New Jersey Turnpike

[Zeffy]

What's wrong with it?

Well, it's white, and not the normal beige-orange-y color with the border since it leads directly a toll facility as well.

[PHLBOS]

Is there really a need to sign US 130 though? The only thing I can think of is for people looking for Bordentown and some of the Burlington County communities along 130 - but that's pretty much it. Trenton - US 206 and I-195; Camden (or (Philadelphia) - NJ 70 or NJ 168; New Brunswick - US 1 or NJ 18; etc.

Historical note here: since there is a direct interchange w/US 130 along the Turnpike Connector (Future I-95); having signage for such is completely warranted & justified.  Previous, but not orginal, signage for Exit 6 had US 130 shields & Florence this interchange on the main BGS panels ever since the full-movement US 130 interchange was completed roughly a decade ago.  Scroll down for a photo of one of the previous Exit 6 BGS'

Also, semi-related, what the hell happened to the NJ 168 interchange on Google Maps?

Care to elaborate?  I'm not seeing what you're trying to convey.  That interchange has looked like that for as long as I can remember.

[Zeffy]

Historical note here: since there is a direct interchange w/US 130 along the Turnpike Connector (Future I-95); having signage for such is completely warranted & justified.  Previous, but not orginal, signage for Exit 6 had US 130 shields & Florence this interchange on the main BGS panels ever since the full-movement US 130 interchange was completed roughly a decade ago.  Scroll down for a photo of one of the previous Exit 6 BGS'

True, but I'm just saying that in reality, just how many people wind up using that interchange? Because the interchange isn't changing, and the roadway will be renumbered in the future, omitting it on a main guide sign is fine. People will still know they can access 130 from the future alignment of I-95.

Care to elaborate?  I'm not seeing what you're trying to convey.  That interchange has looked like that for as long as I can remember.

I thought it was obvious but...

This is what a toll-road interchange should look like on the New Jersey Turnpike:



Instead, Google is coloring them white, not even marking them as toll-road interchanges:

[jeffandnicole]

Is there really a need to sign US 130 though? The only thing I can think of is for people looking for Bordentown and some of the Burlington County communities along 130 - but that's pretty much it. Trenton - US 206 and I-195; Camden (or (Philadelphia) - NJ 70 or NJ 168; New Brunswick - US 1 or NJ 18; etc.

Historical note here: since there is a direct interchange w/US 130 along the Turnpike Connector (Future I-95); having signage for such is completely warranted & justified.  Previous, but not orginal, signage for Exit 6 had US 130 shields & Florence this interchange on the main BGS panels ever since the full-movement US 130 interchange was completed roughly a decade ago.  Scroll down for a photo of one of the previous Exit 6 BGS'

Some of the issue may be that US 130 is a parallel route to the Turnpike, just like I-295.  Depending where you want to go on US 130, that may or may not be the best option (someone needing US 130 in Bellmawr wouldn't use a US 130 Exit in Florence, or someone needing US 130 in Bordentown would be better off using Exit 7).  It's probably better to leave it off rather than potentially confusing people.

[PHLBOS]

True, but I'm just saying that in reality, just how many people wind up using that interchange?

As previously stated, the current US 130/NJTP Connector interchange was constructed over a decade ago.  The decision to build such was based numerous studies & meetings that likely began a decade or two earlier.  One benefit of the interchange is that traffic to/from the mainline Turnpike in the Florence area aren't clogging the surrounding local roads leading to/from Exits 5 or 7.  Those that work for the Turnpike Authority can probably list the specifics.

Because the interchange isn't changing, and the roadway will be renumbered in the future, omitting it on a main guide sign is fine. People will still know they can access 130 from the future alignment of I-95.

You're incorrectly assuming that everyone that uses the Turnpike knows the Turnpike and all its interchanges with the various highways & roads in New Jersey.  Such a perspective is extremely short-sited & very naive.

Care to elaborate?  I'm not seeing what you're trying to convey.  That interchange has looked like that for as long as I can remember.

