New Jersey

[jeffandnicole]

Complaining about misspelled signs on the side of bridges is silly enough. A news article is even dumber. I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges? 

A newspaper has countless numbers of spelling errors on a daily basis.  I hope they proofread the article a few times to be certain they're not doing any of their own within the article.

[MNHighwayMan]

I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?

* MNHighwayMan checks number of forum members

[jeffandnicole]

I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?

* MNHighwayMan checks number of forum members

[Alps]

Wait, what? A new I-78 overpass misspells Pattenburg Road

Take Exit 11 off Interstate 78 in New Jersey, and you might be headed for Pattenburg. That's what the signs say.

But if you continue on by, you pass under "Pattenbug Road." That's what the other, misspelled signs say.

Quality control, am I right?

Someone who can't spell is fabricating signs in Region 1.

[NJRoadfan]

What are NJDOT's regions anyway?

[ixnay]

What are NJDOT's regions anyway?

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/directory/northregion.shtm

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/directory/centralregion.shtm

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/directory/centralregion.shtm

ixnay

[Roadgeek Adam]

I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?

* MNHighwayMan checks number of forum members

I meant outside of us. We are a minority. A very loud minority.

[jeffandnicole]

I mean seriously, how many people are reading those little small signs on the side of bridges?

* MNHighwayMan checks number of forum members

I meant outside of us. We are a minority. A very loud minority.

Are you sure about that?  Anytime I've posted anything 'official' it seems to go completely untouched.  I've yet to hear anyone say "Hey, let's all go to a DOT public meeting".

And the people that point out the sign mis-spellings and go to the papers about it?  Don't think they have anything to do with this group.

[Pete from Boston]

Big, broad, open ended question: with the recent structural emergency on the Newark Bay Bridge, what's the general consensus about this bridge's lifespan?  Lots of other truss bridges in the New York area, some admittedly older, are being scrapped in favor of modern, safer alternatives.  Is this even on anyone's radar?

This is a new development, so I don't think there is a consensus. There have been options on the table to rehab this bridge and keep it with a parallel span (or spans), and there have been options to replace it entirely. The fact that rehab is on the table suggests it can continue to have a useful life, but unless major work is done, I don't think anyone would argue, it's at the end of its life just based on age, design parameters, and how often those parameters are exceeded by multiple hundreds of percent (traffic volumes more than triple design, vehicle weights and overweights more than double design, etc.).
How does this development affect things? Short and long answer is, we need to wait and see. Is this getting worse, is it systematic, is it easily curable? This will take months to suss out.

A belated thanks for this insightful reply.

I know the Skyway closure has exacerbated things, but with so many modern structures appearing, the Newark Bay Bridge feels almost claustrophobic, regardless of whether the shoulder is in use.  I mean this not just in terms of lane capacity–more lanes would ultimately just push the bottleneck into Hudson County–but the spacing of the lanes.

It will be interesting to see how this develops over time.

[Alps]

Big, broad, open ended question: with the recent structural emergency on the Newark Bay Bridge, what's the general consensus about this bridge's lifespan?  Lots of other truss bridges in the New York area, some admittedly older, are being scrapped in favor of modern, safer alternatives.  Is this even on anyone's radar?

This is a new development, so I don't think there is a consensus. There have been options on the table to rehab this bridge and keep it with a parallel span (or spans), and there have been options to replace it entirely. The fact that rehab is on the table suggests it can continue to have a useful life, but unless major work is done, I don't think anyone would argue, it's at the end of its life just based on age, design parameters, and how often those parameters are exceeded by multiple hundreds of percent (traffic volumes more than triple design, vehicle weights and overweights more than double design, etc.).
How does this development affect things? Short and long answer is, we need to wait and see. Is this getting worse, is it systematic, is it easily curable? This will take months to suss out.

A belated thanks for this insightful reply.

I know the Skyway closure has exacerbated things, but with so many modern structures appearing, the Newark Bay Bridge feels almost claustrophobic, regardless of whether the shoulder is in use.  I mean this not just in terms of lane capacity–more lanes would ultimately just push the bottleneck into Hudson County–but the spacing of the lanes.

It will be interesting to see how this develops over time.

The lanes are all 12'. It's the lack of shoulders you bemoan. Originally the bridge was 3 lanes each way with minimal if any shoulders, as was the Delaware River Bridge. The NJTA then cut the bridge to 2 lanes each way to provide shoulders.

