New Jersey Turnpike

[cl94]

I'm almost surprised we've never seen "Philly" written on an official highway sign, as common of an abbreviation as it is when both spoken and written. 

Or, perhaps:

Yes! The Phillie Phanatic would be perfect, because everyone knows what he stands for

[NE2]

Looks like Oscar Voss.

[ekt8750]

"Wilmington" has no abbreviation

Wilm: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22wilm%22+delaware&tbm=nws

Port of Wilmington occasionally is displayed as Port of Wilm. The Wilm abbreviation is known locally in Delaware otherwise, but I would not advocate it as a mainline control city.

That brings up the whole debate as to whether 495 and 95 should simply swap in the Wilmington area but that's for another board in this forum.

[J Route Z]

Thought these videos of the Turnpike in the 1980s were interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irXF8OjM_8s

[KEVIN_224]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=680360295419015

IF this video works...it's from the Turnpike in East Brunswick, very next Exit 9 from US 1/NJ 18. It's some scary s--- to watch! (Related to the ice on Sunday morning)

[Zeffy]

Yep, there was plenty of ice around Somerset County, and two people in my family fell on it trying to walk down our flight of stairs because our apartment complex couldn't salt. The street behind me was a sheet of ice on Sunday morning.

Crazy shit, I've never actually witnessed an accident first-hand; not that I would want to.

[Mergingtraffic]

Not sure if this was covered else where but the video showing the tandem trailor jumping over the metal guard rail by Exit 9, is an amazing vid.

A couple thoughts:

1) The flimsy metal guardrail did nothing to stop him.  He went right over it. 

2) Armchair commenters on various news sites where this is posted finds fault with the truck driver saying he's going too fast. 

I was out that day and road conditions changed quickly.  Cloudy skies one minute, drizzle the next, freezing drizzle and glaze the next. What may seem safe at one minute can be treacherous at the next minute.  This could've happened to anybody.  Looks like everyone was caught off guard.  If he went 20mph that would also be a road hazard. Not saying you should zoom by at 65mpg on this day, but travel speeds are higher on the limited access roads than the side streets in any condition.

3) His driving skills were top notch, he avoided a lot of people. 

4) I feel for him as what started as a regular route changed his life in seconds.  Will he lose his job? Insurance premiums?  Loss of money for the ruined or delayed load?

PS (on a side note) "experts" also complained from their computer about this CT DOT truck saying he should've done this and this. 

[NJRoadfan]

The truck looks like it was empty, chances are if it had a load it would have tipped over. Looks like it was a classic case of "bridge freezes before roadway". That accident was just south of the bridge over the Raritan River. The roadway was likely fine, but the bridge froze over. Things could have been much worse, there could have been a truck in the river.

[Alps]

It's "guiderail", not "guardrail". Unless you construct it 8 feet tall with 20 beams, it's not going to stop a sideways truck. It can only guide vehicles within a reasonable height of the rail itself, and that's "guide", not "guard," meaning that they could still make it through or over. The rail did its best. Note that opposite directions of traffic are separated by a concrete barrier, which is quite a bit harder to climb (taller and more rigid, so it won't flex and let itself be climbed). This guiderail separates same-direction lanes, which is why no one else was hit by the truck.

[NJRoadfan]

There was a car in the far left lane that looks like it was on fire. Chances are it was struck by the truck when it crossed the roadway, or hit it shortly thereafter.

[Roadrunner75]

There was a car in the far left lane that looks like it was on fire. Chances are it was struck by the truck when it crossed the roadway, or hit it shortly thereafter.

Looks like someone else hit the rear trailer to swing it around, after the collision with the car on fire.

I remember years ago (mid 90s) coming SB on the Turnpike at night for winter break at college.  It was really icy out, and I was taking it slow in my old Pinto wagon since it was particularly bad on the bridges.  I got down to the bridge over the Rancocas, and there had to be 10+ cars scattered this way and that all across the bridge.  I had to slowly zig zag through the mess (no police on the scene yet).  The worse thing was the people just standing out there in the middle of the travel lanes looking over the damage, as more people came zooming down on them.