I thought it was obvious but...

Not everybody/roadgeek looks at Google maps on a frequent basis.  I thought you were pointing out an interchange geometry/layout issue/error.

Some of the issue may be that US 130 is a parallel route to the Turnpike, just like I-295.  Depending where you want to go on US 130, that may or may not be the best option (someone needing US 130 in Bellmawr wouldn't use a US 130 Exit in Florence, or someone needing US 130 in Bordentown would be better off using Exit 7).  It's probably better to leave it off rather than potentially confusing people.

See the above post, there was obviously enough of a demand from those in the Florence area who wanted direct-nearby access to the mainline Turnpike.  If there wasn't a demand, the interchange wouldn't have been built.

The reason for signing that US 130/Florence interchange along the mainline Turnpike at all is not that much different than what's been done for the Exits 14A-B-C branch-off further north.  It lets Turnpike travelers know that there are additional interchanges along the branch-offs.

[1995hoo]

....

Because the interchange isn't changing, and the roadway will be renumbered in the future, omitting it on a main guide sign is fine. People will still know they can access 130 from the future alignment of I-95.

You're incorrectly assuming that everyone that uses the Turnpike knows the Turnpike and all its interchanges with the various highways & roads in New Jersey.  Such a perspective is extremely short-sited & very naive.

....

I think a lot of long-distance drivers coming up from the south (DC area to New York, for example) or from further north have never taken Exit 6 and have no idea that Florence exit is over there. I've known several people who were very surprised when I've mentioned there's an exit along that stretch.

Even people who usually know where they're going may not know of fairly obvious things–for example, when my brother and I were kids, our father liked to stop for lunch at the Town and Country Diner in Bordentown. To get there on the southbound trip, he took Exit 7A, then I-195 west to US-130, then south to Bordentown. Afterwards he didn't know you could get back on the Turnpike at Exit 7 so he took I-295.



Separate question: Does anyone have any photos of the old Exit 6A before it was expanded and reconstructed? I can find an image on Historic Aerials, but I'm just interested in seeing "road-level" photos if any even exist.

[jeffandnicole]

Some of the issue may be that US 130 is a parallel route to the Turnpike, just like I-295.  Depending where you want to go on US 130, that may or may not be the best option (someone needing US 130 in Bellmawr wouldn't use a US 130 Exit in Florence, or someone needing US 130 in Bordentown would be better off using Exit 7).  It's probably better to leave it off rather than potentially confusing people.

See the above post, there was obviously enough of a demand from those in the Florence area who wanted direct-nearby access to the mainline Turnpike.  If there wasn't a demand, the interchange wouldn't have been built.

The reason for signing that US 130/Florence interchange along the mainline Turnpike at all is not that much different than what's been done for the Exits 14A-B-C branch-off further north.  It lets Turnpike travelers know that there are additional interchanges along the branch-offs.

And what would they do with this newfound information, if they weren't aware of it earlier?

After a decade or so of the complete US 130 interchange, the Turnpike doesn't seem to be getting requests from travelers or even the local towns requesting US 130 be signed from the mainline.

The sign for Interchange 14 - 14A - 14B - 14C is for 78, 1, 9 & 22, which are accessed directly from Interchange 14.  The extension connects with Routes 440 & 139, which are not on the sign. In fact, your argument supports not putting US 130 on the mainline.

Florence is still signed as a supplemental sign on the mainline. 

[akotchi]

Some of the issue may be that US 130 is a parallel route to the Turnpike, just like I-295.  Depending where you want to go on US 130, that may or may not be the best option (someone needing US 130 in Bellmawr wouldn't use a US 130 Exit in Florence, or someone needing US 130 in Bordentown would be better off using Exit 7).  It's probably better to leave it off rather than potentially confusing people.

See the above post, there was obviously enough of a demand from those in the Florence area who wanted direct-nearby access to the mainline Turnpike.  If there wasn't a demand, the interchange wouldn't have been built.

