New Jersey

[famartin]

Perryville used to be a county road and I have a map showing that as being CR 635, probably the reason why today 625 and 635 both awkwardly end at the four-way intersection with 173.

Woah, Hunterdon used to use 2-digit county route numbers? The more you know

Probably was common in NJ before the 500/600 series development occurred in the 50s.

My understanding was that the 5xx series came with the 1953 renumbering since the 5xx routes function as a sort of state secondary highway system, but the 6xx standard came more towards the late 60s or early 70s?

You may be right. I'd assumed the series had been created simultaneously, but honestly I'm not sure.

[storm2k]

Drove through the construction they're doing on 440 between the Turnpike and Parkway today for the first time. It looks like there are sign structure changes incoming. It looks like this structure is going away, as NJDOT has a new cantilever sign structure for the Turnpike ramp, with the ubiquitous "destination" of NJ Turnpike. So it looks like there will be no further advance lane guidance signs for the 514 west ramp, which seems a bit of a bad idea, since the exit there is a lane drop and comes up very quickly past the ramp. Plus, no more advance sign for 514 east. I figured these structures needed to be replaced, as they're from the 1970s at least (the signs themselves were replaced in the early to mid-90s, although a couple of them were replaced subsequent to that--especially the 514 west signs, since they changed the destination from Bonhamtown to Raritan Center), but I would have figured NJDOT would request in-kind replacement of all 3 signs. I will try to get thru there at a future date to get some pictures and report on further signage changes.

[roadman65]

Drove through the construction they're doing on 440 between the Turnpike and Parkway today for the first time. It looks like there are sign structure changes incoming. It looks like this structure is going away, as NJDOT has a new cantilever sign structure for the Turnpike ramp, with the ubiquitous "destination" of NJ Turnpike. So it looks like there will be no further advance lane guidance signs for the 514 west ramp, which seems a bit of a bad idea, since the exit there is a lane drop and comes up very quickly past the ramp. Plus, no more advance sign for 514 east. I figured these structures needed to be replaced, as they're from the 1970s at least (the signs themselves were replaced in the early to mid-90s, although a couple of them were replaced subsequent to that--especially the 514 west signs, since they changed the destination from Bonhamtown to Raritan Center), but I would have figured NJDOT would request in-kind replacement of all 3 signs. I will try to get thru there at a future date to get some pictures and report on further signage changes.

Hope they add control cities for US 9 as it should really be such as South Amboy for it SB.

[Roadgeek Adam]

That entire stretch from 95 to 9 needs new signage. All of those signs have been around since I was a kid, save for the Industrial Highway rename to Riverside Drive.

[storm2k]

That entire stretch from 95 to 9 needs new signage. All of those signs have been around since I was a kid, save for the Industrial Highway rename to Riverside Drive.

Those signs were replaced around 1993 or 94, and their retroflectivity is still OK, so it's not pressing, but hopefully replacing these structures will allow for new signage that has some control cities on them (at least for Rt 9), since the current signs had to fit on the original 1970s vintage structures which had very small signs on them.

[Alps]

That entire stretch from 95 to 9 needs new signage. All of those signs have been around since I was a kid, save for the Industrial Highway rename to Riverside Drive.

Those signs were replaced around 1993 or 94, and their retroflectivity is still OK, so it's not pressing, but hopefully replacing these structures will allow for new signage that has some control cities on them (at least for Rt 9), since the current signs had to fit on the original 1970s vintage structures which had very small signs on them.

Their retroreflectivity is not still OK. Signs are guaranteed for 12 years. After more than 25 years, they just won't work right at night. Even if they still reflect light, you lose color contrast and other issues of aging emerge.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/4YX9yv72GrADUytp6

Why is NJ 29 here more important than the NJ Turnpike?  Why first of all is NJ 29 needed here anyway?

[famartin]

https://goo.gl/maps/4YX9yv72GrADUytp6

Why is NJ 29 here more important than the NJ Turnpike?  Why first of all is NJ 29 needed here anyway?

Good question, but they've done that all over I-195 in the last couple years.