[Alps]

The Star-Ledger gets into roadgeekery: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/vintage_photos_of_nj_streets_and_roads.html

[jeffandnicole]

An example of how traffic engineers care about their own little project, and fail to look out for anything else:

A recent reallocation of lane usage for US 1 near 95/295 and the Quakerbridge Mall was put out to bid, with the bids being opened last week.  Included are numerous signage changes.  Not included though, on the new signs, was the allowance for the fact that 95 will no longer exist in the area, and it will simply be 295.

Here's the publicly available addenda site for the project: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a4e4b6ca89e420865780e9f . Scroll to pages 39 & 40.  The newly designed signs still include 95 South as part of the signage!

Now, I know that this project has been in the design phase for the past few years.  But then again, so has the redesignation of I-95 to I-295.  How something like this gets thru every step along the way shows that people are in their own little group, and could care less about any other project in the area that may, in some way, impact their project.

Now, are the signage changes going to require a significant deviation from what was bid on?  No. But it'll still require another change; another design; another numerous approval sequence, for something that has been known within DOT for a few years now!

[bzakharin]

An example of how traffic engineers care about their own little project, and fail to look out for anything else:

A recent reallocation of lane usage for US 1 near 95/295 and the Quakerbridge Mall was put out to bid, with the bids being opened last week.  Included are numerous signage changes.  Not included though, on the new signs, was the allowance for the fact that 95 will no longer exist in the area, and it will simply be 295.

Here's the publicly available addenda site for the project: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a4e4b6ca89e420865780e9f . Scroll to pages 39 & 40.  The newly designed signs still include 95 South as part of the signage!

Now, I know that this project has been in the design phase for the past few years.  But then again, so has the redesignation of I-95 to I-295.  How something like this gets thru every step along the way shows that people are in their own little group, and could care less about any other project in the area that may, in some way, impact their project.

Now, are the signage changes going to require a significant deviation from what was bid on?  No. But it'll still require another change; another design; another numerous approval sequence, for something that has been known within DOT for a few years now!

Bud did they know which project will be completed first? Do they even know now?

[Alps]

An example of how traffic engineers care about their own little project, and fail to look out for anything else:

A recent reallocation of lane usage for US 1 near 95/295 and the Quakerbridge Mall was put out to bid, with the bids being opened last week.  Included are numerous signage changes.  Not included though, on the new signs, was the allowance for the fact that 95 will no longer exist in the area, and it will simply be 295.

Here's the publicly available addenda site for the project: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a4e4b6ca89e420865780e9f . Scroll to pages 39 & 40.  The newly designed signs still include 95 South as part of the signage!

Now, I know that this project has been in the design phase for the past few years.  But then again, so has the redesignation of I-95 to I-295.  How something like this gets thru every step along the way shows that people are in their own little group, and could care less about any other project in the area that may, in some way, impact their project.

Now, are the signage changes going to require a significant deviation from what was bid on?  No. But it'll still require another change; another design; another numerous approval sequence, for something that has been known within DOT for a few years now!

Your first sentence is completely wrong. The problem is that different project managers don't always communicate effectively. The manager for this project may not have known about the other one. And if he didn't communicate it to the designers, you get what you have here. Not to mention that the whole debate about 195 vs. 295 wasn't settled until relatively recently, so it's possible the designer was told "just put 95 and we'll make an addendum later." I would be very surprised if this gets installed with 95s.

[_Simon]

An example of how traffic engineers care about their own little project, and fail to look out for anything else:

A recent reallocation of lane usage for US 1 near 95/295 and the Quakerbridge Mall was put out to bid, with the bids being opened last week.  Included are numerous signage changes.  Not included though, on the new signs, was the allowance for the fact that 95 will no longer exist in the area, and it will simply be 295.

Here's the publicly available addenda site for the project: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a4e4b6ca89e420865780e9f . Scroll to pages 39 & 40.  The newly designed signs still include 95 South as part of the signage!

Now, I know that this project has been in the design phase for the past few years.  But then again, so has the redesignation of I-95 to I-295.  How something like this gets thru every step along the way shows that people are in their own little group, and could care less about any other project in the area that may, in some way, impact their project.

Now, are the signage changes going to require a significant deviation from what was bid on?  No. But it'll still require another change; another design; another numerous approval sequence, for something that has been known within DOT for a few years now!

There are many folks still holding out on that renumbering.  If the road in front of my house is still NJ-24 complete with DOT signage from the state routes (I live in long valley), then that part of 95 will still be "95" (if not in signage than in verbiage) for decades to come. 