The reason for signing that US 130/Florence interchange along the mainline Turnpike at all is not that much different than what's been done for the Exits 14A-B-C branch-off further north.  It lets Turnpike travelers know that there are additional interchanges along the branch-offs.

And what would they do with this newfound information, if they weren't aware of it earlier?

After a decade or so of the complete US 130 interchange, the Turnpike doesn't seem to be getting requests from travelers or even the local towns requesting US 130 be signed from the mainline.

The sign for Interchange 14 - 14A - 14B - 14C is for 78, 1, 9 & 22, which are accessed directly from Interchange 14.  The extension connects with Routes 440 & 139, which are not on the sign. In fact, your argument supports not putting US 130 on the mainline.

Florence is still signed as a supplemental sign on the mainline. 

U.S. 130 became signed from the mainline when the expanded interchange was completed, and the current signing at Exit 6 preserved the mainline signing, albeit in a more supplemental manner than before. 

Before the interchange was expanded, one could not directly access U.S. 130 from the mainline or the (westbound) Extension.  The ramps were to and from the west.

I would postulate that one of the reasons for the lack of 440 and 139 markers on the Exit 14 signs is the amount of information already contained within the existing sign sequences.  The main interchange (14) is also a bit more complex than Interchange 6, so the choice of information was likely made with greatest recognition in mind.  440 and 139 are not (IMO) as well known up there as 130 is in the middle of the state.

Just my nickel on the matter. . .

[bzakharin]

Some of the issue may be that US 130 is a parallel route to the Turnpike, just like I-295.  Depending where you want to go on US 130, that may or may not be the best option (someone needing US 130 in Bellmawr wouldn't use a US 130 Exit in Florence, or someone needing US 130 in Bordentown would be better off using Exit 7).  It's probably better to leave it off rather than potentially confusing people.

See the above post, there was obviously enough of a demand from those in the Florence area who wanted direct-nearby access to the mainline Turnpike.  If there wasn't a demand, the interchange wouldn't have been built.

The reason for signing that US 130/Florence interchange along the mainline Turnpike at all is not that much different than what's been done for the Exits 14A-B-C branch-off further north.  It lets Turnpike travelers know that there are additional interchanges along the branch-offs.

And what would they do with this newfound information, if they weren't aware of it earlier?

After a decade or so of the complete US 130 interchange, the Turnpike doesn't seem to be getting requests from travelers or even the local towns requesting US 130 be signed from the mainline.

The sign for Interchange 14 - 14A - 14B - 14C is for 78, 1, 9 & 22, which are accessed directly from Interchange 14.  The extension connects with Routes 440 & 139, which are not on the sign. In fact, your argument supports not putting US 130 on the mainline.

Florence is still signed as a supplemental sign on the mainline. 

Still 14A, 14B, and 14C are signed as exits. 6A is not signed in any way on the mainline. If only 6A became a signed number (in general), it would become a lot easier to refer to it in the same way as 14A, 14B, and 14C. Also, the Holland Tunnel is 14C and not directly accessed from Interchange 14.

[jeffandnicole]

http://goo.gl/maps/ziDh4

And I did err in that 130 wasn't posted along with Florence.  It is.

[Roadrunner75]

Not much to add, but I do believe 130/Florence should still be signed from the Turnpike mainline.  Even though the interchange is beyond the ticket system, it is still a Turnpike exit, and should have some signage on the mainline.  I think it should also be signed as '6A' similar to 14-14A/14B/14C to drive home that it is a separate interchange, but I'll take the current signage.

[Zeffy]

Here's how I think exit 6 should be signed when the PA Tpk. interchange is complete:



...with a supplemental sign directing towards US 130:



Yes, I know the Turnpike is switching to the MUTCD-mandated signs. I don't care. This is how I want it to look.

[jeffandnicole]

In similar fashion, the exit below the southern-most toll plaza is not signed as an exit as well (NJ 140/County 540 headed south, US 40 East headed North).  Exit 1 (NJ 49) (And 1A & 1B going north) is actually on 295 and not part of the Turnpike system.