[odditude]

Good question, but they've done that all over I-195 in the last couple years.
(bunch of pictures snipped)

thanks for all the pictures! i think all of those signs have been installed in the past 3.5 years or so - i don't remember seeing any of them before i moved out of the area. it's a strange decision - and even more so eastbound, i'd say, given how short 138 is.

[roadman65]

Should be the Parkway going EB. Short roads are not important  but the Parkway is as it serves the whole shore region.

[famartin]

Should be the Parkway going EB. Short roads are not important  but the Parkway is as it serves the whole shore region.

I'm going to disagree just on the grounds that how many people heading all the way west on I-195 are then going any significant distance on the parkway? For a short distance near the parkway, it may be useful, perhaps within 5-10 miles, but if you are further west, you are probably taking a different route unless your destination is not far north or south.

I-95/NJTP should be the control route for westbound I-195 from Six Flags to 95, and eastbound from I-295 to 95. I-295/NJ 29 should be the control route for I-195 westbound from 95 to I-295. Beyond those sections, I don't think a control route is necessary, just a control city (and Belmar/Trenton work just fine).

[akotchi]

(referencing photos above) This has probably been noted before, but I find the larger distances (> 2 miles) to the next interchange unusual.  "Next Exit x Miles" panels on the advance signs may have done better in these cases?

[jeffandnicole]

195 in NJ has always been an oddball.  For starters, the overpass supports are different than what was used in the rest of the state.

It's almost like, NJDOT just uses the road to experiment with different things.  Going back to what started this conversation...I don't necessary think the NJ Tpk & GSP Shields are necessary.  But really, the pull-thru signage shouldn't even mention 29 and 138 either.  They should simply be East/West 195. 

On top of that, neither exit sign for those two roads are technically correct.  The Parkway should be South 34 TO South GSP.  Minor, but a technicality.  The NJ Turnpike sign should have better destinations than New Jersey and Turnpike. :-)  If the argument is that the pull-thru signs should be 195 TO NJ Tpk, then the Exit sign should be relevant for people to know why they would want to use it.

The more recent mentions of the 3 & 6 Mile signs:  Correct...neither are necessary  3 Miles isn't an unusual far-off distance, and the destinations mentioned are 2 places most people not living in those 2 places have never heard of.  6 Miles is a bit further than normal between exits, but nothing too abnormal.  Even if NJDOT really felt they were needed, they could've just left off the pull-thru signage so everything wouldn't be so crowded.

[dgolub]

Good question, but they've done that all over I-195 in the last couple years.
(bunch of pictures snipped)

thanks for all the pictures! i think all of those signs have been installed in the past 3.5 years or so - i don't remember seeing any of them before i moved out of the area. it's a strange decision - and even more so eastbound, i'd say, given how short 138 is.

They're definitely newish.  My pictures are from 2015, and there's only one TO NJ 29 sign that was there at that point.  When the pandemic gets better, I'll need to take a trip down that way and reclinch it to get updated pictures.

[storm2k]

Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.



Also saw a new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.

[amroad17]

Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.



Also saw a new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.

Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs?  I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes?  At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.

[famartin]

Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.



Also saw a new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.

Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs?  I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes?  At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.

I'd like to fantasize that NJDOT just doesn't agree with NJTA's current control cities so isn't going to use them, but that's probably hoping for too much...

[roadman65]

Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.



Also saw new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.

Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs?  I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes?  At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.

I'd like to fantasize that NJDOT just doesn't agree with NJTA's current control cities so isn't going to use them, but that's probably hoping for too much...

Yet they use a Newark- Trenton for the previous exit at US 1 which should use more localized locations being the Turnpike is better route to those.

[storm2k]

Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.



Also saw new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.

Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs?  I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes?  At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.

I'd like to fantasize that NJDOT just doesn't agree with NJTA's current control cities so isn't going to use them, but that's probably hoping for too much...

Yet they use a Newark- Trenton for the previous exit at US 1 which should use more localized locations being the Turnpike is better route to those.

