West (leg) to North-to-South Inner roadway. Or something like that. If anyone knows different, please correct me.

But getting back to the GSP, that's probably what those mileage markers are, and show the mileage from the beginning of that particular roadway.
Parkway and Turnpike use different nomenclature. On the Parkway, NBE is North Bound Entrance. NBX, SBE, SBX.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 26, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Okay cool!  At least I was on the right track. Thanks Alps. Come to think of it I knew there were some differences, because years ago when you could listen to those road's radio frequencies on any scanner, the troopers on the Turnpike used those designations I mentioned above, but on the Parkway, they would just say stuff like "North-Outer" and South-Inner". It's all good.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2017, 10:31:53 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 26, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Okay cool!  At least I was on the right track. Thanks Alps. Come to think of it I knew there were some differences, because years ago when you could listen to those road's radio frequencies on any scanner, the troopers on the Turnpike used those designations I mentioned above, but on the Parkway, they would just say stuff like "North-Outer" and South-Inner". It's all good.
Yup, NJ Highway Authority was a little... less rigorous... about stuff like that, and a lot of it just got absorbed. At least now the Express and Local are technically NBI and NBO, SBI and SBO on the Parkway as well as Turnpike, but apparently those haven't caught on yet, no surprise.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on December 12, 2017, 09:34:56 PM
Looking at Google Satellite, it appears that exit 30 used to be a full trumpet.  When were the nb off ramp and sb on ramp removed?

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 09:57:41 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 12, 2017, 09:34:56 PM
Looking at Google Satellite, it appears that exit 30 used to be a full trumpet.  When were the nb off ramp and sb on ramp removed?

ixnay

Based on historical aerials, sometime between 1963 and 1970. The toll plaza was added at that time too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 12, 2017, 10:11:21 PM
An APL sign went up a few weeks ago on the northbound side at Exit 38A (future Exit 38B).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 12, 2017, 11:03:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 09:57:41 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 12, 2017, 09:34:56 PM
Looking at Google Satellite, it appears that exit 30 used to be a full trumpet.  When were the nb off ramp and sb on ramp removed?

ixnay

Based on historical aerials, sometime between 1963 and 1970. The toll plaza was added at that time too.
Yup, before then US 9 was an at-grade intersection! Then they decided to make it a pair with 30.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on December 13, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
So at the ends of both the NB and SB offramps at 135, there are now little green rectangle signs that read "END NJTA". There are not matching signs at either onramp there. I guess this is a new thing they're expanding on the Parkway beyond the new signs on the 129 roadways.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 13, 2017, 11:37:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 13, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
So at the ends of both the NB and SB offramps at 135, there are now little green rectangle signs that read "END NJTA". There are not matching signs at either onramp there. I guess this is a new thing they're expanding on the Parkway beyond the new signs on the 129 roadways.
Bizarre. The only one I ever knew of was at the far northern end, I-95 at US 9W.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on December 14, 2017, 11:24:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 13, 2017, 11:37:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 13, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
So at the ends of both the NB and SB offramps at 135, there are now little green rectangle signs that read "END NJTA". There are not matching signs at either onramp there. I guess this is a new thing they're expanding on the Parkway beyond the new signs on the 129 roadways.
Bizarre. The only one I ever knew of was at the far northern end, I-95 at US 9W.

On 78WB, near Exit 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7110756,-74.1735833,3a,75y,246.15h,92.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scpo2GYo6rbjkz6O1d6Tqyg!2e0!5s20130901T000000!7i13312!8i6656) there is an old end supplemental placard that used to have a Turnpike shield beneath it that's been gone for over a decade or more at this point. It was used to mark where NJTA jurisdiction stopped and moved back to NJDOT (even though the DOT clearly put up all the overhead signage beyond the Exit 14 toll plaza). You can clearly tell the change as it goes from concrete to asphalt. Also, the EB changeover is different.

The only other agency I know that does this regularly is the DRJTBC to mark where they begin jurisdiction of roadways leading to their bridges. I know that 202 has them, as does 22.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2017, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 12, 2017, 11:03:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 09:57:41 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 12, 2017, 09:34:56 PM
Looking at Google Satellite, it appears that exit 30 used to be a full trumpet.  When were the nb off ramp and sb on ramp removed?

ixnay

Based on historical aerials, sometime between 1963 and 1970. The toll plaza was added at that time too.
Yup, before then US 9 was an at-grade intersection! Then they decided to make it a pair with 30.

Looking at the historic aerials site again, I see the sole bridge over Great Egg Harbor sound was there beyond 1970, with the second span added in the years after that (that's the bridge that was recently removed when the new Southbound span was built).  I also see just to the south a connection road between the GSP and US 9 that appears was never fully connected with the GSP.  It was even paved and lined!  Today, it looks like the pavement has been removed and it just remains as a sandy/dirt path.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 14, 2017, 07:31:29 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 14, 2017, 11:24:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 13, 2017, 11:37:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 13, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
So at the ends of both the NB and SB offramps at 135, there are now little green rectangle signs that read "END NJTA". There are not matching signs at either onramp there. I guess this is a new thing they're expanding on the Parkway beyond the new signs on the 129 roadways.
Bizarre. The only one I ever knew of was at the far northern end, I-95 at US 9W.

On 78WB, near Exit 57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7110756,-74.1735833,3a,75y,246.15h,92.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scpo2GYo6rbjkz6O1d6Tqyg!2e0!5s20130901T000000!7i13312!8i6656) there is an old end supplemental placard that used to have a Turnpike shield beneath it that's been gone for over a decade or more at this point. It was used to mark where NJTA jurisdiction stopped and moved back to NJDOT (even though the DOT clearly put up all the overhead signage beyond the Exit 14 toll plaza). You can clearly tell the change as it goes from concrete to asphalt. Also, the EB changeover is different.

The only other agency I know that does this regularly is the DRJTBC to mark where they begin jurisdiction of roadways leading to their bridges. I know that 202 has them, as does 22.
I-78 had a sign at Exit 3 as the DRJTC that marked the end as it was in 1990 when it opened not state maintained, but I believe the signs are.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on December 20, 2017, 06:35:26 PM
Crash-prone Parkway exit to switch to one-way tolls (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/12/crash-prone_parkway_exit_to_switch_to_one-way_tolls.html#incart_m-rpt-2)

QuoteOne-way tolls are coming to the Garden State Parkway's busy Exit 145 to and from Route 280 in East Orange next year as a way to reduce a high crash rate at the toll plaza, officials said.

NJ Turnpike Authority officials approved the change on Tuesday, which will remove the toll plaza at the exit from the northbound Parkway and double the current toll to $1 at the remaining plaza.

The toll plaza should be removed in Spring 2018.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 20, 2017, 10:06:49 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 20, 2017, 06:35:26 PM
Crash-prone Parkway exit to switch to one-way tolls (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/12/crash-prone_parkway_exit_to_switch_to_one-way_tolls.html#incart_m-rpt-2)

QuoteOne-way tolls are coming to the Garden State Parkway's busy Exit 145 to and from Route 280 in East Orange next year as a way to reduce a high crash rate at the toll plaza, officials said.

NJ Turnpike Authority officials approved the change on Tuesday, which will remove the toll plaza at the exit from the northbound Parkway and double the current toll to $1 at the remaining plaza.

The toll plaza should be removed in Spring 2018.
This is actually a good idea from a safety standpoint. Also, with the doubled toll being northbound at 142, it's nice to give people an exit here without charging them another toll.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on December 20, 2017, 10:12:25 PM
Well they won't have to stop again for a toll northbound, but they will still get charged (double) when they enter southbound at the same interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 21, 2017, 12:19:32 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 20, 2017, 10:12:25 PM
Well they won't have to stop again for a toll northbound, but they will still get charged (double) when they enter southbound at the same interchange.
But then there's no SB toll at 142. You're missing my point. I'm saying when they went to one-directional mainline tolling, they could have done the same thing at exit ramps. Everything from 144-148 NB exits should be free, and SB entry should be double.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on December 21, 2017, 09:04:51 PM
Point taken, Alps. You know that area better than I do. (chuckle!)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 21, 2017, 09:34:08 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 21, 2017, 09:04:51 PM
Point taken, Alps. You know that area better than I do. (chuckle!)
I'm also nice and opinionated.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 22, 2017, 04:56:29 PM
Looks like NJTA is marking all their jurisdictional boundries. an "END NJTA" sign appeared at the end of the northbound Exit 135 ramp. Looks like Union County DPW maintains all of the circle there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on December 22, 2017, 05:56:55 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 22, 2017, 04:56:29 PM
Looks like NJTA is marking all their jurisdictional boundries. an "END NJTA" sign appeared at the end of the northbound Exit 135 ramp. Looks like Union County DPW maintains all of the circle there.

Makes sense. It would help subcontractors enormously. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on December 24, 2017, 05:18:35 PM
So it looks like they're getting ready to shift some traffic around on the NB Parkway between 125 and 127. Looks like they're going to move some traffic into a contra-flow situation to rebuild that underpass near 125 that they'd been working on. There are orange temporary signs for 127 that are clearly over the old SB lanes that have moved.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 15, 2018, 05:17:40 PM
So, saw this sign at the bottom of the 129 service road where it merges with Rt 9:

(https://i.imgur.com/AQTVDUAl.jpg)

Not End NJTA, but Begin NJDOT. They're not even doing these little signs consistently.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 16, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
The left lane has finally opened to traffic Southbound in the area between exits 38 and 36 (and possibly elsewhere. This is the only segment I frequent), so there are now three thru lanes (plus the previously opened lane that enters from the Atlantic City Expressway and exits at exit 36). Northbound the left lane is still closed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2018, 12:46:53 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 16, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
The left lane has finally opened to traffic Southbound in the area between exits 38 and 36 (and possibly elsewhere. This is the only segment I frequent), so there are now three thru lanes (plus the previously opened lane that enters from the Atlantic City Expressway and exits at exit 36). Northbound the left lane is still closed.
That should make it 3 continuous lanes from Exit 168 down past 36 now, which is unquestionably the longest 3-lane continuous freeway in NJ and likely for quite some distance around - I can't think of anything longer in the entire Northeast. (I-95 from DC to Wilmington is under 100, as is I-95/NJ Tpk. complex from Exit 4 in NJ to the Bruckner Interchange.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 16, 2018, 05:43:29 PM
The only section open southbound is from Exit 36 to 38. Northbound is coned off in the same area and the segment from Exit 38 to 41 is still being worked on.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 16, 2018, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 16, 2018, 12:46:53 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 16, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
The left lane has finally opened to traffic Southbound in the area between exits 38 and 36 (and possibly elsewhere. This is the only segment I frequent), so there are now three thru lanes (plus the previously opened lane that enters from the Atlantic City Expressway and exits at exit 36). Northbound the left lane is still closed.
That should make it 3 continuous lanes from Exit 168 down past 36 now, which is unquestionably the longest 3-lane continuous freeway in NJ and likely for quite some distance around - I can't think of anything longer in the entire Northeast. (I-95 from DC to Wilmington is under 100, as is I-95/NJ Tpk. complex from Exit 4 in NJ to the Bruckner Interchange.)

Not counting the interchanges with I-495 (and maybe NB briefly just before the I-295 NB merge north of Richmond), I-95 is 6+ lanes at this point all the way from Wilmington to I-85 in Petersburg.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2018, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 16, 2018, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 16, 2018, 12:46:53 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 16, 2018, 09:15:35 AM
The left lane has finally opened to traffic Southbound in the area between exits 38 and 36 (and possibly elsewhere. This is the only segment I frequent), so there are now three thru lanes (plus the previously opened lane that enters from the Atlantic City Expressway and exits at exit 36). Northbound the left lane is still closed.
That should make it 3 continuous lanes from Exit 168 down past 36 now, which is unquestionably the longest 3-lane continuous freeway in NJ and likely for quite some distance around - I can't think of anything longer in the entire Northeast. (I-95 from DC to Wilmington is under 100, as is I-95/NJ Tpk. complex from Exit 4 in NJ to the Bruckner Interchange.)

Not counting the interchanges with I-495 (and maybe NB briefly just before the I-295 NB merge north of Richmond), I-95 is 6+ lanes at this point all the way from Wilmington to I-85 in Petersburg.
I'm counting the interchanges.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 26, 2017, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 15, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 12, 2017, 01:48:53 AM
Here is the sign at the new exit 125:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLil8zzW.jpg&hash=80cf4458aef83641325d967a362eb77335ba8f05)

I guess I'm in the minority by thinking this sign is okay. I agree the EZ-Pass logo could be a bit smaller, but at least it puts a strong emphasis on the fact that non-EZ Pass users will be in trouble if they exit here. I think this is important since people from certain areas (such as myself) aren't used to having exits where some cars aren't allowed to use certain exits. I'll also point out that I just tried using Google Maps to see if it would suggest for me to use this exit and it did. I think that makes it that much more important to put emphasis on "EZ Pass only" on the signs since Google will tell people to exit there.

You probably think it's OK because at some level, it is similar to what is done in Ontario.  I agree.  I would simplify the sign by getting rid of the stuff on the left mentioning the parkway.  So the entire top banner will read EZ Pass Only.  And there will be two arrows (straight/right and right) and between the two arrows will be Chevalier Ave.  I believe it is well understood that going straight means staying on the Parkway, so let's not sign that and simplify the sign.

I would make it even simpler and remove the "straight" arrow from the equation.    "Exit only" already indicates the right lane exits and the second right lane goes both ways.   Nothing needed beyond normal stubby exit arrows here.   I absolutely hate these horrible new arrows -- they make the signs way larger than they need to be,  and they only make sense directly above the lane configuration they describe (as opposed to a diagrammatic,  though not appropriate in this scenario,  but which can be put anywhere,  including long before the lanes being described have begun,  or in places where the sign can't align directly with the lanes).

These new lane arrows remind me of a horrible allusion to white lane usage signage at traffic lights and constantly make me think we're about to encounter a traffic signal or some type of channelization.   I don't like them at all and if I knew at NJDOT who was in charge of adopting this part of the MUTCD,  I'd have Bill Cosby touch their family.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 17, 2018, 01:18:34 PM
Quote from: _Simon on January 17, 2018, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 26, 2017, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: 7/8 on July 15, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 12, 2017, 01:48:53 AM
Here is the sign at the new exit 125:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLil8zzW.jpg&hash=80cf4458aef83641325d967a362eb77335ba8f05)

I guess I'm in the minority by thinking this sign is okay. I agree the EZ-Pass logo could be a bit smaller, but at least it puts a strong emphasis on the fact that non-EZ Pass users will be in trouble if they exit here. I think this is important since people from certain areas (such as myself) aren't used to having exits where some cars aren't allowed to use certain exits. I'll also point out that I just tried using Google Maps to see if it would suggest for me to use this exit and it did. I think that makes it that much more important to put emphasis on "EZ Pass only" on the signs since Google will tell people to exit there.

You probably think it's OK because at some level, it is similar to what is done in Ontario.  I agree.  I would simplify the sign by getting rid of the stuff on the left mentioning the parkway.  So the entire top banner will read EZ Pass Only.  And there will be two arrows (straight/right and right) and between the two arrows will be Chevalier Ave.  I believe it is well understood that going straight means staying on the Parkway, so let's not sign that and simplify the sign.

I would make it even simpler and remove the "straight" arrow from the equation.    "Exit only" already indicates the right lane exits and the second right lane goes both ways.   Nothing needed beyond normal stubby exit arrows here.   I absolutely hate these horrible new arrows -- they make the signs way larger than they need to be,  and they only make sense directly above the lane configuration they describe (as opposed to a diagrammatic,  though not appropriate in this scenario,  but which can be put anywhere,  including long before the lanes being described have begun,  or in places where the sign can't align directly with the lanes).

These new lane arrows remind me of a horrible allusion to white lane usage signage at traffic lights and constantly make me think we're about to encounter a traffic signal or some type of channelization.   I don't like them at all and if I knew at NJDOT who was in charge of adopting this part of the MUTCD,  I'd have Bill Cosby touch their family.

They're not using the APL properly. An APL is supposed to span over all of the lanes so you can easily tell which lane corresponds to which movement. Here is an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4817375,-74.4120648,3a,44.3y,334.48h,93.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smuZ4HVFeCOYPkl_4sYZBSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a proper APL, which does help with knowing which lane to be in. Even though it's part of the Turnpike Authority now, and the whole Authority has gone mostly-MUTCD, Parkway engineers still take some liberties with their signage choices.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 18, 2018, 12:15:02 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 17, 2018, 01:18:34 PM

They're not using the APL properly. An APL is supposed to span over all of the lanes so you can easily tell which lane corresponds to which movement. Here is an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4817375,-74.4120648,3a,44.3y,334.48h,93.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smuZ4HVFeCOYPkl_4sYZBSA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a proper APL, which does help with knowing which lane to be in. Even though it's part of the Turnpike Authority now, and the whole Authority has gone mostly-MUTCD, Parkway engineers still take some liberties with their signage choices.
Call this the California variant. Why construct another 6 lanes of down arrows? I think this is going to find acceptance as people realize the onus APLs place. Diagrammatics are better because they represent all the lanes without down arrows over each.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 18, 2018, 08:58:02 PM
APL's would be a lot easier to swallow both for us guys and the highway agencies if the Federal spec was changed to allow a shorter arrow stem (like those in the above Chevalier Ave. sign) with the resulting  smaller sign panel and a lot less wasted space. Maybe reason will prevail and the next edition of the Manual will contain such a revision, if we're lucky.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on January 19, 2018, 01:14:28 PM
Well, the straight+ramp arrows need to be big enough to see, and the idea behind the other arrows is for all straight and curved arrows to be the same height as each other.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 25, 2018, 10:38:31 PM
I see that Sayreville and the mention of both Routes 9 and 35 are not mentioned like they are NB. I am guessing that its because its an all electronic exit and do not want to send everybody for there and those two highways by using that ramp.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 26, 2018, 02:21:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2018, 10:38:31 PM
I see that Sayreville and the mention of both Routes 9 and 35 are not mentioned like they are NB. I am guessing that its because its an all electronic exit and do not want to send everybody for there and those two highways by using that ramp.

Because of where it empties out, I think that was intentional. It could easily be handled by a couple of supplemental signs. 9 is already handled by 129 and you don't have to pay a toll that way. If anything, it would make more sense for a supplemental sign for 35 at 129. 440 also has exits with 35 so there's no reason for them to include that SB coming from the tangle.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 26, 2018, 08:05:10 PM
Yeah, that is another reason as with it being AET, and you have previous Exit 129 handling most of the cars (as no toll there).  As I lived in NJ and to this day I would use 129 and US 9 as its not much longer as both are signal free roads.  Plus, going to Sayreville is best by using 124 anyway, as this new ramp is only for an industrial area of the borough. 

Going NB you have no exits at 123 and 124 so signing it for Sayreville would be feasible.  I do know that US 9 SB being signed on it was rather recent, as it always had just NJ 35 signed on it for years and even poorly too.  It only had one ground mount at exit guide as being the toll plaza was before it, the former NJ Highway Authority did not bother to have an advanced one either.  Even though the Main Street Overpass would be my place to erect one (or two for both express and local lanes) to advise motorists of the upcoming ramp and had always the at exit on an overhead.  Obviously the NJHA never put much into using proper signage on the Parkway as most locals never cared about them being there to complain about it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 29, 2018, 10:44:42 PM
Garden State Parkway jammed by new traffic pattern for 8-month project (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/new_traffic_pattern_on_parkway.html)

QuoteDespite signs that have been warning of the shifting lanes for weeks, traffic backed up for more than 5 miles in the local lanes during the morning rush hour, according to 511nj.org, the state's traffic website.

They did have a lot of signs up this past weekend, but I guess there's only so much you can do.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 29, 2018, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: storm2k on January 29, 2018, 10:44:42 PM
Garden State Parkway jammed by new traffic pattern for 8-month project (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/new_traffic_pattern_on_parkway.html)

QuoteDespite signs that have been warning of the shifting lanes for weeks, traffic backed up for more than 5 miles in the local lanes during the morning rush hour, according to 511nj.org, the state's traffic website.

They did have a lot of signs up this past weekend, but I guess there's only so much you can do.
It always takes traffic several days to adjust.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 28, 2018, 12:55:48 AM
This frustrating Parkway bottleneck is going to be fixed. It will cost $63M. (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2018/03/63_million_will_buy_relief_from_this_frustrating_p.html)

QuoteReplacing the Central Avenue bridge over the Parkway in East Orange will add exit lanes to and from Exit 145 and increase safety by eliminating tolls in one direction.

QuoteThe toll plaza will be demolished at the exit from the northbound Parkway and a $1 toll would be charged at the remaining plaza.

A couple of facts are wrong in this article, as the whole point is to allow 2 decel lanes from the Parkway NB into 145 and 2 accel lanes onto the Parkway SB. The toll plaza elimination is a newer thing, though. The original plans did not touch the toll plaza. Eventually, the only toll collected at this interchange will be from 280 to the Parkway SB.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 11, 2018, 06:29:33 PM
Does anyone yet use the crossovers at Exit 117 and 114 to go from Express to Local?  When I lived their back in the 70's and 80's those crossovers had no one use them as motorists felt changing carriageways en route was not worth it.

Many New Jerseyans consider just sticking with the local lanes all the way from the start even heading straight through.   As the outer roadway always carried more lanes (the inner at two verses three of the outer) most drivers felt more secure for free flow on the outer road than the inner as well as the time travel factor.  Does anyone save time using the express lanes over the local ones?   Most likely not, so the inner two lanes are just extra lanes and not seen as a free flow to most drivers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 12, 2018, 12:33:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2018, 06:29:33 PM
Does anyone yet use the crossovers at Exit 117 and 114 to go from Express to Local?  When I lived their back in the 70's and 80's those crossovers had no one use them as motorists felt changing carriageways en route was not worth it.

Many New Jerseyans consider just sticking with the local lanes all the way from the start even heading straight through.   As the outer roadway always carried more lanes (the inner at two verses three of the outer) most drivers felt more secure for free flow on the outer road than the inner as well as the time travel factor.  Does anyone save time using the express lanes over the local ones?   Most likely not, so the inner two lanes are just extra lanes and not seen as a free flow to most drivers.

The only time I've seen them have moderate use is when one roadway is congested, but the other is more free-flowing. Personally, I've always been of the mind that you never use the express lanes. If things really go sour on that stretch, you can at least get off at one of the exits and work your way around the issues.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 12, 2018, 01:05:51 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 12, 2018, 12:33:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2018, 06:29:33 PM
Does anyone yet use the crossovers at Exit 117 and 114 to go from Express to Local?  When I lived their back in the 70's and 80's those crossovers had no one use them as motorists felt changing carriageways en route was not worth it.

Many New Jerseyans consider just sticking with the local lanes all the way from the start even heading straight through.   As the outer roadway always carried more lanes (the inner at two verses three of the outer) most drivers felt more secure for free flow on the outer road than the inner as well as the time travel factor.  Does anyone save time using the express lanes over the local ones?   Most likely not, so the inner two lanes are just extra lanes and not seen as a free flow to most drivers.

The only time I've seen them have moderate use is when one roadway is congested, but the other is more free-flowing. Personally, I've always been of the mind that you never use the express lanes. If things really go sour on that stretch, you can at least get off at one of the exits and work your way around the issues.
They get plenty of use. I've used them on many occasions. Heading south, I'll ride the Express lanes while there are 3 of them and watch the locals to see if it's worth switching when Express drops to 2 - or I'll use the crossover to get to the Garden State Arts Center. Heading north, again, coming back from the Arts Center, or the reverse of the above - come north in the Locals because there are 3 lanes, then switch to Express when a lane is added there. 3 is so much nicer than 2.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 12, 2018, 01:12:14 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 12, 2018, 12:33:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2018, 06:29:33 PM
Does anyone yet use the crossovers at Exit 117 and 114 to go from Express to Local?  When I lived their back in the 70's and 80's those crossovers had no one use them as motorists felt changing carriageways en route was not worth it.

Many New Jerseyans consider just sticking with the local lanes all the way from the start even heading straight through.   As the outer roadway always carried more lanes (the inner at two verses three of the outer) most drivers felt more secure for free flow on the outer road than the inner as well as the time travel factor.  Does anyone save time using the express lanes over the local ones?   Most likely not, so the inner two lanes are just extra lanes and not seen as a free flow to most drivers.

The only time I've seen them have moderate use is when one roadway is congested, but the other is more free-flowing. Personally, I've always been of the mind that you never use the express lanes. If things really go sour on that stretch, you can at least get off at one of the exits and work your way around the issues.
I always use the local lanes for the same reasons as noted above (more lanes for much of the length, easier access to exits in a jam) and some might say that certain state officials in white Tahoes tend to frequent the "express" lanes more often.  I don't see any real benefit to the express lanes at all, unless I know in advance of a backup on the local.  Sometimes when heading south during the evening rush hour, I will stick with the express rather than fighting my way across at the split and then use the crossover to the local lanes where it drops to 2 lanes.  That crossover is always a fun time as I take it at full highway speed, and occasionally will almost plow into some clown going 35 around the curve.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on April 12, 2018, 09:10:10 PM
What about this bulge just before you get to Exit 135 nb?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6100331,-74.3117908,1186m/data=!3m1!1e3

Was it once a picnic area?  It's guardailed off now.

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 12, 2018, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: ixnay on April 12, 2018, 09:10:10 PM
What about this bulge just before you get to Exit 135 nb?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6100331,-74.3117908,1186m/data=!3m1!1e3

Was it once a picnic area?  It's guardailed off now.

ixnay
That was the old Madison Hill Rest Area that was closed off years ago.  The Parkway used to have picnic areas in a lot more places.  Growing up in Clark, I can say this area was closed due to party and sex activities as well as Glenside (on the SB side near US 1 in Iselin) where concerned parents did not like stuff going on near the elementary schools their children are in.  Then in Cranford near NJ 28 Tall Oaks was shut down due to burglaries in nearby neighborhoods using the parking facility to harbor their transport vehicles.

Dont know why the shore area picnic areas closed, but Telegraph Hill in Holmdel is still maybe open, but that is part of a regional park though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: MisterSG1 on April 12, 2018, 09:49:47 PM
Is there similar VMSs on the Garden State Parkway in that stretch like here on the 401 that read something like:

EXPRESS MOVING WELL
LOCAL MOVING SLOWLY
BEYOND CROSSOVER

(that's how the MTO would do it)

Only then could I ever see the crossover being useful....taking the 401 as a daily commuting road is a constant game of chance of choosing when to move to express/collectors or to stay in the set of lanes you are in.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on April 12, 2018, 10:43:29 PM
Exit 38 is now officially 38B.
This and other signs now have the B and the "Formerly Exit 38" uncovered  https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4101315,-74.5550061,3a,75y,20.63h,112.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYMFfJvShqkYkJWRED0v6MQ!2e0!5s20151101T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 12, 2018, 11:56:01 PM
They must have just renumbered the ACE exits. Everything was still covered two weeks ago when I went thru there. Isn't the old Exit 38 supposed to be 38A and old 38A changed to Exit 38B? If its reversed, someone screwed up as that isn't following the MUTCD...... after all, they just flipped Exit 4A/B to be in the correct order!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 12:14:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 12, 2018, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: ixnay on April 12, 2018, 09:10:10 PM
What about this bulge just before you get to Exit 135 nb?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6100331,-74.3117908,1186m/data=!3m1!1e3

Was it once a picnic area?  It's guardailed off now.

ixnay
That was the old Madison Hill Rest Area that was closed off years ago.  The Parkway used to have picnic areas in a lot more places.  Growing up in Clark, I can say this area was closed due to party and sex activities as well as Glenside (on the SB side near US 1 in Iselin) where concerned parents did not like stuff going on near the elementary schools their children are in.  Then in Cranford near NJ 28 Tall Oaks was shut down due to burglaries in nearby neighborhoods using the parking facility to harbor their transport vehicles.

Dont know why the shore area picnic areas closed, but Telegraph Hill in Holmdel is still maybe open, but that is part of a regional park though.

When did the one in Iselin close? I don't remember that in my lifetime. I do remember Madison Hill. That closed in the early 90s. IIRC, it was a big gay sex pickup area since it was secluded but there were crime issues arising from that. I might be remembering incorrectly. After it closed, it became the site of an early cell phone antenna tower, which they laughably tried to put fake branches on to make it look like a surrounding tree.

There are still a couple of the picnic areas on the southern stretch open, like past Southern Ocean into Atlantic Counties.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 13, 2018, 12:33:17 AM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on April 12, 2018, 09:49:47 PM
Is there similar VMSs on the Garden State Parkway in that stretch like here on the 401 that read something like:

EXPRESS MOVING WELL
LOCAL MOVING SLOWLY
BEYOND CROSSOVER

(that's how the MTO would do it)

Only then could I ever see the crossover being useful....taking the 401 as a daily commuting road is a constant game of chance of choosing when to move to express/collectors or to stay in the set of lanes you are in.
No, but it's not needed. There is a solid pattern in place. People off of exits 105-114 will use the southern crossovers for the northern Express Lanes. The other set of crossovers I would bet are more lightly used, since there's relatively little traffic to/from the south using exits 117-124.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on April 13, 2018, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 12, 2018, 11:56:01 PM
They must have just renumbered the ACE exits. Everything was still covered two weeks ago when I went thru there. Isn't the old Exit 38 supposed to be 38A and old 38A changed to Exit 38B? If its reversed, someone screwed up as that isn't following the MUTCD...... after all, they just flipped Exit 4A/B to be in the correct order!
That may be. I'll check again the next time I'm there, which should be Monday.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 14, 2018, 03:11:19 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 13, 2018, 12:14:28 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 12, 2018, 09:20:57 PM
Quote from: ixnay on April 12, 2018, 09:10:10 PM
What about this bulge just before you get to Exit 135 nb?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6100331,-74.3117908,1186m/data=!3m1!1e3

Was it once a picnic area?  It's guardailed off now.

ixnay
That was the old Madison Hill Rest Area that was closed off years ago.  The Parkway used to have picnic areas in a lot more places.  Growing up in Clark, I can say this area was closed due to party and sex activities as well as Glenside (on the SB side near US 1 in Iselin) where concerned parents did not like stuff going on near the elementary schools their children are in.  Then in Cranford near NJ 28 Tall Oaks was shut down due to burglaries in nearby neighborhoods using the parking facility to harbor their transport vehicles.

Dont know why the shore area picnic areas closed, but Telegraph Hill in Holmdel is still maybe open, but that is part of a regional park though.

When did the one in Iselin close? I don't remember that in my lifetime. I do remember Madison Hill. That closed in the early 90s. IIRC, it was a big gay sex pickup area since it was secluded but there were crime issues arising from that. I might be remembering incorrectly. After it closed, it became the site of an early cell phone antenna tower, which they laughably tried to put fake branches on to make it look like a surrounding tree.

There are still a couple of the picnic areas on the southern stretch open, like past Southern Ocean into Atlantic Counties.
I heard that story about the gay sex thing at Madison Hill.  Glenside had to close in the mid 80's when I lived in NJ and it was because people (straight people) would have sex in the bushes during school hours at an elementary school is located in the Metuchen part of Woodbridge Township adjacent to the Parkway.  Many parents though that their kids would see it and be traumatized by it and pressured the then NJHA to close it.  It was quickly landscaped over and within a month you never knew an area existed.

Tall Oaks was right next to housing in Cranford and crooks would park in the area, then hop the fence, rob a few houses, and climb back over into the area where no one would be the wiser.

Similar issues happen on I-78 in the scenic overlook near Exit 29 hence the gate that is shut at night as when I was a teen I saw beer bottles and such on the ground whenever my folks pulled in there.  In fact, I am surprised that the Bloomsbury Rest Areas are still open, especially westbound as you have the PA welcome center about 7 miles away.  I am guessing being its rural it has no real issues and really on the EB side its the only rest area on I-78 as PA has none going EB.  They did leave stubs and a ROW near Sharlesville but PennDOT never constructed them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 14, 2018, 03:44:16 PM
Tall Oaks is still mostly there, an empty area next Exit 137 usually for storage of equipment and signs. Where was Glenside? The only place in Clark it could have been is just north of Exit 135 on the southbound side, which is a maintenance yard today.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 14, 2018, 06:27:43 PM
Glenside is right here at SB milepost 130.2 (https://goo.gl/maps/qgUMuqpA7AM2). The rest area closed in October 1987 with the same problems of drugs and sex. Oyster Creek had the same problem.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on April 14, 2018, 06:41:06 PM
I wonder if any of the rest areas were closed due to rock and roll.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on April 14, 2018, 06:44:09 PM
Of course, the good one is the Double Trouble picnic area, milepost 79, which the NJHA abandoned in February 1961 to due a mosquito problem. Due to the location of the picnic area near a cranberry bog, mosquitos were attacking picnickers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 14, 2018, 07:15:47 PM
The Oyster Creek picnic area was also the site of a murder in 1984 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O._Marshall).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 14, 2018, 10:22:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on April 14, 2018, 06:27:43 PM
Glenside is right here at SB milepost 130.2 (https://goo.gl/maps/qgUMuqpA7AM2). The rest area closed in October 1987 with the same problems of drugs and sex. Oyster Creek had the same problem.

Hmmm. I was 6 in 1987, so that's probably why I don't remember it all that well. I wonder if there are some pictures of some of these areas. I've seen some of the older signs for Tall Oaks posted around here in the past.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 14, 2018, 10:59:24 PM
I can't help but wonder if the person who named these service areas was from the New Providence/Summit NJ area. Tall Oaks is the name of a housing subdivision in New Providence, and Glenside is a name commonly associated with the Watchung Reservation area (multiple roads bear the name in the area among other things).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 15, 2018, 04:03:59 PM
I know Madison Hill is the name of a road that crosses the Parkway just north of the defunct Rest Area and is the name of the highest elevation in Clark.  Both sides of where Madison Hill Road intersects the Parkway is a down slope where the overpass over the Parkway is the highest spot on that particular road so I can assume that the intersection is Madison Hill proper hence the name of the street and area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on April 16, 2018, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 13, 2018, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 12, 2018, 11:56:01 PM
They must have just renumbered the ACE exits. Everything was still covered two weeks ago when I went thru there. Isn't the old Exit 38 supposed to be 38A and old 38A changed to Exit 38B? If its reversed, someone screwed up as that isn't following the MUTCD...... after all, they just flipped Exit 4A/B to be in the correct order!
That may be. I'll check again the next time I'm there, which should be Monday.
So yeah, 38 became 38A and 38A became 38B. The only potential issue is that going Northbound (which is the only direction from which I approach these exits on my commute) the exit tab on the 1-mile advance sign says "Exit 38 A-B" whereas the 1/2 mile advance exit tab says "Exit 38 B-A"
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2018, 10:10:07 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 16, 2018, 07:31:12 PM
...whereas the 1/2 mile advance exit tab says "Exit 38 B-A"

I wonder what the southbound sign has?  If it's Exit 38 A-B, then they messed up which sign goes on which side of the road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on April 17, 2018, 09:26:30 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2018, 10:10:07 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 16, 2018, 07:31:12 PM
...whereas the 1/2 mile advance exit tab says "Exit 38 B-A"

I wonder what the southbound sign has?  If it's Exit 38 A-B, then they messed up which sign goes on which side of the road.
A similar mix-up happened 26 years ago with a couple of PA 420 interchange (Exit 9A-B) BGS' along I-95.  The 1-mile advance BGS along I-95 southbound has an EXIT 9A-B tab (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8763977,-75.2807104,3a,75y,266.01h,88.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXlnb7jnMc-uh4WzaXjVZNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and the northbound BGS at the beginning of the collector-distributor road/ramp has an EXIT 9B-A tab (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8685954,-75.3085159,3a,75y,71.36h,77.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZERRicFGBVe6pvMt-wRxiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 18, 2018, 09:37:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 17, 2018, 09:26:30 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2018, 10:10:07 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 16, 2018, 07:31:12 PM
...whereas the 1/2 mile advance exit tab says "Exit 38 B-A"

I wonder what the southbound sign has?  If it's Exit 38 A-B, then they messed up which sign goes on which side of the road.
A similar mix-up happened 26 years ago with a couple of PA 420 interchange (Exit 9A-B) BGS' along I-95.  The 1-mile advance BGS along I-95 southbound has an EXIT 9A-B tab (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8763977,-75.2807104,3a,75y,266.01h,88.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXlnb7jnMc-uh4WzaXjVZNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and the northbound BGS at the beginning of the collector-distributor road/ramp has an EXIT 9B-A tab (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8685954,-75.3085159,3a,75y,71.36h,77.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZERRicFGBVe6pvMt-wRxiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
I am not too worried about b before a or vice versa.  I am glad that SB exit 38A (now B) has a full overhead.  As originally it had ground signs and a SECOND RIGHT sign to let people know it was a cloverleaf originally.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 21, 2018, 12:30:33 AM
They removed the ACE shield from the new signs for no apparent reason. I'm surprised the SJTA hasn't complained about their branding going missing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 21, 2018, 06:03:52 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 21, 2018, 12:30:33 AM
They removed the ACE shield from the new signs for no apparent reason. I'm surprised the SJTA hasn't complained about their branding going missing.
I'm surprised the ACE still belongs to the SJTA.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 21, 2018, 11:32:56 AM
I must say the red flag shield is not that catchy to the eyes.  Unlike the Parkway and Turnpike shields that are practically icons.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on April 22, 2018, 09:53:03 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the new AC Airport supplemental sign also replaced SJTA's shield with a generic airplane icon
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 22, 2018, 08:01:23 PM
Some folks in Cape May County want a full interchange at Exit 20: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_97648f34-3f44-11e8-903d-bf899d8d72d2.html

This is one of the last interchanges remaining with a left exit. Any addition would likely involve eliminating that. The whole reason why this exit and the requirement to use Exit 18 is to force traffic thru the Cape May toll barrier.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 22, 2018, 09:51:47 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 22, 2018, 08:01:23 PM
Some folks in Cape May County want a full interchange at Exit 20: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_97648f34-3f44-11e8-903d-bf899d8d72d2.html

This is one of the last interchanges remaining with a left exit. Any addition would likely involve eliminating that. The whole reason why this exit and the requirement to use Exit 18 is to force traffic thru the Cape May toll barrier.

They could just put up a ramp toll on the SB exit ramp, so forcing drivers through the Cape May barrier doesn't really make sense. Eliminating the left-hand NB exit ramp may be more of a thing, though. If you look at the satellite (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2022884,-74.6994252,228m/data=!3m1!1e3), the land east of the Parkway seems to be all wetlands of some kind, so there would be a lot of costly environmental remediation to put up what would likely be a trumpet ramp to complete the missing movement onto the NB Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2018, 10:44:29 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 22, 2018, 08:01:23 PM
Some folks in Cape May County want a full interchange at Exit 20: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/government/article_97648f34-3f44-11e8-903d-bf899d8d72d2.html

This is one of the last interchanges remaining with a left exit. Any addition would likely involve eliminating that. The whole reason why this exit and the requirement to use Exit 18 is to force traffic thru the Cape May toll barrier.

This is odd. Sounds like the committeeman wants a full interchange, and is trying to get support from others. If there was already support from the general public and other towns and the county, they would already be talking to the NJTA about their desire for a full interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 22, 2018, 11:39:34 PM
The NJTA is well aware that this is a left exit, and they do have a desire to generally try to eliminate left exits. A solution here would probably require mainline realignment to stay out of the wetlands.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadsguy on April 22, 2018, 11:50:32 PM
When did they redo the "interchange" at the southern end of the Parkway? I must have missed that project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 23, 2018, 12:34:26 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 22, 2018, 11:50:32 PM
When did they redo the "interchange" at the southern end of the Parkway? I must have missed that project.
You weren't able to drive yet at that point. It's been many years.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadsguy on April 23, 2018, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2018, 12:34:26 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 22, 2018, 11:50:32 PM
When did they redo the "interchange" at the southern end of the Parkway? I must have missed that project.
You weren't able to drive yet at that point. It's been many years.

Well I looked it up. Two years ago is "many years"?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 23, 2018, 10:09:15 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 23, 2018, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2018, 12:34:26 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 22, 2018, 11:50:32 PM
When did they redo the "interchange" at the southern end of the Parkway? I must have missed that project.
You weren't able to drive yet at that point. It's been many years.

Well I looked it up. Two years ago is "many years"?
It's been redone more than once, I am now gathering. Heh.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadsguy on April 24, 2018, 08:46:36 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2018, 10:09:15 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 23, 2018, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2018, 12:34:26 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 22, 2018, 11:50:32 PM
When did they redo the "interchange" at the southern end of the Parkway? I must have missed that project.
You weren't able to drive yet at that point. It's been many years.

Well I looked it up. Two years ago is "many years"?
It's been redone more than once, I am now gathering. Heh.

I guess so. I wonder what it looked like originally, but the previous configuration is how it's been since I've been paying attention to roads.

I notice the new configuration features an APL going northbound approaching the start of the Parkway. Are there any other APLs in NJ?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2018, 09:12:27 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 24, 2018, 08:46:36 AM
I notice the new configuration features an APL going northbound approaching the start of the Parkway. Are there any other APLs in NJ?

There are some.  When NJ needs to update their signage, they've been changing over to them.

These were temporary signs; only lasted a few years (by design) due to an interchange reconstruction project: https://goo.gl/maps/hJBdA2ANBw22

This one will become an APL due to the I-95/I-295 renumbering: https://goo.gl/maps/zaavchzoYF82

The signs here were changed over for the I-95 renumbering project.  NJDOT could have switched over to APLs but didn't.  Even though the right-most sign says 'Exit Only' over the right lane, the right-center lane is an option lane for the exit; thus would've qualified the interchange for an APL: https://goo.gl/maps/mon9bWWmSVk
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadsguy on April 24, 2018, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2018, 09:12:27 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 24, 2018, 08:46:36 AM
I notice the new configuration features an APL going northbound approaching the start of the Parkway. Are there any other APLs in NJ?

There are some.  When NJ needs to update their signage, they've been changing over to them.