[jeffandnicole]

Here's how I think exit 6 should be signed when the PA Tpk. interchange is complete:

...with a supplemental sign directing towards US 130:

Did you not see my post two posts up from yours? :-)  It already exists.

[1995hoo]

Shouldn't that sign say "SOUTH I-95" instead of "NORTH"?

I don't see the need for Bordentown on the second sign because Bordentown is already served by Exit 7, unless the goal were simply to direct people off the mainline to pay a higher toll?

[NE2]

This is what a toll-road interchange should look like on the New Jersey Turnpike:

This one is shit too.

Here the jughandle is incorrectly marked as toll. "This route has tolls" my ass.

[Zeffy]

Shouldn't that sign say "SOUTH I-95" instead of "NORTH"?

I'm too pre-occupied trying to warm up my hands which are for some reason frigid as fucking hell right now...



As for the second sign - I forgot Bordentown is signed on Exit 7.

[akotchi]

Shouldn't that sign say "SOUTH I-95" instead of "NORTH"?

I'm too pre-occupied trying to warm up my hands which are for some reason frigid as fucking hell right now...



As for the second sign - I forgot Bordentown is signed on Exit 7.

That is the way it will look when the overlays are removed (except for adding West over I-276) . . . eventually . . . and if the arrow ever gets fixed.

[PHLBOS]

After a decade or so of the complete US 130 interchange, the Turnpike doesn't seem to be getting requests from travelers or even the local towns requesting US 130 be signed from the mainline.

Scroll down for a photo of one of the previous Exit 6 BGS' which contained both US 130 shields and the Florence destination.  The former-BGS' were there ever since the US 130 interchange was converted to a full-blown complete-movement interchange.

The new BGS arrangement actually reduced the number of times US 130 & Florence are shown on signs from 3 to 4 to the one fore-mentioned supplemental BGS shown in GSV. 

Not much to add, but I do believe 130/Florence should still be signed from the Turnpike mainline.  Even though the interchange is beyond the ticket system, it is still a Turnpike exit, and should have some signage on the mainline.  I think it should also be signed as '6A' similar to 14-14A/14B/14C to drive home that it is a separate interchange, but I'll take the current signage.

Thank you!  My sentiments exactly.  And yes, it does seem puzzling why the expanded US 130 interchange wasn't signed as Exit 6A.

Here's how I think exit 6 should be signed when the PA Tpk. interchange is complete:

...with a supplemental sign directing towards US 130:

Did you not see my post two posts up from yours? :-)  It already exists.

The actual supplemental BGS (per your posted-GSV) only has Florence as a listed destination.  Bordentown is located far north enough that most Turnpike travelers will simply just use Exit 7 (US 206).  That's why it's never been included along any Exit 6 signage along the mainline Turnpike; though Bordentown, along with Burlington is included on the actual US 130 Exit BGS' (aka Exit 6A).

[akotchi]

Not much to add, but I do believe 130/Florence should still be signed from the Turnpike mainline.  Even though the interchange is beyond the ticket system, it is still a Turnpike exit, and should have some signage on the mainline.  I think it should also be signed as '6A' similar to 14-14A/14B/14C to drive home that it is a separate interchange, but I'll take the current signage.

Thank you!  My sentiments exactly.  And yes, it does seem puzzling why the expanded US 130 interchange wasn't signed as Exit 6A.

I think it is because the toll barrier for all Extension traffic is before the exit, sort of like the Exit 1 mainline barrier prior to the NJ 140 exit (further south).  From the ticket-system perspective, all traffic through the barrier is Exit 6, whether going to Pa. or to U.S. 130.  I am with you in spirit, though . . .

[Mergingtraffic]

Here's how I think exit 6 should be signed when the PA Tpk. interchange is complete:



...with a supplemental sign directing towards US 130:



Yes, I know the Turnpike is switching to the MUTCD-mandated signs. I don't care. This is how I want it to look.