[jeffandnicole]

There was a car in the far left lane that looks like it was on fire. Chances are it was struck by the truck when it crossed the roadway, or hit it shortly thereafter.

Looks like someone else hit the rear trailer to swing it around, after the collision with the car on fire.

I remember years ago (mid 90s) coming SB on the Turnpike at night for winter break at college.  It was really icy out, and I was taking it slow in my old Pinto wagon since it was particularly bad on the bridges.  I got down to the bridge over the Rancocas, and there had to be 10+ cars scattered this way and that all across the bridge.  I had to slowly zig zag through the mess (no police on the scene yet).  The worse thing was the people just standing out there in the middle of the travel lanes looking over the damage, as more people came zooming down on them.

In this same storm, a guy was killed on the Schuykill due to this very thing.

Amazing how people are completely clueless when it comes to things like this. Otherwise competent people can't understand that if they just slid out of control on an icy bridge, others are most likely going to do the same.

[Alps]

There was a car in the far left lane that looks like it was on fire. Chances are it was struck by the truck when it crossed the roadway, or hit it shortly thereafter.

I couldn't tell, but it looked like yellow headlights instead of a fire. *shrug*

[NJRoadfan]

Here is "part 2" showing the damaged cars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xh0wP1R2eY

Note, the driver should have never left his car. I'm surprised the trooper at the scene didn't tell him to leave immediately.

[D-Dey65]

They had no problem posting "Wilmington" on the southbound signs, so sign width likely wasn't an issue.

Stop it. Were they supposed to abbreviate it to Wilma and essentially legitimize the ridiculous practice of Phila across the river?  I'm sure this forum would have had nothing but accolades if Wilmington was abbreviated. It's called engineering judgment.

WILMA!!!!!!

[cpzilliacus]

It's "guiderail", not "guardrail". Unless you construct it 8 feet tall with 20 beams, it's not going to stop a sideways truck. It can only guide vehicles within a reasonable height of the rail itself, and that's "guide", not "guard," meaning that they could still make it through or over. The rail did its best. Note that opposite directions of traffic are separated by a concrete barrier, which is quite a bit harder to climb (taller and more rigid, so it won't flex and let itself be climbed). This guiderail separates same-direction lanes, which is why no one else was hit by the truck.

Comments like the above are great.  Thanks for sharing your insight.

I do find it curious that the Turnpike Authority has not been more aggressive at replacing its "W" beam guardrails (yes, that's what I call them, but your points above (including guiderail) are correct) with more-rigid Jersey wall-type concrete barriers, even between traffic running in the same direction - though the steel barriers are lots better than the flimsy fiberglass markers that are used to separate managed lanes from conventional lanes in Virginia and California (and probably other states).

But even in the case of concrete Jersey wall-type barriers, I have seen them breached by heavy trucks on the Capital Beltway and Baltimore Beltway and on at least one freeway in Southern California.  But even though they are breached, there appeared to be enough mass and strength in the wall to prevent a head-on crash, at least if the opposite direction of traffic has even a small amount of left-hand shoulder, as the truck or truck tractor will go partly through the wall and then be stopped.

Any opinion about the Ministry of Transportation-Ontario's Tall Wall, which is 1050 cm high, or better than 41 inches high?

[cl94]

It's "guiderail", not "guardrail". Unless you construct it 8 feet tall with 20 beams, it's not going to stop a sideways truck. It can only guide vehicles within a reasonable height of the rail itself, and that's "guide", not "guard," meaning that they could still make it through or over. The rail did its best. Note that opposite directions of traffic are separated by a concrete barrier, which is quite a bit harder to climb (taller and more rigid, so it won't flex and let itself be climbed). This guiderail separates same-direction lanes, which is why no one else was hit by the truck.

Comments like the above are great.  Thanks for sharing your insight.