These were temporary signs; only lasted a few years (by design) due to an interchange reconstruction project: https://goo.gl/maps/hJBdA2ANBw22

This one will become an APL due to the I-95/I-295 renumbering: https://goo.gl/maps/zaavchzoYF82

The signs here were changed over for the I-95 renumbering project.  NJDOT could have switched over to APLs but didn't.  Even though the right-most sign says 'Exit Only' over the right lane, the right-center lane is an option lane for the exit; thus would've qualified the interchange for an APL: https://goo.gl/maps/mon9bWWmSVk

Too bad APLs with classic NJ black-background route shields are about to become a very rare breed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 24, 2018, 12:03:19 PM
I still do not see what the difference is between the black border and no border at all.  I mean enough for the Feds to complain about anyway.  It does not enhance safety and I am sure the average motorist does not care what the route number moniker looks like.

You think there would be other things they (the FHWA) could worry more about.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on April 24, 2018, 07:30:47 PM
Wondering if there's any news on the Exit 163 (NJ 17) construction. I saw in a YouTube video that the former left exits have been moved to the right, probably a year or so ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: qguy on April 24, 2018, 09:13:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2018, 10:09:15 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 23, 2018, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2018, 12:34:26 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 22, 2018, 11:50:32 PM
When did they redo the "interchange" at the southern end of the Parkway? I must have missed that project.
You weren't able to drive yet at that point. It's been many years.

Well I looked it up. Two years ago is "many years"?
It's been redone more than once, I am now gathering. Heh.

When you're a kid, it feels like "many years" from from one Christmas to the next. When you're my age "many years" seems like two months. As in, "It's Christmas again? Didn't we just do this last week?"
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 24, 2018, 11:28:07 PM
We took a ride last weekend down the GSP to Cape May and I got to see the progress on the Great Egg Harbor bridge (nice pedestrian walkway!).  On the ride back, which was after dark, we got off at exit 29, just north of the bridge to Route 9 north.  At the top of the ramp at the merge, it looked like some sort of HAWK beacon-like overhead signals were set up, but appeared positioned perpendicular to the roadway.  Since it was dark and I didn't see it until I was on top of it, I didn't get a good look.  Any idea what this is for - I assume something temporary for the construction - maybe a temporary pedestrian cross-over to the new bridge walkway?  I saw in an article they ultimately have a new pedestrian bridge planned over the GSP.  Hopefully they keep that now dead-end stretch of 9 west of the GSP open for maybe a little parking for the walkway access. 

It looks like from another article that Harbor Road on the south side of the bridge is not getting any increase of overhead clearance once the NB span is rehabbed.  Those people out there east of the GSP have an interesting access issue.  And is Route 9 ever going to be fully signed over the bridge/GSP on the south side, including along Roosevelt Blvd?  Last I went through there it was like they didn't want to admit that the Beesley's Point Bridge isn't going to make a comeback.   
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 25, 2018, 12:31:38 AM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on April 24, 2018, 07:30:47 PM
Wondering if there's any news on the Exit 163 (NJ 17) construction. I saw in a YouTube video that the former left exits have been moved to the right, probably a year or so ago.
It's pretty much done.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 25, 2018, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 24, 2018, 11:28:07 PM
We took a ride last weekend down the GSP to Cape May and I got to see the progress on the Great Egg Harbor bridge (nice pedestrian walkway!).  On the ride back, which was after dark, we got off at exit 29, just north of the bridge to Route 9 north.  At the top of the ramp at the merge, it looked like some sort of HAWK beacon-like overhead signals were set up, but appeared positioned perpendicular to the roadway.  Since it was dark and I didn't see it until I was on top of it, I didn't get a good look.  Any idea what this is for - I assume something temporary for the construction - maybe a temporary pedestrian cross-over to the new bridge walkway?  I saw in an article they ultimately have a new pedestrian bridge planned over the GSP.  Hopefully they keep that now dead-end stretch of 9 west of the GSP open for maybe a little parking for the walkway access. 

It looks like from another article that Harbor Road on the south side of the bridge is not getting any increase of overhead clearance once the NB span is rehabbed.  Those people out there east of the GSP have an interesting access issue.  And is Route 9 ever going to be fully signed over the bridge/GSP on the south side, including along Roosevelt Blvd?  Last I went through there it was like they didn't want to admit that the Beesley's Point Bridge isn't going to make a comeback.   
Don't know what's going on down there, but I doubt US 9 is getting signed anytime soon. It would require a DOT/county swap.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 25, 2018, 08:01:12 PM
Quote from: qguy on April 24, 2018, 09:13:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2018, 10:09:15 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 23, 2018, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 23, 2018, 12:34:26 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on April 22, 2018, 11:50:32 PM
When did they redo the "interchange" at the southern end of the Parkway? I must have missed that project.
You weren't able to drive yet at that point. It's been many years.

Well I looked it up. Two years ago is "many years"?
It's been redone more than once, I am now gathering. Heh.

When you're a kid, it feels like "many years" from from one Christmas to the next. When you're my age "many years" seems like two months. As in, "It's Christmas again? Didn't we just do this last week?"
You got that one right.  From 1980 to 1990 it took forever.  The 80's lasted a long time and my job at Marriot was from December 1986 to August 1990 seemed like it was longer than my job at Arastink (Aramark) which lasted from July 2006 to January 2013). 

Anyway glad that I got to be young in the 80's as that decade rocked compared to this decade and last decade.  We had fun then and we had no cell phones or electronic devices either which we all cannot live without.  The downside was roading was dull cause there was no others to talk to due to no internet.  If I had known others took photos of roads then I would have taken pictures then and proved to you all just how signage was then. Like I-895 signed as I-95 before 1985 through Baltimore on some pull through signs.  How MD 2 South was signed as Exit 13 Brooklyn as the MDTA signed Exit 14 (current I-895 Spur) as MD 2 (and MD 3) to keep Annapolis Bound Traffic off of Richie Highway through Brooklyn.

Plus the old classic signs that were up since WWII era that stayed until the 90's too were awesome then even on the Garden State Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on April 25, 2018, 08:37:18 PM
Signs since the WW II era on the GSP? I don't think so. The GSP wasn't built until the mid 1950's so all original signs would be from that era, almost ten years after WW II.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 25, 2018, 09:03:15 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 25, 2018, 08:37:18 PM
Signs since the WW II era on the GSP? I don't think so. The GSP wasn't built until the mid 1950's so all original signs would be from that era, almost ten years after WW II.
Let me rephrase that.  On other roads we had signs that lasted for years from the WWII era, however the Parkway had old signs almost as long, but not quite that were interesting to also see in the 70's and 80's.

I changed thought mid sentence and did not proof read.  My bad. :bigass:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on April 26, 2018, 12:07:01 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 25, 2018, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 24, 2018, 11:28:07 PM
We took a ride last weekend down the GSP to Cape May and I got to see the progress on the Great Egg Harbor bridge (nice pedestrian walkway!).  On the ride back, which was after dark, we got off at exit 29, just north of the bridge to Route 9 north.  At the top of the ramp at the merge, it looked like some sort of HAWK beacon-like overhead signals were set up, but appeared positioned perpendicular to the roadway.  Since it was dark and I didn't see it until I was on top of it, I didn't get a good look.  Any idea what this is for - I assume something temporary for the construction - maybe a temporary pedestrian cross-over to the new bridge walkway?  I saw in an article they ultimately have a new pedestrian bridge planned over the GSP.  Hopefully they keep that now dead-end stretch of 9 west of the GSP open for maybe a little parking for the walkway access. 

It looks like from another article that Harbor Road on the south side of the bridge is not getting any increase of overhead clearance once the NB span is rehabbed.  Those people out there east of the GSP have an interesting access issue.  And is Route 9 ever going to be fully signed over the bridge/GSP on the south side, including along Roosevelt Blvd?  Last I went through there it was like they didn't want to admit that the Beesley's Point Bridge isn't going to make a comeback.   
Don't know what's going on down there, but I doubt US 9 is getting signed anytime soon. It would require a DOT/county swap.
That's why US 202 isn't signed north of NJ 53.


Oh wait.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 26, 2018, 08:27:33 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 26, 2018, 12:07:01 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 25, 2018, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 24, 2018, 11:28:07 PM
We took a ride last weekend down the GSP to Cape May and I got to see the progress on the Great Egg Harbor bridge (nice pedestrian walkway!).  On the ride back, which was after dark, we got off at exit 29, just north of the bridge to Route 9 north.  At the top of the ramp at the merge, it looked like some sort of HAWK beacon-like overhead signals were set up, but appeared positioned perpendicular to the roadway.  Since it was dark and I didn't see it until I was on top of it, I didn't get a good look.  Any idea what this is for - I assume something temporary for the construction - maybe a temporary pedestrian cross-over to the new bridge walkway?  I saw in an article they ultimately have a new pedestrian bridge planned over the GSP.  Hopefully they keep that now dead-end stretch of 9 west of the GSP open for maybe a little parking for the walkway access. 

It looks like from another article that Harbor Road on the south side of the bridge is not getting any increase of overhead clearance once the NB span is rehabbed.  Those people out there east of the GSP have an interesting access issue.  And is Route 9 ever going to be fully signed over the bridge/GSP on the south side, including along Roosevelt Blvd?  Last I went through there it was like they didn't want to admit that the Beesley's Point Bridge isn't going to make a comeback.   
Don't know what's going on down there, but I doubt US 9 is getting signed anytime soon. It would require a DOT/county swap.
That's why US 202 isn't signed north of NJ 53.


Oh wait.
They're not going to enter into a new situation like that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 26, 2018, 10:10:03 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2018, 08:27:33 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 26, 2018, 12:07:01 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 25, 2018, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 24, 2018, 11:28:07 PM
We took a ride last weekend down the GSP to Cape May and I got to see the progress on the Great Egg Harbor bridge (nice pedestrian walkway!).  On the ride back, which was after dark, we got off at exit 29, just north of the bridge to Route 9 north.  At the top of the ramp at the merge, it looked like some sort of HAWK beacon-like overhead signals were set up, but appeared positioned perpendicular to the roadway.  Since it was dark and I didn't see it until I was on top of it, I didn't get a good look.  Any idea what this is for - I assume something temporary for the construction - maybe a temporary pedestrian cross-over to the new bridge walkway?  I saw in an article they ultimately have a new pedestrian bridge planned over the GSP.  Hopefully they keep that now dead-end stretch of 9 west of the GSP open for maybe a little parking for the walkway access. 

It looks like from another article that Harbor Road on the south side of the bridge is not getting any increase of overhead clearance once the NB span is rehabbed.  Those people out there east of the GSP have an interesting access issue.  And is Route 9 ever going to be fully signed over the bridge/GSP on the south side, including along Roosevelt Blvd?  Last I went through there it was like they didn't want to admit that the Beesley's Point Bridge isn't going to make a comeback.   
Don't know what's going on down there, but I doubt US 9 is getting signed anytime soon. It would require a DOT/county swap.
That's why US 202 isn't signed north of NJ 53.


Oh wait.
They're not going to enter into a new situation like that.
Would it kill them to put in some "TO 9" trailblazers at 9/Roosevelt and at the GSP interchange?  I think it was signed better previously when it was "temporary".  And I was going to add that 9 is signed just fine along the other two GSP concurrencies....
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on April 27, 2018, 06:54:44 PM
Has any date been announced for the tolling change at Exit No. 145 yet?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2018, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 26, 2018, 10:10:03 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2018, 08:27:33 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 26, 2018, 12:07:01 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 25, 2018, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on April 24, 2018, 11:28:07 PM
We took a ride last weekend down the GSP to Cape May and I got to see the progress on the Great Egg Harbor bridge (nice pedestrian walkway!).  On the ride back, which was after dark, we got off at exit 29, just north of the bridge to Route 9 north.  At the top of the ramp at the merge, it looked like some sort of HAWK beacon-like overhead signals were set up, but appeared positioned perpendicular to the roadway.  Since it was dark and I didn't see it until I was on top of it, I didn't get a good look.  Any idea what this is for - I assume something temporary for the construction - maybe a temporary pedestrian cross-over to the new bridge walkway?  I saw in an article they ultimately have a new pedestrian bridge planned over the GSP.  Hopefully they keep that now dead-end stretch of 9 west of the GSP open for maybe a little parking for the walkway access. 

It looks like from another article that Harbor Road on the south side of the bridge is not getting any increase of overhead clearance once the NB span is rehabbed.  Those people out there east of the GSP have an interesting access issue.  And is Route 9 ever going to be fully signed over the bridge/GSP on the south side, including along Roosevelt Blvd?  Last I went through there it was like they didn't want to admit that the Beesley's Point Bridge isn't going to make a comeback.   
Don't know what's going on down there, but I doubt US 9 is getting signed anytime soon. It would require a DOT/county swap.
That's why US 202 isn't signed north of NJ 53.


Oh wait.
They're not going to enter into a new situation like that.
Would it kill them to put in some "TO 9" trailblazers at 9/Roosevelt and at the GSP interchange?  I think it was signed better previously when it was "temporary".  And I was going to add that 9 is signed just fine along the other two GSP concurrencies....
This is NJDOT we are talking about.  Heck along US 22 in Hunderdon County you will not see I-78 shields at CR 523 in Whitehouse, or at old CR 523 Spur in North Branch in Somerset like you will find all along US 9 in South Jersey for every road that connects to a Parkway Interchange GSP trailblazers.  Heck many NJ signed routes still have poor signage along them trailblazing among turns in urban areas.  Or better yet, lack of JCT signs like for NJ 27 on NJ 21 in Newark!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 18, 2018, 02:46:46 PM
Exit 116 for the Arts Center is signed again....barely. There are little "116" tabs on the signs at the exit gore now, but none on the overhead advance signs. The lack of "Exit" in the tab is a nice throwback to vintage GSP signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 18, 2018, 10:30:38 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 18, 2018, 02:46:46 PM
Exit 116 for the Arts Center is signed again....barely. There are little "116" tabs on the signs at the exit gore now, but none on the overhead advance signs. The lack of "Exit" in the tab is a nice throwback to vintage GSP signs.
I wonder why the NJTA eliminated the exit numbers in the first place.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on May 19, 2018, 12:20:59 PM
The NJTA lost a court battle over the GSP logo...

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Loses-Trademark-Fight-With-Florida-Pizza-Shop-Over-Logo-482917131.html?_osource=taboola-recirc

(https://media.nbcnewyork.com/images/652*367/jersey+pizza+logo+garden+state+parkway+logo+copy.jpg)

QuoteNew Jersey once again has been told to hit the road in its legal battle with a Florida-based pizza franchise over its logo.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel found there are similarities between the Garden State Parkway's logo and the one used by Jersey Boardwalk Pizza, but on Monday it dismissed the New Jersey Turnpike Authority's claims, saying the businesses are unrelated.

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on May 19, 2018, 08:44:25 PM
This is all the NJTA has to worry about? Pizza shop logos in Florida? Give me a break...........
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2018, 03:15:35 PM
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/upper-township-residents-support-exit-interchange/article_7d1483fc-61c2-5786-a284-7cffb537ca7f.html

Upper Township Residents want a full interchange at Exit 20.  Some have said they're even willing to pay a toll for it.  Per the article, the subject was last approached about 20 years ago, and at that time residents were against additional tolls for a full interchange.  It sounds like current day driving habits have convinced some that maybe paying a toll in exchange for an easier and faster ride may be worth it.

The NJTA, who operates the GSP, generally will push along projects faster in which they can recoup their costs.  If they can get people on board with toll booths, expect these ramps to be built relatively quickly (we're still taking several years though).  If people don't want toll booths, don't expect them to be built at all.

The Interchange 9/10/11 traffic light removal project was pushed back many years because Cape May County didn't want tolls added to those interchanges.  It was finally completed a few years ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 26, 2018, 11:16:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2018, 03:15:35 PM
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/upper-township-residents-support-exit-interchange/article_7d1483fc-61c2-5786-a284-7cffb537ca7f.html

Upper Township Residents want a full interchange at Exit 20.  Some have said they're even willing to pay a toll for it.  Per the article, the subject was last approached about 20 years ago, and at that time residents were against additional tolls for a full interchange.  It sounds like current day driving habits have convinced some that maybe paying a toll in exchange for an easier and faster ride may be worth it.

The NJTA, who operates the GSP, generally will push along projects faster in which they can recoup their costs.  If they can get people on board with toll booths, expect these ramps to be built relatively quickly (we're still taking several years though).  If people don't want toll booths, don't expect them to be built at all.

The Interchange 9/10/11 traffic light removal project was pushed back many years because Cape May County didn't want tolls added to those interchanges.  It was finally completed a few years ago.
So is that what it would take to consolidated exits 36/37 into a full interchange with the Black Horse Pike and/or Tilton Rd and/or Fire Rd? Or interchange 40 with White Horse Pike?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2018, 02:15:21 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 26, 2018, 11:16:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2018, 03:15:35 PM
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/upper-township-residents-support-exit-interchange/article_7d1483fc-61c2-5786-a284-7cffb537ca7f.html

Upper Township Residents want a full interchange at Exit 20.  Some have said they're even willing to pay a toll for it.  Per the article, the subject was last approached about 20 years ago, and at that time residents were against additional tolls for a full interchange.  It sounds like current day driving habits have convinced some that maybe paying a toll in exchange for an easier and faster ride may be worth it.

The NJTA, who operates the GSP, generally will push along projects faster in which they can recoup their costs.  If they can get people on board with toll booths, expect these ramps to be built relatively quickly (we're still taking several years though).  If people don't want toll booths, don't expect them to be built at all.

The Interchange 9/10/11 traffic light removal project was pushed back many years because Cape May County didn't want tolls added to those interchanges.  It was finally completed a few years ago.
So is that what it would take to consolidated exits 36/37 into a full interchange with the Black Horse Pike and/or Tilton Rd and/or Fire Rd? Or interchange 40 with White Horse Pike?

As they're already working on Exits 36/37, they could've made a full interchange at that time.  Chances are it had more to do with a circulation and weaving issues.

As for Exit 40, it appears there's existing buildings and homes, along with a nearby railroad track, that would make constructing a full interchange more complicated than normal.  It's also in an area where you have competing interests: Some want the additional interchange because of ease of access to the Parkway and Rt. 30, and the ability to add more commercial properties to the area.  Some don't want the interchange, because it'll bring more traffic and more development in the area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 28, 2018, 10:57:11 AM
The widening between Exit 36 and 44 is finally complete and open. That took forever.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 01, 2018, 10:19:05 PM
Are they going to complete it to Exit 30?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2018, 12:28:05 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 01, 2018, 10:19:05 PM
Are they going to complete it to Exit 30?
Not yet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 19, 2018, 09:07:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2018, 10:10:07 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 16, 2018, 07:31:12 PM
...whereas the 1/2 mile advance exit tab says "Exit 38 B-A"

I wonder what the southbound sign has?  If it's Exit 38 A-B, then they messed up which sign goes on which side of the road.
The Northbound sign has been patched over to read "Exit 38 A-B".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 25, 2018, 09:04:31 PM
NJ.com: It will cost $10M to fix this mess of a Parkway exit (https://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2018/07/annoying_complicated_maneuvers_at_parkway_exit_109.html)

QuoteA long awaited $10 million plan to make over a tough-to-navigate Garden State Parkway interchange got a green light on Tuesday.

NJ Turnpike officials approved awarding a $10.89 million construction contract to Earle Asphalt Company to rebuild Exit 109 in Middletown where the Parkway meets Newman Springs Road.

QuoteThe original $60 million plan was put on a road diet late last year to stretch the New Jersey Turnpike Authority's $7 billion 10-year capital plan that ends this year.

It looks like the Turnpike Authority is on time with this project, based on their previous Public Hearing Handout (http://www.njta.com/media/3734/int_109_public_hearing_handout.pdf).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 10, 2018, 10:50:42 AM
The Monnmouth Service Area is now closed. It will be demolished and rebuilt under the agreement that the Turnpike Authority signed with HMS Host last year. Plans (https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/09/shake_shack_to_open_at_revamped_garden_state_parkw.html) for the new facility call for a Shake Shack among other amenities to be built there.

Not surprised that they're tearing this down. IIRC, some of those service area buildings on this stretch of the Parkway are from the late 70s or early 80s and outmoded. Haven't seen plans, but expect it will look more or less like the Atlantic City area, which was replaced a couple of years ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 13, 2018, 09:40:34 AM
Here's big news: Parkway to eliminate exact change lanes at main plazas after years of debate (https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/09/parkway_to_eliminate_exact_change_lanes_at_main_plazas_after_years_of_debate.html)

QuoteAfter years of mulling the change, the baskets will be replaced with full service or E-ZPass-only lanes in the main Parkway toll plazas beginning this month, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority announced Wednesday.

QuoteThe coin machines are "nearing the end of their useful lives" and "have become expensive and difficult to maintain," the authority stated. Parts from the machines will be used to replace or repair the ones on the entry and exit ramps.

QuoteNearly 83 percent of people who traveled through the toll plazas used the E-ZPass lanes in 2017, the agency said. Just under 5 percent used the coin lanes.

This does not surprise me. I never see too many people rolling through the exact change lanes these days, given that the toll at almost every mainline plaza is 1.50 and most people do not have six quarters on them. Besides, given the stats of how heavy EZ-Pass usage is, this change makes a lot of sense to me. And it does seem like they'll keep the baskets on the ramp tolls since they're usually only 50 cents.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:46:26 AM
I wonder about that. What's your recourse if you don't have E-ZPass (let's say your are visiting from far enough away that they have no tolling system or a different one)? I can't think of any other toll authority doing this. On the AC Expressway and PA turnpike there are E-ZPass only exits, but they are all newly built and have nearby alternative exits available. The only cashless mainline toll is at the Turnpike Delaware River Bridge and that one does not require E-ZPass
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 13, 2018, 10:06:27 AM
So, just out of curiosity, does the NJTA have something against the SJTA, or did they just not feel like putting up proper ACE trailblazers?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-11_14_34_56_IMG_1874_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-11_14_06_55_IMG_1868_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/2018-09-11_14_34_56_IMG_1874_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-09-11_14_34_56_IMG_1874_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/2018-09-11_14_06_55_IMG_1868_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-09-11_14_06_55_IMG_1868_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:46:26 AM
I wonder about that. What's your recourse if you don't have E-ZPass (let's say your are visiting from far enough away that they have no tolling system or a different one)?
In the case of the Garden State Parkway, they're only eliminating the exact change lanes not the (full-service) cash lanes.  In general, once tolls at the booth start exceeding $1; exact change can be cumbersome & IMHO no longer needed.  If AET is ultimately adopted later; Toll-By-Plate will be done for those without E-ZPass, similar to what's been done on other AET facilities.

Back in the late 80s, when the toll for the Sumner Tunnel in Boston rose from 60 cents to a dollar; the Mass. Turnpike Authority eliminated all their exact-change lanes and experienced no known additional traffic back-ups as a result of such (this was pre-Fast-Lane/E-ZPass).

Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 10:06:27 AM
So, just out of curiosity, does the NJTA have something against the SJTA, or did they just not feel like putting up proper ACE trailblazers?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/2018-09-11_14_34_56_IMG_1874_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg/800px-2018-09-11_14_34_56_IMG_1874_will_rename_and_categorize_soon.jpg)
Not to mention the fact that the interchange signage completely ignores Philadelphia.  The old signs listed both Camden & Philly.  Had NJTA used the ACE shield instead of text; a sign containing both Camden & Philadelphia listings would've probably been smaller than the current signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman on September 13, 2018, 10:13:58 AM
By coincidence, on Sunday when cleaning out my spare room, I found half a roll of GSP tokens that I saved from the glovebox of my 1988 Prelude before I traded it in 18 years ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:23:16 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 13, 2018, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:46:26 AM
I wonder about that. What's your recourse if you don't have E-ZPass (let's say your are visiting from far enough away that they have no tolling system or a different one)?
In the case of the Garden State Parkway, they're only eliminating the exact change lanes not the (full-service) cash lanes.  In general, once tolls at the booth start exceeding $1; exact change can be cumbersome & IMHO no longer needed.  If AET is ultimately adopted later; Toll-By-Plate will be done for those without E-ZPass, similar to what's been done on other AET facilities.

Back in the late 80s, when the toll for the Sumner Tunnel in Boston rose from 60 cents to a dollar; the Mass. Turnpike Authority eliminated all their exact-change lanes and experienced no known additional traffic back-ups as a result of such (this was pre-Fast-Lane/E-ZPass).

When the DRPA bridges from NJ to the Philly area went from 90 cents per direction to $2 one way, same thing - they eliminated the baskets.  It would be several years before toll plaza congestion went down though, which occurred when EZ Pass started.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Brandon on September 13, 2018, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:46:26 AM
I wonder about that. What's your recourse if you don't have E-ZPass (let's say your are visiting from far enough away that they have no tolling system or a different one)? I can't think of any other toll authority doing this. On the AC Expressway and PA turnpike there are E-ZPass only exits, but they are all newly built and have nearby alternative exits available. The only cashless mainline toll is at the Turnpike Delaware River Bridge and that one does not require E-ZPass

They could follow their fellow EZ Pass Consortium member (ISTHA) and allow 7 days to pay a cash rate online (soon to be 14 days).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:58:32 AM
Quote from: Brandon on September 13, 2018, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 09:46:26 AM
I wonder about that. What's your recourse if you don't have E-ZPass (let's say your are visiting from far enough away that they have no tolling system or a different one)? I can't think of any other toll authority doing this. On the AC Expressway and PA turnpike there are E-ZPass only exits, but they are all newly built and have nearby alternative exits available. The only cashless mainline toll is at the Turnpike Delaware River Bridge and that one does not require E-ZPass

They could follow their fellow EZ Pass Consortium member (ISTHA) and allow 7 days to pay a cash rate online (soon to be 14 days).

NJ has always believed that they are providing cash payers a huge favor by keeping toll employees available to begin with.  If they ignore the signs and use the wrong lanes, they're not giving them an additional opportunity to fly thru the EZ Pass only lanes then pay up later.

I think if the NJ tolls do go EZ Pass only, they will at that time provide a toll-by-plate option.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.
Whell NJTA is still spelling out "Garden State PARKWAY" on Turnpike exit 11 signs until after the toll barrier even though they are owned by the same agency and I'm guessing there are no shield recognition issues. Then again the Turnpike hasn't even used its own trailblazer on pull-thrus until recently.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: BrianP on September 13, 2018, 01:50:12 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.
While the text too small is a reasonable argument, the recognition part is bull IMO.  I think the symbol for the road has been used enough by the SJTA and NJDOT to be recognizable. Plus I'm not convinced people know the Parkway symbol by the text on the shield.  I think they recognize the symbol of the shield the same way as the ACE.  The symbols of the three tolls roads are probably known more by their colors than anything else.  Is the ACE symbol as well known as the others? No.  But that's not what's relevant here.  If the exit was being signed by the symbol alone then I would agree it is insufficient.  But the symbol would help reinforce the recognition of the exit, especially when you include the historical precedent of how the exit was signed with the symbol before this change. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.

That argument would suggest not signing the Parkway and Turnpike trailblazers either, since neither of them can be read at speed either.  Anyone not familiar with the area driving around probably has no clue what they are until they take a closer look.  It is kind of a disservice to the SJTA to not have included it, since the obvious goal of including the NJTP and GSP symbol in signs is to increase recognition.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.

That argument would suggest not signing the Parkway and Turnpike trailblazers either, since neither of them can be read at speed either.  Anyone not familiar with the area driving around probably has no clue what they are until they take a closer look.  It is kind of a disservice to the SJTA to not have included it, since the obvious goal of including the NJTP and GSP symbol in signs is to increase recognition.

On a related note to signs that are hard to read, I only recently noticed that the train station symbol on the Woodcrest Station exit on I-295 says PATCO.  It took me a bit before I realized they had created a new Meadowlands logo, too (I'm guessing that was quite a few years ago now, but only recently have I spent a lot of time driving around New Jersey again).  So really, the only reason to include markers like that on signs is to increase recognition (which it does).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 13, 2018, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.

That argument would suggest not signing the Parkway and Turnpike trailblazers either, since neither of them can be read at speed either.  Anyone not familiar with the area driving around probably has no clue what they are until they take a closer look.  It is kind of a disservice to the SJTA to not have included it, since the obvious goal of including the NJTP and GSP symbol in signs is to increase recognition.

On a related note to signs that are hard to read, I only recently noticed that the train station symbol on the Woodcrest Station exit on I-295 says PATCO.  It took me a bit before I realized they had created a new Meadowlands logo, too (I'm guessing that was quite a few years ago now, but only recently have I spent a lot of time driving around New Jersey again).  So really, the only reason to include markers like that on signs is to increase recognition (which it does).

One final point I'll add (and I realize I probably should've combined these three posts)... the idea that the ACE symbol is not very recognizable is a very, shall I say, "North Jersey" perspective.  Its certainly very recognizable to people in South Jersey, and probably in Philly too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 02:20:09 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.

That argument would suggest not signing the Parkway and Turnpike trailblazers either, since neither of them can be read at speed either.  Anyone not familiar with the area driving around probably has no clue what they are until they take a closer look.  It is kind of a disservice to the SJTA to not have included it, since the obvious goal of including the NJTP and GSP symbol in signs is to increase recognition.

On a related note to signs that are hard to read, I only recently noticed that the train station symbol on the Woodcrest Station exit on I-295 says PATCO.  It took me a bit before I realized they had created a new Meadowlands logo, too (I'm guessing that was quite a few years ago now, but only recently have I spent a lot of time driving around New Jersey again).  So really, the only reason to include markers like that on signs is to increase recognition (which it does).

One final point I'll add (and I realize I probably should've combined these three posts)... the idea that the ACE symbol is not very recognizable is a very, shall I say, "North Jersey" perspective.  Its certainly very recognizable to people in South Jersey, and probably in Philly too.
I don't know about recognizeability, but certain local roads in South Jersey are as littered with "TO [ACE]" signs as they are with "TO [GSP]" signs in North Jersey, for example NJ 41 has them as far north as Haddonfield, and NJ 124 has the Parkway ones as far west as Morristown. That said, the ACE trailblazers on highway signs are limited to NJ 42 (and the ACE itself of course), and even then, only approaching the split.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 13, 2018, 02:34:39 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 02:20:09 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.

That argument would suggest not signing the Parkway and Turnpike trailblazers either, since neither of them can be read at speed either.  Anyone not familiar with the area driving around probably has no clue what they are until they take a closer look.  It is kind of a disservice to the SJTA to not have included it, since the obvious goal of including the NJTP and GSP symbol in signs is to increase recognition.

On a related note to signs that are hard to read, I only recently noticed that the train station symbol on the Woodcrest Station exit on I-295 says PATCO.  It took me a bit before I realized they had created a new Meadowlands logo, too (I'm guessing that was quite a few years ago now, but only recently have I spent a lot of time driving around New Jersey again).  So really, the only reason to include markers like that on signs is to increase recognition (which it does).

One final point I'll add (and I realize I probably should've combined these three posts)... the idea that the ACE symbol is not very recognizable is a very, shall I say, "North Jersey" perspective.  Its certainly very recognizable to people in South Jersey, and probably in Philly too.
I don't know about recognizeability, but certain local roads in South Jersey are as littered with "TO [ACE]" signs as they are with "TO [GSP]" signs in North Jersey, for example NJ 41 has them as far north as Haddonfield, and NJ 124 has the Parkway ones as far west as Morristown. That said, the ACE trailblazers on highway signs are limited to NJ 42 (and the ACE itself of course), and even then, only approaching the split.

If by "Highway" you mean "Freeway", I would argue your last point is mainly because the only freeways that connect to the ACE are 42 and the GSP, and as mentioned, they used to be on the GSP signs too. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on September 13, 2018, 03:19:44 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 02:34:39 PM
If by "Highway" you mean "Freeway", I would argue your last point is mainly because the only freeways that connect to the ACE are 42 and the GSP, and as mentioned, they used to be on the GSP signs too. 
I do mean freeway. I've lapsed into local speak I guess. But for example I-295 sticks a "TO [Turnpike shield]" on just about every exit BGS where there is a Turnpike entrance nearby. There are no such signs for the ACE via NJ 42. I-76 has Turnpike shield on BGS's but no ACE shields.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 03:36:23 PM
The worst AC Expressway shields are those with 'Connector' written inside them.  Completely unreadable at slow speeds; much less at highway speeds.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 13, 2018, 04:20:30 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.

On a related note to signs that are hard to read, I only recently noticed that the train station symbol on the Woodcrest Station exit on I-295 says PATCO.  It took me a bit before I realized they had created a new Meadowlands logo, too (I'm guessing that was quite a few years ago now, but only recently have I spent a lot of time driving around New Jersey again).  So really, the only reason to include markers like that on signs is to increase recognition (which it does).

The NJ Transit and Amtrak logos on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5617498,-74.3217352,3a,15.1y,322.37h,100t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srUinNorUARMKG5M1MVDD8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) are hard to see at speed as well.
That argument would suggest not signing the Parkway and Turnpike trailblazers either, since neither of them can be read at speed either.  Anyone not familiar with the area driving around probably has no clue what they are until they take a closer look.  It is kind of a disservice to the SJTA to not have included it, since the obvious goal of including the NJTP and GSP symbol in signs is to increase recognition.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on September 13, 2018, 07:36:10 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.

That argument would suggest not signing the Parkway and Turnpike trailblazers either, since neither of them can be read at speed either.  Anyone not familiar with the area driving around probably has no clue what they are until they take a closer look.  It is kind of a disservice to the SJTA to not have included it, since the obvious goal of including the NJTP and GSP symbol in signs is to increase recognition.

On a related note to signs that are hard to read, I only recently noticed that the train station symbol on the Woodcrest Station exit on I-295 says PATCO.  It took me a bit before I realized they had created a new Meadowlands logo, too (I'm guessing that was quite a few years ago now, but only recently have I spent a lot of time driving around New Jersey again).  So really, the only reason to include markers like that on signs is to increase recognition (which it does).

One final point I'll add (and I realize I probably should've combined these three posts)... the idea that the ACE symbol is not very recognizable is a very, shall I say, "North Jersey" perspective.  Its certainly very recognizable to people in South Jersey, and probably in Philly too.

Two thoughts come to kind.  1.  Guide signs are designed for non-familiar users.  2.  Recognition by locals doesn't justify signing created or proposed by locals, if you will.  The DRBA' s logo for the Cape May Ferry is an embarrassment, or should I say, that the embarrassment is that they tried to introduce it into a highway setting.  South jersey and it's proliferation of Lucy the Elephant signs as an acceptable trailblazer is poor practice by their road authorities/decision makers.

The GSP has done nothing wrong by omitting the ACE Route Marker for Interchange 38.  Too much information in an interstate-to-interstate setting can be a problem, especially for the aforementioned non-familiar user.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 13, 2018, 07:55:29 PM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on September 13, 2018, 07:36:10 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 02:08:42 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 13, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 13, 2018, 01:22:02 PM
RE: ACE signing, that was a conscious decision because the ACE shield doesn't have enough recognition and the text is too small to be legible at speed.

That argument would suggest not signing the Parkway and Turnpike trailblazers either, since neither of them can be read at speed either.  Anyone not familiar with the area driving around probably has no clue what they are until they take a closer look.  It is kind of a disservice to the SJTA to not have included it, since the obvious goal of including the NJTP and GSP symbol in signs is to increase recognition.

On a related note to signs that are hard to read, I only recently noticed that the train station symbol on the Woodcrest Station exit on I-295 says PATCO.  It took me a bit before I realized they had created a new Meadowlands logo, too (I'm guessing that was quite a few years ago now, but only recently have I spent a lot of time driving around New Jersey again).  So really, the only reason to include markers like that on signs is to increase recognition (which it does).

One final point I'll add (and I realize I probably should've combined these three posts)... the idea that the ACE symbol is not very recognizable is a very, shall I say, "North Jersey" perspective.  Its certainly very recognizable to people in South Jersey, and probably in Philly too.

Two thoughts come to kind.  1.  Guide signs are designed for non-familiar users.  2.  Recognition by locals doesn't justify signing created or proposed by locals, if you will.  The DRBA' s logo for the Cape May Ferry is an embarrassment, or should I say, that the embarrassment is that they tried to introduce it into a highway setting.  South jersey and it's proliferation of Lucy the Elephant signs as an acceptable trailblazer is poor practice by their road authorities/decision makers.

The GSP has done nothing wrong by omitting the ACE Route Marker for Interchange 38.  Too much information in an interstate-to-interstate setting can be a problem, especially for the aforementioned non-familiar user.
I would agree... except that the equally illegible GSP and NJTP markers are plastered all over highway signs, so its contradictory to have not also posted the ACE blazer. Hence my opening comment.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:35:05 PM
I'd say the NJTP trailblazers are extremely recognizable. The 4 large letters are the important part of that sign. The "Turnpike" written in small letters isn't as easily seen, but like the state written on an Interstate shield, it's not all that important.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 14, 2018, 07:06:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:35:05 PM
I'd say the NJTP trailblazers are extremely recognizable. The 4 large letters are the important part of that sign. The "Turnpike" written in small letters isn't as easily seen, but like the state written on an Interstate shield, it's not all that important.
If you are a local, sure. Think about it from the perspective of someone who's never visited the area, though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2018, 08:18:57 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 14, 2018, 07:06:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:35:05 PM
I'd say the NJTP trailblazers are extremely recognizable. The 4 large letters are the important part of that sign. The "Turnpike" written in small letters isn't as easily seen, but like the state written on an Interstate shield, it's not all that important.
If you are a local, sure. Think about it from the perspective of someone who’s never visited the area, though.

Based on all the traffic I watch coming up thru Delaware into NJ and onto the Turnpike, they don't seem to have an issue with it.  And I've been doing that trip myself since 1993, well before GPSs...and still, never seemed to be an issue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on September 14, 2018, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2018, 08:18:57 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 14, 2018, 07:06:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:35:05 PM
I'd say the NJTP trailblazers are extremely recognizable. The 4 large letters are the important part of that sign. The "Turnpike" written in small letters isn't as easily seen, but like the state written on an Interstate shield, it's not all that important.
If you are a local, sure. Think about it from the perspective of someone who's never visited the area, though.

Based on all the traffic I watch coming up thru Delaware into NJ and onto the Turnpike, they don't seem to have an issue with it.  And I've been doing that trip myself since 1993, well before GPSs...and still, never seemed to be an issue.
additionally, note that adjacent states' agencies no issues with the recognizability of the Turnpike shield (for example, on I-95 NB in Delaware approaching the I-295 split).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 14, 2018, 10:53:20 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2018, 08:18:57 AM
Quote from: famartin on September 14, 2018, 07:06:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2018, 10:35:05 PM
I'd say the NJTP trailblazers are extremely recognizable. The 4 large letters are the important part of that sign. The "Turnpike" written in small letters isn't as easily seen, but like the state written on an Interstate shield, it's not all that important.
If you are a local, sure. Think about it from the perspective of someone who's never visited the area, though.

Based on all the traffic I watch coming up thru Delaware into NJ and onto the Turnpike, they don't seem to have an issue with it.  And I've been doing that trip myself since 1993, well before GPSs...and still, never seemed to be an issue.

Well remember, all the signs also say either "New Jersey Turnpike"  or "New Jersey - New York" . If only a NJTP blazer was posted, I'm sure there'd be a lot more lost motorists.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 14, 2018, 10:55:29 AM
And again, we're getting away from the issue here. I am fine and in fact would encourage posting of ALL trailblazers. The point is that on prominent signage, the NJTA omitted another agency's.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2018, 12:07:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 14, 2018, 10:55:29 AM
And again, we’re getting away from the issue here. I am fine and in fact would encourage posting of ALL trailblazers. The point is that on prominent signage, the NJTA omitted another agency’s.

But as Alps mentioned, it was a collaborative decision to do so.

As part of the project, the NJTA widened the AC Expressway's overpass over the Parkway, so it's not as if the NJTA ignored the other agencies' facilities completely; in fact they gave it a nice upgrade.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: BrianP on September 14, 2018, 01:06:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2018, 12:07:54 PMAs part of the project, the NJTA widened the AC Expressway's overpass over the Parkway, so it's not as if the NJTA ignored the other agencies' facilities completely; in fact they gave it a nice upgrade.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was a compromise. So they deserve little if any credit.  Because flyover ramps are really called for there.  There should be flyover ramps at least for northbound to westbound and maybe to a lesser extent southbound to eastbound.  I say that since the former is a two-lane loop ramp. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2018, 01:34:28 PM
Quote from: BrianP on September 14, 2018, 01:06:42 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2018, 12:07:54 PMAs part of the project, the NJTA widened the AC Expressway's overpass over the Parkway, so it's not as if the NJTA ignored the other agencies' facilities completely; in fact they gave it a nice upgrade.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was a compromise. So they deserve little if any credit.  Because flyover ramps are really called for there.  There should be flyover ramps at least for northbound to westbound and maybe to a lesser extent southbound to eastbound.  I say that since the former is a two-lane loop ramp. 

Totally agree that flyover ramps are needed.  But that's really a whole different ballgame; not one that is easily done, especially in NJ.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 14, 2018, 09:49:02 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2018, 12:07:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 14, 2018, 10:55:29 AM
And again, we're getting away from the issue here. I am fine and in fact would encourage posting of ALL trailblazers. The point is that on prominent signage, the NJTA omitted another agency's.

But as Alps mentioned, it was a collaborative decision to do so.

