New Jersey Turnpike

[bzakharin]

Yes, I did have to look it up and anyway, that was an attempt at humor. I'm also not arguing with anything you're saying, so maybe we should drop this. My only point is just because there are already instances of potentially confusing exit numbers, it doesn't mean we should create new ones.

[jeffandnicole]

To the best of my knowledge, I have never heard of anyone mistakenly exiting for City Ave. (US 1 South, Exit 339 off I-76/Schuylkill Expressway) when they intended to exit for Fort Washington (PA 309, Exit 339 off I-276/PA Turnpike).

Probably because most of the traffic reporters in the area use highway names (Schuylkill Expressway & PA Turnpike) instead of route numbers for many highways in southeastern PA; and they always mention interchange names (City Ave. & Fort Washington) rather than exit numbers.

This is where differentiating someone who knows roads away from the common, everyday traveler is difficult. 

I don't have traffic counts in front of me, but we're probably talking 100,000 - 200,000 people per day using those roads.  Unless you are talking with all of them, how would you hear if someone took the wrong exit? 

The best example I can come up with is to work a toll booth, or a gas station or convenience store.  People are asking for directions all the time.  Heck, my wife works in a dog grooming shop, and people have stopped in there to ask for directions! (At which point she calls me...then I hear someone so frazzled that I have no idea how they got so off track that they are 20 miles off-course by the point they reach my wife's shop!)

The normal commuter knows what exit to take.  The one-time traveler in the area isn't even listening to traffic reports to begin with.  If exit numbers weren't important, the whole discussion of sequential vs. mile-based wouldn't even be taking place. 

And while I know I'm a little hot on the subject, I'm mainly pointing out a different viewpoint...that when I-95 is actually signed on the NJ Turnpike, the actual function of how travelers treat the Turnpike may be different if they pay more attention to the I-95 signing vs. the NJ Turnpike signing.

[PHLBOS]

Unless you are talking with all of them, how would you hear if someone took the wrong exit?

Most of my friends & colleagues aren't road savvy at all.  I've heard of many mistakes being made by them (pre & post-GPS).  Taking the wrong exit because it happens to have the same exact exit number as it does on another highway wasn't necessarily one of them; especially if one of highways in question is a tolled facility and the other is not.  Mind you, I'm not saying that such can't happen; it's just that such hasn't been so widespread that PennDOT and/or the PTC were forced to install supplemental signage clarifying the situation (like Maryland did to differentiate between I-68 & MD-68 along I-70).

If exit numbers weren't important, the whole discussion of sequential vs. mile-based wouldn't even be taking place.

5-letter answer for that one: M-U-T-C-D.  In southeastern PA; though signed, exit numbers are hardly ever mentioned... especially since there are several freeways (I-676 (PA only), US 202, 422 & portions of US 1 being four of them) that don't have numbered interchanges at all.  Such was probably why when PA converted to mile-marker based exit numbering roughly 17 years ago; nobody really raised a stink over it (unlike those along US 6 in Cape Cod when such was recently proposed).

And while I know I'm a little hot on the subject, I'm mainly pointing out a different viewpoint...that when I-95 is actually signed on the NJ Turnpike, the actual function of how travelers treat the Turnpike may be different if they pay more attention to the I-95 signing vs. the NJ Turnpike signing.

Not disagreeing with you on that at all, but the I-76/276/PA Turnpike exit number scenario pretty much existed ever since the PA Turnpike & Schuylkill Expressway were unilaterally grandfathered into the Interstate system (originally as I-80S/280, than later the current I-76/276).  Additionally, the scenario (the I-276 portion of the Turnpike not resetting to "0" at Valley Forge) was the same regardless of whether sequential-based exit numbers or mile-marker-based exit numbers were used.

[NE2]

There is a solution to make mile-based numbers work on I-95 and the turnpike: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744.0

[Alps]

Maybe he works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers?  I recall a rumor that they were considering it, but at the time that had intentions of going AET within a decade (that effort seems to be dead), so it's possible that mile-based numbers would be something that would only be considered after going AET.

That's a large part of it. Source: Works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers.

So should that be construed as NJTA having a goal of going mile-based, or should that be construed as a general question, amongst many other general questions that the NJTA asks their consultants?

Definitely a general question.

[Alps]

Maybe he works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers?  I recall a rumor that they were considering it, but at the time that had intentions of going AET within a decade (that effort seems to be dead), so it's possible that mile-based numbers would be something that would only be considered after going AET.

That's a large part of it. Source: Works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers.

Could it also be that NJTA is waiting to see what the impact of the NJTA maintaining all of New Jersey's part of I-95 (and I-95 being expressly signed as such) once the slower-than-cold molasses PTC finishes enough of the Bristol Township interchange project to complete I-95?