Obviously there are a large score of people pushing for the Somerset freeway and with major infrastructure funding under trump, you'll see a few route numbers flipping back and forth.

SM-G955U

[jeffandnicole]

Well, the Somerset Freeway is officially cancelled, so that's never going to happen.

But did they know which project will be completed first? Do they even know now?

Yes - the timeline is part of the project bid notice.  On here: https://www.bidx.com/nj/attachment?_id=5a1857f258e7ba05fc5926f2 , the project's estimated completion date is the year 2020.  The 95/295 resigning is to be completed this year.

Your first sentence is completely wrong. The problem is that different project managers don't always communicate effectively. The manager for this project may not have known about the other one. And if he didn't communicate it to the designers, you get what you have here. Not to mention that the whole debate about 195 vs. 295 wasn't settled until relatively recently, so it's possible the designer was told "just put 95 and we'll make an addendum later." I would be very surprised if this gets installed with 95s.

But both projects were in the TIP.  So there's clear public knowledge of the two projects.  A project manager could easily review the TIP as well just to know what other projects exist. Heck, the TIP narrows projects down to the same county if someone just wanted a brief overview of an area their project is in.  And if not the project manager, then someone up the chain.  Even putting '195 West' on the plan at least shows there was some knowledge about the route number change, even if it changed again. 



One other notable example of this was on I-295.  NJDOT was installing numerous VMS boards to the highway, including one about a mile north of NJ 73 in the median.  Problem was, this same area was due to be widened (bridge replacement and widened pavement for wider shoulders).  The new VMS board was installed in the median, but never got turned on.  It was removed about a month after installation because it was in the way of the widening project. 

One project had no clue about the widening, the other project had no clue about the signing project.  It got all the way past actual construction before the conflict was realized.  Both projects were long-planned TIP projects; both projects even involved the same roadway!

[vdeane]

I don't know how NJDOT does it, but with NYSDOT, TIP/STIP management is handled by Planning and Program Management rather than Design, and it's surprisingly easy for a group to silo themselves such that knowledge doesn't communicate through.

[roadman65]

I hope that Bordentown gets removed as Camden should have always been there even before the final segment got completed.  Even US 206 always had Camden long before the completion.

Plus I wonder now if NY will be removed or will it stay and be copied on future sign replacements at the current US 206 at I-95 N Bound ramp (soon to be NB US 206 at SB or EB I-295 ramp, though not the same project that Jeff talks about, but being that New York is no longer a point of interest once I-95 gets removed from this part of Mercer County.

[storm2k]

I'm curious about something. Does anyone happen to know why, when NJDOT reconfigured the Exit 33 offramp from 78WB to CR-525 back in the early 90s, they made two left turn lanes and only one right turn lane (from 1 and 1). I take this exit to get to work, and the traffic backs up onto the 78 mainline a lot of mornings. The bulk of the Liberty Corner office buildings are to the north of the ramp (either on 525 itself, or off Allen Rd, a little ways up). I know there's the Warren office complex south of the interchange, but it does seem like one lane would handle the traffic sufficiently. it would make sense, to my untrained eye, to have 2 right turn lanes there (honestly, the best thing would be an acceleration lane on 525 NB, but there isn't enough room). Just wondering if anyone knows.

[Alps]

I'm curious about something. Does anyone happen to know why, when NJDOT reconfigured the Exit 33 offramp from 78WB to CR-525 back in the early 90s, they made two left turn lanes and only one right turn lane (from 1 and 1). I take this exit to get to work, and the traffic backs up onto the 78 mainline a lot of mornings. The bulk of the Liberty Corner office buildings are to the north of the ramp (either on 525 itself, or off Allen Rd, a little ways up). I know there's the Warren office complex south of the interchange, but it does seem like one lane would handle the traffic sufficiently. it would make sense, to my untrained eye, to have 2 right turn lanes there (honestly, the best thing would be an acceleration lane on 525 NB, but there isn't enough room). Just wondering if anyone knows.

One lane with turns on red (or no light at all) will tend to flow better than two lanes with no turn on red (which is what it would be in NJ).

[index]

I was reading up on something interesting about a road in NJ you're not supposed to go on: Normandy Road. This is because it leads to a naval weapons station.

http://weirdnj.com/stories/roads-less-traveled/normandy-road/

I wonder, for a road that you shouldn't go on, ever, that leads to a very important location that should be well guarded, why are none of the access points controlled? This is in a heavily populated area. I also found it interesting that all the intersections this road has with public roads seem to be painfully skewed, and they also have tons of 12-8-8s and 3M M131s.