As part of the project, the NJTA widened the AC Expressway's overpass over the Parkway, so it's not as if the NJTA ignored the other agencies' facilities completely; in fact they gave it a nice upgrade.
You misread his post. He said it was a conscious decision, not a collaborative one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 13, 2018, 02:49:53 PM
Was Route 19 originally part of the Parkway?  I drove on it today for the first time it appears that it might have been.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 13, 2018, 03:09:41 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 13, 2018, 02:49:53 PM
Was Route 19 originally part of the Parkway?  I drove on it today for the first time it appears that it might have been.
It was originally planned as a Parkway spur to Paterson, but it was built as a full freeway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:25:33 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/9TrgGFScyxB2 Is the Exit 7S gore sign with the SB GSP shield the only guide for the WB (or even EB as ditto for the other side) ACE for the Parkway South?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 14, 2018, 08:18:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:25:33 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/9TrgGFScyxB2 Is the Exit 7S gore sign with the SB GSP shield the only guide for the WB (or even EB as ditto for the other side) ACE for the Parkway South?

https://goo.gl/maps/MigV5tZfUG92
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 14, 2018, 09:55:49 PM
So far, only the Cape May and Bloomfield barrier tolls have been converted to full service only (that I've seen). With the elimination of the exact change lanes, they are switching to the MUTCD standard "FULL SERVICE" lane graphics at the plaza. Naturally the one (!) staffed lane at the Cape May plaza had a long line of cars at it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on October 15, 2018, 09:07:36 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 14, 2018, 09:55:49 PM
So far, only the Cape May and Bloomfield barrier tolls have been converted to full service only (that I've seen). With the elimination of the exact change lanes, they are switching to the MUTCD standard "FULL SERVICE" lane graphics at the plaza.
Further north at the mainline southbound toll plaza between Exits 151 & 149 in Bloomfield; as of this past weekend (Oct. 13-14), a similar change was completed as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 15, 2018, 01:02:33 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 14, 2018, 09:55:49 PM
So far, only the Cape May and Bloomfield barrier tolls have been converted to full service only (that I've seen). With the elimination of the exact change lanes, they are switching to the MUTCD standard "FULL SERVICE" lane graphics at the plaza. Naturally the one (!) staffed lane at the Cape May plaza had a long line of cars at it.

"Full Service" is a complete NJTA thing. It's starting to pop up at the Turnpike plazas as well, complete with pictogram, in place of the older "Cash/EZ-Pass" signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 15, 2018, 05:19:46 PM
Union toll plaza was being converted today.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:20:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 14, 2018, 08:18:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:25:33 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/9TrgGFScyxB2 Is the Exit 7S gore sign with the SB GSP shield the only guide for the WB (or even EB as ditto for the other side) ACE for the Parkway South?

https://goo.gl/maps/MigV5tZfUG92
I am aware of that one, but there is no at exit guide here.  There used to be a left side Cape May Guide with a Parkway shield under it before the GSP crossing, but even that perished.  I assume that was gone when the ACE was six laned some time ago. 

PA at the Fort Indiantown Gap exit used to lack one as the sign bridge before the PA 934 ramp departed had a Next Right sign, but as we all know the MUTCD made it where an at exit sign must be present.  Heck PA, FL, and SC all had to nix the "Next Right" in favor of an arrow due to MUTCD compliances over the years.

Of course the ACE does not want to change signs and bring them up to date.  Most guides still use all upper case.  They did though used mix case going EB at US 9, but because that was added later after the change in guidelines, but other than that the whole ACE has old signage. 

You must agree that new overheads are needed there and with 3 lanes each way its time to adapt.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on October 16, 2018, 12:11:54 AM
Over the summer, I was out on the water and decided to get some shots of the Great Egg Harbor Bridge construction.
I find it fascinating that they took the northbound bridge all the way down to the piles even though they don't look in that great a shape.

Here are the pictures (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOfzsefHikRE_I2_Jn1QhA4k58-NhdumR3WB1w6ADdPDcLvH3GQrUkoMjPZkFw8AQ?key=Y0JEclpXTnI4d2Vqb1UxWk85d0xSejNBRnI5NVNB)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 16, 2018, 12:21:34 AM
All that money spent just to have a two lane wide bridge with no safety shoulder.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on October 16, 2018, 12:57:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 13, 2018, 10:25:33 PM
(or even EB as ditto for the other side)
Eastbound, there is, what I think is intended to be the exit sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4235225,-74.5742414,3a,75y,122.28h,104.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siFS082IXjGkvDo3gerCMoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Of course, that sign is all sorts of incorrect and a bit too far away from the exit, but it does mention the GSP.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 16, 2018, 06:04:28 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 16, 2018, 12:21:34 AM
All that money spent just to have a two lane wide bridge with no safety shoulder.
Huh? All of the Parkway's new bridges are built to be expanded to 3 lanes wide with shoulders. Right NOW, no, because there's still construction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on October 16, 2018, 06:12:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 16, 2018, 06:04:28 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 16, 2018, 12:21:34 AM
All that money spent just to have a two lane wide bridge with no safety shoulder.
Huh? All of the Parkway's new bridges are built to be expanded to 3 lanes wide with shoulders. Right NOW, no, because there's still construction.
Yes but the northbound bridge that they are rehabbing is going to be just as wide as it used to be.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 06:41:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on October 16, 2018, 06:12:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 16, 2018, 06:04:28 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 16, 2018, 12:21:34 AM
All that money spent just to have a two lane wide bridge with no safety shoulder.
Huh? All of the Parkway's new bridges are built to be expanded to 3 lanes wide with shoulders. Right NOW, no, because there's still construction.
Yes but the northbound bridge that they are rehabbing is going to be just as wide as it used to be.

Because the NB span was newer, they decided just to do a rehab. Considering what they're doing with it, it would've been nice to widen it for a 3rd lane to take advantage of the current lane configuration on the future SB side.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadsguy on October 16, 2018, 06:49:44 PM
Wait, are they rebuilding the whole northbound bridge as-is or were only a few of the segments totally replaced?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 16, 2018, 07:07:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 06:41:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on October 16, 2018, 06:12:46 PM
Quote from: Alps on October 16, 2018, 06:04:28 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 16, 2018, 12:21:34 AM
All that money spent just to have a two lane wide bridge with no safety shoulder.
Huh? All of the Parkway's new bridges are built to be expanded to 3 lanes wide with shoulders. Right NOW, no, because there's still construction.
Yes but the northbound bridge that they are rehabbing is going to be just as wide as it used to be.

Because the NB span was newer, they decided just to do a rehab. Considering what they're doing with it, it would've been nice to widen it for a 3rd lane to take advantage of the current lane configuration on the future SB side.
Okay, I did not realize that at all. I'm surprised.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 16, 2018, 08:39:11 PM
The Bergen toll plaza now has the Full Service lanes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
In Florida we do not accept debit or credit cards, so I guess they cannot change the signs to full service.

If I understand this correctly it means cash, credit, or EZ Pass.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 16, 2018, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
In Florida we do not accept debit or credit cards, so I guess they cannot change the signs to full service.

If I understand this correctly it means cash, credit, or EZ Pass.

Except neither Turnpike Authority facility takes credit or debit cards either...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 16, 2018, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
In Florida we do not accept debit or credit cards, so I guess they cannot change the signs to full service.

If I understand this correctly it means cash, credit, or EZ Pass.

Except neither Turnpike Authority facility takes credit or debit cards either...
Oh boy, as a former toll collector the toll collectors there are going to here it from the motorists who refuse to carry cash and rely on Mr. Debit.

Did I not here, though, that the Parkway and Turnpike do accept debit cards?  I do not know if it was here from another user or on an internet article I surfed recently, but I seen it someplace.  Maybe it was for another NYC metro roadway, but I do know one EZ Pass toll road does accept them now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on October 16, 2018, 10:54:40 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 16, 2018, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
In Florida we do not accept debit or credit cards, so I guess they cannot change the signs to full service.

If I understand this correctly it means cash, credit, or EZ Pass.

Except neither Turnpike Authority facility takes credit or debit cards either...
Oh boy, as a former toll collector the toll collectors there are going to here it from the motorists who refuse to carry cash and rely on Mr. Debit.

Did I not here, though, that the Parkway and Turnpike do accept debit cards?  I do not know if it was here from another user or on an internet article I surfed recently, but I seen it someplace.  Maybe it was for another NYC metro roadway, but I do know one EZ Pass toll road does accept them now.

Probably not what you are talking about since its way down here, but the Dulles Toll Road has EZPASS and accepts credit/debit cards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on October 16, 2018, 10:55:21 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 16, 2018, 06:49:44 PM
Wait, are they rebuilding the whole northbound bridge as-is or were only a few of the segments totally replaced?

Every segment will be completely replaced. The only thing original will be the concrete piles.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 16, 2018, 11:15:15 PM
Full servicein NJ means cash, exact change, or EZPass.

The Indiana East-West Toll Road accepts credit cards along with currency and EZPass.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:52:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 16, 2018, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
In Florida we do not accept debit or credit cards, so I guess they cannot change the signs to full service.

If I understand this correctly it means cash, credit, or EZ Pass.

Except neither Turnpike Authority facility takes credit or debit cards either...
Oh boy, as a former toll collector the toll collectors there are going to here it from the motorists who refuse to carry cash and rely on Mr. Debit.

Did I not here, though, that the Parkway and Turnpike do accept debit cards?  I do not know if it was here from another user or on an internet article I surfed recently, but I seen it someplace.  Maybe it was for another NYC metro roadway, but I do know one EZ Pass toll road does accept them now.

The PA Turnpike accepts credit/debit cards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 18, 2018, 11:27:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:52:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 16, 2018, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
In Florida we do not accept debit or credit cards, so I guess they cannot change the signs to full service.

If I understand this correctly it means cash, credit, or EZ Pass.

Except neither Turnpike Authority facility takes credit or debit cards either...
Oh boy, as a former toll collector the toll collectors there are going to here it from the motorists who refuse to carry cash and rely on Mr. Debit.

Did I not here, though, that the Parkway and Turnpike do accept debit cards?  I do not know if it was here from another user or on an internet article I surfed recently, but I seen it someplace.  Maybe it was for another NYC metro roadway, but I do know one EZ Pass toll road does accept them now.

The PA Turnpike accepts credit/debit cards.
That is where I saw the acceptance. 

However, Full Service to me would mean everything accepted.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on October 19, 2018, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 18, 2018, 11:27:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:52:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 16, 2018, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
In Florida we do not accept debit or credit cards, so I guess they cannot change the signs to full service.

If I understand this correctly it means cash, credit, or EZ Pass.

Except neither Turnpike Authority facility takes credit or debit cards either...
Oh boy, as a former toll collector the toll collectors there are going to here it from the motorists who refuse to carry cash and rely on Mr. Debit.

Did I not here, though, that the Parkway and Turnpike do accept debit cards?  I do not know if it was here from another user or on an internet article I surfed recently, but I seen it someplace.  Maybe it was for another NYC metro roadway, but I do know one EZ Pass toll road does accept them now.

The PA Turnpike accepts credit/debit cards.
That is where I saw the acceptance. 

However, Full Service to me would mean everything accepted.

to me, "Full Service" means there's an attendant - which is consistent with how it is used at gas stations. it has nothing to do with accepted methods of payment.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 10:43:07 AM
Quote from: odditude on October 19, 2018, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 18, 2018, 11:27:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 16, 2018, 11:52:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 10:48:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 16, 2018, 10:08:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
In Florida we do not accept debit or credit cards, so I guess they cannot change the signs to full service.

If I understand this correctly it means cash, credit, or EZ Pass.

Except neither Turnpike Authority facility takes credit or debit cards either...
Oh boy, as a former toll collector the toll collectors there are going to here it from the motorists who refuse to carry cash and rely on Mr. Debit.

Did I not here, though, that the Parkway and Turnpike do accept debit cards?  I do not know if it was here from another user or on an internet article I surfed recently, but I seen it someplace.  Maybe it was for another NYC metro roadway, but I do know one EZ Pass toll road does accept them now.

The PA Turnpike accepts credit/debit cards.
That is where I saw the acceptance. 

However, Full Service to me would mean everything accepted.

to me, "Full Service" means there's an attendant - which is consistent with how it is used at gas stations. it has nothing to do with accepted methods of payment.

I wished they didn't go that way with the wording because it is a bit confusing.  'Cash' is very plain and simple.

Then again, I've seen people enter the 'EZ Pass Only' lanes, stop, and ask what it means. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Tonytone on October 19, 2018, 12:41:57 PM
Whats the issue with tolls converting to debit & credit? Full Service sounds a lot like "we have & we accept everything"  & Wouldn't switching to toll less gantries solve everything ? Ezpass or they send the bill in the mail every month.


iPhone
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 19, 2018, 12:41:57 PM
Whats the issue with tolls converting to debit & credit?
iPhone

There's a credit card transaction fee of approximately 3% of the charge every time the card is used, usually paid by the company.  There's also equipment expenses, phone line expenses, receipt paper expenses, etc.   Toll agencies don't want to pay these fees and expenses.  They would rather motorists convert to EZ Pass.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Tonytone on October 19, 2018, 12:49:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 19, 2018, 12:41:57 PM
Whats the issue with tolls converting to debit & credit?
iPhone

There's a credit card transaction fee of approximately 3% of the charge every time the card is used, usually paid by the company.  There's also equipment expenses, phone line expenses, receipt paper expenses, etc.   Toll agencies don't want to pay these fees and expenses.  They would rather motorists convert to EZ Pass.
Actually makes sense. Its their type of debit. Because you're card is hooked up to it.


iPhone
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on October 19, 2018, 08:14:22 PM
I personally preferred the more specific toll-lane signing such as Cash or E-Z Pass because it's specific as to what is accepted.

Also, my reading of the Manual's standard re: toll booth signs is that it does not specifically require the words Full Service. Sec. 2F-13.20 states: Signs for attended lanes at toll plazas SHALL include word messages SUCH AS Full Service, Cash, Change or Receipts. I assume that the words such as make these legends  suggestions only, not mandatory and leaves the door open for similar, but not identical messages.

So why are some toll agencies rushing to change their signs to read Full Service?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on October 19, 2018, 09:01:45 PM
It's not about what the lane accepts.  It's about what the lane offers and Receipts is one of them.  A GSP non-ezpass lane can offer cash, change, receipts and expass. It all can't simply fit on the sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mrsman on November 06, 2018, 06:04:36 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 19, 2018, 12:41:57 PM
Whats the issue with tolls converting to debit & credit?
iPhone

There's a credit card transaction fee of approximately 3% of the charge every time the card is used, usually paid by the company.  There's also equipment expenses, phone line expenses, receipt paper expenses, etc.   Toll agencies don't want to pay these fees and expenses.  They would rather motorists convert to EZ Pass.

Don't forget the delay involved in making sure the credit card is approved.

But all of this is talk is relatively short term.  More and more toll roads are becoming ORT and I expect the GSP will be fully converted in the next 5-10 years.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2018, 08:02:21 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 19, 2018, 08:14:22 PM
I personally preferred the more specific toll-lane signing such as Cash or E-Z Pass because it's specific as to what is accepted.

Also, my reading of the Manual's standard re: toll booth signs is that it does not specifically require the words Full Service. Sec. 2F-13.20 states: Signs for attended lanes at toll plazas SHALL include word messages SUCH AS Full Service, Cash, Change or Receipts. I assume that the words such as make these legends  suggestions only, not mandatory and leaves the door open for similar, but not identical messages.

So why are some toll agencies rushing to change their signs to read Full Service?

The manual was written in 2009. I hardly think a conversion 9 years later is rushing it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Tonytone on November 07, 2018, 01:19:53 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 06, 2018, 06:04:36 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 12:47:44 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on October 19, 2018, 12:41:57 PM
Whats the issue with tolls converting to debit & credit?
iPhone

There's a credit card transaction fee of approximately 3% of the charge every time the card is used, usually paid by the company.  There's also equipment expenses, phone line expenses, receipt paper expenses, etc.   Toll agencies don't want to pay these fees and expenses.  They would rather motorists convert to EZ Pass.

Don't forget the delay involved in making sure the credit card is approved.

But all of this is talk is relatively short term.  More and more toll roads are becoming ORT and I expect the GSP will be fully converted in the next 5-10 years.
That delay is about equal to how long it take for them to break a bill & give you back change. Even though ezpass is the best option with mail tollz coming in 2nd best. & For now keep the tolls & the jobs they provide. New highway are being built with the wireless stuff.


iPhone
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2018, 11:52:27 AM
Wonder if the NJTA still has the signs that say "No Pennies Please?"  That takes forever to count especially when the patron gives over 10 cents or more, plus you will get the occasional driver who pays over $2 in pennies just to be cute with our state in Florida insisting we MUST take them even though socially it was considered not right, but today we live in a society that is not traditional, but insists that the individual ways, though different, were all passed down through my granddaddy.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2018, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2018, 11:52:27 AM
Wonder if the NJTA still has the signs that say "No Pennies Please?"  That takes forever to count especially when the patron gives over 10 cents or more, plus you will get the occasional driver who pays over $2 in pennies just to be cute with our state in Florida insisting we MUST take them even though socially it was considered not right, but today we live in a society that is not traditional, but insists that the individual ways, though different, were all passed down through my granddaddy.

Regardless if the sign exists are not, they are supposed to take pennies.  The sign is there just to dissuade them.  Some toll takers will say they don't take pennies, but they're in the wrong.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 09, 2018, 02:13:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2018, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2018, 11:52:27 AM
Wonder if the NJTA still has the signs that say "No Pennies Please?"  That takes forever to count especially when the patron gives over 10 cents or more, plus you will get the occasional driver who pays over $2 in pennies just to be cute with our state in Florida insisting we MUST take them even though socially it was considered not right, but today we live in a society that is not traditional, but insists that the individual ways, though different, were all passed down through my granddaddy.

Regardless if the sign exists are not, they are supposed to take pennies.  The sign is there just to dissuade them.  Some toll takers will say they don't take pennies, but they're in the wrong.
Weren't most of those NO PENNIES PLEASE signs posted for the now-gone Exact-Change-Lanes (ECL) along the Garden State Parkway?  IIRC, the reasoning for having such in those lanes was for both expediency & the possible (not sure if true or not) issue of the coin-drop buckets not accepting them for whatever reason. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2018, 09:02:06 AM
Do vending machines take pennies?  I have never yet heard a candy machine I purchased food from that took mine.

As far as pennies go, it is a time consumer and when the idiot in front of you has no shame but to use them without any regard to the fact they are holding up traffic and being childish and irresponsible.   Then when I work the lanes you have people give them to you not even counting it and then you have to count it all to only find out that they are short a big difference where they have to have you (and the queue) wait while they dig for more pennies to be short even some more is most annoying not to mention unbelievable.

I even had one guy hand me a $100 bill once right after another person broke a $ 100 bill as well.  That was rare that two back to back patrons had such large bills, but I just started my shift where the first car took most of my change.  Believe it or not this second individual was going to wait until I called a second party to open the safe indoors inside the plaza office and get him his money and stage a sit in even if the queue behind him piles up over a mile long.  I had to pursuade him after the driver and his antagonizing girlfriend were ranting that the plaza has money from all the motorists passing through the lanes constantly, to take a mail in slip and pay the stupid toll. 

Anyway point is, there is no rules governing this kind of behavior, and its sad that the Parkway did not mean what they said with the sign on the booths about pennies as it allows such assholes to be irresponsible while driving.  Yes it should be known that as much as pennies are part of the system for payment of debts, yes many of us consider it inappropriate.

I did hear though that among the silly laws that are out there like displaying our American flag on the left side of a room or mainly to the right of the stage looking out, courtroom Bench from the judge, or Altar from the minister's ambo there is one too that really state's that being prejudice about penny use is illegal too.  I do not know about that, but if the flag issue can make it, so can this as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: qguy on November 22, 2018, 10:29:33 AM
The flag thing isn't a law, it's a protocol.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 22, 2018, 12:24:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 22, 2018, 09:02:06 AM
Do vending machines take pennies?  I have never yet heard a candy machine I purchased food from that took mine.
Generally not. The automatic coin machines onboard NJ Transit buses accepted them the last time I rode one (5 years ago). Then there was an old scale that not only told you your weight, but gave you a fortune as well, that cost 1 cent to use. That was 20 years ago, though, and the machine was already very old back then.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 24, 2018, 03:09:34 PM
Northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge has reopened to traffic as of Thanksgiving night.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on June 21, 2019, 09:27:00 AM
Thread Bump:

This may have existed for a while (& even discussed way back on this thread) but I never noticed it until recently; at the very least, the stretch north of Exit 142 (I-78) feature different mile markers for the north & southbound directions at the same location.  I.e. the southbound mile markers are 0.1 lower than the corresponding northbound markers. Example: NB MM 143 = SB MM 143.9 (scroll to view the SB marker) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7191268,-74.2351608,3a,75y,102.16h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjM7khhp00wudeEcdgOctRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Anybody know the reasoning for/history behind such?  This oddity seems to continue up to the NY State Line.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 21, 2019, 09:38:42 AM
That is strange.  Even stranger than Exit 138 being at MP 140, but that was done purposely to avoid alphabet soup when interchanges were less than a mile apart and between CR 509 and Vauxhall Road  you four interchanges real close to each other within Union Township (hey include I-78 and Mill Road into it too) so that is why the offset for that, but what you say is really an oddity.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 21, 2019, 06:22:00 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 21, 2019, 09:27:00 AM
Thread Bump:

This may have existed for a while (& even discussed way back on this thread) but I never noticed it until recently; at the very least, the stretch north of Exit 142 (I-78) feature different mile markers for the north & southbound directions at the same location.  I.e. the southbound mile markers are 0.1 lower than the corresponding northbound markers. Example: NB MM 143 = SB MM 143.9 (scroll to view the SB marker) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7191268,-74.2351608,3a,75y,102.16h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjM7khhp00wudeEcdgOctRA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Anybody know the reasoning for/history behind such?  This oddity seems to continue up to the NY State Line.
Yup, each direction was mileposted separately in this original section, and it started in the 130s. They won't fix it because bridges are inventoried based on the existing system (you see the labels on each bridge to the 1/100) and moving them by 0.1 would just... You fill in the dots, I won't
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 22, 2019, 10:19:06 AM
I've also noticed that a bunch of the bridges in the original Rt 4 Parkway section retain their NJDOT bridge inventory plaques with NJDOT's 7 digit inventory numbers in addition to NJTA's mileage based inventory numbers. I know this is from when NJDOT owned this section of the road (through 1992), but I'm surprised they're still up. Does NJDOT still have any ownership over these bridges? I would have assumed the Highway Authority (and later the Turnpike Authority) would have assumed full ownership of all the assets when the road was transferred to them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 22, 2019, 09:25:04 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 22, 2019, 10:19:06 AM
I've also noticed that a bunch of the bridges in the original Rt 4 Parkway section retain their NJDOT bridge inventory plaques with NJDOT's 7 digit inventory numbers in addition to NJTA's mileage based inventory numbers. I know this is from when NJDOT owned this section of the road (through 1992), but I'm surprised they're still up. Does NJDOT still have any ownership over these bridges? I would have assumed the Highway Authority (and later the Turnpike Authority) would have assumed full ownership of all the assets when the road was transferred to them.
The NJTA definitely maintains those bridges but the old number may need to stay up because the bridges are also in the NJDOT inventory?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 01, 2019, 09:18:04 PM
Turnpike Authority had a post commerating the completion of the Parkway today. Included this gem of a classic sign:

(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/65881146_2276544195755194_8154663107071836160_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_oc=AQkNulaQ-xCcCs_G_lpi1BqoTDPcDDNcMMLICni37g9CzfQ4NLl711ow9ZYjDlUQpwA&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=e2f33251d445a24464fc5c2c24647f56&oe=5D7E843A)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2019, 01:50:18 AM
When the Parkway opened, they loved the "AREA" signs. The now abandoned exit 146 was "East Orange, Newark Area".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on July 07, 2019, 09:07:34 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2019, 01:50:18 AM
When the Parkway opened, they loved the "AREA" signs. The now abandoned exit 146 was "East Orange Area".

Where was exit 146?  And are there remnants of it existing today?

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 07, 2019, 12:08:07 PM
This wall: https://goo.gl/maps/5YPar7ZPFFvSteBF8

The northbound ramp is basically history.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 07, 2019, 10:09:00 PM
I always remembered the number box for exit numbers on top with no mention of exit except for the three NJDOT segments that used regular tabs.  The "Area" was before my time, but the Vailsburg Area of Newark was signed on a SB guide up until after I left in 1990.  That was when the GSP used upper case lettering for street names and mixed for control cities as well. 

Nonetheless the Parkway had some great signs in the day.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 02:18:09 AM
I've been on it and it SUCKS. I hate traffic. The times I come to New Jersey is to visit my dad. It gets congested during rush hour, I try to avoid it by using I-78 or even 22 (which sucks as well). Normally I try to avoid the toll that's between 22 and I-78 and when I go on it I go like "Oh shit, what did i do? God dammit!" lol. But anyway, the parkway is fun to drive on I gotta say for myself. I personally enjoy driving on it without no trucks. :)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2019, 09:40:37 PM
This afternoon was horrendous from the extension to the NJTP.  Averaged 20mph most of the way.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DJ Particle on July 29, 2019, 04:56:40 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 01, 2019, 09:18:04 PM
Turnpike Authority had a post commerating the completion of the Parkway today. Included this gem of a classic sign:

(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/65881146_2276544195755194_8154663107071836160_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_oc=AQkNulaQ-xCcCs_G_lpi1BqoTDPcDDNcMMLICni37g9CzfQ4NLl711ow9ZYjDlUQpwA&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=e2f33251d445a24464fc5c2c24647f56&oe=5D7E843A)

That's here, isn't it?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9345373,-74.0725589,3a,75y,345.97h,90.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN9U-DCAhlF6EkgjtPZv9eA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 29, 2019, 09:04:52 PM
I believe that's correct. What a difference sixty-five years makes............
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on July 30, 2019, 08:45:22 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 29, 2019, 09:04:52 PMI believe that's correct. What a difference sixty-five years makes............
While indeed true, the changeover from a left-lane exit to a right-lane exit was a very recent (within 5 years) change.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 30, 2019, 03:13:27 PM
Interchange 163's replacement was finished in 2017.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2019, 04:32:24 PM
It would be nice to see Exit 153 moved over. At least one issue resolved so at least we got one thing fixed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 30, 2019, 09:25:09 PM
Fixing the 153s aren't as easy.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2019, 12:30:30 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 30, 2019, 09:25:09 PM
Fixing the 153s aren't as easy.
In point of fact, when I was evaluating removal of left exits along the Parkway, I proposed an iterative improvement (lengthening of deceleration lanes and modification of ramp curvature) but there was no short-term feasible solution I could find. It would take a massive blow-up of the Allwood Road Park&Ride to get started.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 31, 2019, 01:19:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 31, 2019, 12:30:30 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 30, 2019, 09:25:09 PM
Fixing the 153s aren't as easy.
In point of fact, when I was evaluating removal of left exits along the Parkway, I proposed an iterative improvement (lengthening of deceleration lanes and modification of ramp curvature) but there was no short-term feasible solution I could find. It would take a massive blow-up of the Allwood Road Park&Ride to get started.

And even then, you still have Clifton Avenue and all the apartments nearby that would be in danger and you know they would be up in arms.

I think we'll have to live with that left exit pairing at 153.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2019, 08:07:52 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 31, 2019, 01:19:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 31, 2019, 12:30:30 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 30, 2019, 09:25:09 PM
Fixing the 153s aren't as easy.
In point of fact, when I was evaluating removal of left exits along the Parkway, I proposed an iterative improvement (lengthening of deceleration lanes and modification of ramp curvature) but there was no short-term feasible solution I could find. It would take a massive blow-up of the Allwood Road Park&Ride to get started.

And even then, you still have Clifton Avenue and all the apartments nearby that would be in danger and you know they would be up in arms.

I think we'll have to live with that left exit pairing at 153.
To be clear, if you ignore the park and ride, you could do the same thing at 153 as at 163: build new carriageways down the median, turn the existing ones into ramps, reconstruct. The footprint would be the same. But it would be prohibitively expensive to bridge the entire thing (local cable-stayed bridge) so you would end up with piers all through it, or relocating it entirely.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 08:41:42 PM
The way I see it here is that bridging the Strait of Gibraltar is much easier.  Though I am not suggesting they do it right away here, as I have grown used to left hand ramps, as Orlando had some, and also I have exited onto NJ 3 West sevenfold going NB to get to Wayne and my cousin's old store on Route 23 in Oak Ridge when I lived in NJ.  It is something we can live with, but ideally if the could be done it would be nice.

I remember that area being built up to the road, so yes, it would require shifting and building new carriageways and stuff, but they did it in Woodbridge with the 127 and 129 Tangle in 1971 when they built Route 440.  Yes that was just switching the Parkway and Route 9 and they had not much in the way, especially that the Parkway had the wide median where now under Route 184 you have the post Tangle carriageway as prior to it the current service roads were the actual Parkway travel lanes.

Apples and Oranges maybe, but the fact is they did a lot of fancy footwork to do it, and anything is possible.  I think the time and trouble is more the issue than trying to fit it all in, but to reverese US 9 and the GSP in Woodbridge was a lot of time and effort to do it despite the ROW being there to do it all.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 31, 2019, 11:47:32 PM
It's not really worth wasting so much money to build a new interchange at 153 to fix movements. 154 serves the missing movement southbound. I've used 153B northbound enough in my life to know it is a crappy ramp, but welcome to the 1950s construction on top of 1930s construction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2019, 12:30:55 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on July 31, 2019, 11:47:32 PM
It's not really worth wasting so much money to build a new interchange at 153 to fix movements. 154 serves the missing movement southbound. I've used 153B northbound enough in my life to know it is a crappy ramp, but welcome to the 1950s construction on top of 1930s construction.
And that's why at the very least, providing proper deceleration lanes for the left exits will move the congestion out of the left lane (especially NB) and help reduce crashes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 16, 2019, 10:31:51 PM
Drove thru the Exit 145 ramp toll tonight on my way home from work. Looks like they're replacing the old flip signs for the toll lanes to denote what the lane has (cash and EZ-Pass, exact change, EZ-Pass only) are being replaced with LED VMS's. Is this a new thing that we'll start seeing at other Parkway plazas? Also new here are standardized MUTCD-compliant lane arrows replacing the old solid lights that have been the Parkway's thing for years.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 17, 2019, 02:34:18 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 16, 2019, 10:31:51 PM
Drove thru the Exit 145 ramp toll tonight on my way home from work. Looks like they're replacing the old flip signs for the toll lanes to denote what the lane has (cash and EZ-Pass, exact change, EZ-Pass only) are being replaced with LED VMS's. Is this a new thing that we'll start seeing at other Parkway plazas? Also new here are standardized MUTCD-compliant lane arrows replacing the old solid lights that have been the Parkway's thing for years.
all electronic tolling = signs that are electronic
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: tolbs17 on August 17, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
I wish the parkway got some electronic tolls too so we wouldn't have to slow down or stop all the time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 17, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
I wish the parkway got some electronic tolls too so we wouldn't have to slow down or stop all the time.

Other than one plaza you can go thru the EZ Pass lanes at highway speeds.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 18, 2019, 03:50:54 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 17, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
I wish the parkway got some electronic tolls too so we wouldn't have to slow down or stop all the time.

Other than one plaza you can go thru the EZ Pass lanes at highway speeds.
If only there were some sort of high-speed electronic tolling option though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: tolbs17 on August 19, 2019, 02:46:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 17, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
I wish the parkway got some electronic tolls too so we wouldn't have to slow down or stop all the time.

Other than one plaza you can go thru the EZ Pass lanes at highway speeds.
They should make the tolling similar to the Triangle Expressway in North Carolina or I-95 in Delaware. Doesn't have to be all electric, just some. Maybe they want everyone to stop? This is my recommendation, it's not necessary.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:19:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 17, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
I wish the parkway got some electronic tolls too so we wouldn't have to slow down or stop all the time.

Other than one plaza you can go thru the EZ Pass lanes at highway speeds.
For the stretch north of the Exit 129/NJ Turnpike (I-95); there are still three mainline toll plazas where even one with E-ZPass still has to slow down to pass through.  Two of them are northbound, before Exit 142/I-78 & just beyond Exit 159/I-80; and one southbound toll plaza located just before Exit 149/CR 506.  Only the southbound toll plaza prior to Exit 165 has E-ZPass Express lanes; again only referring to the stretch north of Exit 129.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 20, 2019, 06:11:58 PM
Give em time as soon the US will all be cash less tolls!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:19:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 17, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
I wish the parkway got some electronic tolls too so we wouldn't have to slow down or stop all the time.

Other than one plaza you can go thru the EZ Pass lanes at highway speeds.
For the stretch north of the Exit 129/NJ Turnpike (I-95); there are still three mainline toll plazas where even one with E-ZPass still has to slow down to pass through.  Two of them are northbound, before Exit 142/I-78 & just beyond Exit 159/I-80; and one southbound toll plaza located just before Exit 149/CR 506.  Only the southbound toll plaza prior to Exit 165 has E-ZPass Express lanes; again only referring to the stretch north of Exit 129.

I was surprised to see those plazas were still all-traditional lanes.

But to MrHappy's point...people don't need to stop; they just need to slow down.  The EZ Pass lanes are signed at 15 mph.  They just hope you're going under 40.  (Fun fact he's probably not aware of...they don't even require you to stop in the exact change lanes, as long as you can get all your change in the basket.  On occasion they'll place State Troopers in those lanes to make sure people are throwing in the correct amount of change.  They'll write up a ticket and send the registered owner of the vehicle a ticket for failing to pay the proper toll, but they'll never worry about the fact you didn't stop)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on August 21, 2019, 10:00:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:19:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 17, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
I wish the parkway got some electronic tolls too so we wouldn't have to slow down or stop all the time.

Other than one plaza you can go thru the EZ Pass lanes at highway speeds.
For the stretch north of the Exit 129/NJ Turnpike (I-95); there are still three mainline toll plazas where even one with E-ZPass still has to slow down to pass through.  Two of them are northbound, before Exit 142/I-78 & just beyond Exit 159/I-80; and one southbound toll plaza located just before Exit 149/CR 506.  Only the southbound toll plaza prior to Exit 165 has E-ZPass Express lanes; again only referring to the stretch north of Exit 129.

I was surprised to see those plazas were still all-traditional lanes.

But to MrHappy's point...people don't need to stop; they just need to slow down.
His post, nested above, was wishing that one wouldn't have to even slow down (to 15 mph) let alone stop at those E-ZPass booths/lanes.

Such begs this question: does NJTA have timelines with regards to when the GSP and the NJ Turnpike will fully adopt AET?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2019, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2019, 10:00:55 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:19:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 01:22:40 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 17, 2019, 09:12:49 PM
I wish the parkway got some electronic tolls too so we wouldn't have to slow down or stop all the time.

Other than one plaza you can go thru the EZ Pass lanes at highway speeds.
For the stretch north of the Exit 129/NJ Turnpike (I-95); there are still three mainline toll plazas where even one with E-ZPass still has to slow down to pass through.  Two of them are northbound, before Exit 142/I-78 & just beyond Exit 159/I-80; and one southbound toll plaza located just before Exit 149/CR 506.  Only the southbound toll plaza prior to Exit 165 has E-ZPass Express lanes; again only referring to the stretch north of Exit 129.

I was surprised to see those plazas were still all-traditional lanes.

But to MrHappy's point...people don't need to stop; they just need to slow down.
His post, nested above, was wishing that one wouldn't have to even slow down (to 15 mph) let alone stop at those E-ZPass booths/lanes.

Such begs this question: does NJTA have timelines with regards to when the GSP and the NJ Turnpike will fully adopt AET?
Well in Florida we have 25 mph speed limits in Dedicated Electronic Lanes, yet some exceed 70 mph through the narrow toll lanes.   Surprisingly enough, they do it day after day and no police action.  Heck even if they did issue tickets, the problem will still occur.

If everyone obeys this up there, then that is surprising!  However, that is one thing about NJ I liked. Even truckers obeyed the NO TRUCKS IN LEFT LANE signs despite doing the 85 percentile speeds on the highways.  So maybe its that the northeast still fears authority where the south does not perhaps.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 21, 2019, 10:00:55 AM
Such begs this question: does NJTA have timelines with regards to when the GSP and the NJ Turnpike will fully adopt AET?

No.  The last time they suggested it was many years ago (10+ years ago I believe), in which they eventually got huge paycut concessions from the unions.  I haven't seen the issue brought up since, other than the new EZ Pass only Exit 125 off the Parkway.


Quote from: roadman65 on August 21, 2019, 11:21:56 AM
...However, that is one thing about NJ I liked. Even truckers obeyed the NO TRUCKS IN LEFT LANE signs despite doing the 85 percentile speeds on the highways.  So maybe its that the northeast still fears authority where the south does not perhaps.

You haven't been here in a long, long time, have you?  One of the common complaints from motorists is truckers driving in the left lane of a 3+ lane highway. 

The Northeast fears authority?  Ha.  The 85th percentile on several NJ highways is over 80 mph.  Truckers are all over the place.  There's definitely no fear!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2019, 05:34:39 PM
Well a lot can change in a year.  Let alone 29 years.  I figured that much as if they are fearless here 1200 miles south, than they have to be up in NJ and most of all in CA too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 22, 2019, 12:49:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:19:45 PMFor the stretch north of the Exit 129/NJ Turnpike (I-95); there are still three mainline toll plazas where even one with E-ZPass still has to slow down to pass through.  Two of them are northbound, before Exit 142/I-78 & just beyond Exit 159/I-80; and one southbound toll plaza located just before Exit 149/CR 506.  Only the southbound toll plaza prior to Exit 165 has E-ZPass Express lanes; again only referring to the stretch north of Exit 129.

I was surprised to see those plazas were still all-traditional lanes.

But to MrHappy's point...people don't need to stop; they just need to slow down.  The EZ Pass lanes are signed at 15 mph.  They just hope you're going under 40.  (Fun fact he's probably not aware of...they don't even require you to stop in the exact change lanes, as long as you can get all your change in the basket.  On occasion they'll place State Troopers in those lanes to make sure people are throwing in the correct amount of change.  They'll write up a ticket and send the registered owner of the vehicle a ticket for failing to pay the proper toll, but they'll never worry about the fact you didn't stop)
Bergen, Essex, and Union are the three most urban toll plazas, and that may have played a role. There's already so much weaving going on at all three of these locations that adding another decision point may have been deemed unwise.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 22, 2019, 10:43:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 22, 2019, 12:49:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:19:45 PMFor the stretch north of the Exit 129/NJ Turnpike (I-95); there are still three mainline toll plazas where even one with E-ZPass still has to slow down to pass through.  Two of them are northbound, before Exit 142/I-78 & just beyond Exit 159/I-80; and one southbound toll plaza located just before Exit 149/CR 506.  Only the southbound toll plaza prior to Exit 165 has E-ZPass Express lanes; again only referring to the stretch north of Exit 129.

I was surprised to see those plazas were still all-traditional lanes.

But to MrHappy's point...people don't need to stop; they just need to slow down.  The EZ Pass lanes are signed at 15 mph.  They just hope you're going under 40.  (Fun fact he's probably not aware of...they don't even require you to stop in the exact change lanes, as long as you can get all your change in the basket.  On occasion they'll place State Troopers in those lanes to make sure people are throwing in the correct amount of change.  They'll write up a ticket and send the registered owner of the vehicle a ticket for failing to pay the proper toll, but they'll never worry about the fact you didn't stop)
Bergen, Essex, and Union are the three most urban toll plazas, and that may have played a role. There's already so much weaving going on at all three of these locations that adding another decision point may have been deemed unwise.

There's also the literal lack of space approaching all three of those plazas that likely led to the decision that there wasn't enough room to properly build out even a separation barrier and sufficient accel and deccel lanes. After all three, the lefthand lanes of the plaza have to squeeze over fairly quickly to resume a narrower roadway. If I'm not mistaken, these were some of the reasons they chose not to redo Toms River with Express EZ-Pass lanes as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SteveG1988 on August 23, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
Got back from a trip to AC and Wildwood today, The new GSP Great Egg bridges are nice, i'd consider the northbound Great Egg Harbor bridge to be brand new on old piers since everything you drive on is brand new, even the girders. Is it the same bridge since it's in the same spot, is it a new bridge due to the structure that actually spans the harbor being new? I don't know but i do know one fact. US9 is signed onto the parkway, not as a Temporary US9 sign either, but a perma US9 sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on August 23, 2019, 11:46:26 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 23, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
Got back from a trip to AC and Wildwood today, The new GSP Great Egg bridges are nice, i'd consider the northbound Great Egg Harbor bridge to be brand new on old piers since everything you drive on is brand new, even the girders. Is it the same bridge since it's in the same spot, is it a new bridge due to the structure that actually spans the harbor being new? I don't know but i do know one fact. US9 is signed onto the parkway, not as a Temporary US9 sign either, but a perma US9 sign.
I don't think there are any plans to put 9 back on its own bridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SteveG1988 on August 24, 2019, 02:00:01 AM
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2019, 11:46:26 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 23, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
Got back from a trip to AC and Wildwood today, The new GSP Great Egg bridges are nice, i'd consider the northbound Great Egg Harbor bridge to be brand new on old piers since everything you drive on is brand new, even the girders. Is it the same bridge since it's in the same spot, is it a new bridge due to the structure that actually spans the harbor being new? I don't know but i do know one fact. US9 is signed onto the parkway, not as a Temporary US9 sign either, but a perma US9 sign.
I don't think there are any plans to put 9 back on its own bridge.