This is the current signage I snapped a couple weeks back:

[Ned Weasel]

Shouldn't that sign say "SOUTH I-95" instead of "NORTH"?

I'm too pre-occupied trying to warm up my hands which are for some reason frigid as fucking hell right now...



As for the second sign - I forgot Bordentown is signed on Exit 7.

That is the way it will look when the overlays are removed (except for adding West over I-276) . . . eventually . . . and if the arrow ever gets fixed.

This is really a minor nitpick, but, to make the sign consistent with NJTP-style conventions, the "EXIT 6" text should be centered over the main legend body, irrespective of the arrow, rather than centered with respect to the whole sign.

NJTP style's treatment of exit number legend is fundamentally different from that of MUTCD style.  MUTCD style treats the exit number legend as an appendix to the sign, which is arguably the thought process out of which exit number "tabs" were born.  In other words, in MUTCD style, the main sign legend bears no relation to the exit number and is intended to be read alone as the main conceptual unit.  In NJTP style, the exit number is the first and most significant element of the the sign legend body, and this relationship with the exit number and the remaining sign legend body is maintained in the sequence as follows:

"EXIT x y MI / [route shield(s) if applicable] / [destination name] / [destination name if applicable] / [destination name if applicable]" (repeated z times) , "EXIT x / [route shield(s) if applicable] / [destination name] / [destination name if applicable] / [destination name if applicable]" , "EXIT x" | (x = exit number, y = number of miles before exit point, z = number of advance guide signs - 1)

So, NJTP style's main sign legend is defined as a conceptual unit according to this sequence, and that conceptual unit always uses its own centering.  (This conceptual unit is, of course, abbreviated in the final sign in the sequence.)  A sign's arrow (which is, of course, only present in the last two signs in the sequence) is a separate conceptual unit.  At this level of hierarchy, each sign has, at most, two conceptual units, the main legend and the arrow, so nothing is centered among them in such a way as to treat them as a single conceptual unit within the sign.

Unfortunately for MUTCD advocates who love consistency, the MUTCD does not define a consistent relationship between a freeway sign's main legend and an arrow.  For example, an MUTCD-style sign could have at least two spatial variations of the following three elements: route shield, destination name, and upward-right-slanting arrow.  In one variation, the route shield could be centered solely above the destination name, with the arrow placed to the right of both--and in another variation, the route shield could be centered above both the destination name and the arrow.

This is part of why I like NJTP style.  It has its own set of rules that make logical sense, and it has aesthetic intent.  I can see merit to some of the arguments for switching to MUTCD style, but I'm not convinced that MUTCD style is better.

(If any experts believe I have erred at some point in this analysis, please feel free to correct me.)

Aside from that, congrats to Zeffy for taking on the task of reproducing NJTP-style sign graphics.  Even if the style ceases to exist in hard-copy form, it's nice to think that it can somehow be preserved.

[J Route Z]

What does it mean that they are using MUTCD signs? Does this mean they are getting exit tabs?
Also, does anyone know when they are finishing replacing the old VMS? There are still several on the turnpike, especially on the southern portion that did not even get touched yet.

[jeffandnicole]

Yes...eventually. A few signs on the northern sections of the Turnpike have been replaced with the same old boring signage seen in the rest of the country. As they only need to convert them to the MUTCD standard when the signs need replacing, it could be a good 20 years before they are all converted if they wait until the sign has completed its lifespan. They weren't required to use the MUTCD standard signage in the widened area since those signs had already been designed, although there was certainly a lot of time to redesign the signage.

There are very few neon signs still in use: They will probably be replaced or removed within a few months. The project is still ongoing. The one closest to me has been replaced, but the old signs haven't been removed.

[Pete from Boston]

I drove all but the lower 20 miles or so in late June.  There seemed to be quite a lot of neon warning signs left below Exit 6, though it was impossible to tell which were still active.