NJDOT has never used control cities for the toll roads. The name of the toll road is always the control city. It's been that way for as long as I can remember and I doubt it will ever change. As for the control cities for other roads, they've had certain ones that they've used for decades and seem unwilling to change as well. Reference how 22 and 46, for example, are not great ways to get to New York City, but most signs for them use those as control cities in LGS's. 46 has more local cities on signs for exits off 80, but LGSs all over 46 east of Dover are for New York. 22 ends in Newark, and while it feeds 1-9 on the way to the Skyway, but Newark would be a way better control city for 22 than New York. I would like to see 1 use Elizabeth, New Brunswick, and Princeton as intermediate control cities, but that doesn't seem to be likely to change either.

[famartin]

Went back thru the 440 construction today, was able to grab a picture of the new Turnpike exit sign.



Also saw new foundation for a sign structure on 440 SB at the Turnpike/514 exit. No other indications of new structures yet.

Why isn't NJDOT using control cities on the I-95/NJ Tpk exit signs?  I see the Turnpike logo on these signs along with New Jersey Turnpike spelled out--kind of redundant, yes?  At this interchange, NJDOT could use (1) Newark-Trenton or (2) New York-Philadelphia instead.

I'd like to fantasize that NJDOT just doesn't agree with NJTA's current control cities so isn't going to use them, but that's probably hoping for too much...

Yet they use a Newark- Trenton for the previous exit at US 1 which should use more localized locations being the Turnpike is better route to those.

NJDOT has never used control cities for the toll roads. The name of the toll road is always the control city. It's been that way for as long as I can remember and I doubt it will ever change. As for the control cities for other roads, they've had certain ones that they've used for decades and seem unwilling to change as well. Reference how 22 and 46, for example, are not great ways to get to New York City, but most signs for them use those as control cities in LGS's. 46 has more local cities on signs for exits off 80, but LGSs all over 46 east of Dover are for New York. 22 ends in Newark, and while it feeds 1-9 on the way to the Skyway, but Newark would be a way better control city for 22 than New York. I would like to see 1 use Elizabeth, New Brunswick, and Princeton as intermediate control cities, but that doesn't seem to be likely to change either.

Never say never...

[storm2k]

Never say never...

Some consistency would be nice, then. All sorts of new signage has been replaced everywhere else in the past couple of years and no other ones include actual control cities for the toll roads lol.

[roadman65]

Well now the Red Lion Circle won't be lying at the NB US 206 departing it as it always had New York as a control city there.

[storm2k]

Here's a return to one of those quirky NJDOT only things. Note the county shield in this sign:



The shield that says county without the corresponding county name above the route number is one of those old school NJDOT things that disappeared for a long time (for the longest, they just did the pentagon with just the number in it if anything). Now they brought this back. This, BTW, is on NJ-28 westbound in Raritan, at the northern end of CR567.

[famartin]

Unlike state and US route signs, which are pretty consistent from sign to sign (and only in the last few years have lost their black square backplates on sign assemblies), NJDOT has had ongoing inconsistencies with how they display county routes. Here are some examples on I-195 and I-295.






From a readability standpoint, I think the version with no words and a yellow backplate looks most readable, but that might just be me.

Immediately after I first posted this, it did occur to me that for 537 and 539 on I-195, it isn't feasible to use the county name since they are on county lines at those points. But certainly there are plenty of other examples where the county name is omitted.

[storm2k]

Unlike state and US route signs, which are pretty consistent from sign to sign (and only in the last few years have lost their black square backplates on sign assemblies), NJDOT has had ongoing inconsistencies with how they display county routes. Here are some examples on I-195 and I-295.






From a readability standpoint, I think the version with no words and a yellow backplate looks most readable, but that might just be me.

Immediately after I first posted this, it did occur to me that for 537 and 539 on I-195, it isn't feasible to use the county name since they are on county lines at those points. But certainly there are plenty of other examples where the county name is omitted.

I agree that the version with no text in it other than the number works best for non-reassurance shields. I wish they would be consistent about it though. Either no text, or the correct text with county names.