Yeah, even when it was a foregone conclusion they kept the Temp banner on US9. I wonder if they were hopeful.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 25, 2019, 01:31:48 AM
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2019, 11:46:26 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 23, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
Got back from a trip to AC and Wildwood today, The new GSP Great Egg bridges are nice, i'd consider the northbound Great Egg Harbor bridge to be brand new on old piers since everything you drive on is brand new, even the girders. Is it the same bridge since it's in the same spot, is it a new bridge due to the structure that actually spans the harbor being new? I don't know but i do know one fact. US9 is signed onto the parkway, not as a Temporary US9 sign either, but a perma US9 sign.
I don't think there are any plans to put 9 back on its own bridge.
Question is whether the next SLDs will show 9 rerouted. I do not know whether jurisdictions have been swapped yet in Cape May County, but I have a suspicion it's county or town north of the turnoff.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on August 25, 2019, 03:32:37 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 25, 2019, 01:31:48 AM
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2019, 11:46:26 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 23, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
Got back from a trip to AC and Wildwood today, The new GSP Great Egg bridges are nice, i'd consider the northbound Great Egg Harbor bridge to be brand new on old piers since everything you drive on is brand new, even the girders. Is it the same bridge since it's in the same spot, is it a new bridge due to the structure that actually spans the harbor being new? I don't know but i do know one fact. US9 is signed onto the parkway, not as a Temporary US9 sign either, but a perma US9 sign.
I don't think there are any plans to put 9 back on its own bridge.
Question is whether the next SLDs will show 9 rerouted. I do not know whether jurisdictions have been swapped yet in Cape May County, but I have a suspicion it's county or town north of the turnoff.
Not sure, though they did add the new mileposts to the section in question.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 25, 2019, 10:03:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on August 25, 2019, 03:32:37 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 25, 2019, 01:31:48 AM
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2019, 11:46:26 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 23, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
Got back from a trip to AC and Wildwood today, The new GSP Great Egg bridges are nice, i'd consider the northbound Great Egg Harbor bridge to be brand new on old piers since everything you drive on is brand new, even the girders. Is it the same bridge since it's in the same spot, is it a new bridge due to the structure that actually spans the harbor being new? I don't know but i do know one fact. US9 is signed onto the parkway, not as a Temporary US9 sign either, but a perma US9 sign.
I don't think there are any plans to put 9 back on its own bridge.
Question is whether the next SLDs will show 9 rerouted. I do not know whether jurisdictions have been swapped yet in Cape May County, but I have a suspicion it's county or town north of the turnoff.
Not sure, though they did add the new mileposts to the section in question.
Any idea when those were added? The indication I got that it may now be local jurisdiction was relatively recent.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on August 25, 2019, 12:22:07 PM
Come on, NJ 186?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on August 25, 2019, 01:04:21 PM
Quote from: Alps on August 25, 2019, 10:03:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on August 25, 2019, 03:32:37 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 25, 2019, 01:31:48 AM
Quote from: famartin on August 23, 2019, 11:46:26 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on August 23, 2019, 10:10:10 PM
Got back from a trip to AC and Wildwood today, The new GSP Great Egg bridges are nice, i'd consider the northbound Great Egg Harbor bridge to be brand new on old piers since everything you drive on is brand new, even the girders. Is it the same bridge since it's in the same spot, is it a new bridge due to the structure that actually spans the harbor being new? I don't know but i do know one fact. US9 is signed onto the parkway, not as a Temporary US9 sign either, but a perma US9 sign.
I don't think there are any plans to put 9 back on its own bridge.
Question is whether the next SLDs will show 9 rerouted. I do not know whether jurisdictions have been swapped yet in Cape May County, but I have a suspicion it's county or town north of the turnoff.
Not sure, though they did add the new mileposts to the section in question.
Any idea when those were added? The indication I got that it may now be local jurisdiction was relatively recent.
Last year in September it had the new mileposts. It's possible it changed hands more recently (perhaps the mileposts gave someone the idea)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Hey...odd thing i also noticed. No more "conditions permitting" on the parkway speed limit signs put on on the rebuilt great egg harbor bridges, which is 65 going north btw.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 02, 2019, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Hey...odd thing i also noticed. No more "conditions permitting" on the parkway speed limit signs put on on the rebuilt great egg harbor bridges, which is 65 going north btw.

Since the Turnpike Authority took over ownership of the Parkway, they've been phasing out the classic "Conditions Permitting" signs for standard MUTCD speed limit signs. I think it's only on an as needed basis, but those signs will all be gone eventually.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 02:13:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2019, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Hey...odd thing i also noticed. No more "conditions permitting" on the parkway speed limit signs put on on the rebuilt great egg harbor bridges, which is 65 going north btw.

Since the Turnpike Authority took over ownership of the Parkway, they've been phasing out the classic "Conditions Permitting" signs for standard MUTCD speed limit signs. I think it's only on an as needed basis, but those signs will all be gone eventually.

Nice i guess. I am wondering why they didn't do VMS for the bridge, adjusting the speed for conditions on it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2019, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2019, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Hey...odd thing i also noticed. No more "conditions permitting" on the parkway speed limit signs put on on the rebuilt great egg harbor bridges, which is 65 going north btw.

Since the Turnpike Authority took over ownership of the Parkway, they've been phasing out the classic "Conditions Permitting" signs for standard MUTCD speed limit signs. I think it's only on an as needed basis, but those signs will all be gone eventually.

Some newer AC Expressway speed limit signage also lacks the Conditions Permitting note as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 02, 2019, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 02:13:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2019, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Hey...odd thing i also noticed. No more "conditions permitting" on the parkway speed limit signs put on on the rebuilt great egg harbor bridges, which is 65 going north btw.

Since the Turnpike Authority took over ownership of the Parkway, they've been phasing out the classic "Conditions Permitting" signs for standard MUTCD speed limit signs. I think it's only on an as needed basis, but those signs will all be gone eventually.

Nice i guess. I am wondering why they didn't do VMS for the bridge, adjusting the speed for conditions on it.
VSLS (variable speed limit signs) are Turnpike only.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2019, 11:01:44 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 02, 2019, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 02:13:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2019, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Hey...odd thing i also noticed. No more "conditions permitting" on the parkway speed limit signs put on on the rebuilt great egg harbor bridges, which is 65 going north btw.

Since the Turnpike Authority took over ownership of the Parkway, they've been phasing out the classic "Conditions Permitting" signs for standard MUTCD speed limit signs. I think it's only on an as needed basis, but those signs will all be gone eventually.

Nice i guess. I am wondering why they didn't do VMS for the bridge, adjusting the speed for conditions on it.
VSLS (variable speed limit signs) are for amusement only.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 18, 2019, 08:10:30 PM
The LED canopy signs at the Exit 145 toll plaza are done, and I got a picture of them today:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48756535858_cf7cc592f4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hhrZsA)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on September 18, 2019, 08:20:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 02, 2019, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on September 02, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
Hey...odd thing i also noticed. No more "conditions permitting" on the parkway speed limit signs put on on the rebuilt great egg harbor bridges, which is 65 going north btw.

Since the Turnpike Authority took over ownership of the Parkway, they've been phasing out the classic "Conditions Permitting" signs for standard MUTCD speed limit signs. I think it's only on an as needed basis, but those signs will all be gone eventually.

IIRC the PA Turnpike had "conditions permitting" signs under their speed limit signs years ago.

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on September 19, 2019, 08:31:28 AM
Quote from: ixnay on September 18, 2019, 08:20:06 PMIIRC the PA Turnpike had "conditions permitting" signs under their speed limit signs years ago.
Such must've been decades ago.  I've periodically used the PA Turnpike since 1990 and never saw those supplemental signs.

I know that similar signage existed along the Maine Turnpike as well... at least from the 80s and earlier.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: theroadwayone on September 20, 2019, 01:08:22 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 22, 2019, 10:43:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 22, 2019, 12:49:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:19:45 PMFor the stretch north of the Exit 129/NJ Turnpike (I-95); there are still three mainline toll plazas where even one with E-ZPass still has to slow down to pass through.  Two of them are northbound, before Exit 142/I-78 & just beyond Exit 159/I-80; and one southbound toll plaza located just before Exit 149/CR 506.  Only the southbound toll plaza prior to Exit 165 has E-ZPass Express lanes; again only referring to the stretch north of Exit 129.

I was surprised to see those plazas were still all-traditional lanes.

But to MrHappy's point...people don't need to stop; they just need to slow down.  The EZ Pass lanes are signed at 15 mph.  They just hope you're going under 40.  (Fun fact he's probably not aware of...they don't even require you to stop in the exact change lanes, as long as you can get all your change in the basket.  On occasion they'll place State Troopers in those lanes to make sure people are throwing in the correct amount of change.  They'll write up a ticket and send the registered owner of the vehicle a ticket for failing to pay the proper toll, but they'll never worry about the fact you didn't stop)
Bergen, Essex, and Union are the three most urban toll plazas, and that may have played a role. There's already so much weaving going on at all three of these locations that adding another decision point may have been deemed unwise.

There's also the literal lack of space approaching all three of those plazas that likely led to the decision that there wasn't enough room to properly build out even a separation barrier and sufficient accel and deccel lanes. After all three, the lefthand lanes of the plaza have to squeeze over fairly quickly to resume a narrower roadway. If I'm not mistaken, these were some of the reasons they chose not to redo Toms River with Express EZ-Pass lanes as well.
I thought Toms River had Express EZ-Pass.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 20, 2019, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 20, 2019, 01:08:22 AM
Quote from: storm2k on August 22, 2019, 10:43:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on August 22, 2019, 12:49:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 21, 2019, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 19, 2019, 03:19:45 PMFor the stretch north of the Exit 129/NJ Turnpike (I-95); there are still three mainline toll plazas where even one with E-ZPass still has to slow down to pass through.  Two of them are northbound, before Exit 142/I-78 & just beyond Exit 159/I-80; and one southbound toll plaza located just before Exit 149/CR 506.  Only the southbound toll plaza prior to Exit 165 has E-ZPass Express lanes; again only referring to the stretch north of Exit 129.

I was surprised to see those plazas were still all-traditional lanes.

But to MrHappy's point...people don't need to stop; they just need to slow down.  The EZ Pass lanes are signed at 15 mph.  They just hope you're going under 40.  (Fun fact he's probably not aware of...they don't even require you to stop in the exact change lanes, as long as you can get all your change in the basket.  On occasion they'll place State Troopers in those lanes to make sure people are throwing in the correct amount of change.  They'll write up a ticket and send the registered owner of the vehicle a ticket for failing to pay the proper toll, but they'll never worry about the fact you didn't stop)
Bergen, Essex, and Union are the three most urban toll plazas, and that may have played a role. There's already so much weaving going on at all three of these locations that adding another decision point may have been deemed unwise.

There's also the literal lack of space approaching all three of those plazas that likely led to the decision that there wasn't enough room to properly build out even a separation barrier and sufficient accel and deccel lanes. After all three, the lefthand lanes of the plaza have to squeeze over fairly quickly to resume a narrower roadway. If I'm not mistaken, these were some of the reasons they chose not to redo Toms River with Express EZ-Pass lanes as well.
I thought Toms River had Express EZ-Pass.

Quite correct. I was thinking of the Great Egg plaza. That's right before the bridge so it has to compress back down to two lanes very quickly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 21, 2019, 10:03:41 PM
Construction has finally started at the New Gretna toll plaza for Express E-ZPass lanes This is long overdue and should have been done during the widening project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on September 22, 2019, 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 19, 2019, 08:31:28 AM
Quote from: ixnay on September 18, 2019, 08:20:06 PMIIRC the PA Turnpike had "conditions permitting" signs under their speed limit signs years ago.
Such must've been decades ago.  I've periodically used the PA Turnpike since 1990 and never saw those supplemental signs.

In the early '70s I could see such a sign from the campus of the private school I was attending middle school at, a campus which butted up against the PA Pike (the Pike is on an embankment in that stretch).

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: theroadwayone on September 25, 2019, 10:44:06 PM
So a day or two ago (Jeremy Clarkson voice) I went on the internet and I found this:
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mikenew/new-jersey-turnpike-vs-garden-state-parkway
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 26, 2019, 07:37:39 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 25, 2019, 10:44:06 PM
So a day or two ago (Jeremy Clarkson voice) I went on the internet and I found this:
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mikenew/new-jersey-turnpike-vs-garden-state-parkway
Which roadway has more lanes at its widest is wrong. Look north of EWR is all I'll say.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: signalman on September 28, 2019, 09:52:53 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 26, 2019, 07:37:39 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 25, 2019, 10:44:06 PM
So a day or two ago (Jeremy Clarkson voice) I went on the internet and I found this:
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mikenew/new-jersey-turnpike-vs-garden-state-parkway
Which roadway has more lanes at its widest is wrong. Look north of EWR is all I'll say.
That was the only question that I got "wrong". I knew my answer was correct though. As far as I'm concerned, I scored perfectly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2019, 11:06:30 AM
Quote from: signalman on September 28, 2019, 09:52:53 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 26, 2019, 07:37:39 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 25, 2019, 10:44:06 PM
So a day or two ago (Jeremy Clarkson voice) I went on the internet and I found this:
https://www.sporcle.com/games/mikenew/new-jersey-turnpike-vs-garden-state-parkway
Which roadway has more lanes at its widest is wrong. Look north of EWR is all I'll say.
That was the only question that I got "wrong". I knew my answer was correct though. As far as I'm concerned, I scored perfectly.
At its peak, the through lanes of the Parkway have 15, and the through lanes of the Turnpike have 14. Unless you count the Interchange 14 roadways to the north as through lanes, which gives you 18. If you count accel/decel lanes, the Parkway gives you 17 and the Turnpike has 18.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2019, 12:10:00 AM
I noticed that Exit 117A for Lloyd Road near Matawan is been renumbered to Exit 118,  Why could they not leave it part of the Exit 117 numbering and just give it the suffix B and make 117 for NJ 35 and NJ 36 number 117A? 

A and B suffixes can be for two different roads and even two different interchanges if they are less than a mile apart especially in urban or suburban areas. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 08, 2019, 12:46:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 08, 2019, 12:10:00 AM
I noticed that Exit 117A for Lloyd Road near Matawan is been renumbered to Exit 118,  Why could they not leave it part of the Exit 117 numbering and just give it the suffix B and make 117 for NJ 35 and NJ 36 number 117A? 

A and B suffixes can be for two different roads and even two different interchanges if they are less than a mile apart especially in urban or suburban areas. 
117A is probably north of MP 118, so they found it easier to do that. That's why 131 became 132.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2019, 05:53:33 PM
Makes sense.  The original parkway exits were off a mile due to some exits being too close to each other.  MM140 is at Exit 138 in Union on the Route 509 overpass because of the cluster of interchanges in Union Township.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on October 08, 2019, 10:00:33 PM
The Highway Authority had a history of using a suffix in addition to the integer instead of skipping the integer and using A and B.  With the rule that this not allowed, i think they went with 118 for two reasons. 

Lloyd Road and the 35/36 mess of an interchange east of the Parway have nothing to do with each other.  Maybe they wanted to intentionally disassociate the two junctions from each other.

Second, if they went B and A southbound, then northbound is the integer (obviously).  Then they are left with the same interchange as 117 northbound and 117A sourhbound.  This would be impossible to codify with crashes and incident reporting.

117A to 118 southbound was genius. I don't think it was specifically for matching mileposting although that could have been an ancillary benefit.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 08, 2019, 11:45:32 PM
Also keep in mind that Exit 117 is accessible from both the local and express lanes. 118 isn't and it would be confusing to have 117A only available to express lane traffic but not 117B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 09, 2019, 09:48:54 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 08, 2019, 11:45:32 PM
Also keep in mind that Exit 117 is accessible from both the local and express lanes. 118 isn't and it would be confusing to have 117A only available to express lane traffic but not 117B.
n
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 08, 2019, 11:45:32 PM
Also keep in mind that Exit 117 is accessible from both the local and express lanes. 118 isn't and it would be confusing to have 117A only available to express lane traffic but not 117B.
I think that is it because many  freeway numbered interchanges run into the awkward situation of having an integer gong one way for one ramp and A & B the other for two completely different roads.  In urban areas some A & B are for different roadways in many cases.  If NYSDOT  renumbered its exits and did it for I-278 in NY, then you will have a lot of alphabet numbers for many different roads due to it having more ramps than mileposts on its long run of various NYC expressways.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 09, 2019, 10:12:06 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on October 08, 2019, 10:00:33 PM
The Highway Authority had a history of using a suffix in addition to the integer instead of skipping the integer and using A and B.  With the rule that this not allowed, i think they went with 118 for two reasons. 

Lloyd Road and the 35/36 mess of an interchange east of the Parway have nothing to do with each other.  Maybe they wanted to intentionally disassociate the two junctions from each other.

Second, if they went B and A southbound, then northbound is the integer (obviously).  Then they are left with the same interchange as 117 northbound and 117A sourhbound.  This would be impossible to codify with crashes and incident reporting.

117A to 118 southbound was genius. I don't think it was specifically for matching mileposting although that could have been an ancillary benefit.

I'm pretty sure this was something they were happy to get done with separating the whole weird 131 mess in Woodbridge and making the exit for Rt 27 be 132, so it's completely separate from anything involving Metropark, which makes much more sense.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 09, 2019, 10:26:29 AM
Yes the 132 thing works well and the former 131 A & B was a bad idea being between 130 and 131.  It should have been 130 A & B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 09, 2019, 11:48:37 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 09, 2019, 10:26:29 AM
Yes the 132 thing works well and the former 131 A & B was a bad idea being between 130 and 131.  It should have been 130 A & B.

130 is already A&B southbound and has been since the 1NB ramp was built in the early 90s.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 10, 2019, 12:35:40 PM
Highway Authority had an exit numbering headache. What remains of it is still silly (82-82A in Toms River).

There were times individual ramps would get regular numbers versus suffix. Like 145A was a part of 145 but 146 was its own ramp. 147 is the southbound equivalent of 146, which was a northbound exit. What is now 98 is made of up 96 and 97 torn up. The ramp that was 158 southbound is now just part of the 159 interchange. (Midland Avenue's ramp was 158). There was rarely consistency.

Also, here is the article (https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=533606&id=145600391&width=557&height=3857&crop=2342_1042_542_3822&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1570725169&h=98ac5e400cd54b21cb76c7abdeb5b14b) for the opening of 117A, no specific explanation to why they chose 117A.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 11, 2019, 10:20:37 PM
Then Exit 127 is made up of what was originally 127, 127A, and 128.  129 was originally a SB ramp to the NJ Turnpike SB which was the original Exit 10 on the Turnpike before I-287 and NJ 440 were constructed.  Exit 11 connected to US 9 at a trumpet to trumpet that no longer exists. 

The NB Parkway had to exit to US 9 North to access the NJ Turnpike in the pre Exit 127 & 129 current configuration.  Try picturing all the traffic that heads north on the turnpike from the parkway using US 9 and the old 11 interchange today!

Yes the Parkway was kind of odd when it came to exit renumbering.   When Exit 131A opened it was SB off and on only and the current 131B was 131A before the current Wood Ave. Trumpet was opened in 1986.  They just added the B and kept the NB side consistent with the SB lanes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 12, 2019, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on October 10, 2019, 12:35:40 PM
Highway Authority had an exit numbering headache. What remains of it is still silly (82-82A in Toms River).

There were times individual ramps would get regular numbers versus suffix. Like 145A was a part of 145 but 146 was its own ramp. 147 is the southbound equivalent of 146, which was a northbound exit. What is now 98 is made of up 96 and 97 torn up. The ramp that was 158 southbound is now just part of the 159 interchange. (Midland Avenue's ramp was 158). There was rarely consistency.

Also, here is the article (https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?institutionId=0&user=533606&id=145600391&width=557&height=3857&crop=2342_1042_542_3822&rotation=0&brightness=0&contrast=0&invert=0&ts=1570725169&h=98ac5e400cd54b21cb76c7abdeb5b14b) for the opening of 117A, no specific explanation to why they chose 117A.
Find it interesting that both the Exit 117 tolls and that the original SB exit was on the left as well.  I remember as a small child the left exit and lack of a toll booth there.  However, I was unaware of the Clark Street intersection allowing left turns all ways around.  I always remember that one as RIRO on both sides, but as a kid I never paid attention to that detail.

Exit 96 used to be on the left I do remember as well and the bridges over NJ 34 reveal that today.  The cd ramp to Route 34 south and the NB Parkway over Route 34 are both the same age and design while the Parkway South overpass is newer.  Then look at the cd ramp under both the north and south carriageways.  You can see the NB bridge over is older than the SB one.  That confirms that the current cd road to NJ 34 south under the NB Parkway was the old left exit 96 crossing beneath the NB lanes.

Many parts of the parkway you can see where the changes are.  The NB 127 ramp over US 9 is the original 1952 built Parkway north carriageway before that whole 127-129 tangle was ever made.  You can see it does not match the other bridges of the interchange easily and the old maps show US 9 in the middle of the Parkway and the New Brunswick Avenue interchange ramps connected to the toll road and not the US route in the pre tangle days.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 12, 2019, 06:13:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2019, 11:05:35 AM
Exit 96 used to be on the left I do remember as well and the bridges over NJ 34 reveal that today.  The cd ramp to Route 34 south and the NB Parkway over Route 34 are both the same age and design while the Parkway South overpass is newer.  Then look at the cd ramp under both the north and south carriageways.  You can see the NB bridge over is older than the SB one.  That confirms that the current cd road to NJ 34 south under the NB Parkway was the old left exit 96 crossing beneath the NB lanes.

The current 98 only contains two ramps that once was used in the prior alignment. The NB ramp to 138 westbound is ex-97A that is still in use. The SB ramp to 138 eastbound is ex-97 and still is in use.

Old 97 northbound has been bulldozed and rebuilt (mostly under the park & ride). Most of 96 southbound has been obliterated.

Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2019, 11:05:35 AM
Many parts of the parkway you can see where the changes are.  The NB 127 ramp over US 9 is the original 1952 built Parkway north carriageway before that whole 127-129 tangle was ever made.  You can see it does not match the other bridges of the interchange easily and the old maps show US 9 in the middle of the Parkway and the New Brunswick Avenue interchange ramps connected to the toll road and not the US route in the pre tangle days.

The old 126, 128 and 129 are practically torn out. Old 127 is just part of 9. The widened gap of old 129 is visible on the Parkway and old exit 10 on the Turnpike is now mostly that service road for the cops.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Kacie Jane on October 14, 2019, 11:33:34 AM
Well into the 90s (maybe even beyond), several maps still labeled New Brunswick Avenue as Exit 127A, even though it was never signed as such in my lifetime (born 1985).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 14, 2019, 10:39:03 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on October 12, 2019, 06:13:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2019, 11:05:35 AM
Exit 96 used to be on the left I do remember as well and the bridges over NJ 34 reveal that today.  The cd ramp to Route 34 south and the NB Parkway over Route 34 are both the same age and design while the Parkway South overpass is newer.  Then look at the cd ramp under both the north and south carriageways.  You can see the NB bridge over is older than the SB one.  That confirms that the current cd road to NJ 34 south under the NB Parkway was the old left exit 96 crossing beneath the NB lanes.

The current 98 only contains two ramps that once was used in the prior alignment. The NB ramp to 138 westbound is ex-97A that is still in use. The SB ramp to 138 eastbound is ex-97 and still is in use.

Old 97 northbound has been bulldozed and rebuilt (mostly under the park & ride). Most of 96 southbound has been obliterated.

Quote from: roadman65 on October 12, 2019, 11:05:35 AM
Many parts of the parkway you can see where the changes are.  The NB 127 ramp over US 9 is the original 1952 built Parkway north carriageway before that whole 127-129 tangle was ever made.  You can see it does not match the other bridges of the interchange easily and the old maps show US 9 in the middle of the Parkway and the New Brunswick Avenue interchange ramps connected to the toll road and not the US route in the pre tangle days.

The old 126, 128 and 129 are practically torn out. Old 127 is just part of 9. The widened gap of old 129 is visible on the Parkway and old exit 10 on the Turnpike is now mostly that service road for the cops.

was 126 for 9 going NB, 127 for New Brunswick Ave, and 128 for King Georges Rd, to correspond to the exits on the service roads around there now?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2019, 12:25:18 AM
Google aerial shows the NB US 9 exit was after New Brunswick Avenue on the left side before US 9 cross back under the NB parkway.   I think it was Exit 127A, from a source I saw on line.  I believe 126 was the SB exit for US 9 which was also a left exit as the Parkway SB never crossed US 9.  It was after New Brunswick Avenue as well but going the other way.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 15, 2019, 07:14:28 PM
127A was New Brunswick Avenue northbound.

127 southbound was a left handed exit to US 9.

Both were canned when the Parkway was widened for the collector road and extension of exit 129.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 26, 2019, 10:11:29 AM
I noticed that from GSV from Route 17 under the Parkway, they retained the original bridges that carried the mainline over Route 17 and just built a new overpass in the median to carry the new Parkway lanes over the state route.   The original bridges carry the 163 ramps over Route 17 and that, I assume, was to be able to work on the new freeway while keeping the old open at all times.  All they had to do was reconfigure the old carriageways and allow for the new parkway to move to the center when done basically keeping the original ramps and using the old lanes to extend the 163 ramps.

Good plan and similar to the Exit 98 conversion done decades ago where a left hand exit was changed to the right but without a long service road before it here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on November 06, 2019, 05:53:05 PM
This Saturday evening (11/9) at 6 PM ET, I will be hosting a special live event on my channel along with *several* members of the AARoads forum. We will be taking a 'virtual' tour of the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey and will discuss (in real time as the video rolls) the highlights and history of this, New Jersey's longest highway. We hope you can join us!

A link to the stream can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0vUI99yjo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0vUI99yjo)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2019, 10:36:58 PM
Quote from: roadwaywiz95 on November 06, 2019, 05:53:05 PM
This Saturday evening (11/9) at 6 PM ET, I will be hosting a special live event on my channel along with *several* members of the AARoads forum. We will be taking a 'virtual' tour of the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey and will discuss (in real time as the video rolls) the highlights and history of this, New Jersey's longest highway. We hope you can join us!

A link to the stream can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0vUI99yjo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0vUI99yjo)
😡
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on November 08, 2019, 12:07:54 PM
The location of tomorrow night's stream has been moved to a different URL, presented below. Apologies for the inconvenience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC6lZ9qV5Yg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC6lZ9qV5Yg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 10:57:09 AM
Noticed on GSV the control city changes the NJTA has for new exit guides.


Pt Pleasant is now removed SB at Exit 98 and moved to Exit 91 instead.  Trenton is added going SB at 98 as before it was Belmar/Manasquan/ Pt Pleasant and presently it is become Belmar/Trenton.  Exit 91 was always Lakewood/Brick Twp. and now is Pt. Pleasant/ Lakewood.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 21, 2020, 11:32:07 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 10:57:09 AM
Noticed on GSV the control city changes the NJTA has for new exit guides.


Pt Pleasant is now removed SB at Exit 98 and moved to Exit 91 instead.  Trenton is added going SB at 98 as before it was Belmar/Manasquan/ Pt Pleasant and presently it is become Belmar/Trenton.  Exit 91 was always Lakewood/Brick Twp. and now is Pt. Pleasant/ Lakewood.

That's been in place since the signs were replaced dating back to I believe 2016. There is a 2017 GSV showing the same sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 11:59:28 AM
When you get to be in your 40's and 50's one whole year passes in a blink!   Just like Christmas 2020 will be here before you know and next summer will pass by in a matter of what was two days before.

Getting old sucks as you now have to move fast to plan things. Unlike teenage years which drag forever as I remember how long it took to go from 1980 to 1990 and from 2010 to 2020 went so damned fast.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on January 21, 2020, 01:37:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 11:59:28 AM
When you get to be in your 40's and 50's one whole year passes in a blink!   Just like Christmas 2020 will be here before you know and next summer will pass by in a matter of what was two days before.

Getting old sucks as you now have to move fast to plan things. Unlike teenage years which drag forever as I remember how long it took to go from 1980 to 1990 and from 2010 to 2020 went so damned fast.
In short; as one gets older, a year becomes a smaller percentage of one's life.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 10:31:42 PM
Back on track, I am sort of glad to see new signage on the Parkway, but do miss the old.  In some cases with Exit 98 going SB the signs were overwhelming.  You had 3 main controls and 3 supplemental plus the Allaire State Park, and the Allaire Airport (if its not another new name as it was originally Monmouth Airport) plus Six Flags and the Aquarium in Camden.

Too bad NJ 166 could not have an exit  going SB even if its with CR 571.  You can't have everything even though it would help a lot.  Also a SPUI if not a flyover at NJ 37 as those cloverleaf ramps are not only outdated but dangerous.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 21, 2020, 10:46:22 PM
I think only one button copy sign remains on the GSP.... the advance for Exit 81 & 82 northbound just south of Exit 80. It survived the widening, but eventually they'll renumber Exit 82 to a standard A-B setup.

https://goo.gl/maps/8nTnvR5M2Ke4EpbJ7

In other news, the New Gretna express E-ZPass gantry is coming along. The toll plaza is in its final configuration, just have to get the actual gantries up at the plaza along with the advance signing as only the piers are done.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 11:14:25 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 21, 2020, 10:46:22 PM
I think only one button copy sign remains on the GSP.... the advance for Exit 81 & 82 northbound just south of Exit 80. It survived the widening, but eventually they'll renumber Exit 82 to a standard A-B setup.

https://goo.gl/maps/8nTnvR5M2Ke4EpbJ7

In other news, the New Gretna express E-ZPass gantry is coming along. The toll plaza is in its final configuration, just have to get the actual gantries up at the plaza along with the advance signing as only the piers are done.

I am surprised 82-82A still exists after all the other setups being renumbered.

It is sad to see the old Birch Street overpass demolished.  Yes, I know it was not designed for the Parkway to be widened beneath it, but one of the last of the concrete arch bridges left.  I think the NB local lanes still has it at Exit 105 and County Route 547 passing under both local lanes in Tinton Falls is still with those types, but other than that I know of I think there are none other.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on March 01, 2020, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 10:31:42 PM
Too bad NJ 166 could not have an exit  going SB even if its with CR 571.  You can't have everything even though it would help a lot.  Also a SPUI if not a flyover at NJ 37 as those cloverleaf ramps are not only outdated but dangerous.
That southbound exit (83) to 166/9/571 is coming...hopefully.   I went to a public information session about 3 years ago where they showed preliminary designs.  If I recall the ramp would exit right after the southbound tolls to a t-intersection with a light at 571 behind the CVS.  That exit is sorely needed in this area, and it would help take some load off 82 (Route 37).  I agree on a reconfiguration at 82 to eliminate the cloverleafs - That interchange is a weaving mess during evening rush hour.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 04, 2020, 02:33:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 11:14:25 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 21, 2020, 10:46:22 PM
I think only one button copy sign remains on the GSP.... the advance for Exit 81 & 82 northbound just south of Exit 80. It survived the widening, but eventually they'll renumber Exit 82 to a standard A-B setup.

https://goo.gl/maps/8nTnvR5M2Ke4EpbJ7

In other news, the New Gretna express E-ZPass gantry is coming along. The toll plaza is in its final configuration, just have to get the actual gantries up at the plaza along with the advance signing as only the piers are done.

I am surprised 82-82A still exists after all the other setups being renumbered.

It is sad to see the old Birch Street overpass demolished.  Yes, I know it was not designed for the Parkway to be widened beneath it, but one of the last of the concrete arch bridges left.  I think the NB local lanes still has it at Exit 105 and County Route 547 passing under both local lanes in Tinton Falls is still with those types, but other than that I know of I think there are none other.

IIRC, they were holding off on replacing its signage until they do interchange improvements there and will roll the new signs into that. It is also why they didn't replace signage at 109, as they will do it as part of that interchange reconfiguration project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman on March 04, 2020, 04:41:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 21, 2020, 01:37:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 21, 2020, 11:59:28 AM
When you get to be in your 40's and 50's one whole year passes in a blink!   Just like Christmas 2020 will be here before you know and next summer will pass by in a matter of what was two days before.

Getting old sucks as you now have to move fast to plan things. Unlike teenage years which drag forever as I remember how long it took to go from 1980 to 1990 and from 2010 to 2020 went so damned fast.
In short; as one gets older, a year becomes a smaller percentage of one's life.

Age progresses like a phonograph record.  The closer you get to the end, the shorter the revolutions become.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on March 04, 2020, 11:34:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 04, 2020, 02:33:55 PM
IIRC, they were holding off on replacing its signage until they do interchange improvements there and will roll the new signs into that.
Have you actually heard about plans for interchange work at 82?  I'm only aware of the new southbound 83 exit.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 05, 2020, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on March 04, 2020, 11:34:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 04, 2020, 02:33:55 PM
IIRC, they were holding off on replacing its signage until they do interchange improvements there and will roll the new signs into that.
Have you actually heard about plans for interchange work at 82?  I'm only aware of the new southbound 83 exit.


I'm not aware of anything myself. If you were recalling my deleted post, I deleted it because I was thinking of 83.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 05, 2020, 09:35:07 AM
Quote from: Alps on March 05, 2020, 09:29:15 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on March 04, 2020, 11:34:51 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 04, 2020, 02:33:55 PM
IIRC, they were holding off on replacing its signage until they do interchange improvements there and will roll the new signs into that.
Have you actually heard about plans for interchange work at 82?  I'm only aware of the new southbound 83 exit.


I'm not aware of anything myself. If you were recalling my deleted post, I deleted it because I was thinking of 83.

That's possible. I thought they were looking at improvements at 82 as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 07, 2020, 10:30:29 AM
Other states would have Exit 82 converted to either a SPUI or DDI.  Considering that SB loop ramp on 82 has been a danger for well over many decades (a half a century of modern drivers) that was not on the list before adding the Route 70 full interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2020, 10:43:19 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2020, 10:30:29 AM
Other states would have Exit 82 converted to either a SPUI or DDI.  Considering that SB loop ramp on 82 has been a danger for well over many decades (a half a century of modern drivers) that was not on the list before adding the Route 70 full interchange.

A DDI should only be considered if most traffic enters or exits the highway. The drastically limit thruput for those stating on the local road. A SPUI also adds what can be a long signal to an area where no signal exists now.

Flyover ramps would resolve some of the issue without creating a stop condition where none exists.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on March 07, 2020, 10:50:12 AM
PARCLO B4
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 07, 2020, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 07, 2020, 10:43:19 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2020, 10:30:29 AM
Other states would have Exit 82 converted to either a SPUI or DDI.  Considering that SB loop ramp on 82 has been a danger for well over many decades (a half a century of modern drivers) that was not on the list before adding the Route 70 full interchange.


A DDI should only be considered if most traffic enters or exits the highway. The drastically limit thruput for those stating on the local road. A SPUI also adds what can be a long signal to an area where no signal exists now.

Flyover ramps would resolve some of the issue without creating a stop condition where none exists.

I agree with the flyover concept as that would work better especially SB to EB.   Yes many states ( I did not say I agree with them) would opt for a diamond or DDI or a SPUI.  And many states have added lights to places that never did before, which I find annoying. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 07, 2020, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2020, 10:50:12 AM
PARCLO B4

Might work, but the loops must be made a lot loose than they are now.  Then a left turn signal would be needed on Route 37 for the left turns needed.  The flyovers would require property acquisition and create weaving for right turns at Route 166.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on March 08, 2020, 11:04:03 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 07, 2020, 11:33:25 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 07, 2020, 10:50:12 AM
PARCLO B4

Might work, but the loops must be made a lot loose than they are now.  Then a left turn signal would be needed on Route 37 for the left turns needed.  The flyovers would require property acquisition and create weaving for right turns at Route 166.
Without work on the bridge to widen 37 for double left turning lanes with enough stacking room, it's not going to work.  There's a lot of traffic that makes those movements from 37 WB  to GSP SB and EB to NB.  The Toms River has only two crossing points in the immediate area, and traffic can be heavy from the 37 corridor (big shopping district) to the towns to the south (significant personal experience as I pass through here at least twice a day and make this exact move frequently).  I think the Parclo A4 might actually work better without bridge reconstruction, even if it adds an additional light in each direction.  I don't think flyovers are realistically ever going to happen here.  The planned southbound 83 exit would definitely take a lot of load off this interchange in the evening though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 09, 2020, 10:40:59 AM
Has any section of the GSP ever been designated as Route 444?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 09, 2020, 10:46:39 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 09, 2020, 10:40:59 AM
Has any section of the GSP ever been designated as Route 444?

That's the state's hidden designation for the entire highway. It's never been publicly signed as such, however.
445 is the Palisdades Pkwy
446 is the Atlantic City Expwy
700 is the Turnpike south of Exit 6
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 09, 2020, 11:32:29 AM
Turnpike Authority has published a Public Notice (https://www.njta.com/media/5158/hearing-notice.pdf) for toll adjustments.

Highlights of proposed projects for the Parkway include:
- AET conversion. If there was ever a road that is ripe for that, it is the Parkway.
- Widening the express and local lanes in Monnmouth county (definitely needed)
- Widening the original Route 4 section in Middlesex and Union. That will be an undertaking and a half given all the bridges that will need to be replaced since they've wedged as many lanes as I think they can under most of them. And I don't know what they do about the conrail overpasses in Woodbridge.
- Widening from 142 to 153, though I'm going to be hard pressed to see where they can widen in those areas without massive property takings and it won't solve things in the cemetery between 144 and 145.
- Widening from 154 to 163. Probably much easier to do than in southern Essex.
- Completing missing movements for a bunch of old partial exits (6, 13, 17, 20, 29, 40, 123, 124, 147, 168). 83 is not on this list, but there is talk of widening the roadway there.

Will be interested to see some more of these details.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 09, 2020, 06:51:46 PM
The public notice is very vague about what they actually want to widen. I suspect its widening to add full shoulders and 12ft lanes in areas that currently lack them. Ideally the whole GSP from Exit 129 to 145 (or beyond!) is ripe for some sort of managed lane setup. The demand is certainly there!

The whole thing reads like a wish list though, so only expect a few things on it to happen.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 07:57:44 PM
Where on the GSP are there not 12-foot lanes? The entire road was built from the 1950's on, so all lanes should have been built to those specs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 09, 2020, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 07:57:44 PM
Where on the GSP are there not 12-foot lanes? The entire road was built from the 1950's on, so all lanes should have been built to those specs.
The entire 5-lane section is narrower because it's shoehorned in over a former 4-lane section. In fact, the arched overpasses in Union County were built for 3 lanes under each! (Hence the lack of shoulders.) I want to say there's another section somewhere up in Passaic as well, but don't quote me on anything outside Union.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 09, 2020, 09:22:15 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 09, 2020, 06:51:46 PM
The public notice is very vague about what they actually want to widen. I suspect its widening to add full shoulders and 12ft lanes in areas that currently lack them. Ideally the whole GSP from Exit 129 to 145 (or beyond!) is ripe for some sort of managed lane setup. The demand is certainly there!

The whole thing reads like a wish list though, so only expect a few things on it to happen.
Keep in mind that some number of these projects haven't been designed yet. There's nothing that indicates whether the whole project would be funded, some part of it, or just one or more phases of design, or even just a conceptual study. If you're interested to learn more about any particular one or what they plan to do in general with these, do pop into one of the public info sessions or - I don't have the poster in front of me - contact whoever at the NJTA it says to contact if you can't make it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Thanks Alps. I assume the lanes are 9 to 10 feet wide in the five-lane area? I suppose it's marginally acceptable being as there are no heavy trucks on the Parkway that far north. Surprising though that the Authority was desperate enough for another lane that they would go narrower than 12 feet on an otherwise modern road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2020, 09:34:22 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Thanks Alps. I assume the lanes are 9 to 10 feet wide in the five-lane area? I suppose it's marginally acceptable being as there are no heavy trucks on the Parkway that far north. Surprising though that the Authority was desperate enough for another lane that they would go narrower than 12 feet on an otherwise modern road.

They certainly wouldn't be 9 feet wide. That wouldn't be safe in a 30 mph zone, much less a 55 mph zone.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 10, 2020, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Thanks Alps. I assume the lanes are 9 to 10 feet wide in the five-lane area? I suppose it's marginally acceptable being as there are no heavy trucks on the Parkway that far north. Surprising though that the Authority was desperate enough for another lane that they would go narrower than 12 feet on an otherwise modern road.
a) Keep in mind that the "widening" happened under the NJ Highway Authority.
b) I think only the lanes on the old Driscoll Bridge were 10'. I think Union is closer to 11'. But again, don't quote me on that unless you want to wander out there with a ruler yourself.*
*Don't do this
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 10, 2020, 12:18:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2020, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Thanks Alps. I assume the lanes are 9 to 10 feet wide in the five-lane area? I suppose it's marginally acceptable being as there are no heavy trucks on the Parkway that far north. Surprising though that the Authority was desperate enough for another lane that they would go narrower than 12 feet on an otherwise modern road.
a) Keep in mind that the "widening" happened under the NJ Highway Authority.
b) I think only the lanes on the old Driscoll Bridge were 10'. I think Union is closer to 11'. But again, don't quote me on that unless you want to wander out there with a ruler yourself.*
*Don't do this

Steve Anderson's page for the Parkway on nycroads.com claims that the NJ4Pkwy section has 12 foot lanes, which doesn't seem possible. I really thought I remember reading how they were shrunk to 11 foot lanes in the early 80s to fit that fifth lane thru there. In fact, I thought that was the old Highway Authority's MO, to eliminate shoulders and squeeze lanes down in order to fit extra lanes in without having to acquire more ROW.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 10, 2020, 04:34:18 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 10, 2020, 12:18:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2020, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Thanks Alps. I assume the lanes are 9 to 10 feet wide in the five-lane area? I suppose it's marginally acceptable being as there are no heavy trucks on the Parkway that far north. Surprising though that the Authority was desperate enough for another lane that they would go narrower than 12 feet on an otherwise modern road.
a) Keep in mind that the "widening" happened under the NJ Highway Authority.
b) I think only the lanes on the old Driscoll Bridge were 10'. I think Union is closer to 11'. But again, don't quote me on that unless you want to wander out there with a ruler yourself.*
*Don't do this

Steve Anderson's page for the Parkway on nycroads.com claims that the NJ4Pkwy section has 12 foot lanes, which doesn't seem possible. I really thought I remember reading how they were shrunk to 11 foot lanes in the early 80s to fit that fifth lane thru there. In fact, I thought that was the old Highway Authority's MO, to eliminate shoulders and squeeze lanes down in order to fit extra lanes in without having to acquire more ROW.
We have Google Earth to help us. I measured between 135-136 and got 55 feet across.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 10, 2020, 05:23:57 PM
Why don't they extend I-87 along the GSP. the northern part of the GSP north of I-95/NJ Tpke can be I-987 all the way to I-87/I-287 NY Thruway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 10, 2020, 05:56:09 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 10, 2020, 05:23:57 PM
Why don't they extend I-87 along the GSP. the northern part of the GSP north of I-95/NJ Tpke can be I-987 all the way to I-87/I-287 NY Thruway.