At that point the NJTA may need to decide if they want mileage-based interchange numbers counting up from the  (currently) not numbered U.S. 130 interchange in Florence to the end of Turnpike maintenance approaching the George Washington Bridge - or retain the current numbers (or do something else).

Mile-based exit numbering is based on the MUTCD requirement. The requirement follows the number. So if they went mile-based, it stands to reason the numbers would be following I-95.

[ekt8750]

Look at I-76 when it enters NJ and becomes Rt. 42: You have, in this order: Exit 354, 1C, 1B, 1A, 14, 13, 12, etc...

I know you know this, but for those unfamiliar: Exit 354 should be Exit 2 since it's located in NJ.  Such was a DRPA screw-up.

And 76 in NJ's mileage is numbered backwards to begin with. Miles are supposed to ascend eastbound. 76's do not.

[jeffandnicole]

Look at I-76 when it enters NJ and becomes Rt. 42: You have, in this order: Exit 354, 1C, 1B, 1A, 14, 13, 12, etc...

I know you know this, but for those unfamiliar: Exit 354 should be Exit 2 since it's located in NJ.  Such was a DRPA screw-up.

And 76 in NJ's mileage is numbered backwards to begin with. Miles are supposed to ascend eastbound. 76's do not.

Extremely valid point.  I suspect it may have something to do with both NJDOT and PennDOT not knowing exacting how the routing was going to take place anyway.  I-76 could have gone thru Center City Philly via the Ben Franklin Bridge if what became the Vine Street Expressway was completed first (and honestly, never truly completed because of the Franklin Park issue), but when the highway connected to the Walt Whitman Bridge was completed first, that was given the I-76 designation.  Since NJDOT started their numbering with I-295, it wouldn't need to reassign exit numbers based on wherever 76's ultimate routing became.  Granted...it had to reassign a route number, but whatever. 

So, even though it wasn't in proper context with exit numbering rules, everyone that needed to grant permission for it did.

The next question could be...what if I-76 was extended down Rt. 42 and/or the ACX?  It would certainly be necessary to renumber the exits.  This pretty much shows that NJDOT never considered the idea...and still doesn't.

[bzakharin]

Extremely valid point.  I suspect it may have something to do with both NJDOT and PennDOT not knowing exacting how the routing was going to take place anyway.  I-76 could have gone thru Center City Philly via the Ben Franklin Bridge if what became the Vine Street Expressway was completed first (and honestly, never truly completed because of the Franklin Park issue), but when the highway connected to the Walt Whitman Bridge was completed first, that was given the I-76 designation.  Since NJDOT started their numbering with I-295, it wouldn't need to reassign exit numbers based on wherever 76's ultimate routing became.  Granted...it had to reassign a route number, but whatever. 

So, even though it wasn't in proper context with exit numbering rules, everyone that needed to grant permission for it did.

The next question could be...what if I-76 was extended down Rt. 42 and/or the ACX?  It would certainly be necessary to renumber the exits.  This pretty much shows that NJDOT never considered the idea...and still doesn't.

It's not like it's hard to renumber four exit numbers that few people use (the numbers, not the exits), might even get away with just changing exit 2 to 1D. Of course, if they extend I-76, there would be a lot of exits to renumber (or do reverse numbering the whole way and renumber 12)

[jeffandnicole]

Extremely valid point.  I suspect it may have something to do with both NJDOT and PennDOT not knowing exacting how the routing was going to take place anyway.  I-76 could have gone thru Center City Philly via the Ben Franklin Bridge if what became the Vine Street Expressway was completed first (and honestly, never truly completed because of the Franklin Park issue), but when the highway connected to the Walt Whitman Bridge was completed first, that was given the I-76 designation.  Since NJDOT started their numbering with I-295, it wouldn't need to reassign exit numbers based on wherever 76's ultimate routing became.  Granted...it had to reassign a route number, but whatever. 

So, even though it wasn't in proper context with exit numbering rules, everyone that needed to grant permission for it did.

The next question could be...what if I-76 was extended down Rt. 42 and/or the ACX?  It would certainly be necessary to renumber the exits.  This pretty much shows that NJDOT never considered the idea...and still doesn't.

It's not like it's hard to renumber four exit numbers that few people use (the numbers, not the exits), might even get away with just changing exit 2 to 1D. Of course, if they extend I-76, there would be a lot of exits to renumber (or do reverse numbering the whole way and renumber 12)

Actually, 1E, as 1D is Rt. 130 North. 

[akotchi]

NJDOT considers I-76 to be a north-south route, per their Straight Line Diagrams, hence the south-to-north exit numbers and mileposting.  Field signing carries east-west to continue from Pa.

