New Jersey

[bzakharin]

There's a simple reason that there weren't interstate to toll road interchanges in many of these places.

From our friends at the FHWA talking about Breezewood:

> This peculiar arrangement occurred because of Section 113 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Under Section 113(b), Federal-aid funds could be used for approaches to any toll road, bridge, or tunnel "to a point where such project will have some use irrespective of its use for such toll road, bridge, or tunnel." In other words, a motorist could use the toll facility or not. Under Section 113 (c), the State highway agency and toll authority could use Federal-aid highway funds to build an interchange between a toll-free Interstate and an Interstate turnpike (i.e., the motorist would have no choice but to use the toll road). However, the State highway agency, the toll authority, and the BPR would have to enter into an agreement to stop collecting tolls when the bonds were retired.

> The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), which had no desire to stop collecting tolls, decided not to use the State's Federal-aid funds for the I-70 connection. The PTC also decided against using its own revenue for the interchanges.

It's why the interchange between 80 and the NE Extension technically goes thru an intermediary road. That was also evident in the interchange between 84 and the NY Thruway for so many years. That law has since been modified to allow this, obviously, but these are vestiges of it.

So wait, according to the above, the interchange between I-70 and US 30 was federally funded, but the interchange between US 30 and the PA turnpike still had to be paid for by the PTC, right? So what's the difference whether the PTC built an interchange with US 30 or with I-70 if they had to fund it themselves either way (and the same question would apply for I-95 via US 13, I-78 via US 22, and I-80 via PA 940)?

[roadman65]

I see the 1-9 thing is being used now for the US 40/322 overlap in Egg Harbor.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aY72Wh6Y7wj5PMnN7
40-322 inside a single shield just like 1-9 in North Jersey.

[odditude]

I see the 1-9 thing is being used now for the US 40/322 overlap in Egg Harbor.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aY72Wh6Y7wj5PMnN7
40-322 inside a single shield just like 1-9 in North Jersey.

that one belongs in Design Errors for other reasons, too - no border around the sign, unnecessary horizontal dividers, the directional being a colored placard instead of just text, insufficient spacing...

[SignBridge]

Although I too dislike the "1-9" shield, that's not as bad as the ones that display "1&9" which as you approach it looks like "189" creating more confusion. Separate shields should be used.

[storm2k]

I see the 1-9 thing is being used now for the US 40/322 overlap in Egg Harbor.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aY72Wh6Y7wj5PMnN7
40-322 inside a single shield just like 1-9 in North Jersey.

That is almost certainly a SJTA install, since it's at the entrance to ACY and that's their territory. SJTA is not exactly known for high quality signage that remotely approaches MUTCD compliance. If you poke around at other sign installs along that stretch of roadway, you'll see that NJDOT uses two shields for everything.