GSP is not up to interstate standards and it would be quite a feat to get it there in a lot of places. Plus, another interstate shield in NJ would not accomplish much that's an improvement over what we have now, to be honest.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 11, 2020, 12:36:49 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 10, 2020, 05:23:57 PM
Why don't they extend I-87 along the GSP. the northern part of the GSP north of I-95/NJ Tpke can be I-987 all the way to I-87/I-287 NY Thruway.
Stop posting Fictional ideas outside the Fictional Highways forum.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 13, 2020, 04:25:16 PM
(mostly copied from the Turnpike thread)

NJ.com has an article about the proposed rates for the toll increases (https://www.nj.com/traffic/2020/03/we-now-know-how-much-proposed-toll-hikes-at-the-turnpike-parkway-are.html) by the Turnpike Authority. Parkway increase is going to be around 27%, for both cash and EZ-Pass transactions. Bus discounts are changing as well and will be a flat 40% discount. Toll increases are expected to raise 500MM revenue for the next capital plan.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 17, 2020, 02:09:24 PM
Turnpike Authority has now published the proposed toll schedules (https://www.njta.com/media/5178/proposed-toll-schedule-garden-state-parkway.pdf) for the Parkway post increase. Essentially looking at .95 each way for mainline plazas, so 1.90 for the one way barriers. Most ramp tolls to move to .65 with the main exception being the East Orange plaza going to 1.25 (I believe it's 1.00 now) and any ramp barriers that charge the same 1 or 2 way tolls as the mainline barriers will move up accordingly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 17, 2020, 02:26:50 PM
I won't be able to get to the public hearings, but has anyone floated the managed lane idea for widening the GSP between Exits 129 and 145? That $2.5billon price tag and extensive ROW impacts in East Orange/Irvington/Newark seems very conservative. Further south thru Union County has the room for the most part, but the highway would lose the tree buffer and the stone faced overpasses would have to be replaced. A managed lane proposal would likely get around the toll free restriction on the old NJDOT portion as well.

I don't see how a 6 continuous lane wide roadway from 129 to 142 is going to help. If anything it might be more accident prone.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 17, 2020, 02:54:46 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 17, 2020, 02:26:50 PM
I won't be able to get to the public hearings, but has anyone floated the managed lane idea for widening the GSP between Exits 129 and 145? That $2.5billon price tag and extensive ROW impacts in East Orange/Irvington/Newark seems very conservative. Further south thru Union County has the room for the most part, but the highway would lose the tree buffer and the stone faced overpasses would have to be replaced. A managed lane proposal would likely get around the toll free restriction on the old NJDOT portion as well.

I don't see how a 6 continuous lane wide roadway from 129 to 142 is going to help. If anything it might be more accident prone.

I'm pretty sure the conditions of the toll free thing were that they weren't allowed to charge any kinds of tolls, and it's not a far jump from calling managed lane fees tolls, so I think that's a non-starter. It's not the Turnpike Authority's MO, either. They're already charging tolls overall to pay for this sort of stuff. I'm betting they'll look to make this work with toll revenue from the existing toll system. I'm just curious how they'll work around the cemetary between 144 and 145. The rest of it might be managed, but that is going to be a sticky point if there ever was one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 17, 2020, 07:03:05 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 17, 2020, 02:26:50 PM
I won't be able to get to the public hearings, but has anyone floated the managed lane idea for widening the GSP between Exits 129 and 145? That $2.5billon price tag and extensive ROW impacts in East Orange/Irvington/Newark seems very conservative. Further south thru Union County has the room for the most part, but the highway would lose the tree buffer and the stone faced overpasses would have to be replaced. A managed lane proposal would likely get around the toll free restriction on the old NJDOT portion as well.

I don't see how a 6 continuous lane wide roadway from 129 to 142 is going to help. If anything it might be more accident prone.
Managed lanes still involve widening. All of these ideas will have to be studied during planning and design phases. Rest assured that the engineers at the Turnpike have thought of these things.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2020, 08:05:02 PM
Looks like the Express E-ZPass lanes at New Gretna are very close to opening. Sign for traffic pattern change on 4/27 is up. Also the complete lack of traffic has led to a paving binge. Most of the northbound GSP from Exit 58 to around 80 has been repaved.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 20, 2020, 09:15:44 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2020, 08:05:02 PM
Looks like the Express E-ZPass lanes at New Gretna are very close to opening. Sign for traffic pattern change on 4/27 is up. Also the complete lack of traffic has led to a paving binge. Most of the northbound GSP from Exit 58 to around 80 has been repaved.

Might as well take advantage of the lull in traffic from commuters before the shore traffic starts, assuming there can be a shore season this year.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 20, 2020, 08:54:53 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 20, 2020, 09:15:44 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2020, 08:05:02 PM
Looks like the Express E-ZPass lanes at New Gretna are very close to opening. Sign for traffic pattern change on 4/27 is up. Also the complete lack of traffic has led to a paving binge. Most of the northbound GSP from Exit 58 to around 80 has been repaved.

Might as well take advantage of the lull in traffic from commuters before the shore traffic starts, assuming there can be a shore season this year.
They just started repaving southbound at 80.  They have it coned down to one travel lane, which would be unheard of in normal conditions.  It seems like just a short while ago they widened (and repaved) that section from 80 on down.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2020, 05:31:31 PM
High speed E-ZPass lanes are finally open at the New Gretna Toll Plaza. The next Exit 109 ramps are complete and open as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 18, 2020, 08:49:39 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2020, 05:31:31 PM
High speed E-ZPass lanes are finally open at the New Gretna Toll Plaza. The next Exit 109 ramps are complete and open as well.

What work is left as part of 109? Also, are they finally replacing the signage at that exit? It was the only place on that strech of the Parkway that kept it's classic NJHA signage when it was all replaced a couple of years ago, and I always figured it would be replaced with this project instead.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 27, 2020, 03:16:13 PM
(cross post from the Turnpike thread)

NJ.com: New toll hike, $24B construction plan approved by Turnpike board despite calls to delay (https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/05/new-toll-hike-24b-construction-plan-approved-by-turnpike-board-despite-calls-to-delay.html)

QuoteDespite calls from drivers and a leading state senator to delay action during a telephone public hearing, the board voted 7 to 0 to approve the toll increase and the $24 billion capital plan that included $16 billion to widen sections of the Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, permanently implement cashless toll payment and to replace a bridge between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The rest is the usual mix of nonsense, including calls from clueless people to spend money on other infrastructure and transit projects, even though the tolls keep the state from having to use gas tax money to maintain one of its most important highways.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 17, 2020, 03:42:20 PM
Was digging through some of famartin's photos, and saw that they finally replaced signage at 109 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Roads_in_New_Jersey&filefrom=2020-07-09+09+01+44+will+rename+and+categorize+soon+17.jpg#/media/File:2020-07-11_15_00_05_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_40.jpg) on logs that look precariously perched, no less. Interesting that the shield on this new sign has a yellow backplate when classic NJHA signage did not use them, and the backplate isn't the standard anymore. The most recent GSV from that area is Oct 2019 and still shows the old vintage NJHA signage. Any idea when this was completed?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 18, 2020, 08:01:47 PM
For some reason Exit 132's control city was changed from Rahway to Iselin (which the old NJDOT era sign featured). I'm guessing it was an error from the beginning since there are signs that say "Rahway Next 2 Exits" nearby.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 18, 2020, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 18, 2020, 08:01:47 PM
For some reason Exit 132's control city was changed from Rahway to Iselin (which the old NJDOT era sign featured). I'm guessing it was an error from the beginning since there are signs that say "Rahway Next 2 Exits" nearby.
Rahway and Iselin both were used in the NJDOT days.   Anyway, Rahway is an incorporated city as supposed to Iselin which is an unincorporated part of Woodbridge.  Rahway should be used and Iselin on a supplemental sign. Plus someone on here did mention that there is an Iselin Next 3 Exits sign on the Parkway North someplace between the NJ Turnpike and South Wood Avenue.

I would like to know why, though, Roselle is used at 136 S Bound when NJ 28 at Exit 137 should be signed for that going SB.  N Bound it is the best way via Raritan Road ( I lived near there so Union County roads are as the back of my hand) but NJ 28 E Bound to Locust Street is the most direct coming from Newark and Paterson rather than loop back on Raritan Road from Union County Road 615 which requires a U Turn as the SB 136 ramp does not allow left turns.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 19, 2020, 01:51:32 PM
The bike/ped path over the new Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is finally open.

https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/new-parkway-bridge-bike-path-opened-quietly-but-safety-still-concern-in-somers-point/article_739d655d-207a-5d89-bdd6-7c1dd2446e6a.html
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 19, 2020, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 18, 2020, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 18, 2020, 08:01:47 PM
For some reason Exit 132's control city was changed from Rahway to Iselin (which the old NJDOT era sign featured). I'm guessing it was an error from the beginning since there are signs that say "Rahway Next 2 Exits" nearby.
Rahway and Iselin both were used in the NJDOT days.   Anyway, Rahway is an incorporated city as supposed to Iselin which is an unincorporated part of Woodbridge.  Rahway should be used and Iselin on a supplemental sign. Plus someone on here did mention that there is an Iselin Next 3 Exits sign on the Parkway North someplace between the NJ Turnpike and South Wood Avenue.

I would like to know why, though, Roselle is used at 136 S Bound when NJ 28 at Exit 137 should be signed for that going SB.  N Bound it is the best way via Raritan Road ( I lived near there so Union County roads are as the back of my hand) but NJ 28 E Bound to Locust Street is the most direct coming from Newark and Paterson rather than loop back on Raritan Road from Union County Road 615 which requires a U Turn as the SB 136 ramp does not allow left turns.

A lot of that is from the days of NJDOT's ownership of that stretch of the Parkway, I think. As we discussed in other threads, a lot of control cities used in a lot of places in this state need to be reviewed and realigned.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2020, 02:27:36 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 19, 2020, 01:51:32 PM
The bike/ped path over the new Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is finally open.

https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/new-parkway-bridge-bike-path-opened-quietly-but-safety-still-concern-in-somers-point/article_739d655d-207a-5d89-bdd6-7c1dd2446e6a.html

"The bike and pedestrian path along the new Garden State Parkway bridge connecting Atlantic and Cape May counties opened July 8 with no fanfare from the state"

What the reporter meant: We actually had to get out of bed to do some research since the state or its authority didn't do it for us.

Also, the road in question is a county road, so the town is barking up the wrong tree.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 20, 2020, 08:28:39 AM
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2020, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 18, 2020, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 18, 2020, 08:01:47 PM
For some reason Exit 132's control city was changed from Rahway to Iselin (which the old NJDOT era sign featured). I'm guessing it was an error from the beginning since there are signs that say "Rahway Next 2 Exits" nearby.
Rahway and Iselin both were used in the NJDOT days.   Anyway, Rahway is an incorporated city as supposed to Iselin which is an unincorporated part of Woodbridge.  Rahway should be used and Iselin on a supplemental sign. Plus someone on here did mention that there is an Iselin Next 3 Exits sign on the Parkway North someplace between the NJ Turnpike and South Wood Avenue.

I would like to know why, though, Roselle is used at 136 S Bound when NJ 28 at Exit 137 should be signed for that going SB.  N Bound it is the best way via Raritan Road ( I lived near there so Union County roads are as the back of my hand) but NJ 28 E Bound to Locust Street is the most direct coming from Newark and Paterson rather than loop back on Raritan Road from Union County Road 615 which requires a U Turn as the SB 136 ramp does not allow left turns.

A lot of that is from the days of NJDOT's ownership of that stretch of the Parkway, I think. As we discussed in other threads, a lot of control cities used in a lot of places in this state need to be reviewed and realigned.


Like Springfield should be replaced for 142 signs in favor of Easton or Allentown. The current was copied over from when I-78 ended at Springfield. 

Yes many cities do need review in even former NJHA places too. Then Camden should return for Exit 63 as more people heading west on NJ 72 go further on NJ 70 then go to Pemberton.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 20, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
I always figured (without any data to support this) that most traffic entering I-287 at Exit 10 is bound for Metuchen. It does have a dedicated lane that exits to NJ 27.

Speaking of Somerville, I find it odd that I-80 signs Somerville at US 206 South when I-287 is a faster route there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 08:34:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 20, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
I always figured (without any data to support this) that most traffic entering I-287 at Exit 10 is bound for Metuchen. It does have a dedicated lane that exits to NJ 27.

Speaking of Somerville, I find it odd that I-80 signs Somerville at US 206 South when I-287 is a faster route there.

Completely coincidental. Metuchen as a control city is solely due to 287 only being built that far when Exit 10 was built. As for Somerville on 80, it passes thru Morristown first, so that makes more sense.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on July 20, 2020, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 20, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
I always figured (without any data to support this) that most traffic entering I-287 at Exit 10 is bound for Metuchen. It does have a dedicated lane that exits to NJ 27.

Speaking of Somerville, I find it odd that I-80 signs Somerville at US 206 South when I-287 is a faster route there.

Actually its not, and by a significant margin.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.8906909,-74.7063058/40.5730646,-74.6239814/@40.742335,-74.7376364,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!4m5!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1595235600!3e0
Change the time as you like, but nearly all will say 206 is faster than 287.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 20, 2020, 11:42:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 08:34:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 20, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
I always figured (without any data to support this) that most traffic entering I-287 at Exit 10 is bound for Metuchen. It does have a dedicated lane that exits to NJ 27.

Speaking of Somerville, I find it odd that I-80 signs Somerville at US 206 South when I-287 is a faster route there.

Completely coincidental. Metuchen as a control city is solely due to 287 only being built that far when Exit 10 was built. As for Somerville on 80, it passes thru Morristown first, so that makes more sense.

It could be the same logic applied to the Exit 16W signage on the Western Spur.  All ramps to NJ 3 west elsewhere say Clifton, but the NJ Turnpike likes to use Rutherford for NJ 3 W Bound at 16W.

NJTA likes to use more local places for its signs, like the Garden State Parkway only using Woodbridge.  It should really use Paterson or even Albany, NY as it is a bypass connector from I-95 to the NYS Thruway.  However, Exit 11 is the result of consolidating old Exit 10 and Exit 11 so that is why that is.  Before I-287, Exit 10 was a direct ramp to the Garden State Parkway (partial access as it was NB only) and Exit 11 was further north connecting directly to US 9 where the maintenance yard is now. 

Though it does have merit, but I-287 north of US 1 was built first.  In fact Metuchen is still used on some US 22 E Bound signs in Bridgewater and at one time a mileage sign in Bernards Township had Metuchen on it as well stating it was 20 miles south of Mount Airy Road.  So before Piscataway became Office Park Central, Metuchen was the biggest community in that region as Piscataway was all farms up until the late 1970's.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 21, 2020, 07:45:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2020, 11:42:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 08:34:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 20, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
I always figured (without any data to support this) that most traffic entering I-287 at Exit 10 is bound for Metuchen. It does have a dedicated lane that exits to NJ 27.

Speaking of Somerville, I find it odd that I-80 signs Somerville at US 206 South when I-287 is a faster route there.

Completely coincidental. Metuchen as a control city is solely due to 287 only being built that far when Exit 10 was built. As for Somerville on 80, it passes thru Morristown first, so that makes more sense.

It could be the same logic applied to the Exit 16W signage on the Western Spur.  All ramps to NJ 3 west elsewhere say Clifton, but the NJ Turnpike likes to use Rutherford for NJ 3 W Bound at 16W.

NJTA likes to use more local places for its signs, like the Garden State Parkway only using Woodbridge.  It should really use Paterson or even Albany, NY as it is a bypass connector from I-95 to the NYS Thruway.  However, Exit 11 is the result of consolidating old Exit 10 and Exit 11 so that is why that is.  Before I-287, Exit 10 was a direct ramp to the Garden State Parkway (partial access as it was NB only) and Exit 11 was further north connecting directly to US 9 where the maintenance yard is now. 

Though it does have merit, but I-287 north of US 1 was built first.  In fact Metuchen is still used on some US 22 E Bound signs in Bridgewater and at one time a mileage sign in Bernards Township had Metuchen on it as well stating it was 20 miles south of Mount Airy Road.  So before Piscataway became Office Park Central, Metuchen was the biggest community in that region as Piscataway was all farms up until the late 1970's.

Woodbridge is an official control destination for the Parkway, as per their standard design (https://www.njta.com/media/2080/sd-njta-sl18.pdf), so it actually makes good sense here. Even if it wasn't, Rt 9 also shoots off this interchange and it services Woodbridge, so I'm fine with that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 21, 2020, 07:40:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 21, 2020, 07:45:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2020, 11:42:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 08:34:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 20, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
I always figured (without any data to support this) that most traffic entering I-287 at Exit 10 is bound for Metuchen. It does have a dedicated lane that exits to NJ 27.

Speaking of Somerville, I find it odd that I-80 signs Somerville at US 206 South when I-287 is a faster route there.

Completely coincidental. Metuchen as a control city is solely due to 287 only being built that far when Exit 10 was built. As for Somerville on 80, it passes thru Morristown first, so that makes more sense.

It could be the same logic applied to the Exit 16W signage on the Western Spur.  All ramps to NJ 3 west elsewhere say Clifton, but the NJ Turnpike likes to use Rutherford for NJ 3 W Bound at 16W.

NJTA likes to use more local places for its signs, like the Garden State Parkway only using Woodbridge.  It should really use Paterson or even Albany, NY as it is a bypass connector from I-95 to the NYS Thruway.  However, Exit 11 is the result of consolidating old Exit 10 and Exit 11 so that is why that is.  Before I-287, Exit 10 was a direct ramp to the Garden State Parkway (partial access as it was NB only) and Exit 11 was further north connecting directly to US 9 where the maintenance yard is now. 

Though it does have merit, but I-287 north of US 1 was built first.  In fact Metuchen is still used on some US 22 E Bound signs in Bridgewater and at one time a mileage sign in Bernards Township had Metuchen on it as well stating it was 20 miles south of Mount Airy Road.  So before Piscataway became Office Park Central, Metuchen was the biggest community in that region as Piscataway was all farms up until the late 1970's.

Woodbridge is an official control destination for the Parkway, as per their standard design (https://www.njta.com/media/2080/sd-njta-sl18.pdf), so it actually makes good sense here. Even if it wasn't, Rt 9 also shoots off this interchange and it services Woodbridge, so I'm fine with that.

Woodbridge is also all the exits between Clark and Sayreville really as its a township not a small square mile city or borough. 

Signing Newark on Exit 130 is like VDOT on I-95 in Fredericksburg using both Washington and Richmond for the US 1 exit as US 1 also goes to those.

FDOT did that once for US 27 on I-75 using Miami as a control city for US 27 southbound because US 27 goes to Miami which the interstate really does not, but nonetheless they changed it to Hialeah because I-75 is still the better road even though you have to connect with other freeways to it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 23, 2020, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 21, 2020, 07:40:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 21, 2020, 07:45:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2020, 11:42:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 08:34:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 20, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
I always figured (without any data to support this) that most traffic entering I-287 at Exit 10 is bound for Metuchen. It does have a dedicated lane that exits to NJ 27.

Speaking of Somerville, I find it odd that I-80 signs Somerville at US 206 South when I-287 is a faster route there.

Completely coincidental. Metuchen as a control city is solely due to 287 only being built that far when Exit 10 was built. As for Somerville on 80, it passes thru Morristown first, so that makes more sense.

It could be the same logic applied to the Exit 16W signage on the Western Spur.  All ramps to NJ 3 west elsewhere say Clifton, but the NJ Turnpike likes to use Rutherford for NJ 3 W Bound at 16W.

NJTA likes to use more local places for its signs, like the Garden State Parkway only using Woodbridge.  It should really use Paterson or even Albany, NY as it is a bypass connector from I-95 to the NYS Thruway.  However, Exit 11 is the result of consolidating old Exit 10 and Exit 11 so that is why that is.  Before I-287, Exit 10 was a direct ramp to the Garden State Parkway (partial access as it was NB only) and Exit 11 was further north connecting directly to US 9 where the maintenance yard is now. 

Though it does have merit, but I-287 north of US 1 was built first.  In fact Metuchen is still used on some US 22 E Bound signs in Bridgewater and at one time a mileage sign in Bernards Township had Metuchen on it as well stating it was 20 miles south of Mount Airy Road.  So before Piscataway became Office Park Central, Metuchen was the biggest community in that region as Piscataway was all farms up until the late 1970's.

Woodbridge is an official control destination for the Parkway, as per their standard design (https://www.njta.com/media/2080/sd-njta-sl18.pdf), so it actually makes good sense here. Even if it wasn't, Rt 9 also shoots off this interchange and it services Woodbridge, so I'm fine with that.

Woodbridge is also all the exits between Clark and Sayreville really as its a township not a small square mile city or borough. 

Signing Newark on Exit 130 is like VDOT on I-95 in Fredericksburg using both Washington and Richmond for the US 1 exit as US 1 also goes to those.

FDOT did that once for US 27 on I-75 using Miami as a control city for US 27 southbound because US 27 goes to Miami which the interstate really does not, but nonetheless they changed it to Hialeah because I-75 is still the better road even though you have to connect with other freeways to it.

Newark is what NJDOT uses for Rt 1 north of New Brunswick even if Rahway or Elizabeth may be better options, so I'm pretty sure that's why they have used that since they built the ramp to 1NB back in the early 90s. Kinda silly I suppose, but it is what it is.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2020, 11:12:14 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 23, 2020, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 21, 2020, 07:40:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 21, 2020, 07:45:32 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2020, 11:42:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 08:34:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 20, 2020, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 20, 2020, 12:10:01 PM
Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.
I always figured (without any data to support this) that most traffic entering I-287 at Exit 10 is bound for Metuchen. It does have a dedicated lane that exits to NJ 27.

Speaking of Somerville, I find it odd that I-80 signs Somerville at US 206 South when I-287 is a faster route there.

Completely coincidental. Metuchen as a control city is solely due to 287 only being built that far when Exit 10 was built. As for Somerville on 80, it passes thru Morristown first, so that makes more sense.

It could be the same logic applied to the Exit 16W signage on the Western Spur.  All ramps to NJ 3 west elsewhere say Clifton, but the NJ Turnpike likes to use Rutherford for NJ 3 W Bound at 16W.

NJTA likes to use more local places for its signs, like the Garden State Parkway only using Woodbridge.  It should really use Paterson or even Albany, NY as it is a bypass connector from I-95 to the NYS Thruway.  However, Exit 11 is the result of consolidating old Exit 10 and Exit 11 so that is why that is.  Before I-287, Exit 10 was a direct ramp to the Garden State Parkway (partial access as it was NB only) and Exit 11 was further north connecting directly to US 9 where the maintenance yard is now. 

Though it does have merit, but I-287 north of US 1 was built first.  In fact Metuchen is still used on some US 22 E Bound signs in Bridgewater and at one time a mileage sign in Bernards Township had Metuchen on it as well stating it was 20 miles south of Mount Airy Road.  So before Piscataway became Office Park Central, Metuchen was the biggest community in that region as Piscataway was all farms up until the late 1970's.

Woodbridge is an official control destination for the Parkway, as per their standard design (https://www.njta.com/media/2080/sd-njta-sl18.pdf), so it actually makes good sense here. Even if it wasn't, Rt 9 also shoots off this interchange and it services Woodbridge, so I'm fine with that.

Woodbridge is also all the exits between Clark and Sayreville really as its a township not a small square mile city or borough. 

Signing Newark on Exit 130 is like VDOT on I-95 in Fredericksburg using both Washington and Richmond for the US 1 exit as US 1 also goes to those.

FDOT did that once for US 27 on I-75 using Miami as a control city for US 27 southbound because US 27 goes to Miami which the interstate really does not, but nonetheless they changed it to Hialeah because I-75 is still the better road even though you have to connect with other freeways to it.

Newark is what NJDOT uses for Rt 1 north of New Brunswick even if Rahway or Elizabeth may be better options, so I'm pretty sure that's why they have used that since they built the ramp to 1NB back in the early 90s. Kinda silly I suppose, but it is what it is.

Yeah so does a lot of places use a different control city on local routes from freeways than the side roads.  Heck NJ does for NJ 23 further north on I-287 in Riverdale.  NJ 23 is also signed Newark from its start in Montague, yet the rule is broken on I-287 using Wayne instead.   Also Mahwah on NJ 17 S Bound from I-287 where the rest of NJ 17 uses Newark as well.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2020, 12:20:36 AM
Dont know if its true or not, but on FB someone posted a rate increase from $1.50 to $1.90 at the toll plazas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 07, 2020, 01:09:22 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2020, 12:20:36 AM
Dont know if its true or not, but on FB someone posted a rate increase from $1.50 to $1.90 at the toll plazas.
NJTA is increasing rates, we have separate discussion on that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 08, 2020, 12:55:24 PM
I remember when the Parkway was only a quarter each toll plaza when I began to drive back in 1981.  It has come a long way since then including road widening as it was four lanes south of Exit 98 until the mid 1980's and then a lot changed in the last few decades including more complete interchanges and installation of the EZ Pass and such.

Now it is close to $2 and more expensive than FL roads are now as in the 90's it was the other way around.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 08, 2020, 08:33:07 PM
The Garden State Parkway is one of the cheapest toll roads in terms of $/mi. For a while it was THE cheapest.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2020, 11:02:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2020, 12:55:24 PM
I remember when the Parkway was only a quarter each toll plaza when I began to drive back in 1981.  It has come a long way since then including road widening as it was four lanes south of Exit 98 until the mid 1980's and then a lot changed in the last few decades including more complete interchanges and installation of the EZ Pass and such.

Now it is close to $2 and more expensive than FL roads are now as in the 90's it was the other way around.

Because you ignored the fact they are now mostly one way tolls, not two way tolling they had back in the 1980s.

It's closer to $2 because of the one way tolls. If they still had all one way tolls, it would still be under $1.

(And in select locations, this still applies)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 11, 2020, 11:01:46 PM
Prep work on paving the shoulders between Exit 30 and 36 has begun to "widen" this section of the Parkway. For now only the overpasses are being replaced with new ones that are 3 lanes wide with full left and right shoulders. The roadway itself is being rebuilt with 2 lanes and full width shoulders. Eventually Exit 30 will be closed and Exit 29 upgraded to a full interchange, likely because the overpass that carries the Exit 30 ramp is a bit on the low side and needs to be replaced.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 12, 2020, 10:54:35 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 11, 2020, 11:01:46 PM
Prep work on paving the shoulders between Exit 30 and 36 has begun to "widen" this section of the Parkway. For now only the overpasses are being replaced with new ones that are 3 lanes wide with full left and right shoulders. The roadway itself is being rebuilt with 2 lanes and full width shoulders. Eventually Exit 30 will be closed and Exit 29 upgraded to a full interchange, likely because the overpass that carries the Exit 30 ramp is a bit on the low side and needs to be replaced.

Given that the original widening plans were to widen all the way to Exit 30 and they're basically doing all the prep work for it to happen eventually, I don't know why they don't just widen it out to 29 and call it a day.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 12, 2020, 08:10:14 PM
Details here: https://www.njta.com/media/5282/gsp-30-35_public-hearing-final.pdf

One of the bridges was already widened in a past replacement project.
Title: Garden State Parkway
Post by: artmalk on December 17, 2020, 01:03:51 PM
For all you GSP history buffs, here are two annual reports from what was then the New Jersey Highway Authority.
The one from 1955, on the last page, shows a rare image of the GSP's first trailblazer logo. https://dspace.njstatelib.org/handle/10929/54779 (https://dspace.njstatelib.org/handle/10929/54779):
The one from 1956 has a picture explaining that the GSP adopted the current logo because it was more visible to motorists.  https://dspace.njstatelib.org/handle/10929/54780 (https://dspace.njstatelib.org/handle/10929/54780).
It is interesting that the original logo lasted just a short time, and the current logo, which is unchanged snice 1956, has become an iconic symbol of New Jersey!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on January 17, 2021, 03:13:56 PM
Sign (probably the NJDEP required interpretive signage for wetlands disturbance) showing the original two-lane tollbooth and some other old photos of it and the demolished Beesleys Point Bridge:

(https://i.imgur.com/D8qADLK.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 23, 2021, 01:39:59 AM
Why is the Parkway like other toll roads where all attended lanes are all to the right and coin drops to the left? To me it was confusing to find the manned lanes until I discovered the steady green for each full serve lanes while all the coin basket lanes flashed green.

I think the GSP is the only toll road to break the rules as all others keep left the automated lanes and keep right the attendant lanes. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on January 23, 2021, 01:28:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 23, 2021, 01:39:59 AMI think the GSP is the only toll road to break the rules as all others keep left the automated lanes and keep right the attendant lanes.
Actually, the Mass Pike (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1245557,-72.0680775,3a,75y,31.68h,95.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svs7BvQuGm-FWonUbf8724g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) pre-AET did such as well; at least at the interchange plazas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2021, 03:03:16 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 23, 2021, 01:39:59 AM
Why is the Parkway like other toll roads where all attended lanes are all to the right and coin drops to the left? To me it was confusing to find the manned lanes until I discovered the steady green for each full serve lanes while all the coin basket lanes flashed green.

I think the GSP is the only toll road to break the rules as all others keep left the automated lanes and keep right the attendant lanes. 

Historically, neither did the PA Turnpike:  https://goo.gl/maps/zibrSdk6oAVJeXaDA

The old coin lanes at the DRPA crossings had the exact change lanes scattered throughout the plaza.  Current day DRPA crossings have the EZ Pass only lanes scattered thru the plaza.  https://goo.gl/maps/qkiBbKLkB5kaF6Ra8 (The Lanes that are closed are generally open as Cash Only lanes during rush hour.)

Delaware Memorial Bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/Qcs58DBuh2h4JHd77 .  The right-most lane without a sign is a Cash lane as well.

Maryland's Tydings Bridge Plaza, before they went to EZ Pass only:  https://goo.gl/maps/jjyHSEsYf2McLBtGA

Baltimore's I-95 Harbor Tunnel, again before they went to EZ Pass only:  https://goo.gl/maps/39hEcB2sKH9wjLch8 (also wins the award for most inconsistant sign layout).

Ohio's Eastgate Plaza:  https://goo.gl/maps/pvx8qsgvz7DNPu7GA

And best of all, YOUR OWN STATE doesn't follow that rule:  https://goo.gl/maps/r9EYBkA4SmmzQibH7  &  https://goo.gl/maps/TBh8yFNMwTriyvf98

So, suffice to say, not only do numerous agencies and authorities don't follow that unwritten rule, it appears the vast majority don't.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 23, 2021, 08:07:34 PM
It seems to me as a matter of principle that the express type lanes should be to the left and staffed lanes to the right. I don't understand why some toll agencies would do the reverse.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 23, 2021, 09:02:59 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 23, 2021, 08:07:34 PM
It seems to me as a matter of principle that the express type lanes should be to the left and staffed lanes to the right. I don't understand why some toll agencies would do the reverse.
It makes some sense for entrance and exit ramp tolls (and bridges) that have multiple approaches to the toll plaza or destinations after it. Not so much for mainline tolls.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DrSmith on January 23, 2021, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 23, 2021, 09:02:59 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 23, 2021, 08:07:34 PM
It seems to me as a matter of principle that the express type lanes should be to the left and staffed lanes to the right. I don't understand why some toll agencies would do the reverse.
It makes some sense for entrance and exit ramp tolls (and bridges) that have multiple approaches to the toll plaza or destinations after it. Not so much for mainline tolls.

Way back the Parkway had signs (may still have them) with different signals for types of lanes. It was probably mostly missed as lanes end and everyone is still barreling into the plaza and slaloming to what looks like the shortest lane

Also when ez-pass is a lane option as a lane through a toll booth, it isn't the same as an express. Some of those places have gates to make you slow down to 5 or 10 mph still. Additionally, trucks prefer to go to the right so they are not trying to accelerate slowly in the middle of all the traffic. That might be another consideration that was made about where to locate them.

On the Turnpike, at the old Interchange 1, the ez-pass lanes were in the middle because those were useless lanes. The booths were built for two collectors on one island. In the larger plazas like Interchange 1, that meant you one person for the drivers side on one lane and and another for the passenger side of the next lane. So those lanes weren't very convenient or usable and generally operated for ez-pass. For the southbound side particularly, those happened to be much more towards the left as the was an addition to the right made later (after the original plaza was built) with 5 additional lanes with a single collector on each island servicing the driver side.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 25, 2021, 12:14:28 PM
The original Del Mem Br plaza was left automatic and right attended.

Anyway this is Parkway and yes EZ Pass did change things for sure.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 25, 2021, 03:46:08 PM
Quote from: DrSmith on January 23, 2021, 09:56:18 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on January 23, 2021, 09:02:59 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 23, 2021, 08:07:34 PM
It seems to me as a matter of principle that the express type lanes should be to the left and staffed lanes to the right. I don't understand why some toll agencies would do the reverse.
It makes some sense for entrance and exit ramp tolls (and bridges) that have multiple approaches to the toll plaza or destinations after it. Not so much for mainline tolls.

Way back the Parkway had signs (may still have them) with different signals for types of lanes. It was probably mostly missed as lanes end and everyone is still barreling into the plaza and slaloming to what looks like the shortest lane

Also when ez-pass is a lane option as a lane through a toll booth, it isn't the same as an express. Some of those places have gates to make you slow down to 5 or 10 mph still. Additionally, trucks prefer to go to the right so they are not trying to accelerate slowly in the middle of all the traffic. That might be another consideration that was made about where to locate them.

On the Turnpike, at the old Interchange 1, the ez-pass lanes were in the middle because those were useless lanes. The booths were built for two collectors on one island. In the larger plazas like Interchange 1, that meant you one person for the drivers side on one lane and and another for the passenger side of the next lane. So those lanes weren't very convenient or usable and generally operated for ez-pass. For the southbound side particularly, those happened to be much more towards the left as the was an addition to the right made later (after the original plaza was built) with 5 additional lanes with a single collector on each island servicing the driver side.

I always thought that the Highway Authority did that to try to minimize weaving for traffic approaching the plazas. Someone realizing they wanted the coin basket lane and not swerving across many lanes of traffic. I have seen people literally make a 90 degree turn and drive perpendicular to traffic at plazas in other places because they were not in the lanes they wanted.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 02, 2021, 03:56:40 PM
I see by GSV that the 145 ramp plaza gone has been captured since.  The 148 plazas though GSV has not yet posted the changed or the infamous Google car never made it there yet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?


https://maps.app.goo.gl/M7JS71Z3dWtGMk4R9
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 06:53:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?


https://maps.app.goo.gl/M7JS71Z3dWtGMk4R9
Not exactly what I'd call scenic but cool.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on May 04, 2021, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?

The Parkway has some decent views of the marshes along the coast in Cape May County. Also, you get a decent "view"  heading south on the Driscoll Bridge, though not exactly anything special. Otherwise, it's mostly urban highway in Essex County and Pine Barrens in southern Ocean/Atlantic Counties, with a lot of suburbs thinly veiled by trees elsewhere.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 04, 2021, 08:09:32 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?

Can't point to any anymore. I liked the original 2-lane stretches pre-widening and pre-tree clearing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 04, 2021, 08:11:23 PM
Night views of the seaside towns are the best near New Gretna or Great Egg Harbor Bridge
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 08:54:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 06:53:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?


https://maps.app.goo.gl/M7JS71Z3dWtGMk4R9
Not exactly what I'd call scenic but cool.

You missed the joke.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 08:54:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 06:53:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?


https://maps.app.goo.gl/M7JS71Z3dWtGMk4R9
Not exactly what I'd call scenic but cool.

You missed the joke.
What was the joke?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: webny99 on May 04, 2021, 09:48:26 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 08:54:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 06:53:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?


https://maps.app.goo.gl/M7JS71Z3dWtGMk4R9
Not exactly what I'd call scenic but cool.

You missed the joke.
What was the joke?

Probably that NJTP > GSP
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on May 04, 2021, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 08:54:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 06:53:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?


https://maps.app.goo.gl/M7JS71Z3dWtGMk4R9
Not exactly what I'd call scenic but cool.

You missed the joke.
What was the joke?

this shot is the Turnpike from the Parkway. his response on the Turnpike thread was the Parkway from the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 10:39:54 PM
Quote from: odditude on May 04, 2021, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 08:54:55 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 06:53:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:46:53 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the Garden State Parkway?


https://maps.app.goo.gl/M7JS71Z3dWtGMk4R9
Not exactly what I'd call scenic but cool.

You missed the joke.
What was the joke?

this shot is the Turnpike from the Parkway. his response on the Turnpike thread was the Parkway from the Turnpike.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2021, 09:06:17 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/vrgz7se3rYPajEPg6

Why is there this sign on the retaining wall in Bloomfield?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 09:27:41 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4131921,-74.5532937,3a,90y,28.24h,93.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQw9szmxINCbMYC4dScD-6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Why the hell does New Jersey like Camden so much? It's across from Philadelphia, which has many times more people.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:10:59 PM
Camden is the 12th biggest municipality in New Jersey. It is the biggest city in population along the AC Expressway or roads that connect (42). NJTPA has no requirement to say Philadelphia when it doesn't directly go into Philadelphia? They aren't going to put WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP on a sign.

Also, your second statement is absurd. You are judging the city by the looks and not by the people. People in poorer urban cities are nicer people than any rich snobby suburb. I'd happily go to Camden whenever.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:10:59 PM
Camden is the 12th biggest municipality in New Jersey. It is the biggest city in population along the AC Expressway or roads that connect (42). NJTPA has no requirement to say Philadelphia when it doesn't directly go into Philadelphia? They aren't going to put WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP on a sign.

Also, your second statement is absurd. You are judging the city by the looks and not by the people. People in poorer urban cities are nicer people than any rich snobby suburb. I'd happily go to Camden whenever.
Camden is the 12th largest city in New Jersey. Philadelphia is the 6th most populous city in the US and is right across the river. I wouldn't sign a snobby rich suburb either, but a big city.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:38:10 PM
You've done a wonderful job missing my point on your second statement and the passive racism its comes across as.

Ask the general driver who cares if it's signed Camden, Washington Twp, Bellmawr, Deptford? It's utterly meaningless. If the NJTPA wanted they could've put up Pomona or Galloway or something too since its the next place over. How many people are driving to exit 38 from the north (and some to the south) and then go to Philadelphia?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:40:56 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:38:10 PM
You've done a wonderful job missing my point on your second statement and the passive racism its comes across as.

Ask the general driver who cares if it's signed Camden, Washington Twp, Bellmawr, Deptford? It's utterly meaningless. If the NJTPA wanted they could've put up Pomona or Galloway or something too since its the next place over. How many people are driving to exit 38 from the north (and some to the south) and then go to Philadelphia?
How many people are going to Camden? I don't really care about the racial makeup and I have nothing against the people of Camden. In fact, Philadelphia has some rough areas too. But Camden is just a suburb of Philadelphia and signing it would be like signing Newton on I-90 east or Yonkers on I-87 south.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:48:03 PM
But your first statement "who goes to Camden" is purely coming off as "people don't go there because it's a bad place". Every place has something to provide, no matter the racial, religious or economical makeup of it.

My opinion about your passive racism aside. Why does it matter? It's 2021, we've got GPSes and maps that can tell you exactly where to go to get to Philadelphia if you are so inclined to use exit 38 from either direction. How many general drivers give a damn about the municipalities or communities written as "control cities"? NJTPA isn't required to post anything, and they go with a Jersey one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:48:03 PM
But your first statement "who goes to Camden" is purely coming off as "people don't go there because it's a bad place". Every place has something to provide, no matter the racial, religious or economical makeup of it.

My opinion about your passive racism aside. Why does it matter? It's 2021, we've got GPSes and maps that can tell you exactly where to go to get to Philadelphia if you are so inclined to use exit 38 from either direction. How many general drivers give a damn about the municipalities or communities written as "control cities"? NJTPA isn't required to post anything, and they go with a Jersey one.
Control Cities are just helpful, it's true that many drivers don't care, but some consistency about what should be posted would be nice. I was also being facetious with my Camden comment, I would say it about any suburb no matter the racial makeup.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2021, 01:52:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:48:03 PM
But your first statement "who goes to Camden" is purely coming off as "people don't go there because it's a bad place". Every place has something to provide, no matter the racial, religious or economical makeup of it.

My opinion about your passive racism aside. Why does it matter? It's 2021, we've got GPSes and maps that can tell you exactly where to go to get to Philadelphia if you are so inclined to use exit 38 from either direction. How many general drivers give a damn about the municipalities or communities written as "control cities"? NJTPA isn't required to post anything, and they go with a Jersey one.
Control Cities are just helpful, it's true that many drivers don't care, but some consistency about what should be posted would be nice. I was also being facetious with my Camden comment, I would say it about any suburb no matter the racial makeup.

They are being consistent. You just don't like what they are using.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:54:33 PM
Facetious my foot, I just noticed you called Camden a dump on the Turnpike thread! It's clearly obvious what you think.

But again, why does there need to be consistency? If you want to make a better argument "AC EXPRESSWAY EAST: CAMDEN : PHILADELPHIA" goes a hell of a lot further than outright trashing the city of Camden and demanding baloney consistency.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on May 05, 2021, 01:56:55 PM
Camden is appropriate on the Turnpike southbound from Exit 6 to Exit 3. Otherwise it shouldn't be used - Philly supersedes it. NJ has some weird control cities that shouldn't really be used... Mahwah on 287, Del Water Gap on 80, Kearny on 280. It also resists signing cities out of state... other than on the Turnpike at Exit 6, "Wilmington"  seems to be completely absent. It's a very Jersey-centric policy. NJDOT really should completely review its choices of control cities, imho. Not all need to change, probably not a majority, but some definitely do. But in the age of GPS, this probably doesn't matter much.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:58:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:54:33 PM
Facetious my foot, I just noticed you called Camden a dump on the Turnpike thread! It's clearly obvious what you think.

But again, why does there need to be consistency? If you want to make a better argument "AC EXPRESSWAY EAST: CAMDEN : PHILADELPHIA" goes a hell of a lot further than outright trashing the city of Camden and demanding baloney consistency.
Dump was perhaps the wrong word to use. Camden is losing population, however, and the control city formula used on the other thread would favor Philly. But it looks like New Jersey wants to sign Camden and they can do it if they want to.

