News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Garden State Parkway

Started by Roadrunner75, July 30, 2014, 09:53:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jeffandnicole

bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.



bzakharin

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.


That would be great, though I wonder if I'll even be living and/or working in the same area if/when this is complete, not to mention even more delays during construction

J Route Z

Quote from: bzakharin on March 01, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.


That would be great, though I wonder if I'll even be living and/or working in the same area if/when this is complete, not to mention even more delays during construction
We may not even be alive when that happens..I sure hope to be around to see such a project. Something definitely needs to be done in that area. The Route 73 bridge over I-295 is also in poor shape needing to be replaced.

jeffandnicole

As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.

Alps

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2016, 09:36:18 AM
As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.
I can tell you that NJDOT definitely does not turn a deaf ear to the public. They usually err on the side of overcompensating for public statements. Each statement on record needs a response.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Alps on March 03, 2016, 01:13:06 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2016, 09:36:18 AM
As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.
I can tell you that NJDOT definitely does not turn a deaf ear to the public. They usually err on the side of overcompensating for public statements. Each statement on record needs a response.

I wish I was recording the last meeting I went to.  One of the guys at the meeting (and I have no idea who it was) was having a conversation with someone.  When he saw me looking at the displays, he came over and started talking to me.  He asked where I resided on the map.  When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

My official TIP questions this past goaround were also a bit lackluster in their responses as well.

Rothman

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 06:32:02 AM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2016, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 06:32:02 AM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.

Oh, he wasn't talking to other members of the public.  He was talking to guys he works with.  It was a small meeting about an overpass project, and I was the only one from the public in the room at the time.

Again, I'll try to record this stuff for you, to eliminate all the theories everyone wants to come up with.

Alps

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 03:49:07 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 03, 2016, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 06:32:02 AM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.

Oh, he wasn't talking to other members of the public.  He was talking to guys he works with.  It was a small meeting about an overpass project, and I was the only one from the public in the room at the time.

Again, I'll try to record this stuff for you, to eliminate all the theories everyone wants to come up with.
Very possible he was with a consultant and not DOT. But who knows.

storm2k

Saw this at the 129 offramp today.



I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

roadman65

Typical to have them do this.  But, hey if it works then that is the main thing.  The NJTA has done it in Elizabeth where they were doing bridge deck work north of Exit 13 with one car lane shifted over to the truck lanes and then back.

Also the long Exit 127 ramp has its left lane as an extra Parkway NB lane crossing the Driscoll Bridge that is sort of the same concept as what they are planning here.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

dgolub

Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2016, 10:27:32 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.



I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?

PHLBOS

#637
Quote from: dgolub on April 29, 2016, 08:51:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2016, 10:27:32 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.



I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?
The only reasons why Camden is listed as a southbound control city are (and such was probably mentioned several pages back):

1.  The listing of bridges as a control destination on major signs is now either discouraged or no longer allowed per MUTCD & FHWA.

2.  When the new southbound Parkway interchange BGS' (north of where this pic was taken) were erected; Camden was chosen over Trenton because the preceding US 1 interchange already uses Trenton for a southbound US 1 destination.  Personally, I would have used New Brunswick for the major US 1 south signage & Trenton for the I-95/Turnpike signage but whatever.

The temporary change on that BGS in the pic must've been very recent.  I drove by there 4 weeks ago and the previous diagrammatic BGS was still present the new separate BGS' were present.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

NJRoadfan

It really should be Philadelphia after the interchange is complete *ducks*.

dgolub

Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 29, 2016, 04:02:42 PM
It really should be Philadelphia after the interchange is complete *ducks*.

Amen.

storm2k

Quote from: PHLBOS on April 29, 2016, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: dgolub on April 29, 2016, 08:51:57 AM
Quote from: storm2k on April 28, 2016, 10:27:32 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.



I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?
The only reasons why Camden is listed as a southbound control city are (and such was probably mentioned several pages back):

1.  The listing of bridges as a control destination on major signs is now either discouraged or no longer allowed per MUTCD & FHWA.

2.  When the new southbound Parkway interchange BGS' (north of where this pic was taken) were erected; Camden was chosen over Trenton because the preceding US 1 interchange already uses Trenton for a southbound US 1 destination.  Personally, I would have used New Brunswick for the major US 1 south signage & Trenton for the I-95/Turnpike signage but whatever.

The temporary change on that BGS in the pic must've been very recent.  I drove by there 4 weeks ago and the previous diagrammatic BGS was still present.

They actually took down the signs that were put up last year for this one, and removed the illumination.


As for Camden being the destination, the MUTCD project standardized the control cities for both the Parkway and the Turnpike.

roadman65

Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

akotchi

Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2016, 08:20:17 AM
Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.

I think it was a matter of historical context.  With no control cities originally for the Turnpike, I would speculate that the next most major roadway (U.S. 1) got the major control cities (Trenton, Newark).  If the initial signing for Turnpike interchange had control cities, then perhaps the control cities would have been done differently originally, perhaps as we are speculating here.

I would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

storm2k

Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2016, 08:20:17 AM
Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.

The control cities thing was set by the Turnpike Authority. NJDOT does its own thing and doesn't use control cities for the Parkway or Turnpike.

PHLBOS

Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI think it was a matter of historical context.  With no control cities originally for the Turnpike, I would speculate that the next most major roadway (U.S. 1) got the major control cities (Trenton, Newark).  If the initial signing for Turnpike interchange had control cities, then perhaps the control cities would have been done differently originally, perhaps as we are speculating here.
It should be noted, that the only Turnpike signage that listed cities were ones located beyond the toll plazas, where one needed to decide which direction on the Turnpike to go.  Prior to the current 95 NORTH/TURNPIKE NORTH, 95 SOUTH/TURNPIKE SOUTH BGS' beyond the Exit 11 toll plaza; the previous (70s(?) vintage) BGS' read Trenton SOUTH, New YORK NORTH.

Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bzakharin

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278

PHLBOS

Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:16:22 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
The point I was trying to make was that there was enough traffic demand to justify adding the northbound US 1 exit ramp from the southbound Parkway and, hence, that ramp's a Johnny-Come-Lately.  The reasoning for using Newark for a northbound US 1 destination, despite other exits parkway southbound users have available for such, was likely due to Newark is the nearest major city along US 1 northbound from Parkway interchange.  What would you suggest for a nearby northbound US 1 destination at this location instead: Woodbridge, Linden?
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bzakharin

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 10:40:15 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:16:22 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PMI would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
The point I was trying to make was that there was enough traffic demand to justify adding the northbound US 1 exit ramp from the southbound Parkway and, hence, that ramp's a Johnny-Come-Lately.  The reasoning for using Newark for a northbound US 1 destination, despite other exits parkway southbound users have available for such, was likely due to Newark is the nearest major city along US 1 northbound from Parkway interchange.  What would you suggest for a nearby northbound US 1 destination at this location instead: Woodbridge, Linden?
I would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.

PHLBOS

#648
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AMI would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

bzakharin

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 11:35:26 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AMI would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.