New Jersey Turnpike

[PHLBOS]

On maps, I've never seen the NJ portion of the PATP/NJTP connector signed as I-276.

In the past, there have been one or two TO 276 trailblazer signs posted along the westbound Connector median.  That's been about it.

[SteveG1988]

With MA going to mile based exits...and citing a federal timeline, is that something the NJ turnpike is going to be doing? i know Steve Alps cannot really say much here.

[Alps]

With MA going to mile based exits...and citing a federal timeline, is that something the NJ turnpike is going to be doing? i know Steve Alps cannot really say much here.

Since you called me out... There is no Federal timeline I'm aware of. I haven't heard of the FHWA threatening a single state to do any of this. It was supposed to be done by now, and states are complying because the MUTCD says to. At least outwardly. It's possible that someone at FHWA gave MA and NH a buzz and made them get in line. That could be what it'll take for anyone who still is sequential at this point.

[SteveG1988]

With MA going to mile based exits...and citing a federal timeline, is that something the NJ turnpike is going to be doing? i know Steve Alps cannot really say much here.

Since you called me out... There is no Federal timeline I'm aware of. I haven't heard of the FHWA threatening a single state to do any of this. It was supposed to be done by now, and states are complying because the MUTCD says to. At least outwardly. It's possible that someone at FHWA gave MA and NH a buzz and made them get in line. That could be what it'll take for anyone who still is sequential at this point.

I knew you would have the answer. Thanks for chiming in. Yeah one article had like a 2024 or something timeline.

[Rothman]

Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding.  Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.

[J3ebrules]

Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding.  Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.

I do not believe it does. It was originally supposed to become toll-free once the tolls paid for its construction, as per some 1950's literature on it; however, because the tolls pay for its maintenance and policing, they remained. It simply does not need federal funding.

[NJRoadfan]

The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.

[Alps]

The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.

I don't know that it does or doesn't. Do you know of a project that uses Federal funds up there since the takeover?

[NJRoadfan]

Don't know any specifically offhand, but the road was built by NJDOT using Interstate Highway federal funding and is eligible for maintenance funding. It would not be unusual for a toll authority to take federal grants in NJ. The GSP received federal funding for the Cape May traffic light elimination project since it was on a "free" section built by NJDOT.

[jeffandnicole]

Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding.  Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.

I do not believe it does. It was originally supposed to become toll-free once the tolls paid for its construction, as per some 1950's literature on it; however, because the tolls pay for its maintenance and policing, they remained. It simply does not need federal funding.

Have any links or pics of said literature?  Lots of people claim that the tolls were to be eliminated; no one has ever cited proof.

Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding.  Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.

There are countless roads that don't receive federal funding, but still have to abide by normal rules.  Most developments and township roads are funded thru local taxes, but yet put up a sign that doesn't fit the MUTCD guidelines and there's some people in these road groups that nearly have heart attacks and practically pronounce that those signs are illegal and you're free to drive as stupidly as you want.

[SignBridge]

Wasn't the reason the NJTA started converting to MUTCD spec BGS's because of some sort of threat re: holding back Federal highway funds?

[J3ebrules]

Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding.  Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.

I do not believe it does. It was originally supposed to become toll-free once the tolls paid for its construction, as per some 1950's literature on it; however, because the tolls pay for its maintenance and policing, they remained. It simply does not need federal funding.

Have any links or pics of said literature?  Lots of people claim that the tolls were to be eliminated; no one has ever cited proof.

So, I found this brochure from 1950 on mapmaker.rutgers.edu. I zoomed into the portion in the bottom right where it talks about its funding and how it will eventually be "turned over to the state" . Now, it may be an incorrect interpretation that this means it was to become a free road, but I cannot think of any other way to interpret it given the context. Also, I feel like I read about it becoming free somewhere else as well, but this came to mind immediately.

[J3ebrules]

Also, here's a link to the front of this brochure, apropos of nothing, for whoever is interested in the original map and toll schedule.

https://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/NJTurnpike_ca1950.jpg

Fun fact! Driving the full length of the N.J. Turnpike today is CHEAPER, given inflation, than it was when it opened in 1951. which was $1.75. USinflationcalculator.com and westegg.com peg that as between $17.11 and $17.32 today.

The current rate to drive the length of the Turnpike (in a passenger car) is $13.85.

[Beltway]

So, I found this brochure from 1950 on mapmaker.rutgers.edu. I zoomed into the portion in the bottom right where it talks about its funding and how it will eventually be "turned over to the state" .

So even upon opening they had plans for "early expansion" (6 laning) between Woodbridge and Camden.

Seems like if the need was so near in the future, they should have built it with 6 lanes initially.

[NJRoadfan]

Later versions of the booklet, like the 1955 one (presumed since it had 1954 stats in it) I have scanned changed the statement:
Q:"What happens when the bonds are paid off?"

A:"The law provides that the Turnpike be turned over to the State for inclusion into the state highway system"

Going by the photos, the road was already widened by then with 6 lanes from Woodbridge to the Lincoln Tunnel complete with the short dual-dual section near Elizabeth. There is a statement that 6 lanes were being extended down to Exit 3 and up to Exit 18. Also the Penn. Turnpike and Newark-Bay Extensions were under construction. The full length car toll was still $1.75.

[J3ebrules]

Later versions of the booklet, like the 1955 one (presumed since it had 1954 stats in it) I have scanned changed the statement:
Q:"What happens when the bonds are paid off?"