Quote from: famartin on May 05, 2021, 01:56:55 PM
Camden is appropriate on the Turnpike southbound from Exit 6 to Exit 3. Otherwise it shouldn't be used - Philly supersedes it. NJ has some weird control cities that shouldn't really be used... Mahwah on 287, Del Water Gap on 80, Kearny on 280. It also resists signing cities out of state... other than on the Turnpike at Exit 6, "Wilmington"  seems to be completely absent. It's a very Jersey-centric policy. NJDOT really should completely review its choices of control cities, imho. Not all need to change, probably not a majority, but some definitely do. But in the age of GPS, this probably doesn't matter much.
That is a much better way to say what I was trying to say. I was probably just being a little too harsh on Camden so my point was lost.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:59:04 PM
I edited my previous posts to remove any derogatory statements towards the city of Camden.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on May 05, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:59:04 PM
I edited my previous posts to remove any derogatory statements towards the city of Camden.
We can't criticize cities now?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 02:07:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2021, 01:52:50 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on May 05, 2021, 01:48:03 PM
But your first statement "who goes to Camden" is purely coming off as "people don't go there because it's a bad place". Every place has something to provide, no matter the racial, religious or economical makeup of it.

My opinion about your passive racism aside. Why does it matter? It's 2021, we've got GPSes and maps that can tell you exactly where to go to get to Philadelphia if you are so inclined to use exit 38 from either direction. How many general drivers give a damn about the municipalities or communities written as "control cities"? NJTPA isn't required to post anything, and they go with a Jersey one.
Control Cities are just helpful, it's true that many drivers don't care, but some consistency about what should be posted would be nice. I was also being facetious with my Camden comment, I would say it about any suburb no matter the racial makeup.

They are being consistent. You just don't like what they are using.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6159524,-74.8269375,3a,36.3y,241.82h,83.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se6L_1HiC_DY6oHxLVuNX2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This isn't consistent.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 02:08:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 05, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:59:04 PM
I edited my previous posts to remove any derogatory statements towards the city of Camden.
We can't criticize cities now?
I was accused of being racist when I called Camden a dump even though Philadelphia, which I suggested signing instead, is 44% black. Now "dump" was a poor choice of words, however.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 05, 2021, 06:58:53 PM
can we please move on from control cities thx
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2021, 07:59:10 PM
Quote from: famartin on May 05, 2021, 01:56:55 PM
Camden is appropriate on the Turnpike southbound from Exit 6 to Exit 3. Otherwise it shouldn't be used - Philly supersedes it. NJ has some weird control cities that shouldn't really be used... Mahwah on 287, Del Water Gap on 80, Kearny on 280. It also resists signing cities out of state... other than on the Turnpike at Exit 6, "Wilmington"  seems to be completely absent. It's a very Jersey-centric policy. NJDOT really should completely review its choices of control cities, imho. Not all need to change, probably not a majority, but some definitely do. But in the age of GPS, this probably doesn't matter much.

You forgot Easton on I-78.  Since the 1994 road widening Clinton got phased out there for Easton, which was copied from US 22 as it goes there.  Yes, since 1989, traffic had to default onto US 22 and cross the toll bridge into Easton, but 5 years passed and you think Allentown, PA's 3rd largest city, would be more appropriate.   True also I-78 does nip part of Easton, bugt far from it's downtown area where control cities are to be signed anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2021, 08:00:44 PM
Oh did not see moderator's post, but yes unless it is about the Parkway.  I think now I will go to the changing control cities thread if someone here keeps on going about the Baltimore nonsense.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 08:01:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2021, 08:00:44 PM
Oh did not see moderator's post, but yes unless it is about the Parkway.  I think now I will go to the changing control cities thread if someone here keeps on going about the Baltimore nonsense.
Nobody's talking about Baltimore in this thread.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2021, 08:07:23 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 08:01:58 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2021, 08:00:44 PM
Oh did not see moderator's post, but yes unless it is about the Parkway.  I think now I will go to the changing control cities thread if someone here keeps on going about the Baltimore nonsense.
Nobody's talking about Baltimore in this thread.

In another thread which got all this crap going.  One newbie was ranting about it on I-70 that got this crap going here.  Remember we are on a forum where if one user asks in 2010 why doesn't I-76 go to Atlantic City and a user comes by next month as a new member and asks the question again, many on here will scold the user for necro posting. Despite him being unaware of past history on here, it is how it goes on here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 05, 2021, 11:11:01 PM
can we please move on from discussing my request to move on from control cities thx
warnings will be issued next
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 06, 2021, 09:12:11 AM
I will get the thread back now.

I see now from images on GSV the Parkway shields on nearby roads have added the TO place cards on the shields.

For ages only a parkway shield and arrow directed motorist to the highway.  I am guessing that someone influenced them into doing that? If not I think it's about time someone at NJTA realized that it should be used.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 06, 2021, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 06, 2021, 09:12:11 AM
I will get the thread back now.

I see now from images on GSV the Parkway shields on nearby roads have added the TO place cards on the shields.

For ages only a parkway shield and arrow directed motorist to the highway.  I am guessing that someone influenced them into doing that? If not I think it's about time someone at NJTA realized that it should be used.

I just think it's the Authority's move to embrace more MUTCD compliant signage. Same thing for Turnpike assemblies. The only real thing they don't do that's standard is that they use a circular sign (https://goo.gl/maps/E7VR1uP2sugNQUoEA) for the arrow instead of a rectangle.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 06, 2021, 11:13:36 PM
Better than the OK long arrow the NJ Turnpike used to use.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 07, 2021, 12:40:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 06, 2021, 11:13:36 PM
Better than the OK long arrow the NJ Turnpike used to use.
don't you dare denigrate the arrow
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on May 07, 2021, 07:16:46 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 06, 2021, 11:13:36 PM
Better than the OK long arrow the NJ Turnpike used to use.
Hm.  Bet NJ used it before OK.  Also, long live the squiggly arrow.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 08, 2021, 01:00:48 PM
Where on the Garden State Parkway in Bloomfield can the two Claridge High Rise Condos can be seen?

I remember somewhere driving the Parkway and saw the two buildings on top of the mountain in the distance.  Tried to locate on GSV but failed to find it.

BTW the Claridge Condos are the two high rise dwellings behind Kings Supermarket on NJ 23 north of CR 506 and south of the Cedar Grove Line.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2021, 05:39:20 PM
Thread bump for the first time in a while!

Per Gov. Murphy:

[tweet]1420121299226087427[/tweet]

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7VIyEfWEAEifDk?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on July 28, 2021, 09:32:26 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 27, 2021, 05:39:20 PM
Thread bump for the first time in a while!

Per Gov. Murphy:

[tweet]1420121299226087427[/tweet]

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7VIyEfWEAEifDk?format=jpg&name=medium)

Connie Chung (the newscaster), huh?  Did she grow up in Newark?  IIRC Larry Doby (who's getting the service plaza opposite Chung's) grew up in Newark, but IIRC Chung was born in DC.  I first heard of Chung on my 1981 California vacation when she was anchoring on KNXT (now KCBS) channel 2 in LA, the station where IIRC she met Maury Povich, who she married.

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: epzik8 on July 29, 2021, 06:50:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 27, 2021, 05:39:20 PM
Thread bump for the first time in a while!

Per Gov. Murphy:

[tweet]1420121299226087427[/tweet]

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7VIyEfWEAEifDk?format=jpg&name=medium)
No Bruce Springsteen???
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 29, 2021, 06:56:03 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on July 29, 2021, 06:50:37 PM
No Bruce Springsteen???

Officials discussed the idea with him, but he declined.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 01:11:20 PM
The Boss is the boss.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 30, 2021, 02:33:11 PM
GSP twitter account had a tweet about today being the anniversary of the Driscoll Bridge's opening and posted this gorgeous shot:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7kHk-IXIAMALD3?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)

You can see the original routing of both the Parkway and Rt 9 before they were swapped. Sadly, you can't see the original Victory Bridge in this photo.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 30, 2021, 08:48:43 PM
Originally three lanes in each direction? What is it today; maybe seven lanes each way?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 30, 2021, 10:06:53 PM
Seven southbound and eight northbound. It's the world's widest bridge by number of lanes (physically widest is the Capital Beltway Woodrow Wilson Bridge)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: theroadwayone on July 31, 2021, 12:38:32 AM
Speaking of the bridge, is it rather misleading that the Express EZ-Pass lanes for the Raritan Toll Plaza are signed as a "Toll Plaza Bypass?" You're bypassing the booths for paying the toll, but not the toll itself.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2021, 01:28:30 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 30, 2021, 10:06:53 PM
Seven southbound and eight northbound. It's the world's widest bridge by number of lanes (physically widest is the Capital Beltway Woodrow Wilson Bridge)
False. It's not all one bridge - SB is a different structure. If you count this as one bridge, then there is part of the Turnpike that is 18 lanes (6x3-lane roadways) and has overpasses.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2021, 09:13:43 AM
Isn't the new East Span of the Bay Bridge now considered by the Guinness Book of World Records to be the widest?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2021, 10:48:18 AM
On a recent NJ Turnpike Authority Facebook post, the Authority only says it's "one of the widest", and doesn't proclaim it to be an actual widest in any category.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 31, 2021, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on July 31, 2021, 12:38:32 AM
Speaking of the bridge, is it rather misleading that the Express EZ-Pass lanes for the Raritan Toll Plaza are signed as a "Toll Plaza Bypass?" You're bypassing the booths for paying the toll, but not the toll itself.

Yes. It implies something it's not supposed to. The older signs that just had the giant EZ-Pass logos on them did a better job of conveying that you could not use cash and that was enough. The MUTCD is even plainer about it. Open Road tolling lanes like that should just have a BGS with the ETC system logo (so EZ-Pass in this case) a black on white ONLY block, and down arrows.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 05, 2021, 02:46:06 AM
Please tell me the lane striping here is an illusion.
https://goo.gl/maps/vJtdLyX11yKVSZte9
All white lines for a two way street and a neutral center lane.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 05, 2021, 02:36:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2021, 02:46:06 AM
Please tell me the lane striping here is an illusion.
https://goo.gl/maps/vJtdLyX11yKVSZte9
All white lines for a two way street and a neutral center lane.

There's really no one standard method for striping reversible lanes where all lanes could be going the same direction or opposing directions. Overhead arrows and X's, or traffic cones, often assist with denoting which lane(s) to use.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on August 05, 2021, 04:07:49 PM
Or that's a one-way road and a mistake was made when painting one of the directional arrows.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 05, 2021, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 05, 2021, 04:07:49 PM
Or that's a one-way road and a mistake was made when painting one of the directional arrows.

It's bi-directional. There's lane use indicators on the overpass. It's a roadway for access to/from the PNC Arts Center off the Parkway
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on August 05, 2021, 09:14:38 PM
Meanwhile, the lights at the overpass were on the opposite lanes as the arrows, and seem to be some distance away... that whole area seems confusing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 05, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
It also is confusing where the left lanes merge into the circular roadway and defaults into on coming lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/sPXa6MrrMPC91PS66

The crossing under the parkway is a UK driving setup using only lights above as traffic control.


Also am I to understand that the Wayside Road ramp from local Exit 105 is no toll to exit?   To me that will produce shunpiking Exit 98. Motorists for Route 138 now can use Route 18 to bypass the Belmar-Wall Ramp tolls by using Wayside Road to Route 18 south.  Exit 105 to Route 36 has always been tolled, why allow this ramp to be free?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 05, 2021, 11:52:21 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
Also am I to understand that the Wayside Road ramp from local Exit 105 is no toll to exit?   To me that will produce shunpiking Exit 98. Motorists for Route 138 now can use Route 18 to bypass the Belmar-Wall Ramp tolls by using Wayside Road to Route 18 south.  Exit 105 to Route 36 has always been tolled, why allow this ramp to be free?

105 is not tolled on exit anymore, only entry. Been that way for a while now, at least back to when the moved to the one-way tolling setup. You can see from the GSV (https://goo.gl/maps/cEjYA9E2QCAQZTz4A) where the admin building part of the toll plaza is and how the toll booths used to extend across (some of the ones on entry still have the old style NJHA two way setup so they could be flipped depending on which side was getting more traffic). Therefore, there's no shunpike to be had here technically. The main drive to build that new ramp was so that traffic heading to 18 doesn't need to get  off onto 36 and clog up Hope Road to get to 18SB, and there wasn't a good way from there to 18NB that didn't involve U-Turns.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 06, 2021, 12:26:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
It also is confusing where the left lanes merge into the circular roadway and defaults into on coming lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/sPXa6MrrMPC91PS66

The crossing under the parkway is a UK driving setup using only lights above as traffic control.


Also am I to understand that the Wayside Road ramp from local Exit 105 is no toll to exit?   To me that will produce shunpiking Exit 98. Motorists for Route 138 now can use Route 18 to bypass the Belmar-Wall Ramp tolls by using Wayside Road to Route 18 south.  Exit 105 to Route 36 has always been tolled, why allow this ramp to be free?

They could exit at Interchanges 102, 100, or the commuter lot to get to NJ 18 and avoid the toll at Exit 98 as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 06, 2021, 02:01:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 06, 2021, 12:26:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
It also is confusing where the left lanes merge into the circular roadway and defaults into on coming lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/sPXa6MrrMPC91PS66

The crossing under the parkway is a UK driving setup using only lights above as traffic control.


Also am I to understand that the Wayside Road ramp from local Exit 105 is no toll to exit?   To me that will produce shunpiking Exit 98. Motorists for Route 138 now can use Route 18 to bypass the Belmar-Wall Ramp tolls by using Wayside Road to Route 18 south.  Exit 105 to Route 36 has always been tolled, why allow this ramp to be free?

They could exit at Interchanges 102, 100, or the commuter lot to get to NJ 18 and avoid the toll at Exit 98 as well.

In any event, they collect enough toll revenue at 98 with all the shore traffic heading to Manesquan and Pt Pleasant during the shore season, so it washes out. Most people who commute or live in the area probably already know the ins and outs of avoiding those tolls if they don't want to pay them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 07:34:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 06, 2021, 12:26:01 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2021, 11:00:31 PM
It also is confusing where the left lanes merge into the circular roadway and defaults into on coming lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/sPXa6MrrMPC91PS66

The crossing under the parkway is a UK driving setup using only lights above as traffic control.


Also am I to understand that the Wayside Road ramp from local Exit 105 is no toll to exit?   To me that will produce shunpiking Exit 98. Motorists for Route 138 now can use Route 18 to bypass the Belmar-Wall Ramp tolls by using Wayside Road to Route 18 south.  Exit 105 to Route 36 has always been tolled, why allow this ramp to be free?

They could exit at Interchanges 102, 100, or the commuter lot to get to NJ 18 and avoid the toll at Exit 98 as well.

Exit 105 now is right at 18.  Using 102 requires a short travel on Asbury Avenue and 100 requires a short stint on 33.  Not as convenient as the new 105 ramp. Only a tenth of a mile on Wayside Road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 06, 2021, 04:59:55 PM
As stated in Reply #4015 on the NJ Turnpike thread, when AET finally comes to New Jersey I hope that it is done correctly so as to fix the tolling inconsistencies on the GSP and ACE and tolling inaccuracies on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 05:15:49 PM
I always had the issue with Exit 98 being tolled being so close to the Asbury Toll Plaza. However being the South Jersey ramps try to collect from the most exits patronized, I can see why the tolls are SB off and NB on with the exception of Exit 4 due to the traffic from Lewes, DE visiting Wildwood.

Also in North Jersey the fact the ramp tolls are NB off and SB on due to commuter traffic going to New York and NJ suburbs with work I can see.

With AET things will change some but I think it may get worse.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 06, 2021, 05:36:49 PM
The tolling south of Exit 100 was always kind of weird. You have a SB off/NB on ramp tolls on every exit between the Toms River barrier and Exit 100. So the price per mile drops significantly if you get off at Exit 89 vs. 98. Many of these exits used to lack NB off/SB on ramps, so the tolling zone was more rigidly enforced.

TL;DR, tolling on the GSP was always a mess that only got worse with the one-way plaza conversion. It still isn't quite as "screw you" like the way the US-301 toll road is setup in Delaware.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on August 06, 2021, 10:40:13 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 06, 2021, 05:36:49 PM
TL;DR, tolling on the GSP was always a mess that only got worse with the one-way plaza conversion. It still isn't quite as "screw you" like the way the US-301 toll road is setup in Delaware.
In defense of US 301 in DE, they at least don't charge interchange tolls if you pass under the mainline toll during your trip, so getting off and then back on when traveling the full corridor is not penalized.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 07, 2021, 12:58:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 05:15:49 PM
I always had the issue with Exit 98 being tolled being so close to the Asbury Toll Plaza. However being the South Jersey ramps try to collect from the most exits patronized, I can see why the tolls are SB off and NB on with the exception of Exit 4 due to the traffic from Lewes, DE visiting Wildwood.

Also in North Jersey the fact the ramp tolls are NB off and SB on due to commuter traffic going to New York and NJ suburbs with work I can see.

With AET things will change some but I think it may get worse.

98 is a major shore tourist destination so you best believe they're going to capture as much toll revenue as they can there. To be fair, 105 is too since that's the main interchange for Long Branch, so I'm not entirely sure of the politics that led to the exit toll being removed there, but it was. And the tolling seems weird, but like NJRoadfan said, most of these interchanges were only built as partials and have slowly been converted into full interchanges in the intervening decades. So the tolling seems weird.

I also never understood not putting up a booth for Exit 4 towards Wildwood exiting SB/entering NB and only having a booth exiting NB/entering SB. That's a major exit as well for traffic heading to the Wildwood resorts, you'd think they'd want to capture that revenue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on August 08, 2021, 06:36:54 PM
Reminder 98 wasn't an original interchange. 98 replaced the very complex 96-97-97A interchanges, which were all free. (Parts of 96 and 97 are still in 98). A lot of rebuilt and re-designed ramps. Regardless, it is silly to have the Asbury Park Plaza and 98 so close, but money talks. The 98 northbound toll is silly, but I understand it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on August 09, 2021, 09:36:36 PM
While we're on the topic of tolls, what prompted the Highway Authority to design a convoluted tolling scheme? More specifically, what was the original intention behind having both ramp tolls at select places and barrier tolls?

As it stands, it seems ridiculous that one can travel northbound between Toms River and Essex County and only pay twice, but almost every southbound entrance is tolled.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on August 09, 2021, 09:57:11 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 09, 2021, 09:36:36 PM
While we're on the topic of tolls, what prompted the Highway Authority to design a convoluted tolling scheme? More specifically, what was the original intention behind having both ramp tolls at select places and barrier tolls?

As it stands, it seems ridiculous that one can travel northbound between Toms River and Essex County and only pay twice, but almost every southbound entrance is tolled.
There are enough access points where trying to do a ticket-based system was impractical.  Keep in mind that the mainline tolls were originally two-way; the ramp tolls were originally intended to capture traffic that could potentially not be going through a mainline toll, and many exits were half interchanges to minimize the number of booths to build.  There was also the free zone originally build by NJDOT before the decision was made to use tolls to get the road built faster.  When the barriers were converted to one-way and interchanges started having their missing movements built, they simply never bothered to adjust the toll locations to the new realities of how the road operated.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 09, 2021, 10:25:33 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 09, 2021, 09:57:11 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 09, 2021, 09:36:36 PM
While we're on the topic of tolls, what prompted the Highway Authority to design a convoluted tolling scheme? More specifically, what was the original intention behind having both ramp tolls at select places and barrier tolls?

As it stands, it seems ridiculous that one can travel northbound between Toms River and Essex County and only pay twice, but almost every southbound entrance is tolled.
There are enough access points where trying to do a ticket-based system was impractical.  Keep in mind that the mainline tolls were originally two-way; the ramp tolls were originally intended to capture traffic that could potentially not be going through a mainline toll, and many exits were half interchanges to minimize the number of booths to build.  There was also the free zone originally build by NJDOT before the decision was made to use tolls to get the road built faster.  When the barriers were converted to one-way and interchanges started having their missing movements built, they simply never bothered to adjust the toll locations to the new realities of how the road operated.

The NJ State Library in Trenton may have some documentation with the study and reasoning why they were placed where they were, but even in the best of theories it's really haphazard where they got placed.

One spot that wasn't tolled that should've been is where the GSP and ACX meet. The two toll roads opted for a simple cloverleaf interchange rather than something that would've been more suitable for collecting tolls. Would it have jammed with congestion? Probably.  But that didn't stop them from tolling elsewhere where congestion was probable.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on August 09, 2021, 10:29:04 PM
They probably didn't want to discourage people from driving to Atlantic City. Anywhere else congestion didn't matter as much; but the Atlantic City trade was not to be messed with, would be my assumption.

Also I agree with vdeane's reasoning that the placement of tolls on ramps in relation to the barrier tolls probably was logical when originally designed around the barriers existing in both directions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 09, 2021, 10:49:54 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on August 09, 2021, 10:29:04 PM
They probably didn't want to discourage people from driving to Atlantic City. Anywhere else congestion didn't matter as much; but the Atlantic City trade was not to be messed with, would be my assumption.

Unlikely, being that both the Parkway and Expressway were built many years prior to casino gaming was permitted in AC, and that was only after it was voted down statewide.

Also doesn't explain why people would be willing to pay tolls on both highways going to AC, including on the Expressway just outside AC. And doesn't explain why there isn't a ramp toll from the Expressway East to the Parkway South, and other non-AC involved movements.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 09, 2021, 10:58:39 PM
The tolling in Atlantic County got screwed up when they built the ACE. They also removed the southbound on-ramp/northbound off-ramp toll at Exit 36. It only got worse when mainline tolling went one-way and then Exit 41 was built completely toll free and Exit 44's missing ramps were added without tolls. Northbound is further made free by Exit 50 lacking a toll just before the New Gretna barrier (for US-9 traffic).

As it stands now, you can get on at Exit 25 for free and not pay a toll for 25 miles if you get off at Exit 50. Two-way tolling at Great Egg prevented that in the past. Further south you can drive from Exit 0 to Exit 13 for free (or 17 if you u-turn in the service plaza) thanks to the free ex-NJDOT section in the middle. Southbound can do Exit 20 to 0 free.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 10, 2021, 03:38:16 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 09, 2021, 10:25:33 PM
One spot that wasn't tolled that should've been is where the GSP and ACX meet. The two toll roads opted for a simple cloverleaf interchange rather than something that would've been more suitable for collecting tolls. Would it have jammed with congestion? Probably.  But that didn't stop them from tolling elsewhere where congestion was probable.
For what it's worth, if you use that interchange, you will be paying a toll. It just won't be to the NJTA. In fact, it's impossible to drive any part of the ACE and not pay at least one toll unless you turn around at the service area which adds 15 miles. What that free interchange does do is allow you to leave the ACE (let's say for gas, food, etc. cheaper than what you'd get in the service area) and re-enter it without paying an extra toll like you would at every other interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2021, 05:34:08 PM
Does anyone have any pictures / know of any online albums showing the reconstructed interchange at Exit 109 (Newman Springs Rd)?

Google Maps suggests that the ramps are open; other online results suggest the project was finished some time ago. Just not seeing any final pictures or flyovers, etc.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on August 10, 2021, 05:37:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 10, 2021, 05:34:08 PM
Does anyone have any pictures / know of any online albums showing the reconstructed interchange at Exit 109 (Newman Springs Rd)?

Google Maps suggests that the ramps are open; other online results suggest the project was finished some time ago. Just not seeing any final pictures or flyovers, etc.

Flyovers? You mean like pictures from the air, not flyover ramps?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2021, 05:57:57 PM
Quote from: famartin on August 10, 2021, 05:37:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 10, 2021, 05:34:08 PM
Does anyone have any pictures / know of any online albums showing the reconstructed interchange at Exit 109 (Newman Springs Rd)?

Google Maps suggests that the ramps are open; other online results suggest the project was finished some time ago. Just not seeing any final pictures or flyovers, etc.

Flyovers? You mean like pictures from the air, not flyover ramps?

Right, like from a drone or something. But I don't mean that I need that stuff, just was looking for stuff like that. Or dashcam footage, pictures. Literally anything.

I'm curious primarily about how they've signalized the two intersections east of the overpass (the new one and the redesigned old intersection at Half Mile).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 31, 2021, 05:34:44 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/a9kRKyiTbYEXxwfj7
Like the 2 digit shield for NJ 166 at Exit 83.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 07, 2021, 11:31:51 PM
Why is exit 171 left turn only? They could just make the curb return a little larger and allow right turns.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2021, 11:39:40 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 07, 2021, 11:31:51 PM
Why is exit 117 left turn only? They could just make the curb return a little larger and allow right turns.

GSV link?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 07, 2021, 11:43:17 PM
*171
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2021, 12:41:55 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 07, 2021, 11:31:51 PM
Why is exit 171 left turn only? They could just make the curb return a little larger and allow right turns.
Probably a deal with the town to avoid adding traffic.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2021, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2021, 12:41:55 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 07, 2021, 11:31:51 PM
Why is exit 171 left turn only? They could just make the curb return a little larger and allow right turns.
Probably a deal with the town to avoid adding traffic.

I tried doing a little internet research, and it appears there's a push over the last 5 years or so to allow right turns here.

My guess is that, when the GSP was first built, the towns to the east (to the right) were against traffic going their direction.  Seeing the narrowness of the roadway further down, I tend to believe there was some pushback having this interchange exist in the first place, and having all traffic turning left was the compromise. Or being NJ, there was a disagreement and this was payback.

To change just the curbing today ignores what else is there - namely, a traffic light post and wetlands.  If it was open, it would be a lot easier to do. And any intersection project involves handicap accessible improvements as well. The solution is relatively simple. But there's quite a bit of execution needed to resolve the problem.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2021, 05:48:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2021, 09:49:57 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 08, 2021, 12:41:55 AM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on September 07, 2021, 11:31:51 PM
Why is exit 171 left turn only? They could just make the curb return a little larger and allow right turns.
Probably a deal with the town to avoid adding traffic.

I tried doing a little internet research, and it appears there's a push over the last 5 years or so to allow right turns here.

My guess is that, when the GSP was first built, the towns to the east (to the right) were against traffic going their direction.  Seeing the narrowness of the roadway further down, I tend to believe there was some pushback having this interchange exist in the first place, and having all traffic turning left was the compromise. Or being NJ, there was a disagreement and this was payback.

To change just the curbing today ignores what else is there - namely, a traffic light post and wetlands.  If it was open, it would be a lot easier to do. And any intersection project involves handicap accessible improvements as well. The solution is relatively simple. But there's quite a bit of execution needed to resolve the problem.

The other question is WB lefts to get on the Parkway. Opening only the NB right is half a paired movement.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 09, 2021, 12:29:05 AM
171 is not original. I can check tomorrow night, but I know for a fact 171 was built later despite being proposed in original. Will check on why these turns are weird.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 09, 2021, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 09, 2021, 12:29:05 AM
171 is not original. I can check tomorrow night, but I know for a fact 171 was built later despite being proposed in original. Will check on why these turns are weird.

You already checked  :D (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/33615918/exit-171-july-26-1985/)

I did find some NJTA minutes (cached link since the PDF doesn't appear to work) (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UnrbB-QC27UJ:https://dspace.njstatelib.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10929/39041/2015-12-15.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy+&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) stating the right turn ban is based on an agreement with the county, Woodcliff Lake, and NJTA (then HA). Woodcliff Lake is the only holdout.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 29, 2021, 06:33:31 PM
Found this interesting sign on the ramp from CR 651 (Fire Road) to the parkway in Egg Harbor Township. Guess the NJTA has, at least in the past, occasionally used the ACE trailblazer.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2021-09-29_14_09_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_23.jpg/450px-2021-09-29_14_09_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_23.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 29, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 29, 2021, 06:33:31 PM
Found this interesting sign on the ramp from CR 651 (Fire Road) to the parkway in Egg Harbor Township. Guess the NJTA has, at least in the past, occasionally used the ACE trailblazer.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2021-09-29_14_09_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_23.jpg/450px-2021-09-29_14_09_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_23.jpg)

This looks like a more classic NJHA assembly that was done before the NJTA started using their MUTCDish standards a few years ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 29, 2021, 10:58:48 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 29, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
This looks like a more classic NJHA assembly that was done before the NJTA started using their MUTCDish standards a few years ago.

Possible. Its really hard to tell from GSV but this assembly might've been there in 2008, the first date available...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3914905,-74.5629103,3a,90y,316.28h,88.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spsf-HiMIektvJtUQStG70g!2e0!5s20081101T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 30, 2021, 10:43:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 29, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 29, 2021, 06:33:31 PM
Found this interesting sign on the ramp from CR 651 (Fire Road) to the parkway in Egg Harbor Township. Guess the NJTA has, at least in the past, occasionally used the ACE trailblazer.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2021-09-29_14_09_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_23.jpg/450px-2021-09-29_14_09_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_23.jpg)

This looks like a more classic NJHA assembly that was done before the NJTA started using their MUTCDish standards a few years ago.
I don't think so because you have the larger N in North. I don't think the NJHA is recent enough for that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on September 30, 2021, 11:02:30 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 30, 2021, 10:43:22 PM
Quote from: storm2k on September 29, 2021, 10:25:12 PM
Quote from: famartin on September 29, 2021, 06:33:31 PM
Found this interesting sign on the ramp from CR 651 (Fire Road) to the parkway in Egg Harbor Township. Guess the NJTA has, at least in the past, occasionally used the ACE trailblazer.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2021-09-29_14_09_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_23.jpg/450px-2021-09-29_14_09_00_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_23.jpg)

This looks like a more classic NJHA assembly that was done before the NJTA started using their MUTCDish standards a few years ago.
I don't think so because you have the larger N in North. I don't think the NJHA is recent enough for that.

That was my thought too. But it is odd anyway... I didn't think either the NJHA or NJTA ever used backplates for parkway trailblazers (other than on construction signage), and this comes off a county road so I wouldn't expect it to be an NJDOT install (though they sure did love using backplates until a few years ago). I suppose it could be a county install, but its location on the ramp suggests otherwise.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 01, 2021, 01:24:48 AM
No that is for sure a Parkway install in the NJHA style, even though it was likely done after the NJTA merger. Don't forget that even though the NJTA and NJHA merged in 2003, the Parkway followed its own unique signage standards for well over a decade after that. The NJTA installing its newer mostly-MUTCD style signage on the Parkway only started in 2014-15 or so, even though some of the sections in the lane expansions south of Toms River also got newer signage sooner than that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 01, 2021, 08:17:14 PM
Its been up for awhile now, but NJTA has gone all California with this on ramp signage: https://goo.gl/maps/UqRdkMRbxLkfqcoC7

No room there for the traditional trapezoid entrance sign.

Also fresh imagery of the finished Central Ave. overpass: https://goo.gl/maps/7Cib4ACNBD1KVsbf7
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 01, 2021, 10:51:47 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 01, 2021, 08:17:14 PM
Its been up for awhile now, but NJTA has gone all California with this on ramp signage: https://goo.gl/maps/UqRdkMRbxLkfqcoC7

No room there for the traditional trapezoid entrance sign.

Also fresh imagery of the finished Central Ave. overpass: https://goo.gl/maps/7Cib4ACNBD1KVsbf7

I drove down the other way past there tonight. There's still some work and lane shifts going on there. I'm guessing this is for them to have enough space NB to make the second exit only lane? The arrow for it is clearly covered over on the sign. Two full exit lanes there will really help with the traffic in that area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 02, 2021, 07:47:05 PM
Looks like the final configuration is in place northbound at Exit 145. Two full exit lanes and the median wall is finished.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on October 30, 2021, 01:13:01 PM
Either the rest area name conversions have officially taken place or this is a really good Photoshop (with the blueout panel and Hwy. Gothic font) (https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/qj5azj/when_did_this_happen_ill_be_there_for_you_at_the/)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SidS1045 on November 16, 2021, 08:38:14 PM
It's for real.  I drove through there a few days ago.  They even have his name on the main building with a guitar done in neon behind the name.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 24, 2021, 02:49:00 PM
They haven't changed the names of the other service plazas yet.

In other news, if you are traveling in the area, avoid the GSP northbound in Union County. A new construction pattern at Exit 140 (US-22) has been causing a bit of chaos. There are only 3 thru lanes at the moment as opposed to 4. The 5th lane just vanishes north of Exit 138 and the 4th lane quickly because an exit only lane for Exits 139 and 140. Southbound isn't much better, but doesn't have the awkward lane drops.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 24, 2021, 09:32:05 PM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/pubmeet/details/Handbook_20210610_113045_2021-05-24RT22-82-GSP-FD-ReforestPICFlyer.pdf

Is this part of this project on US 22?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 26, 2021, 11:12:22 AM
Separate project that they just started on top of the GSP work.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2021, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 26, 2021, 11:12:22 AM
Separate project that they just started on top of the GSP work.
Definitely doesn't help to have two simultaneous projects. I just went through there. GSP SB down to 4 lanes after 78 then drops to 3 with no warning, no signage. Really dangerous. Then 22 gets 2 lanes coming back in to restore 5, so people in the know will dump onto 22, weave across lanes, and back on. Let me just say I'm not a fan.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 26, 2021, 11:10:25 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 26, 2021, 11:12:22 AM
Separate project that they just started on top of the GSP work.

I understand from NJDOT info documents, that the U Turn ramp that carries 4 movements of the complex GSP/US 22/ NJ 82 (Morris Avenue) exchange is being removed.  The ramp between the EB lanes and WB lanes east of Route 82 are being removed.  It did not say much else, but that will create chaos as the ramp is used not only to make a u turn, but to carry traffic from NJ 82 West to US 22 West as well as provide the missing movements between the N Bound Parkway to US 22 W Bound, and from US 22 E Bound to the Parkway South as well as to NJ 82 W Bound and Union Center.

The document makes it sound like more ramps to US 22 will be added from Morris Avenue, however many homes line the west end of the interchange and to add even a loop ramp would require acquisition of 70 year old homes off Morris Avenue.

Does anyone know the plans?  I tried to find a sheet with designs, but NJDOT is hard to navigate.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2021, 12:51:35 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2021, 11:10:25 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 26, 2021, 11:12:22 AM
Separate project that they just started on top of the GSP work.

I understand from NJDOT info documents, that the U Turn ramp that carries 4 movements of the complex GSP/US 22/ NJ 82 (Morris Avenue) exchange is being removed.  The ramp between the EB lanes and WB lanes east of Route 82 are being removed.  It did not say much else, but that will create chaos as the ramp is used not only to make a u turn, but to carry traffic from NJ 82 West to US 22 West as well as provide the missing movements between the N Bound Parkway to US 22 W Bound, and from US 22 E Bound to the Parkway South as well as to NJ 82 W Bound and Union Center.

The document makes it sound like more ramps to US 22 will be added from Morris Avenue, however many homes line the west end of the interchange and to add even a loop ramp would require acquisition of 70 year old homes off Morris Avenue.

Does anyone know the plans?  I tried to find a sheet with designs, but NJDOT is hard to navigate.
I know the plans, but I can't share them because I'm on the other side of them (designer). AFAIK homes are not being removed. And the only movement that is being removed, I believe, is the actual U-turn from 22E-22W.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2021, 10:21:22 AM
It will be then interesting as it unfolds.

I see the Parkway itself is redoing three bridges as they are from 1948 era.  The two over Route 22 and the one over Morris Avenue need new decks and that is why the lane shifts presently.  According to GSV, the SB Roadway over NJ 82 (from the view of the piers) seems to suggest that span predated the Parkway and probably might of carried US 22 over the local roadway before the Parkway was built.

Edit: The 1931 aerial shows it wasn't as US 22 crossed Route 82 in between the Parkway and current US 22 EB.   That might of been the original part of that bridge where the NB Parkway was redone later along with the extended US 22 EB to Parkway NB project. Originally the ramp was shorter and merged into the freeway before NJ 82.  I remember now them extending that ramp in the late seventies. They most likely replaced the original NB part of that bridge with that particular project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2021, 04:42:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2021, 10:21:22 AM
It will be then interesting as it unfolds.

I see the Parkway itself is redoing three bridges as they are from 1948 era.  The two over Route 22 and the one over Morris Avenue need new decks and that is why the lane shifts presently.  According to GSV, the SB Roadway over NJ 82 (from the view of the piers) seems to suggest that span predated the Parkway and probably might of carried US 22 over the local roadway before the Parkway was built.

Edit: The 1931 aerial shows it wasn't as US 22 crossed Route 82 in between the Parkway and current US 22 EB.   That might of been the original part of that bridge where the NB Parkway was redone later along with the extended US 22 EB to Parkway NB project. Originally the ramp was shorter and merged into the freeway before NJ 82.  I remember now them extending that ramp in the late seventies. They most likely replaced the original NB part of that bridge with that particular project.
This interchange (Parkway-22-82) was originally built in the 1940s, so you'd need the 1953 aerial in Historic Aerials to see what was there at that time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on November 27, 2021, 05:20:41 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 27, 2021, 12:51:35 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2021, 11:10:25 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 26, 2021, 11:12:22 AM
Separate project that they just started on top of the GSP work.

I understand from NJDOT info documents, that the U Turn ramp that carries 4 movements of the complex GSP/US 22/ NJ 82 (Morris Avenue) exchange is being removed.  The ramp between the EB lanes and WB lanes east of Route 82 are being removed.  It did not say much else, but that will create chaos as the ramp is used not only to make a u turn, but to carry traffic from NJ 82 West to US 22 West as well as provide the missing movements between the N Bound Parkway to US 22 W Bound, and from US 22 E Bound to the Parkway South as well as to NJ 82 W Bound and Union Center.

The document makes it sound like more ramps to US 22 will be added from Morris Avenue, however many homes line the west end of the interchange and to add even a loop ramp would require acquisition of 70 year old homes off Morris Avenue.

Does anyone know the plans?  I tried to find a sheet with designs, but NJDOT is hard to navigate.
I know the plans, but I can't share them because I'm on the other side of them (designer). AFAIK homes are not being removed. And the only movement that is being removed, I believe, is the actual U-turn from 22E-22W.
Where does the project stand in the design process?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 27, 2021, 09:41:22 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2021, 11:10:25 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 26, 2021, 11:12:22 AM
Separate project that they just started on top of the GSP work.

I understand from NJDOT info documents, that the U Turn ramp that carries 4 movements of the complex GSP/US 22/ NJ 82 (Morris Avenue) exchange is being removed.  The ramp between the EB lanes and WB lanes east of Route 82 are being removed.  It did not say much else, but that will create chaos as the ramp is used not only to make a u turn, but to carry traffic from NJ 82 West to US 22 West as well as provide the missing movements between the N Bound Parkway to US 22 W Bound, and from US 22 E Bound to the Parkway South as well as to NJ 82 W Bound and Union Center.

The document makes it sound like more ramps to US 22 will be added from Morris Avenue, however many homes line the west end of the interchange and to add even a loop ramp would require acquisition of 70 year old homes off Morris Avenue.

Does anyone know the plans?  I tried to find a sheet with designs, but NJDOT is hard to navigate.

The easiest way that I see is for them to add an onramp via Ingersall Terrace, where the current offramp from 22 West to 82 East which would put in the last missing movement (there is the loop ramp from 82 East to 22 East already, and for 82 West, you can get to both sides of 22 from the current ramp using the turnaround. If you eliminate the u-turn there, you could just signalize the intersection and restripe a left turn lane in there.

The big thing that the NJTA and NJDOT should really work to fix is the super close together ramps at 140B and 140A. Honestly, if they signalize that 82/Ingersall intersection and repave Ingsersall, just eliminate the 140A ramp and the lefthand ramp from 22 and have the current ramp onto Ingserall that's for 82 east be for both directions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2021, 10:56:16 PM
I think that the EB ramp from US 22 to NJ 82 East will be converted to a signalized intersection to allow left turns. I think only the left turn access  from US 22 will bee eliminated as the project document says via NJ 82. I doubt they are going to make the Lowe's Jughandle part of that even though a third lane is being built on NJ 82 from ramp to the jughandle.

I think NJ 82 will still have access to the u turn. Probably the safety issue is with the left exit and NJ 82 merging.  The u turn ramp does have a continuous lane so no safety issue with US 22 west merger.

Plus even if you add the missing movement on Ingersoll you still won't have access to the GSP southbound.   Though you would finally allow access from NJ 82 East to US 22 West, a movement missing for many decades, you won't have access to the GSP SB from NJ 82.

Then another two movements from EB NJ 82 that are de facto via Elmwood, Stuyvesant, and Chestnut are from EB NJ 82 to both directions of the Parkway, are still not addressed as no direct access to the Parkway there.  That is why 139 has a northbound on ramp to the NB Parkway but has no SB off, as that was for Morris Avenue traffic to use via shields on EB NJ 82 at the Elmwood Avenue split and at the end of Elmwood at Stuyvesant Avenue.

The problem is there currently is no room or easy way to redo the Parkway/US 22/ NJ 82 interchange without major shifting and underpass replacements. In a perfect world you could have a SPUI just for the Parkway and NJ 82 and leave the connections to NJ 82 from US 22 as is EB and add a ramp to Ingersoll as well as a signal to Ingersoll/ NJ 82. Also sign Vauxhall Road exit for US 22 East on the GSP south as it once was originally. I don't know why it was changed to begin with unless there wastoo much ramp back ups before the traffic signal was added to Exit 141. However, now with the signal there it shouldn't be a problem.

I lived in NJ 25 years, we managed to put up with missing moves or tedious u turns as a way of life. However times have changed and so have driving habits and traffic too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2021, 01:00:51 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/jWNd5jkcp4TheBoL7

The date stamped on the US 22 Eastbound Bridge is 1952.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 28, 2021, 02:12:54 PM
The original 1950s concrete and curbing is still on US-22 eastbound. Westbound still has the curbing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2021, 03:00:19 PM
To try to shut down all this speculation: The simplest explanation is the best. If they're adding a lane from the 22E ramp to the Lowe's jughandle, what's the simplest explanation for rerouting U-turn traffic? If the only movement being closed is the U-turn, what's the simplest way to access 22W? KISS.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2021, 10:37:07 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 28, 2021, 03:00:19 PM
To try to shut down all this speculation: The simplest explanation is the best. If they're adding a lane from the 22E ramp to the Lowe's jughandle, what's the simplest explanation for rerouting U-turn traffic? If the only movement being closed is the U-turn, what's the simplest way to access 22W? KISS.