Getting back closer to topic . . . the toll roads (PA and Ohio Turnpikes, anyway) do not follow the MUTCD to the letter regarding the mileposting and exit numbering of the overlaying Interstates on the mainlines.  I have heard the argument used that the toll road markers (which appear on guide signs sporadically) constitute route markers as much as the numbered ones, so that the mileage is based on the toll road mileage and the interstate is considered an overlapping route.  Adapting justification to the situation, perhaps . . . Hence 0-122 may be appropriate for the NJ Turnpike end to end, with I-95 overlapping the last 71 miles.  The extensions are short enough that they can use the numbering of the interstates they carry (I-95 and I-78), provided the exit numbers do not duplicate with mainline exits.  For the unusual case where the NJ Turnpike ends short of the Hudson River, the few exits under Port Authority jurisdiction can be renumbered to continue from 122, to reduce confusion.

My thoughts, for what they are worth.

[kphoger]

I have heard the argument used that the toll road markers (which appear on guide signs sporadically) constitute route markers as much as the numbered ones, so that the mileage is based on the toll road mileage and the interstate is considered an overlapping route.  Adapting justification to the situation, perhaps

The Kansas Turnpike follows three different Interstates along its length, and mileage is consistent within itself.

Its southern terminus is the Oklahoma state line, so both the KTA and I-35 have their zero points there.
At Emporia, the mileage splits:  Both the KTA and I-35 keep counting up from 127, so I-335 has no zero point.
At Topeka, the mileage continues, with I-70 traffic seeing Exit 366 (I-70 mileposting) followed by Exit 197 (KTA mileposting).
Then, where the KTA ends at K-7, I-70 traffic sees Exit 224 (KTA mileposting) followed by Exit 410 (I-70 mileposting).

[SignBridge]

This issue of MUTCD compliant exit numbering where pre-Interstate era Turnpikes were grandfathered into the Interstate system creates an absolute nightmare. I'm guessing that when the Feds came up with the mileage based numbering system, they may never have considered this issue or if they did, they thought they covered it with the rule  that Interstate Highway numbering would dominate on "overlapping" routes. Well, it's turned out to be a little more complicated than that.

I'm thinking maybe the easiest solution would be for the MUTCD to have an exception to that rule for pre-Interstate toll roads. Let the toll-road use it's own mileage-based numbering system (specific to the toll-road). A reversal of the existing rule.  It seems to me this would create less confusion than all the proposed numbering schemes we've discussed. That way too, the toll-roads could maintain their separate identity, which I think is preferable to having their identity getting lost in the Interstate System.

[shadyjay]

Agreed.  Rather than having the tunpike have two different exit sequences in the "completed-PA Tpke/I-95 era", number exits on the turnpike from end-to-end based on turnpike mileage.  I-95 will come in at MM 50-51, and that will be that.  Southbound, it will exit from itself at Exit 51, then jump on the turnpike extension to the PA Turnpike.  On the "north of the original pike" section, renumber exits and mile markers based on the same turnpike system.  It could work, better and less confusing than the MUTCD idea of Exits 1-51 for the non-numbered southern half of the turnpike, and the rest going off I-95 mileage. 

As for the New York Thruway, there ain't no easy way of keeping the MUTCD and the Thruway authority happy with that one. 

[SignBridge]

Right shadyjay. No matter what configuration is used, it's going to be confusing for drivers. And the NY Thruway is a good example. I'm starting to understand one reason why California resisted exit numbers for as long as they did. Sometimes they actually create as many problems as they solve.

[jp the roadgeek]

As for the New York Thruway, there ain't no easy way of keeping the MUTCD and the Thruway authority happy with that one.

Easiest option for NY is just retain internal Thruway mileage and number from 1 up to 495.  Only confusion would be the NYC-Montreal driver who has Exits 0-8 (many with suffixes), then 1-148, then a jump to 157.  MUTCD wants 87 and 90 with separate numbers, so it would start at 9 in Yonkers (including Deegan mileage) and go to 156, then down from 347 to 1.  But you'd have a numbering problem for current Exit 24 (156 vs 347 vs unnumbered?)  In all cases, Northway would start at 157 and go to 332.  Free 90 would go from 348-367.  Berkshire Spur exits would be I-90 mileage based (368, 377, 385).

[Alps]

You run into competing considerations. The motorist is best served by numbering following the route number, as a general rule. But there is usually a separate agency running the toll road, and they are best served by numbering following their facility. Since signage is supposed to benefit the user, I would award the tie to the motorist, and make the agencies have to deal with it. But the agencies have more political power than the users.

[1995hoo]

As for the New York Thruway, there ain't no easy way of keeping the MUTCD and the Thruway authority happy with that one.

....  But you'd have a numbering problem for current Exit 24 (156 vs 347 vs unnumbered?) ....