A:"The law provides that the Turnpike be turned over to the State for inclusion into the state highway system"

Going by the photos, the road was already widened by then with 6 lanes from Woodbridge to the Lincoln Tunnel complete with the short dual-dual section near Elizabeth. There is a statement that 6 lanes were being extended down to Exit 3 and up to Exit 18. Also the Penn. Turnpike and Newark-Bay Extensions were under construction. The full length car toll was still $1.75.

Ooh! Do you happen to have a public link to that booklet? I LOVE reading that stuff.

[Beltway]

Later versions of the booklet, like the 1955 one (presumed since it had 1954 stats in it) I have scanned changed the statement:
Q:"What happens when the bonds are paid off?"
A:"The law provides that the Turnpike be turned over to the State for inclusion into the state highway system"

They could have worded that better.

The brochure made it clear that NJTA is a state agency itself.

What they meant to say was that after the bonds were paid off, that the NJTA and the Turnpike could be absorbed into NJDOT (or NJ Highway Department or whatever it was called in 1951).

[PHLBOS]

The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.

While the current numbers for that stretch are indeed mile-marker-based; such aren't with respect to the current I-95 routing in NJ.  I-95's numbers would be about 3 to 4 higher than the current numbers depending on interchange. 

In the past, there's been a back-and-forth debate on these forums/message boards regarding whether such are with respect to I-80's mileage (even though there's no concurrency despite of what's been listed on past road maps) or with respect to the pre-1982 routing of I-95 that utilized a portion of I-287 as well as the never-built Somerset Freeway.

[bluecountry]

Later versions of the booklet, like the 1955 one (presumed since it had 1954 stats in it) I have scanned changed the statement:
Q:"What happens when the bonds are paid off?"

A:"The law provides that the Turnpike be turned over to the State for inclusion into the state highway system"

Going by the photos, the road was already widened by then with 6 lanes from Woodbridge to the Lincoln Tunnel complete with the short dual-dual section near Elizabeth. There is a statement that 6 lanes were being extended down to Exit 3 and up to Exit 18. Also the Penn. Turnpike and Newark-Bay Extensions were under construction. The full length car toll was still $1.75.

I'm guessing $$$$$

[bluecountry]

The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.

While the current numbers for that stretch are indeed mile-marker-based; such aren't with respect to the current I-95 routing in NJ.  I-95's numbers would be about 3 to 4 higher than the current numbers depending on interchange. 

In the past, there's been a back-and-forth debate on these forums/message boards regarding whether such are with respect to I-80's mileage (even though there's no concurrency despite of what's been listed on past road maps) or with respect to the pre-1982 routing of I-95 that utilized a portion of I-287 as well as the never-built Somerset Freeway.

Yea after the final toll on the northbound NJTP, the exits have different #s like 72 and so fourth.
I always have been confused, does those correspond to
a. Mileage of I-95 in NJ
b. Mileage of I-80 in NJ
c. Just the sequential exits off I-80 in NJ

[jeffandnicole]

The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.

While the current numbers for that stretch are indeed mile-marker-based; such aren't with respect to the current I-95 routing in NJ.  I-95's numbers would be about 3 to 4 higher than the current numbers depending on interchange. 

In the past, there's been a back-and-forth debate on these forums/message boards regarding whether such are with respect to I-80's mileage (even though there's no concurrency despite of what's been listed on past road maps) or with respect to the pre-1982 routing of I-95 that utilized a portion of I-287 as well as the never-built Somerset Freeway.

Yea after the final toll on the northbound NJTP, the exits have different #s like 72 and so fourth.
I always have been confused, does those correspond to
a. Mileage of I-95 in NJ
b. Mileage of I-80 in NJ
c. Just the sequential exits off I-80 in NJ

You literally responded to the answer to your questions.

[cl94]

Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.

[PHLBOS]

Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.

That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector.  The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.

[bluecountry]

Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.

That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector.  The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.

Yea...they really need to change the EXITS on I-95 north of Exit 18, and as well the mileposts.
Like the exit is 73 (I suppose corresponding to the Somerset Expressway NOT the NJTP, I-95, or I-80), but the mile markers still correspond to the NJTP.

Needs fixed, and also lets get rid of Trenton as the directional city and put in Philadelphia.
A few more mileage indicators for Philly, especially at Exit 6, would be helpful.

I find it so odd that the Molly Pitcher is actually halfway between NYC and Philly, never knew until they recently put up the 'Philly 51 miles' after exit 9 on mile 81.

[jeffandnicole]

Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.

That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector.  The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.

Really?  Changing exit numbers to comply with an undesignated, unsigned route should've been the priority?  And they're off, what, 3 or 4 miles from the new reality? 

Until the NJTA actually changes the exit numbers on the Turnpike (if they ever do), there's no real reason to change the exit numbers in question here.  Because playing with everyone's "Assuming What If" scenarios, ultimately we don't know if the NJ Turnpike will revise their exit numbering system to be mileage based from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to I-80, or from the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge to I-80.  (We don't need to recap everyone's opinion of what should be done)

Being that mileage based exits are most useful to figure out how the distance between 2 points, the fact that they're in line with themselves now is good enough.  Trying to figure out the distance from NJ Turnpike Exit 13 to I-95 Exit 72 doesn't calculate properly, nor would it work if just exit numbers 69 - 73 were changed +/- 4.