Cut through Lowe's jughandle and double back.  That means the ramp from Morris Avenue to US 22WB won't be removed. Only the left ramp from EB US 22 is being efffected.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 17, 2022, 09:20:05 PM
I've been studying the new MUTCD signage on the northern half of the Parkway and I've noticed a puzzling pattern in the design. At each exit the sign with the upward arrow, normally slanted to the right (called the exit direction sign in the MUTCD) is positioned differently than the Manual recommends and is contrary to normal practice.

The Manual suggests this sign be at the beginning of the deceleration lane. Or where there is no deceleration lane or a short (less than 300 ft) tapered lane, it should be overhead in the vicinity of the painted split. But the NJTA has placed most of them overhead at the split or just before it, even where there is a very long deceleration lane, that now has no sign just before it.

So now as you approach an exit you have the advance sign(s) a half mile or more before the exit and then the deceleration lane begins with no sign where there should be one. And finally the sign with the arrow is right at the split, along with the ground-mounted exit number/arrow sign on the split itself.

Does anyone know why NJTA set it up this way? I've never seen this done anywhere else, except on the NJ Turnpike, but they often have a quarter-mile sign just before the deceleration lane which the Parkway does not have.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 24, 2022, 09:15:06 PM
I was just checking the toll calculator for GSP between NJ 17 and the New York State Line, and to my surprise it said I don't pay a cent!

That doesn't seem right.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2022, 09:41:39 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 24, 2022, 09:15:06 PM
I was just checking the toll calculator for GSP between NJ 17 and the New York State Line, and to my surprise it said I don't pay a cent!

That doesn't seem right.



The only mainline toll in that area is a one-way toll Southbound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 26, 2022, 02:35:12 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 24, 2022, 09:15:06 PM
I was just checking the toll calculator for GSP between NJ 17 and the New York State Line, and to my surprise it said I don't pay a cent!

That doesn't seem right.

However, if you entered the Parkway from NJ 17, drove about a mile to the first exit, and then got off you would pay a toll whilst not doing that but continuing north you would not pay a toll at any exit.

Hopefully when they go to electronic tolling these inconsistencies will be corrected.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2022, 04:15:35 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on March 26, 2022, 02:35:12 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 24, 2022, 09:15:06 PM
I was just checking the toll calculator for GSP between NJ 17 and the New York State Line, and to my surprise it said I don't pay a cent!

That doesn't seem right.

However, if you entered the Parkway from NJ 17, drove about a mile to the first exit, and then got off you would pay a toll whilst not doing that but continuing north you would not pay a toll at any exit.

Hopefully when they go to electronic tolling these inconsistencies will be corrected.
So far they've corrected one - removed half the toll at Exit 145 (I-280).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 27, 2022, 08:18:54 PM
Looks like the GSP is being converted to MUTCD style tenth mile markers. The northbound side from MP 0 to MP 16 is all done. It becomes sporadic north of there. They are not enhanced TMMs, but style D10-1a.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2h_03_longdesc.htm
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 28, 2022, 11:12:32 AM
I will sure miss those as they were neat. The Turnpike has them too, and used to use the tenth mile marker at the whole number with zero instead of 1-9.  Now the NJTA for the Turnpike uses horizontal whole mile markers ( at least what I’ve seen on GSV) like the Parkway uses. Wonder if the Turnpike will switch?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 30, 2022, 01:21:58 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/pAdwGjw7WFLrvZWJ8

Why did the NJTA remove the standard MUTCD exit tabs from overhead guides for the PNC Bank Arts Center Exits but reverted back to the original parkway exit tabs on the gore signs?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 30, 2022, 02:01:17 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 28, 2022, 11:12:32 AM
I will sure miss those as they were neat. The Turnpike has them too, and used to use the tenth mile marker at the whole number with zero instead of 1-9.  Now the NJTA for the Turnpike uses horizontal whole mile markers ( at least what I've seen on GSV) like the Parkway uses. Wonder if the Turnpike will switch?

They have already started (https://goo.gl/maps/EJAREijEd8CKucB36). I'm not sure what the pattern will be for them, if it's just overall project work or if it will be tied to putting up new signs in various sections, but the process to convert is slowly underway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2022, 09:47:20 PM
They are replacing mileposts that are attached to other signs (like speed limit signs) first. The standalone ones are done last as they appear to be replacing the posts too. Don't know why they aren't using enhanced markers like NJDOT.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 03, 2022, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2022, 09:47:20 PM
They are replacing mileposts that are attached to other signs (like speed limit signs) first. The standalone ones are done last as they appear to be replacing the posts too. Don't know why they aren't using enhanced markers like NJDOT.

Personally, I find using the EMMs every .2 miles on freeway grade roads is kind of overkill, but that's a personal opinion. Having an EMM at every mile marker should be sufficient. The more important thing is a motorist being able to find what MM they're closest to when reporting an accident or being stranded, most will know they're on the Turnpike or Parkway without an EMM shield telling them this.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on April 03, 2022, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 03, 2022, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2022, 09:47:20 PM
They are replacing mileposts that are attached to other signs (like speed limit signs) first. The standalone ones are done last as they appear to be replacing the posts too. Don't know why they aren't using enhanced markers like NJDOT.

Personally, I find using the EMMs every .2 miles on freeway grade roads is kind of overkill
, but that's a personal opinion. Having an EMM at every mile marker should be sufficient. The more important thing is a motorist being able to find what MM they're closest to when reporting an accident or being stranded, most will know they're on the Turnpike or Parkway without an EMM shield telling them this.

It might be, but I like them. Overkill or not, I wish the other agencies and states used them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 05, 2022, 05:34:07 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 03, 2022, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 03, 2022, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2022, 09:47:20 PM
They are replacing mileposts that are attached to other signs (like speed limit signs) first. The standalone ones are done last as they appear to be replacing the posts too. Don't know why they aren't using enhanced markers like NJDOT.

Personally, I find using the EMMs every .2 miles on freeway grade roads is kind of overkill
, but that's a personal opinion. Having an EMM at every mile marker should be sufficient. The more important thing is a motorist being able to find what MM they're closest to when reporting an accident or being stranded, most will know they're on the Turnpike or Parkway without an EMM shield telling them this.

It might be, but I like them. Overkill or not, I wish the other agencies and states used them.

Most other states use the EMM at every mile marker and sometimes half mile marker and then use either the standard milemarker for the tenths or something different (or like New York State which just has their reference markers otherwise).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on April 05, 2022, 05:36:16 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 05, 2022, 05:34:07 PM
Quote from: famartin on April 03, 2022, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: storm2k on April 03, 2022, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2022, 09:47:20 PM
They are replacing mileposts that are attached to other signs (like speed limit signs) first. The standalone ones are done last as they appear to be replacing the posts too. Don't know why they aren't using enhanced markers like NJDOT.

Personally, I find using the EMMs every .2 miles on freeway grade roads is kind of overkill
, but that's a personal opinion. Having an EMM at every mile marker should be sufficient. The more important thing is a motorist being able to find what MM they're closest to when reporting an accident or being stranded, most will know they're on the Turnpike or Parkway without an EMM shield telling them this.

It might be, but I like them. Overkill or not, I wish the other agencies and states used them.

Most other states use the EMM at every mile marker and sometimes half mile marker and then use either the standard milemarker for the tenths or something different (or like New York State which just has their reference markers otherwise).

I realize, I live in VA where I haven't even seen them to my recollection.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 03:56:27 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y3iwFDSCPkU4ucxQ9

Is that begin NJTA placecard beneath the entrance guide a permanent thing the NJTA is now doing at all Parkway Entrance Ramps?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on May 05, 2022, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 03:56:27 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y3iwFDSCPkU4ucxQ9

Is that begin NJTA placecard beneath the entrance guide a permanent thing the NJTA is now doing at all Parkway Entrance Ramps?

I think so, I've seen them in other places lately.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 08:38:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 05, 2022, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 03:56:27 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y3iwFDSCPkU4ucxQ9

Is that begin NJTA placecard beneath the entrance guide a permanent thing the NJTA is now doing at all Parkway Entrance Ramps?

I think so, I've seen them in other places lately.


Wonder why Google blurred out the TOLL warning?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 06, 2022, 12:57:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 08:38:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 05, 2022, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 03:56:27 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y3iwFDSCPkU4ucxQ9

Is that begin NJTA placecard beneath the entrance guide a permanent thing the NJTA is now doing at all Parkway Entrance Ramps?

I think so, I've seen them in other places lately.


Wonder why Google blurred out the TOLL warning?

Just the vagaries of how the GSV photos get taken. Slide back a bit and it's not blurred. No idea why that happens, may just have to do with how their algorithm stitches all the pictures together from the camera.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Stephane Dumas on May 06, 2022, 07:44:43 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 03:56:27 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y3iwFDSCPkU4ucxQ9

Is that begin NJTA placecard beneath the entrance guide a permanent thing the NJTA is now doing at all Parkway Entrance Ramps?

That setup reminds me of the old exit signs we had in Quebec (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/qc/a-15/) until the late 1980s.

(https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/qc/a-15/n6.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on May 07, 2022, 08:22:42 AM
Quote from: storm2k on May 06, 2022, 12:57:18 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 08:38:42 AM
Quote from: famartin on May 05, 2022, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2022, 03:56:27 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Y3iwFDSCPkU4ucxQ9

Is that begin NJTA placecard beneath the entrance guide a permanent thing the NJTA is now doing at all Parkway Entrance Ramps?

I think so, I've seen them in other places lately.


Wonder why Google blurred out the TOLL warning?

Just the vagaries of how the GSV photos get taken. Slide back a bit and it's not blurred. No idea why that happens, may just have to do with how their algorithm stitches all the pictures together from the camera.

Because the algorithm is too stupid to realize that it's a sign rather than someone's license plate!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 24, 2022, 07:08:05 AM
Just like the infamous FB Fact Check algorithm doesn't know that Jackie Robinson played for the Brooklyn Dodgers when I posted that he played for the Yankees on Facebook to see if the Fact Checkers were human.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on May 24, 2022, 07:11:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 24, 2022, 07:08:05 AM
Just like the infamous FB Fact Check algorithm doesn't know that Jackie Robinson played for the Brooklyn Dodgers when I posted that he played for the Yankees on Facebook to see if the Fact Checkers were human.
Or, the algorithm takes into account the very tiny effect one solitary false post has instead of other false ideas that start getting shared.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: tsmatt13 on June 19, 2022, 05:54:30 PM
A bit random, but I really like the little "116" tab on the exit ramp to the PNC Bank Arts Center. No "exit" sign, just the number.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3883401,-74.1770708,3a,15y,317.55h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so819SD46jcj7v0aiuM5CRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3883401,-74.1770708,3a,15y,317.55h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so819SD46jcj7v0aiuM5CRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:29:12 PM
Believe it or not that's what most exit tabs looked like on the GSP back in the 1960's, except they were green of course.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 20, 2022, 12:21:09 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:29:12 PM
Believe it or not that's what most exit tabs looked like on the GSP back in the 1960's, except they were green of course.
Into the 2000s at least you still saw plenty of these!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on June 20, 2022, 09:44:43 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2022, 12:21:09 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:29:12 PM
Believe it or not that's what most exit tabs looked like on the GSP back in the 1960's, except they were green of course.
Into the 2000s at least you still saw plenty of these!
^This.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hubcity on June 20, 2022, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:29:12 PM
Believe it or not that's what most exit tabs looked like on the GSP back in the 1960's, except they were green of course.

My memory includes signs as you headed south of the Raritan being fully framed in wood. Here's an example:

(https://www.njta.com/gsphistory/images/driving/cdriving_amenities_2.jpg)

Do any (better) pictures of that sign style exist? I could have sworn that numbered exits had an extra block of wood at the center top, providing a bit of extra height that the exit numbers could be mounted on.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 20, 2022, 10:40:26 PM
Quote from: hubcity on June 20, 2022, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:29:12 PM
Believe it or not that's what most exit tabs looked like on the GSP back in the 1960's, except they were green of course.

My memory includes signs as you headed south of the Raritan being fully framed in wood. Here's an example:

(https://www.njta.com/gsphistory/images/driving/cdriving_amenities_2.jpg)

Do any (better) pictures of that sign style exist? I could have sworn that numbered exits had an extra block of wood at the center top, providing a bit of extra height that the exit numbers could be mounted on.

I thought until recently some of the 116 (Arts Center) exit signs were framed in wood, whether it was SB local or on the roadways in the Arts Center itself I don't exactly recall...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 09:01:36 AM
I remember the gore sign for the Arts Center had a frame in wood even into the nineties I recall.

There was a wood frame sign on the NJDOT portion of the Parkway in Union at the pedestrian overpass just north of Exit 138.  Even though the state maintained that up until 1986, the NJHA then erected a 2 mile FOOD FUEL sign at the base of the pedestrian bridge on State Property and it was framed in wood too.

Anyone remember the wooden fence in the median going through the meadows of Bass River Township in South Jersey as well as through Irvington, Newark, and East Orange?  My dad said it was not for safety, as in the 1050's median crossovers were not heard of then, but for headlight glare as the wood fence would keep light from crossing over the median.  NJDOT (or the NJ Highway Dept) had a dirt fill in the median on their part between Iselin and Union to deter headlight glare.

My Fourth Grade Teacher said the Parkway was originally built as a safe highway and part of that feature was to have oncoming headlight glare eliminated with the use of center guard rails and fences as well as the raised median with the hill on state parts.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on June 21, 2022, 08:03:12 PM
I remember that fence thru the Newark area. The vertical slats were angled to deflect the headlight glare. Smart thinking for its time. And I assume it provided crossover protection as well, which I agree was not really an engineering consideration until the 1960's.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: plain on June 24, 2022, 02:14:07 PM
I remember someone telling me a car crashed into the fence. Not long afterwards the fence was removed. I doubt that's the reason for the removal though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 26, 2022, 07:08:24 AM
Quote from: plain on June 24, 2022, 02:14:07 PM
I remember someone telling me a car crashed into the fence. Not long afterwards the fence was removed. I doubt that's the reason for the removal though.

No Jersey walls are the thing.  Even roads that used the metal guardrail replaced them with Jersey Barriers as well.  Roads like the NJ and PA Turnpikes, US 22 in the Lehigh Valley area, and both I-78 and I-83 that had them continuously down the center for miles and miles all now have the concrete walls.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on June 26, 2022, 08:08:03 PM
New Jersey Turnpike still uses the steel W-beam guide rail to separate the two sets of lanes in the same direction.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on June 27, 2022, 02:58:51 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 20, 2022, 12:21:09 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:29:12 PM
Believe it or not that's what most exit tabs looked like on the GSP back in the 1960's, except they were green of course.
Into the 2000s at least you still saw plenty of these!

I remember them from when I was a kid, early 80's. We used to go to Mantoloking to go sailing. Exit 88 IIRC.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 27, 2022, 08:16:45 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 26, 2022, 08:08:03 PM
New Jersey Turnpike still uses the steel W-beam guide rail to separate the two sets of lanes in the same direction.



Yes because the result of a crossover would not be as deadly as one  crossing over if opposing cars or trucks collided head on.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 27, 2022, 11:10:31 PM
I remember for a while on some parts of the Jersey barrier they would put those slats to block opposing lights. I think this was an NJDOT thing they did in the piece between 129 and 140 they controlled. That's been gone for a long time sadly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on June 27, 2022, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 27, 2022, 11:10:31 PM
I remember for a while on some parts of the Jersey barrier they would put those slats to block opposing lights. I think this was an NJDOT thing they did in the piece between 129 and 140 they controlled. That's been gone for a long time sadly.
The green slats?  Not just a NJDOT thing.  We've got a thread on their locations somewhere.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 27, 2022, 11:56:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 27, 2022, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 27, 2022, 11:10:31 PM
I remember for a while on some parts of the Jersey barrier they would put those slats to block opposing lights. I think this was an NJDOT thing they did in the piece between 129 and 140 they controlled. That's been gone for a long time sadly.
The green slats?  Not just a NJDOT thing.  We've got a thread on their locations somewhere.

Yeah, other states do them as well. I drove down to Florida yesterday and today and there were parts of 95 in North Carolina with them. I was speaking specifically of their use on the Garden State Parkway in this instance.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 28, 2022, 12:31:05 AM
Quote from: storm2k on June 27, 2022, 11:56:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on June 27, 2022, 11:12:24 PM
Quote from: storm2k on June 27, 2022, 11:10:31 PM
I remember for a while on some parts of the Jersey barrier they would put those slats to block opposing lights. I think this was an NJDOT thing they did in the piece between 129 and 140 they controlled. That's been gone for a long time sadly.
The green slats?  Not just a NJDOT thing.  We've got a thread on their locations somewhere.

Yeah, other states do them as well. I drove down to Florida yesterday and today and there were parts of 95 in North Carolina with them. I was speaking specifically of their use on the Garden State Parkway in this instance.
Other agencies* - NJDOT does not maintain the Parkway
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 09:03:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gudBMA8EXSUZ2UMJA
What's up with this non Parkway overhead assembly?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 10:29:14 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 09:03:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gudBMA8EXSUZ2UMJA
What's up with this non Parkway overhead assembly?

No idea. At one point I felt like they recycled a structure that was still structurally sound and not due for replacement and mounted it on one of their big ole concrete pads they like to use for their sign structures. I am almost certainly completely wrong on that tho.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 11:08:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/ZCP6daVaukeozbHK8

Another oddity. I see the SB entrance ramp fro Avalon Blvd in Middle Township is in the median of the Parkway instead of on the outside.


One thing though it's one of few interchanges that uses control cities from the side road. https://goo.gl/maps/RxwHjaQgFQG5sWnP7
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 02:37:55 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 11:08:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/ZCP6daVaukeozbHK8

Another oddity. I see the SB entrance ramp fro Avalon Blvd in Middle Township is in the median of the Parkway instead of on the outside.


One thing though it's one of few interchanges that uses control cities from the side road. https://goo.gl/maps/RxwHjaQgFQG5sWnP7

Not sure about the exit 13 onramp. Thought they did that possibly as an add-on to complete missing movements, but that's been that way since the Parkway opened it looks like. Quite possibly to avoid the wetlands on the other side of the roadway, or maybe land takings from someone who didn't want to sell?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on July 19, 2022, 06:23:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 11:08:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/ZCP6daVaukeozbHK8

Another oddity. I see the SB entrance ramp fro Avalon Blvd in Middle Township is in the median of the Parkway instead of on the outside.


One thing though it's one of few interchanges that uses control cities from the side road. https://goo.gl/maps/RxwHjaQgFQG5sWnP7

I couldn't explain why, but when the Parkway was built here, it was briefly a 2 lane road using the southbound lanes, so that ramp would have been a northbound offramp. Even stranger, the northbound onramp was built in the proper place with it cutting across the future northbound ROW and joining the southbound mainline.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 19, 2022, 07:29:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 10:29:14 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 09:03:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gudBMA8EXSUZ2UMJA
What's up with this non Parkway overhead assembly?

No idea. At one point I felt like they recycled a structure that was still structurally sound and not due for replacement and mounted it on one of their big ole concrete pads they like to use for their sign structures. I am almost certainly completely wrong on that tho.

It was installed when they replaced the signs and re-numbered the exits in the area back in 2015. Prior to that, there was only a gore sign for that exit. I'm surprised the exit has remained open, but closing it and using 22 West is no longer an option as left turns soon to be prohibited at Ingersoll Terr. onto Morris Ave.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 07:35:07 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 19, 2022, 07:29:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 10:29:14 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 09:03:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gudBMA8EXSUZ2UMJA
What's up with this non Parkway overhead assembly?

No idea. At one point I felt like they recycled a structure that was still structurally sound and not due for replacement and mounted it on one of their big ole concrete pads they like to use for their sign structures. I am almost certainly completely wrong on that tho.

It was installed when they replaced the signs and re-numbered the exits in the area back in 2015. Prior to that, there was only a gore sign for that exit. I'm surprised the exit has remained open, but closing it and using 22 West is no longer an option as left turns soon to be prohibited at Ingersoll Terr. onto Morris Ave.

They should really signalized Ingersoll Terrace at Morris Avenue and eliminate both ramps to NJ 82 West.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 20, 2022, 03:00:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 07:35:07 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 19, 2022, 07:29:03 PM
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2022, 10:29:14 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 19, 2022, 09:03:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/gudBMA8EXSUZ2UMJA
What's up with this non Parkway overhead assembly?

No idea. At one point I felt like they recycled a structure that was still structurally sound and not due for replacement and mounted it on one of their big ole concrete pads they like to use for their sign structures. I am almost certainly completely wrong on that tho.

It was installed when they replaced the signs and re-numbered the exits in the area back in 2015. Prior to that, there was only a gore sign for that exit. I'm surprised the exit has remained open, but closing it and using 22 West is no longer an option as left turns soon to be prohibited at Ingersoll Terr. onto Morris Ave.

They should really signalized Ingersoll Terrace at Morris Avenue and eliminate both ramps to NJ 82 West.

I've wanted them to do that for a while now, but sadly NJDOT and Union Township have never seemed to want to do that at all.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 20, 2022, 03:31:21 PM
That seems like a No brainer.  Considering on the other side they want you to head east on NJ 82, UTurn at Lowes and then use the existing ramps from NJ 82 WB to US 22 to make a simple u turn from EB US 22 to WB Us 22 that poses no danger to anyone, this wou,d come directly to NJDOT and Union Township.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 21, 2022, 11:46:51 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 20, 2022, 03:31:21 PM
That seems like a No brainer.  Considering on the other side they want you to head east on NJ 82, UTurn at Lowes and then use the existing ramps from NJ 82 WB to US 22 to make a simple u turn from EB US 22 to WB Us 22 that poses no danger to anyone, this wou,d come directly to NJDOT and Union Township.
If it was gonna happen, it'd be happening with the currently ongoing 22/82 bridge replacements. It's not, so that tells you it's not a consideration.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: tsmatt13 on July 22, 2022, 08:10:25 AM
Currently there are flyover ramp replacements for Exit 105, so the SB Express lanes exit is closed.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/aBZ21Dvs05Ib7k2C94I2rpYmLsAwrx0YwLPY-gEGQydpbMPqW6qyNh0FUlQGx3heg2ilHlH9aXDBC0qA8xXC62x0DGbGT_DdYZXKR8YF75g52lj36NjVB0kPiPqtVq9Buek373Kl_egH-hdr1IAMuLzOo43E4_1LyYZQLXRxnro68I2o6Jx6f-gJ3zWNtKAhDdz9LDylUVcqW1EvYpsKsTi_qX1M9alqU5LsToYUxABfM3CSoiBjdh54ZpmxYPRkiVpWQvf5pXofXg8HkCGnKEJ1-eYhhv4Mq-LYICzvHBuMtom-jw3PcB3QJvxdG3Y_FCzL_TKLUHXEl6tBmQa8tv4wTSa9o1G-vNhig5UmlVCDN8Al3Z02pLFmmv_VOhAt6K9agWVdLfPbNpOcIi99JRxz-tdO1yCDTkkcLK41t6aBstxuYLbiPphuwXmvXiWrbtrQlOQgdPZB43tT1iyE9sRxQoWoQzgEw5oGQ2PHyEMuJzHP0X4T1gzMFuMQnJi9zkRxMjXKWZvheS6Z5HQ3GOvDzvsVqw_xUiTkq8S08ml0gUGocnsNp3bEx8dXDptx_KLCpaVSFTzsTHlUa145DgjyTDoyzXdx7qIF-hDZgTqpXN6jkrycqAAzFoZqYE3YeqGqfDyG-Z_pP7iebfMU7oQq2fbJQieUutCzC3C6jsxltC4VV9jGy120-0Q04g1f25cezKNVLV5z2AsgnwmPQr2D7vrB-XDpMB4-s7x5blsCrB2B9dJ7klANEot6zw=w641-h854-no?authuser=0)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: tsmatt13 on July 22, 2022, 05:58:22 PM
Exit 44 BGS going northbound: it appears that they have used STICKERS for the CR-561 ALT shield?? It's peeling off!

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/EkIjN2FU7k3yYmbxWVsNO4OaKRQy4hAHGPx-V0mgndEH57B4hv5tT8csLLFaT-tjFUFgteOnLe1K-UYjAoRlP8jL4nNi4VfaVddbZtgJxfv-mVs8WgyH8SfBlL3HT9TKcImPKM-d5PquCotNfZlp0MQg646iRrVFxqGd06YQ6NgArfcueGJJVMT10EaRJ5bwKdqwoTzyMxkhABK2T8lwnERFhmn5xIMUY4yBYGOQ_ZNb8drr7GpD9-73vRqOuiJONzi86wxMbaM-ju3RFKaxihcegf0cbalzXXz520bnr_HahLGQoscVHXRxAeP6nWnRdhiWyQmghevUDbUhThF1MoHl8wCLiqLyUy5zveS33FNcyQ2J63JJtsx-82ql8plDcAwb9ISGEQEl_znPnWBugzZBxF4lDBEWzd91lX6SRSY4pnRQi3p2CwDpMEOoeujbOtUcDIxvy9dLYdlCmdla563mzog5YFeyH-Sj8FVfWQ_oHDlWttO2lnk4uXsw7LYRkRVk4vSYn2eloP-5uajm0FMQYgAPEAOIF20otjK4UFIFw9MaMl2kro4-yb8ZXJu-WvBhwjpRaQnP2k3B9GZluwOiYfG6Lek1lJB4ZT45pNlvaI1za6Kog7zZVoEJ0DjwOrw8EQVhxGUI1EJYHcb5fOdT2c2udCCbN64mWiU-YFKHE0Yc-btio-VM79Jg7xzvebTYPTMo-T6q_ChMWjWsCt5N94kUkRAwKwbqSr9MYkr8o3Are6FixTHGT2A=w700-h933-no?authuser=0)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 22, 2022, 10:19:39 PM
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/uploads/comm/pubmeet/details/Handbook_20210610_113045_2021-05-24RT22-82-GSP-FD-ReforestPICFlyer.pdf

This page says what is proposed. If they decided not to go with the removal of the u turns is more the better.  I am glad that they took it off the consideration for possible reconfiguration.


I still say signalizing the Ingersoll Terrace and Morris  Avenue intersection could eliminate the 140 A ramp and left turn Route 22 exit for NJ 82 real well.  I don't know the accidents rate, but I will guess there is a limited sight distance under the Parkway coming off that insight ramp.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 02, 2022, 10:59:02 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Ff3yU5qXM1M5GAjN6

I couldn't help notice this sign in Union directing folks to the SB GSP on Vauxhall Road, that lacks a SB ramp to the highway.

Considering that Oakland Avenue goes nowhere near the Parkway and it's probably directing you to use nearby Union Avenue that does have a ramp to it, I would think this assembly here is not needed.  Especially with previous US 22 which connects more directly, this sign would only really help those who missed the turn at US 22.  Considering that, it's hard to believe toll money would be wasted for this.

https://goo.gl/maps/1my8z8qKcRp3aQwS9

It's even better the opposite way. It also directs you to use Oakland rather than US 22 which is just ahead with more direct access.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 02, 2022, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 02, 2022, 10:59:02 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Ff3yU5qXM1M5GAjN6

I couldn't help notice this sign in Union directing folks to the SB GSP on Vauxhall Road, that lacks a SB ramp to the highway.

Considering that Oakland Avenue goes nowhere near the Parkway and it's probably directing you to use nearby Union Avenue that does have a ramp to it, I would think this assembly here is not needed.  Especially with previous US 22 which connects more directly, this sign would only really help those who missed the turn at US 22.  Considering that, it's hard to believe toll money would be wasted for this.

https://goo.gl/maps/1my8z8qKcRp3aQwS9

It's even better the opposite way. It also directs you to use Oakland rather than US 22 which is just ahead with more direct access.

Correct, it will take you out all the way to Union Ave where there is an onramp. Remember this dates from the time before the Union plaza was converted to one way tolling. This put you on the Parkway north of the Union Plaza so they would collect their 35 cents. People in the know will go to down to 22 westbound and pick up the Parkway there, but that's not what the Highway Authority wanted historically.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 03, 2022, 06:24:37 PM
Yes the good ol' sucker. We still have it today, but it's called a GPS sending you on toll roads to get to another place.   


Though don't know how as you can avoid the tolls on your device.   I have found the map gives you a heads up, yet people complain th the toll collectors about not expecting to be on the toll road despite signage.  Oh yes how can you miss an overhead sign? Oh wait, the drivers blame not knowing the roads as an excuse to ignore large sign or any signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: tsmatt13 on August 03, 2022, 08:36:32 PM
Reupload of the Exit 44 BGS photo; that one also doesn't seem to appear anymore.

https://flic.kr/p/2nC71xv (https://flic.kr/p/2nC71xv)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: theroadwayone on August 09, 2022, 03:36:45 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 03, 2022, 06:24:37 PM
Yes the good ol' sucker. We still have it today, but it's called a GPS sending you on toll roads to get to another place.   


Though don't know how as you can avoid the tolls on your device.   I have found the map gives you a heads up, yet people complain th the toll collectors about not expecting to be on the toll road despite signage.  Oh yes how can you miss an overhead sign? Oh wait, the drivers blame not knowing the roads as an excuse to ignore large sign or any signs.

Just goes to show how people don't know when and how to keep their eyes outside the windshield. You can put up a billions signs advising of a certain road condition and people will complain about how they didn't see anything about it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 07:51:38 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/WL83dbyVQzLjoqrLA

I see now the speed limit across The Great Egg Harbor Bridge is 65 mph as the older bridge only carried 45 mph.

https://goo.gl/maps/QWsg374pBTUyxc7a6
Also the original NB span raised its limit as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 10, 2022, 07:58:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 07:51:38 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/WL83dbyVQzLjoqrLA

I see now the speed limit across The Great Egg Harbor Bridge is 65 mph as the older bridge only carried 45 mph.

Even more impressive is the NB side is 2 lanes no shoulders and 65 mph also. https://maps.app.goo.gl/HpwmM87wgscwGRPeA
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on August 10, 2022, 08:56:38 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 10, 2022, 07:58:57 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 07:51:38 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/WL83dbyVQzLjoqrLA

I see now the speed limit across The Great Egg Harbor Bridge is 65 mph as the older bridge only carried 45 mph.

Even more impressive is the NB side is 2 lanes no shoulders and 65 mph also. https://maps.app.goo.gl/HpwmM87wgscwGRPeA

Yeah that's a little sketch, but maybe they decided the risk of accidents from some people slowing down for the reduced limit while others didn't was greater than the risk of accidents from the lack of shoulders.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2022, 11:52:34 AM
There was once a proposal to extend the Garden State Parkway northward to the Palisades Interstate Parkway (the New Jersey Turnpike was also once proposed to connect with the New York State Thruway). Both extensions were likely as impossible then as they would be now, although old road proposals fascinate me deeply (and I doubt I'm alone with that fascination on the AARoads Forum). Assuming such extensions overcame all obstacles (about as likely as FritzOwl giving up naming every road an Interstate), how do all of you think these extensions would have been utilized, and would they do much to reduce congestion in the areas where they would have ran?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on August 10, 2022, 12:06:53 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2022, 11:52:34 AM
There was once a proposal to extend the Garden State Parkway northward to the Palisades Interstate Parkway (the New Jersey Turnpike was also once proposed to connect with the New York State Thruway). Both extensions were likely as impossible then as they would be now, although old road proposals fascinate me deeply (and I doubt I'm alone with that fascination on the AARoads Forum). Assuming such extensions overcame all obstacles (about as likely as FritzOwl giving up naming every road an Interstate), how do all of you think these extensions would have been utilized, and would they do much to reduce congestion in the areas where they would have ran?

This might need to be moved to another thread or something, but I suspect the turnpike extension would get far more use than the Parkway one, given the frequent backups at the GWB.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 06:54:15 PM
The area that lies between Teaneck and the NY State Line I believe is more upper middle class if I'm not mistaken?  Is that why it never got built in the first place? It seems those with money stopped the Somerset Freeway and if that was the class here, I'm sure it was redone.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on August 10, 2022, 07:33:23 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 10, 2022, 06:54:15 PM
The area that lies between Teaneck and the NY State Line I believe is more upper middle class if I'm not mistaken?  Is that why it never got built in the first place? It seems those with money stopped the Somerset Freeway and if that was the class here, I'm sure it was redone.

Yes, the portion of Bergen County north of Englewood is pretty upscale.  If you drive along 501, 502 and 505, you get a good feel for the area, and there was little chance of plowing a major highway thru there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 10, 2022, 08:22:35 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 10, 2022, 11:52:34 AM
There was once a proposal to extend the Garden State Parkway northward to the Palisades Interstate Parkway (the New Jersey Turnpike was also once proposed to connect with the New York State Thruway). Both extensions were likely as impossible then as they would be now, although old road proposals fascinate me deeply (and I doubt I'm alone with that fascination on the AARoads Forum). Assuming such extensions overcame all obstacles (about as likely as FritzOwl giving up naming every road an Interstate), how do all of you think these extensions would have been utilized, and would they do much to reduce congestion in the areas where they would have ran?
Parkway to PIP would take pressure off the existing merge into 87S/287E and the cloverleaf at PIP, which is currently a major bottleneck (in both directions even!). Turnpike to Thruway would be nice, but would add traffic to the Turnpike and take it off the Parkway, so while you'd help Essex County somewhat you would also be hurting the West/East Alignments and they'd need to be even wider even sooner.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 28, 2022, 12:28:13 AM
From Larry Higgs at nj.com: Garden State Parkway to go all E-ZPass, while paying cash may remain an option on the N.J. Turnpike (https://www.nj.com/news/2022/09/garden-state-parkway-to-go-all-e-zpass-while-paying-cash-may-remain-an-option-on-the-nj-turnpike.html)

Pretty terrible headline, but the gist is:

Quote
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which runs both highways, followed the lead of the Atlantic City Expressway, after the Turnpike board voted unanimously Tuesday to award a $914 million contract to bring all-electronic, cashless toll collection to the toll roads.

The board of commissioners awarded a contract to TransCore, LP of Nashville to design install, maintain and run an all-electronic toll collection system for eight years.

There were mentions in their ten year plan that AET was in the works. Contract is very expensive, but I guess they plan to do all new infrastructure for this. We'll have to see what comes of it once more details emerge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Here is the thing. Your collecting tolls to pay off bonds.  Then add more money to the debt. 

Why not let the residents who live in the state decide? Put it on the ballot and let NJ vote on it?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Here is the thing. Your collecting tolls to pay off bonds.  Then add more money to the debt. 

Why not let the residents who live in the state decide? Put it on the ballot and let NJ vote on it?
Since when are public authorities accountable to the public?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Here is the thing. Your collecting tolls to pay off bonds.  Then add more money to the debt. 

Why not let the residents who live in the state decide? Put it on the ballot and let NJ vote on it?
Since when are public authorities accountable to the public?
Well I'm saying that in this matter it should be.  It's the users who get inconvenienced.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 09:54:12 AM


Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Here is the thing. Your collecting tolls to pay off bonds.  Then add more money to the debt. 

Why not let the residents who live in the state decide? Put it on the ballot and let NJ vote on it?
Since when are public authorities accountable to the public?
Well I'm saying that in this matter it should be.  It's the users who get inconvenienced.

Going cashless is a convenience.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2022, 01:12:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Here is the thing. Your collecting tolls to pay off bonds.  Then add more money to the debt. 

Why not let the residents who live in the state decide? Put it on the ballot and let NJ vote on it?

The time for these questions to be raised was during the public comment period held a while back, which included many proposals including the elimination of cash payments. 

Ballot questions are for State questions, not authority and agency questions. 

Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 09:16:29 AM
Well I'm saying that in this matter it should be.  It's the users who get inconvenienced.

Everyone cares about different things.  Why "in this matter"?  Why not every other matter?

While it's a large dollar amount here, the only ones that are affected are those that utilize the toll road.  It's not a tax that everyone in NJ has to pay, or a debt that all taxpayers need to be accountable for.

 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 28, 2022, 02:37:10 PM
I like that the mile 124 service area is named after the lead singer of one of my favorite bands, Bon Jovi. I wonder if they play nothing but Bon Jovi music at that service area? You can never listen to Livin' On A Prayer too many times IMHO.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DrSmith on September 28, 2022, 07:11:12 PM
Going cashless reminded me of back when Donald DiFrancesco was governor for the final year or so of Gov Whitman's term and part of his plan to run for governor was around eliminating Parkway tolls. Here's an old press release on it. https://www.nj.gov/transportation/about/press/2001/080901.shtm

If I remember correctly, part of his idea was to not collect tolls on Memorial Day or one of the big summer holidays because of the congestion at the plazas and the overtime for collectors. The toll collectors said it's a work day with triple time or something for the holiday so we're working even if it is to stand there and wave people through. So the waiving of tolls for even a day didn't happen as it didn't make financial sense to pay the salaries without the revenue.

Now maybe AET on the parkway. At least on the parkway you can do it one barrier at a time as you don't have a whole ticket system you have to turn on all at once.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 30, 2022, 10:30:13 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 28, 2022, 02:37:10 PM
I like that the mile 124 service area is named after the lead singer of one of my favorite bands, Bon Jovi. I wonder if they play nothing but Bon Jovi music at that service area? You can never listen to Livin' On A Prayer too many times IMHO.

They don't. It's just the name. Service Area is the exact same, other than they put some things up about famous New Jersyians. In fact, JBJ/Cheesquake is getting a bit long in the tooth, they haven't done any major changes to it since the late 80s/early 90s.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2022, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 09:54:12 AM


Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Here is the thing. Your collecting tolls to pay off bonds.  Then add more money to the debt. 

Why not let the residents who live in the state decide? Put it on the ballot and let NJ vote on it?
Since when are public authorities accountable to the public?
Well I'm saying that in this matter it should be.  It's the users who get inconvenienced.

Going cashless is a convenience.

Not to many. Many folks are weary of government forcing society to be automated. Just like phone trees. Poll the average persons and many want the old fashioned human being instead of press one for this and two for another.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on October 03, 2022, 06:36:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2022, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 09:54:12 AM


Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Here is the thing. Your collecting tolls to pay off bonds.  Then add more money to the debt. 

Why not let the residents who live in the state decide? Put it on the ballot and let NJ vote on it?
Since when are public authorities accountable to the public?
Well I'm saying that in this matter it should be.  It's the users who get inconvenienced.

Going cashless is a convenience.

Not to many. Many folks are weary of government forcing society to be automated. Just like phone trees. Poll the average persons and many want the old fashioned human being instead of press one for this and two for another.

Cashless is a convenience, but also a way to make the money you are paying more invisible so you don't actively detest it as much as you probably should. Not to mention it's cheaper for them. So, more a win for the toll roads, not the people.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2022, 06:55:54 PM
Quote from: famartin on October 03, 2022, 06:36:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2022, 06:30:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 09:54:12 AM


Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 28, 2022, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 28, 2022, 07:32:48 AM
Here is the thing. Your collecting tolls to pay off bonds.  Then add more money to the debt. 

Why not let the residents who live in the state decide? Put it on the ballot and let NJ vote on it?
Since when are public authorities accountable to the public?
Well I'm saying that in this matter it should be.  It's the users who get inconvenienced.

Going cashless is a convenience.

Not to many. Many folks are weary of government forcing society to be automated. Just like phone trees. Poll the average persons and many want the old fashioned human being instead of press one for this and two for another.

Cashless is a convenience, but also a way to make the money you are paying more invisible so you don't actively detest it as much as you probably should. Not to mention it's cheaper for them. So, more a win for the toll roads, not the people.

Exactly.  And over the years it's been why people get overly political in elections, because people want the majority of the people to decide rather than politicians in which our world is become.

To wait on a bill in the mail is an inconvenience to many as it comes unexpectedly and many don't pay attention to signs and the road these days.

I worked as a toll collector for years and many Floridians don't want to use even transponders.  Many like the cash thing we as society have always had for whatever reasons.  When Polk Parkway went cashless two weeks ago, many voiced their concerns about being forced to pay by plate and said it is el stinko.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on October 03, 2022, 06:59:18 PM
That's why you link an account and don't have to worry about paying bills by mail.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 04, 2022, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 03, 2022, 06:59:18 PM
That's why you link an account and don't have to worry about paying bills by mail.


Many people aren't that sophisticated. Plus many people don't like progress either and believe our Democracy is gone as upper class seem to be making decisions for everybody. 

You forgot about why people argue at election time. People want power to the people brought back and the Left agrees it's the Right that's gone astray while the Right thinks it's the Left.  This rule is non partisan of course, but if you put the question on the ballot I'm sure people of the majority would want tolls kept and not to cyber world.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 04:14:46 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 04, 2022, 03:50:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 03, 2022, 06:59:18 PM
That's why you link an account and don't have to worry about paying bills by mail.


Many people aren't that sophisticated. Plus many people don't like progress either and believe our Democracy is gone as upper class seem to be making decisions for everybody. 

You forgot about why people argue at election time. People want power to the people brought back and the Left agrees it's the Right that's gone astray while the Right thinks it's the Left.  This rule is non partisan of course, but if you put the question on the ballot I'm sure people of the majority would want tolls kept and not to cyber world.
Nah, the majority of people in this country have to deal with toll roads and therefore they prefer cashless tolls.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2022, 08:04:37 AM
Oops...

https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/drivers-using-e-zpass-overcharged-at-parkway-toll-plaza-after-equipment-malfunction.html

Quote
People driving cars were mistakenly processed as driving trucks and charged the higher rate after a cable tie on the gantry at the Great Egg Harbor toll plaza in Somers Point snapped, a spokesman for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority said. The cable sagged and partially obscured a sensor used to determine vehicle classification.

As a result, an average of 4,000 drivers per day, or about 23% of the vehicles that pass through the plaza, were charged $3.92 (or $3.72 during off-peak) instead of $1.96, officials said.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: plain on October 05, 2022, 10:04:09 AM
Doesn't say in the article but I assume the snapped cable has been fixed.