I do find it curious that the Turnpike Authority has not been more aggressive at replacing its "W" beam guardrails (yes, that's what I call them, but your points above (including guiderail) are correct) with more-rigid Jersey wall-type concrete barriers, even between traffic running in the same direction - though the steel barriers are lots better than the flimsy fiberglass markers that are used to separate managed lanes from conventional lanes in Virginia and California (and probably other states).

But even in the case of concrete Jersey wall-type barriers, I have seen them breached by heavy trucks on the Capital Beltway and Baltimore Beltway and on at least one freeway in Southern California.  But even though they are breached, there appeared to be enough mass and strength in the wall to prevent a head-on crash, at least if the opposite direction of traffic has even a small amount of left-hand shoulder, as the truck or truck tractor will go partly through the wall and then be stopped.

Any opinion about the Ministry of Transportation-Ontario's Tall Wall, which is 1050 cm high, or better than 41 inches high?

For at least 10-15 years, New York has been using constant-slope barriers, which are approximately the same size but with a slightly-different shape. As a passenger, I didn't like that they blocked the view, but as a driver, I think they're great. The height blocks the headlights of oncoming vehicles, making night driving much safer. Driving on the QEW at night is great with the tall wall in the middle. Don't know about crash performance, but I'd infer that the additional 10 inches of reinforcement would make a difference.

[SignBridge]

Just to clarify, the correct term is guiderail as explained to me long ago by a New York State DOT engineer, though they are popularly known as guardrails.

I too was concerned by how easily that double-trailer truck jumped right over the rails. I guess they are designed for cars.........  Also we had an incident here on the Long Island Expwy. a few years ago where a semi-truck did breach the Jersey Wall. I was surprised that could happen though this was the shorter version than that used on the NJT.

[jeffandnicole]

Any opinion about the Ministry of Transportation-Ontario's Tall Wall, which is 1050 cm high, or better than 41 inches high?

The NJ Turnpike barrier is about 42" high, so it's probably roughly the same.

However, height is just one factor. Width and strength are equally as important. You could have a 6' high barrier, but make it paper thin and a tricycle could break thru it. The PA Turnpike has high but thin barriers, for example. The NJ Tpk barrier was designed to withstand a truck hitting it at a 15 degree angle at 55 mph.

The truck that ran over the guide rail did so at a sharp angle at a fast speed. But, it didn't cause the truck to overturn, which is important. And since the two roadways travel the same direction, something getting thru that barrier is more likely to cause a sideswipe, not a head-on collision.

The cost of concrete jersey barriers between two roadways traveling the same direction wouldn't really justify the small additional benefit they would deliver over the existing guide rail.

[ixnay]

I'm not going back through 34 posts, so forgive me for the following question...

Fines in NJ double in 65 mph zones (for speeding and other violations).  When conditions dictate a reduced speed limit in (normally) 65 mph zones on the NJTP, are fines still doubled in those zones although the speed limit of the moment in those stretches is <65?

ixnay

[jeffandnicole]

The actual law is:

65 mph zones: fines doubled when going 10 mph or over

All other zones: Fines doubled when going 20 mph or over.

Regarding the Turnpike: If the speed limit is reduced, it's due to snow or other inclement weather, and most likely a cop ain't going to stop you for going within 20 mph of that reduced limit. If the limit is reduced due to construction, the fine is automatically doubled anyway.

[NJRoadfan]

Don't forget safe corridors, fines are doubled no matter the limit.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't believe there are any safe corridors in the NJ Turnpike.

There is one on Rt 73. The sign still says "Starting Feb. 1, 2004" (or whatever date it displays). But it's at least 10 years old now.

[SignBridge]

Progress!  After years of woefully inadequate signing on the Eastern Leg Southbound at Exit 15E, a new set of MUTCD compliant overhead signs now exists at the Exit 15W split. It says something like Routes 1-9, Newark, Jersey City, exit  1 3/4 Miles. What a surprise. Unfortunately I was exiting at 15W, so I don't know if there are yet any other new 15E signs as you get closer to the exit. Anyone else driven that stretch recently? Must be very new. It doesn't even show on Google Earth yet.

[NE2]

"Routes 1-9" is MUTCD compliant?