It's not unprecedented for an interchange to carry a different number for opposing directions of traffic. On the Capital Beltway in Virginia, the Springfield Interchange carries Exit 170 on the Inner Loop (uses I-95 exit numbers) and Exit 57 on the Outer Loop (uses I-495 exit numbers). In theory the same type of thing could be done with the Thruway's current Exit 24, given that any renumbering is going to confuse people anyway. (Emphasis on "in theory" because I don't think it's a great idea here either. Trying to explain the exit numbers to non-local visitors is never as easy as it should be because "just go by the signs and don't worry about logic" doesn't seem to work well, which is a problem when you live near Exit 173 and the exit immediately before that is Exit 57!)

[OracleUsr]

We have that too in Greensboro.  US 220/I-73 at I-85.  Northbound (I-73) at the junction is exit 95A/B.  Southbound (US 220) at the same junction is Exit 78.

[PHLBOS]

There is a solution to make mile-based numbers work on I-95 and the turnpike: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744.0

I'm not sure if such was already suggested but another possible alternative to the above (if NJ did not want to include PA mileage for I-95) would be to have the NJ Turnpike interchanges south of Exit 6 retain their sequential numbers but have the I-95 portion be mile-marker-based with 0 starting at the Delaware River Bridge.  The PA-Turnpike Connector from the bridge/border is just about 6.5 miles; so Exit 6, in theory, could remain as such for both the Turnpike & I-95. 

I.e. only the US 130 interchange at the connector (old Exit 6A), mainline Exits 7 & northward (including eastern & western spurs), plus the I-78 (Bayonne/Jersey City Connector) would undergo renumbering.

The above would both satisfy the FHWA/MUTCD mile-marker-based interchange numbering requirements for Interstates and keep the mainline NJ Turnpike from having duplicate interchange numbers.

[vdeane]

Right shadyjay. No matter what configuration is used, it's going to be confusing for drivers. And the NY Thruway is a good example. I'm starting to understand one reason why California resisted exit numbers for as long as they did. Sometimes they actually create as many problems as they solve.

California doesn't have any pre-interstate Turnpikes, so the issues described here aren't applicable to them.  Plus, starting from NO exit numbers, they avoid pretty much any other issue I can think of.  I think CA was just intimidated by the size of the job.

As for renumbering the NJ Turnpike, my favorite options are continuing PA's mileage along I-95 (as described by NE2), which coincidentally results in I-95 and the Turnpike having the same numbers, and keeping the Turnpike sequential south of exit 6 (though that could possibly cause confusion between US 130 and exit 3 or 4).  Of those two, I prefer the former.

[SignBridge]

Vdeane, your point is well taken as far as the Turnpike grandfathering issue not applying to California. What I was trying to say is that the exit numbering issue in general seems to create confusion in a lot of places, and that's  why I understand California resisting the concept. But you're probably right too re: the size of the task being the issue there.

Honestly my head is spinning from all this discussion about different exit numbering theories and schemes. When I drive I keep it simpler by not really noticing the exit numbers. I mostly just concentrate on the sign legends.

On a related note, on the German Autobahns exits are numbered sequentially and the exit number only appears once, on the first advance sign.

[Roadrunner75]

I may be in the minority here, but I'm just fine with leaving the Turnpike exit numbers as-is.  As much as the roadnut in me wants conformance to the rules and I like mileage based interchange numbers, for the Turnpike at least I'd rather it left alone.  I'm sure the average motorist would agree as well. It's the one highway where I can easily recall each exit number and I frequently end up giving directions to people involving Turnpike exits.  Mixing sequential exit numbers on the southern portion with I-95 mileage based numbers to the north is an absolute mess. 

[cpzilliacus]

I may be in the minority here, but I'm just fine with leaving the Turnpike exit numbers as-is.  As much as the roadnut in me wants conformance to the rules and I like mileage based interchange numbers, for the Turnpike at least I'd rather it left alone.  I'm sure the average motorist would agree as well. It's the one highway where I can easily recall each exit number and I frequently end up giving directions to people involving Turnpike exits.  Mixing sequential exit numbers on the southern portion with I-95 mileage based numbers to the north is an absolute mess.

I have no problem leaving the New Jersey Turnpike's exit numbers the same.  I would, however, propose the following changes:

(1) Make U.S. 130 (currently with no number) Exit 6A (or something similar); and
(2) Change the numbering of the I-95 exits north of the end of the Turnpike's ticket system to be consistent with the Turnpike (presumably starting at Exit 19).

[zachb]

Random question, but has the NJTA/NJDOT ever considered having the I-95 designation along the entire mainline of the Turnpike and I-295 on the Delaware Memorial Bridge and linking it to the current interchange with I-95? I always thought it was weird that they decided to link I-95 to the PATurnpike instead of making a more direct route straight through to DE. All that was needed was to convert current I-95 in PA to I-295 or maybe even something like I-395.