Hopefully nobody had a very low balance (under $3) when passing through the plaza.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on October 09, 2022, 09:36:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2022, 08:04:37 AM
Oops...

https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/drivers-using-e-zpass-overcharged-at-parkway-toll-plaza-after-equipment-malfunction.html

Quote
People driving cars were mistakenly processed as driving trucks and charged the higher rate after a cable tie on the gantry at the Great Egg Harbor toll plaza in Somers Point snapped, a spokesman for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority said. The cable sagged and partially obscured a sensor used to determine vehicle classification.

As a result, an average of 4,000 drivers per day, or about 23% of the vehicles that pass through the plaza, were charged $3.92 (or $3.72 during off-peak) instead of $1.96, officials said.

welp, that's one of the more expensive zipties ever....
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 25, 2022, 07:31:33 PM
(also in the NJ Turnpike thread)

From nj.com: Brace yourself, drivers. Turnpike and Parkway tolls are going up for the 3rd year in a row. (https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/brace-yourself-drivers-turnpike-and-parkway-tolls-are-going-up-for-the-3rd-year-in-a-row.html)

QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which runs both highways, adopted a $2.5 billion 2023 budget – which calls for a 3% toll increase starting Jan. 1 in a budget that increased by 7.4% over 2022.

Officials blamed the increase on "pressures on discretionary travel and costs due to an inflation rate of 8.3%, a level not seen in 40 years."

Per the article, tolls will be 2.02 for E-ZPass and 2.10 for cars at the two way tolls.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2022, 09:54:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 25, 2022, 07:31:33 PM
Per the article, tolls will be 2.02 for E-ZPass and 2.10 for cars at the two way tolls.

You meant the 1 way tolls.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 26, 2022, 12:09:48 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2022, 09:54:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 25, 2022, 07:31:33 PM
Per the article, tolls will be 2.02 for E-ZPass and 2.10 for cars at the two way tolls.

You meant the 1 way tolls.

Yep, that's what I meant. The one way tolls will be half that 1.01/1.05.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 26, 2022, 08:57:50 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 26, 2022, 12:09:48 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2022, 09:54:06 PM
Quote from: storm2k on October 25, 2022, 07:31:33 PM
Per the article, tolls will be 2.02 for E-ZPass and 2.10 for cars at the two way tolls.

You meant the 1 way tolls.

Yep, that's what I meant. The one way tolls will be half that 1.01/1.05.
You have that backwards. So to clarify for the people reading: All of the one-way toll plazas will be $2.02/$2.10 because essentially the next plaza is free. The only two-way toll plaza in Toms River will be half that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on March 12, 2023, 09:27:03 PM
https://943thepoint.com/ixp/396/p/17-things-you-likely-dont-know-about-the-garden-state-parkway/
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 14, 2023, 07:32:32 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on March 12, 2023, 09:27:03 PM
https://943thepoint.com/ixp/396/p/17-things-you-likely-dont-know-about-the-garden-state-parkway/

Very interesting article.

One interesting tid bit not covered in it was that The Parkway was built as a glare free headlight roadway.  In Union County from Clark to Union a dirt pile held together with grass was in the median before the 1980 129-140 road widening leveled it to form a fourth lane. In addition the area through Irvington and East Orange had a center guard rail that was kind off odd looking just to block out headlights from oncoming traffic. The center rail was four feet high with vertical bars connecting a lower to upper beam to achieve the headlight block.

The rest had a wide median to prevent glare as so it does today in many areas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 14, 2023, 07:49:11 AM
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on March 12, 2023, 09:27:03 PM
https://943thepoint.com/ixp/396/p/17-things-you-likely-dont-know-about-the-garden-state-parkway/

Great article with lots of tidbits I hadn't known about. Not sure how I'd feel about having a rest area named after me.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 14, 2023, 07:54:34 AM
I bet ole Jon Bon Jovi is happy that Cheesequake is his namesake. Don't know his ego, but he strikes me as the egotistical type.

Then again I don't believe in naming things after the living.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2023, 11:10:08 PM
Things I didn't know:
old tree
occurrence is spelled occurance
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on March 28, 2023, 02:56:21 PM
Tom's River widening project
https://www.njta.com/gsp80to83pic
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2023, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: famartin on March 28, 2023, 02:56:21 PM
Tom's River widening project
https://www.njta.com/gsp80to83pic

So many upside down traffic lights.  :-D

Had this area previously been widened in the lengthier widening project?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 28, 2023, 08:46:26 PM
That would be a nope. The US-9 Toms River Bypass remained mostly untouched since NJDOT built it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on March 29, 2023, 12:05:25 PM
Areas immediately to the north and south were part of longer (and recent) widening projects, but this section was not included in either program.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on March 29, 2023, 04:12:49 PM
Quote from: akotchi on March 29, 2023, 12:05:25 PM
Areas immediately to the north and south were part of longer (and recent) widening projects, but this section was not included in either program.

The lack of changing the 82/82A combination (its been removed elsewhere), plus their skipping this section previously, suggested they had a pretty decent project in the works.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 29, 2023, 06:54:31 PM
Finally 80-83 will be full interchanges plus the tight cloverleaf at 82 will be made with more radius to its ramps.

I wish they would make 82 a diamond as cloverleaf interchanges are out like 8 track tapes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: famartin on March 29, 2023, 09:07:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2023, 06:54:31 PM
Finally 80-83 will be full interchanges plus the tight cloverleaf at 82 will be made with more radius to its ramps.

I wish they would make 82 a diamond as cloverleaf interchanges are out like 8 track tapes.

You want MORE lights on 37? 😂
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 29, 2023, 10:04:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2023, 06:54:31 PM
Finally 80-83 will be full interchanges plus the tight cloverleaf at 82 will be made with more radius to its ramps.

I wish they would make 82 a diamond as cloverleaf interchanges are out like 8 track tapes.

Except in NJ, where they are still the base model.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 03, 2023, 01:19:24 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 29, 2023, 06:54:31 PM
Finally 80-83 will be full interchanges plus the tight cloverleaf at 82 will be made with more radius to its ramps.

I wish they would make 82 a diamond as cloverleaf interchanges are out like 8 track tapes.

Adding a traffic light to 37 there would be terrible for traffic to and from Seaside. Most states would probably build some flyovers there, but there isn't really the room for that to happen. Better radii on the cloverleaf is a decent compromise.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 04, 2023, 04:52:23 AM
If it were Florida it would be a SPUI for sure. Then again FDOT don't use jughandles so Route 37 would be a traffic nightmare even more so if Florida ran NJ roads.  The intersection nearby with Route 549 would have six phases thus creating a worst intersection scenario there being those jughandles eliminate two unneeded phases.

Me personally I would go for a flyover from SB to EB and NB to WB despite the shopping centers being scaled back which would require that space to construct.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 09, 2023, 07:35:41 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2023/04/parkway-plans-exit-improvements-including-one-used-by-many-jersey-shore-beachgoers.html

Have until April 13 to suggest ideas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2023, 11:29:43 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2023, 07:35:41 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2023/04/parkway-plans-exit-improvements-including-one-used-by-many-jersey-shore-beachgoers.html

Have until April 13 to suggest ideas.
that site is paywalled
i suggest responding to the person posting this reply to your link.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 10:57:21 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 10, 2023, 11:29:43 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2023, 07:35:41 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2023/04/parkway-plans-exit-improvements-including-one-used-by-many-jersey-shore-beachgoers.html

Have until April 13 to suggest ideas.
that site is paywalled
i suggest responding to the person posting this reply to your link.

You do have 7 days for free plus the point is you do have this
https://www.njta.com/media/7395/gsp-80-83-pic_transcript.pdf
Though not the same, but gives you a chance to voice opinions.

https://patch.com/new-jersey/tomsriver/parkway-would-get-new-ramps-widening-exit-80-83-under-plan
This tells you for free without paying.
April 13 deadline is written in article.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 11, 2023, 11:04:39 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 10:57:21 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 10, 2023, 11:29:43 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2023, 07:35:41 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2023/04/parkway-plans-exit-improvements-including-one-used-by-many-jersey-shore-beachgoers.html

Have until April 13 to suggest ideas.
that site is paywalled
i suggest responding to the person posting this reply to your link.

You do have 7 days for free plus the point is you do have this
https://www.njta.com/media/7395/gsp-80-83-pic_transcript.pdf
Though not the same, but gives you a chance to voice opinions.

https://patch.com/new-jersey/tomsriver/parkway-would-get-new-ramps-widening-exit-80-83-under-plan
This tells you for free without paying.
April 13 deadline is written in article.
the person posting this reply can also tell you for free and take your opinions into consideration
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: CrystalWalrein on April 13, 2023, 06:20:20 PM
Exit 80 won't be a completely full interchange; they only plan to build a connection from the Parkway northbound to US 9 southbound, but not to CR 530. I'm not sure how that movement could reasonably be handled unless they build another slip road at the Birch Street overpass or another flyover to Double Trouble Road (CR 619). The latter is possible but would make for some convoluted traffic light phases as I can't see it merging directly with the existing southbound ramp.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 14, 2023, 01:57:44 PM
I've stated my concerns on that one to the public information comments.


As far as the NB Exit 80 goes look at the plans. It's going to be merging with US 9 directly on the SE quadrant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 30, 2023, 03:47:02 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/Wj9EvKVupaPZMCz78
I was noticing that Exit 142C is signed for Maplewood now. In the past it was Hillside- Maplewood, but now US 22 is signed for Hillside instead.

IMO it should be signed as Union Avenue- Mill Road as it's a suburban exit. Most states would use the road names in this particular application and sign Maplewood on supplementary signage.

One thing though, ironically I did find NJ signing urban and suburban freeway exits like rural area exits fascinating my entire life living in NJ from birth to 1990.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on April 30, 2023, 07:55:31 PM
Well heck, New York DOT would just put the road names AND the town name together on the same signs and be done with it. They wisely don't care that the MUTCD discourages that practice.

New Jersey DOT used to do it too. The original signing on I-80 in Bergen County in the 1960's had street names and town names on the same signs. Two that I remember are Green St, Teterboro, South Hackensack and Hudson St, Hackensack, Little Ferry. Don't recall how the signs there read nowadays.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 30, 2023, 11:49:44 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 30, 2023, 07:55:31 PM
Well heck, New York DOT would just put the road names AND the town name together on the same signs and be done with it. They wisely don't care that the MUTCD discourages that practice.

New Jersey DOT used to do it too. The original signing on I-80 in Bergen County in the 1960's had street names and town names on the same signs. Two that I remember are Green St, Teterboro, South Hackensack and Hudson St, Hackensack, Little Ferry. Don't recall how the signs there read nowadays.

The Parkway used to sign 142A as both Hillside- Maplewood and Mill Road was under the original 142 exit gore. Anyway the present day 143A and B southbound ( which used to be reversed up until ten years ago circa) had both Lyons Avenue and Hillside- Maplewood together on previous guides.  Further north Exit 144 had South Orange Avenue and Vailsburg Area Newark on the SB exit guide.

The Parkway used to use upper case for road names and mixed for control cities before the recent signs were installed per MUTCD.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 21, 2023, 05:15:56 PM
Why does the Garden State Parkway still sign Exit 159 as the George Washington Bridge? Considering Exit 153 was changed from Lincoln Tunnel to Secaucus and Exit 140 the Holland Tunnel control got changed to Hillside, you figure that it would be changed to New York City to be uniform.

It seems Exits 140 and 153 got changed to reflect MUTCD updates, but Exit 159 got carbon copied instead when the GSP changed out all guides in North Jersey.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 21, 2023, 05:15:56 PM
Why does the Garden State Parkway still sign Exit 159 as the George Washington Bridge? Considering Exit 153 was changed from Lincoln Tunnel to Secaucus and Exit 140 the Holland Tunnel control got changed to Hillside, you figure that it would be changed to New York City to be uniform.

It seems Exits 140 and 153 got changed to reflect MUTCD updates, but Exit 159 got carbon copied instead when the GSP changed out all guides in North Jersey.
You answered your own question.  In the end, it didn't matter and GSP stuck with the specific bridge entry to New York than a generic control city.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 22, 2023, 07:08:06 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 21, 2023, 05:15:56 PM
Why does the Garden State Parkway still sign Exit 159 as the George Washington Bridge? Considering Exit 153 was changed from Lincoln Tunnel to Secaucus and Exit 140 the Holland Tunnel control got changed to Hillside, you figure that it would be changed to New York City to be uniform.

It seems Exits 140 and 153 got changed to reflect MUTCD updates, but Exit 159 got carbon copied instead when the GSP changed out all guides in North Jersey.
You answered your own question.  In the end, it didn't matter and GSP stuck with the specific bridge entry to New York than a generic control city.
No I didn't. I just pointed out that they carbon copied one out of all.   The question is why carbon copy only one and not the rest?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on July 22, 2023, 10:20:53 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 22, 2023, 07:08:06 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 21, 2023, 05:15:56 PM
Why does the Garden State Parkway still sign Exit 159 as the George Washington Bridge? Considering Exit 153 was changed from Lincoln Tunnel to Secaucus and Exit 140 the Holland Tunnel control got changed to Hillside, you figure that it would be changed to New York City to be uniform.

It seems Exits 140 and 153 got changed to reflect MUTCD updates, but Exit 159 got carbon copied instead when the GSP changed out all guides in North Jersey.
You answered your own question.  In the end, it didn't matter and GSP stuck with the specific bridge entry to New York than a generic control city.
No I didn't. I just pointed out that they carbon copied one out of all.   The question is why carbon copy only one and not the rest?

Perhaps read past the first sentence of a post before reacting.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on July 23, 2023, 04:51:36 AM
I barely know the area, but this...

Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 06:17:20 PM
In the end, it didn't matter and GSP stuck with the specific bridge entry to New York than a generic control city.

...doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to his question.

If bridges and tunnels are not allowed as control cities, "George Washington Bridge" should have been replaced same as the others.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on July 23, 2023, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2023, 04:51:36 AM
I barely know the area, but this...

Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 06:17:20 PM
In the end, it didn't matter and GSP stuck with the specific bridge entry to New York than a generic control city.

...doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to his question.

If bridges and tunnels are not allowed as control cities, "George Washington Bridge" should have been replaced same as the others.
"Not allowed"?  Oh yes, the control city police turn up when they see the sign and make you take it down, right?...not that GWB isn't on about 2,000 signs in the area already without any consequence over the past gazillion years...

It can be easily envisioned that there was a 20-second discussion about what to put on the sign and someone saying GWB is more informative to those headed into whichever section of Manhattan than a generic "New York."

And, with that, I'm not getting any more sucked into another stupid control city debate...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 23, 2023, 10:52:02 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 23, 2023, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 23, 2023, 04:51:36 AM
I barely know the area, but this...

Quote from: Rothman on July 21, 2023, 06:17:20 PM
In the end, it didn't matter and GSP stuck with the specific bridge entry to New York than a generic control city.

...doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to his question.

If bridges and tunnels are not allowed as control cities, "George Washington Bridge" should have been replaced same as the others.
"Not allowed"?  Oh yes, the control city police turn up when they see the sign and make you take it down, right?...not that GWB isn't on about 2,000 signs in the area already without any consequence over the past gazillion years...

It can be easily envisioned that there was a 20-second discussion about what to put on the sign and someone saying GWB is more informative to those headed into whichever section of Manhattan than a generic "New York."

And, with that, I'm not getting any more sucked into another stupid control city debate...


While many believe control cities can only be cities, the MUTCD does mention "The determination of major destinations or control cities" in Support #4 under https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2e.htm#section2E13 . And since the GSP isn't an interstate covered in the control city list as shown in the AASHTO guide, nothing is really wrong with it.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 23, 2023, 07:56:48 PM
I don't have a major issue with it like Highwaystar does about Baltimore on I-70 or NE2 with spelling and others on here with Wilmington being used on the NJ Turnpike etc.

I just think it's odd and inconsistent with the other signs they amended on the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2023, 07:26:06 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/S5kb8g1gaf4sArkh8
Still signing the Garden State Parkway as locals will call it. Not knocking, but think it’s odd considering signing techniques have changed drastically. Plus it a NJTA assembly not NJDOT, which is more odd considering it’s a state maintained roadway.

I think it’s very nostalgic to see the signs as it was growing up in the seventies. Seeing Parkway South signed is a welcome reminder of our road history.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 07, 2023, 08:31:09 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2023, 07:26:06 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/S5kb8g1gaf4sArkh8
Still signing the Garden State Parkway as locals will call it. Not knocking, but think it's odd considering signing techniques have changed drastically. Plus it a NJTA assembly not NJDOT, which is more odd considering it's a state maintained roadway.

I think it's very nostalgic to see the signs as it was growing up in the seventies. Seeing Parkway South signed is a welcome reminder of our road history.

Actually surprised that sign survived the exit 163 reconstruction. Eventually NJDOT will probably come for that gantry, it doesn't look like it's in the world's greatest shape. Either it will get a more standard NJDOT treatment or maybe it will be like the 17 NB -> Parkway NB treatment which is just a Parkway entrance gore point sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2023, 11:44:18 PM
Well considering that Midland Avenue to the north of it and the exchange to the south of it have the older style small guide signs in upper case, the latter you mention will prevail.

The only reason why NJ 4 has a NJDOT sign for the Parkway South, because of the NJ 4/ 17 interchange reconstruction along with the IKEA Drive Interchange construction which gave Route 4 a c/d roadway where the Parkway exits going WB that included signage for the entire project area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 23, 2023, 07:51:28 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/5xymaLk5z1CkdiVa8
I remember when the 65 cents was ten cents.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2023, 11:10:31 AM
Those were the days.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 07:46:41 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/66WQe4FyhyYKtQxX7

This is interesting. Control cities being used on a local road in Cape May County for the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2023, 11:35:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 07:46:41 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/66WQe4FyhyYKtQxX7

This is interesting. Control cities being used on a local road in Cape May County for the Parkway.

What am I missing? Seems standard.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on October 02, 2023, 09:00:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 07:46:41 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/66WQe4FyhyYKtQxX7

This is interesting. Control cities being used on a local road in Cape May County for the Parkway.

Specifically, Avalon Boulevard.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: shadyjay on October 02, 2023, 10:16:18 PM
Wow... what is the deal with that SB onramp? 
I see no visible obstructions that prohibit putting the ramp directly across from the SB offramp.  You know.  Like a normal interchange. 

Perhaps the OP was referring to the fact that control cities for onramp signage on the GSP aren't usually a thing.  Every onramp signage I've seen has only been the one shown a little farther up (with the up/right arrow and right side of sign angled).  Even a lot of guide signs which have the logo list the destination as "GS PARKWAY", or something similar.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2023, 12:53:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2023, 11:35:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 07:46:41 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/66WQe4FyhyYKtQxX7

This is interesting. Control cities being used on a local road in Cape May County for the Parkway.

What am I missing? Seems standard.


Not for the Parkway. Usually you get a small shields with the two directions and the infamous entry trapezoid. Very rare you get control cities in NJDOT fashion for the Parkway.

Even NJ 440 don't use them with the new sine salad in Woodbridge from the most recent resigning project. The SB 440 to SB Parkway has none even though Shore Points should be used there from one major highway to another.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on October 03, 2023, 07:58:17 PM
Route 440 is not the only place no destinations are shown for the GS Parkway at major highway interchanges. Another is I-80 in Saddle Brook which just shows North and South; period. Ditto for the I-280 interchange in East Orange and the I-78 interchange further south.

Maybe they are afraid that posting destinations will result in truckers following those signs onto the restricted Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on October 03, 2023, 08:08:59 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 02, 2023, 10:16:18 PM
Wow... what is the deal with that SB onramp? 
I see no visible obstructions that prohibit putting the ramp directly across from the SB offramp.  You know.  Like a normal interchange. 


Wasn't it mentioned way way up thread that the weird ramp pattern at exit 13 had to do with that stretch of the GSP originally being two-lane?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2023, 08:29:59 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 03, 2023, 08:08:59 PM
Quote from: shadyjay on October 02, 2023, 10:16:18 PM
Wow... what is the deal with that SB onramp? 
I see no visible obstructions that prohibit putting the ramp directly across from the SB offramp.  You know.  Like a normal interchange. 


Wasn't it mentioned way way up thread that the weird ramp pattern at exit 13 had to do with that stretch of the GSP originally being two-lane?

It was, as is visible in the 1954 historicaerials.com photos.  However, it's fairly visible that numerous other interchanges were constructed in the 2 lane section either with the intention of being 4 lanes with ramps designed for such, or built properly with right hand exits when constructed to 4 lanes.  This ramp for whatever reason was not constructed to such standards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2023, 08:35:11 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on October 03, 2023, 07:58:17 PM
Route 440 is not the only place no destinations are shown for the GS Parkway at major highway interchanges. Another is I-80 in Saddle Brook which just shows North and South; period. Ditto for the I-280 interchange in East Orange and the I-78 interchange further south.

Maybe they are afraid that posting destinations will result in truckers following those signs onto the restricted Parkway.
Yup. The Garden State Parkway was never signed as a connecting freeway from other freeways. East Orange from I-280 signs it with Oraton Parkway ( is Service Road) and I-80 signs it with Saddle Brook, which is via an exit to Pehl Avenue. I-78 uses redundant text.   The New York Thruway uses New Jersey, as New York rarely likes to acknowledge that NJ has cities. Only recently was Newark added to I-95 in The Bronx as it was always New Jersey.

However, back to The Parkway, very rarely were control cities used for ramps including the original free NJDOT part in North Central Jersey.  Maybe a few like US 1 in Fords until the SB 130 to NB US 1 was added where Newark/ New York got removed when Newark was added as a 130 NB control city.

Toms River on NJ 37 did have them, but I believe it was because US 9 is concurrent with it there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 03, 2023, 08:53:18 PM
NJDOT is randomly adding control cites on new signs for the GSP (and Turnpike for that matter). New signs at US-22 have Woodbridge on them for the GSP South. I prefer that to their other new trend of spelling out "Garden State Parkway" on signs that were never sized for it. The shield along with "G S Parkway" is distinctive enough!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2023, 10:26:52 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 03, 2023, 08:53:18 PM
NJDOT is randomly adding control cites on new signs for the GSP (and Turnpike for that matter). New signs at US-22 have Woodbridge on them for the GSP South. I prefer that to their other new trend of spelling out "Garden State Parkway" on signs that were never sized for it. The shield along with "G S Parkway" is distinctive enough!

I know the NJ70/ CR 528 reconfiguration project added Toms River and Woodbridge to the ramps to the GSP from Route 70.  Also on US 9 in Pleasant Plains control cities were added for the ramp taking US 9 south onto the Parkway as a different project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on October 04, 2023, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2023, 12:53:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2023, 11:35:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 07:46:41 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/66WQe4FyhyYKtQxX7

This is interesting. Control cities being used on a local road in Cape May County for the Parkway.

What am I missing? Seems standard.


Not for the Parkway. Usually you get a small shields with the two directions and the infamous entry trapezoid. Very rare you get control cities in NJDOT fashion for the Parkway.

Even NJ 440 don't use them with the new sine salad in Woodbridge from the most recent resigning project. The SB 440 to SB Parkway has none even though Shore Points should be used there from one major highway to another.

I never thought of that trapezoid as infamous.  But if the NJHA thought that the trapezoid was designed to "say" "Garden State Parkway", they shot a brick.  Square or rectangular signs at the entrances would have done the job just as well.  That said, I don't have an opinion on the gargantuan green keystones at the PA Turnpike's entrances, but that's for that thread.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 04, 2023, 02:58:23 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 04, 2023, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 03, 2023, 12:53:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2023, 11:35:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 02, 2023, 07:46:41 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/66WQe4FyhyYKtQxX7

This is interesting. Control cities being used on a local road in Cape May County for the Parkway.

What am I missing? Seems standard.


Not for the Parkway. Usually you get a small shields with the two directions and the infamous entry trapezoid. Very rare you get control cities in NJDOT fashion for the Parkway.

Even NJ 440 don't use them with the new sine salad in Woodbridge from the most recent resigning project. The SB 440 to SB Parkway has none even though Shore Points should be used there from one major highway to another.

I never thought of that trapezoid as infamous.  But if the NJHA thought that the trapezoid was designed to "say" "Garden State Parkway", they shot a brick.  Square or rectangular signs at the entrances would have done the job just as well.  That said, I don't have an opinion on the gargantuan green keystones at the PA Turnpike's entrances, but that's for that thread.

I'm rather fond of those signs. They're unique and part of New Jersey just like the old Turnpike signs they were forced to give up.  I used infamous to be friendly sarcastic as I didn't know what else to say as they're only famous to us. Non road enthusiasts couldn't care less what kind of sign is used.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on December 10, 2023, 08:56:14 PM
On the NJ Tpk. thread it was theorized that the toll gates on the nb off ramp and sb on ramp at GSP exit 4 (NJ 47) were designed to soak the motorists headed between the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Wildwoods.  Did the tolls at exit 4 exist prior to 1964?  The CMLF didn't begin service until the summer of 1964, almost a decade after the Parkway opened.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on December 10, 2023, 09:46:56 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 10, 2023, 08:56:14 PM
On the NJ Tpk. thread it was theorized that the toll gates on the nb off ramp and sb on ramp at GSP exit 4 (NJ 47) were designed to soak the motorists headed between the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Wildwoods.  Did the tolls at exit 4 exist prior to 1964?  The CMLF didn't begin service until the summer of 1964, almost a decade after the Parkway opened.

This is an interesting theory, as those ramps didn't exist prior to the CMLF opening. According to Historic Aerials they were built between '63 and '70, so the case could be made that they were in fact trying to squeeze ferry traffic, or they were just attempting to subsidize the cost of the ramps themselves.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 10, 2023, 11:50:18 PM
Florida done that with an exit on I-4. You had 50 and 51 and you brought up a new interchange in between that received Exit 51 A going now Exits 50, 51A, and 51.

Now the mile based scheme changed that but 51A and 51 are part of Exit 101 being you have a two mile long collector distribution system and FL 417/429 among that since.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2023, 12:43:07 AM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on December 10, 2023, 09:46:56 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 10, 2023, 08:56:14 PM
On the NJ Tpk. thread it was theorized that the toll gates on the nb off ramp and sb on ramp at GSP exit 4 (NJ 47) were designed to soak the motorists headed between the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Wildwoods.  Did the tolls at exit 4 exist prior to 1964?  The CMLF didn't begin service until the summer of 1964, almost a decade after the Parkway opened.

This is an interesting theory, as those ramps didn't exist prior to the CMLF opening. According to Historic Aerials they were built between '63 and '70, so the case could be made that they were in fact trying to squeeze ferry traffic, or they were just attempting to subsidize the cost of the ramps themselves.

Trying to do a perusal of the Internet looking for stories from 1963-1970, it's coming up blank regarding the interchange.

The intersection with (today's) NJ 109 and US 9, slightly to the west, received a substantial upgrade around the time of the Ferry's opening, making it easier to use US 9 North to NJ 47 to get to Wildwood.

However, at Exit 0, it's a reminder that the original interchange wasn't improved upon around the Ferry's opening.  The main throughput had sent traffic on Shore Road towards Cape May with a small median cutout to turn north as if it was a secondary thought.  Not only was this condition never improved upon when the Ferry opened, it remained in its original condition until 2014 when it finally received a much-needed revision. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 11, 2023, 03:19:51 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek2500 on December 10, 2023, 09:46:56 PM
Quote from: ixnay on December 10, 2023, 08:56:14 PM
On the NJ Tpk. thread it was theorized that the toll gates on the nb off ramp and sb on ramp at GSP exit 4 (NJ 47) were designed to soak the motorists headed between the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and the Wildwoods.  Did the tolls at exit 4 exist prior to 1964?  The CMLF didn't begin service until the summer of 1964, almost a decade after the Parkway opened.

This is an interesting theory, as those ramps didn't exist prior to the CMLF opening. According to Historic Aerials they were built between '63 and '70, so the case could be made that they were in fact trying to squeeze ferry traffic, or they were just attempting to subsidize the cost of the ramps themselves.

Considering you travel further north and can exit for free before the CM Mainline Plaza. Now I'm surprised that they didn't put tolls on the new ramps to replace the at grades, but like from 129-140 and 80-83 where in 1986 when the Parkway assumed maintenance of the three original Parkway sections, that they also had the same deal where ramp tolls could never be put up if they assumed control. In Northern Middlesex and Union County who never paid tolls on ramps, there was concern about people never paying a toll for forty years would all of a sudden be charged tolls. So the state looked after its people and put a stipulation in effect during the sale.  Most likely that deal covered all state sections and not just two. Unlike Exit 74 that did add ramp tolls as well as SB Exit 77 who have tolls to defray the costs of those ramps. For decades Lacey Road was free until the interchange got improved due to queues from the former traffic signal at the ramp end spilled out onto the Parkway itself along with NB Parkway users cutting through the service area to access Lacey Road which prior to the nineties had no ramp. So the Authority was able to grant a ramp toll to defray the construction to ease burden on the other tolls.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 26, 2024, 10:18:00 PM
This is related to a discussion in the NJ Turnpike thread, but this issue applies specifically to the G.S. Parkway. I recently discovered that on the Parkway at some exits (notably 163 northbound) unbelievably there is no (BGS) sign at the beginning of the long deceleration lane. Last advance sign is 1/2 mile back. And what's worse is the new (2023) MUTCD actually permits this practice. (Pages 305, 316, Sec. 2E-25-05). On page 305 the graphic surprisingly shows the last advance sign as far back as 1 mile before an unsigned decel. lane. The new Manual recommends (not a standard) that if the exit direction sign is mounted overhead, then it should be in vicinity of the theoretical gore, not at the beginning of the decel. lane.

However, on the Parkway it's located at different spots at different exits. At some locations, it is at the beginning of the decel. lane, consistent with common sense, but contrary to the Manual's guidance. And in some places it's built halfway down the decel. lane. I guess where they put it depends on different factors such as curves, overpasses, etc.

I think a sign at the beginning of a parallel (not tapered) deceleration lane should be required. At least on the Turnpike, they have a 1/4 mile sign. Can't imagine why they didn't follow the same practice on the G.S. Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 10:25:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 26, 2024, 10:18:00 PMCan't imagine why they didn't follow the same practice on the G.S. Parkway.

There's a lot of differences between the two toll roads.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 27, 2024, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2024, 10:25:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 26, 2024, 10:18:00 PMCan't imagine why they didn't follow the same practice on the G.S. Parkway.

There's a lot of differences between the two toll roads.

Well that's true, but I can't understand why the smart signing practice used on the Turnpike wasn't also used on the Parkway. Hoping someone here can shed some light.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 29, 2024, 12:13:49 PM
You know what's really interesting is that at the start of the deceleration lane you get the quarter mile guide, like was just posted.  However, I think they should post an upward angle arrow instead and still leave the at exit guide as it despite redundancy.

The problem is the NJTA didn't want to erect new gantries when they changed out the signs, so they just added these as an ad lib thing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 29, 2024, 09:22:23 PM
Roadman65, the practice you suggest, having two exit direction signs seems to be prohibited in the new 2023 MUTCD. Though it's not written as an actual  standard, on P.328, Fig. 2E-23 it says you can't have both a ground-mounted and an overhead E/D sign. Though it doesn't prohibit two overhead signs. Go figure.

More and more I'm starting to disagree with a lot of the guidance in the Manual. Some of it just seems to defy common sense. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 30, 2024, 12:36:33 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 29, 2024, 09:22:23 PM
Roadman65, the practice you suggest, having two exit direction signs seems to be prohibited in the new 2023 MUTCD. Though it's not written as an actual  standard, on P.328, Fig. 2E-23 it says you can't have both a ground-mounted and an overhead E/D sign. Though it doesn't prohibit two overhead signs. Go figure.

More and more I'm starting to disagree with a lot of the guidance in the Manual. Some of it just seems to defy common sense. 

Yet some interchanges in Florida have two sets of at exit guides.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51189960702
Here's one in Hillsborough County.

Here are two others in Osceola County.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/14014863802/in/album-72157632301418857/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/14030756852
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 30, 2024, 08:00:07 PM
Interesting! Yes, the photo in Hillsborough County is a perfect example of what the new Manual says not to do. LOL But if Florida uses its own separate Manual or uses the Federal Manual along with a state supplement (like New York) they may have a provision allowing this practice.

Your two other photos from Osceola County are not applicable to this issue. They involve a lane-drop exit which is covered by a different set of standards in the Manual. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2024, 08:40:37 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 30, 2024, 08:00:07 PM
Interesting! Yes, the photo in Hillsborough County is a perfect example of what the new Manual says not to do. LOL But if Florida uses its own separate Manual or uses the Federal Manual along with a state supplement (like New York) they may have a provision allowing this practice.

If it's prohibited only in the new manual, then it was acceptable previously, so they're fine as it based on previous guides.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 30, 2024, 09:43:41 PM
You are correct J&N. The 2009 Manual didn't really address that issue. The 2023 Manual expands a lot on BGS spec's. with a lot of new graphics and specific guidance. And again, some of which I think is poorly thought out.

One thing they did expand on effectively though is allowing partial width Arrow-per-lane overhead signs, which allow the sign to just govern the two right lanes instead of the entire roadway width. Interestingly, G.S. Parkway already had at least one sign like that northbound, just north of the Union Toll Plaza at the I-78 interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 30, 2024, 10:03:58 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 30, 2024, 08:00:07 PM
Interesting! Yes, the photo in Hillsborough County is a perfect example of what the new Manual says not to do. LOL But if Florida uses its own separate Manual or uses the Federal Manual along with a state supplement (like New York) they may have a provision allowing this practice.

Your two other photos from Osceola County are not applicable to this issue. They involve a lane-drop exit which is covered by a different set of standards in the Manual. 

Then Florida also in violation taking down the old guides at I-4 exits 27 and 41 as the FTE replaced the at exit with new ones stating the SunPass Only or Pay By Plate since cash was eliminated in 2022. The problem is you have the new and the old ones together at both interchanges for Polk Parkway and the contractor is in no hurry to remove the old ones, that is if removal of the old was in the contract in the first place.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 31, 2024, 01:59:48 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 30, 2024, 09:43:41 PM
You are correct J&N. The 2009 Manual didn't really address that issue. The 2023 Manual expands a lot on BGS spec's. with a lot of new graphics and specific guidance. And again, some of which I think is poorly thought out.

One thing they did expand on effectively though is allowing partial width Arrow-per-lane overhead signs, which allow the sign to just govern the two right lanes instead of the entire roadway width. Interestingly, G.S. Parkway already had at least one sign like that northbound, just north of the Union Toll Plaza at the I-78 interchange.

They had a few. The signs for the new SB Exit 125 ramp utilize them (https://maps.app.goo.gl/npEbcQyMxrManFL7A). They started these around 2008-09 (the one at 142C is from when they built the Parkway-78 missing moves ramps).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on February 01, 2024, 12:19:50 AM
3% toll hike on the Parkway starting on March 1st (it's been approved by Gov. Murphy)... Going up another 5 cents!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 01, 2024, 07:10:59 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 31, 2024, 01:59:48 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on January 30, 2024, 09:43:41 PM
You are correct J&N. The 2009 Manual didn't really address that issue. The 2023 Manual expands a lot on BGS spec's. with a lot of new graphics and specific guidance. And again, some of which I think is poorly thought out.

One thing they did expand on effectively though is allowing partial width Arrow-per-lane overhead signs, which allow the sign to just govern the two right lanes instead of the entire roadway width. Interestingly, G.S. Parkway already had at least one sign like that northbound, just north of the Union Toll Plaza at the I-78 interchange.

They had a few. The signs for the new SB Exit 125 ramp utilize them (https://maps.app.goo.gl/npEbcQyMxrManFL7A). They started these around 2008-09 (the one at 142C is from when they built the Parkway-78 missing moves ramps).

https://maps.app.goo.gl/dBiJpMcQ9NtQpJen7

Here is another one SB at I-80.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: boilerup25 on March 07, 2024, 10:38:16 PM
Unrelated discussion, but there is a sign, specifically a lack thereof, on a Parkway exit ramp that bothers me for some reason. On Exit 127 NB, at the gore split between the ramp for US 9 NB and NJ 440, the NJ 440 overhead sign only indicates NJ 440 SB to I-287 NB / Raritan Center, when there is also access to NJ 440 NB to Perth Amboy and Staten Island. This is particularly egregious because the previous and following signs all indicate access to NJ 440 NB, but the overheads at the gore do not. This made navigating the exit somewhat confusing.

Sign (for NJ 440 SB) & lack thereof (for NJ 440 NB) in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5197851,-74.3002727,3a,75y,19.1h,96.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFLc6HPWi6XuLJyFHcZ-iKw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DFLc6HPWi6XuLJyFHcZ-iKw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.06886%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign immediately following the US 9 NB / NJ 440 ramp split gore along the ramp to NJ 440 (signs for both directions of 440):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5205312,-74.2994639,3a,75y,62.56h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8w_MsbzbsOkqwCd3CHSPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign before the split:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5183958,-74.3007224,3a,64.3y,18.28h,96.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cAPDC25_JvOJcbDo8IhpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign along the NB C-D road before Exit 127:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5163505,-74.300889,3a,26.1y,356.06h,97.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBfWbsYjQBGn11OV3APLPSw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I know it seems like a minor issue, but I just wanted to ask why NJ 440 NB hasn't been properly signed at the US 9-NJ 440 ramp split on the overheads.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 08, 2024, 04:31:55 PM
Quote from: boilerup25 on March 07, 2024, 10:38:16 PM
Unrelated discussion, but there is a sign, specifically a lack thereof, on a Parkway exit ramp that bothers me for some reason. On Exit 127 NB, at the gore split between the ramp for US 9 NB and NJ 440, the NJ 440 overhead sign only indicates NJ 440 SB to I-287 NB / Raritan Center, when there is also access to NJ 440 NB to Perth Amboy and Staten Island. This is particularly egregious because the previous and following signs all indicate access to NJ 440 NB, but the overheads at the gore do not. This made navigating the exit somewhat confusing.

Sign (for NJ 440 SB) & lack thereof (for NJ 440 NB) in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5197851,-74.3002727,3a,75y,19.1h,96.36t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFLc6HPWi6XuLJyFHcZ-iKw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DFLc6HPWi6XuLJyFHcZ-iKw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.06886%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign immediately following the US 9 NB / NJ 440 ramp split gore along the ramp to NJ 440 (signs for both directions of 440):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5205312,-74.2994639,3a,75y,62.56h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8w_MsbzbsOkqwCd3CHSPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign before the split:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5183958,-74.3007224,3a,64.3y,18.28h,96.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7cAPDC25_JvOJcbDo8IhpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Sign along the NB C-D road before Exit 127:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5163505,-74.300889,3a,26.1y,356.06h,97.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBfWbsYjQBGn11OV3APLPSw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I know it seems like a minor issue, but I just wanted to ask why NJ 440 NB hasn't been properly signed at the US 9-NJ 440 ramp split on the overheads.
Seems like an oversight, since the previous sign had 440 North on the far right on a separate sign - should have also been at the exit, but that would turn that into a full span instead of a cantilever. Don't blame me!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 08, 2024, 08:10:03 PM
I think NJDOT's answer would be that the sign prior to the split in question instructs you to "Keep Right" for 440-North, Perth Amboy, Staten Island. And that if you follow that instruction it will carry you thru the split where the sign is "missing" to the next split where there is a 440-North sign.

Though I am not a fan of some NJDOT signing practices even I have to admit that this area is very complex with a lot of routes and route numbers. And I guess NJDOT did the best they could in this case.

On the other hand, one could argue that this route to Staten Island is used by a lot of traffic going to Brooklyn and Long Island and maybe should have been given a little higher priority in the signing.

I have traveled the route in question and I don't recall having had a problem navigating it so I guess it works the way they signed it.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 09, 2024, 07:54:10 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 08, 2024, 08:10:03 PM
I think NJDOT's answer would be that the sign prior to the split in question instructs you to "Keep Right" for 440-North, Perth Amboy, Staten Island. And that if you follow that instruction it will carry you thru the split where the sign is "missing" to the next split where there is a 440-North sign.

Though I am not a fan of some NJDOT signing practices even I have to admit that this area is very complex with a lot of routes and route numbers. And I guess NJDOT did the best they could in this case.

On the other hand, one could argue that this route to Staten Island is used by a lot of traffic going to Brooklyn and Long Island and maybe should have been given a little higher priority in the signing.

I have traveled the route in question and I don't recall having had a problem navigating it so I guess it works the way they signed it.



It used to not sign it exclusively for NJ 440 SB. Originally it was signed with a NJ 440 and an I-287 shield ( no directions) and Perth Amboy/ Staten Island. Raritan Center wasn't a signed place of interest then, so SB 440 had no control cities hence only Perth Amboy and Staten Island.

This new setup was implemented in the nineties but those cantilever signs were added rather recently as before were normal metal poles supporting them. https://maps.app.goo.gl/r7oNcqR7LKusnJQ78  Between 2015 and 2018 per Street view.

IMO the split should have one panel partitioned with a SB 440 and TO I-287 on the left with an arrow and a NB 440 on the right with another arrow.  Control cities are covered well on the earlier signs and would take up to much space but still control the route movements.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 11, 2024, 03:01:00 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 08, 2024, 08:10:03 PM
I think NJDOT's answer would be that the sign prior to the split in question instructs you to "Keep Right" for 440-North, Perth Amboy, Staten Island. And that if you follow that instruction it will carry you thru the split where the sign is "missing" to the next split where there is a 440-North sign.

Though I am not a fan of some NJDOT signing practices even I have to admit that this area is very complex with a lot of routes and route numbers. And I guess NJDOT did the best they could in this case.

On the other hand, one could argue that this route to Staten Island is used by a lot of traffic going to Brooklyn and Long Island and maybe should have been given a little higher priority in the signing.

I have traveled the route in question and I don't recall having had a problem navigating it so I guess it works the way they signed it.



In this case, it's actually Turnpike Authority signage and has been for a while. The pre-rusted structures are the dead giveaway. These signs were replaced in late 2015-early 2016 or thereabouts as part of the overall signage upgrade/replacement project that the Turnpike Authority overtook on the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on March 11, 2024, 07:57:04 PM
Thanks for pointing that out storm2k. I should have realized myself that it was Turnpike authority signing, not NJDOT. Getting slow in my old age.