You can check it out on GSV if you're interested. Normandy road, near its end, goes up to a very long causeway that leads to loading docks.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4379923,-74.0610541,86m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3964712,-74.0845079,127a,35y,189.7h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3

The old causeway was built during WWII, I think, and it's got an interesting setup. It appears there were three reversible lanes, and railroad tracks occupied the two outermost lanes. Perhaps this was so reversible lane signals could be used to direct military traffic out of lanes occupied by trains? Obviously, there's no photos of the road or causeway, because it's likely anyone who tried would be thrown in jail.

[roadman65]

Is not Area 91 or whatever north of Las Vegas the same way?  It is restricted to all civilians but not fenced off.  You  accidentally wander in there the MPs arrest you, and of course ignorance of the law is no excuse plus the US military could actually do whatever they want to you so consider it a kangaroo court system.

Of course like Earle the area in the desert may not be for weapons, but it has classified flight vehicles being tested for warfare hence the many UFO sightings in the area around it.  For all we know the drones back in the Reagan era were in test phase then and used here until the government decided to use it in action.  Plus Lockheed- Martin in Orlando makes some of the government's aircraft prototypes and even some employees I know who worked there on such military projects, had to swear to secrecy including keeping such information classified to their spouses as of course we do not want ISIS or some other nation to learn what new weapons we are testing to up ourselves on defense.

[storm2k]

I was reading up on something interesting about a road in NJ you're not supposed to go on: Normandy Road. This is because it leads to a naval weapons station.

http://weirdnj.com/stories/roads-less-traveled/normandy-road/

I wonder, for a road that you shouldn't go on, ever, that leads to a very important location that should be well guarded, why are none of the access points controlled? This is in a heavily populated area. I also found it interesting that all the intersections this road has with public roads seem to be painfully skewed, and they also have tons of 12-8-8s and 3M M131s.

You can check it out on GSV if you're interested. Normandy road, near its end, goes up to a very long causeway that leads to loading docks.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4379923,-74.0610541,86m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3964712,-74.0845079,127a,35y,189.7h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3

The old causeway was built during WWII, I think, and it's got an interesting setup. It appears there were three reversible lanes, and railroad tracks occupied the two outermost lanes. Perhaps this was so reversible lane signals could be used to direct military traffic out of lanes occupied by trains? Obviously, there's no photos of the road or causeway, because it's likely anyone who tried would be thrown in jail.

It doesn't lead you there. It takes you from one end of Earle to the other. And there are photos of it at various intersections with local roads, including the big signs that tell you not to trespass as it's military property. Buddy of mine got to drive on it once when the company he worked for had to go on base to do some work they were contracted for.

[Alps]

I was reading up on something interesting about a road in NJ you're not supposed to go on: Normandy Road. This is because it leads to a naval weapons station.

http://weirdnj.com/stories/roads-less-traveled/normandy-road/

I wonder, for a road that you shouldn't go on, ever, that leads to a very important location that should be well guarded, why are none of the access points controlled? This is in a heavily populated area. I also found it interesting that all the intersections this road has with public roads seem to be painfully skewed, and they also have tons of 12-8-8s and 3M M131s.

You can check it out on GSV if you're interested. Normandy road, near its end, goes up to a very long causeway that leads to loading docks.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4379923,-74.0610541,86m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3964712,-74.0845079,127a,35y,189.7h,45t/data=!3m1!1e3

The old causeway was built during WWII, I think, and it's got an interesting setup. It appears there were three reversible lanes, and railroad tracks occupied the two outermost lanes. Perhaps this was so reversible lane signals could be used to direct military traffic out of lanes occupied by trains? Obviously, there's no photos of the road or causeway, because it's likely anyone who tried would be thrown in jail.

It doesn't lead you there. It takes you from one end of Earle to the other. And there are photos of it at various intersections with local roads, including the big signs that tell you not to trespass as it's military property. Buddy of mine got to drive on it once when the company he worked for had to go on base to do some work they were contracted for.

Huh? It does lead you to the dock. It follows the railroad out of Earle.

[Duke87]

I wonder, for a road that you shouldn't go on, ever, that leads to a very important location that should be well guarded, why are none of the access points controlled?

Oh, they're controlled. If you turn onto that road and you're not supposed to be there, the MPs will know and they'll be on top of you real fast.